I was thinking the same thing, as I'm sure many of us were. I was willing to bet one of them was PeM, given that I've had the same discussion with them myself as a booking rep, and they make a really good case for a special arrangement. I'm a little less familiar with Double Apex, though I can possibly see it with them too.
Brian Hamshar
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:00:37 pm
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Caller's Fees
Dennis Merritt wrote:
>
> Sounds like we've all been talking to the same popular band... :-)
>
Actually, I don't see what purpose it serves to use only confusing
references.
The two bands that have asked bida to be paid as three person bands
are perpetual emotion and double apex.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
Sounds like we've all been talking to the same popular band... :-)
We have lots of very good local two person bands as well.
One problem I see with the equal share for all performers formula is callers
try to line up gigs with the smaller bands. It seems more logical to me to
disconnect the two, so that the caller's compensation is not a function of
the size of the band, either in a positive or negative sense.
--Dennis
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM, <callers-request(a)sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> callers(a)sharedweight.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Caller Fees (Will Loving)
> 2. Re: Caller Fees (Jeff Kaufman)
> 3. Re: Caller Fees (Donald Perley)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:20:26 -0400
> From: Will Loving <will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>"
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Caller Fees
> Message-ID: <CA49C77A.44A66%will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> As both a dance series organizer and a caller, I'm thrilled that we are
> having this discussion. Performer payment was the area that I spent the
> most
> time talking with other organizers about prior to starting our Downtown
> Amherst (MA) series.
>
> Several posts have mentioned paying the band only a certain number of
> shares, usually four, even if there are more than four musicians. Though
> both the caller and the band are essential to the dance, this is presumably
> being done to protect the callers pay. Now lets consider the other side of
> the coin.
>
> What if your band consists of only two musicians? The assumed "normal"
> arrangement would be that everyone get's a 1/3 share. Now consider that the
> band is bringing and setting up their own top-notch sound system. Normally
> the person providing and working sound gets paid anywhere from $25-200, or
> a
> full share, depending on the venue, whether they are supplying equipment
> and
> their level of expertise (the high end being someone like Bob Mills). Next,
> let's add in the fact that this particular band will draw substantially
> more
> dancers, usually 25-50% more, than other 2-person bands.
>
> Is it appropriate to pay the band more? In this scenario would it be
> appropriate to pay the band 3 shares instead of 2? From the band's
> perspective, they are not only bringing and doing sound, but are also
> bringing in a lot of value/income for the dance and should be rewarded for
> it. Isn't this the same as limiting a band to getting 4 shares to protect
> the caller's pay, even if there are more than 4 musicians? Is the band
> correct in wanting to protect their pay as well based on the extra value
> they bring?
>
> My guess from reading most people's posts is that you would in fact agree
> with this, but some callers I've been talking with strongly disagree. I'm
> interested to hear people's thought on it. As an organizer, I'm feeling a
> bit caught between callers' feelings that 'equal shares for all performers'
> is a hard and fast principle and the band wanting something for the extra
> value they bring. From reading everyone's posts, talking with people and
> looking at Jeff's spreadsheet, it seems to me that while there may be an
> ideal of 'equal shares for all performers' (kind of like 'liberty and
> justice for all') the reality of how pay is divided is quite varied.
>
> I'm deeply committed to paying all performers/artists well for the efforts
> and energy, including minimums and profit sharing. Our dance series is only
> 9 months old but we committed to doing this critical piece properly. We are
> working hard to fund-raise for a high-quality and fully paid for sound
> system so we can eliminate that as a weekly expense and have more money go
> to the performers. We are slowly growing a reserve fund in order to be able
> to guarantee minimums even when weather intervenes - such as the recent
> tornados that came through Western Mass on our dance night.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Will Loving
> Amherst Area Contra Dances
> Amherst, MA USA
> http://amherstcontra.org
>
>
> on 6/18/11 10:32 PM, Sue Robishaw at sue(a)manytracks.com wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I know that "it varies" and probably quite widely, but I'm trying to
> get
> > an idea of what is typically charged for one-time or semi-regular dance
> > calling (not the high end festivals and balls and camps) or how receipts
> are
> > divided between caller, band, and house. My interest is as caller, band,
> and
> > dance organizer so all input would be appreciated. You can reply off-list
> to
> > sue(a)manytracks.com.
> > Thanks,
> > Sue Robishaw, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
>
>
> --
>
> William M. Loving
> Dedication Technologies, Inc.
> 7 Coach Lane
> Amherst, MA 01002-3304 USA
> will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com
> Tel: +1 413 253-7223 (GMT ?5)
> Fax: +1 206 202-0476
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:42:53 -0400
> From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Caller Fees
> Message-ID: <20110718154251.GD16154(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Will Loving wrote:
> >
> > What if your band consists of only two musicians?
> >
>
> Bida has dealt with requests by two person bands to be paid more in
> two ways:
>
> 1) paying them as a three person band, or
> 2) paying them the fee that would normally go to a sound person, in
> exchange for bringing and running their own sound
>
> The second option is equivalent to the first, but the band gets only
> two shares of profit instead of three.
>
> We don't have a thought out policy on this; these are just the
> solutions we went with for the two bands who asked. We also almost
> never have two person bands.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:43:08 -0400
> From: Donald Perley <donperley(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Caller Fees
> Message-ID:
> <CAMKNU+-VH=y06xnmbr6u10UtpOcb5NLDNpvcd5dRkHM109gbOQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Will Loving
> <will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com> wrote:
> > Now consider that the
> > band is bringing and setting up their own top-notch sound system.
> Normally
> > the person providing and working sound gets paid anywhere from $25-200,
> or a
> > full share,
>
> At our dances, if the band brings their own sound system, they get
> paid for that function, and as far as I've seen they always get first
> option on that. Some bands prefer not to if they are coming a
> distance (or one stop on a tour) and it would mean 2 cars or a van
> instead of 1 car.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 83, Issue 17
> ***************************************
>
Re: microphones
Well, I love a headset mike. I don't have a loud voice, and no amount
of voice training is going to give me one. If there are more than a
few newcomers, and a small number of people in the hall talking, I
will be hoarse by the time I finish the beginners workshop without a
headset mike. I also participate in the beginners workshop using it
as that way what I'm doing with one person or group can be seen by
the others at the same time. I've occasionally had to do this at
other venues with a cord snagging around underfoot, and that is a
nightmare. I have tried handheld cordless, but I have a small hand
and the ones I've used have been big and heavy and my hand aches by
the break. If I put it in the mike stand I seem to stand in such a
way that my legs and back ache by the break. With the headset, I
make use of the mute feature if I do leave the stage to help anyone
(which is rare) or have to speak to the band or an organizer while
the dance is running. It's also been useful at small venues where a
person who wanted to dance had no partner and I could be their
partner and still call. Yes, it's definitely a good, wireless headset
for me! Hooray for the Madonna mike!
Martha
On Jul 18, 2011, at 7:59 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> callers(a)sharedweight.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: searching archive? (Laur)
> 2. Re: Wireless Microphone (Greg McKenzie)
> 3. Re: searching archive? (Mark Widmer)
> 4. Re: microphones (Will Loving)
> 5. Re: microphones (Will Loving)
> 6. Re: searching archive? (Laur)
> 7. Re: searching archive? (Greg McKenzie)
> 8. Re: Wireless Microphone (Lewis Land)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Laur <lcpgr(a)yahoo.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] searching archive?
> Message-ID:
> <1310918529.92855.YahooMailNeo(a)web121714.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
>
> ?
> Thanks Chris - I kept defaulting to the info page and getting to
> the archives.
> ~
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Chris Weiler (home) <chris.weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 10:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] searching archive?
>>
>> Right on the home page is a box on the left that will let you
>> search the archives:
>>
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 7/16/2011 6:17 PM, Laur wrote:
>>> Chris (everyone),
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I correct in thinking there is not a way to search the archives?
>>> Laurie
>>> Grand Rapids MI
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:09:47 -0700
> From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Wireless Microphone
> Message-ID:
> <CAFqkWLvJKv24mvh_cL=F3mP2P-ej3iN8yQReqm0kxt27Sy+Qow(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I used a wireless headset mike for a short time. I found it
> cumbersome and
> limiting. In addition to losing the ability to control my own
> volume by
> moving away from the mike I don't do a lot of floor demonstration
> so it was
> really only a "hands free" device I used on stage. I like shifting
> to an
> off-mike mode while on the floor. It is an attention-getting
> technique when
> the caller steps down and speaks without amplification.
>
> I know lots of folks on this list do gigs with much more teaching and
> demonstrating than I do when calling at open public contra dances.
> The
> wireless route might be good for that kind of event. But I would
> caution
> the wireless mike users to consider the effects on dancers when
> they look up
> on stage and see the caller missing. It can be unnerving to hear a
> headless
> voice speaking over the PA system. (This is why they invented
> follow-spots
> for theater performances. The audience always knows where to
> look.) I like
> to keep the dancers in control and to never make them feel
> foolish...even
> for a moment.
>
> I suggest that head-mike callers lead the audience with a prompt
> whenever
> they step down from the stage as in: "Ladies and Gentlemen: Please
> direct
> your attention to the center of the hall," as the caller steps
> down. This
> will avoid the feeling that someone with a live mike is "stalking"
> around
> the hall floor. Keeping the audience oriented will help them to feel
> relaxed and confident.
>
> The worst offense of a wireless mike user is to walk down on the
> floor,
> without prompting, and to begin giving instructions to a single
> dancer or a
> small group that is confused. The presence of the caller--speaking
> to them
> over the PA system--can make newcomers very uncomfortable and
> distracted,
> and undermine any assistance the caller is attempting to offer. When
> on-mike, the caller should always speak only to the entire hall.
> Directed
> comments should always be off-mike.
>
> -Greg McKenzie
>
> *************
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Colin Hume <colin(a)colinhume.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:44:39 +0100, John Sweeney wrote:
>>> I find hand-held mikes very strange. Why would you lock yourself
>>> into a fixed position, or tie one of your hands up when you can use
>>> a wireless headset?
>>
>> I much prefer a hand-held. I find that as soon as I put on a headset
>> I feel the need to cough, sniff, clear my throat, etc. Also with a
>> hand-held I can pull my head away from the microphone to call out to
>> the band "Another B" or "One more time" or "Slower", whereas with a
>> headset I have to find the switch first, speak, then switch it
>> back on
>> again. I've got quite good at transferring the mike from one hand to
>> the other when I'm dancing, and most people can cope with holding my
>> elbow rather than my hand if necessary.
>>
>> Colin Hume
>>
>> Email colin(a)colinhume.com Web site http://www.colinhume.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:31:44 -0400
> From: Mark Widmer <mark(a)harbormist.com>
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] searching archive?
> Message-ID: <4E230E70.8030805(a)harbormist.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> There's always google. Just include site:www.sharedweight.net among
> your search terms.
>
> For example:
>
> http://www.google.com/
> #sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=wireless
> +site:www.sharedweight.net&pbx=1&oq=wireless
> +site:www.sharedweight.net&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1937l8842l0l9
> 249l34l26l0l3l3l0l305l3446l5.14.3.1l23&bav=on.
> 2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=86582d5fedad0c80&biw=1280&bih=587
>
> -- Mark Widmer
>
>> From: Laur<lcpgr(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Chris (everyone),
>>
>>
>> Am I correct in thinking there is not a way to search the archives??
>>
>> Laurie
>> Grand Rapids MI
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:44:43 -0400
> From: Will Loving <will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>"
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] microphones
> Message-ID: <CA4889BB.44A2F%will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> This may be changing. On my new cell phone, an LG Cosmos, I can
> hear myself
> in the speaker when I talk. It was a little disconcerting at first
> because I
> was so used to NOT hearing myself and it doesn't exactly sound like
> and old
> wired phone, but it may be that manufacturers are starting to add this
> feature in.
>
>
> on 7/16/11 11:09 PM, Amy Cann at acann(a)putneyschool.org wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of people like me out there - and you can spot
>> them as soon
>> as they get out their cell phones. Old phones have a speaker in
>> the ear end
>> that not only carries the other person but also your own voice --
>> you have a
>> monitor, and you get to hear yourself from the outside. Cell
>> phones don't,
>> the ear part is dead unless the other person is speaking. Older
>> folks used
>> to exterior feedback can get really thrown off by this and start
>> TALKING
>> REALLY LOUD;
>
>
> --
>
> William M. Loving
> Dedication Technologies, Inc.
> 7 Coach Lane
> Amherst, MA 01002-3304 USA
> will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com
> Tel: +1 413 253-7223 (GMT ?5)
> Fax: +1 206 202-0476
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:53:49 -0400
> From: Will Loving <will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>"
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] microphones
> Message-ID: <CA488BDD.44A33%will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> This is a note I wrote and posted a while back on my experience
> with my
> headset:
>
> As far as I?m concerned, if you can afford it, the way to go is with a
> Countryman E6, and specifically the E6i which is the directional
> model vs
> the omni-directional one. The E6 is not cheap, generally $300-350
> for the
> mike and a spare cable, you still have to buy the body pack and
> transceiver
> (I got a used Shure PGX with carrying case on ebay). These are the
> same
> mikes that are used in Broadway shows and by many performers,
> church pastors
> and choir soloists, etc. One or two people I?ve seen use the big Shure
> headsets that come with the PGX kits, and I?m sure they are
> adequate, but I
> like the fact that the Countryman is almost invisible and the
> quality is
> such that people have literally said to me ?it?s like you are
> standing right
> next to me?.
>
> I purchased mine from CCI Solutions (http://ccisolutions.com ? Jeff
> Brown
> was my rep) a place that supplies lots of churches. Their prices on
> Countryman mikes are about $50 less than anyone else because they
> were the
> very first Countryman dealer. They also include an extra cable
> which is
> normally $50 extra.
>
> I tried both an the Omni (E6) and directional (E6i) versions before
> going
> with the latter. Jeff at CCI told me that they sell 100 omnis for each
> direction they sell, but that he agreed with my reasoning and
> experience
> that because as caller I would be standing very close to (or
> sometimes in
> front of) the mains that the directional would be better than the
> omni. And,
> in fact, experience has found that to be true.
>
> I can be almost directly in front of the mains doing a demo and get no
> feedback unless I turn at precisely the wrong angle. With an omni, the
> chances of getting feedback from multiple angles is MUCH higher.
> The caveat
> is that placement of the directional mike at the corner of your
> mouth is
> critical. You need to follow the detailed directions so the clip
> fits your
> ear well - both snug and comfortable - and so that the pickup is
> right at
> the corner of your mouth and not wiggling around. Not hard to do
> and once
> you've got it set it should stay that way.
>
> Will
>
>
> on 7/16/11 5:30 PM, JoLaine Jones-Pokorney at jolaine(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi all - I'm considering a wireless headset mic. It sure would be
>> nice to
>> have hands free when demonstrating, teaching the introductory
>> workshop. But
>> I don't see many callers using them. Is there a downside to this
>> that I'm
>> not seeing, or is it just the expense? And if someone could
>> recommend a
>> good one, I would appreciate it as I know NOTHING. Our local
>> sound guy has
>> recommended the SHURE brand, but doesn't know a specific model
>> number.
>> Also, what are your thoughts about using a monitor? We have a
>> visiting
>> caller that SCREAMS into the mic and it was suggested that if he
>> had a
>> monitor, he might not do that.
>> Any help is appreciated!
>> JoLaine
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> --
>
> William M. Loving
> Dedication Technologies, Inc.
> 7 Coach Lane
> Amherst, MA 01002-3304 USA
> will(a)dedicationtechnologies.com
> Tel: +1 413 253-7223 (GMT ?5)
> Fax: +1 206 202-0476
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Laur <lcpgr(a)yahoo.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] searching archive?
> Message-ID:
> <1310932728.49656.YahooMailNeo(a)web121710.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
>
> ?
> I love it!? thanks Mark.
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Mark Widmer <mark(a)harbormist.com>
>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] searching archive?
>>
>> There's always google.? Just include site:www.sharedweight.net among
>> your search terms.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/
>> #sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=wireless
>> +site:www.sharedweight.net&pbx=1&oq=wireless
>> +site:www.sharedweight.net&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1937l8842l0l
>> 9249l34l26l0l3l3l0l305l3446l5.14.3.1l23&bav=on.
>> 2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=86582d5fedad0c80&biw=1280&bih=587
>>
>> -- Mark Widmer
>>
>>> From: Laur<lcpgr(a)yahoo.com>? wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris (everyone),
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I correct in thinking there is not a way to search the archives??
>>>
>>> Laurie
>>> Grand Rapids MI
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:08:04 -0700
> From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] searching archive?
> Message-ID:
> <CAFqkWLvdV3qvwss+mTJ2rMccap6xSRmtSGiK9Ty0HzHyqJJG0A(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Mark,
>
> This is a great tip! I am viewing the list through the google web
> interface. I see no "search archive" options anywhere. Google
> works well.
>
> - Greg McKenzie
>
> **********
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Mark Widmer <mark(a)harbormist.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There's always google. Just include site:www.sharedweight.net
>> among your
>> search terms.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/#**sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&**
>> source=hp&q=wireless+site:www.**sharedweight.net&pbx=1&oq=**
>> wireless
>> +site:www.**sharedweight.net&aq=f&aqi=&**aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=**
>> 1937l8842l0l9249l34l26l0l3l3l0**l305l3446l5.14.3.1l23&bav=on.**
>> 2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=**86582d5fedad0c80&biw=1280&bih=**587<http://
>> www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=wireless
>> +site:www.sharedweight.net&pbx=1&oq=wireless
>> +site:www.sharedweight.net&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1937l8842l0l
>> 9249l34l26l0l3l3l0l305l3446l5.14.3.1l23&bav=on.
>> 2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=86582d5fedad0c80&biw=1280&bih=587>
>>
>> -- Mark Widmer
>>
>> From: Laur<lcpgr(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris (everyone),
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I correct in thinking there is not a way to search the archives??
>>>
>>> Laurie
>>> Grand Rapids MI
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://
>> www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:59:52 -0600
> From: Lewis Land <lewisland(a)windstream.net>
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Wireless Microphone
> Message-ID: <4E244A68.5020309(a)windstream.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I have only occasionally used a cordless headset mike, but I found
> it to
> be quite liberating. I really enjoyed the opportunity to step down
> from
> the stage and walk between the lines of dancers. Apart from
> participating more directly in the excitement of the dance, it gave
> me a
> chance to see if there were any problems in one of the lines that
> required me to continue calling a couple more sets. I'm sure we
> have all
> had that experience of one line "getting the dance" very quickly while
> another line, usually populated by novices dancing with each other, is
> on the verge of falling apart. Very often that second line is the one
> farther from me on the stage and more difficult to observe. If I
> have a
> headset mike I will wait until the dance gets going before I
> venture out
> onto the floor, at a point where I don't feel the need to call
> specific
> moves very much.
>
> I honestly don't think the dancers would find it that unnerving to
> hear
> calls over the PA system when the caller isn't visible on the stage,
> unless they are very old and haven't had any experience with modern
> public address systems in other venues. And I think it would be
> extremely distracting to specifically advise the dancers to direct
> their
> attention to the floor when the caller is out there. I mean, the whole
> point is to get the dancers to focus on each other and forget that the
> caller is even present, so why go out of your way to remind them?
>
> Last weekend I called a dance where I was offered a handheld cordless
> mike, and it worked wonderfully. I was later told that several dancers
> enjoyed seeing me on the floor while they were dancing. Certainly
> no one
> suggested that I was stalking them.
>
> Finally, even though I have a voice that carries pretty well, I
> find it
> physically very stressful to call without a mike unless I'm calling
> in a
> very small room to a very small group. Calling without amplification
> just leads to shouting at the dancers, something I believe they would
> find far more irritating and distracting than listening to amplified
> calls while the caller is absent from the stage. Again, I have to say
> that our main purpose is to cause the dancers to lose themselves in
> the
> moment and forget that the caller is there. I admit that it's possible
> that Greg is used to calling at a very different, and perhaps smaller
> venue than I'm used to.
>
> Finally, I certainly agree that we should avoid giving specific
> instructions to a single dancer or small group during the dance,
> regardless of the kind of amplification available. I will occasionally
> do this during the walk-through, but by the time the dance has
> started I
> deal with problems like that by trying to call more clearly and
> consistently. -Lewis Land
>
> On 7/17/2011 10:09 AM, Greg McKenzie wrote:
>> I used a wireless headset mike for a short time. I found it
>> cumbersome and
>> limiting. In addition to losing the ability to control my own
>> volume by
>> moving away from the mike I don't do a lot of floor demonstration
>> so it was
>> really only a "hands free" device I used on stage. I like
>> shifting to an
>> off-mike mode while on the floor. It is an attention-getting
>> technique when
>> the caller steps down and speaks without amplification.
>>
>> I know lots of folks on this list do gigs with much more teaching and
>> demonstrating than I do when calling at open public contra
>> dances. The
>> wireless route might be good for that kind of event. But I would
>> caution
>> the wireless mike users to consider the effects on dancers when
>> they look up
>> on stage and see the caller missing. It can be unnerving to hear
>> a headless
>> voice speaking over the PA system. (This is why they invented
>> follow-spots
>> for theater performances. The audience always knows where to
>> look.) I like
>> to keep the dancers in control and to never make them feel
>> foolish...even
>> for a moment.
>>
>> I suggest that head-mike callers lead the audience with a prompt
>> whenever
>> they step down from the stage as in: "Ladies and Gentlemen: Please
>> direct
>> your attention to the center of the hall," as the caller steps
>> down. This
>> will avoid the feeling that someone with a live mike is "stalking"
>> around
>> the hall floor. Keeping the audience oriented will help them to feel
>> relaxed and confident.
>>
>> The worst offense of a wireless mike user is to walk down on the
>> floor,
>> without prompting, and to begin giving instructions to a single
>> dancer or a
>> small group that is confused. The presence of the caller--
>> speaking to them
>> over the PA system--can make newcomers very uncomfortable and
>> distracted,
>> and undermine any assistance the caller is attempting to offer. When
>> on-mike, the caller should always speak only to the entire hall.
>> Directed
>> comments should always be off-mike.
>>
>> -Greg McKenzie
>>
>> *************
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Colin Hume<colin(a)colinhume.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:44:39 +0100, John Sweeney wrote:
>>>> I find hand-held mikes very strange. Why would you lock yourself
>>>> into a fixed position, or tie one of your hands up when you can use
>>>> a wireless headset?
>>> I much prefer a hand-held. I find that as soon as I put on a
>>> headset
>>> I feel the need to cough, sniff, clear my throat, etc. Also with a
>>> hand-held I can pull my head away from the microphone to call out to
>>> the band "Another B" or "One more time" or "Slower", whereas with a
>>> headset I have to find the switch first, speak, then switch it
>>> back on
>>> again. I've got quite good at transferring the mike from one
>>> hand to
>>> the other when I'm dancing, and most people can cope with holding my
>>> elbow rather than my hand if necessary.
>>>
>>> Colin Hume
>>>
>>> Email colin(a)colinhume.com Web site http://www.colinhume.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 83, Issue 16
> ***************************************
In response to various notes:
There is an on-off switch and you very quickly get used to finding it
and using it automatically when you need to speak to an individual.
You definitely need to check for feedback. I always walk around the
whole floor before the dance to make sure there is no feedback.
Adjusting the height and direction of the speakers can help. If there
are some really bad spots that can't be fixed then I avoid them or turn
the mike off when walking through them (Yes, it is hard to remember, but
if you use one all the time you get used to it).
Definitely use a directional mike and make sure it is in the right
position very close to your mouth - that cuts feedback.
I don't just call contras. Calling a circle mixer or Sicilian Circle
from the centre can be really helpful - especially if I dance the moves
with my partner in the middle of the floor so that everyone can see
them. I also teach contra waltz and polka and again the wireless mike
is invaluable.
Yes, it is possible to project your voice without a mike when you need
to demo on the floor - but it is MUCH easier with one and you know
EVERYONE can hear.
The response from the dancers is always very positive.
I am sure they are not for everyone, but I love mine :-)
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Hi,
I know that "it varies" and probably quite widely, but I'm trying to get an idea of what is typically charged for one-time or semi-regular dance calling (not the high end festivals and balls and camps) or how receipts are divided between caller, band, and house. My interest is as caller, band, and dance organizer so all input would be appreciated. You can reply off-list to sue(a)manytracks.com.
Thanks,
Sue Robishaw, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
--
I find hand-held mikes very strange. Why would you lock yourself into a
fixed position, or tie one of your hands up when you can use a wireless
headset?
Apart from keeping your hands free while you are on the stage, it also
means that you can get down on the dance floor to teach, demo, interact
between dances, and join in dances if you need to make up numbers (or
just for fun!).
I use a Trantec TS66/HM66 linked to my old Trantec S4.5 receiver and it
has been great.
My wife uses a Samson Airline 77 since it has no belt pack - it will
work with whatever she is wearing!
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Hi all - I'm considering a wireless headset mic. It sure would be nice to
have hands free when demonstrating, teaching the introductory workshop. But
I don't see many callers using them. Is there a downside to this that I'm
not seeing, or is it just the expense? And if someone could recommend a
good one, I would appreciate it as I know NOTHING. Our local sound guy has
recommended the SHURE brand, but doesn't know a specific model number.
Also, what are your thoughts about using a monitor? We have a visiting
caller that SCREAMS into the mic and it was suggested that if he had a
monitor, he might not do that.
Any help is appreciated!
JoLaine
