Hi all, I'm starting a new thread to respond to Greg's comments below. This post is not about whether Greg's approach is right or wrong. If the people who attend his dances are happy, then that's what really matters for Greg and his dancers. I'd like to broaden the discussion to a more general idea of avoiding "mild confusion" and not pushing dancers beyond that comfort zone. I've noticed that when I have trouble calling, it's almost always the perpetual beginner dancers who complain about doing something new. They aren't able to see beyond their own limited abilities. I once called for a community who was used to dancing only certain moves and to a few local callers. I was almost thrown out for having the audacity to have the men start a hey. This community was so ossified it was no longer open to doing anything outside of its normal routine. New dancers don't know that this move is considered easy and that move is considered hard. They don't know what they should or shouldn't be able to do. I'd argue that the primary reason they're at the dance in the first place is because they want to do something different than the same ol' thing they usually do. They're looking for new and interesting challenges. It's my opinion that dancers need to "exercise" their dancing bodies and brains, much as one exercises one's muscles. If we don't push ourselves a little, as callers and dancers and organizers, then we and our communities will atrophy. Mark Hillegonds cell: 734-756-8441 email: mhillegonds(a)comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net [mailto:callers-bounces@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Greg McKenzie Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:57 AM To: Caller's discussion list Subject: Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square dancing I think standardization is a good thing, in all forms of engineering. Personally, I stick to calling dances that require only a small set of standardized figures. My goal is to keep this art form available to the most people possible. I know that I, personally, would not have kept dancing contras if a lot of new calls had been thrown at me every time I attended. My goal is to keep that venue open to the general non-dancing public. So I would not use the call. I have a number of dances in my collection that I no longer use because they contain calls that could cause "mild confusion" for some dancers. Of course, almost all of the dances I call are open to the general public. - Greg McKenzie

Hi all, I'm starting a new thread to respond to Greg's comments below. This post is not about whether Greg's approach is right or wrong. If the people who attend his dances are happy, then that's what really matters for Greg and his dancers. I'd like to broaden the discussion to a more general idea of avoiding "mild confusion" and not pushing dancers beyond that comfort zone. I've noticed that when I have trouble calling, it's almost always the perpetual beginner dancers who complain about doing something new. They aren't able to see beyond their own limited abilities. I once called for a community who was used to dancing only certain moves and to a few local callers. I was almost thrown out for having the audacity to have the men start a hey. This community was so ossified it was no longer open to doing anything outside of its normal routine. New dancers don't know that this move is considered easy and that move is considered hard. They don't know what they should or shouldn't be able to do. I'd argue that the primary reason they're at the dance in the first place is because they want to do something different than the same ol' thing they usually do. They're looking for new and interesting challenges. It's my opinion that dancers need to "exercise" their dancing bodies and brains, much as one exercises one's muscles. If we don't push ourselves a little, as callers and dancers and organizers, then we and our communities will atrophy. Mark Hillegonds cell: 734-756-8441 email: mhillegonds(a)comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net [mailto:callers-bounces@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Greg McKenzie Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:57 AM To: Caller's discussion list Subject: Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square dancing I think standardization is a good thing, in all forms of engineering. Personally, I stick to calling dances that require only a small set of standardized figures. My goal is to keep this art form available to the most people possible. I know that I, personally, would not have kept dancing contras if a lot of new calls had been thrown at me every time I attended. My goal is to keep that venue open to the general non-dancing public. So I would not use the call. I have a number of dances in my collection that I no longer use because they contain calls that could cause "mild confusion" for some dancers. Of course, almost all of the dances I call are open to the general public. - Greg McKenzie

Martha then wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about the regular, public contra dances?...or special events? And what kind of one night stand are you referring to? Like a wedding, or corporate party? I am curious about this thought. Please expand on this. - Greg McKenzie _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

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: is, 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: and into 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

Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 20:56:42 -0800 From: catherineaura(a)yahoo.com To: callers(a)sharedweight.net Subject: 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 _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Jean wrote: First of all, I want to assure all new callers, and other lurkers out there that I—and I’m sure most other list participants—would love to hear your thoughts, regardless of where, for whom, or how often you call. I believe this list is an open forum and there are no experience requirements. You need not be authorized by anyone to post here and I’m sure that Jean did not mean to indicate otherwise. This was probably just an unfortunate choice of words putting out an unfortunate implicit message. My own experience is that almost all callers are very supportive of new and aspiring callers and we would love to address your questions and to hear your ideas, no matter how “at odds” they are with *any* of the callers we know. All of us are students, and all of us have much to learn. Each of us can contribute to that learning, regardless of how often or where we call. This tradition needs your input, experiences, and creative ideas about how to evolve this art and to reach out in creative ways to other populations and venues with this amazing art form. I, for one, would be very interested in hearing any ideas that are “at odds” with conventional wisdom. So, I got three responses to my last post: A “Good Lord!” a “Good Grief,” and a “Me Too” supporting the above comment by Jean. This is not the first time I have been criticized on this list for expressing ideas that do not conform to the established frame of most callers. I suspect that I and the “dozens of callers” Jean knows have many ideas that we share. Those ideas get posted here frequently so I see no need to repeat them. Beyond Jean’s statement above, there were no comments whatsoever about the substance of my post—not on or off of this list. Only that it was “at odds” with the most common views of callers. Contemporary dance calling is a peculiar activity in which one authorized person, using a powerful public address system, stands in front of a hall full of people who are pleased to do virtually *everything* the caller tells them to do. I suppose it should be no surprise to anyone that this role of “dance caller” is a magnet for authoritarian personalities. This is not to disparage authoritarian personalities. These folks are very disciplined, precise, loyal, and they have a strong affinity to tradition and convention. They are the parents, teachers, police, firefighters, doctors, and warriors who serve and defend our communities. They are conventionalists by habit. They are the keepers of our traditions. All of us, I believe, share these qualities to at least some degree, and we need to be aware of that tendency. But authoritarian mental frames also have a dark side and we need to guard against being too dependent upon external authorities. As callers we are authorized to wield a tremendous power in the dance hall, and we need to temper our authoritarian habits by reminding ourselves that we are always servants of the dancers, the musicians, and the larger community. Our allegiance to any “tradition” (whether real or imagined) has to be subservient to a deep sense of service to the people we call for. If the tradition does not serve those people, it will become a tool for oppression. (The Third Reich was built upon a deep and profound respect for national traditions, both true and fabricated.) I come here for new ideas, stimulation, and honest feedback, and I assume that others are interested in ideas that are different from their own. I really appreciate those who actually read my posts and who respond with their perceptions, ideas, and critiques. I particularly appreciate those who critique my ideas with analysis or personal experiences. I believe that all callers need to cultivate a high regard for feedback. And I think callers need to seek out feedback—particularly negative feedback. This is how we learn the most. That requires being a bit circumspect with regard to our own performance as a caller, and with regard to how we view the tradition we are evolving. Don’t take it personally! We need to keep our minds separate from the tradition—and the discussion itself—to see any of it clearly. If we fall prey to authoritarian frames of thinking we will be forever mired in conventionalism. Our dance traditions are, after all, living traditions. Without change, the traditions—as well as those who “follow” the traditions—will never evolve. That requires new ideas that will always be “at odds” with the conventionalist orthodoxy. Authoritarian thinking is, after all, rooted in fear. We seek security through our conformity, or we seek acceptance through the power of controlling others. So I encourage all of us to take courage and speak out. There are more than 150 people on this list. I would hope to hear a wider range of views and ideas. Conformity may buy acceptance with some but it will not make you a better caller. Let’s not fall prey to the fear of being “at odds” with the “common wisdom” that pervades in our traditions. Our diversity is our strength and I would love to hear your ideas. I believe that would be helpful to all of us. Anyway, it seems like a good idea to me. _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

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

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.

The underlying question is: "What is this event *for*?"...or, more precisely, "*Who *is this event for?"

I would caution people from going too far down this road. One risk is that the MWSD calls all have very specific starting and stopping places and rules on how they are done. If the contra version is only a close approximation, someone might get upset. Also, just because MWSD has a name and precise definition doesn't make that name "better" or more instantly understandable to a newer dancer. On Dec 5, 2011, at 3:02 AM, Chris Page wrote: The orbits I have danced are not Fan The Top. Fan The Top starts in a wave, has the centers arm turn 3/4 while the ends move forward around the formation 1/4 of the way. Ends in a new wave. Orbit (or Orbit The Wave) has the centers arm turn once (or 1 1/2) while each end walks forward a half circle to the other end. It is usually followed by a Swing or Balance and Swing. MWSD would call it Half Sashay and have you do it twice. However, this would always have the dancer on the right go in front. Some contra moves can be right-handed or left-handed with the same name and what to do is explained in the walk thru. In MWSD, these moves all have two names. Also the Mad Robin in the dance I am think of has the Mad Robin go 1 1/4 to have the centers guys start a Hey. Asking for a Half Sashay 2 1/2 sounds like doing math. Celtic Knot comes up so infrequently, I would ignore this. Also, on the rare cases I have danced Celtic Knot, I remember it being taught more as Pully Bys, a star in the center and the dancers on the outside doing a cloverleaf. It is true that Spin The Top moves the body along the same path, but you are facing 90 degrees different while doing it. Perhaps call it Box Circulate. "Split" is used when you divide the 8-dancers set into two groups of 4. Slide would be the term. Spread is a suffix added to a call that has the dancers moving into a wave. We woldn't call Balance The Wave and SPread at MWSD. I think asking "couples veer left" or "veer over to the left" is more using common English. It is the case that Veer Left and Veer Right are MWSD calls, but they almost make sense from their names. In squares, Walk Around Your Corner has the idea that you will next interact with your Partner. I would find it jarring to encounter that terminology in contras. Zoom is a precise 360 degree movement for the leader and a walk forward one position for the trailer. Lead/cast (and I am no expert) seems to be more a 180 or 270 degree turning action. We have a call Zing which starts in a tandem and ends on the same spots as a couple. Perhaps that would work. Perhaps that makes my point :-) -- Clark Baker, Belmont, MA cmbaker(a)tiac.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

The first goal of a caller should be to "communicate" in a way that leaves no doubt of the action he/she wants the dancers to perform. If the dancers understand what the caller wants, and can accomplish it with reasonable dexterity, the caller has accomplished this primary objective.