On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:13:47 -0700, Alan Winston wrote: > I think of good English (in the US sense) as robust (with bursts of > slipping and skipping as appropriate), never mincing or plodding > even to slow tunes, with movement from the chest, unafraid to use > lots of space.
Then I will happily agree with you, but I have the feeling that you're in a minority. I was once due to call for an English group somewhere in the States and a woman was leading a Beginners' session before I started. She told them "All English is slow and gentle", and people who know me will be surprised to hear that I DIDN'T leap up and shout out "No it isn't"! > US English is where I had my first exposures to Morpeth Rant, > Cumberland Square Eight, Bonnets So Blue, Nottingham Swing, and > Steamboat, although I'll agree that these are rarely done. And I'll admit that they're rarely done in England too. I still call Morpeth Rant, but I hear band and dancers saying "Haven't done that for years". > If I have this right, one might plausibly see Mayfair or Handel > With Care (selected as examples of Modern English, although I now > realize that they're both in more-or-less Historical style) at a > Zesty Playford evening. Is that right? Yes indeed. I've seen Rhodri Davies do my dance Oxford Circus at a Zesty Playford session, and I think of it as very much in the Playford style with the three introductions of Up a double and back, Siding and Arming. In fact I'm going with genuine historical stuff (1651- 1775) for my Zesty Playford session at Eastbourne Festival this weekend. Similarly I'm doing the Playford Ball using all dances from The Dancing Master - in other words published by John Playford, Henry Playford and their successor John Young. Most callers are not so fussy, but my view is that there's such a variety of style, energy, rhythm, formation and music in The Dancing Master that you really don't need to throw in dances by Pat Shaw, Gary Roodman or Fried Herman (or even Colin Hume) to make a good programme. Colin Hume
