Re: [Callers] First-time Contra Dancers and similar figures

I disagree with the general concept of teaching by the regular dancers, during the dance or walk-thru. I absolutely encourage helpful eye contact, proffered hands, body language, friendly waves ("its me, here I am") by all to all, but 'teaching' in the sense of doing what the caller is or should be doing...no.   Greg Mackenzie says that regular dancers like to teach a much as does the caller. It is my contention that among the several agendas a contra dance "regular" might have when going to a dance, teaching is not one. I think the main agenda is to dance as much and as seamlessly as possible with whomever ( no preconception about dancing only with experienced folks) and to this end, folks hope the caller has done their homework and can explain the moves so clearly that additional 'teaching' from the floor is unnecessary. In the minority, there may be a few regulars who are compelled to tell others what to do, or more benignly, just try to be helpful with verbal or physical instruction.   Here's a worst case scenario.  Cpl B in the minor set isn't catching on to the ladies chain....man A walks across to teach them how its done...while he is doing so the caller has 2 choices  Stop calling/teaching while one person in the hall instructs 2 others in the hall  or keep calling....lets say caller goes with the latter option and calls "and balance and swing a new neighbor".  Cpl B is engaged in being taught the previous move...they are out of place and out of time. Man A is over teaching cpl B: he's out of place and out of time;  Next female neighbor for Man B has no one to balance. Instant set breakdown.   Even on a less dramatic scale, verbal instruction is best done by one person. Historically this has been the caller. Historically, it has worked for a long time. "Duelling teaching" is very disorienting to most newcomers..they want to listen to the caller but feel its impolite to ignore the 'experienced' person in their face. It is also disrespectful to the caller. ________________________________ From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com> To: winston(a)slac.stanford.edu; Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [Callers] First-time Contra Dancers and similar figures Alan wrote: My apologies.  I was not being clear in addressing your question.  Earlier Alan wrote: What I was trying to say is that this problem seems to be rooted in the fact that your hall was not integrated.  If all first-timers were paired with a regular then your situation would be a very different one. Instead of focusing on tactics to teach multiple couples of paired first-timers from the mike I am suggesting that we address the root cause which is the fact that the hall is not integrated. Obviously, this is more difficult when there are already couples of first-timers paired with each other.  But being pro-active in your efforts to integrate the hall would solve the root problem for your next gig and would set a different tone that will allow you to demonstrate to the regulars that partnering with first-timers is very gratifying and fun. This is not, by the way, a long-term "problem" that lives in the "local dance culture."  Any caller who can call precisely and clearly using effective word-order can set a tone that immediately makes it clear that the regulars have a vital role to play in welcoming and leading newcomers through the figures.  This is what makes contras a "traditional" dance form.  The regulars show the first-timers how it's done...not the caller. Thank you Donna and JoLaine for your ideas about integration. JoLaine wrote: This is a good point.  But there are some subtle factors to keep in mind when speaking on mike that can make it more effective to speak directly to the first-timers.  If you tell the regulars to pair up with first-timers you are sending out some subtle implied messages with negative consequences: - You will be indicating that you feel the regulars either do not know that there are first-timers in the room...or worse you will be indicating that you believe the regulars are not inclined to dance with first-timers and must be told to do so from the mike. This point will not be lost on the first-timers themselves, who are likely to assume that the regulars are not fond of dancing with first-timers (why else would the caller have to tell them to do it?). I prefer to address the first-timers directly and assume the full support of the regulars.  The regulars already know who the first-timers are.  And the first-timers need to know that it is the custom that regulars will partner with them.  (The regulars already know this.)  I begin my evening by saying: "If you are new to this kind of dancing please find someone who has danced for at least one night.  I will tell you everything you need to know and your more experienced partner will show you all of the moves." This is a subtle point but it has to do with "leading by assumption."  If you assume the support of the regulars you will get more support than by ordering them from the mike.  The "at least one night" phrase authorizes everyone in the room--except first-timers--to partner with first-timers, and this makes the task seem much more manageable because there are many dancers who can help. Just a thought, Greg McKenzie West Coast, USA _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers