Contra Callers January 2013

contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net

98 participants
82 discussions

by John Sweeney

Hi Andrea, I agree entirely. A great dance is one where you and your partner perform as a single entity, reading each other intuitively so that everything flows beautifully. I love it when I dance with a complete stranger and afterwards someone else comes up and says we looked great, then asks how long have we been dancing together! :-) Happy dancing, John John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

12 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] 3-33-33

by Donna Calhoun

I called it in Knoxville at 11:30. I explained the concept and I think the dancers enjoyed knowing that others around the country were dancing it with them. Sent from my iPad > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:50:23 -0500 > From: Louie Cromartie <louie.cromartie(a)gmail.com> > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Last minute New years idea > Message-ID: <805E2C41-F9FB-4E1E-A6CB-1BE318591946(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi Rich, > Yes that's the same dance. I left out a hyphen and in shorthand always leave out the last 33. > > I know Adina called it at Glen Echo, Keith Cornett Eustis called it in Charlotte, Steve Z-A called it a couple nights earlier as his last called dance of 2012. Joyce Miller on the west coast had plans to call it. I called it in Chapel Hill. Anyone else? > Happy New Year > Louie > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:08 AM, Richard Hart <richhart49(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by 333. I don;t easily find a dance with >> this name, but I do sometimes call the dance by Steve Zakon-Anderson >> that is called 3-33-33, and, in fact, I did call this dance on New >> Year's eve. I think that some people may have shortened the name Steve >> used to 333. I think that Steve said the title comes from a long line >> of coincidences involving the number 3 that occurred while driving to >> call a dance (in New Jersey, I think). The dance called 3-33-33 is >> available on the net, and goes like this: >> >> A1 Balance N1, N1 pull by R, N2 pull by L >> N3 Balance, box the gnat >> A2 N3 pull by R, N2 pull by L >> N1 swing >> B1 Circle L 3/4; Partner Swing >> B2 Long Lines, Forward & Back >> Ladies dosido 1 1/2 x. >> >> And that was a great idea to call the same dance on New Year's Eve. I >> wonder how many actually did so? I told the dancers that there were >> thousands calling and dancing that same dance at that same time! >> >> Rich Hart. >> >> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Louie.cromartie >> <louie.cromartie(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hello Friends! >>> Many of you will be calling dances tomorrow night. Wouldn't it be fun if we all called the same dance at 11:30-ish pm? We could all share a wider-community experience within our respective time zones. >>> >>> I was thinking about something like 333, but am looking for any ideas especially if you would like to participate. If we can settle on something and post it to F-book by tonight it might work! >>> >>> Louie Cromartie >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > >

12 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow

by John Sweeney

John Sweeney wrote: > The middle of a swing is a beautiful symmetrical move with > the man and lady completely equal. ... But in a swing there > is also the entry and exit. Jeff said, "It depends how you dance. In the way I'm most used to dancing the whole swing is a time for interesting variations, and this includes the middle as much as the beginning and end. I think of the swing, middle included, as much more lead-follow than the rest of contra." Hi Jeff, Yes, absolutely. If I get a good partner then, especially if there is a Partner Balance & Swing, I will do a different swing every time through, with interesting stuff in the middle as well as at the beginning and end, including doing symmetrical swings, and using moves borrowed from other dance forms. But I was focussing on the average swing. The most common flourish (and, yes, it is a flourish, not part of the basic swing) is a twirl on entry or exit. I think this whole thread started because someone asked for new terminology and suggested that the "Men" replacement term should indicate that the man leads. I disagree completely. The first book on this dance form was published by John Playford in 1651. The preface starts with, "The Art of Dancing... is a commendable and rare Quality fit for young Gentlemen, if opportunely and civilly used." It continues with five more references to men and not a single mention of ladies! The second dance sets the tone even further: "First man set to his owne, the last man set to his owne, the 2. man salute his owne and turn her." All instructions are directed at the man! It was very much still this way 300 years later when I learnt these dances, with calls such as "swing the lady" still very common. But over the last 50 years it has changed completely in most communities. The call is now "swing your partner". Most callers these days make sure that they use neutral terminology to address all the dancers equally; I find it very strange now when I hear an older caller give an instruction to the men only. The point is that the reference to men in calls is historically connected to the roles of men and ladies in society at the time. It is nothing to do with lead and follow and it has been removed from most modern dance communities. I agree that contra dancing is NOT a lead/follow dance style in the commonly accepted meaning of those terms in the world of dance. While lots of dancers help their partners and neighbours with their eyes and their hands it is equally done by men and ladies. ***To add some implication of leading to a new name for the person on the left would be very wrong.*** There can still be lead and follow in some flourishes, but that is not an intrinsic part of the dance. And, as has been said, who is leading and who is following in those moves depends on the skill of the dancers. There have been references in these threads asking callers not to use the terms leader and follower. Do callers really do that? I don't believe I have ever heard a caller say "leader" or "follower". Personally I use the words "Men" and "Ladies" and have never experienced any feedback. We have lots of ladies taking the man's role, and occasionally a man taking the lady's role. They just do it. Happy dancing, John John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

12 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Alternate Role Terms

by Chrissy Fowler

I disagree re. lead and follow being the most accurate. I don't think of it as residual baggage, but merely inaccuracy. In my experience, there just isn't a leader and follower dynamic in contradancing. Not the way that there is in other forms of partnered dance. Or that there historically may have been in contra or its related genres. It does seem that some women dancers depend on leadership from the gent role, and some men dancers feel pressure to direct the non-gent role dancers. But I don't think there's any lead/follow component inherent in the contra dance form. All my opinion, Chrissy Fowler > Subject: Re: [Callers] Alternate Role Terms > > Why don't the terms "lead" and "follow" suffice? Is there just too much > residual baggage there? Because to me, it seems like the most accurate pair > of terms... > > Maia

12 years, 2 months

When Did Gender Role Terms Become a "Problem"

by JohnFreem＠aol.com

I'm trying to make sense of the discussion of this and another forum I frequent. When did gender terminology become a "problem"? And, is it a problem that is this serious? I have been dancing and playing for dances since 1979, and calling since 1981. I "get" referring to "actives" and "inactives" as "ones" and "twos", or something similar, since modern contras tend to have both couples active most of the time. This I can deal with. I have run a family dance series since 1990 and also have led many school-age dances. Most dances I use for these events can easily be danced without reference to gender. This makes dancing much more easy for children to buy into. Leading historical dancing as part of learning about history does tend to go best if boys and girls dance the part of their gender. So, when did referring to males and females as something gender-neutral become the fashion? I've called many dances that had gender imbalances. Heck, one almost-a-dawn-dance I led had twice as many men to begin with. Those of us who wanted to dance danced the women's part. It wasn't a big deal. A popular square and contra dance I ran for many years had 80 or so women from a sorority show up one night. They were dressed in western attire. We just adapted the program to make them feel comfortable. (A side note to those who know our Pittsfield Grange. The band counted 15 squares this dance. The hall usually feels crowded with 8 squares.) The first time I remember resistance to gender roles was during the early 90s. Two of my female caller friends tried to change traditional square dance calls to more gender-free ones. This didn't work well at all for most singing squares! One of them wrote an article for the CDSS News that shared her viewpoint. I wrote a response that the editor heavily edited so that my point was completely missed. A caller/morris dancer from Minneapolis then "roasted" me in his response. This from a man who danced in an all-male morris side that women weren't allowed to join! This whole process forever soured me on the CDSS. I learned from many older callers, both square dance and contra, who followed the traditions of the communities they called for. To use artificial terms for communities that had no problem with gender terms was just wrong. I was especially offended by "outsider" callers trying to change things that had worked for sometimes generations. Who the heck are we to force our views on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change. Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering. John B. Freeman

12 years, 2 months

Gender role names

by Allen Ortep

Considering the intense discussion this relatively straightforward topic has provoked, the United States Congress' inability to reach consensus should not surprise anyone The first letters of the Greek alphabet are alpha, beta, gamma, delta. The first letters of the Hebrew alphabet are aleph, beit, gimel and dalet A pair of these should suffice. Possibilities abound a) alphas and betas b) betas (or bets) and gammas (the shortened version "bets," has a single syllable, just like "men") Those who need an explicitly analogy to the sex roles can imagine boys and girls c) beits and gimels d) gims (monosyllabic shortening of gimel) and dalets Those who need an explicitly analogy to the sex roles can imagine guys and dolls

12 years, 2 months

true story

by Tom Hinds

Talent agent (who probably just had his coffee enema): TOM HINDS, ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO CALL A SQUARE DANCE ON SUCH AND SUCH DATE? Tom: Yes I'm free. What kind of........ Talent agent: GREAT! I'LL PUT YOU DOWN! click So I get to the gig and discover that the band plays top 40 music. The hundred or so dancers all wanted to dance and each square had about a 5 foot by 5 foot space. The band decided to play blues progressions. It was actually fun because I had to really adapt. T

12 years, 2 months

Introduction (and gender stuff)

by Aahz Maruch

Howdy, For those of you who know me (hi Alan!), I'm sure it's no surprise that I'm ignoring the standard advice to lurk on a list for a while, so I figured I should introduce myself: I'm a mid-40s cisgendered heterosexual white male, deaf with a cochlear implant (hearing-impaired my whole life). I've been contra dancing about a quarter-century, folk/square dancing a bit longer. These days I mostly think of myself as a contra dancer; square dancing is not much fun with my current level of hearing, and IFD (international folk dancing) is TOCOTOX [1] for this post. [1] Too COmplicated TO eXplain I lost my job in October and am taking something of a sabbatical. One thing I'm doing during this time is starting to write and call contra dances, which is how I landed here. I'm also starting to investigate calling squares -- talking ought to be easier than listening. ;-) Although I'm not genderqueer, I do what I call "performance genderfuck", playing with people's (and society's) expectations for "appropriate gender behavior". That includes gender-swapping at dances (often wearing a skirt); I can't remember when I started, but at least two decades ago. I also sometimes wear skirts at science fiction conventions. If you hunt down my other writing, you'll see a fair amount of "zie/zir" (gender-neutral pronouns), and outside discussion of gender, I rarely reveal my gender online. Now I'll tie this back somewhat to the current discussion: On Wed, Jan 02, 2013, Greg McKenzie wrote: > > I have no problem dancing the ladies part once or twice in an > evening,...but I would not drive two hours to do that all night. I > see that hint of "sexual tension" in the room at a dance as a core > part of what makes it fun. The energy of opposite tantric polarities > in close proximity is part of what drives the energy level at a dance. > I see it as an essential component. Most folks do social dancing, at > least in part, to interact with the opposite gender. We enjoy and > celebrate dancing with all kinds of folks, but I am hesitant about > changing the terminology to the extent that gender choice is not an > option. Actually, although I agree that the "sexual tension" is a large part of why I enjoy contra, I have driven an hour [2] to go to a gender-free contra where I had no expectation of dancing with a bi/heterosexual person of the opposite gender. And I'm going to the Queer Contra Dance Camp in April [3], mostly because I want to meet a man I've known online for a decade -- but of course I expect to have a lot of fun otherwise. [2] I find that for me an hour of driving is about as exhausting as 2-3 hours for most people -- I rarely go anywhere more than a half-hour away [3] http://www.lcfd.org/sf/DanceCamp/wcamp.html I really don't get "gender choice is not an option". As I said in another post, I agree that alternative gender terms are probably not going to gain widespread acceptance outside the gender-free dance community. But I do think it's a good idea for the dance community and the caller community to come to agreement about the "best" terms for gender-free calling. As this quote illustrates, I think I'm not particularly an outlier: On Wed, Jan 02, 2013, tavi merrill wrote: > > A friend of mine, a male in his 60s, describes his initial discomfort > at same-gender dance floor encounters giving way to an appreciation > for the inclusivity of the community. He still prefers to partner > heteronormatively, but he recognizes the value of making the dance > community as inclusive as it is, and on occasion actively supports > that value by partnering same-gender. I think that position describes > where a lot of dancers are. Whatever a person's experience of the > folkdance meta-community is, i believe we can agree that one thing > which sets it apart from other social spheres is its inclusivity. However, I'll note that as with science fiction fandom, we are almost certainly a lot less inclusive than we like to think (on several axes). -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> "I used to have a .sig but I found it impossible to please everyone..." --SFJ

12 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Eye Contact

by Aahz Maruch

[starting a new thread] On Wed, Jan 02, 2013, Greg McKenzie wrote: > > The rule is to avoid eye contact with anyone with whom you are NOT > dancing. Do you have a cite for this rule? I've never heard it before in my quarter-century of dancing (folk, square, contra). I have, of course, heard the opposite of this rule, but P->Q does NOT imply !P->!Q. It also brings up the question of who am I "not" dancing with? From my POV, I'm at least potentially interacting with pretty much anyone on the dance floor (for example, grabbing someone in an adjacent line for a quick allemande or swing). -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

12 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] When Did Gender Role Terms Become a "Problem"

by JohnFreem＠aol.com

Aha! Much of this makes sense...if you are programming a dance that is meant to be gender-free. This is a much different program than for an open public dance or a long-running traditional dance series. I am familiar with Chris. We attended American Week at Pinewoods together once or twice during the early 90s. I can understand an LGBT group being very sensitive about gender roles. What I object to is forcing this same naming system on the rest of us. Most dancers I know much prefer that gender roles be kept, with the understanding that one might choose to dance the other part if there is a gender imbalance. John B. Freeman

12 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Contra Callers January 2013