Dancing in a Set

---

Connecting with People

If you do Lancashire Clog, disco or line dancing you may well be dancing on your own.  If you do Ballroom, you dance with a partner.  But if you do English or American Folk you're also dancing in a set of other couples — and that's one of the things I really like about this kind of dancing.  You may be working with one other couple at a time, as in “Indian Queen”, or you may be working and interacting with seven other couples, as in “Dutch Crossing”.  Either way, it's important that you're aware of the other people in the set.  Some people are aware of their partner, but the others are just posts to be manoeuvred round.  I think this is a wasted opportunity.  What we're involved in is social dancing — there are people out there!

When it's “First corners cross”, it makes such a difference if you look at the person you're about to cross with.  There are people who will do this, but when it's “Barbarini's Tambourine” which starts “First corners cast behind your neighbour into each other's place” they wouldn't think of looking.  The connection is too tenuous this time — they don't think “I'm dancing with this person”.  But surely you are, even though you start by turning away from each other.  And you may be giving then the hint they need.  If I think my opposite corner looks hesitant, I cast slightly early, with a very pronounced movement, and often that gives the necessary clue.

In Cecil Sharp's version of “Mr Isaac's Maggot”, the first man starts by right-hand turning the second lady, leaving her in her place, then going up behind the second man.  Some men may look while they're turning, but as soon as the connection is broken they forget her — “I'm not with her any more; I'm going up the outside on my own”.  No, I think you should still be aware of the lady.  You've just escorted her home — now she's looking out of the window as you walk back to your car, wondering if you'll wave goodbye before you get in.

Even if you're dancing round posts you can afford a quick look at them — they're dancers too, even if they're standing still at the moment.  And the reverse is true — if you're the threes and the ones are doing a right-hand turn you should be watching them, not thinking “I'm not dancing at the moment”.  Certainly in a triple minor I find that watching “my” ones rather than the ones who have just gone past me (even though they may be closer) helps me to focus on which minor set I'm actually dancing in, which has been known to confuse some people.

There are dances where the ones get all the action and it's difficult to feel involved with the other people.  There are dances like The Fandango where a lot of the action is just for the ones, and a few places where the whole set works together — the circle and the heys.  There are dances (particularly modern ones) where all three couples are moving most of the time and there's a lot of interaction.  But there are very few dances where you have eight couples in a set, with everyone moving all the time, where you really do get involved with everyone else and you all need to work together as a team to produce a satisfying result.  The dance that springs to mind with a description like that is — “Dutch Crossing”.

Alan Davies explains the actual “Dutch Crossing” part in terms of friends, neighbours and buddies.  I think he's taken a good idea and got carried away with it, but it is a good idea — that you picture the dance in terms of who you're dancing with rather than what complicated figures you're executing.  Not only does it bring the dance alive as you realise you're interacting with other dancers, it also makes it much easier to get through the figure and help other people through it.  One thing that bothers me about Modern Western Square Dancing is that it's all patterns; there's usually no time for any social interaction.  I know I write and call complicated dances, but I don't want English dancing to get like that.

Another example of thinking about people rather than patterns is one I learnt from Ruth Allmayer.  The Maggot Pie dance “Queen of Sheba” has a controversial part in the final figure where you do five changes of a straight hey — controversial because many people don't know that in five changes you pass only four people, so frequently the middles pass each other to do a sixth change.  I've known people get into arguments about how many changes they have done!  Ruth solves the problem by not saying how many changes at all.  You face your neighbour — the one you've been doing all the gypsies with — and Ruth says “Remember the face.  Do a straight hey until you pass that face for the second time.”  Since using this approach I've never had any problems with the move.

Moving Up   

This is a controversial topic, so let me look at it from a historical perspective.  First of all, it's hardly if ever mentioned in the old dance books.  The ones were usually the “active” couple and the twos (and threes) were subservient to them.  That wasn't true when John Playford started publishing dances in 1651, but it was certainly true by Regency time when (to the best of my knowledge) all the country dances were in what we would now call triple minor formation, a minor set consisting of ones, twos and threes, even though in some dances the threes did nothing at all.  It was all about the ones in those days, but it was very fair — everybody had the same number of turns being a one.  For instance, you can see a facsimile of Holborn March from Wright's Complete Collection Volume 1, 1740.  That's pre-Regency so the twos got more of a look-in.

The 1st Cu. set cast off and turn    The 2d Cu. do the same    Hands across half round the same back again    Then the 1st Cu. cross over and figure.

No mention of moving up, but obviously when each couple casts off the other couple must move up.  The controversial part is the “cross over and figure” which means cross, cast, and half figure eight up — a very standard method of progression which you'll find in dozens of dances.  When do the twos move up?  It seems clear to me.  Where do the ones cast to?  To the twos' place, and therefore the twos must move up at once, just as they did the first time.  And if you and your partner do a half figure eight, where do you finish?  Where your partner started.  And yet a lot of people insist that the twos don't move up until the ones are finishing their half figure eight — I assume they see it as a composite move and the twos wait till the ones have almost finished it.  So they can't cast to the twos' place; they have to cast to the next place down.  That works in a duple minor dance because the ones from the next minor set have just vacated it, but it won't work in a 3-couple set or triple minor dance because the threes are standing there.  And then the half figure eight has to start in third place and finish in second place, which is not my understanding of a half figure eight.

Some people like to delay the move up so that they can then immediately move into the next figure rather than start-stop — and they've obviously been taught to do so and will do so regardless of the caller!  I understand the principle, but that's not how I see things, and it loses sight of the fact that the other couple is moving to accommodate the ones, not so that they can display themselves.  I believe it's meant to be positive but unobtrusive.

Nicholas Dukes published “A Concise & Easy Method of Learning the Figuring Part of Country Dances…” in the early 1750's and has this to say:

When you cast of below a Couple they are to move up to your place, likewise the same if you Cast up above a Couple they are to move down to your place and so the same in Crossing over or figuring in or in any other part where you move down or up, the other Couple is to shift as the Case requires.

And John Essex in “For the Further Improvement of Dancing” (1710) page 20 clearly regards the moving up as subservient:

… and so to come down from Couple, to Couple till you arrive to the last Couple, where then all y^e repetitions of y^e last Couple are at an end, & that Couple Dances no more but when other Couples coming down, in their turn they move up.

Jane Austen says the same thing: She was not yet dancing; she was working her way up from the bottom, and had therefore leisure to look around… (Emma, chapter 38).

Regardless of all this, if the caller specifically tells the twos when to move up you should do it that way whether you agree with it or not.  Otherwise you get a longways set where some of the twos move up at one point and some at the other point, and that's totally unsatisfactory.

The other question is: how do the twos move up?  You certainly don't shuffle up apologetically as if you've just realised you're in the wrong place — you were here and now you need to be there.  I like to take my partner's hand and lead up, whereas the Scottish approach is that you face your partner and side-close, side-close to move up in unison, but either way you do it with conviction — it's part of the dance.  However, you're basically moving up to get out of the ones' way, not taking the limelight, so I don't agree with people who want to move up and then if there's time do a loop up and out.  I had thought this was an American invention, but when I asked some Americans they said they got it from Andrew Shaw, and indeed I've seen Andrew teach a cast as, “The ones do a long cast, 8 steps; twos move in for two steps, lead up for two and then do a turn single up and out” (or words to that effect).  That's not what it was supposed to be about — the twos shouldn't be saying “look at me — isn't this a beautiful and stylish move”.

I was dancing at the Southam Gathering in August 2023 where both Hilary Herbert and Andrew Shaw were calling.  Hilary feels strongly that the twos shouldn't move up until the ones are finishing their half figure eight.  And Andrew called his version of “The Beau's Retreat” which I know from the Dancing Master of 1728 published by John Young — Andrew was teaching a version based on Kynaston but the wording is the same.  In the first few bars he had the second and third men casting up individually one place and the third woman looping up the inside to finish in second woman's place facing out, none of which is mentioned in the original wording.  These are both people whose opinions I respect, so I asked them to explain why they are so different from mine!

Hilary said,

Obviously, the first rule is to do as the caller says if he/she specifies when to move up.  But often they don't.  It often depends on the dance and what the movements before and after are.  Generally I like to lead up or, sometimes, face up and move up individually, rather than sidling up or just wandering up.  It should be a definite movement.  In “cross, cast and half figure eight up” I don't think the ones are casting to the twos' place in the first cast but only at the end of the half figure eight.  Rather they are dancing a figure round the twos, who should stand as (decorative) posts rather than as moving targets.  If they lead up straight away it means that the ones have further to go in the half figure eight and also they might not let go (if leading up) in time for the ones coming through them.  If they delay until the end of the half figure eight then both couples finish the figure together and it makes for a tidier dance, particularly if it comes at the end of the sequence.  Sometimes though it is instinctive and sometimes the music tells you (but maybe not everybody).

Andrew said,

It will not surprise you (I hope!) to know that I agree with everything you say about Connecting with People and Covering (though I have never heard that term before), and nearly all of what you say about Moving Up, especially regarding “cross over and figure”.

What we will never agree on, however, is our approaches to dance interpretation.  I doubt you have any of my books, but the Foreword to every volume includes the statement: “I make no particular claim to authenticity of figure, still less of step.  Comparison with the originals, which are reproduced, will show that movements are often suggested where the original is silent and deliberate modifications sometimes made even when the original is reasonably clear.  Such changes are intended to involve inactive dancers or to improve the flow of movements.”  What I have done with the A figure in Beaus Retreat (and elsewhere in the dance) should be viewed in relation to this statement.  It is an attempt to change a fairly static figure into something more interesting and more all-encompassing, which I think the dance deserves and for which a simple move up or down by inactive dancers will simply not do.  I do not have the mindset of an historical dancer — I am not trying to reconstruct dances as they may have been danced in the 18th century, but rather to produce something that will enthuse 21st century dancers and make them want to dance it (which, unbeknown to me, they have apparently just done, after much practice, at the Boston Ball) — what is the point otherwise?

As for my alleged responsibility for the “move up and turn out”, that is nonsense.  For how many years have dancers been moving up and turning out in dances like Wakefield Hunt, Hambleton's Round O, The Bishop, St. Martin's Lane etc.  It's a movement used in their dances by Philippe Callens, Gary Roodman, Brooke Friendly and, although I haven't checked this, probably Fried Herman, to name just four.  I don't think any of these dancers or choreographers would accord me any influence: the former would tell you that they do it because it is a pleasing movement (- and why do we think that 18th century dancers would not have felt the same?); the latter would tell you that they use it because it serves a particular purpose in their choreography — which is what I would tell you about the occasions when I use it in my reconstructions.  For instance, this evening I am calling a longways dance in which, at the end of B1, all turn single up and, at the beginning of B2, 1s do a long cast down and 2s move up: I could have 2s turn single up, then stand still for two bars before moving up, or I could have them leading up directly from the turn single and turning out into 1st place.  I'm afraid cries of “that's not what it is supposed to be about” may fall on deaf ears.

Covering   

Scottish dancers are much better than we are at covering, because they're taught it in their classes.  If you're going forward or back in lines you should be aware of the other people in your line, and try to keep level with them.  If you're dancing parallel heys you should be aware of your partner, and keep level.  If you're dancing “Dorset Four-hand Reel” you should be aware of the people in the other sets in the same position as you.  The trick is to observe all this out of the corner of your eye — you don't want to be seen with your head constantly jerking from left to right.  If you're in a display team you probably get reminded about this, but if you're not, you may think “There's no audience; why should I bother with that?”  I suppose my answer is that when I'm dancing I care about the look of the whole dance, not just my little bit.  Maybe that comes from being a caller, I've certainly had partners who told me off for worrying about what was going on in some other set — “It's not your problem — you're not the caller” — but I do want to think that everyone's dancing well and getting their problems sorted out.  If I'm doing a couple dance such as a waltz, I don't feel like that — provided they keep out of my way I don't care what they do!  But with the sort of dances we're doing here — yes, I do care, and I think you should too.