On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 1:28 PM Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t.kaufman@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Chris,

Thanks! Note that it's a bit more complicated than where the center of mass is: you need the moment of inertia. For example, imagine comparing (a) a point mass at r=1ft and (b) the same mass divided into two bits at r=2ft and r=0ft. The center of mass in case (b) still rotates with r=1ft but the cases aren't equivalent: you need 2x the force in case (b). [1]

But you may well be right that the effective radius is under 1ft!

Jeff

[1] Doing the math:

F_a = m (ω2πr)^2 / r = m * r * (ω2π)^2

F_b = m/2 (ω2π(2r))^2 / (2r) + 0 = m * r * 2 * (ω2π)^2

F_a = 1/2 * F_b

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:18 PM Chris Lahey <clahey@clahey.net> wrote:

I addressed this in my other email, but this is a good example. In this case my back is providing 100lbf to your hands.

I also can't imagine being in this position and having centers of mass two feet apart, but I would want to measure it before making this an argument, hence going with your numbers.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 13:15 Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t.kaufman@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Chris,

Thanks for reviewing the calculation! Imagine that I hold you around your back with both hands, and you put your hands up in the air and enjoy the ride. While I don't think we could get anywhere near 4.5x around in 12 beats if you did that, do you agree that where my hands meet your back I'd need to provide both enough force for our combined weight?

(I'm not claiming each person needs to provide ~200lb, but that this total force must be covered by the couple somehow)

Jeff

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Chris Lahey <clahey@clahey.net> wrote:

I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers, but you've calculated for a 300lb mass, but you shouldn't do that doubling. I'm exerting enough force to provide your centripetal force and vice versa. Those forces oppose one another, but they don't add up. That is a factor of two error.

I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm and read upthread more.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to counteract centrifugal force. That is not normally a lot of force, so it shouldn’t make you tired." above. While ideally you could measure this, I don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read. Let's try a bit of physics.

If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats, which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh 150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:

r = 1ft
m = 300lb
ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz

v = ω2πr
= 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
= 4.7 ft/s

F = mv^2/r
= 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
= 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
= 6662lbm * ft / s^2

1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft

F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
= 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
= 207lbf

This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If you're rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a significant 64lb.

Jeff

PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 * weight * 1/32.2

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t.kaufman@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording studio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k . I see almost all "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated above that's a fraught term). At 0:58 and then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02 etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they each have their right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands joined low in the center. I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible there were other couples that did other holds at some point?

Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q . I only see ballroom holds.

Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q . Outdoor demo performance. Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the couple all the way on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which they continue doing in later iterations of the dance).

Here's 1986 in Francestown NH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE At 0:30 I see two ballroom holds and two where the outer arms are holding a bit above the elbows. At 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold from 0:30, and one of the symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR video, though note that this is many of the same couples. Jumping ahead to 8:38 I see three ballroom holds and where the outer hands hold each other's forearms. Separately, I really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you can feel the room shake through to the camera!

Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg Almost all ballroom holds, except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of the gent's right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable to me!)

Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w . Looks like a performance. At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer hands are joined as in ballroom, the gent's right hand is around the lady's waist, and the lady's left hand is again on the back of the gent's right arm. Then there's one couple doing the symmetrical swing with left hands joined low between their bodies. Same again at 0:44, 1:11, etc.

Here's 1967 somewhere in New England: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6E1AtqyvFM . I see ballroom at 0:35, 0:37, 3:15, 3:16, 5:08, 5:10. Then at 1:05 (and then again in the background at 5:11, and then again at 5:23 and 5:33) I see a forearm hold with arms that are straighter than I'm used to. At 2:08 I see a hold where the gents hands are both around the lady's waist and the lady's hands are both over the tops of the gent's shoulders.

Here's 1981 in Belmont MA, but it's an hour and I'm going to bed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTVkWcehZo

Jeff

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:33 PM Stein, Robert <steinr@msu.edu> wrote:

The 1964 film with Dudley Kaufman calling also shows the same variety of swinging styles from ballroom to various barrel holds.
Bob

> On Mar 26, 2024, at 16:13, Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Looking through old media to figure out what swing positions were common sounds like fun! I think video might be more promising? Here's a few annotations of a video, where the numbers are timestamps and each bullet describes the couple that's in the middle of the frame at the timestamp. I only counted each couple once:
>
> Cambridge MA, 1990: https://youtu.be/dC0qQYWjdh0?si=JWkNH0g93yo6VWrC
> * 3:41: lady's hands behind gent's arms, gent's right hand behind lady's back, gent's left hand behind lady's arm
> * 4:12: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> * 4:14: outer arms making a point, lady's left hand on gent's shoulder, gent's right hand on lady's back
> * 4:44: outer arms making a point held way out, lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder, gent's right hand on lady's back
> * 5:16: outer arms overlapping, inner hands on backs with lady above gent
> * 5:17: outer arms making a point held low, gent's inner hand on lady's back, lady's inner hand behind gent's shoulder
> * 5:18: outer arms making a point and held out, gent's inner hand on lady's back, lady's inner hand behind gent's arm
> * 5:48: both lady's hands behind gent's shoulders, gent's left hand behind lady's elbow, gent's right hand behind lady's back
> * 5:49: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> * 5:50: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
>
> The "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold, which I think of as the standard today, was about half of them, but there was quite a lot of variation.
>
> I tried to do this with a Fitzwilliam 1975 clip, but there were too many cuts. The 1964 video would be another one to try?
>
> Jeff
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:33 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Responding to various points.
> And, obligatory acknowledgement that there's always regional differences (and, perhaps ultimately that is what this thread is really about?)
> I beg you forgive me for directness, and please assume a friendly tone and desire for friendly discussion, as that's what's intended.
>
> I just thumbed through two big choreo milestone books marking approximately the beginning of the less-1s&2s age of contra - Balance and Swing, and Zesty Contras - and absolutely Ted Sanella and Larry Jennings.
> The short version: despite being contemporaries and the books published a year apart (1982 and 1983), they describe slightly different swing holds, where:
> - a gent's right hand is either on the waist on the small of the back (Sanella) or a little higher (Jennings, via the illustration on the cover which he points out in the description is what to follow)
> - a gent's left hand is either a typical ballroom palm-up supporting the lady's right hand (Sanella) or behind the lady's right upper arm (Jennings, with Sanella noting the variation as well) - with a lady's hands
> - a lady's left hand is resting on the top of the upper arm (Jennings) or "behind the upper arm" (Sanella)
>
> So even in 1982/1983, there was no agreed traditional swing position, and holds described by both did include women holding men in ways that were supporting from behind rather than everyone agreeing that their hand is "resting on top" as with other couples' dances.
> Obviously dance evolves over time, and I'll circle back around to that after I touch on some specific points:
>
> RE: Joe: "They lean back or sideways or press back against the Leftie’s supporting right hand."
> Agree, these are bad habits. The "leaning back" may be describing "the feeling of centripetal force", but also I have definitely experienced people who lean back.
>
> RE: Neal: "both-palms-flat swing ... forces the swing together because you are limited to the length of the shorter arm."
> I don't think this is accurate.
> This was covered elsewhere in the thread. The shoulderblade isn't small, and adjustments can be made to adjust for height or size differences. There's always exceptions, sure.
> Certainly, when I swing young kids, we're not doing shoulderblades. Then again, they have a lot less mass than an adult, so there's less support that's needed to be given.
>
> RE: Neal: " putting your palm in the middle of my back means you’re going to be on top of me."
> I agree, however, a good flat-palms swing hold is not in the "middle" of the back. There's a gap between shoulderblades, so a hand in the middle is partially off the shoulderblade.
> I like how Lisa Greenleaf describes it as the curve of the hand often can naturally curve around the shoulderblade.
>
> RE: Neal: " if partners are the same height/arm length then the arms are coming in at the same point and going to the same point, resulting in collision. SOMEONE has to adjust up or down AND forward."
> I mean, I suppose, technically speaking? But I think everyone on this list here has been dancing for years, and "elbow collisions" isn't a thing I've really experienced or heard discussed.
> So, I conclude that this may in theory be possible, but people just ... do it?
> As a lark/lefthand role, my right arm comes into a swing from a bit of an under-scooping motion. As a robin/righthand role, my left arm comes in more open and I wait half a moment to let the lark engage their right arm before I try and wrap my right arm around.
> It's similar-ish to the anticipation leading into a good connection on a star promenade.
>
> Further to this point, if I were using the traditional "woman left arm rests on top", I'd have to wait until the lark's arm has engaged, anyway.
> Which means that traditionally, women have done that extra bit of work in the dance of that waiting, reading the other dancer's movement, and timing their own move --- and I wonder how much of that had gone unnoticed.
>
> This all said, the explanation that you give, Neal, may not work as wellwhen it's not taller men dancing with shorter women.
> Some women are tall and dance the Robin/Righthand role.
> Some men are tall and dance the Robin/Righthand role.
> Some women are shorter and dance the Lark/Lefthand role.
> Some men are shorter and dance the Lark/Lefthand role.
> Some men dance with men, some women with women.
> Etc.
>
> So dancing requires a need to adjust our arms to "make a swing work for both people" as a universal and generic skill.
> Thankfully, I think it's one that's actually more automatic than it may seem!
>
> Regardless of how we discuss the technical and kinesthetic aspects of contra, I teach (and I think most callers teach) that dancers need to adjust themselves to every partner and neighbor, and find a happy medium that works for both people.
> If someone doesn't want to put their hand flat on my shoulderblade, that's fine and I'll adjust by limiting my upper-end swing speed.
> I think we all share the value that a skilled contra dancer can adjust their style to meet another dancer's differences in size, height, ability, tiredness, injury, age, etc.
>
> In dance,
> Julian Blechner
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:28 AM Neal Schlein <nschlein@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> Regarding both dancers trying to put their palm flat on the other persons back, I agree with Joe.
>
> The both-palms-flat swing does multiple things.
>
> First, it forces the swing together because you are limited to the length of the shorter arm. I’m six feet tall with broad shoulders and long arms—putting your palm in the middle of my back means you’re going to be on top of me. I don’t care who I’m dancing with—I want space, and I’m not OK with that. With a standard hold, I can give partners lots of space. (Also, I sweat from the head a lot. You want that space, and no one wants their hand on my back.)
>
> Second, if partners are the same height/arm length then the arms are coming in at the same point and going to the same point, resulting in collision. SOMEONE has to adjust up or down AND forward. This means a changed angle for one person, and due to the change in angle a shortening of the hold to match the arm that adjusted (usually on top), thereby pulling the swing closer together than otherwise necessary…which also puts the other person’s arm (typically lark, and also typically longer) in a non-natural position, which is likely to be physically uncomfortable and potentially harmful.
>
> Neal Schlein
> Librarian, MSLIS
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 1:24 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> You mean, palms flat on the back of shoulderblades? If so, it's how I teach it, lots of callers teach it, and this is the first I've heard a complaint about it.
>
> That said, you describe: "I've had my elbow bent backward by eager robins pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the right place."
>
> That _sounds like_ what I call "arm clamping". While yes, putting Robin's hand on the outside of the shoulder also alleviates the clamping, it's not the only way to fix it. A Robin can lift their elbow. (I just workshopped the issue with my partner in the living room to test a variety of height and holds out to confirm what you were saying, as well.)
>
> The other issue is that if both dancers don't have hands flat on the backs of each other, it's more difficult to maintain an open frame when swinging. One usually winds up _closer_ when hands are resting on shoulders, unless one dancer is significantly stronger and the other is fairly petite.
>
> I know that my right arm will get seriously fatigued and sore if I have an evening too many times as Lark with Robins providing insufficient support. And I've heard plenty of dancers say similar.
>
> That said, all bodies are different. If yours works where the swing hold works better for you the way you describe, that is what it is, yeah? But I might recommend considering workshopping swings further, because what you're requesting is counter to prevailing teaching. If I understand correctly (and it's always possible I'm missing something.)
>
> In dance,
> Julian Blechner
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2024, 1:13 PM Joe Harrington <contradancerjoe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not the standard ballroom, with the robin's arm on top of the lark's, but an alternative that I've seen occasionally, but for a number of years now, where the robin tries to put their left hand in the same location on the lark's back as the lark has their right hand on the robin's back. I know at least one prominent caller who teaches this hold in their newbie workshop and tells their dancers that both sides need to do this to provide equal support in the swing.
>
> While I like the principle, the practice can hurt. If the dancers are not grossly mismatched in size/arm length, it won't be possible to do this without their elbows occupying the same space. I've had my elbow bent backward by eager robins pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the right place. Even if it doesn't go all the way to pain, it pretty much eliminates my ability to provide any support, unless I "fight back" by pushing my elbow out and resisting the inward pressure, essentially refusing the position. I'm also focusing entirely on protecting my elbow, so it kills any enjoyment in that swing.
>
> Please gently discourage this hold. If a robin wants to give major support in a swing, the symmetric swing holds, the barrel, the one Jeff described, or even a mirror of the ballroom where the lark's arm is on top are much better opportunities. A robin whose arm is longer than their lark's arm can also reach over or around the shoulder in a ballroom hold (robin's arm on top) to add support. Just don't push down on the shoulder.
>
> --jh--
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:21 AM Julian Blechner <juliancallsdances@gmail.com> wrote:
> JJ,
>
> I like your point about the sort of code-switching that the asymmetry of a ballroom hold provides to reinforce what role one is dancing.
>
> Joe,
>
> I don't understand what you mean about the ballroom hold having elbows occupy the same space. I think I'd need to see it (in person or picture). That said, it raises the broader issue, which is the overall topic, that everyone has different physical needs and finding happy mediums is our goal for everyone dancing together. Your issue with ballroom hold handholds as such is a good reminder for me that no one - not even seasoned callers - can anticipate every need or difference.
>
> In dance,
> Julian Blechner
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 10:38 PM JJ <jcgj95@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally for me, the standard ballroom swing helps me to "flip the switch" in the brain on which side of the swing I'm "supposed to" end on (assuming we're not switching roles back and forth for fun lol). If my left arm is the "pointy arm," I'm ending on the left; if my right arm is the "pointy arm," I'm ending on the right. I don't have to consciously tell myself "I'm the Lark" or "I'm the Robin," my muscle memory just takes over and I just end on whichever side my arm position tells me to 😅.
>
> I enjoy neutral swings, but if we're not planning on switching roles without warning through an individual dance, I tend to stick with the traditional ballroom figure.
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 22:33 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> "At the time, it almost never happened that the one in the lady's role actually swung like a lady. I'm not sure when that became the norm."
>
> When I started dancing both roles, around 2005, I remember initially doing it as you said, with gender-neutral swings with the gents I encountered. I remember being surprised sometime around 2006-2007 when I ran into a few guys dancing switch who indicated they wanted to do the standard ballroom hold. By 2008-2009 I think my male friends and I were dancing the lady's role in the standard way?
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:16 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> I love the barrel hold, but some of my partners have reacted in a way that indicated it was too intimate for them. This is especially true if I have to lean over to do it, as that puts my face pretty close to theirs (I'm pretty tall). It's also difficult to do without frontal contact if one or both partners is well on the heavy side. But, all that aside, if you and your partner like fast swings, it's a great hold, more stable than ballroom, with four arms providing support rather than one.
>
> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when guys danced the lady's role (using the terminology of the time for reasons you'll see in a moment), we'd almost universally be offered the "gender-neutral swing", which is symmetrical and very stable for fast swinging: both right arms are around the other's back and both left arms go over/around the other's right arm, bend 90 degrees at the elbow, pass between you, and clasp left hands around each other's forearms between your bodies. At the time, it almost never happened that the one in the lady's role actually swung like a lady. I'm not sure when that became the norm. I would occasionally do it with a particular guy partner whom I liked to dance with. We practiced it first and then did it with each other, but we gender-neutral-swung our neighbors. We got some pretty surprised looks from our neighbors when we swung each other. At least one guy asked me if that partner and I were an item. Times and role terms and what people read into dance behavior change...
>
> In general, I'm quite happy to swing with guys in either role when they're happy to swing with me. But, it's awkward and uncomfortable in the extreme to be going up an entire line of consecutive frowns, growls, and looks of disgust as a guy dancing the robbin...enough that I haven't returned to the dance weekend where that happened in Fall 2022, even though it was pretty great in other ways.
>
> The one swing style I really dislike is a modified ballroom position where the robbin tries to put their hand on the lark's back in the same place where the lark's hand is on theirs. I know some people actually teach it this way, I guess as some kind of equality thing. It's terrible, because their elbow and the lark's elbow then have to occupy the same space, which, well, physics. If I'm the lark and their arm is outside mine, when they try to provide support, it hyperextends my right elbow, eliminating any chance I can provide support and sometimes inducing pain before I can either force my elbow back out, displacing their hand from my back, or pull my arm up to rest it on their arm in a mirror of the traditional ballroom hold. I hope we can convince everyone to stop teaching this hold, as it usually doesn't work as intended and it can hurt the lark.
>
> One assist that does work in ballroom position and requires no communication is, if the robbin's arm is as long as or longer than the lark's, they rest their left arm on the lark's right, extending the entire length of the arm and then reaching around/over the lark's shoulder to provide some support on the shoulder blade. In my case, at least, if they are short enough that they can't do this, then they're often also light enough that additional support isn't critical, though it does make for more connection. It's important not to press down on the shoulder, though. Only pull forward.
>
> --jh--
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:52 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> At the last couple of dances in the last few days, I thought about this email thread and observations.
>
> Short and simple:
> A "barrel hold" swing:
> - Seemed to provide a little bit more space than a ballroom hold
> - One neighbor offered it (by chance) really clearly, as a lark, with his left arm curved into a sort of "offer a hug" type position. As we engaged in the swing hold, he placed his left arm in place, and it guided things in. It worked pretty well for me, at least as an experienced dancer.
>
> In dance,
> -Julian Blechner
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:18 PM becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> I can’t answer whether the robin's would always HAVE to go above the lark’s in the modified ballroom swing, but I would intuitively think that having that rule/understanding might make it easier for dancers to make the transition from ballroom to modified ballroom because the robin’s arm is always on top in standard ballroom swing. Also, the lark’s hand is typically cupped upwards with the robin’s hand above the lark’s in things like a balance or even a handhold in a circle move, so having the hand/arm orientations the same in the swing would also seem more intuitive to me if I were just learning this swing.
> Becky
>
>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 12:25 PM, Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John, thanks for all your comments. I like this swing at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUiXStkCHGs from 0:05 to 0:15 - for spacing -- and I'm going to introduce it at our next dance! Though what I think Becky found interesting about the variation we're working on is that it retains the "pointy hands", which can be useful.
>>
>> The one thing that I was confused about when I read your message: you say when you tried the swing variation our group has been experimenting with (visual at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ebotfe2jksbr3dqbjyiuf/Modified-Ballroom-Swing-elbow-hold.jpg?rlkey=ekblzvpc2tk2hkbtfrh9u96au&dl=0 )
>> -- you say that you found the grip insufficient, for the arms that are holding just above the elbow.
>>
>> But in my mind, this hold that me and my partner are doing with his left hand my right hand , is supposed to be the same as the hold you use in this video of yours - (but in your case, your left hand and her right hand.)
>> Maybe I didn't execute it properly, but it is what I intended:
>> https://youtu.be/yUbi1B2Edk0?si=HL-3jgI95LtGZBQ_&t=198
>> Starts at 3:18.
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Also, is anyone able to answer my question to Winston -
>>
>> Is it a given, due to something in the asymmetric nature of the hold, that in this video referenced by Allan -
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ0R5iHT-l8 or in the photo I shared above via Dropbox, that the Robin's arm will *always* go above the Lark's arm?
>>
>> Or could the placement of the arms vary depending on the relative height of the two dancing partners?
>> (for example with a 6' tall Lark and a 5' tall Robin, would the Robin's arm still be above the Lark's?
>>
>> Thanks all!
>> Kat K in Halifax
>>> John Sweeney via Contra Callers
>>> Thursday, March 14, 2024 7:23 AM
>>> Hi Kat,
>>> Yes, I thought you meant something like you show in your photo. When you mentioned Jeff's photo I did wonder, as it is what I call a Foreshortened Hold in my video and brings you closer together rather than further apart.
>>>
>>> I picked up the Foreshortened Hold from the cover of Zesty Contras and love it. I was surprised when I analysed the 600 dancers at a contra dance at The Flurry and realised that nobody else was using it!
>>>
>>> We tried your Modified Ballroom Hold Swing and didn't feel that it really worked. With my right arm underneath there didn't seem to be enough connection to have a really good swing unless Karen gripped my arm. I felt that my hand might slide down. With my right arm on top Karen felt that it was pulling on her shoulder even though I wasn't gripping - it was just awkward. So, sorry, but I won't be using that one.
>>>
>>> Re all the references to sore arms/hands/wrists/etc. The biggest problem is that people are told to "give weight". I don't want your weight! People misunderstand and lean back or sideways. If people control their own weight then all the connection has to do is counter centrifugal force and that it not a lot inless you spin really fast.
>>>
>>> I always start a Swing lesson by getting the dancers to Buzz on the spot BY THEMSELVES. Then when they connect they keep their own balance and weight.
>>>
>>> I have had major operations on both my shoulders (too much Repetitive Strain Injury from another style of dance that is taught badly, and then lots of Aerials: https://youtu.be/CJnL_Y63AnY?si=RqKHSw5MQmhiuIFT - maybe I shouldn't have started doing those in my fifties!). Anyway, I can't afford to let people damage my shoulders. With a good partner I can Swing at high speeds with no problem. Whenever someone leans back or sideways I just slow the Swing down and lessen my connection so that they have to take their own weight or fall over.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if you can get everyone to keep their own weight you will find it is much less strain on your arm/hand/wrist.
>>>
>>> The standard Quebecois Swing has the feet interleaved. They seem to do it without any problem. It is just a different feel and takes some getting used to.
>>>
>>> Someone mentioned the challenges with being too close in a Ceilidh Swing (http://contrafusion.co.uk/SwingWorkshop.html#Ceilidh ) - you could always try the Forearm Swing instead (http://contrafusion.co.uk/SwingWorkshop.html#Linked ) - same principle, but further apart so no bodily contact.
>>>
>>> Happy dancing,
>>> John
>>>
>>> John Sweeney, Dancer, England john@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574
>>> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers
>>> Wednesday, March 13, 2024 10:20 PM
>>> For me, the enforced intimacy is about the proximity of bodies and lack of physical air space between them. The huge difference between a swing in contra vs., say, agreeing to dance a waltz or a swing dance with someone, is that by agreeing to dance you’re agreeing to swing with EVERY opposite-role person in the line, not just the person you asked to dance. That’s a much bigger commitment to physical contact/intimacy than saying yes to one person.
>>>
>>> As a side note, before we got rid of a lecherous dancer in our group a few years ago, MANY women in our dance group chose their contra dance line specifically to avoid having to swing with him. The most important intervention was, of course, to establish a code of conduct which we used to remove him from the dance group (when it became clear he would not agree to change his behaviour). But for women (and others, but it’s always been women who have said this to me over the years), when they come to a dance not KNOWING whether there MIGHT be a letch in the line, it is asking quite a lot to expect them to do a ballroom swing with whoever comes at them. I am wondering whether the modified ballroom hold might make contra feel safer, especially for new dancers.
>>>
>>> I’d love to hear what folks who have used both feel about the difference.
>>>
>>> Becky
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Julian Blechner <juliancallsdances@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would love to read elaboration / articulation on why a ballroom hold feels more "intimate" than other holds?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> Julian Blechner via Contra Callers
>>> Wednesday, March 13, 2024 5:34 PM
>>> I would love to read elaboration / articulation on why a ballroom hold feels more "intimate" than other holds?
>>>
>>> Is it a matter of the historical social attachment we have in our minds with couples dances that use the hold, and romance in our culture?
>>>
>>> Is it a physical proximity? (I find ceilidh holds to be closer, crossed arms has my hands bearish their belly which has its own intimacy to me, though sometimes barrel holds can be done with a bit more space - though I wouldn't say the default)
>>>
>>> Is it something else?
>>>
>>> Maybe if we looked at the why, it'd give insight to what a solution to an alternate swing hold and/or an adjusted mindset might entail?
>>>
>>> In dance,
>>> Julian Blechner
>>> He/him
>>> Western Mass
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net

_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net