[Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

Tue Sep 6 14:46:47 PDT 2016

Andrea said:
> but address gender issues where they originate, in the expectation that
men dance left, women right.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be unraveling "the expectation that
men dance left, women right"--but many of the callers on this list have
been trying to do just this for a very long time and are only seeing
limited success, because ultimately the choice of which role to dance comes
down to every individual dancer, informed as they are by their own
experience, opinions, context, etc.

To me, this seems the whole point of Tavi's proposal: that if we want
people to know how to flourish respectfully, then we might go about this by
putting everyone in a position to flourish (or decline flourishes--but
still, to at least be on the receiving end of flourish requests, so they
have a better sense of how flourishes that they themselves initiate will
feel to the person they're dancing with). You point out, and rightly so,
that the best solution to this problem, and the one that gets straight to
the heart of the issue, is to do away with gendered expectations of the
roles entirely, but there's only so much a caller can do to this end--we
can't force individual dancers' role choices, and there are some folks who
are not willing to dance a different role than the one they
learned/regularly dance. Tavi's suggestion is something that callers CAN do
to spread flourishing experience around without forcing the choices of
individual dancers, and that's why I'm so intrigued by it.

Though Tavi, I wonder, would your proposal here be equally as effective if
we called more gents' right-hand chains? Even as an experienced dancer I
find the left-hand chain counterintuitive, and yes it would be second
nature if we did it a lot, but as far as points about having too much to
teach beginners already, I would expect it to be easier for everyone to
learn the other part of a move and a flow they already know than a
different move entirely (i.e. I would rather endeavor to teach beginners a
gents' right-hand chain than a gents' left-hand chain).

Andrea said:
>  I'll look again at the left hand chain choreo, but as I remember it,
none of it is particularly exceptional and worthy outside of the left
chain, which right now seems novel, but if we did it all the time, would
not seem special at all.

By the same token, there's nothing particularly novel about right-hand
chains except the way in which they fit into the moves around them. Unless
you're suggesting that we NOT call left-hand chains in order to preserve
the novelty value when we DO call them, I don't understand how this is an
argument against Tavi's point.

My contributions to the gents' chain pile:
PB&J by Bill Olson <http://www.billolsondance.com/pbj.html>, as close as
I've seen to a "glossary dance" for a gents' chain
Too Many Joshes <http://contra.maiamccormick.com/dances.html#toomanyjoshes>,
one of mine, which includes both a left-hand chain and a right-hand chain
for the gents.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Tavi et al,
>      I have to challenge you on your history.  As a lover of chestnuts, in
> which the vast majority of courtesy turns are same gender as the dances are
> proper, and a one time historical dancer, I find your conception of the
> history of courtesy turn flawed.  In the 18th and 19th century, there was
> no right hand touching any part of the lady during the historical versions
> of these moves.  A Chaine Anglaise (English chain) is the precursor to a
> right and left through, and was done with a right hand half turn across or
> pull by, and then an open left hand turn, with the gent swiveling to face
> in at the last moment.  The courtesy being that the lady did not have to
> alter her body position.  Chaine des dames, ladies chain, entailed the
> gents casting out over their left shoulder to loop into a position to left
> hand turn the ladies who had turned half by the right.  No leading.  Just
> everyone attending to their place in the dance.  Eventually, gents began
> doing what looked more like an escorting of the lady, holding their right
> arm in a non touching curve behind the ladies backs.  I promise you, in the
> contredanses and quadrilles, there was no more active role for the gents
> than the ladies.  The dances were often complex and every dancers had to
> know all the details if the set were to succeed.
>
>  So this whole courtesy turn as we know it is a 20th century thing, and
> the hyper flourishing a phenomenon of the last decade or two, which seemed
> to me to have come in about the time swing had a renaissance in the late
> eighties.  Till then, if any flourish occurred, it was a single twirl to
> the right hand dancer.  And I have a theory for its existence.  In many old
> halls, space is at a premium, and lines were crowded.  Doing the twirl
> allows couples to slot through a narrow gap one at a time, no elbow
> jostling in the attempt to turn as a joined couple.  Fundamentally,
> historically, chains and R&L thru, are symmetrical, move as a unit, with
> the CT action in the joined left hand.  There is no scooping or leading in
> that right hand, and in fact attempting to do so tends to unbalance the
> couple, allowing neither to retain a nice upright posture.
>
> Let's not conflate squares and contras either.  I'd have to agree that
> squares have frequently been taught and called, by men, as if the men were
> leading.  Which if you dance them, is utter nonsense.  If the ladies aren't
> fully in chArge of where they have to go, the square will break down.  In a
> singer, language like put her on the right is just filler, not an
> indication of what's actually happening.  For sure perpetuated by what was
> once, and may still be, a male dominated calling culture, I still think we
> ought to discuss squares separately from contras.
>
> I'm all down with you that the dance has become very /lead left, follow
> right/ in recent times.  But let's not blame the dance form itself.
>
> Do I think that habitual gent/left dancers would be more courteous about
> flourishes if they were flourished more often themselves?  Sure!  We could
> easily write dances that put them on the right and do courtesy turn moves
> from there.  Or just dance chestnuts, with same gender rights and lefts.
> But do them in a modern flourishy style.
>
> Beyond that, the aspect of the culture which is most to blame is the idea
> that it matters which sex person stands on the right.  If we all danced
> both sides, and no one thought a thing about it, everyone would learn to
> flourish and be flourished, and it wouldn't be seen as the province of men
> to twirl women, or even of left to twirl right dancers.  I'll look again at
> the left hand chain choreo, but as I remember it, none of it is
> particularly exceptional and worthy outside of the left chain, which right
> now seems novel, but if we did it all the time, would not seem special at
> all.  You have not persuaded me, Tavi, that there's a compelling reason to
> add left chains to the repertoire, especially considering many people have
> trouble with R vs L already, and new dancers doubly so as they are busy
> absorbing so many new concepts.  Talk to me about flow and moving people
> around or something, but address gender issues where they originate, in the
> expectation that men dance left, women right.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrea
>
>
> Sent from my external brain
>
> On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:45 PM, tavi merrill via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Per Richard's excellent point about separating the courtesy turn from the
> chain, an approach i too use, i want to address the related questions of
> - lack of attention to chains beyond the beginner level, resulting in
> - bad/injurious flourishing, partly due to
> - gendered dynamics in the standard (New England-style) promenade turn
> - the rarity of gents' LH chains
> - a call for choreographers to help address all the above
>
> We callers spend plenty of time dissecting how to teach the ladies'
> chain... and almost never address a corollary issue dancers repeatedly
> bring up in online forums, largely leaving flourishing as a foregone
> conclusion. We spend precious little stage time delivering the sort of
> style points that can help dancers flourish safely, courteously, and with
> consent.
>
> I would argue one reason we don't address that enough is that we are
> either approaching the courtesy turn from a bare-bones beginner angle, or
> as a foregone conclusion wherein advanced dancers require no additional
> teaching. A few callers do teach how to signal and interpret signals
> indicating a desire for or granting consent for flourishes, and i tip my
> hat to them. But to the issue many (female) dancers raise: too many male
> dancers don't ask, and either fail to recognize or fail to respect cues
> around flourishing.
>
> Why? Probably because many male dancers much less regularly end up on the
> twirling (as opposed to facilitating) side of flourishes. Dancers are going
> to flourish whether or not we teach them how to do it well. But we can help
> alleviate rampant bad and/or injurious flourishing if we choose. How? By
> more frequently adding style points in intermediate settings, and by giving
> dancers an opportunity to experience the other side of the equation.
>
> [Now, many of us agree that contra is not a lead/follow dance form, and
> some go so far as to suggest that in the traditional promenade and courtesy
> turn, dancers move as a unit that lacks any lead/follow dynamic. I disagree
> there: placement of the gent's hand behind the lady's back puts the gent in
> a position to propel the lady. No interpretation of this dynamic is
> accurate without considering the historical context our dance form emerges
> from, in which a gendered imbalance is unmistakably present. Consider the
> gendered language of singing squares recorded by Ralph Sweet. I say this
> not to criticize Sweet, or any caller who uses such language (eg "put her
> on the right" or "chain the ladies," the latter an expression i once
> unquestioningly used in my own calling), merely to point out that
> traditionally, the gents' role has been considered the more "active" one,
> and that this gendered sense of agency is reinforced by the  ubiquitous
> and overwhelmingly lopsided promenade and courtesy turn. Contra dance has
> historically been a gendered form; to deny this is to perpetuate male
> privilege - the source of bad/injurious flourishing - by denying its
> presence in the form. In that many contemporary dancers choose to play both
> roles on the floor, and in that there is a broad consensus among callers
> that lead/follow terminology is not appropriate to describe an ideal
> expression of our dance's contemporary practice, a shift is occurring.
> Nonetheless this is an active shift. To pretend that contra has always
> lacked a lead/follow dynamic is ignorant of even recent history.]
>
> Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend
> virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed)
> chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl;
> understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as
> opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances*
> rarely get called. As with right-handed chains, getting to a flourish
> requires first mastering the directional flow of the reversed courtesy turn
> (right with right in front, left hands behind, lady backs up and the gent
> goes forward). But whether it's boiling the reversed courtesy turn down to
> an allemande right or writing gents' RH chain dances, it seems precious few
> callers care enough to bother with teaching and using the LH chain. We have
> it, for frell's sake, let's USE it. Dancers CAN and WILL gain familiarity
> if we do, but such progress can occur only if a critical mass of callers
> are on the same page.
>
> Why does this matter? Because if indeed we believe our tradition to be one
> in which both roles are equally active, we shouldn't have ladies being
> twirled against their wishes. Addressing that would be simpler if we agree
> to stop shortchanging the one move in our choreography that truly
> challenges the historical gender dynamic.
>
> Want to innovate in choreography? What about featuring promenades in
> reversed hold, or left-and-right through?! Though they exist, rarity
> renders them the province of advanced dance sessions. Yet every second we
> spend teaching standard promenade hold turns is something dancers could
> easily generalize to isomers, if the isomers were on a more equal footing.
> Because they share a common backbone in the reversed hold (a la Rich's
> point about the standard RH chain) increased frequency of such isomers
> would raise dancers' familiarity with the reversed hold, reducing our need
> to teach it, or isomeric moves, as "unusual," while adding variety to
> evenings of dance. Should folks indeed be writing them, I am eager to
> collect such sequences.
>
> It struck me a few months ago that, while i have some fantastic dances in
> my collection involving the gents' LH chain, i knew of none involving a
> gents LH chain over and back. So here y'all go. This isn't a beginner
> dance. It's intended for remedial education. Should you use this, I am
> eager to hear how it is received.
>
> "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught (To Twirl)"
>
> becket R
>
> A1. Partner balance & swing
> A2. Gents pass L half hey, ladies pushback; Neighbor swing
> B1. Gents LH chain over & back
> B2. RH star to meet NEW neighbors in a wave (GR, NL); waves balance, spin
> right
>
> *great gents LH chain dances: "Swain the Hey" by Chris Page, "The Broken
> Mirror" by Bill Olson, "Rollaway Sue" by Bob Isaacs, "The Curmudgeon Who
> Ruined Contradance" by Eileen Thorsos, "Generation Gap" by Thankful
> Cromartie, and the obvious reverse-engineered variation on "Secret Weapon"
> by Lisa Greenleaf
>
> Please note: The preceding theory arguments are premised on a notion that
> to survive, traditional forms evolve. Some elements of the form - the
> ubiquity of a historically gendered dynamic that drives problematic dance
> behaviors - could stand to be lost in this process. I believe that a truly
> equal dance dynamic would preserve the best elements and tendencies of the
> form and increase the safety, joy, and appeal of community dance.
> Practically speaking, we'd be doing all the same moves, just without the
> lopsidedness, by widely adopting both isomers.
>
> In curmudgeonliness,
> Tavi
>
>
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:47:10 -0400
>> From: Richard Hart via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: "Callers at Lists.Sharedweight.net" <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Favorite dance to teach a ladies chain?
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CAB16f6Ceg6PTXKQrWL60ko8=+hOVC_JD6zaQ3+9TxBVXfN8AgQ at mail.gm
>> ail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> I usually try to separate the courtesy turn from the chain. A courtesy
>> turn is used in a number of moves, including R&L through, and a
>> promenade. Practice that first with your partner. Man backs up and the
>> woman gores forward, with arms around your partner's back. .Remember
>> to stop facing the right direction, and as a caller remember to tell
>> dancers which way to face. This can be done in a couple of minutes or
>> so.
>>
>> My first dance with a courtesy turn may use it with a promenade,
>> depending on the crowd. Then move on to dances with a chain or R&L.
>> Once the turn is understood and well done, the others are easy.
>>
>> I agree with Erik (and Dudley!) The walkthrough and instruction should
>> be short. They'd all rather be dancing, so don't introduce much new
>> stuff in any single dance.
>>
>> And thanks for this discussion. I love seeing new dances to try and
>> new possibilities to teach when there are a lot of beginners.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160906/7efa591f/attachment.htm>