Mel Wilkerson Notes on Sweep a Quarter

Navigation

A CLEAN SWEEP - 2017-03-02

Written by Mel Wilkerson for the Newbie Callers or Callers In Training Facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2222737701/permalink/10154779917052702/

One of the great arguments of the last 17 years in calling, and one that still continues to raise its head every couple of years still is that of the movement Sweep ¼, particularly after a recycle but also after other movements like Ferris wheel or wheel and deal.

Why should such a simple movement be so difficult to agree on?

Well, the reason is simple. Many callers are completely literal in their technical interpretation of the choreographic definitions, sometimes to the point of sacrificing good smooth adaptable dancing for the sake of a minor technical point.

Callerlab and the Applications Review Committee (ARC) meet regularly to argue and debate all of these issues that rear their heads. In some cases, callers do not agree, and in others they do agree. The issue is that:

  • There is a process of issue, debate, decision, review, debate, decision and application that is followed in the review of the movement applications for various levels.
  • Decisions are made by the ARC for callers to follow around the world
    • If you do not like the decision, then put your argument forward and get it re-looked at with any new evidence that may change the ARC decision.

    Despite this movement being reviewed repeatedly since 2000, only once was the decision clarified, and that was specifically on a recycle after cast off ¾ - in which the decision was reversed.

    What does this mean? If you are a caller, then use the applications the way they are meant to be used. Do not abuse them with technicalities and more importantly do not rob your dancers of the experience of dancing just because you do not agree with a minor technical point.

    I agree with open and honest debate. I agree with reviewing the merits of the decision. I agree that if something is wrong with choreography, we should present an argument to either fix the definition or identify the problems or improper use and submit our research, argument and evidence to the ARC for evaluation and decision.

    I do not agree that once the decision is made, just because you do not like it, to avoid using it and cheat the dancers from knowing and dancing what every other caller has accepted or uses. If it needs review, then get it reviewed but it is still the decision, so suck it up and live with it for now – until it changes. If you do not like it, then put your hand up and join the review committees and participate in the decision and evaluation process.

    So what about Sweep ¼ - where can I use it?

    (January 2000)

    1. Is it proper to call "Sweep a Quarter" after Recycle?
  • Yes.

    • (April 2002)

    1. Is it proper to call "Sweep 1/4" after the following:
  • Swing Thru, Single Hinge, Sweep 1/4? A: No.
    1. From a Two Faced line - Bend The Line, Sweep 1/4?A: No.
  • From a Two Faced line - Cast Off 3/4, Sweep 1/4? A: Yes.
    1. From facing lines of four - Touch 1/4, Sweep 1/4? A: No.
  • Chain Down The Line, Sweep 1/4? A: No.
    1. To Sweep 1/4, the definition states that the starting formation is "facing couples in a circling movement (right or left)." CALLERLAB has pictorially defined a couple as two dancers side-by-side facing the same direction. Therefore all of the above applications do not fit within the definition except item "c"). Note: Item c was questioned and evidence put forward to re-review the decision

    (July/August 2005)

    In 2002 the ARC reviewed Sweep 1/4 after five different calls and made the decision that they were all improper except as follows; From a Two Faced Line, the following calls were given: "Cast Off 3/4, Sweep 1/4." At the time of the review, this was voted to be proper.

    1. Is Cast Off 3/4, Sweep 1/4 proper?
  • NO. The committee voted this does not meet the definition of Sweep 1/4. The action of Cast Off 3/4 is a pivoting action for the end dancer rather than a circling action as required.
    1. The formation is Lines Facing Out. Is it proper to call: "Wheel and Deal, Sweep a Quarter." Expecting all four couples to Sweep 1/4.
  • The decision of the ARC was that this is improper due to the fact that the centre couples are the only ones that can execute the call as they are the only facing couples in accordance with the definition of Sweep 1/4. The outside couples are not facing couples. It would be proper at C-1 under the Concentric Concept.
    1. The formation is parallel Two Faced Lines. Is it proper to call: "Ferris Wheel, Sweep a Quarter." expecting all four couples to Sweep 1/4.
  • The ARC voted this to be improper due to the fact that the centre couples are the only ones that can execute the call. They are facing couples and the outside couples are not. It would be proper at C-1 under the Concentric Concept.

    • (September/October 2015)

    1. Is it proper to Sweep a Quarter after a Recycle in Mainstream?
  • The ARC ruled that it is proper

    • Short and simply put, just because you do not agree with something does not make your point of view right. Just because decision makers make decisions, does not mean the decision is always right.

    Rules are there for a pupose. They can be changed but there is a process.

    When speed limit for driving may be 25 Miles per hour or 50km per hour on a wide open road and you don't agree, doesn't mean you can drive at 50miles per hour or 80km per hour because you feel you are a good driver. If you want to get it changed, follow the process. Untill then, follow the rules and drive the speed limit.

    Category: Mel Wilkerson

    AllemandeLeft.com is a publication of Dan Lyke and unless otherwise noted is copyright 2018 by Dan Lyke