I’m late enough to the discussion this may not matter, but:
I started to write about the beginners’ class I used to teach, and while doing so I saw
significant differences from others' lists of basic figures. I realized that they’re
importantly different things.
My class was about teaching figures (awa bigger/overall dance stuff), which meant I left
out things that I knew most beginners figured out as soon as they say them (e.g., F&B,
wavy line, Calif twirl). It also meant I didn’t make a particular point of teaching the
names of the figures, I just wanted people to experience doing them in a calmer setting
than an actual dance, and ask questions.
But figures for no-walk-through dances is quite different: there it’s precisely the names
of the figures that matter, including figures that are obvious when seen but not when
named. If the discussion continues, it may be helpful to not conflate the two.
Read Weaver
Jamaica Plain, MA
http://lcfd.org
On Sep 15, 2023, at 7:14 AM, Mary Collins via Contra
Callers <contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
We in Western New York, well some of us, just attended a callers' workshop. The focus
was specifically on the "lesson", a term I avoid since we advertise "no
lesson needed".
The attendees each gave figures that should be taught during the 15 - 30 min.
"lesson". They ranged from 4 - 15 + moves. I was actually surprised and
dismayed at how much information (and talking at) is shared by some.
I think that the KISS idea is applicable here. I attend and absorb the George Marshall
introductory sessions as often as possible and use his as my model.
Giving weight in circle, alemande, do-si-do, star, circle, right & left through (to
get courtsey turn), swing and now I have added positions of Lark & Robin. There are
techniques that are not outlined here such as how I teach partnering & progression
that are incorporated within the others.
Much of what some wanted to teach IMHO belongs in the dance line where it actually makes
sense. I also, when there are beginners in the lines, actually teach a new harder move
during the walk through, much I must say to the chagrin of experienced dancers. My belief
is that those that don't know, learn, those that do get to help which is what they
want to do and those that think they know, may get better.
So now having used many words let's dance! 😁
Mary Collins
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 11:14 AM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
Bravo, Michael! (I’ve bolded, below, the point on which I want to agree wholeheartedly.)
I’ve believed this for years, and had no way of knowing what percentage of active contra
callers agreed. I dare to hope that, as Michael is known for writing and advocating
difficult sequences, his opinion will carry added weight.
Over the decades, I’ve seen the number of contra “basics” increase dramatically – from
about 12 in the 1960s, when many groups got started, to at least 36 today. I’ve worried
that the modern contra world has been going down the same path as modern “western” squares
did. There’s always a gap between what a first-timer can grasp in one night and what a
dancer needs to know to be comfortable at a dance series. But if “basics” are continually
added, the gap gets ever wider, until a lesson or a series of lessons is needed. Western
squares started with 6 lessons in the late 1940s; currently the Plus program (the
prevailing club level in most parts of the US) contains 97 “basics” and (coincidentally)
is recommended to be taught in 97 hours, or about 50 lessons. (Most clubs insist that
their callers take less time, which results in new dancers not learning the calls
adequately.)
We contra and trad square callers are nowhere near the excesses of MWSD. But even 36
“basics” are too many for an activity that supposedly anyone can join in without lessons.
Some sequences – maybe even some moves – should be reserved for workshops. I’m glad to see
an influential modern contra caller speaking out on this.