If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the people in the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in headlights.

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 _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

So many ways this conversation could go: - allowing the folk process to evolve (or not) - our collective caller's responsibility (or not) to broaden (or not) the knowledge of dancers - teaching moves in beginners workshops that we may (or may not) use in the evening - the value (or not) of tossing in the occasional chestnut or otherwise non-duple improper formation - etc. So as not to deviate too far from direction of this thread, I'll stay on topic. I called a dance recently where I called a very simple proper dance "Cheat the Lady." One of the moves in the dance is a R & L thru across and back. I had already called a R & L thru in an improper dance earlier in the evening and it went just fine. I was quite surprised, therefore, when the dance pretty much broke down and needed some pretty extensive teaching to get folks to understand how to do the move in proper formation. Such a simple move was rendered difficult to many long-time dancers in that community simply by changing the formation to Proper. Some people never really did get it. They remained flustered as to how to handle the same gender courtesy turn. It is well understood that if one doesn't exercise one's muscles, they will atrophy. It seems that some contra communities are not exercising their contra brains and bodies in that they are limiting the formations and moves they do on a regular basis. Another example is that in another community, I was chastised for having the audacity to have the men start a left shoulder hey. "We just don't do that here," said the dance organizer to me after the dance. It is partly for this reason (and partly because I enjoy variety) that I frequently call a proper dance or some other formation in an evening. I try to keep it simple and accessible. I've received many compliments by more experienced dancers that they enjoyed doing something different. Mark Hillegonds cell: 734-756-8441 email: mhillegonds(a)comcast.net blog: www.defriction.com -----Original Message----- From: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net [mailto:callers-bounces@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kaufman Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 2:32 PM To: Caller's discussion list 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 _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers