t a program for an evening.
>
> Dugan Murphy
> du...@duganmurphy.com
>
>
> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:53:01 -0400
>> From: Maia McCormick via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: "callers@lists.sharedweight.net" <ca
rs@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] Difficulty rankings?
> Message-ID:
> <CAHUcZGPHaCuWAZv+d+6EX1aJ7D25CDSvJUFD=
> vlyv8g43fy...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> As I overhaul my contra deck and realize that my diff
callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] Difficulty rankings?
Erik and Alan make good points.
I also think it's worth the exercise to try to rank dances, and individual
figures, by difficulty as a way o
Erik and Alan make good points.
I also think it's worth the exercise to try to rank dances, and individual
figures, by difficulty as a way of thinking about what makes a dance hard
or easy.
For example:
Which is easier to teach (or to learn): chain, hey, right & left through?
That analysis is
Some things that I think make dances easy are:
1) Stay within your minor set. Even easy appearing dances that leave
your minor set add a challenge that is often confusing. It's can (I
think) be slightly less confusing to do a simple double progression than
leave and return to a minor set.
As I overhaul my contra deck and realize that my difficulty ranking system
is super incoherent, and most of my dance rankings are from way before I
had any idea what actually makes a dance easy or hard, I've been thinking
of scrapping this difficulty ranking system and just starting over. So I
was
