Contra Callers

contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net

39 participants
4354 discussions

by David.Millstone＠valley.net

[Apologies for duplicate posting] I'd like to make folks on this list aware that my new video about caller Ralph Sweet is now available for purchase on DVD. Entitled "Sweet Talk," it's 73 minutes long, mostly an edited interview with Ralph. Additional material interspersed with the interview includes segments on the early years of modern Western square dancing, some older audio recordings and photographs of callers and dancers as well as diagrams from numerous square dance books. There are also several short sequences recorded in recent years of Ralph calling, including at the Greenfield dance the night when Ralph and his all-star band recorded the wonderful "Shindig in the Barn" CD. Among the topics that Ralph discusses are his own history in traditional dance (from Connecticut to Georgia to Texas and back again to New England), the rise of MWSD and some subsequent difficulties that movement faced, his attempts to introduce contra dance to modern Western dancers, his fife and flute business, and some advice for callers. Others on this list have seen parts of the video that were screened at the recent Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend; some have copies of the entire video that they purchased at that time. I'll let them speak to the merits of the video, if they feel so moved. I also have copies available of the Dudley Laufman video and my earlier one that focuses on Bob McQuillen. Discount prices available for folks who purchase packages containing more than one title. Please contact me off-list for more information. David Millstone <millstone(a)valley.net> P.S. And let me conclude by encouraging others to get out there with a video camera to record interviews with callers, musicians, dancers, organizers, as well as shooting footage from dances. Once you've done so, look into making that ootage available to others by getting it-- originals or a good copy-- into an appropriate archive!

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy

by Greg McKenzie

Friends, It seems that having folks who really dislike swinging together at a community dance is bad news...with, or without shadow swings. I know it happens, but callers can work to create a more gracious and generous atmosphere. It would feel odd to plan an evening program while considering the needs of people who wish to avoid contact at a social dance. Chris, I wonder; how would you feel about a dance with a shadow swing, and a neighbor swing, but with NO partner swing? I suspect that many of us call a dance or two each night with no partner swing. Would you protest more if there were one partner-swing-free dance with a shadow swing? (And would that be "rational hypocrisy?) Also, how many dances a night do you call that have no partner swing? Just wondering, Greg ********* At 02:35 PM 1/24/2008, Chris wrote: >I currently don't have any dances with shadow swings in my >repertoire, by choice. > >Part of that is to avoid the situation where you're forcing two >people to swing together who Really Don't Want To Swing >Over and Over. And they'll let you know it, whether it's a >breakup, or one person's someone that they don't want to >dance with. (In my first community I went to, there was >one person like this. It would drive which lines people went >into, people would refuse sometimes to neighbor swing >with said person, and it really corrupted the whole partner- >asking dynamic of the dance. So I'm shaped by an extreme.) > >There's the secondary reason that it's not as interesting as >it's the same person over and over and over. And you've >already got your partner over and over and over, with the >partner swing I need to pander to. So that cuts out still more >neighbor interaction. It's why I strongly prefer neighbor grand >right and lefts to shadow grand right and lefts, for instance. > >A shadow can be a convenient marker to create the effect >of a lose-and-find partner sequence, so they do have their >uses. > > > >Yet I call a dance with a shadow swing about one night >of every three. They're the four-face-fours where you swing >your corner. So I fully admit to irrational hypocrisy. > >-Chris Page >San Diego >_______________________________________________ >Callers mailing list >Callers(a)sharedweight.net >http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy

by David.Millstone＠valley.net

--- Greg McKenzie wrote: Thank you Bob for reminding me that it is not necessary to tell the dancers that a particular dance is traditional. That could entirely change the way some perceive it. --- end of quote --- Several years ago at a dance camp on the west coast, I included several triple minor dances in my program over the course of the three days. A camper approached one of camp organizers and asked, quite happily, "What's the story with these 'Hands Six' dances? Is this a new thing that's been invented back East?" David Millstone Lebanon, NH

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy

by Greg McKenzie

Bob Wrote: >And if you perceive that your group is receptive, and not wedded to >hard-and-fast expectations, and you have a band that can play the >tune for "Money Musk" or play marches for "British Sorrow," you'll >be surprised to find that a) half the dancers will thank you for >calling an old traditional triple minor contra dance, b) the other >half will thank you for inventing a new, unique, and ultra-modern >style of contra dance, and c) these dances are so much fun that some >dancers may not even notice that there is no swing in either dance. Thank you Bob for reminding me that it is not necessary to tell the dancers that a particular dance is traditional. That could entirely change the way some perceive it. Greg

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy

by robertgolder＠comcast.net

> Have I opened a huge can of worms here? > ~Barbara Yes indeed! :-) I love chocolate ice cream. I can eat chocolate ice cream over and over again. But dessert would be dull if there was no other dessert in the world except chocolate ice cream. Sometimes I want mango coconut ice cream, or baklava, or... I love duple minor contra dances with a neighbor swing and a partner swing. But life would be dull, etc., and you get the idea, that when there is too much of a good thing then sometimes it no longer is a good thing. Why should dancing always be the same? Don't we have TV for that? The smart caller keeps an eye open for opportunities to increase dancers' enjoyment of the evening. On a hot summer night, that means alternating neighbor/partner swing dances with partner-only-swing, actives-only-swing, and similar dances to beat the heat. And if you perceive that your group is receptive, and not wedded to hard-and-fast expectations, and you have a band that can play the tune for "Money Musk" or play marches for "British Sorrow," you'll be surprised to find that a) half the dancers will thank you for calling an old traditional triple minor contra dance, b) the other half will thank you for inventing a new, unique, and ultra-modern style of contra dance, and c) these dances are so much fun that some dancers may not even notice that there is no swing in either dance. PS: Sometimes a shadow swing is good too. ... Bob -- Robert Jon Golder 164 Maxfield St New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 999-2486

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 41, Issue 18

by Martha Wild

Barbara, Yes, the worms are crawling about..... Here are some of my thoughts on neighbor swings and equal and unequal dances. True confessions: when I was a new dancer, many years ago, I would sometimes get asked to dance by guys that I wasn't that eager to dance with - some pulled too hard, or yanked my arm around, or were horribly sweaty, etc., and being polite I said yes, but I can't tell you how relieved I was to do a dance with no partner swing! I sometimes will call a first dance with only a neighbor swing if there are lots of new people and they are dancing with each other, for some reason or other. The swing is much easier to learn if you aren't both new at it, and people learn to open up on the correct side and get proper training before they have to go it on their own together. I sometimes call Erik Hoffman's dance "The Last Swing of Summer" because even though it only has a neighbor swing, you spend 16 counts do-si-doing as a couple with your partner, which experienced dancers can turn into all sorts of flirtatious fun and twirlings and mini- swings as they go around. I've danced it myself, and I really enjoy it, sans swing. As for unequal dances, I like to call unequal double progression dances where only 1 couple swings because they move quick enough through the line so that everyone gets their chance. I also like to call dances where 1s swing and later on 2s swing, so no one feels left out. There are lots of interesting choreographic possibilities that get missed if one relies too heavily on a dance program with all equal dances, frankly, and it can be tiring to boot. As a dancer I actually enjoy watching the other couple swing and admiring their style, grace, and interaction, as long as I know that I will get my chance. On really hot summer nights with no air conditioning here in San Diego, unequal dances give a welcome respite. I also dislike the trend I've seen some places to have every dance have two swings in it. This leads to a lot of dances in the same program with circle left and swing somebody, and that gets old real fast, people! Besides being really hard for some reason on my left hip. Well, 'nuff said, but I'm going to keep calling fun unequal dances, and I won't ban the very occasional neighbor swing, though they do have to be used with discretion. Martha On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:07 PM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote: > 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: Labor of love (gtwood(a)worldpath.net) > 2. Re: Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy (Barbara Groh) > 3. Re: Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy (Koren A. Wake) > 4. Re: Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy (Charles M. Hannum) > 5. Re: Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy (Jack Mitchell) > 6. Re: Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy (Bob Isaacs) > 7. Re: Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy (Charles M. Hannum) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:54:29 -0500 > From: "gtwood(a)worldpath.net" <gtwood(a)worldpath.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Labor of love > To: callers(a)sharedweight.net > Message-ID: <380-220081128175429945(a)M2W012.mail2web.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Hi Delia > I talked to Gail at the Ralph Page weekend. She mentioned that the > Woodstock > dance is looking for callers. (esp. the Feb. 15th dance) > I gave her my Phone# and e-mail. I have not heard from her as of > Jan. 28 > after reading your post I have some Qs > before I agree to do the dance, > mainly because I will be coming quite a distance. > It sounds like your the person to communicate with > my e-mail is gtwood(a)worldpath.net > > Thanks > Gale Wood > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:14:16 -0500 > From: "Barbara Groh" <barbaragroh(a)bellsouth.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: <006f01c861d9$98469860$6400a8c0@Babs> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I occasionally call dances with a shadow swing, but I would NEVER > call a > dance with no partner swing. Many times in my 35 years of dancing, > I have > had an evening where I FINALLY got to dance with some special > partner, only > to have the disappointment of doing a dance with no partner swing. > What a > letdown! > > Any caller in my area who calls dances without partner swings is > either > going to hear about it from one or more dancers, or at least be > grumbled > about behind their backs. It's probably not a big deal in a > roomful of > beginners, but I think that most experienced dancers feel cheated > if they > don't get to swing their partner. > > In fact, there has been much discussion in our dance community > (really, all > over the Southeast) as to whether "unequal" dances (where only the 1's > swing) are "acceptable," given that there are so many great "equal" > dances > available. Of course, this would knock out a whole bunch of the old, > traditional contras... > > Have I opened a huge can of worms here? > ~Barbara > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg McKenzie" <gregmck(a)earthlink.net> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:09 AM > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > > >> >> Friends, >> >> It seems that having folks who really dislike swinging together at a >> community dance is bad news...with, or without shadow swings. I know >> it happens, but callers can work to create a more gracious and >> generous atmosphere. It would feel odd to plan an evening program >> while considering the needs of people who wish to avoid contact at a >> social dance. >> >> Chris, I wonder; how would you feel about a dance with a shadow >> swing, and a neighbor swing, but with NO partner swing? I suspect >> that many of us call a dance or two each night with no partner >> swing. Would you protest more if there were one partner-swing-free >> dance with a shadow swing? (And would that be "rational hypocrisy?) >> >> Also, how many dances a night do you call that have no partner swing? >> >> Just wondering, >> >> Greg >> >> ********* >> >> At 02:35 PM 1/24/2008, Chris wrote: >>> I currently don't have any dances with shadow swings in my >>> repertoire, by choice. >>> >>> Part of that is to avoid the situation where you're forcing two >>> people to swing together who Really Don't Want To Swing >>> Over and Over. And they'll let you know it, whether it's a >>> breakup, or one person's someone that they don't want to >>> dance with. (In my first community I went to, there was >>> one person like this. It would drive which lines people went >>> into, people would refuse sometimes to neighbor swing >>> with said person, and it really corrupted the whole partner- >>> asking dynamic of the dance. So I'm shaped by an extreme.) >>> >>> There's the secondary reason that it's not as interesting as >>> it's the same person over and over and over. And you've >>> already got your partner over and over and over, with the >>> partner swing I need to pander to. So that cuts out still more >>> neighbor interaction. It's why I strongly prefer neighbor grand >>> right and lefts to shadow grand right and lefts, for instance. >>> >>> A shadow can be a convenient marker to create the effect >>> of a lose-and-find partner sequence, so they do have their >>> uses. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yet I call a dance with a shadow swing about one night >>> of every three. They're the four-face-fours where you swing >>> your corner. So I fully admit to irrational hypocrisy. >>> >>> -Chris Page >>> San Diego >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:29:24 -0500 > From: "Koren A. Wake" <koren.a.wake(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: > <99d834190801281029i12191266w3520d16301e4628a(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I've got to say that while I respect the traditional dances and > don't mind > the occasional actives-preferential dance (as long as the contra lines > aren't too long to begin with!), I really like the newer dances > that I've > seen recently where ones and twos alternate being active. I don't > know the > names of these dances (maybe someone can help me out?), but I know > there's > at least one where the ones and twos trade off being the couple who > does > contra corners and then swings in the middle, and I'm a big fan of > that. > Contra corners into a swing in the middle is one of my favorite > moves if the > set is working together well. > > I definitely agree with Barbara, though, that it's really > disappointing to > not have a partner swing at all. And I think there's a > responsibility as a > caller to make sure that if you do call a dance where only the ones > swing, > the lines are short enough and the dance runs long enough that > everyone gets > to be a one for a decent amount of time! > > - Koren > > On 1/28/08, Barbara Groh <barbaragroh(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> I occasionally call dances with a shadow swing, but I would NEVER >> call a >> dance with no partner swing. Many times in my 35 years of >> dancing, I have >> had an evening where I FINALLY got to dance with some special >> partner, >> only >> to have the disappointment of doing a dance with no partner >> swing. What a >> letdown! >> >> Any caller in my area who calls dances without partner swings is >> either >> going to hear about it from one or more dancers, or at least be >> grumbled >> about behind their backs. It's probably not a big deal in a >> roomful of >> beginners, but I think that most experienced dancers feel cheated >> if they >> don't get to swing their partner. >> >> In fact, there has been much discussion in our dance community >> (really, >> all >> over the Southeast) as to whether "unequal" dances (where only the >> 1's >> swing) are "acceptable," given that there are so many great >> "equal" dances >> available. Of course, this would knock out a whole bunch of the old, >> traditional contras... >> >> Have I opened a huge can of worms here? >> ~Barbara >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Greg McKenzie" <gregmck(a)earthlink.net> >> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy >> >> >>> >>> Friends, >>> >>> It seems that having folks who really dislike swinging together at a >>> community dance is bad news...with, or without shadow swings. I >>> know >>> it happens, but callers can work to create a more gracious and >>> generous atmosphere. It would feel odd to plan an evening program >>> while considering the needs of people who wish to avoid contact at a >>> social dance. >>> >>> Chris, I wonder; how would you feel about a dance with a shadow >>> swing, and a neighbor swing, but with NO partner swing? I suspect >>> that many of us call a dance or two each night with no partner >>> swing. Would you protest more if there were one partner-swing-free >>> dance with a shadow swing? (And would that be "rational hypocrisy?) >>> >>> Also, how many dances a night do you call that have no partner >>> swing? >>> >>> Just wondering, >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> ********* >>> >>> At 02:35 PM 1/24/2008, Chris wrote: >>>> I currently don't have any dances with shadow swings in my >>>> repertoire, by choice. >>>> >>>> Part of that is to avoid the situation where you're forcing two >>>> people to swing together who Really Don't Want To Swing >>>> Over and Over. And they'll let you know it, whether it's a >>>> breakup, or one person's someone that they don't want to >>>> dance with. (In my first community I went to, there was >>>> one person like this. It would drive which lines people went >>>> into, people would refuse sometimes to neighbor swing >>>> with said person, and it really corrupted the whole partner- >>>> asking dynamic of the dance. So I'm shaped by an extreme.) >>>> >>>> There's the secondary reason that it's not as interesting as >>>> it's the same person over and over and over. And you've >>>> already got your partner over and over and over, with the >>>> partner swing I need to pander to. So that cuts out still more >>>> neighbor interaction. It's why I strongly prefer neighbor grand >>>> right and lefts to shadow grand right and lefts, for instance. >>>> >>>> A shadow can be a convenient marker to create the effect >>>> of a lose-and-find partner sequence, so they do have their >>>> uses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yet I call a dance with a shadow swing about one night >>>> of every three. They're the four-face-fours where you swing >>>> your corner. So I fully admit to irrational hypocrisy. >>>> >>>> -Chris Page >>>> San Diego >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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: 4 > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:32:56 -0500 > From: "Charles M. Hannum" <root(a)ihack.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: > <9d49f6db0801281032l1f9911b5g600c18c9bcce0b61(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I am really not a fan of what you call "unequal" dances. I always > feel like > I should have brought a pillow. This is why I dislike one of the > Great > Classics -- Chorus Jig. > > That said, in many cases it's possible to simply alternative the > active role > between the 1s and 2s, and balance the dance better. Some callers > do this. > (I don't think there's a good way to do it with Chorus Jig, though.) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:53:18 -0500 > From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: <E1JJZ6Y-0007mE-FC(a)elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > Well, since one of the other threads on here recently has been "Labor > of Love", I'll share one of my favorite alternating contra corners > dances: > > Labor of Love > Kathy Anderson > Improper > > A1 N B&S > A2 LL F&B > 1's (2's) RH Bal & Box the Gnat > B1 1's (2's) turn Contra Corners > B2 1's (2's) B&S > > This is a great dance to teach contra corners because the only thing > at all hard about it is the contra corners itself. Better still, it > doesn't have a half figure 8, which folks frequently have more > trouble with than the contra corners itself. In any event, it's a > fun dance! > > Jack > > > > > At 01:29 PM 1/28/2008, you wrote: >> I've got to say that while I respect the traditional dances and >> don't mind >> the occasional actives-preferential dance (as long as the contra >> lines >> aren't too long to begin with!), I really like the newer dances >> that I've >> seen recently where ones and twos alternate being active. I don't >> know the >> names of these dances (maybe someone can help me out?), but I know >> there's >> at least one where the ones and twos trade off being the couple >> who does >> contra corners and then swings in the middle, and I'm a big fan of >> that. >> Contra corners into a swing in the middle is one of my favorite >> moves if the >> set is working together well. >> >> I definitely agree with Barbara, though, that it's really >> disappointing to >> not have a partner swing at all. And I think there's a >> responsibility as a >> caller to make sure that if you do call a dance where only the >> ones swing, >> the lines are short enough and the dance runs long enough that >> everyone gets >> to be a one for a decent amount of time! >> >> - Koren >> >> On 1/28/08, Barbara Groh <barbaragroh(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >>> >>> I occasionally call dances with a shadow swing, but I would NEVER >>> call a >>> dance with no partner swing. Many times in my 35 years of >>> dancing, I have >>> had an evening where I FINALLY got to dance with some special >>> partner, >>> only >>> to have the disappointment of doing a dance with no partner >>> swing. What a >>> letdown! >>> >>> Any caller in my area who calls dances without partner swings is >>> either >>> going to hear about it from one or more dancers, or at least be >>> grumbled >>> about behind their backs. It's probably not a big deal in a >>> roomful of >>> beginners, but I think that most experienced dancers feel cheated >>> if they >>> don't get to swing their partner. >>> >>> In fact, there has been much discussion in our dance community >>> (really, >>> all >>> over the Southeast) as to whether "unequal" dances (where only >>> the 1's >>> swing) are "acceptable," given that there are so many great >>> "equal" dances >>> available. Of course, this would knock out a whole bunch of the >>> old, >>> traditional contras... >>> >>> Have I opened a huge can of worms here? >>> ~Barbara >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Greg McKenzie" <gregmck(a)earthlink.net> >>> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> >>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:09 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Friends, >>>> >>>> It seems that having folks who really dislike swinging together >>>> at a >>>> community dance is bad news...with, or without shadow swings. I >>>> know >>>> it happens, but callers can work to create a more gracious and >>>> generous atmosphere. It would feel odd to plan an evening program >>>> while considering the needs of people who wish to avoid contact >>>> at a >>>> social dance. >>>> >>>> Chris, I wonder; how would you feel about a dance with a shadow >>>> swing, and a neighbor swing, but with NO partner swing? I suspect >>>> that many of us call a dance or two each night with no partner >>>> swing. Would you protest more if there were one partner-swing-free >>>> dance with a shadow swing? (And would that be "rational >>>> hypocrisy?) >>>> >>>> Also, how many dances a night do you call that have no partner >>>> swing? >>>> >>>> Just wondering, >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> ********* >>>> >>>> At 02:35 PM 1/24/2008, Chris wrote: >>>>> I currently don't have any dances with shadow swings in my >>>>> repertoire, by choice. >>>>> >>>>> Part of that is to avoid the situation where you're forcing two >>>>> people to swing together who Really Don't Want To Swing >>>>> Over and Over. And they'll let you know it, whether it's a >>>>> breakup, or one person's someone that they don't want to >>>>> dance with. (In my first community I went to, there was >>>>> one person like this. It would drive which lines people went >>>>> into, people would refuse sometimes to neighbor swing >>>>> with said person, and it really corrupted the whole partner- >>>>> asking dynamic of the dance. So I'm shaped by an extreme.) >>>>> >>>>> There's the secondary reason that it's not as interesting as >>>>> it's the same person over and over and over. And you've >>>>> already got your partner over and over and over, with the >>>>> partner swing I need to pander to. So that cuts out still more >>>>> neighbor interaction. It's why I strongly prefer neighbor grand >>>>> right and lefts to shadow grand right and lefts, for instance. >>>>> >>>>> A shadow can be a convenient marker to create the effect >>>>> of a lose-and-find partner sequence, so they do have their >>>>> uses. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet I call a dance with a shadow swing about one night >>>>> of every three. They're the four-face-fours where you swing >>>>> your corner. So I fully admit to irrational hypocrisy. >>>>> >>>>> -Chris Page >>>>> San Diego >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)sharedweight.net >> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:01:43 -0500 > From: Bob Isaacs <isaacsbob(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: <BAY129-W3995BC023A6971C2EF8693AA340(a)phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >> That said, in many cases it's possible to simply alternative the >> active role> between the 1s and 2s, and balance the dance better. >> Some callers do this.> (I don't think there's a good way to do it >> with Chorus Jig, though.) > Yes there is - when sets are long enough, I've been using this > version for a few years; > > 1A1. 1's down the outside, turn alone and return > 1A2. 1's down the center, turn alone, return and cast off > 1B1. 1's turn contra corners > 1B2. 1's balance, swing > 2A1. 2's up the outside, turn alone and return > 2A2. 2's up the center, turn alone, return and cast off > 2B1. 2's turn contra corners > 2B2. 2's balance, swing > > As we all know, it has been customary for the inactives to cheat > and swing during the A1. When the actives are done with B2 in this > version, they can start cheating by simply keep on swinging - > they're already there. Then after about a 28 beat swing they'll > appreciate being inactive for a while. > > On the subject of shadow swings, the best dance I know of with one is; > > Ten Strings Attached Improper, Jim Saxe/Charlie Fenton > > A1. Neighbor balance, swing > A2. Gents allemande L 1 1/2 - give R to partner to form wave/4 > Balance, walk forward > B1. Shadow swing, partner swing > B2. Partner promenade across, ladies chain > > Unlike swing-swing with different neighbors, the roll from shadow > to partner can get better with repetition as all know who they are > going to. Another B2 here that gives some needed partner > interaction is circle L 3/4, balance, California twirl. > > I call shadow swing once in a while, and agree that they are best > reserved for experienced audiences and dance camps. I have yet to > write a dance with one in it, partly due to their limited use and > partly because it isn't easy to find sequences like Ten Strings > Attached that have a shadow swing and enough neighbor and partner > action. > > Bob > _________________________________________________________________ > Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! > http://biggestloser.msn.com/ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:06:54 -0500 > From: "Charles M. Hannum" <root(a)ihack.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: > <9d49f6db0801281206w3d238dc0g6f17ecfc434cc0e1(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > That's the obvious way to alternate Chorus Jig. It exacerbates a > problem > that already exists in the dance -- if the set gets too close to > the bottom > of the hall, then the 1s get bunched up near the bottom. Since > most sets > align at the top of the hall, you now have that problem all the > time in the > opposite direction. > > > On 1/28/08, Bob Isaacs <isaacsbob(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> That said, in many cases it's possible to simply alternative the >>> active >> role> between the 1s and 2s, and balance the dance better. Some >> callers do >> this.> (I don't think there's a good way to do it with Chorus Jig, >> though.) >> Yes there is - when sets are long enough, I've been using this >> version for >> a few years; >> >> 1A1. 1's down the outside, turn alone and return >> 1A2. 1's down the center, turn alone, return and cast off >> 1B1. 1's turn contra corners >> 1B2. 1's balance, swing >> 2A1. 2's up the outside, turn alone and return >> 2A2. 2's up the center, turn alone, return and cast off >> 2B1. 2's turn contra corners >> 2B2. 2's balance, swing >> >> As we all know, it has been customary for the inactives to cheat >> and swing >> during the A1. When the actives are done with B2 in this version, >> they can >> start cheating by simply keep on swinging - they're already >> there. Then >> after about a 28 beat swing they'll appreciate being inactive for >> a while. >> >> On the subject of shadow swings, the best dance I know of with one >> is; >> >> Ten Strings Attached Improper, Jim Saxe/Charlie Fenton >> >> A1. Neighbor balance, swing >> A2. Gents allemande L 1 1/2 - give R to partner to form wave/4 >> Balance, walk forward >> B1. Shadow swing, partner swing >> B2. Partner promenade across, ladies chain >> >> Unlike swing-swing with different neighbors, the roll from shadow to >> partner can get better with repetition as all know who they are going >> to. Another B2 here that gives some needed partner interaction is >> circle L >> 3/4, balance, California twirl. >> >> I call shadow swing once in a while, and agree that they are best >> reserved >> for experienced audiences and dance camps. I have yet to write a >> dance with >> one in it, partly due to their limited use and partly because it >> isn't easy >> to find sequences like Ten Strings Attached that have a shadow >> swing and >> enough neighbor and partner action. >> >> Bob >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! >> http://biggestloser.msn.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 > > > End of Callers Digest, Vol 41, Issue 18 > ***************************************

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy

by Jack Mitchell

Well, since one of the other threads on here recently has been "Labor of Love", I'll share one of my favorite alternating contra corners dances: Labor of Love Kathy Anderson Improper A1 N B&S A2 LL F&B 1's (2's) RH Bal & Box the Gnat B1 1's (2's) turn Contra Corners B2 1's (2's) B&S This is a great dance to teach contra corners because the only thing at all hard about it is the contra corners itself. Better still, it doesn't have a half figure 8, which folks frequently have more trouble with than the contra corners itself. In any event, it's a fun dance! Jack At 01:29 PM 1/28/2008, you wrote: >I've got to say that while I respect the traditional dances and don't mind >the occasional actives-preferential dance (as long as the contra lines >aren't too long to begin with!), I really like the newer dances that I've >seen recently where ones and twos alternate being active. I don't know the >names of these dances (maybe someone can help me out?), but I know there's >at least one where the ones and twos trade off being the couple who does >contra corners and then swings in the middle, and I'm a big fan of that. >Contra corners into a swing in the middle is one of my favorite moves if the >set is working together well. > >I definitely agree with Barbara, though, that it's really disappointing to >not have a partner swing at all. And I think there's a responsibility as a >caller to make sure that if you do call a dance where only the ones swing, >the lines are short enough and the dance runs long enough that everyone gets >to be a one for a decent amount of time! > >- Koren > >On 1/28/08, Barbara Groh <barbaragroh(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > I occasionally call dances with a shadow swing, but I would NEVER call a > > dance with no partner swing. Many times in my 35 years of dancing, I have > > had an evening where I FINALLY got to dance with some special partner, > > only > > to have the disappointment of doing a dance with no partner swing. What a > > letdown! > > > > Any caller in my area who calls dances without partner swings is either > > going to hear about it from one or more dancers, or at least be grumbled > > about behind their backs. It's probably not a big deal in a roomful of > > beginners, but I think that most experienced dancers feel cheated if they > > don't get to swing their partner. > > > > In fact, there has been much discussion in our dance community (really, > > all > > over the Southeast) as to whether "unequal" dances (where only the 1's > > swing) are "acceptable," given that there are so many great "equal" dances > > available. Of course, this would knock out a whole bunch of the old, > > traditional contras... > > > > Have I opened a huge can of worms here? > > ~Barbara > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Greg McKenzie" <gregmck(a)earthlink.net> > > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:09 AM > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Shadow swings and Irrational Hypocrisy > > > > > > > > > > Friends, > > > > > > It seems that having folks who really dislike swinging together at a > > > community dance is bad news...with, or without shadow swings. I know > > > it happens, but callers can work to create a more gracious and > > > generous atmosphere. It would feel odd to plan an evening program > > > while considering the needs of people who wish to avoid contact at a > > > social dance. > > > > > > Chris, I wonder; how would you feel about a dance with a shadow > > > swing, and a neighbor swing, but with NO partner swing? I suspect > > > that many of us call a dance or two each night with no partner > > > swing. Would you protest more if there were one partner-swing-free > > > dance with a shadow swing? (And would that be "rational hypocrisy?) > > > > > > Also, how many dances a night do you call that have no partner swing? > > > > > > Just wondering, > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > ********* > > > > > > At 02:35 PM 1/24/2008, Chris wrote: > > >>I currently don't have any dances with shadow swings in my > > >>repertoire, by choice. > > >> > > >>Part of that is to avoid the situation where you're forcing two > > >>people to swing together who Really Don't Want To Swing > > >>Over and Over. And they'll let you know it, whether it's a > > >>breakup, or one person's someone that they don't want to > > >>dance with. (In my first community I went to, there was > > >>one person like this. It would drive which lines people went > > >>into, people would refuse sometimes to neighbor swing > > >>with said person, and it really corrupted the whole partner- > > >>asking dynamic of the dance. So I'm shaped by an extreme.) > > >> > > >>There's the secondary reason that it's not as interesting as > > >>it's the same person over and over and over. And you've > > >>already got your partner over and over and over, with the > > >>partner swing I need to pander to. So that cuts out still more > > >>neighbor interaction. It's why I strongly prefer neighbor grand > > >>right and lefts to shadow grand right and lefts, for instance. > > >> > > >>A shadow can be a convenient marker to create the effect > > >>of a lose-and-find partner sequence, so they do have their > > >>uses. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Yet I call a dance with a shadow swing about one night > > >>of every three. They're the four-face-fours where you swing > > >>your corner. So I fully admit to irrational hypocrisy. > > >> > > >>-Chris Page > > >>San Diego > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>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 > > >_______________________________________________ >Callers mailing list >Callers(a)sharedweight.net >http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Labor of love

by gtwood＠worldpath.net

Hi Delia I talked to Gail at the Ralph Page weekend. She mentioned that the Woodstock dance is looking for callers. (esp. the Feb. 15th dance) I gave her my Phone# and e-mail. I have not heard from her as of Jan. 28 after reading your post I have some Qs before I agree to do the dance, mainly because I will be coming quite a distance. It sounds like your the person to communicate with my e-mail is gtwood(a)worldpath.net Thanks Gale Wood -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16

by Lindsay Morris

Good thought! ----- Original Message ----- From: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net <callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Sent: Sat Jan 26 20:05:35 2008 Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 Hello there, Some of these latest threads (several on coping with unpopular or unskilled dancers and Delia's piece on the new VT series, in particular) seem like they'd be good fodder for the organizers list as well. I know of at least one person on that list who's not on this one, and wondered what you thought of having our SharedWeight managers (Chris, Seth) do some judicious cross-posting, or better yet, perhaps the sources of those posts could send them over to the SharedWeight organizer list directly. Would anyone mind? I've really been enjoying reading about the different ways that folks are all contributing to the greater good by supporting our dance communities. ~ Chrissy Fowler http://www.belfastflyingshoes.org *************************************** _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

17 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16

by Chrissy Fowler

Hello there, Some of these latest threads (several on coping with unpopular or unskilled dancers and Delia's piece on the new VT series, in particular) seem like they'd be good fodder for the organizers list as well. I know of at least one person on that list who's not on this one, and wondered what you thought of having our SharedWeight managers (Chris, Seth) do some judicious cross-posting, or better yet, perhaps the sources of those posts could send them over to the SharedWeight organizer list directly. Would anyone mind? I've really been enjoying reading about the different ways that folks are all contributing to the greater good by supporting our dance communities. ~ Chrissy Fowler http://www.belfastflyingshoes.org *************************************** _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan

17 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Contra Callers