[SCA-Dance] SCA Created Dances

White, John white at drexel.edu
Fri Apr 23 11:01:10 EDT 2010

> From: Tim McDaniel

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Jane & Mark Waks <waks at comcast.net> wrote:
> > I am also very fond of the dance, but it is just *too* fragile. One
> > of these days, I'll actually finish rewriting it as a proper square
> > ECD with a little more predictability. (I've been stuck for years
> > with a symmetry problem -- I haven't yet got a version I like that
> > winds up with everyone back in their original position.)
> Aren't there ECDs that end up with people out of their original
> positions (excluding progressives for as many repetitions as will)?
> Danet Lincoln
> --

I will say for sure that there are no square ECDs where you do not end
up back with your partner by the end, sometimes by some very ingenious
methods (and will most likely be immediately proven wrong, though my
assertion only pertains to 1st edition Playford ECDs).

There are some non-progressive line ECDs that switch you around by the 
end of one repeat of the dance (Maiden Lane is perhaps the most well 
known example), though it is fairly clear that these are intended to be
done in multiples (of either two or three) so that by the end of the
set of repeats, everyone ends up back where they began.

There is also a category of progressive ECDs that I term limited 
participation (only one, or perhaps two, or the as many as
will couples actually *do* anything), and one (I think only one: Hockley
in the Hole) of these finishes its entire repetition/progression with 
the lead couple at the end of the line without any explicit instruction 
that the rest will copy the pattern.

So, by extension, I don't think that there's enough evidence to blithely
create a 1st-edition-emulating ECD that does not end with everyone
returning to their original partners.

       \\Dafydd Cyhoeddwr, who does too do more than 15th century Italian ...

More information about the Sca-dance mailing list