Bronwyn Woods wrote: > > I (like many people) only dance with any particular partner once > during the course of a normal length dance evening. If a > no-partner-swing dance means I don't get to swing with a > good/favorite partner, I feel gypped. However, I don't count a > mixer as a dance with any particular partner so I get the benefit of > lots of interaction with many dancers without feeling like I'm > ignoring or missing out on dancing with my partner.
That makes a lot of sense. When a caller says "find a partner for a mixer" everyone knows it doesn't really matter who they end up with because they're not going to stay with them. If you already have a partner and you find out there's no swing, it's sad in the same way as if you find out its a mixer. For people who book ahead (which I don't anymore), a mixer, square, or couple dance is generally seen as "not counting". So if you've booked the dance after next with someone and that turns out to be a mixer, you really booked the dance after. Partnerswingless dances confuse this, as they do 'count'. > > That being said, I wouldn't totally discount dances without a > partner swing. If the dance were unique or particularly interesting > in some way I would consider it. But if there were a similar dance > with a partner swing I would chose that one instead. > During international money musk month we danced the money musk at bida. Adina was calling and said something that included both that the next dance would be money musk and that it had no swings. People had fun with it, though some of that may have been respect for the dance. Jeff
pgpq6bliwaOk5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
