I find "indecent" a rather useful term. At a base level, it at least
suggests the dance is neither proper nor what dancers reflexively think of
as improper. "Improper" doesn't really describe anything either; though
dancers recognize it, and there's a giggly association with the
antiquated-notion-o
Tavi wrote: "Here's an interesting question: do 1's still think of themselves
as 1'swhen a dance is becket?"
No
Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217-239-5844
Links to photos of many of my drawings and paintings are at
www.ArtComesFuerst.com
> Tavi wrote: "Here's an interesting question: do 1's still think of
> themselves as 1'swhen a dance is becket?"
Not in England, where we don't seem to need the rigmarole of "Hands
four from the top, ones improper. circle left (or right) one place".
We just say "Becket formation". And as other pe
My geezerly self is about to show. I still tend to wait for the caller
to say "Improper." A holdover from when we actually had to find out if
the dance was proper or improper. Proper dances are so rarely called
these days that the improper formation is the basic starting point.
And, when a
: Caller's discussion list
Subject:Re: [Callers] formations VS progressions: battle
of the terms
Send reply to: Caller's discussion list
<mailto:callers-
requ...@sharedweight.net?subject=unsubscribe>
<mailto:callers-
requ...@sharedweight.ne
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:06 AM, John C. McIntire
wrote:
> Having dancers automatically line up improper often creates difficulties for
> newcomers. Often as not, the newcomers will mimic a couple crossed over,
> creating some confusion and taking more time to straighten out.
That hasn't been my
Ihace heard enough commentary about being on the wrong side, wondering about
number, and progressing the wrong direction, all wrongs in quotes, that I think
many dancers are aware of who is who and what is 'normal' , even in becket
dance.
Andrea
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 9:01 A
