Hello all,
I am trying to find a ride from Asheville, NC to Brasstown, NC for the
Dare to be Square weekend in November. Sherry Nevins and I are coming
from Seattle and visiting in Asheville before heading over to
Brasstown, and would love to carpool. I have tried a lot of different
tactics to find out who might be attending from the Asheville area
(Phil Jamison, Diane Silver, nor Beth Molaro haven't been able to help)
and the Folk School is unable to share a list of participants.
If you know of other Asheville folks heading that way, please let me
know! Thanks very much,
Suzanne Girardot
Seattle
Hi,
I was doing a deep search for contra dance websites, and found
something else that was far more interesting.
It's a (presumably fairly recent) website by one of our list members.
http://www.davidmillstonedance.com/
Lots of good stuff, though my favorite section was:
http://www.davidmillstonedance.com/writing/essays
-Chris Page
San Diego
I am afraid I have to disagree with some of the previous answers.
Improper is a position, not a formation, and yes, you can have a single
couple improper.
If you line up as couples, all facing the music, with the lady in the
man's right hand then all the couples are proper. So all the men are in
one line and all the ladies are in the other. So "proper" is a
formation as well as a position, since there can be no confusion about
where anyone is.
But if you want some couples to be improper then you have to specify
which ones are improper. The most common improper formation is a duple
minor (hands four from the top) and first couples improper. This is
such a common formation in contra dancing that contra dancers use the
term "improper" to mean this formation. So, OK, yes, it is a formation
- as long as you are working in a community which uses the term that
way. But there are contra dances where the first couples are proper and
the second couples are improper (the short name for this is "indecent").
You can also have triplets or triple minors (hands six from the top)
where only the first couple is improper and the other two are proper, or
where only the second couple is improper. I call one dance where all
three couples swing their partner, but the first couple has to finish
improper and the other two couples proper. There are four couple dances
where the second and fourth couples are improper, or where the third and
fourth couples are improper.
So "proper" is unambiguous. But if some couples are "improper" you do
have to explicitly state which couples are improper.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
07802 940 574
http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events, Instructional DVDs and
Interactive Maps
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
I've noticed that Gents' chains are rather infrequent in contras, and i
started asking "why?". Chaining the gents(/men/bands/leads) opens up new
flow opportunities with star R, more intuitive circle R, et cetera. Why do
we use them so little?
After a year or so of mulling on this, i think it's due first and foremost
to confusion! While ladies' chains are ONLY ever done by the right hand,
some dances call for a gents' chain by the right, while others call for a
gents' chain by the left. If the gents give left hands, then a REVERSE
courtesy turn (reversed promenade hold) is required.
Last night i danced Gene Hubert's "Triskadekaphilia". The caller made no
effort to explain the reverse courtesy turn. Looking up the dance online, i
noticed that in his choreography, Hubert makes a distinction between "gents
chain" (by the left, which necessitates the reverse courtesy turn) and
"gents do a ladies chain" (by the right).
EITHER WAY, most dancers need to be oriented to the unfamiliar mechanics of
the role reversal when ladies(women/bares/follows) give their partner or
neighbor a courtesy turn or reverse courtesy turn, especially in the latter
case. I think if we callers are a bit more attentive to the difference
between the two, and take the time to clarify it in walk-throughs, gents
chains of either stripe could be much more familiar and user-friendly to the
dancers and, becoming more common, open more choreographic and programming
opportunities for us.
Thoughts?
"Tavi" Merrill
A question about terminology (maybe two).
Does the term "improper" mean a formation, or a position? In other
words, does that term mean a line of dancers that alternates gent/
lady/gent/lady down the right line and lady/gent/lady/gent down the
left line, or does it mean gent in the right line, lady in the left
line (all left/right designations based on facing the top of the set)?
What makes it two questions is whether there's a difference in how
you, as a caller, think about it, and how you think your dancers
think about it.
What I really want to know is whether there's regional variation, and
whether it's different in English country dance and contra. And maybe
whether it's changed over time.
Here in Boston, I'd say dancers think of it as a formation, and there
seems to be variation in how callers think of it (e.g., some callers
will say "end improper" to mean gent/right, lady/left whatever
position you're in—it comes up more often in English country dance
than contra, but sometimes in contra too).
On the idea of callers as "social engineers" David Millstone wrote:
> C'mon, Greg. Really? Choosing an appropriate selection and logical sequence
> of dances? Is that social engineering? Teaching clearly, with enthusiasm and
> warmth? Working with the musicians?
>
Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.
I did not introduce the term “social engineering” here. The term was
attributed to my alleged “negative feelings” about mixers—something which I
have *not* expressed here—and it was posited that I was concerned about
mixers being used as a form of “social engineering.”
The term “social engineering” has become a rather “loaded” one in the last
few decades. Like the term “political correctness” it has been adopted by
conservatives as a slur against those advocating for social change. I am
certainly not against social change and I would not assume that sentiment of
anyone on this list. (Obviously, as callers we depend upon established
traditions, but they are, we trust, living traditions that change with the
times. Otherwise we will condemn future dancers to mere “historical
re-enactments” rather than vital, living traditions that reflect the
communities we live in.) I embraced the term here as an attempted way of
defusing the term while challenging folks to think outside the box about
what it is that callers actually do. Perhaps that was not a good
communication strategy and I take responsibility for the confusion. Hopefully
we can all get beyond an adversarial framing and attempt to achieve better
understanding. The point is not to “choose sides” or to “win” but to
advance the art and science of dance calling.
For more information on the term “social engineering” check out the
Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29
I see it as a central part of the caller's job to think strategically about
how their decisions, words, and actions affect the dancers, the dance
traditions, and the future of the dance form. This is particularly true in
contra dancing because the caller's decisions and words can have a great
impact upon the process of partnering. And that has a big influence over
the success of the “party”--to use David’s framing. This could all be
handily condemned as "social engineering" by anyone opposing change in these
traditions. The term has become a divisive one that has little meaning
beyond a divisive slur against any change the speaker wishes to oppose. I
would prefer to use a term like “leadership” which is more positive.
- Greg McKenzie
A brief response to Greg, and then I'm turning my attention elsewhere... lots
of other things to do!
> Social engineering is at the heart of what a contra dance caller does.
At the heart? C'mon, Greg. Really? Choosing an appropriate selection and logical
sequence of dances? Is that social engineering? Teaching clearly, with enthusiasm
and warmth? Working with the musicians?
Using your terms, I'd encourage you to reconsider the frame in which you're viewing
an evening of dance. If indeed you see yourself as a social engineer, that can
lead to some poor decisions, IMHO. I think of the dance as a party, with the caller
in charge because that's the way everyone agrees things will work well.
Bruce Hamilton says it best. Here's an excerpt from his booklet, "Notes on Teaching
Country Dance" published by CDSS and available from that organization. Highly
recommended.
David Millstone
Lebanon, NH
====
Country dancing needs a single individual making dozens of decisions every minute--Which
dance do we do next? Which version? Does it need another walkthrough? Are all
the sets long enough? Is that tempo too slow? etc. It's usually not as important
which answer gets chosen as that some answer is chosen. Otherwise things stall,
and people don't get to dance.
It is crucial to understand this: people accede to your authority be cause that's
the shortest way for them to get to dance. Generally speak ing, they do what you
say, not out of respect for your experience, because they think you know more
than they do, because you have a big voice, because it's a habit they picked up
in school, or anything like that. They do what you say out of enlightened self-interest.
Every one of those decisions mentioned above could be made democratically, but
then we'd do less dancing. For every decision made there is some dancer who wanted
a different choice; but if she speaks out to dissuade you, someone else will speak
up for a different choice, and while we get that resolved we're not dancing.
So this is a textbook example of government by the consent of the governed.
======
Regarding David Millstone's comments: Same here on all of the below.
Also, while I won't speak for them, I can imagine many other well-respected callers besides David have similar thoughts on the topic, including at least 4 I can think of off the top of my head.
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast, Maine
> I include a mixer at nearly all
> of my home dances, typically the third dance of the evening.
>
> I love mixers, as a dancer. It's an opportunity to see who's in the hall. It's
> a chance to dance, briefly, with folks I don't know.
>
> And as a caller, I love calling them, to provide all of those opportunities, and
> for other reasons. I don't run most mixers for very long, perhaps 8-10 times,
> depending on the dance. That means that I'm adding one more dance into the mix,
> inthe course of which everyone is getting that many opportunities to dance with
> a different partner. Mixers also come in many shapes: big circle, Sicilian circle,
> scatter promenades, three person lines, and so on. That also allows me to vary
> the look and feel of the floor so that it's not all contra contra contra, and
> since the dance floor is part of life, I do believe that variety adds spice.
>
> David Millstone
> Lebanon, NH
>
>Message: 1
>Date: 08 Oct 2011 09:10:27 -0400
>From: David.Millstone(a)VALLEY.NET (David Millstone)
>To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>Subject: Re: [Callers] The Beginners' Lesson Tips?
>Message-ID: <147276629(a)retriever.VALLEY.NET>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>Greg wrote: "Mixers are often used to force integration of the dance hall."
>
>I'm glad that he included the "often" qualifier, thereby leaving open the
>possibility
>that not every caller who chooses a mixer is condemned to the 9th circle of
>hell.
I completely, totally, utterly, absolutely agree with every single thing
David Millstone wrote in his response. It's a rare event when I don't call a
mixer in my dance programs. And I love dancing a mixer. They are fun!
Just my 2 Canadian cents. I believe now worth less than American cents
again...
Bev
Greg wrote: "Mixers are often used to force integration of the dance hall."
I'm glad that he included the "often" qualifier, thereby leaving open the possibility
that not every caller who chooses a mixer is condemned to the 9th circle of hell.
Following the lead of my mentor, Ted Sannella, I include a mixer at nearly all
of my home dances, typically the third dance of the evening. That was Ted's custom,
and Tony Parkes, another great caller, once explained that the third dance is
late enough to catch the late arrivals but early enough to help set the stage
for the evening.
I love mixers, as a dancer. It's an opportunity to see who's in the hall. It's
a chance to dance, briefly, with folks I don't know. Oh, here's a face I don't
recognize, but based on her swing, it's clear that she's a dancer who's been on
the floor for some time... Aha, this is someone brand new, good smile but unsteady
on her feet, good person to ask for a dance... yippee! she's here tonight! gotta
make sure to get her for a partner if there's a square caller since I remember
that she loves squares... and so on.
And as a caller, I love calling them, to provide all of those opportunities, and
for other reasons. I don't run most mixers for very long, perhaps 8-10 times,
depending on the dance. That means that I'm adding one more dance into the mix,
inthe course of which everyone is getting that many opportunities to dance with
a different partner. Mixers also come in many shapes: big circle, Sicilian circle,
scatter promenades, three person lines, and so on. That also allows me to vary
the look and feel of the floor so that it's not all contra contra contra, and
since the dance floor is part of life, I do believe that variety adds spice.
David Millstone
Lebanon, NH
P.S. An interesting cultural sidenote: Greg's negative feelings about mixers are
based on them being used as a form of social engineering, to get folks to partner
up with people with whom they wouldn't normally. I've had the opportunity to call
often in Denmark and in the Czech Republic, and there you can end a mixer and
ask people to take that partner to line up for the next dance and that's okay,
an accepted part of what people will cheerfully do. In Prague, for example, they
usually dance squares without break figures, in part to language issues-- a steady
stream of unexpected calls in a foreign language can be daunting But they'll run
a partner-changing square five or more times, and at the end they'll take that
final partner for the next dance. It's simply not a big issue. They're there to
have fun, and it's not as important as it seems to be with hard-core contra dancers
in the US that they have The Right Partner for a swing. It's a refreshing laid-back
alternative to what sometimes is an overly-intense partnered scene at our dances
in the US.
