Issue 1209: Formations in the dance
- Object
- Bannockburn 700 (Dance)
- Submitter
- Charles Liu (charlesliu)
- Assigned to
- Heiko Schmidt
- Priority
- Normal
- Disposition
- Fixed
- Description
-
Hi all,
In the list of formations for this dance include "chain progression ". My understanding is that "chain progression is meant to be for 2 couples, to differentiate from chaperoned chain progression for 3 couples. I believe Bannockburn 700’s chain progression is for 3 couples. So it might need to be classified differently.
Thanks for considering the suggestion.
Charles
Previous Actions
- Date July 12, 2017, 8:01 a.m.
- User Charles Liu (charlesliu)
New issue submitted
- Date July 12, 2017, 10:37 p.m.
- User Eric Ferguson (EricFerguson)
Assigned changed to »EricFerguson« (previously »None«)
Disposition changed to »Fixed« (previously »New«)
Thanks Charles. It is the deviser who added the title “Chain Progression” to bars 17-24. There she is in error. The formation “Chain Progression” is defined in the RSCDS Manual in par. 6.7.10 and 6.7.11 on page 108-109, and that formation is totally different from the formation of [17-24]. Using that title here serves no purpose and can only lead to confusion. The formation listing has been corrected. The description of the dance in Minicrib is correct. Fixed. Eric
- Date July 15, 2017, 2:08 a.m.
- User Heiko Schmidt (castle_ghost)
Assigned changed to »castle_ghost« (previously »EricFerguson«)
Hi Eric,
I guess you meant bars 25-32 which was named “chain progression” by the devisor…
I did some research on on this. Indeed there was a mistake, however, possibly just mistaking two figures. The ‘Chain Progression’ was seemingly invented by Eric Forbes in the dances ‘Summer in Assynt’ and ‘Glen Mor’ in the Birmingham Book 1973 ‘Twelve Scottish Country Dances’, but the figure in ‘Bannockburn 700’ is not identical to Eric Forbes’ figure named ‘Chain progression’. Instead there is another figure described in Eric Forbes’ dance ‘Ailsa Craig’ in the same book. This figure is referred to as ‘Progressive Chain for three couples’ and is indeed identical to the figure in bars 25-32 of ‘Bannockburn 700’… seemingly these two figures have been mistaken for each other here.
I have added an extra info about the mis-nomer.
Thanks again for pointing this out! Cheers, Heiko