Thread
Index
Ladies chain
RON TAYLOR
Jan. 21, 2002, 11:37 a.m. (Message 29185)
I have had a pivate exchange of emial with another person who tells me that the topic of Ladie Chain was discussed a few years ago - and opinion is divided. If the dance is done excatly in accordance with the Manual if both men dance to the ladies place (exactly, not slightly) and both ladies cross diagonally the the turn with the left hand hand has to be tight and ugly. If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get a nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks so much nicer. Ron
RON TAYLOR wrote: > > I have had a pivate exchange of emial with another person who tells me > that the topic of Ladie Chain was discussed a few years ago - and > opinion is divided. Sounds familiar. > > If the dance is done excatly in accordance with the Manual if both men > dance to the ladies place (exactly, not slightly) and both ladies cross > diagonally the the turn with the left hand hand has to be tight and > ugly. Does anyone really ever do this? Is it REALLY written so in the Manual? > > If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get > a nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks > so much nicer. MY pet theory is that one should aim for a position which would result in the axis of turn (the joined hands) be over the ladies' starting positions. How you get there should not need to be spelt out :-) So are there now three opinions? Alan
> MY pet theory is that one should aim... and MY pet theory is that the figure really seems to sort of just work itself out. If you (as a lady) stick out the appropriate hand, and the gentleman in question sort-of circles in place (vamp 'till ready), then all will be ready to do what is required at the appropriate time. I don't know what it says in the manual, but this works for me. Of course I had Di for a teacher. What more is there? Leslie ===== Leslie Hastings of Edinburgh UK *NEW* personal web page address: http://www.geocities.com/leslie_hastings Skagit Scottish Country Dancers: http://www.skagitscd.org
>MY pet theory is that one should aim for a position which would result >in the axis of turn (the joined hands) be over the ladies' starting >positions. How you get there should not need to be spelt out :-) > >So are there now three opinions? > >Alan Of all the ones given so far, this description comes closest to what the Manual says. If you think it says something else, I suggest you cosey up with the Manual for a while. What the Manual says (as distinguished from what one teaches or dances) is not a area of personal preference. If you claim to be teaching RSCDS style, then it is important know what that style is! The other version being described (with men dancing into ladies places and ladies dancing into men's places at the end of 2 bars) is the way I originally learned the figure and is consistent with an older version of "Won't you Join the Dance" which states that "men dance INTO ladies positions". A later version changed that to "men dance TOWARD ladies positions". Then there is the current Manual which is similar to the latter. As for my personal preference, I think the current version is an unfortunate complication of what used to be a very clean and symmetrical figure. The problem with the new form is that you cannot use set lines as a teaching/phrasing aid. For a very long time I was angry about the change because the Manual did not help me by providing new phrasing markers. But, eventually I happened upon a simple and effective phrasing method: at the end of bars 2 and 6 all dancers should be making a diagonal between the original ladies positions. Now that I feel I can teach it, it is no longer an emotional issue for me. Cheers, Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Oberdan wrote: >... a simple and effective phrasing method: at the end of bars 2 and 6 all >dancers should be making a diagonal between the original ladies positions. So after "men should dance INTO ladies' places" followed by "men should dance TOWARD ladies' places" , are you now suggesting "men should dance way beyond ladies' places?" I hope the next edition of the Manual will also tell us how the men should get back elegantly into their own places at the end of the phrase, and what the ladies should do on the last two bars, since the above method brings them home on bar 6. Using the diagonal pattern is, of course, the easy way out for teachers, who no longer have to insist on a nicely shaped pattern within the set and avoid the difficulty of persuading ladies to turn on bars 1-2 instead of simply passing each other by with a brief handshake. Martin in Grenoble, France http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/index.htm
> > I hope the next edition of the Manual will also tell us how the men should > get back elegantly into their own places at the end of the phrase, and what > the ladies should do on the last two bars, since the above method brings > them home on bar 6. > No it doesn't. They are still in a diagonal line and need to do approx 3/4 LH turn to return to original positions. > Using the diagonal pattern is, of course, the easy way out for teachers, > who no longer have to insist on a nicely shaped pattern within the set and > avoid the difficulty of persuading ladies to turn on bars 1-2 instead of > simply passing each other by with a brief handshake. > Sorry, again I disagree. It is actually more difficult to teach the diagonal pattern, because it is more difficult to dance. Having tried teaching it as in the manual, I now ask the ladies to turn further (but state that I am deviating from what the manual states) - although I will sometimes ask the class to dance it as in the manual first, so they are aware of the difference. Kate Cambridge, UK
>Oberdan wrote: > >>... a simple and effective phrasing method: at the end of bars 2 >>and 6 all dancers should be making a diagonal between the original >>ladies positions. > >So after "men should dance INTO ladies' places" followed by "men >should dance TOWARD ladies' places" , are you now suggesting "men >should dance way beyond ladies' places?" Well, as much as I dislike advocating the "new" ladies' chain... No, not "way beyond", but not "into" either. The men dance toward the ladies' starting position so that they can comfortably join left hands with the ladies to begin the turn. Making a momentary diagonal through the ladies' starting positions (like a balance in line) is a way of controlling the formation so it is not the vague mish-mash that is described in the Manual. >I hope the next edition of the Manual will also tell us how the men >should get back elegantly into their own places at the end of the >phrase, and what the ladies should do on the last two bars, since >the above method brings them home on bar 6. No, they have to turn the men before they arrive back in place. On bar 6 they are close to but not at their ending positions. The last half turn is not about a single position--it must drift toward the mens' ending positions. Don't thank me for this weirdness, thank Duncan MacLeod. I don't remember exactly when the transition occurred--it was 15-20 years ago. I remember that period especially because while I was visiting at the Asylomar weekend, a number of newly examined teachers were commenting rather aggressively about how a lot of people (which included me) were dancing the formation incorrectly. I distinctly remember wondering why it was necessary to change the figure and who was responsible. I speculated then that someone high up messed up in public and covered up the mess-up by making it the new official version. I was particularly incensed that I had to learn about this change through newly examined teacher candidates who had been taught it by the examiners. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the seemingly random and capricious way in which RSCDS then operated and whether this was an organization deserving of my continued support. Fortunately, my love of the dance overcame my political misgivings. I like to believe that the RSCDS is different now, but I don't see any moves toward undoing some of the stupid mistakes of the past. >Using the diagonal pattern is, of course, the easy way out for >teachers, who no longer have to insist on a nicely shaped pattern >within the set and avoid the difficulty of persuading ladies to turn >on bars 1-2 instead of simply passing each other by with a brief >handshake. I would much rather train the ladies in how to do the old version of the ladies' chain. However, my dancers do travel to other places, including places where the dancers "tut, tut" at you down their noses when you don't do things by the book. So I make sure they know how to dance by the book. From time to time I take my dancers on a trip through time and show them how figures like ladies' chain and strathspey poussette were danced in times past. I am thinking of making a point of rounding up some of Iain Boyd's dances (hi Iain!) containing ladies' chain to have added rationale for showing the lovely old method. Cheers, Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
On 21 Jan 2002 at 12:46, Alan Paterson wrote:
> MY pet theory is that one should aim for a position which would result
> in the axis of turn (the joined hands) be over the ladies' starting
> positions. How you get there should not need to be spelt out :-)
>
> So are there now three opinions?
I have often heard this statement ("the axis of the turn is a pole in
the Woman's place"), but I do not understand how it is meant to work.
Let us look at the turns in detail. [To avoid the irrelevant side-
issues of the start and of polite turns, I assume that the men start
and finish facing out.]
At the start of bar 1 and the end of bar 8, all should be in the
starting positions (2C opposite sides, both men facing out)
Both for beauty and ease of dancing, the figure should consist of two
identically shaped half ladies chains. Therefore all are in the same
four places (with the Women interchanged) at the start of bar 5.
How should one make the turns on bars 3-4 and 7-8?
- all start bar 3 & 7 with hands joined in a W place ("on the pole").
- all finish bars 4 & 8 by droppping hands, at that moment joined half
way between the M and W places. So the "centre point" has moved.
- The M makes a big loop on the sideline, from one arm's length beyond
the W place to the M place (diameter about 3 arm lengths).
- The W makes only a small loop, from one arm's length from the W
place to the W place (diameter one arm length).
I cannot see how this turn with "shifting centre", and with the M
taking far longer steps than the W, can ever be elegant.
Can someone explain how this version is meant to be danced?
In all other figures, we are always taught that in turns the joined
hands should NOT move.
My own preference is for the version described by Ian Boyd. But I
would gladly dance (the) other version(s) too, if asked, if only I
understood how.
Eric
--
Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN,
Netherlands
tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
>[Eric:] >I cannot see how this turn with "shifting centre", and with the M >taking far longer steps than the W, can ever be elegant. > >Can someone explain how this version is meant to be danced? > >In all other figures, we are always taught that in turns the joined >hands should NOT move. For several years, this was exactly how I felt. The "make a diagonal" (at the end of bars 2 and 6, as in a balance in line) method I described is NOT in the Manual. It was my answer for removing the vagueness from the figure while still being consistent with the Manual. As for turns not drifting in all other formations, I am pretty sure that is not correct. One example that pops to mind is the new version of the strathspey poussette, in which the turns must drift to form the diagonals. Interestingly, in the original version of strathspey poussette, the turns did not drift. I wonder if drifting turns come from people messing up what used to be very nice, symmetrical figures? ;)) Cheers, Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
I suppose that I need to review exactly what the manual states (it's not immediately at hand, and I'm too lazy to go to the car to get it), but it's a reality of physics (at least my conventional lay-person's physics) that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so at the end of bar two a man and a woman cannot both be in the woman's place, and if they are both approximately so, it makes, as has just been stated, an ugly tight figure. I have always taught ladies' chain such that the man makes a half circle (or curve) to exactly the woman's initial position and the women, after taking and releasing hands head exactly to men's initial positions; then on bars 3-4 the non-partners turn to exactly exchange places, this all repeated similarly on bars 5-8. (The man essentially makes two complete circles, moving through his and his partner's position every two bars, each half-circle.) Robb Quint Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
Ron wrote: >If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get a >nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks so >much nicer. Hear, hear ! (Forgive me this once) That's the way I like to see it done. Martin in Grenoble, France http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/index.htm
In a message dated 1/21/02 11:19:00 AM, xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes: << Hear, hear ! (Forgive me this once) That's the way I like to see it done. >> Here, Here! And I'll raise you an Amen! Not to be flip, but I do enjoy watching the flow of a dance and I feel that some things are more interpretive, than hard fast rules. I believe it was Miss Millgan, herself, who said that she would prefer the dancing to be less ridged and rule bound. It is supposed to be fun and look good too. Bob Mc Murtry Felton, Calif
Well the consensus of opinion appears to be that the Manual description of Ladies Chain is not the way people prefer it or have indded learnt it. H owever it is Bobs response which I really teake to heart - Miss Milligan's comment that the interpretation of dances be less rigid; as previously commented we do dances by tradition or by custom and these may in fact vary fro place to place. I continue to believe that the RSCDS examiners should not be rigid in theire interpretation of movements, one think I most dislike is going to a dance and hearing people "tut tutting" because one dance has just happened to do something slightly differant. So let's all learn to dance, read the manual for guidance and then put it on the bottom shelf and restore SCD to it's social nature Ron
Greetings All,
I was not going to enter this discussion - for two reasons -
1. I have very strong views as to how this figure should be performed
and 2. There are just as many who have a contrary view and will not be
convinced.
However, I feel it is about time that someone stood up and stated how this figure
really should be danced in a _Scottish Country Dance_ context.
The form now current (ie. with the turn on the corner in the women's original positions)
is based on written descriptions of the formation as it was performed in quadrilles
and similar non-Scottish dances (see the description reproduced on page 11 of RSCDS
Book 34). This is also the form still used in modern American square dancing.
What needs to be taken into account is that this formation was originally performed
using walking steps _not_ skip change of step or strathspey travelling step.
Note also that in modern square dancing (and in contra dancing and, I think, in English
country dancing) the turn is on the spot and the man assists the woman round by placing
his right arm around the woman' waist. (The description in Book 34 suggests that
the turn is on the spot.)
However, I would suggest (in fact, I would state) that this is _not_ how the figure
should be performed in _modern_ Scottish country dancing.
When I first started dancing in the late 1950s the teachers, newly emigrated from
Scotland, taught the Ladies' Chain as follows -
Assuming normal starting positions with second couple on opposite sides -
1-2 The men dance along the side-lines with a shallow loop into the
place vacated by the woman originally beside them
while
the women turn with right hands three-quarters round to finish
on the side-lines in the place vacated by the man originally
opposite from them.
3-4 The men half-turn the opposite woman.
The women are required to give a firm grip and turn strongly during bars 1-2.
When the figure is danced this way there is a feeling of 'light and shade' or 'strength
and relaxation' between the two turns for the two women.
The covering that results from the turn on the side now frames the turn in the middle.
This really needs to be viewed from above to be appreciated.
Also, there are not the problems in getting back to the correct positions at the
end of the formation as occur when danced in the manner now advocated.
Admittedly, the new way is easier for the women.
However, it is a great deal harder for the men (who must dance round on the spot
at the beginning of the turns on the side then must return to places at the end of
the turn without any help from the women).
Also, the figure is unbalanced and usually becomes quite shapeless.
The diagrams in "Won't You Join The Dance" are not good but they do support my point
of view.
I still teach this form of the Ladies' Chain and try to dance it this way. It is
not always possible owing to the large number of older women who are unable to get
off the floor and dance and who find the new version quite adequate for them!
I would ask anyone teaching any of my dances with a Ladies' Chain to teach the figure
as I have described it as _that is what I want_. The dances were devised to utilise
the figure as I have described it.
Iain Boyd
Wellington
New Zealand
Iain wrote: "Note also that in modern square dancing (and in contra dancing and, I think, in English country dancing) the turn is on the spot and the man assists the woman round by placing his right arm around the woman' waist." To the extent that I've encountered this figure in ECD (where it's described as an "open ladies chain" to distinguish it from the contra and square dance version), it's done as SCD performs it, except that locations for the various segments are not specified with the same exactitude as in SCD. Pat Charlottesville, Virginia USA
i can't remember the exact timing of the confrontation but the East Coast Americans did the ladies' chain with wide sweeping turns and the man did a loopy move into the ladies' place so that the figure looked like a collections of ovals. The examiners arrived and were horrified and quickly retaught the figure to look like a 'Z' with the men dancing tightly up to the ladies' place and the ladies dancing diagonally across to meet the men, they turned very tightly and repeated back to place. The figure tended to look as though the dance floor was crowded. Happy discussing. Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA
I am afraid that I am partially at fault regarding some of the
confusion regarding the ladies' chain.
The year after Miss M died, Duncan McLeod took over the summer school,
and in teaching a dance he broke down the ladies' chain in what to me
was a rather strange pattern. I challenged him privately on his
interpretation. I think he felt threatened because, barely disguising
my question, he pontificated on his version of the "original Milligan"
ladies' chain. Later that week all of the syncopants teaching other
classes started teaching what to me was a "new" ladies chain. Those
who disagreed just kept quiet in class (not at after parties) nd the
new chain was born.
The problem, the original, and the process can be seen if one compares
the appropiate pages in the original WYJTD (green) and the 1st & 2nd
official [blue] WYJTD versions.
As the "new" ladies' chain is impossible according to the instructions
in WYJTD [Green & Blue{1}], both text and illustration have been
changed in WYJTD [blue{2}] to conform with the new reality. Who said
that the Soviets were the only ones to rewrite history?
While I agree with everything stated about over rigidity as opposed to
practical flow in figures, I do feel that there are points in a well
phrased figure when a dancer should be at a specific location. So here
is my interpretation of these points which is supported by WYJTD
[Green & Blue{1]], but not in those which follow.
1. The track of a ladies' chain is similar to that of a left shoulder
reel of four by the ladies.
2. The track of a ladies' chain, for the men is each man dancing two
circles with two bars to the half circle. I am here avoiding the
question cast or not to cast which is an other issue. What is
important is that in these four half circles, the man is turning the
woman by the left hand 180 degrees on bars 3-4 & 7-8.
3. The key points are found at the end of bars 2 4 6 & 8.
as follows:
[initial]: (1)> <[2]
[1]> <(2)
end of 2:
<[2] <(2) | <(1) <[1] | <[1] <(2)
(1)> [1]> | [2]> (2}> | (1)> [2]> |
end of 4:
<(1) <[1]
[2]> (2)>
end of 6:
<[1] <(2)
(1)> [2]>
A: end of 8 (continuing action):
<(1) <[2]
[1]> (2)>
B: end of 8 (terminal action):
(1)> <[2]
[1]> <(2) (after "polite" turn)
Any actions that do not put women near directly opposite (as opposed
to diagonally opposite [WYJTD Blue{2} version) tend to make the entire
figure (track of reel of four)rotate) on its access and distorts the
minor set beyond the confines of the grand set of which it is a part.
In other words, if the figure being done by the head couples in a
square set, the rotation is blocked by the side couples who are
static. If in the round the room version (watch Circassian circle) or
ecossaise [longways improper] the WYJTD-Blue{2} version is performed,
there is a tendency for the figure and the minor set (especially in
round the room version) to loose its orientation in relation to the
top of the room or line of direction.
I accept that there are problems for the women achieving the exact
positions I have described at the ends of bars 2 & 6. But the attempt
without losing flow is better than the solution described by Duncan
McCleod and later slipped into WYJTD-Blue[2].
This is also corresponds to the way this figure is performed in EFDSS,
and in the square and contra traditions in the States.
R Goss
[xxxxxxx.x.xxxx@xxx.xxx]
I found Richard Goss's information very interesting, not least because I was taught how to teach a Ladies' Chain by Duncan McLeod in the Prelim class at St Andrews in 1971, i.e. before miss M died and he took over as Summer School director - for those who never met Duncan, he was often referred to as "In my opinion" Duncan, because he very often started sentences on the nuances of Scottish C.D with the words "In my .....". However Duncan was from Glasgow, and had a very Glaswegian sense of humour - I had a very strong suspicion that sometimes he went into extreme detail not because he believed in it, but just because he was amazed that anyone could care so much about minutiae! (And so he kept on pushing the details, while managing to keep a straight face). Anyone who watched him dance would see someone relaxed and effortless, making the dance look easy - he was the person who was the prime example of "intelligent anticipation" as he called it - stealing a bit from the previous phrase without anyone noticing!. When he taught us the ladies' chain it was a 2 stage process 1 - ladies change places (2 bars), turn opposite man all the way round (2 bars) 2 - to make it easier for the ladies, the men dance into the lady's place while the ladies cross over (so the men dance round in two little circles), - so the ladies "cross" becomes a "turn into the opposite man's place" It was only a few years later when I was passing this technique on to a candidate's class that I met the question "how far do the ladies turn?" - do they actually get into the men's place? with a wide set, is this possible? I think it was this sort of problem which resulted in the "manual" version (and Duncan always maintained that you didn't learn dancing from a book, but by being shown, and this despite being Convemor of Publications for many years) Looking at the manual, what exactly do the words "men dance "towards" the woman's place" mean? If you look closely at the diagrams the men are outside the set, and the length taken up by the chain is almost equivalent to another place. To me this implies that the men dance "beyond" the ladies place! I'm glad that dancing this formation is so much easier than teaching it. I'll continue to turn the ladies on bars 3 & 4 wherever they are at the end of bar 2! Malcolm (& Helen) Brown York (U.K.)
>[Malcolm:] >When he [Duncan MacLeod, 1971] taught us the ladies' chain it was a >2 stage process >1 - ladies change places (2 bars), turn opposite man all the way round (2 >bars) >2 - to make it easier for the ladies, the men dance into the lady's place >while the ladies cross over (so the men dance round in two little circles), > - so the ladies "cross" becomes a "turn into the opposite man's place" Very interesting! So 30 years ago, he was teaching the "old" version, which is not surprising, since everybody at that time was doing the same--a very nice very clean figure. I am still saddened by what must have been many mindless wimps close to HQ who did not care enough to challenge the change. In my opinion, the "new" version is significantly inferior to the "old" one. Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Greetings,
I have just read through my mail for the last couple of days.
I find it fascinating that the vast majority of mail on this
subject has been written by men! Is it that the ladies just
dance it? :-)
Helen
--
_ _
|_|_ |_| Malcolm & Helen Brown - York (UK) - x.xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx (Tir-Nan-Og)
_ |_|_
|_| _|_| Connecting via NETCOM Internet Ltd
|_|
In a message dated 01/23/2002 7:35:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, x.xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx writes: > I have just read through my mail for the last couple of days. > I find it fascinating that the vast majority of mail on this > subject has been written by men! Is it that the ladies just > dance it? :-) > Good point. I had a mind to contribute to the discussion, but then I said to myself: do you know what the figure really feels like from the ladies' perspective (especially bars 1-2 and 5-6)? Where do ladies aim to be (assuming they are consciously thinking about it) at the end of bar 2: still on the famous diagonal, close to the man's place, or what...? I'd like to hear some ladies' perspectives. Why don't you start, Helen? :) Chris (in New York, and a man, if anyone's wondering.)
Greetings,
As Chris suggested that I put the ladies' perspective, I shall put
pen to paper so to speak.
I can't really remember learning a Ladies Chain when I first started
dancing (well it was nearly 40 years ago!) but I do remember that
nobody thought it was a nice formation. Like Malcolm, I was taught
it in the Prelim. class by Duncan Macleod and basically that is how I
have always done it - at least it is in my mind - reality now may be
something different. I don't have a concept of a diagonal line.
I do think that the sets are now wider than they were even 30 years
ago so the lady cannot quite reach the opposite side of the set at
the end of 2 bars but makes the movement more of a flowing one.
Perhaps we should think of it as 4 and 4 rather than 2 and 2 and 2
and 2.
Helen
--
_ _
|_|_ |_| Malcolm & Helen Brown - York (UK) - x.xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx (Tir-Nan-Og)
_ |_|_
|_| _|_| Connecting via NETCOM Internet Ltd
|_|
Agree with you Marjorie, sometimes in our need to be analytical we get a bit too abstract. The women already know that they have to find a man and, having just left one, they do not have a lot of options. At the same time, the men, having just lost a partner, are left with whomever, they can find. The figure is so logical that it works without analysis. A large part of this discussion is demteamitis. If the dancers are concerned with each other and not how the set looks from the outside, or the D of E's heliocopter, this figure will always work if we say ... "women passing right hands turn opposite man left, and repeat back to place, as men turn what ever woman offers her hand." Have you ever noticed that little kids can always take toys apart, but can seldom reconstruct them? R Goss [xxxxxxx.x.xxxx@xxx.xxx]
I dance the ladies' chain in contra dances all the time. There is never any discussion about how to do the figure, what is the correct form. The ladies cross giving right hands, the men turn then, they repeat back to place. There are lots of variations, mostly of the spin and twirl variety, and these are tolerated as long as they do not interfere with the timing of the figure. If the sets are crowded the figure is a little different than if the floor has lots of room. If the young and swing dance crowd is doing the figure it will be different from when the traditionally minded old farts are doing it. Nobody cares as long as you are in the right place at the right time and do not interfere with anyone else. Let's just dance the figure and stop micro managing it. Cheers, sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA
I can't resist that! Speaking only for myself, I like the 3/4 turn to the man's place. The pace of that sweeping turn (strathspey) and the cooperation between the women (especially in quick time) contrasts nicely with the shorter turns on the sidelines, and there is a kinetic flow I enjoy. The straight-across Z-shaped figure I can dance, if need be, and do when those I'm dancing with do it that way. But it's hardly as much fun. I will note that in square and contra dancing, the escorted turn of the ladies' chain (man turns the lady with hand on waist) uses the music and timing by putting the woman's longer turn on the outside turn rather than on the crossing. Okay - one woman heard from. Miriam Mueller - San Francisco On Mon, 4 Mar 02 08:43:11 GMT x.xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx (Malcolm & Helen Brown - York (UK)) writes:
Ron Taylor wrote,
< If however the ladies on bar 2 dance towards the mens place then you get a
< nice wide sweeping turn with the left hand and the whole figure looks so
< much nicer.
Ladies chain is an 8 bar formation, divided equally into 4 x 2bar phrases.
Therefore the whole should be a smooth flowing sequence. The ladies cross RH on
the diagonal from place to place. If the men dance to slightly below or above
3rd and 1st ladies position, it is so much easier to give LH for the turn, which
is now only a half turn and is easily done in the 2 bars wihout any change in
speed.
If the ladies dance towards the men's position then the diagonal is lost
and you end up with a 1/2 R&L cross the dance. Assuming all the dancers travel
the same distance the men must end up beyond the ladies starting positions.
Malcolm Gillespie
Zimbabwe.
> Ladies chain is an 8 bar formation, divided equally into 4 x 2bar phrases. > Therefore the whole should be a smooth flowing sequence. The ladies cross RH on > the diagonal from place to place. If the men dance to slightly below or above > 3rd and 1st ladies position, it is so much easier to give LH for the turn, which > is now only a half turn and is easily done in the 2 bars without any change in > speed. > If the ladies dance towards the men's position then the diagonal is lost > and you end up with a 1/2 R&L cross the dance. Assuming all the dancers travel > the same distance the men must end up beyond the ladies starting positions. > > > Malcolm Gillespie Hi, Malcolm Do I take it that you are requiring all to dance the same distance for each two bars? That each dance the whole eight bars without any change of speed? What size of set do you propose? If the standard set is still 4 + 1/2 paces across and the dancers are one arm's distance apart on the sides something of what you propose is not possible. Why would you want to dance in such a regular fashion anyway. Personally I enjoy a bit of 'phrasing' (I do apologise for using that word) to add colour to my palette. I have always danced this by moving up (or down) the side without too much of a curve out of the set and then dancing in to greet the lady and help her complete the turn on the same arc that I have used. In a packed ballroom one cannot dance out of the set that much anyway and it means that I dance two short and two long and it reduces the effort for the lady - but still stay with the music, of course. :) Cheers, Ron :) < 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces) 'O> Mottingham, /#\ London. UK. l> xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi, Just re-read this --- Of course I meant two and a half paxes across the set. Just hit the wrong key - Well it was nearly 1 a.m.and we had just returned from a Burns Supper ! After the speeches they crammed in 20 dances !! They're mad !! > > Hi, Malcolm > Do I take it that you are requiring all to dance the same distance > for each two bars? That each dance the whole eight bars without > any change of speed? What size of set do you propose? > If the standard set is still 4 + 1/2 paces across and the dancers > are one arm's distance apart on the sides something of what you > propose is not possible. Cheers, Ron :) < 0 Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces) 'O> Mottingham, /#\ London. UK. l> xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx