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
Maia --
While you can assign a level of difficulty of dances in isolation, it
doesn't really tell you the whole story. Whatever intrinsic difficulty
the dance possesses interacts with what the floor can do right now and
what the caller can put across. A dance that's easy right after the
brea
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.
2)
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 w
me Grisanti via Callers
To: callers
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 of thinking about what makes a dan
writing out a program for an evening.
Dugan Murphy
du...@duganmurphy.com
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:53:01 -0400
> From: Maia McCormick via Callers
> To: "callers@lists.sharedweight.net"
> Subject: [Callers] Difficulty ran
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
>> To: "callers@lists.sharedweight.net"
>> Subject: [Callers] Difficulty rankings?
>> Message-I
