March 8, 2006, 12:18 p.m. (Message 44563, in reply to message 44561)
Ian Brockbank wrote: > I don't know if we're arguing different things here. The original > posting had the instructions given twice before the dance started, > and the subsequent explanation implied the first set of instructions > was a full teach of the dance. To me that's overkill. It's too > much to take in all at once, and it won't stop me going wrong. I also think this is strange. IMHO, the full written instructions for a dance should never be read aloud -- not in class and definitely not in a social situation. They're much too tedious for that! Their place is on the teacher's desk when he or she prepares their lesson, and their purpose is to communicate to the teacher how the dance is meant to go, so they can figure out how to explain it to the class -- often preferably by way of demonstration rather than reading out chapter and verse, and not necessarily from the beginning of the dance straight through to the end. If you're a computer person, think of full dance descriptions as assembly code. They are necessary to communicate to others exactly what is going on, but they are not usually what one wants to think »in« during the creative process. When I make up a dance, I usually think in terms of movements of imaginary people in my head (or squares and circles on a piece of paper), like »the dancing couple goes down the middle and up and the 2s move up«. Only when I have arrived at something that appears workable as a dance I try to translate that to formal SCD-speak, as in »9-16: 1st couple lead down the middle and up (2nd couple move up on 11-12)«. Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx In the arithmetic of love, one plus one equals everything, and two minus one equals nothing. -- Ninon de L'Enclos