Hi All,
In B1 of Kirstin Koths' dance Nantucket Sleigh Ride there is a figure I will
call "Arches". In this figure everyone is facing up and the ones, who are
now below the twos, join inside hands, make an arch and walk forward, while
the twos duck and back under that arch. Then the twos arch and walk forward
while the ones duck under to place. My notes say to do arches twice. It
would appear from the timing that that entire sequence - ones over twos
under and twos over, ones under - is repeated twice. Is that what you
remember?
Rickey Holt
Fremont, NH
Hey gang,
Kathy's in Costa Rica at the moment (I'm so envious!) but took a minute to
email and let me know that she wrote the dance I asked about below. It's
called Top Spin.
There you go...
Bev
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:25:36 -0500
From: "The Witful Turnip" <wturnip(a)sympatico.ca>
Subject: [Callers] Can you name this dance ?
To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Message-ID: <000001c870f3$3bf22d30$6d00a8c0@BB1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi all,
I was poking around on YouTube for banjo tunes and happened to stumble
across a video of Kathy Anderson calling this dance in St Louis. Does anyone
know the name and author of this dance?
Thanks in advance!
Bev
A1. (starts in a wavy line, ladies in ctr by L, neigh in R)
Balance wave, neighbors allemande R 1/2
Gents allemande L 3/4 to long wave down the ctr, balance wave
A2. Gents allemande L 3/4, partner swing
B1. Ladies allemande R 1 1/2
Neighbor swing
B2. Partners R hand balance across, pull by R, pull by neighbour L (sq thru)
With the next, do si do (into the wave)
***************************************************************************
The Witful Turnip wturnip(a)sympatico.ca
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure."
- Oscar Wilde
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
End of Callers Digest, Vol 42, Issue 15
***************************************
Hello, I am posting this on both the sharedweight and trad-dance-callers
lists:
Next month at the Downeast Festival in Maine I am scheduled to do a short
session which I have called "challenging contras." At the time that I
suggested it, I thought that I fondly remembered enjoying challenging dance
sessions at dance festivals. But as I think more about it I realize that
the only ones I can actually remember were sessions where the dances seemed
so complex that it was almost impossible to get 4 or 6 people together at
once who understood what to do, or on the other hand being somewhat
disappointed because the dances didn't seem challenging enough. I am sure
the line between too much and too little is probably different for everyone.
Can anyone suggest dances that experienced dancers might find somewhat
challenging, perhaps something with an unusual figure? I have heard several
people on this list mention that anyone can dance anything as long as the
teaching is good enough, so that will be my own challenge. I plan to try a
couple dances that are not the standard duple formation, but I would like to
find at least one that is duple, so any suggestions or advice are welcome.
If you can also include the transcription or tell me where to find the
dances I would really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance!
Richard
Hi all,
I was poking around on YouTube for banjo tunes and happened to stumble
across a video of Kathy Anderson calling this dance in St Louis. Does anyone
know the name and author of this dance?
Thanks in advance!
Bev
A1. (starts in a wavy line, ladies in ctr by L, neigh in R)
Balance wave, neighbors allemande R 1/2
Gents allemande L 3/4 to long wave down the ctr, balance wave
A2. Gents allemande L 3/4, partner swing
B1. Ladies allemande R 1 1/2
Neighbor swing
B2. Partners R hand balance across, pull by R, pull by neighbour L (sq thru)
With the next, do si do (into the wave)
***************************************************************************
The Witful Turnip wturnip(a)sympatico.ca
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure."
- Oscar Wilde
***************************************************************************
Wow, Tom. I thought I was the only one anal enough to do that. All of my dances are listed in an Excel file which has columns for title, author, who swings whom, formation, and for many major defining figures. I then print out all of my dances with Petronella turns, down the hall, or any other defining figure. Then when I need to replace my hey dance with a simpler one, I can just turn to the page of titles of hey dances I have printed out. My cards are organized first by formation (contras; squares; mixers; dances for 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 couples), and within each group, they are alphabetized by title. The cards are in large photo albums that display three 4x6 cards on each side of each page - really helps when wanting to find something quickly.
Lynn
----- Original Message ----
From: Thomas J Senior <thomasjsenior(a)gmail.com>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:13:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Callers] organizing dance cards
Hi Folks,
Coming out of LURK mode.
Many years ago, while calling a dance in Milwaukee, i noticed that
my selection of dances all had "down the middle 4 in line." Ouch.
To help me avoid this obvious programming faux pas, i started a
computer data base of my dance cards. I code each dance with its main
moves/story line: ie. both couples swing. Each of my cards now has
a number on it. I've printed out my list of dances several ways,
since i don't have a lap top at the dance, And when i need to change
programs on the fly, i can usually find what i need in the listing.
The biggest advantage to this system is that, if you put the cards
back in order after the dance, you can easily find the card the next
time.
Hope this may help,
Tom Senior (chicagoland)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net [mailto:callers-bounces@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Amy Cann
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:58 PM
> To: Caller's discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Callers] organizing dance cards
>
> Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> on Monday, February 4,
> 2008 at 9:09 PM +0000 wrote:
> >I'm reorganizing my dance cards
> ...
> >The dance that's most puzzling to me right now is Mary Cay's Reel
>
> I often sort my dances by storyline, so for me the defining move of Mary
> Cay's is that the women do something special WITH EACH OTHER, while the
> men look on/cheer.
>
> There is a very specific social thing that happens at moments like this -
> ( other examples: "ladies down center 2 by 2 with each other" or "men
> gypsy each other" ) - when one gender displays and the other watches
>
> (and BOY does that other gender like to watch sometime!)
>
> so Mary Cay's, for me, goes in the "Gender Fun" category.
>
> Other categories include "Where did my partner go - wait, how did you end
> up THERE?" and "Look at me aren't I cool?"
>
>
>
> We all get caught sometimes - we just can't seem to find a next dance that
> doesn't repeat the previous one in some way - the same starting move, the
> same progression, yet aNOTHer down-the-hall-in-lines-of-four.
> At moments like this, I often opt to go for the dance with the most
> different "storyline" or "social structure", and ask the band for a
> contrasting tune type, in the (perhaps naive) belief that the dancers
> won't notice repeating move so much if, say, the first one struts and the
> second one slinks.
>
> Cheers,
> Amy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
--
Tom Senior
Dance while you can.
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
Hi Line Weavers,
In Kathy Anderson's contra "Weave the Line" dancers zigzag their way to
their third neighbor couple in A2. What happens to those dancers less than 3
neighbor couples away from either end of the line?
Rickey Holt.
Here's the dance as I collected it from U Tube of all places. This was not
clear from the video which did include the walk through.
Weave the Line
Duple Improper, Double Progression
by Kathy Anderson
A1 Star Left (1) (8)
Circle left (1) (8) (to place)
A2 Zigzag to 3rd Neighbor
keep Partner, veer left right and left to 3rd Neighbor
face Neighbor #3, and Do-si-do them (one person at a time, not
as couples)
B1 Turn around to face Neighbor #2
Balance and Swing them (end swing facing across)
B2 Long Lines forward and back
Actives Swing Partner
Hi Callers,
Rebecca Lay here in Brattleboro, Vermont. I'm reorganizing my dance cards
tonight; putting them in categories that I've determined by asking myself
the question: "What is the figure that defines this dance?" So, I've got a
section for full-hey dances, those that include a Petronella figure, dances
that go down the hall, etc. I've got plenty of categories (well, at least I
think I do), and I still have some dances that don't seem to fit into a
category.
The dance that's most puzzling to me right now is Mary Cay's Reel, by David
Kaynor. The defining figure in this dance is when the women "chain the
set," but I don't have a category for that, since this is the only dance in
my repertoire that contains the figure. I've thought about adding this
dance to my "wave" category, since the chain-the-set is sort-of like a
momentary wave, but I feel like that might be a stretch.
Any ideas? How would you categorize this dance?
(And, do you have any more dances you like to call that include a
chain-the-set figure? I like it!)
Thanks, everyone.
-Rebecca
Following up on an earlier post...
I wrote:
"I was wondering if I could get your best advice on approaching triple minor
> dances in the Midwest (Lawrence Kansas). I believe most of the contra
> dancers here have never seen such a critter, although a very few will have
> seen it at an English Country dance."
I also said I was considering calling "Sackett's Harbor."
>
> Alan Winston wrote:
"I'd suggest, as a first-ever triple minor,
> "Young Widow", if your band knows the tune. No swings, but a killer fun
> dance
> with balancing, etc, and it isn't all solos for the 1s."
>
David Millstone wrote:
"Jerome, please let us know how it turns out."
I called the triple minor dance "The Young Widow" in Merriam Kansas (the
Kansas side of Kansas City) last night, with moderate success. Here's the
figure, for those unfamiliar with it:
The Young Widow
(my source: Heritage Dances of Early America by Ralph Page. Page cites a
dance manual published in Otsego, NY in 1808 as his source)
triple minor -- proper contra
A1: Actives, with the couple below, hands-across right-hand star (8),
Same four star left back to place.
A2: Actives down the center holding right hands, turn as a couple halfway
round (Page says no CA twirls) and return, cast around the twos (active man
round the 2nd lady, active lady round the 2nd man).
B1: Six go forward & back (the original manual says "balance all six" but
Page describes this as four steps forward and four back, not the two step
balance common to modern contras),
Circle six halfway round (until the ones have traded places and are
proper, three are above and twos below, improper).
B2: Inactive couples go forward and back (up and down the set),
Same four right and left thru (to end proper)
I did not use the associated tune; the band did play a New England-style
tune rather than a midwestern old-time tune. Actually, I'm not sure what the
associated tune would be -- Page mentions "The Duke of Perth" medley. In any
case, I decided not to sweat the tune and just asked for a moderate tempo
reel.
I probably allowed the sets to be too long -- I had two lines each with four
minor sets. In retrospect, it would have been better to have four lines each
with two minor sets, or even six sets of four couples each.
In the walkthrough, I emphasized that the ones know who they are and thus
can help lead the others in the stars and also in the forward & backs. I
forgot to explicitly tell the ones how to get out at the bottom, so there
may have been some stranded couples at some point.
In terms of feedback, the beginners didn't seem any more confused than they
would have been in any other dance. That is, they accepted their confusion
as normal and didn't take it personally. (I had taught the beginners session
and assured them that moments of confusion were OK).
There were lumps of confusion when couples consisting of beginners met other
couples consisting of beginners, but if they managed to progress they
smoothed it on the next go-around. One set was pretty smooth throughout the
dance, the other had the lumps.
As I expected, many of the experienced dancers were also confused at times.
Many thanked me for calling an unusual dance. I solicited and got feedback
from a few folks who told me what they experienced. A few indicated that the
dance was just too confusing and one woman gave me "the look" when I said it
would go much better the next time I called a triple minor. "The look"
seeming to indicate that it would go much better if I never ever tried such
a thing again.
The good feedback:
1. The inactives never played the active role in the walkthrough and thus
and found it confusing to do the first time they were actives.
2. The sets were too long and I should consider shorter sets.
3. There were too many beginners present for me to try this sort of dance.
4. I called this dance too early in the evening (4th slot) and should have
waited until after the break.
My own assessment:
1. Circling six halfway was a challenge for many; lots of groups were
over-rotating. I began to prompt "circle just halfway, till the actives
trade places" and it seemed to help some.
2. Folks seemed to rush through the B2
3. I wonder if it would have helped to teach the right and left thru as a
square thru two places. Or just to prompt "right and left thru, now face
up," since the problem really was that the threes often watched the set
below during the A1 stars.
4. I might have spent a little more time reassuring people about the
right-and-left thru, since you are facing a same-sex person to start and
that's unusual for modern contra dancers.
5. When the ones were confident, the whole minor set was confident. The
inverse was also true.
6. Nobody moaned about "no partner swing." Thank God.
7. I did assure the dancers that the figure was unusual but not difficult,
but more confidence on my part (backed by more knowledge and experience)
would probably have helped sell that concept.
8. It might have helped to have coached a demonstration set before the
evening's dance, or at the very least to have some folks demonstrate the
cast-off.
9. Forgetting to talk about the end effects at the bottom was my bad,
probably related to all the faces expressing confusion during the first
walk-through, so I should probably have all my teaching points on a written
checklist.
10. I will try triple minor dances in the future, and they will go better,
and people will find a place in their hearts for these figures. Maybe even
the lady with "the look."
--Jerome
--
Jerome Grisanti
660-528-0858
660-528-0714
http://www.jeromegrisanti.com
Thanks, Jerome, for a detailed description of your experience.
> I probably allowed the sets to be too long -- I had two lines each with four
minor sets. In retrospect, it would have been better to have four lines each
with two minor sets, or even six sets of four couples each.
I agree, sort of. ;-) Rather than lining folks up with a number of completely
filled minor sets, with triple minors you might consider asking for sets of
seven or eight couples. With seven, for example, this means that a couple is out
at the bottom the first walkthrough, but with triple minors I almost always do
two walkthroughs. This lets the Ones learn their part more securely, and it
gives the inactives the opportunity to experience the dance as a Two and as a
Three. At the least, it lets folks take hands six in the second grouping.
Your last alternative [six sets of four couples each] is a good way of
workshopping several such dances. You dance it once with couples 1, 2, and 3;
second time through is couples 1, 3, and 4, and at the end of the figures couple
1 simply moves to the bottom of the set. This allows the original couple 2, who
have been waiting out, to start dancing after waiting only once. Eight times
through and everyone has had a chance to be an active couple twice.
Keeping the sets limited to 7 or 8 couples gives folks a longer time to dance
and still allows you to run the dance long enough so that every couple gets to
be active at least once. Since many of the triple minors are unequal dances--
i.e., there's more activity for the Ones than for the other four dancers-- one
way to get a really, Really, REALLY nasty look is to have long lines and a
couple gets to the top just as you announce last time through the dance.
The "associated tune" with the Young Widow could be found in Volume I of English
Country Dance Tunes, edited by Peter Barnes. There's a recording of it by Bare
Necessities on their CD "At the Ball."
> There were lumps of confusion when couples consisting of beginners met other
couples consisting of beginners, but if they managed to progress they smoothed
it on the next go-around.
Huzzah!
> As I expected, many of the experienced dancers were also confused at times.
Many thanked me for calling an unusual dance.
Yes, triple minors can be confusing if the dancers have only experienced duple
minor improper or Becket dances, which comprise most contra programs these days.
However, by occasionally including a triple minor (or a dance in an odd
formation, or a country dance in waltz time, etc.) you're broadening your
dancers' horizons and also increasing their skills.
I recall one of my local dancers who had attended only my dances for many years.
She finally went off to a hot contra dance an hour or two away and had a great
time-- enthusiastic and skiller dancers, hot music, all very energizing and
satisfying. "But," she later confided, "all they did were contras where everyone
moved all the time. No squares, no triplets, no mixers, nothing elegant, no
variety."
> 1. Circling six halfway was a challenge for many; lots of groups were
over-rotating.
It sometimes helps to stress "Large circles!" Extending those arms means that
folks have a greater distance to cover, which means they don't turn the circles
as far.
> 5. When the ones were confident, the whole minor set was confident. The
inverse was also true.
Yes, if the ones know what they're doing, they can often pull the others in.
It's helpful to remind the inactives to face up toward the head of the set at
the end of each time through the dance. They'll see the actives launch into
action and this may help they realize the new goruping in which they find
themselves. When you do Sackett's harbor <grin>, having folks join hands three
facing three rather than in long lines helps the new minor sets establish
themselves.
> 6. Nobody moaned about "no partner swing."
Double huzzah!
> 10. I will try triple minor dances in the future, and they will go better, and
people will find a place in their hearts for these figures.
May blessings of the dance gods shower upon you. ;-)
David Smukler and I were just this week looking through a long list of possible
other dances to include in the appendix to the forthcoming "Cracking Chestnuts"
book, making a special point of looking for more triple minors. There are some
interesting choreographic possibilities in triple minors that duples just don't
offer, and presenting that sort of variety helps gives dancers a broader sense
of country dancing as a whole.
David Millstone
I called at an event recently where I was one of three callers. We
discovered that all three of us are left-handed. I am curious to know
how many people on this list are left-hand dominant.
Joyce Miller
Grass Valley, California
