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
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
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
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!
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/
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.
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
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
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 | | ' `
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 | | ' `
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!