Thread Index

Glasgow Highlanders

Previous Thread Next Thread Unindented

  • ...

    Wouter Joubert June 8, 2006, 5:34 p.m. (Message 45466)

    I have been asked to teach Glasgow Highlanders which I last danced
    about 8 years ago and I have a few questions - a speedy reply would be
    much appreciated!
    
     
    
    Am I correct in assuming that on bars 31-32, when finishing the reels:
    
     
    
    the couple dancing up into 1st place just dance two steps up on their
    own sides into 1st place (same movement for woman but different for man)
    
    the couple dancing down into 4th place cross down to own sides (same
    movement for man but different for woman)?
    
     
    
    Wouter Joubert
    
    Pretoria South Africa
  • ...

    GOSS9@telefonica.net June 8, 2006, 5:44 p.m. (Message 45467, in reply to message 45466)

    Been a long time since I taught this dance, but as I remember it the 
    couples about to become inactive 1&4, simply use bars 7 and 8 of the 
    reel in an anticlockwise direction so thatthey end up in places 1&4 but 
    on the wrong side. At the end of the next repeat, they continue this 
    direction so that they are paralleling the action of the upwardly 
    moving couple to be ready for the rights and lefts at the beginning of 
    the next repeat.
    
    32-33 of repeat 1 ends (assuming double progression) 
    2W 2M
    1M 4W
    1W 4M
    3M 3W
    32-33 of repeat 2 ends
    2M 4W
    2W 4M
    1M 3W
    1W 3M
  • ...

    Anselm Lingnau June 8, 2006, 5:54 p.m. (Message 45468, in reply to message 45466)

    Wouter Joubert wrote:
    
    >  I have been asked to teach Glasgow Highlanders which I last danced
    > about 8 years ago and I have a few questions - a speedy reply would be
    > much appreciated!
    
    If you check the archive you will find an exhaustive treatise on the subject 
    by John Sturrock, at http://www.strathspey.org/archive/msg?m=34846
    
    There is another contribution by Kent Smith at 
    http://www.strathspey.org/archive/msg?m=18139
    
    Anselm
    -- 
    Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.  -- Jeannette Rankin
  • ...

    Robert Lambie June 9, 2006, 9:54 p.m. (Message 45495, in reply to message 45466)

    Nobody has pointed out that the dance is much improved by being done as a 
    duple minor(ie numbered one two one two one two all down the line of 
    dancers). Everybody starts as if couples one and two, and the dance then 
    goes on with the minimum number of people standing doing nothing. I was 
    horified the first time I met it as a four couple dance, though I am assured 
    that it was originally intended as such. I plead the Mairi's Wedding reel 
    protocol!
  • ...

    Ian Brockbank June 14, 2006, 11:50 a.m. (Message 45549, in reply to message 45495)

    Hi Robert,
    
    > Nobody has pointed out that the dance is much improved by being done as a 
    > duple minor(ie numbered one two one two one two all down the line of 
    > dancers). Everybody starts as if couples one and two, and the dance then 
    > goes on with the minimum number of people standing doing nothing. I was 
    > horified the first time I met it as a four couple dance, though I am
    assured 
    > that it was originally intended as such. I plead the Mairi's Wedding reel 
    > protocol!
    
    I have to disagree here.  This way if I start as a 1 I don't ever get
    that challenge of getting into line smoothly.  I'm just doing the same
    thing 8 times.  I would rather have some variety to what I'm dancing.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Ian Brockbank
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    xxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    http://www.scottishdance.net/
  • ...

    Robert Lambie June 14, 2006, 10:45 p.m. (Message 45551, in reply to message 45549)

    Hi Ian,
    I worry about your level of thrill in dancing if getting into line is so 
    important! Yes the ones and twos are very slightly different, but to me 
    insignificantly so. I prefer to be dancing instead of standing, and that 
    negates the slight difference. Your could always vary things by trying a new 
    Highland step, and you will have much more opportunity for that if you are 
    dancing and not standing.
  • ...

    campbell June 15, 2006, 3:49 p.m. (Message 45558, in reply to message 45551)

    Robert wrote > Hi Ian,
    > I worry about your level of thrill in dancing if getting into line is so
    > important! Yes the ones and twos are very slightly different, but to me
    > insignificantly so. I prefer to be dancing instead of standing, and that
    > negates the slight difference. Your could always vary things by trying a
    > new
    > Highland step, and you will have much more opportunity for that if you are
    > dancing and not standing.
    
    Is this not a general issue though around 2 couple progression dances?  If
    I have 5 couples in my class I often use 2 couple progression dances to
    allow everyone to participate.  But it does mean that the couples starting
    as 1 and 5 have little chance to dance the "opposite direction" position. 
    If the number of couples reach 7 they have no chance.
    
    Campbell Tyler
    Cape Town
  • ...

    Jan E Rudge June 15, 2006, 4:49 p.m. (Message 45562, in reply to message 45558)

    > If I have 5 couples in my class I often use
    > 2 couple progression dances to allow everyone
    > to participate.  But it does mean that the couples
    > starting as 1 and 5 have little chance to dance
    > the "opposite direction" position.
    
    If you work it out, the 1's would have 4 turns as a first couple and
    3 turns as a second couple.  5's would have 4 turns as a second
    couple and 2 turns as a first.  2's 3's and 4's are similar.
    So actually it is reasonably fair for everyone.
    
    > If the number of couples reach 7 they have no chance.
    
    Have a 3 and a 4?
    
    
    Jan
  • ...

    John Chambers June 15, 2006, 5:21 p.m. (Message 45563, in reply to message 45551)

    Campbell Tyler commented:
    |
    | Is this not a general issue though around 2 couple progression dances?  If
    | I have 5 couples in my class I often use 2 couple progression dances to
    | allow everyone to participate.  But it does mean that the couples starting
    | as 1 and 5 have little chance to dance the "opposite direction" position.
    | If the number of couples reach 7 they have no chance.
    
    You should realize that  you're  just  laboriously  re-inventing  the
    contra-dance pattern that is SCD's ancestor.  The solution here would
    be obvious to any contra dancer: Ask the musicians to play 14 rounds.
    Or  do  as  us  usual  at contra dances: The musicians play until the
    dance leader signals the last round.
    
    
    --
       _,
       O   John Chambers
     <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
       +   <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx>
      /#\  in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth
      | |
      ' `
  • ...

    John Chambers June 10, 2006, 12:07 a.m. (Message 45500, in reply to message 45466)

    Wouter Joubert wrote:
    |
    | Nobody has pointed out that the dance is much improved by being done as a
    | duple minor(ie numbered one two one two one two all down the line of
    | dancers). Everybody starts as if couples one and two, and the dance then
    | goes on with the minimum number of people standing doing nothing. I was
    | horified the first time I met it as a four couple dance, though I am assured
    | that it was originally intended as such. I plead the Mairi's Wedding reel
    | protocol!
    
    I've seen the theory that the  one-active-couple-per-set  scheme  was
    invented  by  dance  instructors  determined to maximize the dancers'
    boredom, and really doesn't have much history.  Ultimately, this sort
    of  dancing  is  just a branch of the general "contra" tradition, and
    the idea has almost always been to  maximise  the  number  of  people
    dancing.   It's  only  the  stuffier  crowds  that have ever accepted
    standing around when you could be dancing.
    
    
    --
       _,
       O   John Chambers
     <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
       +   <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx>
      /#\  in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth
      | |
      ' `
  • ...

    Ron Mackey June 10, 2006, 12:45 a.m. (Message 45502, in reply to message 45466)

    When we used to do this ion the 50/60s we usually danced it 
    in 8 couple sets (the hall was just about the right shape) from top to 
    bottom.  A record we occasionally used (on a cold night)  was of a 
    pipe band and that produced ten times through!!
     I can assure you that boredom had nothing to do with the resulting 
    after-effects!

Previous Thread Next Thread