Issue 159: Nothing in Common -correction

New issue submitted

Assigned changed to »anselm« (previously »None«)
Disposition changed to »Fixed« (previously »New«)

Correct. I fixed the entry in question.

Steve, what evidence do you have for the assertion that this is six times through? The latest publication is Auld Friends Meet and that does not specify a three couple set. That is, of course, always an option with any two couple dance. However, I first danced this in a demonstration in Vienna to present it to the dancing world and that was definitely a four-couple set including Susi.

Disposition changed to »Being handled« (previously »Fixed«)

Issue reopened, after Jim’s comment. Eric

Disposition changed to »Fixed« (previously »Being handled«)

The dance appears in The Merse Collection, where it is designated a two-couple dance in a three-couple set. I checked this before I closed the ticket, and I’m closing it again now.

Jim, I was also there when the dance was first demonstrated and I seem to remember the four-couple set, too, but I would think that it looks nicer in a four-couple set for demonstration purposes. I just looked at Auld Friends Meet in the database and the dance doesn’t actually seem to be in that book - I don’t have the book here to check whether that is a mistake but it would be somewhat unusual as the book otherwise contains only Roy Goldring dances.

Hi Team, I’m not sure what Auld Friends Meet has to do with it either. Rather than blame a senior moment, I will put it down to excitement of Christmas :o)

I agree the Merse Collection gives it as a six times through but that ties in with the recording for that book. I don’t think it is anything to do with a “dem” set but rather to the current trend for avoiding 8 x 32 strathspeys. As I said that can always be done in the shorter format, I just disagree with canoninising that process. I will continue to put it on programmes for a standard four-couple set.

ps Anselm I am pretty sure you were in the hall in Vienna that time as well.

Speaking as a musician who enjoys playing strathspeys eight times through, I also deplore the recent tendency to restrict two-couple dances to three-couple sets (under most circumstances, anyway).

However, as far as the database is concerned, we must go with what the publication says, and that, for better or worse, is “three-couple set”, so there we are. What people do with the information is not our concern.

Dear all,

one more information to help settling this discussion. Looking into the dance makes the reason obvious why it was fixed to a 2cpl dance in a 3cpl rather than a 4clp set. It contains a reel of 4 danced by both couples in center of the set. While this is certainly possible in a dem set or possibly in a (small) class, it gets pretty crowded down the hall on ball. From what the late Susi Mayr told us in Vienna, this was the reason why the dance was put into a 3cpl set. From what I remember, this was suggested to Susi by Muriel Johnstone who also wrote the tune for the dance. So, the issue should stay fixed ;) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Heiko