In addition to this important point, for the Give-and-Take dancers take only two steps forward before one dancer is drawn back to the other dancer’s side for a swing. Larry Jennings was particularly emphatic about the footwork. The list of good ladies-side Give-and-Take dances is long. It includes "Mystery Dance #3" and "Wedding Wonderland" by Linda Leslie, and "Freighthoppin’“ by Bob Dalsemer. … Robert Golder
> On Mar 6, 2020, at 4:26 AM, Colin Hume via Contra Callers <contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:49:57 +0000, Ken Panton via Contra Callers wrote:
>> One idea: give and take BUT everyone take hands in long lines going forward then ladies pull P back to her side for
>> swing.
>
> A lot of callers teach Give and Take as starting in long lines, but that's not how Larry Jennings invented it. It
> starts in a shoulder-waist hold - as you would have if you opened out after a swing - I find it much more satisfactory
> that way.
>
> There are a number of dances where the ladies pull in the Give and Take, for instance "Hemodynamic Contra"
> by Andrea Nettleton.
>
> Colin Hume
>
> Email colin(a)colinhume.com Web site http://colinhume.com
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<<Resending with extra line breaks in the hope that it doesn't get
reformatted>>
Substitutes for Men Allemande Left 1 & 1/2:
Men Cross the Set (Pass Right Shoulders - do not weave) - gives a longer
Swing
Men start a Left Shoulder Half Hey; Ladies Ricochet - leaves everyone moving
clockwise so hopefully will give a good flow into the swing
Circle Left 1/4
Single File Circle Left 1/4, Lady turning Right into a Gypsy
Give-and-Take as defined by Larry
Allen Ortep (That's a Petronella where you spin to the Left)
Circle Right 3/4 (not a good flow...)
Men give Left or Right Hands, Balance F/B, Pull By (that one has better flow
when the ladies are doing it)
Men Swing - Double Allemande Hand Hold recommended
Ladies Pass Right Shoulder, Circle Left Half Way
Flutterwheel
Men Gypsy 1 & 1/4
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802
940 574
http://contrafusion.co.uk/KentCeilidhs.html for Live Music Ceilidhs
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive DVDs
Substitutes for Men Allemande Left 1 & 1/2:
Men Cross the Set (Pass Right Shoulders - do not weave) - gives a longer
Swing
Men start a Left Shoulder Half Hey; Ladies Ricochet - leaves everyone moving
clockwise so hopefully will give a good flow into the swing
Circle Left 1/4
Single File Circle Left 1/4, Lady turning Right into a Gypsy
Give-and-Take as defined by Larry
Allen Ortep (That's a Petronella where you spin to the Left)
Circle Right 3/4 (not a good flow...)
Men give Left or Right Hands, Balance F/B, Pull By (that one has better flow
when the ladies are doing it)
Men Swing - Double Allemande Hand Hold recommended
Ladies Pass Right Shoulder, Circle Left Half Way
Flutterwheel
Men Gypsy 1 & 1/4
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802
940 574
http://contrafusion.co.uk/KentCeilidhs.html for Live Music Ceilidhs
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive DVDs
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:49:57 +0000, Ken Panton via Contra Callers wrote:
> One idea: give and take BUT everyone take hands in long lines going forward then ladies pull P back to her side for
> swing.
A lot of callers teach Give and Take as starting in long lines, but that's not how Larry Jennings invented it. It
starts in a shoulder-waist hold - as you would have if you opened out after a swing - I find it much more satisfactory
that way.
There are a number of dances where the ladies pull in the Give and Take, for instance "Hemodynamic Contra"
by Andrea Nettleton.
Colin Hume
Email colin(a)colinhume.com Web site http://colinhume.com
Hi folks:
Here is a new dance (I'm assuming it has not been previously written)
based on 3-33 which I've called 6-66 simply because it doubles in
length the signature move (not because it's a 'beast' of a dance!).
The music I had in mind as I was writing it, and which suggests -
along with the fact that you encounter 5 N's each time through - it
might be a lovely option for a final "Goodnight" dance, is the first
two rep's of https://youtu.be/4nH_EA2g9l4 (i.e. silky smooth and
relaxed).
At the top of the dance (becket) you are hands-4 with your "previous" neighbour.
The gents alle L in B2 works fine but I'd like to see if anyone has
suggestions for alternatives which serve two purposes: 1) gents change
sides 2) P swing.
Cheers
Ken Panton
Name: 6-66 AUTHOR: Ken Panton BECKET
A1 (4) Gents swap places and all face up/down away from previous neighbour
(2) New N (now current) pull by R (as in dance 3-33)
(2) N 2 pull by L
(8) N 3 bal & box the gnat
A2 (2)N 3 pull by R
(2) N 2 pull by L
(2) N current pull by R
(2) N (previous) pull by L
(8) N-2 Bal & box the gnat
B1 (2) N-2 pull by R
(2) N (previous) pull by L
(12) N current swing
B2 (8) Gents alle L 1+1/2
(8) P Swing
This is incredibly well written. Thanks for sharing!
On 3/5/2020 1:30 PM, Jesse W via Contra Callers wrote:
> A fellow dancing friend of mine in Seattle recently wrote up these
> thoughts on the Covid-19 outbreak, and attending (or hosting) dances.
> They seemed really thoughtful and on-point, so I wanted to pass them
> along to the list. The friend said, regarding credit and passing this
> on further, it's "more important the info spreads than that I get
> credit" -- so if there are others in the community you think would
> benefit from hearing this, please pass it on.
>
> Jesse
>
> (tried to send earlier, but it didn't seem to make it thru -- pardon
> the duplication if both go thru)
>
> ---------
>
> Seattle folk: data from both the Covid-19 outbreak in China and also
> studies of the Spanish Flu of 1918 [* see below for links] indicate
> that the social distancing measures are most effective at reducing
> community disease spread when started /as early as possible/ after an
> outbreak is identified. That’s why the county recommended avoided
> gathering in large groups and cancelling events /now/ - because the
> earlier we start reducing exponential spread, the less people all get
> sick at once, and the less hospitals are overwhelmed and the less that
> 20% of people who need hospitalization for respiratory support die due
> to an overtaxed
> hospital system.
>
> Please keep in mind that at a social dance, especially contra, a viral
> disease that is contagious through exhaled droplets like Covid-19 is
> /far/ more likely to be transmitted than other group settings: you
> touch 40+ people in less than ten minutes, breathe heavily in close
> proximity to their faces, wipe sweat off your face or out of your eyes
> regularly, and generally don’t stop to wash your hands between every
> dance or when you get a drink.
>
> Also, remember that this is an infection that can have asymptomatic
> spread and has an average of 5 day onset (and can be contagious before
> symptoms). It’s not like norovirus, where you’re absolutely going to
> know really quickly - you could totally be exposed to someone and not
> know it, or be pre-symptomatic and still feel fine enough to dance.
>
> I’m not going to make a lot of noise about if I agree with continuing
> to hold contra dances in Seattle this week, but if you want to go,
> please think about this first:
>
> Empathy is hard. Empathy for those you don’t know and can’t see is
> known scientifically to be one of the hardest things to engender in
> people. When it’s our close contacts at risk of injury or illness or
> death, we’re far more emotionally driven to act in ways that protect
> them; when it’s an amorphous group of unspecified strangers who might
> be impacted we’re far, far more likely to not care because we have no
> emotional attachment to them driving our behavior. And when you’re
> asked to weigh the abstract choice of protecting people you don’t know
> in the future over doing something you really love today, well...
> there’s lots of research that tells us what behavioral choice tends to
> win out. But we’re facing a genuine pandemic that threatens to very
> quickly overwhelm our medical system, and so we have to force ourselves
> to think a little more critically about the implications of our
> potential actions.
>
> So in that vein, I want to ask you to consider the ethics of action
> during a disease spread when you live in a densely packed urban area
> like we do. If we know we can save the lives of people around us by
> avoiding gathering in groups where transmission is probably, do we have
> a responsibility to make that choice?
>
> Another thing to think about: we willingly burden ourselves with the
> responsibility of getting flu shots to protect the vulnerable around us
> by preventing the spread of a disease we understand well and have
> established and supported treatment protocols for. Does the extent to
> which we’re willing to be inconvenienced to protect those same
> vulnerable people scale with the possible severity and amount of
> unknowns around a new disease? Should it?
>
> Also, who bears the responsibility for the people who die or are
> disabled from a severe illness in situations like this, if the data
> clearly shows that one type of action will save lives long-term and yet
> large groups make the opposite choice?
>
> You don’t have to tell me your answers. What’s important to me is that
> you’ve thought them through.
>
> Like I think is true for everyone reading this, I have quite a number
> of important people in my life who are high-risk: they’re older or
> chronically ill or immunosuppressed. My highest priority is to do my
> part in limiting disease spread even this early, before it seems “bad
> enough” to need to avoid groups of people, because I want to give those
> high-risk people I know - and also all the other strangers in the
> country who are facing similar challenges - the best shot of surviving
> this. In pursuit of that goal, I think it’s important to already change
> my behavior even if it’s inconvenient and less fun: I won’t be going to
> be dancing for a while.
>
> I’m not going to criticize you for making a different choice at this
> point, if you’ve truly thought the risks and impact of that through,
> but I also probably won’t be seeing you for a while because I’m not
> willing to take that risk on behalf of the folk whose health I’m
> prioritizing.
>
> [* Here’s that source on how crucial early social distancing was at
> preventing the even more rapid overwhelming spread of Spanish Flu. It
> was bad, but it could have been far worse in cities without social
> distancing measures being implemented early: https://jamanetwork.com/jo
> urnals/jama/fullarticle/208354
>
> And here's the study from China: https://www.worldpop.org/events/COVID_
> NPI ]
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
A fellow dancing friend of mine in Seattle recently wrote up these
thoughts on the Covid-19 outbreak, and attending (or hosting) dances.
They seemed really thoughtful and on-point, so I wanted to pass them
along to the list. The friend said, regarding credit and passing this
on further, it's "more important the info spreads than that I get
credit" -- so if there are others in the community you think would
benefit from hearing this, please pass it on.
Jesse
(tried to send earlier, but it didn't seem to make it thru -- pardon
the duplication if both go thru)
---------
Seattle folk: data from both the Covid-19 outbreak in China and also
studies of the Spanish Flu of 1918 [* see below for links] indicate
that the social distancing measures are most effective at reducing
community disease spread when started /as early as possible/ after an
outbreak is identified. That’s why the county recommended avoided
gathering in large groups and cancelling events /now/ - because the
earlier we start reducing exponential spread, the less people all get
sick at once, and the less hospitals are overwhelmed and the less that
20% of people who need hospitalization for respiratory support die due
to an overtaxed
hospital system.
Please keep in mind that at a social dance, especially contra, a viral
disease that is contagious through exhaled droplets like Covid-19 is
/far/ more likely to be transmitted than other group settings: you
touch 40+ people in less than ten minutes, breathe heavily in close
proximity to their faces, wipe sweat off your face or out of your eyes
regularly, and generally don’t stop to wash your hands between every
dance or when you get a drink.
Also, remember that this is an infection that can have asymptomatic
spread and has an average of 5 day onset (and can be contagious before
symptoms). It’s not like norovirus, where you’re absolutely going to
know really quickly - you could totally be exposed to someone and not
know it, or be pre-symptomatic and still feel fine enough to dance.
I’m not going to make a lot of noise about if I agree with continuing
to hold contra dances in Seattle this week, but if you want to go,
please think about this first:
Empathy is hard. Empathy for those you don’t know and can’t see is
known scientifically to be one of the hardest things to engender in
people. When it’s our close contacts at risk of injury or illness or
death, we’re far more emotionally driven to act in ways that protect
them; when it’s an amorphous group of unspecified strangers who might
be impacted we’re far, far more likely to not care because we have no
emotional attachment to them driving our behavior. And when you’re
asked to weigh the abstract choice of protecting people you don’t know
in the future over doing something you really love today, well...
there’s lots of research that tells us what behavioral choice tends to
win out. But we’re facing a genuine pandemic that threatens to very
quickly overwhelm our medical system, and so we have to force ourselves
to think a little more critically about the implications of our
potential actions.
So in that vein, I want to ask you to consider the ethics of action
during a disease spread when you live in a densely packed urban area
like we do. If we know we can save the lives of people around us by
avoiding gathering in groups where transmission is probably, do we have
a responsibility to make that choice?
Another thing to think about: we willingly burden ourselves with the
responsibility of getting flu shots to protect the vulnerable around us
by preventing the spread of a disease we understand well and have
established and supported treatment protocols for. Does the extent to
which we’re willing to be inconvenienced to protect those same
vulnerable people scale with the possible severity and amount of
unknowns around a new disease? Should it?
Also, who bears the responsibility for the people who die or are
disabled from a severe illness in situations like this, if the data
clearly shows that one type of action will save lives long-term and yet
large groups make the opposite choice?
You don’t have to tell me your answers. What’s important to me is that
you’ve thought them through.
Like I think is true for everyone reading this, I have quite a number
of important people in my life who are high-risk: they’re older or
chronically ill or immunosuppressed. My highest priority is to do my
part in limiting disease spread even this early, before it seems “bad
enough” to need to avoid groups of people, because I want to give those
high-risk people I know - and also all the other strangers in the
country who are facing similar challenges - the best shot of surviving
this. In pursuit of that goal, I think it’s important to already change
my behavior even if it’s inconvenient and less fun: I won’t be going to
be dancing for a while.
I’m not going to criticize you for making a different choice at this
point, if you’ve truly thought the risks and impact of that through,
but I also probably won’t be seeing you for a while because I’m not
willing to take that risk on behalf of the folk whose health I’m
prioritizing.
[* Here’s that source on how crucial early social distancing was at
preventing the even more rapid overwhelming spread of Spanish Flu. It
was bad, but it could have been far worse in cities without social
distancing measures being implemented early: https://jamanetwork.com/jo
urnals/jama/fullarticle/208354
And here's the study from China: https://www.worldpop.org/events/COVID_
NPI ]
A fellow dancing friend of mine in Seattle recently wrote up these
thoughts on the Covid-19 outbreak, and attending (or hosting) dances.
They seemed really thoughtful and on-point, so I wanted to pass them
along to the list. The friend said, regarding credit and passing this
on further, it's "more important the info spreads than that I get
credit" -- so if there are others in the community you think would
benefit from hearing this, please pass it on.
Jesse
---------
Seattle folk: data from both the Covid-19 outbreak in China and also
studies of the Spanish Flu of 1918 [* see below for links] indicate
that the social distancing measures are most effective at reducing
community disease spread when started /as early as possible/ after an
outbreak is identified. That’s why the county recommended avoided
gathering in large groups and cancelling events /now/ - because the
earlier we start reducing exponential spread, the less people all get
sick at once, and the less hospitals are overwhelmed and the less that
20% of people who need hospitalization for respiratory support die due
to an overtaxed
hospital system.
Please keep in mind that at a social dance, especially contra, a viral
disease that is contagious through exhaled droplets like Covid-19 is
/far/ more likely to be transmitted than other group settings: you
touch 40+ people in less than ten minutes, breathe heavily in close
proximity to their faces, wipe sweat off your face or out of your eyes
regularly, and generally don’t stop to wash your hands between every
dance or when you get a drink.
Also, remember that this is an infection that can have asymptomatic
spread and has an average of 5 day onset (and can be contagious before
symptoms). It’s not like norovirus, where you’re absolutely going to
know really quickly - you could totally be exposed to someone and not
know it, or be pre-symptomatic and still feel fine enough to dance.
I’m not going to make a lot of noise about if I agree with continuing
to hold contra dances in Seattle this week, but if you want to go,
please think about this first:
Empathy is hard. Empathy for those you don’t know and can’t see is
known scientifically to be one of the hardest things to engender in
people. When it’s our close contacts at risk of injury or illness or
death, we’re far more emotionally driven to act in ways that protect
them; when it’s an amorphous group of unspecified strangers who might
be impacted we’re far, far more likely to not care because we have no
emotional attachment to them driving our behavior. And when you’re
asked to weigh the abstract choice of protecting people you don’t know
in the future over doing something you really love today, well...
there’s lots of research that tells us what behavioral choice tends to
win out. But we’re facing a genuine pandemic that threatens to very
quickly overwhelm our medical system, and so we have to force ourselves
to think a little more critically about the implications of our
potential actions.
So in that vein, I want to ask you to consider the ethics of action
during a disease spread when you live in a densely packed urban area
like we do. If we know we can save the lives of people around us by
avoiding gathering in groups where transmission is probably, do we have
a responsibility to make that choice?
Another thing to think about: we willingly burden ourselves with the
responsibility of getting flu shots to protect the vulnerable around us
by preventing the spread of a disease we understand well and have
established and supported treatment protocols for. Does the extent to
which we’re willing to be inconvenienced to protect those same
vulnerable people scale with the possible severity and amount of
unknowns around a new disease? Should it?
Also, who bears the responsibility for the people who die or are
disabled from a severe illness in situations like this, if the data
clearly shows that one type of action will save lives long-term and yet
large groups make the opposite choice?
You don’t have to tell me your answers. What’s important to me is that
you’ve thought them through.
Like I think is true for everyone reading this, I have quite a number
of important people in my life who are high-risk: they’re older or
chronically ill or immunosuppressed. My highest priority is to do my
part in limiting disease spread even this early, before it seems “bad
enough” to need to avoid groups of people, because I want to give those
high-risk people I know - and also all the other strangers in the
country who are facing similar challenges - the best shot of surviving
this. In pursuit of that goal, I think it’s important to already change
my behavior even if it’s inconvenient and less fun: I won’t be going to
be dancing for a while.
I’m not going to criticize you for making a different choice at this
point, if you’ve truly thought the risks and impact of that through,
but I also probably won’t be seeing you for a while because I’m not
willing to take that risk on behalf of the folk whose health I’m
prioritizing.
[* Here’s that source on how crucial early social distancing was at
preventing the even more rapid overwhelming spread of Spanish Flu. It
was bad, but it could have been far worse in cities without social
distancing measures being implemented early: https://jamanetwork.com/jo
urnals/jama/fullarticle/208354
And here's the study from China: https://www.worldpop.org/events/COVID_
NPI ]
I may have inadvertently forwarded a message from another list. Please
excuse my error.
Jerome Grisanti
660-528-0858
http://www.jeromegrisanti.com
"Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and power
and magic in it." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Claire,
I was referring to changing norms about gender. The phrase "he-she-he-she"
sounds vaguely French to American ears, but in this case just refers to an
alternation of males and females. But since we put less stress on gender
roles, such an alignment is no longer indicative of being in the right
place.
So I correctly define two French terms, but the third is not really French.
--Jerome
Jerome Grisanti
660-528-0858
http://www.jeromegrisanti.com
"Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and power
and magic in it." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:01 PM Claire Baffaut <cbaffaut(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Changing norms? About French? All French representatives would
> congratulate you for highlighting the language. Or was it about the square?
>
> However I do not get the he-she-he-she. Am I missing something?
>
> Claire
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 1:37 PM Jerome Grisanti via Contra Callers <
> contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't do this now because of changing norms, but formerly during
>> lessons I would note that "promenade" was French for "walk," and "do-si-do"
>> was French for "back to back," and when I had dancers in their first
>> hands-four and had the ones cross over, I noted that we now had a
>> "he-she-he-she" circle, which is French for "boy-girl-boy-girl."
>>
>> Also, at the end of a square, "Thank your partners. Apologize to your
>> corners." (Not to be used if squares fell apart, only if all went well).
>>
>> As people are taking hands four: "Neighbors do-si-do. [pause] If you
>> missed it, you still end up in hands four. Ready?"
>>
>> --Jerome
>>
>>
>> Jerome Grisanti
>> 660-528-0858
>> http://www.jeromegrisanti.com
>>
>> "Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and
>> power and magic in it." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:03 AM Richard Hart via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I sometimes hear callers use quick one liners to make dancers smile, to
>>> keep their attention, and to help them remember a move. Here’s a couple I
>>> have heard and use during walkthroughs sometimes.
>>>
>>> 1. For a petronella turn:
>>>
>>> “Take hands in a ring.
>>> Balance the ring.
>>> Look at the person in your right hand.
>>> They don’t know you are looking at them because they are looking at
>>> someone else.
>>> You will be standing exactly where they are...... “
>>>
>>> 2. For an a la main left:
>>>
>>> “Raise your left hand as if you were going to do an a la main left.
>>> Now do an a la main left.....”
>>>
>>> What other similar one liners do others use - if any?
>>>
>>> Rich Hart.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>> contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>
> --
>
> *Claire Baffaut*
>
