The sequence is still the same, no matter if it is becket or improper. Where you start the dance within the sequence should not matter, for credit or name purposes. Therefore the credit for the dance still goes to the original author. When introduced you can simply name the dance and say it is the "becket-ized" version of the dance, and credit the original name and author. It is the same dance, no matter where in the sequence you start it. Most all improper dances can be turned into becket by starting at a different part of the dance, and some becket dances can be turned improper. Sometimes that will change the feel of the dance. One of my dances, "Lizzie's Delight", was written as a becket dance, but I have called it as an improper dance, too. Dave Colestock Harrisburg, PA
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Laur <[email protected]> wrote: From: Laur <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Callers] Name of a dance To: "Caller's discussion list" <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 2:02 AM Hey Greg et al. Agreed with you - I called it tonight, it seemed to go well with a half and half crowd. I referred to it as Culver City Becket, a variation of Culver City Contra by James Hutson (excuse me I don't have the author's name in front of me). Laurie ---- Looking at this dance I have to admit that I am more intrigued by the Beckett version as suggested by David. I like having an easy dance to introduce the idea of the Becket formation. I also like having an easy dance that begins with "long lines forward and back." How should I credit the dance if I call it as a Becket? Is there a standard etiquette for this? How about "Contra Culver City" for the Becket version with switched A and B parts? ************** At 01:49 PM 1/28/2010, you wrote: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TnURscEvpc&feature=PlayList&p=992537F69CC7EC _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list [email protected] http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
