Do you support dropping Split Two?
Please provide your final thoughts on dropping/keeping this call. Please contribute your thoughts and comments in a focused and professional manner that reflects how your opinion strengthens the final program. It is important to limit your points to the specific call being discussed.
I use this with some frequency – at Challenge. Seldom below Plus. Maybe I’m just weird. If we need to drop it to reduce our call-count I could live with it disappearing at the entry level. But I want it back later.
I use it and see no reason to drop it.
The reason to drop Split 2 is that we need to make a decision to drop some calls to fulfill the purpose of creating a smaller introductory program. Sigh, drop split 2
I’m in favor of keeping Split Two. It’s easy and quick to teach and helps new dancers understand being the active or inactive dancer, as well as how square breathing occurs. The call tells the dancers exactly what to do. It adds a danceable element to our dance. Keep it.
Let’s drop it and let another level pick it up. I don’t hear it enough to think it critical to the MS level. Even as part of the “Separate Family” I think it should be on another level. Not all calls in a family need to be at the same level.
I believe that we should be looking at what our customers (dancers) want rather than what all of us callers wish to retain so that we can use our favorite sequences. How many dancers would complain if we held a dance and this particular call was NOT called all evening? I venture to say that most of them would not notice, let alone complain that we hadn’t called “Split Two” all night.
We need to decrease the number of calls in the entry program, not hang onto all the calls that we (callers) feel that we have to have to give new dancers a good time. We need to focus on the Dancers and NOT on the calls that we feel that we have to have to expand our calling variety at the entry level.
“Split Two” would likely be adopted by the second level (Plus ?) once it is no longer in the entry program.
I will be voting to remove “Split Two” from the entry program.
From my point it’s a bit strange that Most people talk about a seperate after the split. I allways thought it where to calls.
And I use different calls after a split.
But at the end it’s more or less an akward pass thru.
I do not wish to drop “Split 2” It’s a useful move. If you haven’t used it recently – Isn’t that for you to address?
It is not difficult – it’s a plain language call, well at least for “English as a first language” dancers.
From what I can see in my area, this is a little-used call. It has some potentially interesting uses, including with the splitters starting in tandem, but those seem to be used more at higher levels (where isolated tandems are more common). Although it is often followed by Separate, we don’t need it to make Separate useful, because Separate can be used in other situations when there is a couple facing out. It sometimes seems like the only reason anybody teaches this call in a beginner class is that it is on the list.
Maybe it’s used more in SSD-centric groups? I checked the SSD Teaching Guide and found it used in five examples. Only one (the first one) had them separate around the others and come into the middle. All the others were, using slightly different words, _exactly the same action_: Split Two, Separate Around One To A Line.
I also think it’s notable that the wording was NOT the same in all those cases. Only three used “Separate” while that first one did not — it was just “Split 2 Around 1 …”., and the fifth one didn’t even use the specific phrase “Split Two” — it was “Split The Outside Two Round 1…”. I have similarly heard callers put other words in there, presumably to help people understand who is doing the splitting and who is being split — things like “Heads Split the Sides”. (Yes, without even including the word “two”!)
This all suggests that this is more in the nature of “plain English” than a true “call”. It can be a useful _action_, and it’s a fairly easy action to explain, but it’s apparently not something that is being taught in a standard way to beginners with a uniform wording that other callers can then rely on without adding more words. That makes me question whether it really has enough value to be included in that standardized list of “what every beginner class must teach”.
What seems to be the most common usage even has a direct equivalent using other calls in our draft list: Centers In followed by Centers Run. Which if somebody had never seen it before they might find surprising or even awkward, but if you practice it a few times and speak it as one phrase (“Centers In and Centers Run”) they could naturally combine into _exactly the same_ motion. And that combination even takes less time to say! (Seven syllables, vs. 11 for “Split Two Separate Around One To A Line”.)
What about all those other cases, that might be interesting or fun? To the degree that these usages are “plain English”, for some floors, with dancers otherwise experienced with the rest of the list, they may not even need a teach at all. For less-experienced dancers and/or people not fluent in English, a teach will be necessary, but it doesn’t look like it is being taught in a general enough way now to be used reliably without additional words — so if you need to use it in a particular way for a singing call you will probably need to run through it first anyway — so you can just as well teach it (including what the English word “split”means, if necessary) at that time, when you are going to use it.
I would endorse dropping the call Split Two. I use this call mostly to add some variety for the dancers before I move on to lines, waves and other formations. But once I have done that, I seldom use it, and unless I make a conscious effort to include it, the dancers do seem to forget it.
Like several others, I do not see Split Two as being tied to the call Separate. I use Separate quite regularly in my regular dance sessions. I do not believe they need to be tied together to be either kept or dropped.
Drop Split Two
Keep it. I use it a lot and haven’t discovered any disadvantages in using it. Besides, it’s easy and not difficult.
Personally, I would have liked to see Separates dropped taking Split Two with them…. But if we have Separate, we sort of need Split Two to allow good body flow when going from an Eight Chain Thru to a line after Split Two and Separate Round 1 To A Line. We do need to emphasize Split Two is a move in it’s own right, and use it without Separate. An alternative would be to restrict it’s use to a combination with Separate and make it part of the Separate family…. just a thought.
I support dropping this call from the entry program. I personally like the call, but don’t use it a lot because of the issues it brings up with dancers. It does have a fair amount of utility in my opinion, but it would probably be better to move it up to plus as suggested by others.
I am a believer in the usefulness of “Goal-posting” but, I’m not sure that it needs to be included in an entry level program.
If the goal is to shorten the entry program, we need to shorten the list of “named movements” and not add anything to take a dropped calls’ place on the list. As I understand it, dropping Splits and Separates as well, from the entry program doesn’t change anything in the other programs.
I would vote to drop it.
If we keep Separate in this program we need to keep Split Two. Most dancers in my area do not realize that this is individual call. It is just part of the separate sequence and they never even hear Split Two called. If I called head square thru 4 split two no one in our area would know what to do.
Keep SPLIT 2… I also see SPLIT 2 as part of the Separate Family choreographically. (Don’t care if it is packaged on the list.) This is seen in the goal posting figures that works so well with beginners. The emphasis on reducing number of calls is to reduce teaching time. Since the words of the call describe the action, the teaching time is about one minute. So dropping it to save teaching times is pointless. Much of the discussion has been on the “PASS THRU” equivalent version of SPLIT 2. Folks, this is SSD. Save that usage to trick your PLUS dancers and don’t use it in SSD. We have many extended applications we don’t use in SSD. This is one of them.
Of all the calls presented to consider dropping from the entry level, this is the one that would most likely get my vote. It’s not used very often, and in lessons it seems to get ignored a lot (or at least given the least attention). In my own opinion, it doesn’t really add much to the entry program. Yes, there are a lot of good uses for Split 2 to set up some different formations, but at the ENTRY LEVEL we don’t necessarily need to go to more unusual formations. It can easily be workshopped in if someone wants it for a particular dance or workshop. From a “teaching flow” perspective, it’s good to have because it defines an “active couple/inactive couple that moves”, but we already have other options that are presented much earlier in the program.
Split 2 will get my vote as a call to drop.
I support moving split two to Plus. I will vote to drop it.
Split Two definitely is used in traditional choreography. The goalpost sequence mentioned by others seems to have fallen into disuse except when teaching Split Two. If we keep Split Two, then we should consider reviving some of those classic sequences.
I think it should be grouped with Separate and kept as part of that family. It is very closely related to the actions already included in “Separate”:
“Heads Pass Thru and Separate Around One to a Line” includes squeezing in between the Side Couples to become the Centers of the Line.
“Heads Lead Right and Split Two Around One to a Line” tells the Heads to squeeze between the Side Couples and then to Separate around One to become the Ends of the Line.
I’m in favour of keeping split 2. While it does get used with separate, it still creates some interesting choreo with the easiest being half sashed or same sex lines. Don’t forget the goal post effect. Other movements don’t do that in our entry level. We can’t just throw every interesting movement out of the base level that creates interesting choreo.
While some say pass thru and separate are the same, it’s just doesn’t flow the same. I’m sorry, I just don’t agree. Keep split 2.
On the subject of Split Two … I vote to retain this call as it provides a fun way for an inside couple to divide the ring or split the ring. My experience with dancers is that inside couples enjoy splitting the outsides.
In addition: The call Split Two is often found in the pattern dances used in community and traditional dancing. If we drop it from our initial program I believe it would be sent up the program chain and ultimately be dropped from MWSD like Curlique. I would anticipate that Split Two or Divide the Ring will continue to be used widely at limited basic community events. CALLERLAB would still need to have it defined and assigned to some list. It is currently on the CDP list.
I don’t use Split Two very much. It can useful, but I don’t know if it’s needed at an entry program. I would lean towards removing it, but if it stays, that’s OK
I would support keeping this call as I agree with the positive comments relating to this call.
Keep it, It is just 1 step furthter than “Centers in” from a box. See at as an extended version, but so much more to do with.
I would like to keep Split Two! It’s a useful and nice flowing figure, when used with “go around one…”.
Historically it was always combined with go around one (make a line or come down the center).
It was never supposed to be a (weird) alternative for pass thru. And it doesn’t need the command separate at all. It seems to me, that some fellow callers have forgotten about the history and how this move works.
I agree with Mike that Split 2 around one should be kept as a separate call (even if it gets moved to the next level). Any other Split 2 around XXX could be moved to the next list. The whole Split 2 is kind of a precurser to a Spread type movement or even a Centers In feel. The purpose of the Basic level is to build foundation calls that can be built upon later or at the next level.
Keep it but move it to the next level would be my choice if we need to shorten the Basic list.
Out of all, this is the one I’m inclined to remove. I’m not a fan of calls that rely heavily on other calls. Split 2, 99% of the time, leads to Separate @X. Sure I can do something else, but that always feel “gotcha” because almost everyone does a Seperate after. So for smoothness, etc. I almost have too as well.
The reason that Centers In is thought to not be a good substitute is for the reason I state above. 95% of the time dancers hear Cast Off 3/4 after that call. If we were to spend time doing other things, other things would become smoother over time. With proper timing and repetition, Centers In / Centers Run is a fine alternative.
We Pass Thru and Cloverleaf often, particularly at Advanced. Likewise Pass Thru and Peel Off would work. Pass Thru and Separate just as fine, it just isn’t used as often so it feels jerky.
I can live without Split 2, but I don’t agree that that causes us to lose Separate. They shouldn’t go together and I can get the goalpost effect without Split 2. I don’t want to drop a lot and drastically change the entry program, but if we don’t drop something, those that want to add a call will be out of luck. If this one was to go – I could work around it easily enough and accomplish most of the same dancing patterns.
All said. Good call for the next levels. Drop
I am in favor of keeping it. It has a different flavor then pass thru. Also quickly to teach.
I support keeping Split 2.
Again, it can be versatile and add easy variety. It is easy to teach and it gives new dancers a feeling of accomplishment.
I find “centers in, centers run” a little herky-jerky and awkward. Dancers seem to struggle with “centers in” from facing couples. But, I have no problem calling split 2 and have dancers succeed almost every time.
This is the call I am most inclined to drop.
I don’t buy the “it’s just English” argument, especially for those who do not speak English.
Some of the usages mentioned can be replaced by “Centers in, Centers Run”. As per earlier discussion, the only irreplaceable usage is for the splitters to be in single file rather than a couple, but that usage is rare and can be left to a later program.
In light of what our goal is, “to make a smaller (less calls) entry level program”, I am in favor of dropping this call. Remember, that does not mean we are doing away with the call, just moving it to a different program, besides entry level. I don’t believe there will be any calls where someone does not have a valid point in keeping or eliminating that call. After we have voted to drop whatever said calls are on that drop list, I don’t believe we should be adding any calls to the entry level program list. That does not accomplish the goal of a smaller (less calls to learn) program list. For me, to accomplish our goal, I am in favor of dropping all 4 calls listed.
We need to keep “Split two”. I don’t see what could possinly be wrong with the move. It is “self explantory”, (in English), easy to teach, smooth and allows us to do lots of “goal posting type” choreo as used in Jay Kings book about mental image.
When I look at the alternatives, Mike has made the best argument here to save Split 2. It simply has the nicer dance flow for the dancers. So I say please leave it in.
Drop it from the entry level.
Some people have remarked that it’s a good way to create half-sashayed lines. Yes, it is — but WHY do that with entry-level dancers? Move it up to the next level and use all that wonderful choreography up there. Our newest dancers don’t need this action.
Keep Split Two – it is not Pass Thru. It is something different and it is worth keeping it for that reason.
The more I thought about this movement, my opinion swayed. I now think it should be retained.
One issue I see is that whilst it is a stand alone movement, it’s rarely, very rarely used as such. (Here at least).
That aside, I too like the flow it gives and a nice smooth way to achieve half sashayed lines.
I also like the enjoyment dancers feel when using the “goalpost” choreo such as “H SQ4, Split 2 @ 1 into the middle, PT, Sep @ 1, thru into the middle, PT, Split 2 @ 1 etc” ie – not just split 2 @ 1 to a LINE.
I voted to drop the call “split two”, but I am on the fence about this.
I my area this call is a complete different call and teached seperately with “seperate”-family.
With this information, split two is just a fancy “pass thru” and thus does not adds to much to the dance experience.
Hence it could be dropped in favor of something more needed to provide the beginners experience of a call or motion.
I think we should drop it.
The discussion shows, that it’s not used as a call by its own.
Why there has to be a separate afterwards?
And even I see the point Mel makes, I would say it’s exchangeable with pass thru.
I’m in favour of keeping Split.
A call that is self explanatory to all and I support Mel and Larry’s comments.
Split 2. I voted to keep this call and am surprised that it was on the drop list. It is a really good way to establish half sashayed lines or same sex lines or depending on what you want to achieve, normalized lines. It allows for great variety and simplicity to create interesting choreography that is not difficult, easy to manage and easy to normalize without confusion.
I also think that the “illogical replacement “ of Pass Thru and Separate would be a big mistake. Split retains the couple relationship (either normal or half sashayed) and allows for a smooth flowing separation of dancers the same as a separations being done from a Static Square. The argument that Heads Pass Thru and Separate is a very different flow as it has a forward flowing action that is more forward and away due to the pass being bracketed by static dancers. From an 8-Chain set up, that doesn’t exist and thus the hand contact between the dancers allows for a “dance” and slight push away (similar to cloverleaf). I prefer “dance” rather than just getting from one place to the next with no style or joie-de-vivre
I support keeping Split 2 which I consider to be part of the Separate family. With lines facing in, there are eight spots where you can put a specific dancer. Split 2 enables you to easily get to two of those spots. This call also can have a normalizing effect. When facing couples are half Sashay, and the centers split the outsides & separate around 1, that action forms normal lines. Likewise, from normal couples the calls will form half sashayed lines. Split 2 is almost never used alone (competitions may be the exception).
Yes, drop Split Two, use Pass Thru and Separate…
I don’t see a problem with keeping split two. I would keep it.
I agree with the deletion of Split Two. This action also leads to deleting separate around one or two even though it is in a different family. This has the same split action. This proposal also needs to look at shortening the teach time for the Entry Program List.
Split 2 Around 1 to a Line should be saved as an individual call, in my opinion. It’s a perfect way to set up the horribly underused Half Sashayed
Infacing Lines. Heads or Sides Square Thru, Split 2 Around 1 to a Line. Perfect! Pass Thru, Wheel and Deal, DPT, 1st go Left next go Right. If you’ve got goofs, call Ends only Bend the Line and you are Home! Otherwise, it’s a great dance experience in which to introduce Pass the Ocean from Half Sashayed Couples! If you taught your students their first Trades from Outfacing Corner Lines (as I recommend), you’ve just set up this singing call figure:
Heads or Sides Square Thru
Split 2 Around 1 to a Line
Pass Thru
Partner Trade
Pass the Ocean
Swing Corner
Or omit Pass the Ocean and call Pass Thru and Ends Fold then Corner Swing.
I also believe all the other Split 2 around whatever stuff should be dropped.