Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

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