I know it's not what she intended, but here's what comes to my mind from a
literal interpretation of the original instructions:
A1 Right hand star with (current) neighbors,
Left hand star with (previous) neighbors
A2 Go back to (current neighbor) and swing,
Ladies roll away to partner
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, Don Veino via Callers wrote:
>
> Last night at bedtime my 5 year old daughter and I had the following
> interaction:
>
> Raeden: "Daddy. I want to write a new dance, Pony Fun."
> Me: "OK, how does it go?"
> R: "Star, Star, Swing. Swing, Courtesy Turn, Circle 3 places, Pass
On 10/13/2016 11:48 AM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
I think of traditional and traditional-feeling dances as "smooth" not
because the choreography is technically more flowing but because they
somehow feel more lived in, as if any rough spots came naturally. They
don't feel carefully
Thanks, Michael, you nailed down what I meant perfectly. I was going to
respond that "smooth" probably wasn't the right term to have used, since it
has multiple facets.
I think of traditional and traditional-feeling dances as "smooth" not
because the choreography is technically more flowing but
Last night at bedtime my 5 year old daughter and I had the following
interaction:
Raeden: "Daddy. I want to write a new dance, Pony Fun."
Me: "OK, how does it go?"
R: "Star, Star, Swing. Swing, Courtesy Turn, Circle 3 places, Pass Through,
repeat."
A little bit of back and forth figuring out the
John
You have only to look to the UK to get your answer!
Think about how contras used to (and probably still are) in most UK
folk dance clubs. Less energy, longer balances, shorter swings, no
swings, in-actives etc. Look at the contras that were published in the
Community Dance Manuals. My own
Hi Neal,
Thanks. But I don't understand what Ralph's smoother style was. To
me, modern contra dancing is beautifully smooth. Larry Jennings defines the
style in Zesty Contras as "zesty, purposeful, extroverted, smooth,
meticulously phrased, strongly connected, vigorous, New England,
