[finally enough time to respond] On Wed, Jun 05, 2013, Linda Leslie wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >>On Wed, Jun 05, 2013, Linda Leslie wrote: >>>On Jun 5, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >>>> >>>>Here's a Beckett with a circle that doesn't start with a circle: >>>> >>>>Panix Dot Chat ([email protected]) >>>> >>>>Beckett formation >>>> >>>>Right-and-left thru on left diagonal (8) >>>> (Yes, start with progression) >>>> (Warn ends about not moving) >>>>Right-and-left thru new couple (8) >>>>Circle left 3/4 (8) >>>>Swing neighbor (8) >>>>Pass through (4) >>>>California twirl (4) >>>>Men left-hand turn once-and-half (8) >>>>Balance and swing partner (16) >>> >>>The dance is a double progression dance, so alerting dancers to the >>>fact that "you will quickly be back in the dance at the top" should >>>help. I also find that encouraging dancers to have an odd number of >>>couples (an extra couple at the bottom of the set) helps; this way, >>>they will get to dance with more of their neighbors. >> >>Nope, not double-progression, I hate double-progression. ;-) However, >>the way it's constructed, nobody is ever out at the top; you're only >>out when you're on the bottom with an odd number of couples. > > Hmmmmmm. I am going to respectfully disagree. It might seem like a > single progression, since you are doing 56 counts of the dance with > just one couple. But, you are actually dancing with two distinct > couples. You pass by the first couple in the R&L through on the left > diagonal, this is the only movement danced with them. You then dance > the remainder of the dance with a second couple. > > Another hint that this is double progression is the fact that you > are not out at the top of the set (you indicate this in your notes, > when you mention that the top couple should not move; if it were > single progression, they would have to cross to other side of the > set, and wait out one cycle of the dance). This is quite distinctive > of double prog. dances.
Well, that's embarrassing. You're right! Thanks also to Chris Page and Jim Saxe for their private corrections. I think it's interesting that Becket formation lends iteself to this mistake; I don't think I would/could have made it with duple improper. Hey, Alan! How come you didn't point this out earlier? ;-) After thinking, I don't think it's possible to rescue this dance without completely rewriting it (given the other constraints I used in writing it), so I guess I'll just have to live with it (I've called it two or three times now and people like it). -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
