11 Feb
2011
11 Feb
'11
4:58 p.m.
We had a discussion the other night - not about how many walkthroughs, but
about how many times the caller should call before dropping out.
Obviously, it depends.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume a new-dancer to
intermediate dancer to experienced dancer ratio of 1:2:1. If everyone were
evenly scattered by dance level, each group of four would have two
intermediate dancers, one beginner and one very experienced dancer. Let's
not assume that the dancers are evenly scattered, but are slightly clumped,
so that beginners do encounter each other occasionally, sometimes with only
a couple of intermediate dancers to help them.
Let's further assume that the dance is in the part of the country where two
walkthroughs is considered appropriate - where, even if the first
walkthrough goes just fine, the second one cements the learning and leaves
you in a position to "dance it from here." Let's further assume that the
dance lasts about nine minutes (17 times through).
Here's the question: If you have taught an easy dance clearly, *and the
dance appears to be going well*, how many times through the dance should you
call? Once or twice with full calls ("join hands and circle to the left"),
once or twice with shortened calls ("circle left") and then nothing? Or five
times through with full calls, three times with shortened calls, then
nothing?
How much is too much? How little is too little?
M
E
--
For the good are always the merry,
Save by an evil chance,
And the merry love the fiddle
And the merry love to dance. ~ William Butler Yeats
11 Feb
11 Feb
7:27 p.m.
Hi Martha!
My thought is 5 times through with full calls and 3 times thru with short prompts. If the
band is playing a 2 tune set I might stick around after the tune switch. Sometime the
excitement of a new tune will wonderfully "distract" the dancers. In an ideal
world in a 3 tune set I plan on calling as much as needed thru the first tune and do short
prompts a couple times through after the second tune. I like to get out as early as
possible but still need to monitor how things are gathering after for example an
"intoxicating" swing. The next move might be prompted with 1 word i.e.
"Gents". That could be the only prompt that time thru the dance.
--- On Fri, 2/11/11, Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com> wrote:
From: Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com>
Subject: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Date: Friday, February 11, 2011, 8:58 AM
We had a discussion the other night - not about how many walkthroughs, but
about how many times the caller should call before dropping out.
Obviously, it depends.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume a new-dancer to
intermediate dancer to experienced dancer ratio of 1:2:1. If everyone were
evenly scattered by dance level, each group of four would have two
intermediate dancers, one beginner and one very experienced dancer. Let's
not assume that the dancers are evenly scattered, but are slightly clumped,
so that beginners do encounter each other occasionally, sometimes with only
a couple of intermediate dancers to help them.
Let's further assume that the dance is in the part of the country where two
walkthroughs is considered appropriate - where, even if the first
walkthrough goes just fine, the second one cements the learning and leaves
you in a position to "dance it from here." Let's further assume that the
dance lasts about nine minutes (17 times through).
Here's the question: If you have taught an easy dance clearly, *and the
dance appears to be going well*, how many times through the dance should you
call? Once or twice with full calls ("join hands and circle to the left"),
once or twice with shortened calls ("circle left") and then nothing? Or five
times through with full calls, three times with shortened calls, then
nothing?
How much is too much? How little is too little?
M
E
--
For the good are always the merry,
Save by an evil chance,
And the merry love the fiddle
And the merry love to dance. ~ William Butler Yeats
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
10:04 p.m.
I take a much different approach. There are far too many variables to try to
attach a number to anything. The most important is how the dance is designed -
and I mean each transition - not the whole dance. That is far more important
than the experience level, difficulty of the dance or anything else. For
example: I often call one night stands with 100% beginners. One really popular
dance is the Patty Cake Polka - a fairly complicated dance for new dancers. I
can call it 2 or 3 times and stop because the dance flows so well.
On contras I generally stop calling one part of the dance at a time - look for
the transitions that are obvious - like going into most swings - everyone knows
when that is coming - so don't call it. Then one by one I drop out other calls
determined by watching the dancers and see what they are doing really well. For
a well designed dance - it doesn't take long to stop altogether. If I see that
some of the dancers are having problems or are late for a move - I throw in a
couple firm calls to try to get them to pay attention to the timing. Some
dances I never stop calling - but those are usually not the most fun dances.
Don't try to make rules for this. Watch the dancers - their comfort level will
let you know what you can do.
Mac
________________________________
From: joe micheals <joemicheals1(a)yahoo.com>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 1:27:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
Hi Martha!
My thought is 5 times through with full calls and 3 times thru with short
prompts. If the band is playing a 2 tune set I might stick around after the
tune switch. Sometime the excitement of a new tune will wonderfully "distract"
the dancers. In an ideal world in a 3 tune set I plan on calling as much as
needed thru the first tune and do short prompts a couple times through after the
second tune. I like to get out as early as possible but still need to monitor
how things are gathering after for example an "intoxicating" swing. The next
move might be prompted with 1 word i.e. "Gents". That could be the only
prompt that time thru the dance.
--- On Fri, 2/11/11, Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com> wrote:
From: Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com>
Subject: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Date: Friday, February 11, 2011, 8:58 AM
We had a discussion the other night - not about how many walkthroughs, but
about how many times the caller should call before dropping out.
Obviously, it depends.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume a new-dancer to
intermediate dancer to experienced dancer ratio of 1:2:1. If everyone were
evenly scattered by dance level, each group of four would have two
intermediate dancers, one beginner and one very experienced dancer. Let's
not assume that the dancers are evenly scattered, but are slightly clumped,
so that beginners do encounter each other occasionally, sometimes with only
a couple of intermediate dancers to help them.
Let's further assume that the dance is in the part of the country where two
walkthroughs is considered appropriate - where, even if the first
walkthrough goes just fine, the second one cements the learning and leaves
you in a position to "dance it from here." Let's further assume that the
dance lasts about nine minutes (17 times through).
Here's the question: If you have taught an easy dance clearly, *and the
dance appears to be going well*, how many times through the dance should you
call? Once or twice with full calls ("join hands and circle to the left"),
once or twice with shortened calls ("circle left") and then nothing? Or five
times through with full calls, three times with shortened calls, then
nothing?
How much is too much? How little is too little?
M
E
--
For the good are always the merry,
Save by an evil chance,
And the merry love the fiddle
And the merry love to dance. ~ William Butler Yeats
_______________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
10:34 p.m.
Thank you, Mac. I whole-heartedly agree with your approach.
Even if one could formula-ize this, I don't have the brain power to work like that. I
just try to drop out as quickly as possible after the first time through and watch for
places I need to reinforce a bit more.
Happy calling!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com>
Sender: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:04:09
To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Reply-To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
I take a much different approach. There are far too many variables to try to
attach a number to anything. The most important is how the dance is designed -
and I mean each transition - not the whole dance. That is far more important
than the experience level, difficulty of the dance or anything else. For
example: I often call one night stands with 100% beginners. One really popular
dance is the Patty Cake Polka - a fairly complicated dance for new dancers. I
can call it 2 or 3 times and stop because the dance flows so well.
On contras I generally stop calling one part of the dance at a time - look for
the transitions that are obvious - like going into most swings - everyone knows
when that is coming - so don't call it. Then one by one I drop out other calls
determined by watching the dancers and see what they are doing really well. For
a well designed dance - it doesn't take long to stop altogether. If I see that
some of the dancers are having problems or are late for a move - I throw in a
couple firm calls to try to get them to pay attention to the timing. Some
dances I never stop calling - but those are usually not the most fun dances.
Don't try to make rules for this. Watch the dancers - their comfort level will
let you know what you can do.
Mac
________________________________
From: joe micheals <joemicheals1(a)yahoo.com>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 1:27:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
Hi Martha!
My thought is 5 times through with full calls and 3 times thru with short
prompts. If the band is playing a 2 tune set I might stick around after the
tune switch. Sometime the excitement of a new tune will wonderfully "distract"
the dancers. In an ideal world in a 3 tune set I plan on calling as much as
needed thru the first tune and do short prompts a couple times through after the
second tune. I like to get out as early as possible but still need to monitor
how things are gathering after for example an "intoxicating" swing. The next
move might be prompted with 1 word i.e. "Gents". That could be the only
prompt that time thru the dance.
--- On Fri, 2/11/11, Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com> wrote:
From: Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com>
Subject: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Date: Friday, February 11, 2011, 8:58 AM
We had a discussion the other night - not about how many walkthroughs, but
about how many times the caller should call before dropping out.
Obviously, it depends.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume a new-dancer to
intermediate dancer to experienced dancer ratio of 1:2:1. If everyone were
evenly scattered by dance level, each group of four would have two
intermediate dancers, one beginner and one very experienced dancer. Let's
not assume that the dancers are evenly scattered, but are slightly clumped,
so that beginners do encounter each other occasionally, sometimes with only
a couple of intermediate dancers to help them.
Let's further assume that the dance is in the part of the country where two
walkthroughs is considered appropriate - where, even if the first
walkthrough goes just fine, the second one cements the learning and leaves
you in a position to "dance it from here." Let's further assume that the
dance lasts about nine minutes (17 times through).
Here's the question: If you have taught an easy dance clearly, *and the
dance appears to be going well*, how many times through the dance should you
call? Once or twice with full calls ("join hands and circle to the left"),
once or twice with shortened calls ("circle left") and then nothing? Or five
times through with full calls, three times with shortened calls, then
nothing?
How much is too much? How little is too little?
M
E
--
For the good are always the merry,
Save by an evil chance,
And the merry love the fiddle
And the merry love to dance. ~ William Butler Yeats
_______________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
12 Feb
12 Feb
midnight
Thank you!
This came up because someone told me I had dropped out too early in my dance
- or maybe they meant that some callers recently had dropped out too early,
and they felt they had to work too hard. The complaints were heartfelt, but
vague.
My dances, as I said, were easy dances we've done tons of times, and I
called most of them 4+2 (four times with full calls and 2 times with
partials), and just a hint here or there after that - mostly after swings. I
tend to call pretty rhythmically, being a musician-type person and all, and
the dancers, in my humble opinion, looked great! There was one time a line
started to break down a bit in one dance so I came back in (called that one
14 times!), but for the most part, I saw nothing amiss -- and I was watching
like a mother hawk -- so I kept my mouth shut.
The PROBLEM? One dancer told me there were several people who grumbled that
I dropped out. Unless they were grumbling that some other caller in recent
weeks had dropped out. I could never get specifics.
So I started wondering. At Pinewoods, one famous caller had a policy of not
coming back in - he would just let the lines break down. I can see a small
advantage in that approach - there is a benefit in training your dancers to
be ready to pay attention and remember. That might work, but I have no plan
currently to be the first on my block to test that theory.
I hasten to add that the dancers showed absolutely no signs of distress
(except during that one dance) -- yet our troupe of new callers said they
had to call the dance in the line or it would have broken down...WHA????
How the heck is a caller supposed to know that there's a problem if there's
no problem?
I mean, if a caller were to stop calling, as one friend of mine did, on the
first time in a no-walk-through contra "because it was going so well," that
would be too soon. And if you keep talking long after everyone knows the
dance, that would be too long.
So, just to be able to say something like "Well the standard is to call four
times (two? six?) for an easy dance in a mostly experienced crowd," would be
useful. No one has to stick to that - there are too many variables. But I'd
still like to know what the common practice is.
Funny, though - the complaint that callers were dropping out was aimed at
"the callers at the last 3 or 4 dances." I was at those dances, and I did
not have the same complaint - far from it! There were lots of beginners
(New Year's Resolution dancers?) and I had to work hard a few times, but I
take that as part of the fun, or at the very least, the small price I pay
for a steady stream of new and interesting people in my life. But that's
not a good answer to give to someone who took the trouble to give me
feedback.
So maybe my question is "how long do YOU call easy dances at your regular
dance?"
M
E
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:34 PM, <mhillegonds(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Thank you, Mac. I whole-heartedly agree with your
approach.
Even if one could formula-ize this, I don't have the brain power to work
like that. I just try to drop out as quickly as possible after the first
time through and watch for places I need to reinforce a bit more.
Happy calling!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com>
Sender: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:04:09
To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Reply-To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
I take a much different approach. There are far too many variables to try
to
attach a number to anything. The most important is how the dance is
designed -
and I mean each transition - not the whole dance. That is far more
important
than the experience level, difficulty of the dance or anything else. For
example: I often call one night stands with 100% beginners. One really
popular
dance is the Patty Cake Polka - a fairly complicated dance for new dancers.
I
can call it 2 or 3 times and stop because the dance flows so well.
On contras I generally stop calling one part of the dance at a time - look
for
the transitions that are obvious - like going into most swings - everyone
knows
when that is coming - so don't call it. Then one by one I drop out other
calls
determined by watching the dancers and see what they are doing really well.
For
a well designed dance - it doesn't take long to stop altogether. If I see
that
some of the dancers are having problems or are late for a move - I throw in
a
couple firm calls to try to get them to pay attention to the timing. Some
dances I never stop calling - but those are usually not the most fun
dances.
Don't try to make rules for this. Watch the dancers - their comfort level
will
let you know what you can do.
Mac
8:07 a.m.
Wow. You guys are so mathematical. I do this totally on instinct. I
watch,and when it looks like the batter is mixed, I stop stirring, i.e.
when I sense it has come together, I move to one beat calls and quickly
drop out. I keep watching and if I see trouble brewing I'll give
prompts or calls, whichever is necessary, for a phrase or two, then
phase quickly out again. Perhaps the trouble is having a preconceived
idea of a correct amount. Seems like it would be different for each
crowd, certainly, but even vary from dance to dance. Other variables
might be how well the walk-through went, and whether there are confusing
elements in the dance, like two two instances when the ladies enter the
set from the same side with a R hand (one a chain the other a star or
allemande let's say.) They might forget which instance it is, so I stay
with those prompts a little longer. But then, I am much newer at this,
so maybe this calculation is something I should be doing more analytically.
Andrea
On 2/11/2011 7:00 PM, Martha Edwards wrote:
Thank you!
This came up because someone told me I had dropped out too early in my dance
- or maybe they meant that some callers recently had dropped out too early,
and they felt they had to work too hard. The complaints were heartfelt, but
vague.
My dances, as I said, were easy dances we've done tons of times, and I
called most of them 4+2 (four times with full calls and 2 times with
partials), and just a hint here or there after that - mostly after swings. I
tend to call pretty rhythmically, being a musician-type person and all, and
the dancers, in my humble opinion, looked great! There was one time a line
started to break down a bit in one dance so I came back in (called that one
14 times!), but for the most part, I saw nothing amiss -- and I was watching
like a mother hawk -- so I kept my mouth shut.
The PROBLEM? One dancer told me there were several people who grumbled that
I dropped out. Unless they were grumbling that some other caller in recent
weeks had dropped out. I could never get specifics.
So I started wondering. At Pinewoods, one famous caller had a policy of not
coming back in - he would just let the lines break down. I can see a small
advantage in that approach - there is a benefit in training your dancers to
be ready to pay attention and remember. That might work, but I have no plan
currently to be the first on my block to test that theory.
I hasten to add that the dancers showed absolutely no signs of distress
(except during that one dance) -- yet our troupe of new callers said they
had to call the dance in the line or it would have broken down...WHA????
How the heck is a caller supposed to know that there's a problem if there's
no problem?
I mean, if a caller were to stop calling, as one friend of mine did, on the
first time in a no-walk-through contra "because it was going so well," that
would be too soon. And if you keep talking long after everyone knows the
dance, that would be too long.
So, just to be able to say something like "Well the standard is to call four
times (two? six?) for an easy dance in a mostly experienced crowd," would be
useful. No one has to stick to that - there are too many variables. But I'd
still like to know what the common practice is.
Funny, though - the complaint that callers were dropping out was aimed at
"the callers at the last 3 or 4 dances." I was at those dances, and I did
not have the same complaint - far from it! There were lots of beginners
(New Year's Resolution dancers?) and I had to work hard a few times, but I
take that as part of the fun, or at the very least, the small price I pay
for a steady stream of new and interesting people in my life. But that's
not a good answer to give to someone who took the trouble to give me
feedback.
So maybe my question is "how long do YOU call easy dances at your regular
dance?"
M
E
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:34 PM,<mhillegonds(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Thank you, Mac. I whole-heartedly agree with
your approach.
Even if one could formula-ize this, I don't have the brain power to work
like that. I just try to drop out as quickly as possible after the first
time through and watch for places I need to reinforce a bit more.
Happy calling!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Mckeever<macmck(a)ymail.com>
Sender: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:04:09
To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Reply-To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
I take a much different approach. There are far too many variables to try
to
attach a number to anything. The most important is how the dance is
designed -
and I mean each transition - not the whole dance. That is far more
important
than the experience level, difficulty of the dance or anything else. For
example: I often call one night stands with 100% beginners. One really
popular
dance is the Patty Cake Polka - a fairly complicated dance for new dancers.
I
can call it 2 or 3 times and stop because the dance flows so well.
On contras I generally stop calling one part of the dance at a time - look
for
the transitions that are obvious - like going into most swings - everyone
knows
when that is coming - so don't call it. Then one by one I drop out other
calls
determined by watching the dancers and see what they are doing really well.
For
a well designed dance - it doesn't take long to stop altogether. If I see
that
some of the dancers are having problems or are late for a move - I throw in
a
couple firm calls to try to get them to pay attention to the timing. Some
dances I never stop calling - but those are usually not the most fun
dances.
Don't try to make rules for this. Watch the dancers - their comfort level
will
let you know what you can do.
Mac
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
10:03 a.m.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 03:07:55 -0500, Andrea Nettleton wrote:
Wow. You guys are so mathematical. I do this totally
on instinct.
But then, I am much newer at this, so maybe this
calculation is
something I should be doing more analytically.
No you shouldn't - I totally agree that you watch the floor and
decide how and when to drop out - there isn't any magic number.
I may be the caller at Pinewoods that Martha Edwards mentioned who
"had a policy of not coming back in - he would just let the lines
break down". I think the caller's job is to teach the dance - and the
dancers' job is to learn the dance. OK, if it's a complicated
three-figure Pat Shaw dance I may be calling solidly all the way
through, but I think a lot of callers spoon-feed the dancers and never
give them a chance to find out what they can do - or indeed to hear
the music and dance to that rather than the caller's voice. If one or
two people go wrong, the other dancers will be pleased to sort them
out - and they'll get it right the next time and feel pleased with
themselves. Of course if half the room is in chaos I'll start calling
again - but please give things a chance to sort themselves out first!
Colin Hume
Email colin(a)colinhume.com Web site http://www.colinhume.com
3:53 p.m.
Nope. Wasn't you this time, Colin! But you're in good company.
M
E
From Colin:
I may be the caller at Pinewoods that Martha Edwards mentioned who
"had a policy of not coming back in - he would just let the lines
break down". I think the caller's job is to teach the dance - and the
dancers' job is to learn the dance. OK, if it's a complicated
three-figure Pat Shaw dance I may be calling solidly all the way
through, but I think a lot of callers spoon-feed the dancers and never
give them a chance to find out what they can do - or indeed to hear
the music and dance to that rather than the caller's voice. If one or
two people go wrong, the other dancers will be pleased to sort them
out - and they'll get it right the next time and feel pleased with
themselves. Of course if half the room is in chaos I'll start calling
again - but please give things a chance to sort themselves out first!
Colin Hume
Email colin(a)colinhume.com Web site http://www.colinhume.com
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
3:51 p.m.
Amen, Andrea! That was exactly my thinking. The batter was mixed, and I
stopped stirring.
But later, someone told me the cake was lumpy. Or...maybe it wasn't my
cake, but they had eaten lumpy cake recently, so they thought they should
tell me to keep stirring.
The mathematical part came later, when I was trying to decide for myself if
I had done the right thing or not. Nothing like the numbers to help focus on
what really happened, eh? I just wish I had been able to say, confidently,
"Well, actually, I didn't drop out after two times through, ever, but once I
did stop calling after four times. Was that the dance you had trouble on?"
This experience has, in fact, given me this confidence, but I'd like to hear
it from the rest of you guys.
In the end, given what I have heard from all of you, I'll mostly try to take
vague but impassioned criticism of "callers lately", and validate the
person's feeling ("Gosh, I'm sorry you feel you've been having to work
so
hard.") but for myself, remember what a wise caller said, "If you made a
mistake but it's going well anyway, take note, but move on. Maybe it isn't
even a mistake."
For that, you don't even need the numbers.
M
E
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Andrea Nettleton <twirly-girl(a)bellsouth.net
wrote:
Wow. You guys are so mathematical. I do this totally
on instinct. I
watch,and when it looks like the batter is mixed, I stop stirring, i.e. when
I sense it has come together, I move to one beat calls and quickly drop out.
I keep watching and if I see trouble brewing I'll give prompts or calls,
whichever is necessary, for a phrase or two, then phase quickly out again.
Perhaps the trouble is having a preconceived idea of a correct amount.
Seems like it would be different for each crowd, certainly, but even vary
from dance to dance. Other variables might be how well the walk-through
went, and whether there are confusing elements in the dance, like two two
instances when the ladies enter the set from the same side with a R hand
(one a chain the other a star or allemande let's say.) They might forget
which instance it is, so I stay with those prompts a little longer. But
then, I am much newer at this, so maybe this calculation is something I
should be doing more analytically.
Andrea
On 2/11/2011 7:00 PM, Martha Edwards wrote:
--
For the good are always the merry,
Save by an evil chance,
And the merry love the fiddle
And the merry love to dance. ~ William Butler Yeats
Thank you!
This came up because someone told me I had dropped out too early in my
dance
- or maybe they meant that some callers recently had dropped out too
early,
and they felt they had to work too hard. The complaints were heartfelt,
but
vague.
My dances, as I said, were easy dances we've done tons of times, and I
called most of them 4+2 (four times with full calls and 2 times with
partials), and just a hint here or there after that - mostly after swings.
I
tend to call pretty rhythmically, being a musician-type person and all,
and
the dancers, in my humble opinion, looked great! There was one time a
line
started to break down a bit in one dance so I came back in (called that
one
14 times!), but for the most part, I saw nothing amiss -- and I was
watching
like a mother hawk -- so I kept my mouth shut.
The PROBLEM? One dancer told me there were several people who grumbled
that
I dropped out. Unless they were grumbling that some other caller in recent
weeks had dropped out. I could never get specifics.
So I started wondering. At Pinewoods, one famous caller had a policy of
not
coming back in - he would just let the lines break down. I can see a
small
advantage in that approach - there is a benefit in training your dancers
to
be ready to pay attention and remember. That might work, but I have no
plan
currently to be the first on my block to test that theory.
I hasten to add that the dancers showed absolutely no signs of distress
(except during that one dance) -- yet our troupe of new callers said they
had to call the dance in the line or it would have broken down...WHA????
How the heck is a caller supposed to know that there's a problem if
there's
no problem?
I mean, if a caller were to stop calling, as one friend of mine did, on
the
first time in a no-walk-through contra "because it was going so well,"
that
would be too soon. And if you keep talking long after everyone knows the
dance, that would be too long.
So, just to be able to say something like "Well the standard is to call
four
times (two? six?) for an easy dance in a mostly experienced crowd," would
be
useful. No one has to stick to that - there are too many variables. But
I'd
still like to know what the common practice is.
Funny, though - the complaint that callers were dropping out was aimed at
"the callers at the last 3 or 4 dances." I was at those dances, and I did
not have the same complaint - far from it! There were lots of beginners
(New Year's Resolution dancers?) and I had to work hard a few times, but I
take that as part of the fun, or at the very least, the small price I pay
for a steady stream of new and interesting people in my life. But that's
not a good answer to give to someone who took the trouble to give me
feedback.
So maybe my question is "how long do YOU call easy dances at your regular
dance?"
M
E
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:34 PM,<mhillegonds(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Thank you, Mac. I whole-heartedly agree with your approach.
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
Even if one could formula-ize this, I don't have the brain power to work
like that. I just try to drop out as quickly as possible after the first
time through and watch for places I need to reinforce a bit more.
Happy calling!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Mckeever<macmck(a)ymail.com>
Sender: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:04:09
To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Reply-To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] How much is too much? How little is too little?
I take a much different approach. There are far too many variables to
try
to
attach a number to anything. The most important is how the dance is
designed -
and I mean each transition - not the whole dance. That is far more
important
than the experience level, difficulty of the dance or anything else. For
example: I often call one night stands with 100% beginners. One really
popular
dance is the Patty Cake Polka - a fairly complicated dance for new
dancers.
I
can call it 2 or 3 times and stop because the dance flows so well.
On contras I generally stop calling one part of the dance at a time -
look
for
the transitions that are obvious - like going into most swings - everyone
knows
when that is coming - so don't call it. Then one by one I drop out other
calls
determined by watching the dancers and see what they are doing really
well.
For
a well designed dance - it doesn't take long to stop altogether. If I
see
that
some of the dancers are having problems or are late for a move - I throw
in
a
couple firm calls to try to get them to pay attention to the timing.
Some
dances I never stop calling - but those are usually not the most fun
dances.
Don't try to make rules for this. Watch the dancers - their comfort level
will
let you know what you can do.
Mac
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
_______________________________________________ 
11 Feb
11 Feb
8:14 p.m.
Hi Martha,
The situation here in NZ is a bit different, as we have no contra
dance tradition and it's pretty new here. I learn a lot from shared
weight and it's helping me establish the tradition that I hope forms here.
I'm trying to wean the dancers off being dependent on the calls.
Many of the dancers here lack the confidence that they can remember
a dance.
As soon as the dancers seems to be getting into the groove, I cut back.
I find using an incomplete call (e.g. "gents" as mentioned by Joe), still
gives an indication of what comes next, but helps them take
responsibility for learning the dance. If the a problem develops with, I may
come back in with full calls.
The beauty of contra dance is dancing without the calls, and by letting
that happen that aspect of the dance is developing.
Not trusting the dancers is too much. Letting is fall apart is too little.
Cheers, Bill
22 Feb
22 Feb
7:23 p.m.
New subject: Quake
I'm writing in hopes of news from Liz and Bill, whose nearest town
Lyttleton, NZ was hit by a sizable earthquake last night. The Cathedral
was reported in a crumbled state, which suggests more extensive damage.
Pllease let us know if you are OK. Anyone else who hears, please inform?
Andrea (and Bob)
On 2/11/2011 3:14 PM, Liz and Bill wrote:
Hi Martha,
The situation here in NZ is a bit different, as we have no contra
dance tradition and it's pretty new here. I learn a lot from shared
weight and it's helping me establish the tradition that I hope forms
here.
I'm trying to wean the dancers off being dependent on the calls.
Many of the dancers here lack the confidence that they can remember
a dance.
As soon as the dancers seems to be getting into the groove, I cut back.
I find using an incomplete call (e.g. "gents" as mentioned by Joe),
still
gives an indication of what comes next, but helps them take
responsibility for learning the dance. If the a problem develops with,
I may
come back in with full calls.
The beauty of contra dance is dancing without the calls, and by letting
that happen that aspect of the dance is developing.
Not trusting the dancers is too much. Letting is fall apart is
too little.
Cheers, Bill
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
23 Feb
23 Feb
4:12 a.m.
New subject: Quake
Heard through the marvels of the contra dance grapevine that Liz and
Bill are no worse off than in the last quake, things off the shelves but
everyone safe and sound and staying in the neighborhood for now. Much
damage to the older part of Lyttleton, the nearest town.
On 2/22/2011 2:23 PM, Andrea Nettleton wrote:
I'm writing in hopes of news from Liz and Bill,
whose nearest town
Lyttleton, NZ was hit by a sizable earthquake last night. The
Cathedral was reported in a crumbled state, which suggests more
extensive damage. Pllease let us know if you are OK. Anyone else who
hears, please inform?
Andrea (and Bob)
On 2/11/2011 3:14 PM, Liz and Bill wrote:
Hi Martha,
The situation here in NZ is a bit different, as we have no contra
dance tradition and it's pretty new here. I learn a lot from shared
weight and it's helping me establish the tradition that I hope forms
here.
I'm trying to wean the dancers off being dependent on the calls.
Many of the dancers here lack the confidence that they can remember
a dance.
As soon as the dancers seems to be getting into the groove, I cut back.
I find using an incomplete call (e.g. "gents" as mentioned by Joe),
still
gives an indication of what comes next, but helps them take
responsibility for learning the dance. If the a problem develops
with, I may
come back in with full calls.
The beauty of contra dance is dancing without the calls, and by letting
that happen that aspect of the dance is developing.
Not trusting the dancers is too much. Letting is fall apart is
too little.
Cheers, Bill
_______________________________________________
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
8:02 a.m.
New subject: Quake
Dear Andrea and Bob (and other on SW),
We have received so many messages of support that we have written a
letter about the earthquake:
Thank you for getting in touch. We were very lucky and are fine. Also
our son
Peter and his partner Gemma who live next door are ok. We have had very little
damage – a few cracks in the walls, mainly another big mess to clean up, books
all over the floor and food piled high on the pantry floor, even with the
earthquake proofing we tried to do. The garden terraces suffered a bit, and a
few cracks in the drive. Pete’s house is liveable but the brick façade has
fallen off on one side and lots of windows are shattered. We spent yesterday
putting a big tarpaulin on the wall, and plastic sheeting on the windows. Power
came back today – hence internet access again. The water is out (and maybe take
quite a while to be restored), and no sewage, so a hole in the garden for the
time being.
We have felt very isolated. We only had a small crackly battery radio for news
and had no idea how bad it was in the city. Also we were very ill prepared, in
spite of already having had a big quake last year and being warned of possible
large aftershocks. We have had lots of small ones, about 4000 in all, up to
magnitude 5 or so, and grew a bit complacent. It was strange not being able to
communicate with anyone we couldn’t walk to. No electricity, no phone, no
cellphone, no internet or email, no water, no sewage. It felt like we had gone
back in time 50 years or more, we have got used to all our mod cons, and instant
communication to anywhere.
Liz was in the middle of making courgette soup when it struck, so we ate
cold halfcooked and unblended soup for tea. Yummy! This morning we dug out our
old gas burner (cups of tea!) and bottles of water we stored way back, and found
the candles. Veges in the garden, so fresh corn for tea. And tomatoes.
We’ve just begun to see what has been happening in CHCH and Lyttelton.
We are feeling a bit shattered and fragile, this earthquake is much different
than the one last year where no one died or was injured. Luckily, all of our
close friends are unhurt, although a few have major damage to their houses and
have had to move out. Last year it struck at 4 am when everyone was safely in
bed, but this one was at lunchtime and lots of people were about. Although it
was only 6.3 and last year 7.1 this one was closer to the city, in fact the
epicenter was in Lyttelton harbour where we live. Also it was shallower
apparently, so more damage. Chch was built on a swamp, and now big areas have
had liquefaction. Our poor city will take a while to recover.
Cheers, Bill
11 Feb
11 Feb
9:32 p.m.
Martha wrote:
We had a discussion the other night - not about how
many walkthroughs, but
about how many times the caller should call before dropping out.
Obviously, it depends.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, let's
assume a new-dancer to
intermediate dancer to experienced dancer ratio of 1:2:1. If everyone were
evenly scattered by dance level, each group of four would have two
intermediate dancers, one beginner and one very experienced dancer. Let's
not assume that the dancers are evenly scattered, but are slightly clumped,
so that beginners do encounter each other occasionally, sometimes with only
a couple of intermediate dancers to help them.
Let's further assume that the dance is in the part
of the country where two
walkthroughs is considered appropriate - where, even if the first
walkthrough goes just fine, the second one cements the learning and leaves
you in a position to "dance it from here." Let's further assume that the
dance lasts about nine minutes (17 times through).
Here's the question: If you have taught an easy
dance clearly, *and the
dance appears to be going well*, how many times through the dance should you
call? Once or twice with full calls ("join hands and circle to the left"),
once or twice with shortened calls ("circle left") and then nothing? Or five
times through with full calls, three times with shortened calls, then
nothing?
How much is too much? How little is too little?
It sounds like you're looking for a formula that produces a numerical result,
and I don't think that's right. (Or maybe I mean I don't work that way.)
Basically, calls answer the dancer's question "What now?" As people learn
the
dance, they stop having that question (but they sometimes get it again when
they change roles, space out, whatever). If you just keep calling when nobody
has that question, you're training people not to listen to you, as well as
getting in the way of the music.
So while prompting, make sure what you say is what somebody needs to hear (and,
ideally, the minimum somebody needs to hear), and if nobody needs to hear
anything, shut up. (And if there's a problem changing from 2s to 1s so people
at the head of the set need some extra prompting, maybe you can say it to them
off-mic.) But you can't check out when you shut up, because that "what
now"
question may be coming up.
I imagine in your particular example (adding that the dance is not just easy
but fully symmetrical) that I'd probably do full prompts for three, drop out
and come back in with short touches ("Men", "Hey") if needed. In
something
that isn't 100% easy or symmetrical, maybe more full prompts. [And
occasionally I think of something I should have told them in the walkthrough
and try to slip in the prompt, which works about 30% of the time.]
(Incidentally, I've been doing Scottish dancing lately, and the idea there
seems to be that there is *never* prompting to music, even at parties where
they teach the dance before dancing. You learn the figure to a count or just
the teacher's voice, and then the music starts and you're on your own. This
mostly seems to work. I deal with my anxiety and my desire to associate the
figure with a phrase of music by prompting (perhaps inaudibly) in my own set.
I don't know how this custom originated. It does keep you from associating
figures with landmarks in the music, which is good because you might have
different tunes the next time you do the dance.)
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WINSTON(a)SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
10:26 p.m.
New subject: How little is too much? How much is too little?
Alan wrote:
If you just keep calling when nobody has that question,
you're
training people not to listen to you, as well as getting in the way
of the music.
Wonderful! This is something I will think about in my efforts to
earn and hold the dancers' attention.
Alan also wrote:
So while prompting, make sure what you say is what
somebody needs to
hear (and, ideally, the minimum somebody needs to hear), and if
nobody needs to hear anything, shut up.
Very good! One of my goals is to never repeat a call. Nobody needs
me to "nag" them.
- Greg
5032
days inactive
5044
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
14 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing -
Andrea Nettleton -
Colin Hume -
Greg McKenzie -
joe micheals -
Liz and Bill -
Martha Edwards -
mhillegonds＠comcast.net -
Richard Mckeever