[Callers] Becket Formation
Greg Allan via Callers
callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Thu Dec 10 15:43:34 PST 2015
Hi,
That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a
number of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in
Winnipeg. It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get
interest from other dancing groups, that some people know what they like
and what they don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English
country dance often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and
tempo. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's
got their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad
experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone
does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event
because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to
make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose.
We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at the
end of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't want
to start learning new things late in the evening.
Greg
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:01 PM, via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> wrote:
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> callers-request at lists.sharedweight.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> callers-owner at lists.sharedweight.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Contra with Hey (jill allen via Callers)
> 2. Re: Contra with Hey (Martha Wild via Callers)
> 3. Becket Formation (Rich Sbardella via Callers)
> 4. Re: Becket Formation (Bill Olson via Callers)
> 5. Re: Becket Formation (Michael Fuerst via Callers)
> 6. Re: Becket Formation (Mac Mckeever via Callers)
> 7. Re: Becket Formation (Ron Blechner via Callers)
> 8. Re: Becket Formation (Ron Blechner via Callers)
> 9. Re: Becket Formation (Ryan Smith via Callers)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:04:46 -0600
> From: jill allen via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Contra with Hey
> Message-ID: <0B53D2A6-B7C5-47A1-BADB-C4103F7897DA at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Here's something new:
>
> Signs of Life
> duple improper contra
> by Jill Allen
>
> A1 circle R X1, M allem L 1 1/2 to face P
> A2 hey for 4, start by passing R
> B1 gypsy and swing P (or B & S)
> B2 circle L 3/4, balance the ring, calif twirl to face the next..
>
> Also:
>
> Columbia Contra
> duple improper contra
> by Gene Hubert
>
> A1 Allem R N aprox 1 1/4, W allem L 1/2, allem R P X1 ending with Women
> facing each other in the middle
> A2 hey for 4, W pass L to begin
> B1 B & S P
> B2 W chain, star L
>
> I call both of these quite frequently. Both have timing which is
> forgiving for beginners.
> Jill Allen : )
>
>
> >> Hello Folks,
> >> >
> >> > I am relatively new at calling contras and I am looking for some asy
> to intermediate contras to introduce the hey to a group that includes many
> beginners. and/or club square dancers.
> >> >
> >> > "Butter" by Gene Hubert is my go to dance, but I am looking for a few
> more. I like Butter because the flow from ladies chain into a RH hey is
> great, and because all the other calls are introduced earlier in most
> evening.
> >> >
> >> > I love simple, but different choreography, so I am open to most
> suggestions.
> >> >
> >> > Rich Sbardella
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151209/06edc761/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:06:19 -0800
> From: Martha Wild via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: jill allen <jillallen3 at att.net>
> Cc: callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra with Hey
> Message-ID: <90A3D259-18F8-417B-BEFE-297CA137A9DC at sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The first is very close to Bill Olson?s ?Perihelion? except for slightly
> different A1. Probably easier than that one though.
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 2015, at 1:04 PM, jill allen via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Here's something new:
> >
> > Signs of Life
> > duple improper contra
> > by Jill Allen
> >
> > A1 circle R X1, M allem L 1 1/2 to face P
> > A2 hey for 4, start by passing R
> > B1 gypsy and swing P (or B & S)
> > B2 circle L 3/4, balance the ring, calif twirl to face the next..
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > Columbia Contra
> > duple improper contra
> > by Gene Hubert
> >
> > A1 Allem R N aprox 1 1/4, W allem L 1/2, allem R P X1 ending with Women
> facing each other in the middle
> > A2 hey for 4, W pass L to begin
> > B1 B & S P
> > B2 W chain, star L
> >
> > I call both of these quite frequently. Both have timing which is
> forgiving for beginners.
> > Jill Allen : )
> >
> >
> >>> Hello Folks,
> >>> >
> >>> > I am relatively new at calling contras and I am looking for some asy
> to intermediate contras to introduce the hey to a group that includes many
> beginners. and/or club square dancers.
> >>> >
> >>> > "Butter" by Gene Hubert is my go to dance, but I am looking for a
> few more. I like Butter because the flow from ladies chain into a RH hey
> is great, and because all the other calls are introduced earlier in most
> evening.
> >>> >
> >>> > I love simple, but different choreography, so I am open to most
> suggestions.
> >>> >
> >>> > Rich Sbardella
> > _______________________________________________
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151209/600f919f/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> From: Rich Sbardella via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID:
> <CAE4BujLNt9vtXn_nJZmja1cKXuqeQk=
> rEDTa1YsBLW_5bUYG2g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Folks,
>
> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> Becket formation. One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> they do not like Beckets.
>
> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> Beckets in a contra evening. Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> formation among many dancers? If so, can someone explain the reason?
>
> Rich
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/a3a9491e/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:20:27 +0000
> From: Bill Olson via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID: <BAY177-W138BB5ADB89362DDEC604FC6E90 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
>
> bill
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> To: callers at sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> From: callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>
> Folks,
> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> Becket formation. One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> they do not like Beckets.
> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> Beckets in a contra evening. Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> formation among many dancers? If so, can someone explain the reason?
> Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/51766206/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:22:56 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Michael Fuerst via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Bill Olson <callbill at hotmail.com>, Caller's discussion list
> <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID:
> <1436075088.522886.1449778976699.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Or maybe they were confusing Becket with gypsy....?Michael Fuerst ? ? ?802
> N Broadway ? ? ?Urbana IL 61801????? 217 239 5844
>
>
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM, Bill Olson via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> #yiv5709207139 #yiv5709207139 --.yiv5709207139hmmessage
> P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv5709207139
> body.yiv5709207139hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv5709207139
> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
> ?
> bill
> ?
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> To: callers at sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> From: callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>
> Folks,
> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> Becket formation.? One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> they do not like Beckets.
> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> Beckets in a contra ?evening.? Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> formation among many dancers?? If so, can someone explain the reason?
> Rich
> _______________________________________________Callers mailing listCallers
> @lists.sharedweight.nethttp://
> lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/f2db53bd/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:30:36 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Mac Mckeever via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Bill Olson <callbill at hotmail.com>, Caller's discussion list
> <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID:
> <1319962807.497814.1449779436578.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
> set - making them slightly more complex.? Perhaps they had some bad
> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
>
> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they can
> end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
> Mac McKeever
>
> From: Bill Olson via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>
> #yiv5824956374 #yiv5824956374 --.yiv5824956374hmmessage
> P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv5824956374
> body.yiv5824956374hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv5824956374
> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
> ?
> bill
> ?
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> To: callers at sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> From: callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> Folks,
> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> Becket formation.? One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> they do not like Beckets.
> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> Beckets in a contra ?evening.? Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> formation among many dancers?? If so, can someone explain the reason?
> Rich
> _______________________________________________Callers mailing listCallers
> @lists.sharedweight.nethttp://
> lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/7925419a/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:54:12 -0500
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Mac Mckeever <macmck at ymail.com>
> Cc: Caller's discussion list <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID:
> <CALf+g+7VE9VtDi7VQA_Sp09kBWdd5-3u=-r8VUdgokaoM=
> vZ+A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
> On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> > The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
> > set - making them slightly more complex. Perhaps they had some bad
> > experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
> >
> > They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
> > are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
> >
> > I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they
> can
> > end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
> >
> > Mac McKeever
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Bill Olson via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> > *To:* Caller's discussion list <callers at sharedweight.net>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> >
> > Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
> >
> > bill
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> > To: callers at sharedweight.net
> > Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> > From: callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> > dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> > Becket formation. One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> > the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> > they do not like Beckets.
> >
> > Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> > Beckets in a contra evening. Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> > formation among many dancers? If so, can someone explain the reason?
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list
> > Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/9a8b92b5/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:57:28 -0500
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Mac Mckeever <macmck at ymail.com>
> Cc: Caller's discussion list <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID:
> <
> CALf+g+5tMiB7WGL9z1w8FhTfBRPtE3XLsvD4uiRp_JY-4k6DDA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Sorry, I meant Rich.
> On Dec 10, 2015 3:54 PM, "Ron Blechner" <contraron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
> > On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
> > callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
> >> set - making them slightly more complex. Perhaps they had some bad
> >> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
> >>
> >> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
> >> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
> >>
> >> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they
> >> can end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
> >>
> >> Mac McKeever
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* Bill Olson via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> >> *To:* Caller's discussion list <callers at sharedweight.net>
> >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> >>
> >> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
> >>
> >> bill
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> >> To: callers at sharedweight.net
> >> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> >> From: callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> >> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be
> in
> >> Becket formation. One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> >> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating
> that
> >> they do not like Beckets.
> >>
> >> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> >> Beckets in a contra evening. Is there a negative sentiment about
> Becket
> >> formation among many dancers? If so, can someone explain the reason?
> >>
> >> Rich
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list
> >> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Callers mailing list
> >> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Callers mailing list
> >> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >>
> >>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/b7e0566a/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:59:37 -0500
> From: Ryan Smith via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers at sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADqHJvttTVZ9zr-W0wgDKe--HamefjMPqfksQs+wgxTNMp1TnA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> As Mac pointed out, becket dances can be more complex/confusing. Removing
> a need to separate you from your partner at the end of the dance, allows
> for some choreographic flexibility. All the same, most beckets are not
> notably more complex/confusing than most improper contras.
>
> My guesses are:
> 1 - this couple had a bad experience that they associate with 'becket
> formation' rather than whatever confounding factors go into making a dance
> experience pleasant or unpleasant
> 2 - was this a contra event (all duple-minors all the time) or a more
> varied program? Maybe the couple doesn't like contras much?
> 3 - Maybe they are confusing it with some other formation (sicilian, 4 face
> 4, squares, triplets, etc.)
>
> --Ryan Smith
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/fbf6e89b/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 20, Issue 5
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151210/a6b1f6bd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Callers
mailing list