Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Luke Donforth via Callers]

Lots of interesting points, thanks for sharing!

>From my perspective, while I know that I lay in bed thinking about dance
moves and came up with the sequence; I can not say that in the last decade+
of dancing, I haven't already danced it. Did I write it then, yes. Under
the influence of some tentative memory? I can't counter-prove that (the
lawsuit over George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" comes to mind as an extreme
example).

I write a lot of dances, with varying degrees of compositional meat behind
them. I think it's more challenging to write a fun easy dance than a fun
hard dance; and so am perhaps more inclined to give credit for glossary
dances. I greatly respect David Kaynor's contribution to the community. If
he doesn't want to label a dance, that's his prerogative. But when I call
something I got from him (directly or indirectly), I try to note that (even
if only to myself). Figuring out earlier authors of sequences feels, to me,
like a way of honoring the heritage of a tradition I'm grateful to
participate in.

I think a name (emphasis *singular*) also helps discuss and organize
dances. The name is a short-hand for discussions about good first dances
(for instance). It can be unpacked if the folks in the discussion don't
know it; or not if everyone is familiar with it. Multiple names mean we
might not realize we're talking about the same thing. If I keep identical
dances with multiple names in my (digital) box, then it complicates my own
record keeping of what I called the last time I was at a venue. So I'll try
to avoid re-naming something that already exists. I may note on my card
that I also wrote it, but only as a tertiary matter. If someone asked me
what the dance was, I'd say "To Wedded Bliss" by Mark Goodwin.

A side note, I like the title "If you can walk, you can dance". I'll try to
find something else it fits.

And I do think that little shifts can make a noticeable difference in a
dance. You might say this dance is functionally identical if you replace
the promenade with a right and left through, or a half hey; or replace the
N DSD & Swing with a Balance & Swing. I don't think those would work as
well, and wouldn't add them to my box; this one I will. (Although I will
freely admit to tweaking dances at the mic, possibly including those
changes, to fit programmatic needs.)

As a final note, I spend a lot of time in my own head thinking about dances
(see the earlier comment about lying in bed writing them...). Knowing that
Mark Goodwin wrote a solid accessible dance means that I now know another
choreographer to go look up and crib from. Win all around.

Nice to hear how other people think about it. Thanks again for sharing.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Bill Olson via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Yep, I agree..
>
>
> bill
>
>
> --
> *From:* Callers <callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of
> Dave Casserly via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM
> *To:* Neal Schlein
> *Cc:* callers
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?
>
> Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this
> website: "Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of
> the word; they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically
> amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance
> elements. Do such dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a
> teaching/calling situation… qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not."
>
> I'm in the maybe not camp.  They're not protected by any copyright here
> (at least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on
> this list when the topic comes up on occasion).  I don't call regularly;
> most of the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a
> singing event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous
> outdoor gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me.  I know several
> dances by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things
> I've made up on the spot.  I am almost certain that every single one of
> these dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the
> past, and that somebody has written and put their name on Partner Balance
> and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain,
> Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do.  Good for whoever that person is,
> and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to
> that particular glossary dance.  But I wouldn't call it a composition, and
> I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance
> and the title and attribute it to that person.
>
> Where I differ from Neal is tha

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Bill Olson via Callers]

Yep, I agree..


bill



From: Callers <callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Dave 
Casserly via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM
To: Neal Schlein
Cc: callers
Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this website: 
"Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of the word; 
they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically amount to 
minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance elements. Do such 
dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a teaching/calling situation… 
qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not."

I'm in the maybe not camp.  They're not protected by any copyright here (at 
least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on this list 
when the topic comes up on occasion).  I don't call regularly; most of the time 
when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a singing event or at 
somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous outdoor gathering, where I 
don't have dance cards with me.  I know several dances by name and memory, but 
most of the dances at such events are things I've made up on the spot.  I am 
almost certain that every single one of these dances is a progression I have 
danced before at some point in the past, and that somebody has written and put 
their name on Partner Balance and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long 
Lines, Ladies Chain, Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do.  Good for whoever 
that person is, and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to 
refer to that particular glossary dance.  But I wouldn't call it a composition, 
and I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance 
and the title and attribute it to that person.

Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be 
putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it 
many times already, after somebody else made it up, etc).  It's just not 
interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all.

It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written, were 
really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire, but could 
now be considered glossary dances because of how common those figures have 
become in modern contra dances.  But that's not the case for most of the dances.

-Dave
Washington, DC



On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we 
talk about attribution and authorship bothers me.

(NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the 
source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first 
person to dream up a sequence.  Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.)

The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin.  The sequence 
happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place 
and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent 
and should be attributed to Luke.  If we attribute everything to the first 
person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances 
are created and spread.

When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone 
else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark.  That is 
factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up 
with the dance.  Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds 
the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total 
nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to folk genres).

As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many 
people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE).  
Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a single creative 
genius.  The difference between those two is a significant matter in the 
question of how folklore is created and who owns it.  Personally, I feel our 
cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled us.

So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of 
the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too.  Don't just stick 
their name on it.

Just my 2 cents.
Neal


Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library


Currently reading: The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin.

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Dale Wilson via Callers]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with
> some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too.
> Don't just stick their name on it.
>
> ​An interesting take on this issue, and one that I like very much.
Certain "glossary" dances appear over and over an that, in itself, is an
interesting bit of knowledge.

Dale​

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Bill Olson via Callers]

Recently it has pretty much been the custom to attribute dance authorship to 
the first one who came up with the sequence. I agree that Luke came up with 
this sequence independently but someone else did that before him. It's only 
fair, since it's not unlikely that the second author (Luke, me, you anyone) 
actually picked up the dance somewhere and remembered the basic figures.. It 
would be nice if we could attribute "co-authorship" like was done by Gene 
Hubert and Steve Schnur with "Summer of '84". In that case it didn't matter who 
came up with the dance *first*, both authors recognized that the other came up 
with the sequence independently and agreed to co-authorship. .. It seems to me 
that there are plenty of dance sequences in the modern (vast) repertoire that 
have credit taken by separate authors. I have no problem with that either.. 
That being said, I'd be happy with "If you can walk you can dance" being a 
unique title..


All that being said, I have memorized this sequence for future use as a 
"beginning of the dance" dance. It's a good one.


bill



From: Callers <callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Neal 
Schlein via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:59 PM
To: Luke Donforth; callers
Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we 
talk about attribution and authorship bothers me.

(NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the 
source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first 
person to dream up a sequence.  Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.)

The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin.  The sequence 
happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place 
and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent 
and should be attributed to Luke.  If we attribute everything to the first 
person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances 
are created and spread.

When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone 
else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark.  That is 
factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up 
with the dance.  Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds 
the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total 
nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to folk genres).

As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many 
people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE).  
Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a single creative 
genius.  The difference between those two is a significant matter in the 
question of how folklore is created and who owns it.  Personally, I feel our 
cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled us.

So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of 
the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too.  Don't just stick 
their name on it.

Just my 2 cents.
Neal


Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library


Currently reading: The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use that 
in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left through, 
follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is

A1 ---
(8) Neighbor Do-si-do
(8) Neighbor swing
A2 ---
(8) Ladies chain
(8) Long lines, forward and back
B1 ---
(8) Right & left through
(8) Partner promenade across
B2 ---
(8) Circle Left 3/4
(4) Balance the Ring
(4) Pass through

and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to  
minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad habits.

Michael Barraclough
www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com>


--

On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:
Hello all,

I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" 
introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around with 
moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it in my 
box. Anyone recognize it?

Improper

A1 ---
(8) Neighbor Do-si-do
(8) Neighbor swing
A2 ---

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Dave Casserly via Callers]

Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this website:
"Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of the
word; they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically
amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance
elements. Do such dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a
teaching/calling situation… qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not."

I'm in the maybe not camp.  They're not protected by any copyright here (at
least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on this
list when the topic comes up on occasion).  I don't call regularly; most of
the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a singing
event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous outdoor
gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me.  I know several dances
by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things I've
made up on the spot.  I am almost certain that every single one of these
dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the past, and
that somebody has written and put their name on Partner Balance and Swing,
Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain, Left-Hand Star,
New Neighbor Do-Si-Do.  Good for whoever that person is, and if it's a
catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to that particular
glossary dance.  But I wouldn't call it a composition, and I certainly
wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance and the
title and attribute it to that person.

Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be
putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it
many times already, after somebody else made it up, etc).  It's just not
interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all.

It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written,
were really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire,
but could now be considered glossary dances because of how common those
figures have become in modern contra dances.  But that's not the case for
most of the dances.

-Dave
Washington, DC



On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way
> we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me.
>
> (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down
> the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the
> first person to dream up a sequence.  Both of those goals are entirely
> legitimate.)
>
> The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin.  The
> sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a
> previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's
> creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke.  If we attribute
> everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly
> misrepresenting how dances are created and spread.
>
> When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and
> everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to
> Mark.  That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and
> why he came up with the dance.  Legally, it would also mean we are claiming
> that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both
> incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to
> folk genres).
>
> As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if
> many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK
> DANCE).  Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a
> single creative genius.  The difference between those two is a significant
> matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it.
> Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has
> misled us.
>
> So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with
> some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too.
> Don't just stick their name on it.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> Neal
>
>
> Neal Schlein
> Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
>
>
> Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
> Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use
>>> that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left
>>> through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is
>>>
>>> A1 ---
>>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
>>> (8) Neighbor 

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Neal Schlein via Callers]

As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we
talk about attribution and authorship bothers me.

(NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down
the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the
first person to dream up a sequence.  Both of those goals are entirely
legitimate.)

The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin.  The
sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a
previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's
creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke.  If we attribute
everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly
misrepresenting how dances are created and spread.

When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and
everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to
Mark.  That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and
why he came up with the dance.  Legally, it would also mean we are claiming
that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both
incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to
folk genres).

As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if
many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK
DANCE).  Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a
single creative genius.  The difference between those two is a significant
matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it.
Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has
misled us.

So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some
of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too.  Don't
just stick their name on it.

Just my 2 cents.
Neal


Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library


Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin.
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use
>> that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left
>> through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is
>>
>> A1 ---
>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
>> (8) Neighbor swing
>> A2 ---
>> (8) Ladies chain
>> (8) Long lines, forward and back
>>
>> B1 ---
>> (8) Right & left through
>> (8) Partner promenade across
>> B2 ---
>> (8) Circle Left 3/4
>> (4) Balance the Ring
>> (4) Pass through
>>
>>
>> and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want
>> to  minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad
>> habits.
>>
>> Michael Barraclough
>> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance"
>> introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around
>> with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have
>> it in my box. Anyone recognize it?
>>
>> Improper
>>
>> A1 ---
>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
>> (8) Neighbor swing
>> A2 ---
>> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2
>> (8) Partner swing
>> B1 ---
>> (8) Promenade across the Set
>> (8) Long lines, forward and back
>> B2 ---
>> (8) Circle Left 3/4
>> (4) Balance the Ring
>> (4) Pass through
>>
>> During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring
>> balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included
>> that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy,
>> Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade
>> (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines
>> of couples for a contra set).
>>
>> If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll
>> call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if
>> and only if statement).
>>
>> ___
>> Callers mailing 
>> listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Luke Donforth
> luke.donfo...@gmail.com 
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Luke Donforth via Callers]

Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use
> that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left
> through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is
>
> A1 ---
> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
> (8) Neighbor swing
> A2 ---
> (8) Ladies chain
> (8) Long lines, forward and back
>
> B1 ---
> (8) Right & left through
> (8) Partner promenade across
> B2 ---
> (8) Circle Left 3/4
> (4) Balance the Ring
> (4) Pass through
>
>
> and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to
>  minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad
> habits.
>
> Michael Barraclough
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
> --
>
> On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance"
> introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around
> with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have
> it in my box. Anyone recognize it?
>
> Improper
>
> A1 ---
> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
> (8) Neighbor swing
> A2 ---
> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2
> (8) Partner swing
> B1 ---
> (8) Promenade across the Set
> (8) Long lines, forward and back
> B2 ---
> (8) Circle Left 3/4
> (4) Balance the Ring
> (4) Pass through
>
> During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring
> balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included
> that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy,
> Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade
> (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines
> of couples for a contra set).
>
> If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll
> call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if
> and only if statement).
>
> ___
> Callers mailing 
> listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>


-- 
Luke Donforth
luke.donfo...@gmail.com 

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

[Michael Barraclough via Callers]

I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I
use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right &
left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is
> A1 ---
> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
> (8) Neighbor swing
> A2 ---
> (8)
> Ladies chain
> (8) Long lines, forward and back
> B1 ---
> (8) Right & left through
> (8) Partner promenade across
> B2 ---
> (8) Circle Left 3/4
> (4) Balance the Ring
> (4) Pass through
and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want
to  minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get
bad habits.
Michael Barraclough
www.michaelbarraclough.com

-- 
On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:
> Hello all,> 
> I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" 
> introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around 
> with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it 
> in my box. Anyone recognize it?> 
> Improper> 

> A1 ---
> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do
> (8) Neighbor swing
> A2 ---
> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2
> (8) Partner swing
> B1 ---
> (8) Promenade across the Set
> (8) Long lines, forward and back
> B2 ---
> (8) Circle Left 3/4
> (4) Balance the Ring
> (4) Pass through 
> > During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring 
> > balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included 
> > that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, 
> > Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade 
> > (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines 
> > of couples for a contra set). > 
> If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll call 
> it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if and 
> only if statement).> 

> ___
> Callers mailing list
> 
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>