What makes a great dance?

Les Francey wrote to the ECD List in March 2026:

At the break of a recent dance, I was talking to the caller about Barbarini's Tambourine.  We were both remarking on how joyful that dance is as he was describing his experience with it at the first English session at Pinewoods after the Covid lockdowns.

This conversation inspired me to think about what makes a good dance.  Or even more specifically, what makes a good ECD dance (in the American context)?  Is it the music, the specific combinations of figures in a specific sequence, the story line?  When I think of the dances I like and have enjoyed for years, I tend to think that the dances have a kind of story line.  Story line is a vague term which I find impossible to articulate, so I am sorry I am not able to do that here.  Maybe others have an idea and can articulate.

There has been a plethora of dances devised in recent years but I don't think there is a large percentage that are “keepers”.  Why is that?  Why, after decades of dancing Barbarini's Tambourine post Cecil Sharp, is it that that dance is still popular and joyful?  What are the elements that make it great and can those elements be repeated?  And to speculate further, would that dance still have been popular in the late 18th century.  My Barnes Blue book doesn't list a specific year for its publication only that it was published in the 18th century.

Les Francey

You can see the instructions and hear the music at round.soc.srcf.net/reminder.php?Dance=Barbarini's_Tambourine and it was published in 1735.

Midge Olsen responded that it starts with the music — she also said it depends how it's played: if the band don't play that buildup to build the energy, the dance falls flat.  But no-one has been brave enough to give a fuller answer, so I'll rush in where angels fear to tread.

First of all, I'm glad that Les said “what makes a good ECD dance (in the American context)” because the British answer would be very different.  My dance “Elizabeth” just happens to tick (British) or check (American) all the boxes for Americans, though it wasn't written with that in mind.

  It's longways duple minor.

Maybe it's the contra influence or the desperate American urge to include everybody, but there are far more longways dances at a dance or workshop in North America than in England.

  Everyone is moving most of the time and it's quite equal.

Again this may come from contra, where some people complain if they're standing still for more than 4 bars (measures), which is why modern contras never have the ones leading down the middle and leading back: it's always “Down the hall in a line of four”.  Modern American English is the same.  It's usually symmetrical: the ones do something, then the twos repeat it.  Or the first corners do something, then the second corners repeat it.  It's very rare to get “The ones lead down the middle, turn alone, lead back, cast into second place as the twos move up” which was an absolute staple of 18th century country dances.

  The tune is in triple time and a minor key.

I say in my notes on Triple-time dances that a lot of them have an emotional impact which I don't find so much in jigs and reels, and maybe a minor tune is more emotional still.

  It's a “drifty” dance.  There was a complaint on an evaluation form at Pinewoods: “No drifty dances” when I had led the evening dance.  Americans like it when every move flows into the next, no abrupt turns, no kind of stepping, just a smooth walk.

  It's different enough to be memorable, but not really difficult.  In North America a great dance is one where you don't have to concentrate on the figure all the time — you can just “go with the flow” and enjoy the music.  Again I suspect this comes from contra, which is why many contra dancers don't like squares — they have to listen and think rather than get into that trance state they love.

  I hope it has a good story line rather than just being a collection of unrelated figures like (say) “Argeers”.  The ones have four bars to do a move with each other.  Then they repeat the same move with their neighbours (mirrored by the music), and from this point everyone is moving all the time until the start of the D section where the ones again have a move (two bars this time) to themselves, so the ones have established that they're the leaders, but not to the exclusion of everyone else the way most 18th century country dances are.  The open ladies' chain is a really expansive move, and the final progression is designed to dovetail the two couples smoothly together until they part.

“Elizabeth” is very popular in the States, but hardly known in England.  Now contrast that with my most popular dance in England for some years: “The Heathfield Rag” — a set dance done to a step-hop — you can see it doesn't tick any of the boxes!  Then when Wild Thyme brought out their “Hunter's Moon” album my most popular dance became “Unrequited Love” — again 3 couples rather than longways duple, and too tricky to be a hit in America.  I've no idea what my most popular dance is now!

So the one-line answer is that a great dance is one that the person talking about it really loves.  For children, two great dances are “Lucky Seven” and “I want to be near you” whereas for ceilidh dancers it might be “Cumberland Square Eight” and “Barley Reel”.

So what do I (as dancer, caller and musician) think is a great dance?

  “The Queen of Sheba” by Marjorie Heffer & William Porter from the “Maggot Pie” collection.  It doesn't check any of the boxes!  It's a set dance, it's quite energetic, it has three different and complicated figures so I think many Americans would say that the ratio of walkthrough time to dance time is too high.  But it's one of my all-time favourites.

  “The Whirligig” — genuine early Playford, basically Cecil Sharp's version, and all the same objections.

“Black Nag” — a firm favourite at The Round in Cambridge.  Again genuine early Playford with three different figures, but very accessible — I've taught this to a group of Architecture students with no previous dance experience and they enjoyed it.

  Of course there is some overlap!  I think Christine Robb's “Sapphire Sea” is a great dance and it's very popular in England too.  Another firm favourite at The Round is Ken Sheffield's “Sun Assembly” (loosely based on an 18th century original) and I believe that's popular in North America too.  And with the right partner, Well-Hall is a stunningly good dance.  Which brings me to another criterion that I haven't even mentioned — it depends who your partner is, and who's in the rest of the set!

I realise all this means I'll never be booked in the States again, where the feeling is “Colin Hume may be a good caller, but he's a foreigner who doesn't understand what English means”.

I already have two related sections of notes on my website: one for callers looking for repertoire: What makes a good dance? and a much longer discussion for choreographers thinking of writing a dance: A Good Dance which also discusses what makes a bad dance!

After I'd written most of this to the List there were some further responses.

Peg Duthie from Nashville wrote,

I don't attend as many ECD events as I used to (thanks to a crummy immune system + competing diversions), but several dances I think of as “modern classics” immediately come to mind in terms of what reliably has other dancers perking up as soon as they're announced.  And two in particular share a similar vibe with Colin's “Elizabeth” and Robb's “Sapphire Sea”:

Trip to Provence	Susan Kevra	Tune by Rachel Bell	Watch on YouTube
Candles in the Dark	Loretta Holz	Tune by Jonathan Jensen	Watch on YouTube
Also:
Fenterlarick	Joyce Walker	Tune by Fred Grimshaw
Mile of Smiles	Joseph Pimentel	Tune by Dave Wiesler
Key to the Cellar	Jenny Beer	Tune: Traditional Scottish

Cammy Kaynor wrote,

I think the answer to the question is so buried in personal preferences of the caller, the musicians, and each individual dancer, that it is almost pointless to try.  My mom's favorite dance was Dargason (with Hunsdon House at slow tempo as a close second) while my dad loved Dublin Bay and Trip to Paris.  My mom was particularly intrigued by simplicity and mystique and my dad loved energetic dances with permission to skip widely.

So for me “a great dance” is an evening of variety that includes flowing moves, abrupt changes, active roles, inactivity, stately movement, and raucous energetic portions.  I know I am using the word “dance” to mean a whole event rather than a single dance in the program, but that is the point.  What makes a great dance in the singular sense will never be complete if it isn't in context.  An entire evening of equal activity, flowing dances is in my opinion, boring and disappointing — as much as an evening of dances with lots of waiting for inactive couples.  And within the evening program, EACH dance is a great dance because it provides what the dancers crave at that particular moment, while simultaneously supplying the next building block necessary for the evening's structure — the arc of the evening's repertoire.

At least that is my opinion on the matter.

And of course I agree with everything Cammy says.

Gene Murrow wrote,

I'll join Colin's rushing in with two short hand-outs I wrote to distribute at “Choreographers' Workshops” I've led at dance camps.  The first is a survey of the class to help participants focus on “what makes a dance great”.  The second is a detailed description of four dances that are favorites of AMERICAN dancers of ECD (as of about 10 years ago).  Interestingly, they are split 50-50 between sets and longways; Colin's “Elizabeth” is among them.  I suspect Sapphire Sea and a few others would join this select company now.

---

NEW DANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Music

• propulsion/intensity — Does the tune make you feel like dancing?  Does it carry/energize the dance along through its figures?
• idiomatic (style, playability) — Does it sound like a country dance?  Can the musicians play it without great difficulty?
• mood setting — Does the tune set a mood appropriate for the dance?  Rollicking?  Stately?  Serious?  Silly?
• malleability — Is there opportunity for the musicians to “work with the tune”?

Patterns (Individual figures)

• fit the music — Is there the right amount of music for each pattern or movement?
• innovative within the tradition — Do the new movements (if any) feel as if they belong in the ECD tradition?
• variety — Is there interesting use of the elements characteristic of ECD patterns: geometry (symmetry, orientation, boundaries, etc.), “creative repetition” of patterns, contrast, texture (pace, steps)…?

Flow/Structure

• transitions between patterns — Do the “joins” from pattern to pattern feel right?
• interactions — Is there sufficient contact between partners, the minor set, the whole set?
• “beginner friendly” — Could it be taught to relatively inexperienced dancers?
• overall “look” — Showability
• show-off quality for actives — yet not boring for the others.
• memorability/teachability — does it have a coherent “story line” that can be retained in memory?

---

FOUR FAVORITE DANCES

ELIZABETH

• the tune: its inherent quality, fit to the movement, time it allows for the setting steps
• flow for 1st couple-- the “story line”
• movement as a set (in the back-to-backs)
• interactions, one-on-one, with partner and neighbor
• change in energy at end of 1st half; 1st half is “contained,” 2nd half is “large”
• the 2's part interesting
• contrast/variety between 1st half and 2nd half (in music and movement)
• innovative within traditional structure… repetition, progression at end
• memorability
• accessibility to non-experts; forgiving
• [musicians] inferred that the tune gave them permission to be schmaltzy
• [musicians] range of music exciting.  interesting octave leap between 1st and 2nd half

FANDANGO

• the tune: fits choreography, malleable, but dorky [musicians]: “uninstrumental,” “unpianistic”
• uninhibited fun (“adults skipping around in the woods…”)
• explosive
• magical acceleration moment
• actives being “caught” into the skipping circle and “extrication” at the end
• contrast between actives' solo opening moves, then group circle
• contrast between elegant/smooth/sweet portion and exuberant finish with actives' turns building up excitement through figure 8's into heys
• texture
• actives “show off” moves
• repetition with a difference (8's and heys)
• beginner-friendly with a good partner
• familiar, old

ST. MARGARET'S HILL

• great music
• challenge (fitting movements to music-- cannot get way off, personal control of movement)
• connection with partner
• opportunity for actives to show off
• floor track pretty-- show dance (2's and 3's get to watch and frame action)
• figure symmetries: vertical and horizontal
• magic moments: 1st man “flips” into leads
• opportunity to add/invent moments beyond instructions
• not intuitive, but all of a sudden there
• elegance
• repetition with a difference
• [musicians]: music not a Bare Necessities favorite.  Can't whip up the tune.  Even texture.  Does have octave jump.

HAMBLETON'S ROUND O

• Tune: intense, with drive and propulsion
• 1's role: “ride down the set”
• works at slow or fast tempo
• triple minor => variety and alternation for 2's and 3's
• dynamics: circle around, explode into motion, turn single-> tight sweep
• room for ornamentation
• fits music, but can catch up or add extra's
• demanding (non-stop), “cult” status
• OK for beginner with good partner
• [musicians]: dark, exciting tune, lots of shades

I'm pleased to see that Gene's analysis of “Elizabeth” ties up with mine.  Of the four dances, only “The Fandango” is well known in England.  Americans have no idea that “St. Margaret's Hill” and “Hambleton's Round O” are from Fallibroome 1 interpreted by Bernard Bentley — if anything they know that they're in the book “The Playford Ball” by Shimer and Keller.  “The Fandango” is from the Apted Book, interpreted by Porter and Heffer — the same people who then went on to write the book “Maggot Pie” mentioned earlier.

Stven Carlberg from Decatur, Georgia said,

What makes a great dance?  This way of framing the question seems to miss the point that different dances are great for different reasons.

We wouldn't ask “What makes a great piece of music?” and expect to come up with a single answer that explains both Beethoven's Seventh Symphony and Jimi Hendrix's “If 6 Was 9.” We wouldn't ask “What makes a great painting?” and expect the same analysis for Georgia O'Keeffe and J.M.W. Turner.

The better question would be, what makes this particular dance a great one?

For me, one of the joys of dancing ECD is the experience of learning an unfamiliar dance.  Illustration by anecdote: One year at Nashville's Playford Ball, I came in a few minutes late for the after-lunch session and found that the dance already in progress of being taught was some fantastically complicated and asymmetrical beeswax for (if I recall correctly) nine dancers.  We assembled a ragtag group of nine latecomers, some of them youngsters, and started trying to parse the paths of the dance.  The caller immediately announced to the floor that he would not be able to help the group that had just formed down at the bottom of the hall because he would be focused on the more virtuous groups that had been working on the dance since the beginning of the instruction.

Okay.  We nine ne'er-do-wells persevered.  We hung in there.  Little by little we teased out the patterns.  We made mistakes.  We helped each other.  We didn't give up.  After the music started for the performance of the dance, on the third or fourth iteration, we finally got it completely right and back to the beginning all in our proper places.  We were jubilant.

That was a great dance.

Another way of having a great ECD dance is when you've done this dance so many times before that you know the moves before the caller mentions them and everybody performs flawlessly and attuned to their fellow dancers and with devotion to the styles and flourishes of the intended outcome.  We should all live so long.