AD - What to count as dance?

[Kelly Erickson]

>
>I would like to second this.  I think trying to decide what is 
currently considered okay or not is just going to cause a lot of 
arguments and take more time than we care to spend on it.  Everyone 
will have their own opinion as to what is acceptable.  However, I do 
feel we need to state or at least imply somehow that we should strive 
to avoid bringing in any "new" dances (ie ones that are not already 
well-known to the SCA) that are known to be OOP or otherwise 
inappropriate.  Make sense?
>
>Someone also questioned something to the effect that should we 
consider someone who has the required number of dances known - but 
they're all ECD - to be equal to someone with the same number of 
differing dances - some ECD, some Branles, some Pavans, etc?  My 
opinion is no.  I think we also need to include somewhere something 
about having a well-rounded repertoire (sp?).  I don't think we need 
to get into specifics -so many known of this type, so many >of that - 
or anything like that.  Just mention that their known dances should be 
>from several different "types" of dances.  I know that most people 
who would currently fit into the higher levels of the heirarchy as is 
now stated probably already fall into this situation, but I think it 
needs to be actually stated, not simply assumed.
>
I think you make excellent sense. So can we somehow say that we want 
to encourage further work on period dances and recreations, without 
discouraging fun OOP things we already do? And asking that magisters 
have a well-rounded repertoire leaves that open to interpretation, but 
I think it will prevent people from just learning 40 ECDs and nothing 
else, without being too particular about numbers.
Elin

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.