<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>So, as I saw some confusion at Pennsic regarding Lybens, I thought I would
post the reason as to why there is...</DIV>
<DIV> When the Gresley Manuscript was first published, it was
done in great haste, and close attention was not paid to the repeat structure of
the music that went with the choreographies. So the music to Lybens was
published with the B-part only repeating once. From there, people
reconstructed it based on music with an incorrect repeat structure. Then,
five or six years ago, some early musicians were studying a facsimile of the
original manuscript, and they noticed that there should have been a repeat on
the B-section. As you can imagine, this severely changed the picture of
the choreography of the dance. So, now we have two versions of the dance
running around, one to the music with a correct repeat structure, the other
not. Some people seem to refuse to want to alter their image of the dance
to reflect the new repeat structure of the music (i.e. they now dance the old
B-part choreography four times through because they now have twice as much
music), as I saw at Pennsic.</DIV>
<DIV> Then there is also the debate about the "tert" and
"retret',and whether those are doubles, singles, pive, or what...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Judith</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>