User blog:Belle pullman/The Nature of "Swings"

I've been browsing through the wiki ("Random page" button when you're bored!) and it occurs to me it's potentially a bit misleading to label all "Walking Covers" as "Swings". In London, the "Walking Cover" was specifically the standby for the Old Deut and Gus tracks. Many productions have cast someone specifically for these roles, the first cover for the non-dancing but big-voiced male roles.

Traditionally, a Swing covers ensemble dancing roles while the smaller roles will understudy the principals - in Cats this pattern isn't generally closely observed and swings will cover all the characters. But listing someone who is an operatic baritone as "Swing in Cats" conjures up images far from the truth!

There's other minefields in the Swings category such as "Booth Singers" - which can refer to swings with strong vocals or singers who are strictly backstage vocalists and would never step onstage in spandex; "Cats Chorus" can be synonymous with "Booth Singers", it can refer to un-named cats onstage, or it can refer to the entirety of the Swings in general. You need specific information about that particular production in question to know just what they mean by each term. I don't think we can reliably and accurately be more specific in these situations, but the "Walking Cover" label I feel we could apply accurately across the board for all performers who took this role.

The question is - is it worth it to try to change over all those who are described as "Swings" on their pages to the more accurate "Walking Cover" - which is a term only used by some productions although it describes the role that was present in many more? The alternative title would be something like "Standby Deut/Gus" - but then "Standby" has a specific meaning that may not be universally true. But it is still more universally understood than the common perception of "Swing"!