On Sun, Sep 15, 2013, rich sbardella wrote: Looks like nobody ever followed up, but based on the latest posts in the thread, I think you're safe in not worrying about infringing, particularly as long as you attribute dances to their creators (as best you can). -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Hi Greg et al., Yeah, good point. I'm calling one of a regular (monthly) contra dance series in the Berkshires. It's open to all and has a beginners warm-up for any who are interested. Attendance runs maybe 14-26 (ish), including a fair number of people who have danced before but aren't super-experienced/"hotshot" dancers. There'll be a live band. The expectation will probably be mostly contras with a waltz at the end of either half--I doubt people would object to or necessarily expect other formations/types of dances. That help at all? Interested to hear what you have to say! Maia On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Greg McKenzie &lt;grekenzie(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Maia wrote: Yes. That helps. This gig sounds like a contemporary open, public contra dance, a form that is what I specialize in calling and also a form that I consider to be possibly the most challenging kind of event to call. Some others have given good advice here. I do some things differently and I will focus on those differences. Please keep in mind that my own approach is quite different than how most other callers do it. This approach comes from how I “define” or “frame” these events, so I need to explain that briefly. I think most of us, if we think about it at all, tend to frame these open, public contra dances as, simply; “a dance gathering of contra dance enthusiasts with a live band and a caller.” This is most certainly true…but this frame leaves out some essential elements and there are other true ways to frame these events. I frame them as; “an open, public social event—both sponsored and hosted by a group of dance enthusiasts—that includes live music and, primarily, progressive set dances facilitated by a caller.” In this frame the first-timers are seen more as a central purpose of the event. It’s an open social event. Consequently the task of integrating newcomers into the hall becomes a primary task of the caller. Yes dancers and other organizers can help but the caller is in a key position to lead the assembly in the process of integration…and although there are many integration strategies and tactics, one way the caller can encourage integration is through programming. Integrating the hall is a leadership task. There are many leadership strategies, and some of the best ones are very subtle and sometimes subconscious. One of them is called “leadership by omission.” In that case the leader encourages action by what they do NOT do. Another one is a variant of that and I call it “leadership by assumption.” In this strategy I assume that the dancers will support me and do as I ask them. That’s the deal. I ask them to integrate the hall and then assume their full support in this effort. In the practice of programming that means I choose dances with the assumption that every first-timer in the hall will be partnered with a regular and that they will be distributed throughout the hall. My program is designed to make this process both fun and successful for everyone. There are many other strategies needed to make this work but I am only discussing programming here. I do prepare a specific program, but I include 14 dances and one or two of them will be dropped as I see how the evening progresses. Occasionally I will add a dance while at the event. I start by picking a first and a last dance. I have a few dances marked for these positions and I rotate through them. The first dance has to be easy, familiar to the regulars, and with lots of connection. It must be a dance that can guarantee success for everyone in the hall with little, if any, teaching and it should have good neighbor interaction. (swings) The last dance should also have excellent neighbor interaction and a similar profile. (I have several dances that I can use for either the first or last dance.) The idea here is to give everyone a chance to interact with everyone else and pay their respects before ending the evening. (This is a chance to apologize for not partnering with a favored partner that night, for example.) It’s a chance to say good night to everyone. This dance, however, should also have excellent partner interaction. The first three dances of the evening are where I put most of my programming effort. The goal of this segment of the evening is to build the confidence of all of the dancers and to minimize the perceived importance of partnering decisions. This helps to limit any cliquish or defensive partnering behaviors by the dancers early in the evening. I do this first by keeping the dance slots as short as possible with little or no walk-through. For this early segment of the evening I also select dances with excellent neighbor interaction and with minimal partner interaction. By “minimal partner interaction” I am speaking in context. I am very aware of the fact that some dancers will complain if there are dances with no partner swing. By “minimal” I mean, generally, keeping the number of counts of partner swinging down compared to other dances. I often call at least one “no partner swing” dance during the evening, and this will happen during the first three dances. Most callers do this in the form of a “mixer” during the evening. I will often substitute a “no partner swing” contra dance because I see the entire evening as a “mixer”…particularly the first half of the evening. Another way to “minimize” partner swinging is to program dances in which only the ones have a partner swing. “Scout House Reel” for example, is an excellent first dance choice. During the first half of the evening I try to show some variation and add a few figures as I go. The primary goal though is to make sure the dancers who have partnered with first-timers will have fun. Key to this is to keep the dances easy enough that there is only a quick walk-through and that the music starts right away. If the band is willing I try to do roll-ins for the first three dances and as often as possible in the first half of the evening. That means choosing dances where no demonstrations or explanations are needed. During the first half I try to do no “teaching from the mike.” The regulars are in charge of showing the moves to the newcomers. I step back and stay out of that process, (leadership by omission). The strategy here is to limit what I call “partnering pressure” which I define as: “that feeling that one needs to find a particular kind of partner or any partner quickly.” By programming short slots with easy dances that allow minimal walk-throughs I can subtly create a sense that there will be many more partnering opportunities during the evening. This also reduces the apprehension of some dancers that they will get “stuck” with a “bad partner” for a long dance slot. In general this programming encourages more generous and community-minded partnering behaviors. It is, after all, a social event. In the second half of the evening I will program one or two dances in a longer dance slot to allow the band to work their magic and to allow the dancers to enter “trance dance” mode. It is in the second half that I may include a “mini-lecture” or a dance that requires a demonstration or some “teaching from the mike.” But I work to maintain a precise and clear calling style with impeccable timing using the most effective word order. “Teaching from the mike” is usually limited to about two minutes per evening. Those are my goals and strategies. I use Filemaker Pro to keep my database of dances. I have set up an interface that allows me to select dances for the evening and order them in slots from 1-14. Dances that are being held for possible inclusion are assigned to slot 15 so I can display them at will if I need another dance. Changing the slot number moves that dance into the program. I have coded my database using the NEFFA dance planning matrix. This is a great tool, by the way. I use it to plan every evening. I can instantly display my program in the matrix and see if I have selected too many “down the hall” dances or other distinctive figures or transitions. The matrix also helps me to collect dances that will round out my program. (Dances that start without “neighbor, balance and swing” but which include another specific figure, for example. I’m always on the lookout for easy dances that will also satisfy those regulars who want “interesting” dance sequences.) I print out my cards using Filemaker Pro and they are color-coded for difficulty level. I am in the process of creating a key on the back of the cards that will allow me to select from the NEFFA matrix criteria by looking at the backs of the cards—without using a computer—while at a dance. That’s how I plan my programs. Greg McKenzie West Coast, USA

Kalia asked:: This is a good question. I know that I need to be careful on this issue. I, like you, thought that my slots were "shorter than other callers" at one time. My thanks to Jim Saxe who took the time to come to one of my dances and timed every slot. It was a real wake-up call to see that my slots were not that "short" after all. Slots often seem shorter from behind the mike. Since then I hope I have made some progress. This is an ongoing effort. The fact is that it is hard work to keep the slots short. You need to work closely with the band. They need to be on board with this goal, otherwise ending too soon can be frustrating for the musicians. If you are diligent you can shave enough time off of the early slots to gain enough time for one extra dance slot in the evening. The important factors here are: 1. Where do you shave off the time? and 2. How does this change the perception of the dancers? I try to shave a minute, if possible, off of the walk-through and teaching time. This is one reason I don't teach from the mike and leave this job to the regulars. It just makes sense to keep things moving. I do NOT shave time off of the set formation and socializing time. I see this time as part of the dancer socializing time that belongs to them. When callers try to quiet the crowd too early it encourages the dancers to ignore them. You have to strike a careful balance. I also try to shave off about one time through the tune by ending the dance sooner. That's about half a minute. The dancers will perceive a shorter walk-through and dance time as evidence that the caller is skilled and effective at calling. (This is part of what I call "building and maintaining the illusion of competence.") When the dancers trust the caller they will be more likely to support her efforts and will listen more carefully. This also shortens the time needed for a slot. By keeping the walk-throughs short and starting the music early (at full tempo--more on that later) the caller and band signal to the crowd that they will make the evening fun and that everyone will be successful. This increases dancer confidence and those dancers are then more likely to be generous in their partnering decisions. If a slot is only nine minutes rather than ten this seems like less of an investment in each partnering decision. When the regulars see how much fun others are having while dancing with first-timers they will want to be a part of that. You can, with some effort, gain one extra dance slot for the evening. But the perception will be of an evening with more partnering opportunities. Remember: Most callers start the evening more slowly with longer walk-throughs and often start the music at a slower pace. If you break that "tradition" you will be perceived to be a dynamic caller who can make a high-energy dance evening happen. (Or, more likely, they will simply think that the band is really hot! Good calling will not make you famous or popular, but that's another thread.) In reality your walk-throughs will never get shorter. In fact they may get longer during the second half as you introduce more complex material and add a "mini-lecture." But the initial impression will last through the evening. When I mentioned the NEFFA Dance Planning Matrix Kalia asked: Yes. It looks like he may have altered it. I have altered it a little myself. (I don't, for example, include the "angry robin" figure because I don't call dances with that figure. You should alter it to fit your own needs. The original is in the back of "Give and Take," I believe. Kalia then asked: I started out using a difficulty scale of 1-10. That seemed excessively graduated but I have kept it. I seldom call a dance above a level 6. I have two dances I have rated at 8 in my database but none higher than that. I know there are some of them out there but I have no need for them so I keep the scale as it is to remind me that such dances exist. I tend to think of such dances as just poorly choreographed contra dances. I use a combination of factors to rate a dance and I often rate the difficulty level differently than the original author. I use the piece count, demanding sequences, good or poor flow, unusual or awkward transitions, etc. to come up with a level assignment. I use the ratings to help me choose dances and to place them in my program. Over the years I have changed the ratings on a few dances. I don't know if I moved more of them up or down in difficulty level. I have done it in both directions based upon my experience calling them. My approach is to pick dances with good flow, with less emphasis on the difficulty level. My target audience is the regulars at a series. If the regulars are comfortable with the dance and my calls then they will pull the first-timers through it well. I don't teach figures or transitions at an open, public contra dance. I leave that up to the regulars. My experience is that the regulars accept their role as hosts with enthusiasm. The trick is to give them all of the information they need at exactly the moment they need it. If there is a sudden influx of first-timers I try to speak on behalf of the regulars and graciously welcome the newcomers into the hall. The regulars seem to take this cue well and make sure the hall gets integrated. That solves most of the problems with such influxes. I don't start teaching from the mike. I know that the regulars will be much more effective at leading the newcomers. My teaching from the mike will only make everyone more nervous. It's a team effort. In solidarity, Greg McKenzie West Coast, USA **********************

On 9/28/2013 8:54 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: Depends on if you do one walk through or two. With two walk throughs, no one is out at the top. With one, you're leaving out a top couple -- unless it's a double (or quadruple) progression dance. I no long send people back to the beginning if I do two walk throughs unless I deem it a tricky dance, where seeing familiar faces again helps solidify how the dance goes. ~erik hoffman

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013, Kalia Kliban wrote: Also, if you call only one walkthrough, if you have an odd number of couples, the bottoms won't have danced at all. Maybe we should have three walkthroughs. If people are complaining about not going back to the starting point, that trumps my opinion... -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Yes, as Lynn says, several minutes could be saved if people took hands four right away. And even more if they'd just shut up. Then again, often, in that moment between dances, while people are lining up, it is the chance to meet and talk a bit -- an important time in our community. So, I honor that chance to chat, and don't worry about trying to squeeze more dances in. I'm sure there's a gradient: some callers push the next dance, squeeze more dances in, some cut dances shorter, squeeze more dances in, and some are a bit looser. And, I'm sure there are some dancers who favor one approach and others who favor the other... Which reminds me: a while back there was a discussion on getting worried about programming a dance. I think: A good program tends to build confidence in dancers while providing a variety. In some ways this was easier to do back in the days when a contra dance meant contras, squares, circles, Sicilian circles, and more. (But then callers had to know how to call squares, a bigger challenge than calling contras...) But there are enough figures, forms, and the like to create a wide variety with just contras and 4 face 4s. Confidence is gained when one concept leads to the next. So, it's worth considering what you have to teach to get from one dance to the next, and how it varies. But, and this is a big BUT: Dancers come to the dance to have fun, enjoy the movement to the music, and interact. For many of us, you could call the same dance five times in a row, and with different partners, and different music, we may not notice. (Ok that's a slight exaggeration.) More important is the sense of joy projected. After all, it's only a dance! ~erik hoffman oakland, ca On 9/28/2013 12:05 PM, lynn ackerson wrote:

On an internet square dance group for MWSD callers, SD-Callers, there is currently a discussion going on about hearing enhancement systems.  In many cases the callers voice is amplified thru the enhancement equipment, but the music is not. ________________________________ From: Aahz Maruch &lt;aahz(a)pobox.com&gt; To: callers(a)sharedweight.net Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Callers] How to devise a program On Tue, Sep 17, 2013, Greg McKenzie wrote:   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Going to sound like a broken record, but I think this is a recipe for causing difficulty for hearing-impaired dancers.  Experienced as I am, I *hate* no-walkthrough dances.  You may recall I've made earlier comments about the clarity and enunciation of the average square dance caller compared with the average contra caller -- the contra caller usually suffers in comparison, even without music. You probably won't even see the effects of this, because anyone who has problems will just quietly leave.  That's what the vast majority of hearing-impaired people do. You may in fact be one of the rarer contra callers with excellent enunciation and a killer sound engineer (because it's a lot harder to get good speech over live music), but I think it's really inappropriate for you to encourage no-walkthrough as a general practice. Side note: I've noticed *WAY* more hearing-impaired people square dancing than contra dancing, despite the fact that contra dancing is overall much easier for hearing-impaired people (because you only need to hear the walkthrough until you learn the dance).  I wonder why that is.... -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6                        http://rule6.info/                       <*>          <*>          <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Aahz wrote: You may in fact be one of the rarer contra callers with excellent enunciation and a killer sound engineer (because it's a lot harder to get good speech over live music), but I think it's really inappropriate for you to encourage no-walkthrough as a general practice. Thank you Aahz. You are absolutely correct. I was trying to restrict my post length by focusing only on programming. My comments should have been prefaced with a stipulation that this programming will not work if you do not know and apply some of the core contra calling skills of; clear enunciation, concise word choices, projection, using the most effective word order, and impeccable timing. To that I would also add; knowing how to earn and hold the attention of the crowd, clear transitions between social and instruction times, and an effective strategy for integrating the hall. (I mentioned in my post that integrating the hall was the primary reason for the programming style I use. The caller's style, messaging, and programming have to work together without "mixed" messages.) It is true that the vast majority of contra dance callers do not do some, or many of these things. Our dances "work" largely with the help of the regulars who take responsibility. The dancers, largely, provide cover for callers who lack these skills. I am a strong advocate of work on the basic, core skills of calling. I would rather see all callers focus on the basics rather than on complex dances or fancy calling "gimmicks." The basics are where I try to put my own efforts at developing my calling skills. The basics always need work. I usually only do one or two "no-walk-through" dances in an evening. For most dances I try to work with the band for a "rolling start." I can see why someone might "hate" a dance with no walk-through. But I would urge you to direct your concern at the basic skills of the caller. If they attempt a no-walk-through dance without clear, precise calling, blame should not be directed at anyone but the caller. Remember: It's always the caller's fault. So, yes. We should all focus on the basic, core skills first. Then I recommend working on techniques and strategies for integrating the hall...unless, of course, you never call at open, public dance events. Greg McKenzie, (who was part of a rock band in high school and who consequently, himself, suffers from a slight hearing loss as he ages. West Coast, USA *************************** On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Aahz Maruch &lt;aahz(a)pobox.com&gt; wrote:

You can see my thoughts at http://www.colinhume.com/callers.htm#Planning Colin Hume

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:48:14 -0400, Jack Mitchell wrote: Sorry, I agree the wording on the web page was confusing and I've now moved the paragraph about the Dance Organiser further down. The software has replaced the cards, though I normally have them in the boot (trunk) of my car just in case! If I'm just calling a few dances in an evening with several other callers (as I do at Cambridge Contra) I still use cards - but then I have to put my glasses on! Colin Hume