For anyone who's fooling around with left swings, in knee-saving workshops
and such...
Margarine
becket: from improper, circle RIGHT ;) 3 places
A1. circle R 3, turn to new Neighbor, swing! (standard clockwise swing)
A2. Long lines forward & (returning) Gents Neighbor roll away along
danged Gmail sent when i tabbed! Checking in with y'all to share new chore,
confirm whether it is "original," and ask if others have sequences they use
for similar intents and purposes. Both are as yet un-danced, though i'm
certain enough they are sound to say feel free to use them. Additional
Checking in with y'all to share new chore, confirm whether it is
"original," and ask if others have sequences they use for similar intents
and purposes.
Bread
improper
A1. Ring balance; Ladies Neighbor roll away (with a half sashay) along
Ring balance; Gents Partner rollaway across
A2.
If I were of a betting nature…..I would
> bet that the dance was from the 1980’s, maybe 1990’s.
> Linda
>
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Tavi Merrill via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dance genealogy question: The figure first appearin
Dance genealogy question: The figure first appearing in "Dublin Bay" (aka
"We'll Wed and We'll Bed," its title in Playford) morphed in contra into a
modified "lines of four down the hall."
I know a version of it from Sue Rosen's dance "Handsome Young Maids," where
dancers facing down take four
Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's
back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join
left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk
forward and gents back up"? It's not, but
A numerical argument:
Say in
Per Richard's excellent point about separating the courtesy turn from the
chain, an approach i too use, i want to address the related questions of
- lack of attention to chains beyond the beginner level, resulting in
- bad/injurious flourishing, partly due to
- gendered dynamics in the standard
it's easy to collect from this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6LlCUhPwnM;
> Anybody have Marty Fager's "Balance and Bounce" handy?
>
> Many thanks,
> Kalia Kliban
>
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Callers
Regarding swing position: With good frame, differences between the roles in
giving weight are slight. But not all dancers are accustomed to good frame.
I find a mirrored ballroom hold (both dancers have right hand on the
other's shoulder blade, left hand on the other's shoulder) offers several
Bradley,
The first and third dances in this video playlist may fit your bill.
>
> "While I am sensitive to cultural issues, until someone comes up with a
> term
> that captures not only the physics of the move, but also the flirtatious
> nature of it, I will probably grimace any time someone uses a different
> term. ...It is more than a figure, it is a figure with an
Precisely. What Jeff says here is to me much more than an aside as it helps
define and clarify my thoughts around the main point i was trying to make.
Dancers are accustomed to swinging for anywhere from 8 to 12 counts (as a
balance and swing is 16, minus the 4 counts a balance takes), thus a
-count swings, which i see as a reciprocal relationship.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t.kauf...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2016 8:38 PM, "tavi merrill via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> > like the ripcord
Hola all,
So Amy's followup to her "Is this a new dance" query brought up something
i've been thinking about for a while. (Amy & Tom - i'm collecting it with
Tom's B2 modification and attributing it as Wimmer, variation Hinds.)
A 16-count swing does go on forever. But it is also awesome - and i
I take issue with the term "gimmick." Using familiar moves in new ways is
IMO called "good choreography." If one defines using existing moves in
novel ways as "gimmick," basically every use of petronella turns and waves
after "Petronella" and "Rory O'Moore" is a gimmick.
Originally had a long
Didn't see these mentioned yet (pardon if i missed them)
Ted and Lynn - Rick Mohr
Naked in California - Nils Fredland
Belgian Chocolate - Sargon de Jesus
All Swings Considered - Tom Hinds
i like where this is going. Folks who want to keep the g-word would have to
prove it didn't come from 1620s "unconventional; outdoor" (but we know
where that came from, and from the bohemian sense also where
hipsters/YUCCYs came from though that was some pretty interesting cultural
evolution,
A couple thoughts i left out of the first message:
I suggest "take eyes" rather than "lock eyes" because it's a less
forceful/invasive phrasing and because it mirrors "take right hands," "take
hands four" et cetera. And yes, i've seen others' comments to the effect
that some find eye contact
With regard to the term's offensiveness or lack thereof, i am less
interested in the exact origins of the term's use within ECD than i am in
the implications in pairing the term with that particular move. To be
"gypped" is to be cheated, a term rooted in stereotypes of Romani people as
RPDLW tends to have a different set of expectations than most weekends, to
say the least.
Michael, thanks for putting me on the spot with the "really, would you
ever" question, a question that *could have been asked of anyone who
replied to Maia's stated query about others' thoughts on how to
20 matches
Mail list logo
