I base my introductory workshop on George Marshalls, and am a firm believer
that the experienced dancers are the main teachers of the dance. In my
workshop, I always pair the experienced dancers with the newbies. The
workshop doesn't start until every newbie has an experienced partner.
I tell everyone that I'll be calling, but if you're new it will probably
sound like Blah Blah Blah. But that's ok because it is your experienced
partner and neighbors who will help you through this. Then I teach about
connection, giving weight, and line them up to dance Broken Sixpence. The
only "move" I teach in the workshop is the swing.
At the end of Broken Sixpence I tell them that the tradition is that we
trade partners with every dance and that women ask men to dance, women ask
women, men ask women, men ask men. Then I tell the experienced dancers to
find the newbies to dance with. I often hear callers tell the newbies to
find experienced dancers. That's like telling a drowning person to go find
a lifeguard!
When the "real" dance begins, I follow Beth Molaro's advice of "Test - then
Teach." So I might tell them to Allemande R their neighbor. I watch for a
couple of seconds to see the dancers teaching their neighbors to
Allemande. I don't jump in to teach unless I see that there is a need for
it, and there usually isn't, depending on the ratio of newbies to
experienced dancers. And then I often ask a foursome to demonstrate, which
further reinforces the idea that the dancers are the real teachers here. I
verbally describe what is happening while the demonstration is going on, to
help them get used to the words that are describing the process.
The experienced dancers are my allies and will let me know if there is a
need for more instruction.
I wrote a blog post about it. You can find it here:
http://jolainejonespokorney.blogspot.com/2012/11/dancing-with-newbies.html
--
JoLaine Jones-Pokorney
"We are as gods and might as well get good at it!"
- Stewart Brand
I'm in the process of putting together a program for the Berkeley contra
this evening, and don't seem to be able to escape the words "circle left
3/4". I know there are dances where you don't do that, but in this
otherwise nicely balanced program every dance but 2 ("Cows are Watching"
by Bill Pope, and Carol Ormond's "Quilting Frolic" in which the cirle
3/4 is to the right) includes that move. Aargh.
Is this one of those invisible moves that's just part of the fabric of
the contra dance experience, or is this going to drive my dancers crazy?
Kalia (who is now combing through the cards for dances without circle L 3/4)
Depending on dance kinematics, music tempo, and crowd, naturally, but...
I can't be the only one who thinks do si do 1.5 times is often too rushed
for most new dancers?
I often change dances that end with DSD N 1.5x to Next N
To
Pass thru, DSD Next N
for this very reason.
In dance,
Ron Blechner
Alan said, "I continue to prompt the figures, maybe with more emphasis -
Ladies CHAIN and COURTESY TURN - and it doesn't seem to make any
difference."
If there are only lady first-timers I just tell them to walk straight
ahead going right-left and let all the experienced men lead them though
the move.
But if there are some first-timer men then:
- I emphasise that though it is called a LADIES' chain they need to move
straight away
- I tell them to get their right hip and their left hand ready
- I walk the move three times on the first walk-through (assuming there
is just one in the dance) so that they can start building some muscle
memory
_ If they are having problems then I get them to practice the courtesy
turn: "Ladies, stand beside your partner/neighbour, offer your left hand
in front and make like a teapot with your right hand; Men, take the
lady's left hand in yours, put your right arm around her waist. Now
imagine there is a pole between you - the lady walks forward around the
pole, the man walks backwards - try it. Great - that is called
pole-dancing :-)".
- If I am over-prompting I address it to the men: "Ladies' Chain, Turn
those ladies"
And if there are a significant number of first-timers then I avoid Right
& Left Throughs, especially in the same dance as a Ladies' Chain! (Or
substitute a half-promenade.)
Yes, I often see people doing a move that starts like the one I called
in all types of dancing. If their brain is on overload then there is
only so much you can do. Part of the solution is careful programming to
introduce the first-timers to the moves and then to develop them over a
series of dances. But it is hard work when you have to keep the
experienced dancers happy as well!
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Could someone share the Beneficial Tradition dance mentioned below--either
the dance itself or a link?
----- Original Message -----
From: <callers-request(a)sharedweight.net>
To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:10 PM
Subject: Callers Digest, Vol 106, Issue 26
> 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: 3,33-33 (Michael Fuerst)
> 2. Re: 3,33-33 (Mac Mckeever)
> 3. Re: Spanish Waltz (Alan Winston)
> 4. New contra dancers and similar figures (Alan Winston)
> 5. Re: "Loop Di Doo" (was Re: Tampering with a classis aagain
> 3-33-33) (Ron Blechner)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfuerst(a)yahoo.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33
> Message-ID:
> <1371831334.21324.YahooMailNeo(a)web122205.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> 3-33-33 is not the only such dance.
> ?
> Michael Fuerst ? ? ?802 N Broadway ? ? ?Urbana IL 61801?????? 217-239-5844
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com>
> To: Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com>; Caller's discussion list
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33
>
>
> Could the popularity have something to do with dancing with multiple
> neighbors and coming back to your original neighbor?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> My theory is that 3-33-33, much like Beneficial Tradition, besides being
>> wonderfully arranged, contains a unique and popular figure that has
>> become
>> associated with that dance and is not found in many other dances.
>>
>> Susan's dance is also a masterpiece of choreography - but does not
>> contain
>> a signature figure.? That doesn't stop it from being one of my
>> favorites -
>> but does keep it from standing out over time.
>>
>> A few times I have called an evening with no planned program and allowed
>> the dancer to request dances.? Beneficial is by far the most requested.
>> That doesn't make it the best dance - but it is one of the most
>> memorable.
>>
>> Mac
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>? From: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfuerst(a)yahoo.com>
>> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:07 PM
>> Subject: [Callers] 3,33-33
>>
>>
>> Although I consider 3,33-33 an excellent dance, so? many have designated
>>? 3,33-33 as awesome that it, like the word awesome, has become overused.
>>
>> Some years ago (I speculate 20 or so)? Susan Kevra wrote this wonderful
>> dance Trip to Phan Reel? (
>> http://www.prismnet.com/contradance/sequences/trip-to-phan-reel.html)
>> For a year or so one could hardly attend a dance weekend without dancing
>> Trip to Phan Reel.? ? Then it slowly subsided to very? occasional use.
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas why? the calling of 3-33-33 (of the same
>> vintage, as suggested by
>> http://www.cambridgefolk.org.uk/contra/dances/steve_zakon/three_33_33.html),
>>? has not similarly subsided ?
>>
>> Michael Fuerst? ? ? 802 N Broadway? ? ? Urbana IL 61801? ? ?
>> 217-239-5844
>> Links to photos of many of my drawings and paintings are at
>> www.ArtComesFuerst.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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33
> Message-ID:
> <1371831775.56007.YahooMailNeo(a)web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Whle that is a fun part of these dances - I don't think that is what makes
> them memorable and so popular.? As Michael said - there are lots of dances
> that do the and I can only think of a couple - probably because they don't
> have that something extra that makes them memorable
>
> Mac
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com>
> To: Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com>; Caller's discussion list
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33
>
>
>
> Could the popularity have something to do with dancing with multiple
> neighbors and coming back to your original neighbor?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>
> My theory is that 3-33-33, much like Beneficial Tradition, besides being
> wonderfully arranged, contains a unique and popular figure that has become
> associated with that dance and is not found in many other dances.
>>
>>Susan's dance is also a masterpiece of choreography - but does not contain
>>a signature figure.? That doesn't stop it from being one of my favorites -
>>but does keep it from standing out over time.
>>
>>A few times I have called an evening with no planned program and allowed
>>the dancer to request dances.? Beneficial is by far the most requested.?
>>That doesn't make it the best dance - but it is one of the most memorable.
>>
>>Mac
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>?From: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfuerst(a)yahoo.com>
>>To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:07 PM
>>Subject: [Callers] 3,33-33
>>
>>
>>
>>Although I consider 3,33-33 an excellent dance, so ?many have designated
>>?3,33-33 as awesome that it, like the word awesome, has become overused.
>>
>>Some years ago (I speculate 20 or so) ?Susan Kevra wrote this wonderful
>>dance Trip to Phan Reel ?
>>(http://www.prismnet.com/contradance/sequences/trip-to-phan-reel.html)
>>For a year or so one could hardly attend a dance weekend without dancing
>>Trip to Phan Reel. ? ?Then it slowly subsided to very ?occasional use.
>>
>>Does anyone have any ideas why ?the calling of 3-33-33 (of the same
>>vintage, as suggested
>>by?http://www.cambridgefolk.org.uk/contra/dances/steve_zakon/three_33_33.html),
>>?has not similarly subsided ?
>>?
>>Michael Fuerst ? ? ?802 N Broadway ? ? ?Urbana IL 61801?????? 217-239-5844
>>Links to photos of many of my drawings and paintings are at
>>www.ArtComesFuerst.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
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:25:51 -0700
> From: Alan Winston <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu>
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Spanish Waltz
> Message-ID: <51C4A8BF.3050000(a)slac.stanford.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> On 6/21/2013 6:56 AM, John Sweeney wrote:
>> Paul described the Spanish Waltz:
>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>> 1-16) w/ P F & B, then inside hand (same hand) to N for CA twirl (4 m.)
>> w/ N F & B, " inside hand to P for CA twirl (4 m.)
>> w/ P F & B " " " to N for CA twirl (4 m.)
>> w/ N F & B " " " to P for CA twirl (4 m.)
>> (17-20) Hands Across R H Star
>> (21-24) L H Star
>> (25-32) w/ P Waltz on to next set of Ns
>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>> Paul, that's not really a California Twirl :-) A California Twirl has
>> 180 degree turns - it starts side-by-side, not facing. If you call it a
>> California Twirl then those who know what that is may get confused.
>>
>> The move is "normally" called a Star Thru - start facing, 90 degree
>> turns, finish side-by-side.
>
>> Teaching hint: tell all the ladies to put their right hand behind their
>> back and the men to put their left hand behind their back for the first
>> half of the dance.
> I usually say "this is the only hand you'll use" because I don't really
> want them to awkwardly hold a hand behind their back and then think it's
> authentic Victorian styling.
>
>
>> Alternate ending: I often work with people who don't know how to waltz.
>> A great alternative for the "Waltz on" is:
>> Take your partner in a promenade hold, move slightly forward to your
>> right so that the men's left shoulders are almost touching and you have
>> a line of four, dance forwards with waltz steps so that the line rotates
>> a in complete circle and a little bit more then on to a new couple.
>> This move flows beautifully out of the Star Left as well :-)
>
> Sometimes when doing that I demonstrate the slick transition out of the
> star; gent is behind partner so he just collects
> that left hand and steps up, scooping her up in the right-hand-behind
> (or courtesy-turn-like) promenade hold. Smooth.
>
> I like the version John puts forward. If you want to do this with
> non-dancers (not just non-waltzers), you can do
>
> (25-28) couples (holding inside hands and facing other couple) advance
> and retire [two waltz steps each way]
> (29-32) drop hands, pass through, continue to new couple, bow or curtsey
> to new opposite
>
> I use this dance a bunch for Civil War, Victorian, etc; it's never
> occurred to me to try it on hard-core contra dancers. (And I'm not much
> inclined to do it now.)
>
> -- Alan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:52:31 -0700
> From: Alan Winston <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] New contra dancers and similar figures
> Message-ID: <51C4AEFF.7010504(a)slac.stanford.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> Gang --
>
> Wasn't really sure of the subject line, but thought I might as well not
> say "memetic entrapment" because who would want to read it?
>
> Anyway, a phenomenon I've noticed several times over the years is that
> some fraction of people who were in a beginner workshop and who in the
> walkthrough of the dance were able to do something like "women chain to
> partner, women allemande 1x, partner balance and swing" are no longer
> able to do it, instead pretty reliably doing "women pull by, partner
> swing" and confusion. [That one's recoverable, although if they then
> stop swinging early and move on to the after-the-swing figure it can
> require attention.]
>
> This is likelier to happen if both partners are new, and likeliest to
> happen if all four in that set are new. But that couple that's new will
> have that problem repeatedly. When I see that I continue to prompt the
> figures, maybe with more emphasis - Ladies CHAIN and COURTESY TURN -
> and it doesn't seem to make any difference.
>
> (I'm reminded of something that happens to beginning English dancers.
> "Back to back" (non-spinning do-si-do) and "Cross and go below" start
> the same way - striding out to pass partner by the right shoulder. If
> there's a do-si-do in dance #1 and a "Cross and go below" in dance #2,
> they'll do the cross and go below in the walkthrough once they get the
> idea, but once the dance is up and running, when it comes time for that
> move they'll try to do-si-do, with resultant levels of chaos. That one
> has the obvious feature that even if half of the partnership is doing it
> right the other half can't see them, so there's no feedback about
> anything going wrong until the 2s move up to fill the spot that one of
> the 1s is still in, or only one of the 2s moves up, or neither of the 2s
> moves up.)
>
> This either doesn't happen to dancers who have been coming for a while
> or is corrected quickly if it does, maybe by noticing what everybody
> else in the line is doing.
>
> My hypothesis is that these are people who are still drinking from the
> firehose. (The first time you come you hear everything important about
> contra dancing and probably get exposed to half or more of the common
> figures. It's a big cognitive load. The second time you hear the same
> things again and get exposed to many fewer new-to-you figures, and by
> the third time you might be successfully associating the figures with
> the names - the flow of novelty is at a trickle and easy to absorb.)
> They're not ignoring the caller, per se, but they don't have CPU left
> over to process the prompts and in any case the words aren't really
> meaning anything to them yet; if a prompt changes what they're doing
> they're going to take four-six beats to get organized enough to respond
> to the prompt. )
>
> This will get sorted out if they keep coming back, probably. But they
> may be less likely to return if they were confused and overstretched
> through the whole evening, and this is the kind of thing that leaves you
> confused.
>
> What do you guys do about this kind of thing? I already keep prompting
> clearly and in a timely way, refrain from shouting "No!" over the
> microphone, don't lose my cool (a place that took me a while to get to,
> incidentally). What else can I do to help these people succeed?
>
> [Also happy to hear alternative views of what's going on inside these
> people.)
>
> -- Alan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:10:27 -0400
> From: Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] "Loop Di Doo" (was Re: Tampering with a classis
> aagain 3-33-33)
> Message-ID:
> <CALf+g+5-KxENvBJT4TwEAnZ85JfbL=PcbmBSrCv+Oh=3ckmSjg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi Jim?
>
> Yeah. That's originally what I was aiming for; I've danced contra dances
> where they are used as a down-the-hall turnaroynd. The Loop Di Doo differs
> in that instead of a turnaround move, it leads into a swing as a
> continuation of the move. Actually, if Forward Six changed hands the gent
> lifted, it would be the same since a swing follows.
>
> I do believe that's Jack Mitchell in that video.
> On Jun 20, 2013 11:14 PM, "James Saxe" <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron,
>>
>> I think your "Loop Di Doo" figure is a lot like something that
>> occurs in some versions of the traditional (not modern western)
>> square dance "Forward Six" (a/k/a "Right Hand High, Left Hand Low"
>> or "Right Lady Over, Left Lady Under" ...). See for example these
>> videos:
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=vaDbKuJNqkM<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaDbKuJNqkM>
>> (watch the action as 2:45)
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=ltQg0o_p0SU<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltQg0o_p0SU>
>> (watch at 1:12)
>>
>> It's not exactly the same, since in the square dance figure it's
>> the left hand lady (already holding he partner's hand) who ducks
>> under the arch, while the right hand lady arches (rather than
>> diving) to get to her lonesome gent.
>>
>> --Jim
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Ron T Blechner wrote:
>>
>> I wrote a dance that, when I finished it, I realized the A was the
>>> same as 3-33,33:
>>> http://contradances.tumblr.**com/post/10510984149/ants-**marching<http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/10510984149/ants-marching>
>>>
>>> It's gone over well, and has an easier finish. There's one move to
>>> teach very carefully. (I uh ... sorta created a variation of a
>>> left-hand-high-right-hand-low that goes into a swing ... called a Loop
>>> Di Doo). It's been picked up by a few other callers, so, I know it's
>>> not totally awful.
>>>
>>> in dance,
>>> Ron T Blechner
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Bree Kalb <bree(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Michael. Especially in the case of a classic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>> From: Michael Barraclough
>>>>> <michael(a)michaelbarraclough.**com<michael(a)michaelbarraclough.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sent: Jun 20, 2013 5:25 PM
>>>>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Tampering with a classis aagain 3-33-33
>>>>>
>>>>> There are thousands of contras. If one doesn't work, why not try
>>>>> another one instead of altering that one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Barraclough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 13:16 -0700, Dave C wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of the Ladies Dosido 1.5 at the end to progress, just have
>>>>> the
>>>>>> Ladies AL 1 1/2 in the center, with RH ready for the next neighbor.
>>>>>> Some
>>>>>> in the caller community have dubbed this version of the dance
>>>>>> 3-33-34.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Colestock
>>>>>> New Cumberland, PA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Thu, 6/20/13, Kalia Kliban <kalia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Kalia Kliban <kalia(a)sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Tampering with a classis aagain 3-33-33
>>>>>> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013, 2:10 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had pretty good luck with it, possibly because I have the women
>>>>>> ID the next neighbor early on. They know which face to look for.
>>>>>> After
>>>>>> that, they get a better feel for the area to aim for to find the new
>>>>>> neighbor. A couple of seriously disoriented dancers can really play
>>>>>> havoc
>>>>>> with this dance though. It's brittle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kalia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/2013 11:02 AM, Rickey Holt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3-33-33 lovers and callers - I have been calling this great dance
>>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>> and noticed that dancers of various experience levels in several
>>>>>>> venues have
>>>>>>> had trouble with the transition in the B2 from the Ladies Do-si-do 1
>>>>>>> 1/2 to
>>>>>>> the balance with the next neighbor that starts the dance. They have
>>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>> finding that next neighbor, even after several times through, and
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> translating the momentum of crossing the set to that of up and down
>>>>>>> the line
>>>>>>> of the first part of the dance. I tried substituting an allemande
>>>>>>> right 1
>>>>>>> 1/2 for the do-si-do 1 1/2 of the original with little effect. What
>>>>>>> about a
>>>>>>> ladies allemande right about 1 1/2 to a next neighbor allemande left
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> then starting the dance again with a balance by the right with that
>>>>>>> neighbor? Other solutions? Have you or your dancers noticed the
>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>> that I have seen. As always, thanks for your thoughts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rickey Holt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>>>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers>
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>>>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bree Kalb, LCSW
>>>> 301 W. Weaver St.
>>>> Carrboro, NC 27510
>>>> 919-932-6262 ext 216
>>>> http://www.**thewellnessalliance.com/**BreeKalb.html<http://www.thewellnessalliance.com/BreeKalb.html>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<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 106, Issue 26
> ****************************************
>
Hi Ron,
Thanks for "Ants Marching" - looks like a fun dance.
The smooth arch-into-swing move is an old one. It occurs in
dances like:
= = = = = = = = = =
Promenade A Trois
Trios; facing AC in Circle - Man in Middle
A1: Promenade
B1: Man: Left Hand High, Right Hand Low: Draw Right-Hand Lady under
arch and let her go - all the Right-Hand Ladies go to the middle and
Circle Left; Draw Left-Hand Lady into a Swing.
At the end of the Swing start Promenading as a couple - the
Ladies from the middle join onto the nearest Couple to make Trios.
Grabbing the man you want a swing with is allowed!
= = = = = = = = = =
Nice to see it in a modern contra.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Paul described the Spanish Waltz:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1-16) w/ P F & B, then inside hand (same hand) to N for CA twirl (4 m.)
w/ N F & B, " inside hand to P for CA twirl (4 m.)
w/ P F & B " " " to N for CA twirl (4 m.)
w/ N F & B " " " to P for CA twirl (4 m.)
(17-20) Hands Across R H Star
(21-24) L H Star
(25-32) w/ P Waltz on to next set of Ns
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Paul, that's not really a California Twirl :-) A California Twirl has
180 degree turns - it starts side-by-side, not facing. If you call it a
California Twirl then those who know what that is may get confused.
The move is "normally" called a Star Thru - start facing, 90 degree
turns, finish side-by-side.
I know some people think that that is a square dance term and therefore
you shouldn't use it in a contra dance, but this isn't a contra dance
and any way square dancers say "Swing" - are you going to stop using
that term? Why not just see it all as one glorious spectrum of dances
and use good terms when they are useful! Of course if you don't like
saying "Star Thru" then Larry Jennings (in Give-and-Take) suggests
"Twirl to Swap" as a generic term for any such move.
Teaching hint: tell all the ladies to put their right hand behind their
back and the men to put their left hand behind their back for the first
half of the dance.
Alternate ending: I often work with people who don't know how to waltz.
A great alternative for the "Waltz on" is:
Take your partner in a promenade hold, move slightly forward to your
right so that the men's left shoulders are almost touching and you have
a line of four, dance forwards with waltz steps so that the line rotates
a in complete circle and a little bit more then on to a new couple.
This move flows beautifully out of the Star Left as well :-)
Much easier for the inexperienced, and looks great!
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Bob Isaacs wrote
> Sorry, Dave and Chris, but I have to disagree with you on the
> ladies allemande L 1 1/2. Sure, it leaves the R hand free for the
> new N, but going from the long lines to that allemande is awkward
> for the ladies.
Just curious Bob why you say it's awkward for the ladies to go from
the forward and back into an allemande left. Is it because the women
use their right hands more often than they use their left?
Lately I've been trying to think about what regular dancers do all of
the time, what they do some of the time and what they rarely do. I
attempt to give them a great deal of material I think they are
comfortable with, a sprinkling of what they do some of the time and
then always include at-least one new puzzle or obstacle.
We've been talking about is a very small piece of choreography in
only one contra. Looking at 3-33-33 in the context of an entire
evening might be useful too.
Tom
Esteemed colleagues,
2 weeks ago I called my first "period' event, a Civil War Ball for teens &
their parents, most new to dancing, nearly all dressed in amazing costumes.
It was a good night, with about 50 dancers attending. The highlight of the
evening came during the last called dance, The Spanish Waltz. It was a
mystical experience, one of those rare moments when everyone in the room
becomes one with the music, and the choreography is just mesmerizing to
watch.
Admittedly, it is not a contra, but I see no reason to let that stop anyone
from calling this truly gorgeous dance. It works w/ a 32 measure waltz in
Sicilian Circle formation, and quite simply starts w/ partner's inside
hands joined, in waltz time:
(1-16) w/ P F & B, then inside hand (same hand) to N for CA twirl (4 m.)
w/ N F & B, " inside hand to P for CA twirl
(4 m.)
w/ P F & B " " " to N for CA twirl
(4 m.)
w/ N F & B " " " to P for CA twirl
(4 m.)
(17-20) Hands Across R H Star
(21-24) L H Star
(25-32) w/ P Waltz on to next set of Ns
Version I have calls for waltzing ccw around other cpl 1 1/2 times to
progress
I sent them cw and said it was ok to only waltz 1/2 way around other cpl,
seeing it was hot and they were so finely dressed (petticoats, long hoop
gowns, etc.). I can see the logic of traveling ccw around other cpl, but
in spite of that, it was one of the more magical dance moments I've
witnessed. Enjoy.
Paul
PS While I'm on the topic, here is a short list of other dances that might
work well in warm weather:
Flirtation Reel (Tony Parkes) first 2 dances have down
the hall &
Jeff's Gypsy (my own) 1s & N Swing (not 2s)
Broken Sixpence (Don Armstrong) down the hall & just 1s swing
Mad Scatter (Rick Mohr) mixer
E. Litchfield Volunteers (Jim Gregory) nice & easy
Lady Walpole's Reel (Trad.)*
Coconut Custard Pie (Lynn Ackerson) mescolanza (hi energy feel to
it)
* Rumor has it Lady Walpole wanted a dance where P (read husband)
interaction was kept to a bare minimum.
