Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square dancing

Good grief Greg. Your ideas seem so at odds with those of the dozens of callers I know I must ask where, for whom and how often you call. --- On Mon, 12/5/11, Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square dancing To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Date: Monday, December 5, 2011, 10:51 PM Friends, Below is a discussion in which I am challenging some basic assumptions common on this list.  The statements I am analyzing come from one dance caller.  But I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing any individual caller.  I am challenging some of the frames we all use to think about our open, public, contra dances.  These frames are used by the vast majority of you so I guess I want to say that I'm not picking on one person, only using their words to illustrate some of the basic assumptions and frames we use in many of our discussions here. I myself have, and still do, use many of these frames in my language and how I see the job of contra dance calling.  It has taken me more than 25 years to figure out what these basic frames are, and why I need to change them.  I would love to hear your comments. ******************* Martha wrote: I see.  Thank you for explaining One Night Stands.  I see what you mean but I don't see One Night Stands as dances for non-dancers.  I was a non-dancer for the first 1/3 of my life.  To me it means that I went out and moved my body to music less than once a year.  I would guess that such people are in the minority, even at most One Night Stands.  But, as Herman Cain said: "I have no facts to back that up."  The important feature of such dances is that you usually have no idea what kind of crowd you will be calling for...and if you do, you could be very wrong.  As we use the term here I think a safe definition might be: "A dance attended by few, if any, people who have experience dancing called social dances." Martha also wrote: Very interesting.  Neither do I.  I don't see how that could happen.  When I wrote: "My goal is to keep this art form available to the most people possible," ...you, apparently, assumed that keeping contra dances accessible to first timers, without separate lessons, would inevitably drive away those who are very familiar with the traditional contra dance form and the basic figures we use.  In your frame this is a serious problem and the survival of the dance form depends upon it evolving into a less accessible form. I would openly challenge that assumption and ask you for the "facts to back that up."  I have heard anecdotal stories about dancers who become "bored" with the regular open public contra dances and who move on to other dance forms.  This will always happen.  I don't see any evidence that "bored dancers" leaving is a significant threat to these events. Martha also wrote: This is an area that I have done research on and I was unable to find any "beginners,"intermediate dancers," or "advanced dancers" at any of the contra dance events I surveyed.  None.  In the contra dance tradition there is no "course of study" available to anyone that would define such demarcations.  There is not even any typical path to gaining experience in dancing contras. Furthermore you cannot define these terms in any meaningful way.  (I have tried using the number of contras attended and the time spent dancing contras.  Neither one makes sense for these categories.)  My challenge to any of you who use these terms is to show me a system for categorizing any contra dancer into one, and only one, of these three classifications.  It must be based upon observable and verifiable behaviors that we can come to some agreement on such as "figures or moves mastered by each level" and a means of testing dancers. You cannot do that. If you try you will meet substantial resistance from many of us who love this dance form. I do not challenge this classification scheme because it is "wrong."  I challenge its usefulness in any discussion about what callers at these events can do to make them more popular or fun.  The frame doesn't *work*. In fact it creates a "problem" and assigns it to the dancers, not the caller.  We can talk about other, more useful, ways of framing the different groups that attend open public contra dances, and I would welcome that discussion. Martha went on to write: If you mean that we need to discuss how to ensure the most fun for the most people in the hall then I am in agreement.  We do need more discussion. The problem I encounter is that statements here are loaded with lots of unspoken assumptions that make useful discussion impossible, unless and until we discuss the underlying frames we apply to these events. Martha also wrote: Lots of assumptions here.  I don't know how you "convince" people.  But the underlying assumption in this sentence is that this problem could be solved by changing the behavior of a select group of "good" dancers, (whatever that means).  The implicit message here is that the "good" dancers are not behaving well and need to be persuaded to do the right thing.  This is what could be called a "blame the dancers" frame, and this group of dancers will, naturally, respond to this frame with some resistance.  I would prefer to assume that all of the dancers, of all skill levels, are doing exactly what we expect them to do: having fun, or--at the least--attempting to have fun.  It is the caller's job to make partnering with first-timers fun. Moreover, your framing of the event limits the number of people who can help the caller by partnering with first-timers.  (We don't know how many "good" dancers there are, but I'll guess it's not much more than half of the hall.)  At my dances I open by saying: "If you are new to this kind of dancing please find a partner who has danced contras for at least one night, and form three contra dance lines." Note that this framing opens up the task of partnering with first-timers to a much larger group in the hall.  Anyone with "one night" of experience can help host the event by partnering with a first-timer.  This makes the "task" of partnering with first-timers seem much more manageable.   This also sends a crystal clear implicit message that this will be easy--for both partners--in that it only takes "one night" to learn. Also note that in your framing of the event (if you successfully implement your second suggestion) you cannot make this statement, because there may be a "new move" in the dance and you will need more "good" dancers in each set to show how it's done.  One night of experience will not be enough. That means longer walk-throughs and makes the dancing seem more difficult. The underlying question is: "What is this event *for*?"...or, more precisely, "*Who *is this event for?" I look forward to other thoughts on this.. - Greg McKenzie California _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers