Yup. Archive problems. I am in the process of getting everything back
in working order. Will probably be another month or two before it's all
straightened out again.
Seth
On 03/08/2015 04:04 PM, Don Veino via Callers wrote:
> Just FYI, something seems to be off for that list's archives. Clicking
> on links in the matrix by month list brings up Organizers' list posts.
> See http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/musicians-sharedweight.net/ .
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:51 PM, jill allen via Callers
> <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
>
> Just wanted to let you all know that the shared weight email list
> for musicians has been reinvigorated!
>
> Myself (KS), Max Newman (MA), and Susie Lorand (MI) are on a CDSS
> Task Group about dance musicians. Our ultimate goal is to explore
> the unique needs of dance musicians, and an immediate goal is to
> help musicians to connect with each other and share resources.
> Since this list already exists and has members, simply asking a
> few questions has brought it out of the cobwebs. It's starting to
> buzz...
>
> Please join, or share the following link with your musician friends.
>
> Jill Allen
>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/musicians-sharedweight.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Yup - I apologize for the continued archives goofs. I promise I am
working on it. I know how important the archives are to this group.
Seth
On 02/24/2015 09:54 PM, James Saxe via Callers wrote:
> Amy Carroll wrote:
>
>> If this whole discussion had already been gone over endlessly in the archives, I offer an apology for starting it again. I was not able to successfully pull any of it up when I searched. I'll try again later.
>
> For any who don't remember, there was an upheaval late last May
> that led the list administrators to seek a new hosting site.
> (You can read about in in the archives
>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/2014-May/d…
>
> under the subjects "Mailing list issues" and "More details on the
> list changes". )
>
> After the move, Seth managed to get the archives (mostly) restored,
> but not the search function.
>
> However, Chris Page has compiled a collection of links to various
> postings on the list
>
> http://chrispagecontra.awardspace.us/links/sharedweight.htm
>
> and many of those links work with the restored archive. Specifically,
> some of the articles linked under various subtopics of "gender" deal
> with role terminology. Note also that once you're viewing a message,
> you can use the links near the top to bring up a list of archived
> messages for that entire month (sorted by date, thread, subject, or
> author) and look for relevant messages that Chris din't link to
> directly.
>
> --Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Hi all,
I'm currently in programming school casting about for programming projects,
and I had the idea of a giant searchable contradance database, where you
can filter by move combination, etc.
My question: is this something people would be interested in having? Or
does it run the risk of infringing on intellectual property, or
shortchanging dance writers on book sales, etc.? (Obviously no dances would
be included without the author's permission, but it may be that making a
huge ton of dances freely available and searchable in one place online
would be a death blow to published books of dances, or have some other
negative effect I'm not foreseeing right now...)
Anyway: does anyone have any thoughts on this project?
Cheers,
Maia
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
This question boils down, to me, to the question of "How much different
does a dance need to be to be considered a new dance rather than a
variation of an existing dance?"
I've heard the 25% guideline. (So 8 measures for a 32 measure dance.) But
it's obviously not that simple. If I flip the A and B of many dances,
they're danceable but clearly not new dances, just variations.
What are your thoughts on what makes a dance "new" vs "variation"?
-Ron T Blechner
(As for the database, having a way to tag that other callers have
successfully called it would add legitimacy.)
On Jul 30, 2014 3:40 AM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Who will decide what dances merit placement in the database?
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Here's a dance I composed recently. Hope you find it interesting and can
affirm it is new.
Thanks to Linda Leslie for encouraging my composition, reviewing the
progenitor works and providing the shadow identification tip.
Thanks,
Don
*Dirty Rotten Double Crosser* - DI - Don Veino 23 July 2014, Intermediate
(Cross Trails)
*A1*
(4,4) Ring Balance, Petronella Twirl
(4,4) Ring Balance, Cross Trail (Pass N by Right across, P by Left up/down)
*A2*
(8) Shadow Allemande Left (or dancer's choice) back to
(8) P Swing
*B1*
(8) G Allemande Left 1+1/2 (to cross set)
(8) N Swing
*B2*
(8) Circle Left (1x)
(4,4) Ring Balance, Cross Trail (Pass P by Right across, N by Left up/down)
to next Ns for...
Teaching tip: Can circle left 1/4 from start position to identify shadow
(adjacent in next foursome)
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
All of the zig zag dances I can think of end with something where the
timing can be "squishy". (ie, Cows are Watching: Gents Allemande, P Sw;
Leave the Wine: N DsD, previous N Sw). As you said in your original post,
the timing can be slightly different in different dances. That being the
case, I think a Do si Do or Gypsy with the new neighbor might make the
dancers more likely to be able to be successful. For experienced dancers,
the balance happening late can feel really unsatisfying, but it isn't
nearly as noticable with a move that has a smooth transition.
Jack
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Thanks for all the insight on Grand Marches. It was a very fruitful
> discussion for me, so I'm going to toss another question out there.
>
> What timing do you like for zig and zag the set? The (uncommon) move where
> you and someone else (usually partner) move out to one side and slip behind
> the couple you were facing to face a new couple, and then possibly do it
> again where you keep going and then cut back to face a 3rd couple (double
> progression).
>
> I've got dances in my box that have a zig and zag in 8 (single
> progression) like Bill Pope's "The Cows Are Watching"; and I've got danced
> in my box that zig-zag-zig (double progression) in 8, like Rick Mohr's
> "Leave the Wine".
>
> A couple of the zig-zag dances I've seen do the zig and zag in, pairing it
> with a circle 1 1/4 or such (Will Mentor's "Frock's Rocking Frolic").
>
> I've danced and enjoyed all of these dances, or they wouldn't be in my
> box, but it seems a squishier move on timing than most; so I'm curious what
> people think about it; and/or what they ask for the band when calling one
> of these.
>
> This came up for me when I was playing with a new (I think) choreography.
> I put forth two possibilities drawing inspiration from Linda Leslie's
> Winter Storm and Bill Olson's 20 Below (side question, which one came
> first?).
>
> Becket, double progression cw
> A1
> Circle Left 3/4
> With Partner, zig left, zag right past a couple, zig left to face another
> new couple
> A2
> New Neighbor Gypsy and Swing
> B1
> Men allemande Left 1 1/2
> Pass Partner Right to start 1/2 hey
> B2
> Partner Gypsy and Swing
>
> Becket, single progression cw
> A1
> Circle Left 3/4
> With Partner, zig left, zag right to face new couple
> A2
> New Neighbor balance and swing
> B1
> Men allemande Left 1 1/2
> Pass Partner to start 1/2 hey by Right
> B2
> Partner Balance and Swing
>
> And for those of you who have stuck with my rambling this long, I'll toss
> another one out there:
>
> Becket, single progression, ccw
> A1
> Circle Left 1 1/4
> with Partner: Zig left, zag right to face new couple
> A2
> New Neighbor balance and swing
> B1
> Promenade across set with Neighbor
> Women Do-Si-Do 1 1/2
> B2
> Partner Balance and Swing
>
> If I had enough dancers, I'd just medley them; using the double
> progression every other time so you'd always see new faces... no, wait,
> that's a terrible idea.
>
> Thoughts or experience?
>
> Thanks again!
>
> --
> Luke Donforth
> Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Hello folks,
Thanks for all the insight on Grand Marches. It was a very fruitful
discussion for me, so I'm going to toss another question out there.
What timing do you like for zig and zag the set? The (uncommon) move where
you and someone else (usually partner) move out to one side and slip behind
the couple you were facing to face a new couple, and then possibly do it
again where you keep going and then cut back to face a 3rd couple (double
progression).
I've got dances in my box that have a zig and zag in 8 (single progression)
like Bill Pope's "The Cows Are Watching"; and I've got danced in my box
that zig-zag-zig (double progression) in 8, like Rick Mohr's "Leave the
Wine".
A couple of the zig-zag dances I've seen do the zig and zag in, pairing it
with a circle 1 1/4 or such (Will Mentor's "Frock's Rocking Frolic").
I've danced and enjoyed all of these dances, or they wouldn't be in my box,
but it seems a squishier move on timing than most; so I'm curious what
people think about it; and/or what they ask for the band when calling one
of these.
This came up for me when I was playing with a new (I think) choreography. I
put forth two possibilities drawing inspiration from Linda Leslie's Winter
Storm and Bill Olson's 20 Below (side question, which one came first?).
Becket, double progression cw
A1
Circle Left 3/4
With Partner, zig left, zag right past a couple, zig left to face another
new couple
A2
New Neighbor Gypsy and Swing
B1
Men allemande Left 1 1/2
Pass Partner Right to start 1/2 hey
B2
Partner Gypsy and Swing
Becket, single progression cw
A1
Circle Left 3/4
With Partner, zig left, zag right to face new couple
A2
New Neighbor balance and swing
B1
Men allemande Left 1 1/2
Pass Partner to start 1/2 hey by Right
B2
Partner Balance and Swing
And for those of you who have stuck with my rambling this long, I'll toss
another one out there:
Becket, single progression, ccw
A1
Circle Left 1 1/4
with Partner: Zig left, zag right to face new couple
A2
New Neighbor balance and swing
B1
Promenade across set with Neighbor
Women Do-Si-Do 1 1/2
B2
Partner Balance and Swing
If I had enough dancers, I'd just medley them; using the double progression
every other time so you'd always see new faces... no, wait, that's a
terrible idea.
Thoughts or experience?
Thanks again!
--
Luke Donforth
Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
I didn't sense any judgement in the original proposition. Nor would I
imagine it would even be practical to do so. If the goal is to collect as
many dances as possible, then I would expect all dances (with the
appropriate permissions, etc.) would be entered. Even if a dance isn't
great, per se, it IS subjective. Additionally, there could be some merit in
'not good' dances as either teaching tools, or as springboards and
inspiration for future dances.
Tracy.
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Are you familiar with Will Loving's software?
Www.callerscompanion.com
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> </div><div>Date:07/28/2014 1:51 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net,callers-request@lists.sharedweight.net </div><div>Subject: Re: [Callers] Giant dance database? </div><div>
</div>Hi Maia,
It sounds like what you're talking about is a more complex version of Michael Dyck's Contradance Index: http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/index/.
So a publicly accessible database already exists, but it is only searchable by title or author (not by figure or figure combination) and there is actually no dance choreography in it (all search results are references to where the dance is published elsewhere, either in print on online).
Dugan Murphy
Skowhegan, Maine
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:30 PM, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Send Callers mailing list submissions to
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
callers-request(a)lists.sharedweight.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
callers-owner(a)lists.sharedweight.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Giant dance database? (Maia McCormick via Callers)
2. Re: Giant dance database? (Jeff Kaufman via Callers)
3. Re: Giant dance database? (Aaron Redfern via Callers)
4. Re: Giant dance database? (Chris Page via Callers)
5. Re: Giant dance database? (Dave C via Callers)
6. Re: Giant dance database? (Luke Donforth via Callers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:46:22 -0400
From: Maia McCormick via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Giant dance database?
Message-ID:
<CAHUcZGPnOw-jPZ0J0YuXJg-uqXm2+Vj--ZC8OxSiT1qw-NAQLQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all,
I'm currently in programming school casting about for programming projects,
and I had the idea of a giant searchable contradance database, where you
can filter by move combination, etc.
My question: is this something people would be interested in having? Or
does it run the risk of infringing on intellectual property, or
shortchanging dance writers on book sales, etc.? (Obviously no dances would
be included without the author's permission, but it may be that making a
huge ton of dances freely available and searchable in one place online
would be a death blow to published books of dances, or have some other
negative effect I'm not foreseeing right now...)
Anyway: does anyone have any thoughts on this project?
Cheers,
Maia
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Jones <markjones(a)busybusy.org>
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Callers] Giant dance database?
To: Maia McCormick <maia.mcc(a)gmail.com>
This is a GIANT project.
People associated with CDSS have had thoughts of undertaking such a
database. Nils Fredland had initiated a start to the idea about four
or five years ago, but it is not clear if it has a prime mover right
now.
Copyright:
In the US, "social dance steps" are not considered copyrightable, but
the concept has not been tested in court. This idea that "social dance
steps" are not copyrightable is a part of the legislative history of
the 1980 US copyright revision, but NOT a part of the actual statute.
Any dance published in the US before the copyright law change in 1980
is in the public domain absolutely, as no dance IN THE US was
copyrightable, unless "an integral part of a (copyrightable) play".
I predict the law will be settled after some exercise class instructor
successfully (or fails to) successfully win a suit against someone for
copying their "social dance steps" outside of class. It seems to me
the ony population that desires to restrict the use of social dance
steps instruction would be exercise instructors, and yoga instructors,
and the like that have an investment in maintaining the secrecy of
their choreography, since they have paying population attending for
their secret "social dance steps".
Copyright laws in all other countries are unique to that country, and
typically much stricter and more favorable to the composer /
choreographer, for social dance.
Issues for the database and searching include that one must create a
canonical form of all of the entered dances, since nearly every contra
dance move is capable of being described in more than one way, hence a
disaster for searching and parsing moves in a collective way.
I can speak from experience about creating a cannonical version of a
dance, as a co-collaborator of Larry Jennings's compilation, "Give and
Take" [1], that it takes a lot of effort to make the dances uniform,
so that they can be properly searched, and that was done for the
dances collected in his book, some times to the consternation of the
authors that permitted their dance to be collected and published in
the book.
The conclusion others have come to for such a project, in terms of
cannonical searchable versions, is to have the original dance text
married to a cannonical "uniformized" version that may be searchable
in comparison to other dances.
[1] http://www.neffa.org/give_and_take.html
~Mark Jones
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently in programming school casting about for programming projects,
> and I had the idea of a giant searchable contradance database, where you can
> filter by move combination, etc.
>
> My question: is this something people would be interested in having? Or does
> it run the risk of infringing on intellectual property, or shortchanging
> dance writers on book sales, etc.? (Obviously no dances would be included
> without the author's permission, but it may be that making a huge ton of
> dances freely available and searchable in one place online would be a death
> blow to published books of dances, or have some other negative effect I'm
> not foreseeing right now...)
>
> Anyway: does anyone have any thoughts on this project?
>
> Cheers,
> Maia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
