6 May
2012
6 May
'12
7:48 p.m.
I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed
that there were
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
people to get into position. c
I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this sentence. I've never
danced at, or called, ore even heard about a dance where the caller could "just wait
for people to get into position." Where does this happen?
I've experienced a few (notable for their rarity) dances where the dancers IMMEDIATELY
take hand four and cross when the caller asks the first time, for example Montpelier in
the late 1990s/early 2000s. (Quite shocking for a caller used to having at least 4
requests worth of time to talk w band, etc. before the hands four improper status is
achieved.) But this notion of actually lining up improper is new to me.
Would the caller just know, at a glance, that everyone in a crowded hall was correctly in
position to start the walkthrough? How would dancers joining the set know that the folks
above them were in position correctly? How much less time does it take than lining up
proper and taking hands four accordingly?
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast, ME
PS In case anyone is taking down data...
- I find as a caller and a dancer that it works well/efficiently to have all gents in one
line, all ladies in the other, start at top, take hands four, id ones/twos and down/up
line of direction for progression, id neighbors. Even when I'm calling only duple
improper contras all night.
- I have no attachment to using terms proper/improper, or actives/inactives, with duple
proper symmetrical dances.
- I think that habitual "insensitive twirling" (late, dangerous, awkward,
confusing-for-twirlee) is a detriment to the spirit of trad NE social dance. And I say
this as someone who has done every one of those sorts of twirls as a dancer (late,
dangerous, awkward, confusing-the-twirlee -- in my case, with gents who don't expect
me to initiate a twirl for them) But when I do it, I know it's a problem for others
around me. You know, sort of like when you look down and realize you are going 60 in a
35mph zone. Whoopsy!
From: callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:00:22 -0400
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. Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
2. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(George Mercer)
3. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(Charles Hannum)
4. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(95sg23(a)comcast.net)
5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:32:09 -0400
From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <20120504183209.GA1973(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
especially callers, still think of it that way.
I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
absorbing?
Jeff
PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400
From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh=xMwkPHCA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Good point. I agree. Thanks, George
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote;wrote:
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the
'proper' formation, with
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
especially callers, still think of it that way.
I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
absorbing?
Jeff
PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400
From: Charles Hannum <root(a)ihack.net>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<CAEqW=hNoJ3xs+_JH6sAMSLruQWagnox6joqw15TC+=8ZuG=kOQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote;wrote:
I was at a dance recently where the caller
noticed that there were
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
absorbing?
If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the people in
the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in headlights. Much like
why triplets, triple minors, and even squares, do not work well in the
Boston-area contra dance scene any more, even though they used to be called
frequently back in the VFW days.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: 95sg23(a)comcast.net
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<596413448.2373327.1336158198630.JavaMail.root(a)sz0061a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Without using the terminology of "proper", I? find it easier when teaching a
beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their respective sides, then teach
1s & 2s, then have the 1's change places with their partners , ensuring the men
have their partners on the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing.?
If i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to have them line up
that way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
especially callers, still think of it that way.
I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
absorbing?
Jeff
PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
??http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:16:24 -0400
From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <20120504201624.GA4784(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Charles Hannum wrote:
If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the
people in the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in
headlights.
I would say that if a caller wants to do something uncommon they
should be prepared to teach it to the people who haven't seen it
before.
You seem to be proposing that callers teach things they don't intend
to use so callers at future dances don't have to.
(I wasn't trying to get into the question of whether the caller was
wrong to program an evening without any proper or unequal-turn dances,
though I don't think they were.)
Jeff
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400
From: Linda Leslie <laleslierjg(a)comcast.net>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <E9D77335-70AF-4120-AF3A-908AE6F093F7(a)comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I agree with 95sg23(a)comcast.net. I very often will ask a large group
of new dancers to line up proper (and I explain what that means), for
*my* benefit. I share that when dancers line up in this way, it
signals me that they are ready to start dancing, and that it is easier
to organize the actual formation that comes next. This also leads to a
more direct understanding of what improper then means, so what we
teach/dance than takes on some logic. I also mention some history,
but never take too long doing it.
And even if I don't call an actual proper formation dance, there are
lots of times when it is useful to let dancers know that they are
"proper" and that this is the correct position to be in. A good
example would be a contra corners (cc) dance (not talking about
beginners here). It is helpful for folks to know that they are in
proper formation at the start of the cc (at least for most cc dances).
The time spent on this concept is minimal, and I believe well worth
the time. Sharing information is more inclusive, and I believe dancers
appreciate this.
Interesting thread! Thanks, Jeff!
warmly, Linda Leslie
On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, 95sg23(a)comcast.net wrote:
> Without using the terminology of "proper", I find it easier when
> teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their
> respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change
> places with their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on
> the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing. If
> i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to
> have them line up that way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM
> Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
>
> Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> especially callers, still think of it that way.
>
I was at a dance recently where the caller
noticed that there were
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
absorbing?
> Jeff
>
> PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
>
> http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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
End of Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
**************************************