Contra Callers May 2012

contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net

68 participants
53 discussions

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

by Chrissy Fowler

> I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > people to get into position. c I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this sentence. I've never danced at, or called, ore even heard about a dance where the caller could "just wait for people to get into position." Where does this happen? I've experienced a few (notable for their rarity) dances where the dancers IMMEDIATELY take hand four and cross when the caller asks the first time, for example Montpelier in the late 1990s/early 2000s. (Quite shocking for a caller used to having at least 4 requests worth of time to talk w band, etc. before the hands four improper status is achieved.) But this notion of actually lining up improper is new to me. Would the caller just know, at a glance, that everyone in a crowded hall was correctly in position to start the walkthrough? How would dancers joining the set know that the folks above them were in position correctly? How much less time does it take than lining up proper and taking hands four accordingly? Chrissy Fowler Belfast, ME PS In case anyone is taking down data... - I find as a caller and a dancer that it works well/efficiently to have all gents in one line, all ladies in the other, start at top, take hands four, id ones/twos and down/up line of direction for progression, id neighbors. Even when I'm calling only duple improper contras all night. - I have no attachment to using terms proper/improper, or actives/inactives, with duple proper symmetrical dances. - I think that habitual "insensitive twirling" (late, dangerous, awkward, confusing-for-twirlee) is a detriment to the spirit of trad NE social dance. And I say this as someone who has done every one of those sorts of twirls as a dancer (late, dangerous, awkward, confusing-the-twirlee -- in my case, with gents who don't expect me to initiate a twirl for them) But when I do it, I know it's a problem for others around me. You know, sort of like when you look down and realize you are going 60 in a 35mph zone. Whoopsy! > From: callers-request(a)sharedweight.net > Subject: Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5 > To: callers(a)sharedweight.net > Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:00:22 -0400 > > 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. Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman) > 2. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > (George Mercer) > 3. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > (Charles Hannum) > 4. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > (95sg23(a)comcast.net) > 5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman) > 6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:32:09 -0400 > From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > Message-ID: <20120504183209.GA1973(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > absorbing? > > Jeff > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400 > From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > Message-ID: > <CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh=xMwkPHCA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Good point. I agree. Thanks, George > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote: > > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > absorbing? > > > > Jeff > > > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > > > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > Callers(a)sharedweight.net > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400 > From: Charles Hannum <root(a)ihack.net> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > Message-ID: > <CAEqW=hNoJ3xs+_JH6sAMSLruQWagnox6joqw15TC+=8ZuG=kOQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote: > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > absorbing? > > > > If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the people in > the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in headlights. Much like > why triplets, triple minors, and even squares, do not work well in the > Boston-area contra dance scene any more, even though they used to be called > frequently back in the VFW days. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:03:18 +0000 (UTC) > From: 95sg23(a)comcast.net > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > Message-ID: > <596413448.2373327.1336158198630.JavaMail.root(a)sz0061a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Without using the terminology of "proper", I? find it easier when teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change places with their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing.? If i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to have them line up that way. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > absorbing? > > Jeff > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > ??http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:16:24 -0400 > From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > Message-ID: <20120504201624.GA4784(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Charles Hannum wrote: > > > > If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the > > people in the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in > > headlights. > > > > I would say that if a caller wants to do something uncommon they > should be prepared to teach it to the people who haven't seen it > before. > > You seem to be proposing that callers teach things they don't intend > to use so callers at future dances don't have to. > > (I wasn't trying to get into the question of whether the caller was > wrong to program an evening without any proper or unequal-turn dances, > though I don't think they were.) > > Jeff > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400 > From: Linda Leslie <laleslierjg(a)comcast.net> > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > Message-ID: <E9D77335-70AF-4120-AF3A-908AE6F093F7(a)comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > I agree with 95sg23(a)comcast.net. I very often will ask a large group > of new dancers to line up proper (and I explain what that means), for > *my* benefit. I share that when dancers line up in this way, it > signals me that they are ready to start dancing, and that it is easier > to organize the actual formation that comes next. This also leads to a > more direct understanding of what improper then means, so what we > teach/dance than takes on some logic. I also mention some history, > but never take too long doing it. > > And even if I don't call an actual proper formation dance, there are > lots of times when it is useful to let dancers know that they are > "proper" and that this is the correct position to be in. A good > example would be a contra corners (cc) dance (not talking about > beginners here). It is helpful for folks to know that they are in > proper formation at the start of the cc (at least for most cc dances). > > The time spent on this concept is minimal, and I believe well worth > the time. Sharing information is more inclusive, and I believe dancers > appreciate this. > Interesting thread! Thanks, Jeff! > warmly, Linda Leslie > > On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, 95sg23(a)comcast.net wrote: > > > Without using the terminology of "proper", I find it easier when > > teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their > > respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change > > places with their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on > > the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing. If > > i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to > > have them line up that way. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> > > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > > Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM > > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > absorbing? > > > > Jeff > > > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > > > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 93, Issue 5 > **************************************

13 years

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

by Chrissy Fowler

AMEN to what John said below. Especially the last sentence. If you are a person who habitually sends the entire history at the end of your SW posts, and there's no compelling reason for you to include all those lines, PLEASE consider taking a few seconds to only include the relevant parts - for the benefit of your fellow list-mates. Cheers, Chrissy Fowler Belfast (PS I almost sent an apology to the list when my fingers flew too fast the other day and I sent a reply with the whole giant digest history appended. But then I decided that would mean sending a non-essential email.) > > I would also love to cut down on volume. > > But not by reducing the number of posts. > > By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE of them. > > Too many people just do a "Reply", type what they want, and then press > "Send". > > There is one other crucial step. Before pressing "Send" check what it > is that you are sending and delete all the material that is not required > or not relevant. > > Happy dancing, > John

13 years

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

by John Sweeney

I would rather have a single list. I would also love to cut down on volume. But not by reducing the number of posts. By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE of them. Too many people just do a "Reply", type what they want, and then press "Send". There is one other crucial step. Before pressing "Send" check what it is that you are sending and delete all the material that is not required or not relevant. Happy dancing, John John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574 http://www.contrafusion.co.uk <http://www.contrafusion.co.uk/> for Dancing in Kent

13 years

Re: [Callers] new choreo list / traffic volume

by tavi merrill

Two lists! Digests can get overwhelming, and imho if a person is less interested in choreography discussions they're more likely to "tune out" the list when choreography discussions overtake other topics. "Signal to noise ratio" is a good way of putting it. I would subscribe to both but i think having topics separated would streamline discussion/catching up a bit. Is there a way of segregating choreo from more general topics when digests are generated without starting a separate list? Thanks for your work in connecting the community, Chris! Lurking - and about to pounce - tavi

13 years

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

by P. Campbell

Hi Chris, I would go with whatever is picked - either way would be of interest to me (either separate list or integrating it into this one). Thanks! Patricia Patricia Campbell Newtown, CT On May 9, 2012, at 2:23 PM, "Chris Weiler (home)" > <chris.weiler(a)weirdtable.org> wrote: > > > Hello SW callers, > > > > I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about > > starting a new choreography list. My thought is that most if not all > > callers would want to be on both lists, so why not have them be the > > same list? My only answer that I could think of why not is if the > > callers list volume is getting too heavy for some people. > > > > So I would like to know is if there are many people who would _not_ > > subscribe to a choreography list? > > > > Also, what do you think of the traffic volume lately? If you think > > that the volume is too heavy lately, would you rather have it divided > > into two lists to increase the signal to noise ratio? > > > > Thanks to everyone for your interest and participation, even if it's > > just lurking. > > > > Chris Weiler > > Your friendly neighborhood SharedWeight moderator. > > Craftsbury, VT > > > > > > __

13 years

Can someone recommend some Easy English Country Dances?

by Lindsay Morris

I'm starting a weekly community dance at the Unitarian church here in Charlotte. I Care Not for these Ladies was a hit: In a circle, there's slipping left and right, siding, and arming, interspersed with a set-and-turn-single, pull by two and turn the third chorus. So I said I'd find the crew more like that: not real complicated, more slow and stately. Any recommendations? (The name will do; I can find the instructions.) Thanks! -------------------- Lindsay Morris CEO, TSMworks Tel. 1-859-539-9900 lindsay(a)tsmworks.com

13 years

Re: [Callers] Can someone recommend some Easy English Country Dances?

by David.Millstone＠valley.net

One overall suggestion is to get a copy of "21 Easy English Country Dances," a booklet with accompanying CD, available from CDSS: http://www.cdss.org/product-details/product/id-21-easy-english-country-danc… It's a collection of classic dances with plenty of variety of formations and moods, and it will give you a lot of good material (plus music) from which to work. For example, it includes Upon a Summer's Day, which was the first dance in the first edition of Playford, a very accessible three-couple dance that introduces the USA figures-- up a double, siding, and arming. If you have live music, the tunes for these dances are easily available, and you can use the CD for your own practice beforehand. David Millstone

13 years

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

by Bree Kalb

I prefer one list that includes choreography. The list volume is not too heavy here for my taste; I start using delete when a discussion is going on and on..... Bree Kalb Carrboro, NC -----Original Message----- >From: "Chris Weiler (home)" <chris.weiler(a)weirdtable.org> >Sent: May 9, 2012 3:23 PM >To: Shared Weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net> >Subject: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume > >Hello SW callers, > >I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about >starting a new choreography list. My thought is that most if not all >callers would want to be on both lists, so why not have them be the same >list? My only answer that I could think of why not is if the callers >list volume is getting too heavy for some people. > >So I would like to know is if there are many people who would _not_ >subscribe to a choreography list? > >Also, what do you think of the traffic volume lately? If you think that >the volume is too heavy lately, would you rather have it divided into >two lists to increase the signal to noise ratio? > >Thanks to everyone for your interest and participation, even if it's >just lurking. > >Chris Weiler >Your friendly neighborhood SharedWeight moderator. >Craftsbury, VT > > >_______________________________________________ >Callers mailing list >Callers(a)sharedweight.net >http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers Bree Kalb, LCSW 301 W. Weaver St. Carrboro, NC 27510 919-932-6262 ext 216 Regarding the Use of Email -- Please Note: Although I use a firewall and my computer is password protected, my emails are not encrypted. Therefore, I cannot guarantee confidentiality of email communication. If you choose to communicate confidential information with me via email, I will assume that you have made an informed decision and I will view it as your agreement to take the risk that email may be intercepted. Please be aware that email is never an appropriate vehicle for emergency communication. If you are canceling an appointment less than 48 hours in advance, please also leave me a voice mail message at my office. “The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.” Carl Rogers

13 years

New Dance: The Raeden Reel

by Don Veino

Hi Folks, passing along a new dance I'm partial to (not the least reason being that it's named after our baby daughter). The dance is by Bob Isaacs and the composition was won as an auction item at a recent Concord Scout House fundraiser by a friend of ours, whom named it after our young maiden. It was first called at the Thursday 4/19/12 dance before NEFFA, to our total surprise (and with Raeden dancing with us!). There's a video of it being called by me this past Saturday (not my best go of the evening :) to music by the new band Firefly at http://youtu.be/tDtih1tgdVs . -Don The Raeden Reel – DI – Bob Isaacs A1 (4,4) Bal., box the gnat (8) Mad Robin A2 (6) Cir. Lt. 3/4 (10) p swing B1 (8) G allem. Lt. 1+1/2 (8) n swing B2 (8) Rt. & Lt. Thru (8) star Lt. *Bob says: “In the Mad Robin, gents pass in front to start. All push off from the box the gnat and can confidently look at their partner because they know where their neighbor is.”* *Sponsored by Robin Humes for Don and Sage Veino's daughter Raeden. Robin won it at the Concord Scout House auction 11/12/11. Composed 4/12/12, called first at the Scout House on 4/19/12.*

13 years

Re: [Callers] Mentorship for Choreographers

by Perry Shafran

Agree with Brian - sharing dances here would be a most useful resource for increasing one's repertoire! Perry Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

13 years

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Contra Callers May 2012