Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 106, Issue 26

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: 3,33-33 (Michael Fuerst) 2. Re: 3,33-33 (Mac Mckeever) 3. Re: Spanish Waltz (Alan Winston) 4. New contra dancers and similar figures (Alan Winston) 5. Re: "Loop Di Doo" (was Re: Tampering with a classis aagain 3-33-33) (Ron Blechner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:15:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfuerst(a)yahoo.com> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33 Message-ID: <1371831334.21324.YahooMailNeo(a)web122205.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 3-33-33 is not the only such dance. ? Michael Fuerst ? ? ?802 N Broadway ? ? ?Urbana IL 61801?????? 217-239-5844 ________________________________ From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com> To: Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com>om>; Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33 Could the popularity have something to do with dancing with multiple neighbors and coming back to your original neighbor? On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:22:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33 Message-ID: <1371831775.56007.YahooMailNeo(a)web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Whle that is a fun part of these dances - I don't think that is what makes them memorable and so popular.? As Michael said - there are lots of dances that do the and I can only think of a couple - probably because they don't have that something extra that makes them memorable Mac ________________________________ From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com> To: Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com>om>; Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [Callers] 3,33-33 Could the popularity have something to do with dancing with multiple neighbors and coming back to your original neighbor? On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com> wrote: My theory is that 3-33-33, much like Beneficial Tradition, besides being wonderfully arranged, contains a unique and popular figure that has become associated with that dance and is not found in many other dances. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:25:51 -0700 From: Alan Winston <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Subject: Re: [Callers] Spanish Waltz Message-ID: <51C4A8BF.3050000(a)slac.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed On 6/21/2013 6:56 AM, John Sweeney wrote: I usually say "this is the only hand you'll use" because I don't really want them to awkwardly hold a hand behind their back and then think it's authentic Victorian styling. Sometimes when doing that I demonstrate the slick transition out of the star; gent is behind partner so he just collects that left hand and steps up, scooping her up in the right-hand-behind (or courtesy-turn-like) promenade hold. Smooth. I like the version John puts forward. If you want to do this with non-dancers (not just non-waltzers), you can do (25-28) couples (holding inside hands and facing other couple) advance and retire [two waltz steps each way] (29-32) drop hands, pass through, continue to new couple, bow or curtsey to new opposite I use this dance a bunch for Civil War, Victorian, etc; it's never occurred to me to try it on hard-core contra dancers. (And I'm not much inclined to do it now.) -- Alan ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:52:31 -0700 From: Alan Winston <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Subject: [Callers] New contra dancers and similar figures Message-ID: <51C4AEFF.7010504(a)slac.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Gang -- Wasn't really sure of the subject line, but thought I might as well not say "memetic entrapment" because who would want to read it? Anyway, a phenomenon I've noticed several times over the years is that some fraction of people who were in a beginner workshop and who in the walkthrough of the dance were able to do something like "women chain to partner, women allemande 1x, partner balance and swing" are no longer able to do it, instead pretty reliably doing "women pull by, partner swing" and confusion. [That one's recoverable, although if they then stop swinging early and move on to the after-the-swing figure it can require attention.] This is likelier to happen if both partners are new, and likeliest to happen if all four in that set are new. But that couple that's new will have that problem repeatedly. When I see that I continue to prompt the figures, maybe with more emphasis - Ladies CHAIN and COURTESY TURN - and it doesn't seem to make any difference. (I'm reminded of something that happens to beginning English dancers. "Back to back" (non-spinning do-si-do) and "Cross and go below" start the same way - striding out to pass partner by the right shoulder. If there's a do-si-do in dance #1 and a "Cross and go below" in dance #2, they'll do the cross and go below in the walkthrough once they get the idea, but once the dance is up and running, when it comes time for that move they'll try to do-si-do, with resultant levels of chaos. That one has the obvious feature that even if half of the partnership is doing it right the other half can't see them, so there's no feedback about anything going wrong until the 2s move up to fill the spot that one of the 1s is still in, or only one of the 2s moves up, or neither of the 2s moves up.) This either doesn't happen to dancers who have been coming for a while or is corrected quickly if it does, maybe by noticing what everybody else in the line is doing. My hypothesis is that these are people who are still drinking from the firehose. (The first time you come you hear everything important about contra dancing and probably get exposed to half or more of the common figures. It's a big cognitive load. The second time you hear the same things again and get exposed to many fewer new-to-you figures, and by the third time you might be successfully associating the figures with the names - the flow of novelty is at a trickle and easy to absorb.) They're not ignoring the caller, per se, but they don't have CPU left over to process the prompts and in any case the words aren't really meaning anything to them yet; if a prompt changes what they're doing they're going to take four-six beats to get organized enough to respond to the prompt. ) This will get sorted out if they keep coming back, probably. But they may be less likely to return if they were confused and overstretched through the whole evening, and this is the kind of thing that leaves you confused. What do you guys do about this kind of thing? I already keep prompting clearly and in a timely way, refrain from shouting "No!" over the microphone, don't lose my cool (a place that took me a while to get to, incidentally). What else can I do to help these people succeed? [Also happy to hear alternative views of what's going on inside these people.) -- Alan ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:10:27 -0400 From: Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Subject: Re: [Callers] "Loop Di Doo" (was Re: Tampering with a classis aagain 3-33-33) Message-ID: <CALf+g+5-KxENvBJT4TwEAnZ85JfbL=PcbmBSrCv+Oh=3ckmSjg(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Jim? Yeah. That's originally what I was aiming for; I've danced contra dances where they are used as a down-the-hall turnaroynd. The Loop Di Doo differs in that instead of a turnaround move, it leads into a swing as a continuation of the move. Actually, if Forward Six changed hands the gent lifted, it would be the same since a swing follows. I do believe that's Jack Mitchell in that video. On Jun 20, 2013 11:14 PM, "James Saxe" <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com> wrote: ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers End of Callers Digest, Vol 106, Issue 26 ****************************************