Issue 1584: One Man Short (Dev. Eric Forbes)

New issue submitted

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

Thanks Tim. I presume you mean the list of formations in the dance is clearly wrong in mentioning “chain progression”? I agree that does need to be fixed. The description in the e-crib does not look wrong to me, though descriptions of the figure in other dances are clearer.

However I find that the database does not yet have a “grand chain - progressive” figure which is what I take it to be. Other dances with the same figure, eg Dagmar’s Fancy, have it listed just as “grand chain - special”.

Personally I think this figure warrants a separate formation name but that needs a bit of discussion first…

Assigned changed to »murrough« (previously »None«)

Last November I sent the following mail to the dancedata-friends list. I copy it here and will also add responses in a subsequent comment.

In checking this issue I realised
(a) there are a large number of different names in use for the figure I know of as “progressive grand chain”;
(b) the database does not yet have a formation with that name.

Just examining cribs and diagrams for dances in the database which contain the formation “grand chain - special” I find the following dances have what I consider as a progressive grand chain:

(1) Ailsa Craig (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/51/): e-crib calls it “Non-crossing chain” and Minicrib “Reversing grand chain”.

(2) Bannockburn 700 (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/16126/): e-crib has “Progressive (non-crossing) G-Chain” but the diagram has “chain progression” which seems wrong to me.

(3) Dagmar´s Fancy (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/1495/): e-crib again has “Progressive (non-crossing) G-Chain” which Minicrib and diagram have “progressive grand chain”.

(4) Farewell to the North (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/2101/): “progressive grand chain” (for 4 couples).

(5) Glenoe (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/17905/): “Progressive Gr-Chain”.

(6) Tiptoe Jig (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/6615/): also “progressive grand chain”.

There is also a formation “Horseshoe chain” used by just one dance called Shin Kai Tei (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/15882/). This seems identical to the progressive grand chain formation used in the other dances above.

So in summary this figure is various called: non-crossing chain, reversing grand chain, progressive non-crossing grand chain, progressive grand chain and horseshoe chain.

Although the new formation system will replace the present system it is not yet ready. In the mean time it seems to me there are enough votes for “progressive grand chain” to make it a separate formation from “grand chain - special” presumably following the database convention and calling it “grand chain - progressive”.

I rather like the name “Horseshoe chain” but probably in due course it should be merged with a progressive grand chain formation. Since that name is presumably used in the instructions for the dance it would be nice to keep it as an alias - though at present the database does not support the idea of alias names for formations. I think that would be a useful addition to the future formation system.

Before making any database changes I thought I would circulate this for comments.

Response from Iain Boyd:

I have looked at all of the dances and agree that the formation in all of them is the same - despite being worded (in some instances) quite differently by the same crib maker.

However, I am not sure that I agree with Murrough’s suggestion for a name. It is definitely NOT a ‘horseshoe chain’ as such a figure needs to be open at one end at all times. I have seen such a formation somewhere in the past but have no memory of where.

I am not sure that ‘progressive grand chain’ is the most appropriate name either despite the figure being ‘progressive’ and a form of ‘grand chain’ - being based on the traditional ‘grand chain’.

I tend to think of the figure as a ‘grand chain with turns’ rather than a ‘progressive grand chain’ as the turns are the most obvious feature versus the progression.

The trouble for me is that ‘progressive grand chain’ brings to mind a traditional ‘grand chain’ where dancers progress somehow. Each passes in such a ‘grand chain’ probably would be danced in a single bar and perhaps continue on bars 7-8.

However, I do not remember coming across such a figure so I am willing to go with the majority on this one.

Response from Brian Charlton:

In response to Iain Boyd’s comment about the “horseshoe chain”, I believe he is referring to the" Bottom-open (or Top-open) U-Chain" devised by Heinz Duewell of the Hunter Valley in New South Wales and published in his Book, “Tighes Hill Dances”.

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

Following the dancedata-friends discussion, and given Iains wish for mentioning turns in the formation name, what I have just done is the following:

(1) Changed the name of the former “Horseshoe Chain” formation (http://my.strathspey.org/dd/formation/336/) to “Grand Chain - progressive (with turns)”. NB since the original discussion this was also used by the dance The Lucky Strathspey.

(2) Added some notes to the formation entry summarising the change and linking to this issue. Unfortunately these extra notes are only visible to editors, not on the web page for other users.

(3) Updated the dance One Man Short and the six listed in my earlier response to use the newly renamed formation instead of the more generic “Grand Chain - special”.

I hope this is all OK.