I sent this last week but got a message from Dave Casserly telling me
the message had been marked as spam, so I'm guessing it mostly
disappeared into everyone's lint filter. I've read the previous threads
on headsets going back to 2014 and there aren't a lot of specifics.
JoLaine, if you're reading this, I'd love to know what model you use.
You mentioned that it was a Shure and that you loved it. And Rich
Sbardella mentioned last year that his Shure had been giving him
trouble. Rich, what model is yours, and are you happy with your
replacement?
Here's the mail from last week, to get those of you who didn't see it on
the same page with those who did:
Hi all
I was just working a wedding gig and my old Samson headset mic crapped
out. If the piano player hadn't had hers along, I would have been in
serious trouble. Time for a new and more reliable headset mic. I use
my hands a LOT when I'm doing ONS gigs, so a handheld cordless isn't an
option for me.
I'd love recommendations from any of you about specific models to look
at. I'm planning to plow the funds from this wedding and some of my
caller piggy bank into a new mic, so I want something that's really good
quality. It doesn't have to be tiny and invisible, but it does need to
be reliable and sturdy. If it doesn't have a belt pack that's a plus,
but it seems like most of the good-quality headset mics have belt packs.
I'll deal with it if that's the best bet. So, recommendations?
For reference, the one I was working with was a Samson Airline 77, often
referred to as the "aerobic instructor mic." It had the transmitter on
the headset, so there were no wires or belt pack, and it worked just
fine for a long time until suddenly it didn't. I would like to hear
what folks are using who rely on a headset mic for their calling gigs.
Kalia Kliban in Sebastopol, CA
Hi Kalia,
I use a Countryman Associates hands free headset. Countryman is very high
performance company that many professionals speakers and performers use.
You can contact them directly to ask questions. Their web site is
http://www.countryman.com/
I have been using their Isomax headset with my Shure PGX1 wireless
transmitter for years now.
Hope this was helpful. Good luck.
Joe De Paolo
In a message dated 9/5/2016 11:12:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net writes:
I sent this last week but got a message from Dave Casserly telling me
the message had been marked as spam, so I'm guessing it mostly
disappeared into everyone's lint filter. I've read the previous threads
on headsets going back to 2014 and there aren't a lot of specifics.
JoLaine, if you're reading this, I'd love to know what model you use.
You mentioned that it was a Shure and that you loved it. And Rich
Sbardella mentioned last year that his Shure had been giving him
trouble. Rich, what model is yours, and are you happy with your
replacement?
Here's the mail from last week, to get those of you who didn't see it on
the same page with those who did:
Hi all
I was just working a wedding gig and my old Samson headset mic crapped
out. If the piano player hadn't had hers along, I would have been in
serious trouble. Time for a new and more reliable headset mic. I use
my hands a LOT when I'm doing ONS gigs, so a handheld cordless isn't an
option for me.
I'd love recommendations from any of you about specific models to look
at. I'm planning to plow the funds from this wedding and some of my
caller piggy bank into a new mic, so I want something that's really good
quality. It doesn't have to be tiny and invisible, but it does need to
be reliable and sturdy. If it doesn't have a belt pack that's a plus,
but it seems like most of the good-quality headset mics have belt packs.
I'll deal with it if that's the best bet. So, recommendations?
For reference, the one I was working with was a Samson Airline 77, often
referred to as the "aerobic instructor mic." It had the transmitter on
the headset, so there were no wires or belt pack, and it worked just
fine for a long time until suddenly it didn't. I would like to hear
what folks are using who rely on a headset mic for their calling gigs.
Kalia Kliban in Sebastopol, CA
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's
back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join
left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk
forward and gents back up"? It's not, but....
A numerical argument:
Say in a typical evening of 13 dances, 6 dances include a ladies' chain,
R&L through, or promenade across (wherein turning to face back in counts as
a courtesy turn) and 2 more dances contain either two of one or one each of
two. (I consider that a conservative estimate given the ubiquity of ladies'
chains!) That makes 10 iterations of standard courtesy turn; if each
sequence is run for an average of 8 minutes (16 iterations of the dance)
that's 160 iterations of standard courtesy turn in a typical evening of
dance.
Now, since a small minority of callers ever get off their butt and use a
gents LH chain (because it's soooooooooo difficult), let's say one gents
chain shows up in every 10 evenings of dance we go to (this time, a very
liberal estimate). Same assumptions of average dance run time, so that's 16
iterations to practice the reverse courtesy turn.
But since we danced ten evenings to get that one gents LH chain in, we had
a whopping *1,600 iterations of practice for the standard courtesy turn to
our 16 iterations of practice for the reverse*.
The only real reason* the standard turn *seems* "easier" is because we get
s---loads more practice at it! That will never change unless the reverse
turn gets more use. It's hard because we so rarely do it, and we don't do
it because it's hard. Great work everybody. Look at us exceeding our
programming.
Aahz, I would say the same for myself - a regular role-swapper, heavy-duty
twirler in both roles, and "usually good about paying attention" - but I
don't really care how often other callers dance both roles. The fact
remains that many dancers don't, and of the dancers that don't, many lack
the enhanced sensitivity to whether others want to be twirled that comes
with being ambidancetrous. How aware we are is not an argument against the
necessity of raising dancers' awareness. Let's elevate the level of dance
in our communities.
*The other possible reason: resistance to any actual built-in choreographic
challenge to gender-normativity. When we're voluntarily swapping roles, we
are queering the dance, and the dance's built-in gender inequity is
secondary to our experience - but when the choreography itself challenges
the form's built-in gender assumptions, it feels somehow wrong. I use
traditional, gendered calling language in posts about choreography and
gender inequality in the dance for a reason. How many dances involve the
ladies doing a move - do-si-do, gypsy, et cetera - while the gents stand
around and watch? How many dances involve ladies' chains? How few
iterations of the reverse are there? No matter how much the ambidancetrous
among us queer it on the floor, no matter how much we gloss over it by
using alternative term sets, the prominence of gender in the roles is
pretty hard to miss. Alternative term sets and role swapping have their
place. I'm interested in the fact that neither of these things makes a
perfectly good figure easier to use.
Meh. I think you've got part of a point, but as someone who gender-swaps
> regularly (often within a single set), I find doing the reverse courtesy
> turn way more difficult than doing a regular courtesy turn dancing raven.
> And I'm also a heavy-duty twirler, both lark and raven. And I'm usually
> good about paying attention to whether someone wants to be twirled.
>
> Probably I could learn the reverse courtesy turn, but I think you're
> underestimating the difficulty.
Hello all,
I've been thinking about glossary dances, and building vocabulary for new
dancers. I'm curious what your favorite dance is for teaching a ladies
chain for a crowd of mostly new dancers? Or if you don't have a specific
dance, what do you look for in a dance to make the chain as accessible as
possible?
Just a chain over? Or a full chain over and back?
Chain to neighbor? Chain to partner?
What move best precedes the chain to set it up?
What move best follows the chain that still helps new dancers succeed?
Other factors you consider?
I don't have a go-to favorite, but I'll walk through some of the things I
think about:
I very seldom call a dance with a full chain. Experienced dancers don't
whoop and holler over them, and for new dancers, I'd worry the confusion
would snowball.
Programatically, in a hall with a reasonable mix of new and experienced
dancers, I shoot for the first chain to be to neighbor so that the new
dancers can feel it with different experienced dancers; rather than new
dancers (who will partner up and clump, no matter how many helpful dance
angels you have) continually chaining to each other. If I were trying to
teach a chain to ALL new dancers... well, I doubt I'd teach a chain to
completely new dancers... but if I were, I'd probably go to partner.
For moves, while I love the chain->left hand star transition; I'm not
convinced it's the best for teaching the chain. It often goes B2
chain->star, find new neighbor; and the new neighbor from a left hand star
is non-trivial for new dancers. Possibly a dance where the chain->star
wasn't followed by the progression would work, but it's such a great
progression when they're ready for it; I don't see many of those dances.
chain->star->left allemande maybe? I do like long lines either before or
after the chain as a set-up; but not on both ends. I'm not sure which side
of the chain the lines help more. The Trip to ___ dances that end with
chains and start with women walking in to long wavy lines flow well, but I
don't know that they're the best for teaching chains, since the long wavy
line is another new piece.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts (started by the other thread about simple
glossary dances). I look forward to hearing what others on Shared Weight
have to say about the dances they use to teach chains (and I certainly
won't be offended if folks tangent off into gent's chains; just start a new
thread ;-)
Take care,
--
Luke Donforth
Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com>
Hi, Harry Brauser is a dancer and former caller who has moved back to San Diego. He called me when he got here and I screwed up and erased his phone number from my phone before I had a chance to write it down. Does anyone have his phone number? He used to call in Maine and Boston.
Martha Wild
Hi Tavi,
I do teach the twirls in a Ladies' Chain, occasionally at a regular
dance, but more often in style and technique workshops at festivals.
If anyone wants some pointers on how to teach good twirl technique
then please see my article at http://modernjive.com/history/tension.html
Although this is written for a different dance style, when you get
to a point where there is (albeit briefly) some lead and follow, as in a
twirl, then most of this article is directly applicable to the twirls and
flourishes that we do in contra dancing.
Because the dance style that this article was written for has a male
lead, it uses the words "man" and "lady", but you can substitute anything
you like to indicate who is the twirler and who is the twirlee.
I hope you find it useful.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
