6 May
2012
6 May
'12
2:48 p.m.
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. c
I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this sentence. I've never
danced at, or called, ore even heard about a dance where the caller could "just wait
for people to get into position." Where does this happen?
I've experienced a few (notable for their rarity) dances where the dancers IMMEDIATELY
take hand four and cross when the caller asks the first time, for example Montpelier in
the late 1990s/early 2000s. (Quite shocking for a caller used to having at least 4
requests worth of time to talk w band, etc. before the hands four improper status is
achieved.) But this notion of actually lining up improper is new to me.
Would the caller just know, at a glance, that everyone in a crowded hall was correctly in
position to start the walkthrough? How would dancers joining the set know that the folks
above them were in position correctly? How much less time does it take than lining up
proper and taking hands four accordingly?
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast, ME
PS In case anyone is taking down data...
- I find as a caller and a dancer that it works well/efficiently to have all gents in one
line, all ladies in the other, start at top, take hands four, id ones/twos and down/up
line of direction for progression, id neighbors. Even when I'm calling only duple
improper contras all night.
- I have no attachment to using terms proper/improper, or actives/inactives, with duple
proper symmetrical dances.
- I think that habitual "insensitive twirling" (late, dangerous, awkward,
confusing-for-twirlee) is a detriment to the spirit of trad NE social dance. And I say
this as someone who has done every one of those sorts of twirls as a dancer (late,
dangerous, awkward, confusing-the-twirlee -- in my case, with gents who don't expect
me to initiate a twirl for them) But when I do it, I know it's a problem for others
around me. You know, sort of like when you look down and realize you are going 60 in a
35mph zone. Whoopsy!
From: callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:00:22 -0400
Send Callers mailing list submissions to
callers(a)sharedweight.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
2. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(George Mercer)
3. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(Charles Hannum)
4. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(95sg23(a)comcast.net)
5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:32:09 -0400
From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <20120504183209.GA1973(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400
From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh=xMwkPHCA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Good point. I agree. Thanks, George
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote;wrote:
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400
From: Charles Hannum <root(a)ihack.net>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<CAEqW=hNoJ3xs+_JH6sAMSLruQWagnox6joqw15TC+=8ZuG=kOQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote;wrote:
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?
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. Much like
why triplets, triple minors, and even squares, do not work well in the
Boston-area contra dance scene any more, even though they used to be called
frequently back in the VFW days.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: 95sg23(a)comcast.net
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<596413448.2373327.1336158198630.JavaMail.root(a)sz0061a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:16:24 -0400
From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <20120504201624.GA4784(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Charles Hannum wrote:
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.
I would say that if a caller wants to do something uncommon they
should be prepared to teach it to the people who haven't seen it
before.
You seem to be proposing that callers teach things they don't intend
to use so callers at future dances don't have to.
(I wasn't trying to get into the question of whether the caller was
wrong to program an evening without any proper or unequal-turn dances,
though I don't think they were.)
Jeff
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400
From: Linda Leslie <laleslierjg(a)comcast.net>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <E9D77335-70AF-4120-AF3A-908AE6F093F7(a)comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I agree with 95sg23(a)comcast.net. I very often will ask a large group
of new dancers to line up proper (and I explain what that means), for
*my* benefit. I share that when dancers line up in this way, it
signals me that they are ready to start dancing, and that it is easier
to organize the actual formation that comes next. This also leads to a
more direct understanding of what improper then means, so what we
teach/dance than takes on some logic. I also mention some history,
but never take too long doing it.
And even if I don't call an actual proper formation dance, there are
lots of times when it is useful to let dancers know that they are
"proper" and that this is the correct position to be in. A good
example would be a contra corners (cc) dance (not talking about
beginners here). It is helpful for folks to know that they are in
proper formation at the start of the cc (at least for most cc dances).
The time spent on this concept is minimal, and I believe well worth
the time. Sharing information is more inclusive, and I believe dancers
appreciate this.
Interesting thread! Thanks, Jeff!
warmly, Linda Leslie
On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, 95sg23(a)comcast.net wrote:
> 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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
End of Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
************************************** 
6 May
6 May
11:35 p.m.
New subject: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Chrissy Fowler wrote:
Sorry, you're right. I wasn't rememebring well. I should have said
"wait for people, and then when they're mostly ready say 'hands four'
a few times". The point is that usually the dancers don't need to be
instructed in how to get into position, just prompted to actually do
it.
Jeff
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.
I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this
sentence. I've never danced at, or called, or even heard about a
dance where the caller could "just wait for people to get into
position."
10 May
10 May
1:18 p.m.
New subject: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Jeff Kaufman wrote:
Chrissy Fowler wrote:
I called at MIT in Cambridge Tuesday night and I thought I would
follow up.
The dancers mostly lined up improper and in hands four without my
prompting. On the second dance I saw a couple standing reversed [1]
and said "ones cross over", and that couple switched. A couple times
I could start the walkthrough simply with "with your neighbor balance
and swing" but most of the time I needed to say "hands four",
primarily to get them to stop talking and pay attention.
Jeff
[1] This is complicated. I could tell they they didn't intend to be
swapped because I knew them. But if you make a point of getting
any couple standing gender-swapped to switch you'll annoy dancers
who are dancing that way on purpose. (And I think more people
should dance both roles, so I don't want to annoy or embarass
people doing it.) It helps not to single anyone out and instead
just say something generic like "ones cross over".
I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this
sentence. I've never danced at, or called, or even heard about a
dance where the caller could "just wait for people to get into
position."
Sorry, you're right. I wasn't rememebring well. I should have said
"wait for people, and then when they're mostly ready say 'hands four'
a few times". The point is that usually the dancers don't need to be
instructed in how to get into position, just prompted to actually do
it.
7 May
7 May
9:20 a.m.
New subject: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
This is probably a regional or specific community thing. In our village, St
Louis, Missouri, we just line up improper, and there's a bit of a confused
scuffle if a caller decides (rarely) to call a proper dance. Even though we
do that, our callers usually say, just for tradition's sake, "Line up for a
contra dance, ones cross over" or, if the caller has been calling for 20-30
years, "actives change places", but it's usually irrelevant, since the
whole hall is already in that formation.
We do mention in the beginners class that, historically, the men lined up
in one line and the women in the other and that at some point most dances
began starting with the top couple crossed over, but I doubt if anyone
really remembers that along with all the other, more useful information we
give them in that class.
Mostly, it's just "men on the left, ladies on the right," and people do
what others around them are doing. After they do it often enough it becomes
"just what we do." So we just line up improper, with no thought for the
historical precedent. Some people might momentarily wonder "What's an
active?"
So I'm surprised that your experience is so different, and it makes me
think that your dancers must have started dancing a lot longer ago than our
dancers - oh, wait! They did! So your village speaks a different
dialect. Cool.
M
E
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Chrissy Fowler <ktaadn_me(a)hotmail.com>wrote;wrote:
--
As you set out for Ithaka, pray that your journey be long, full of
adventure, full of discovery...
May there be many summer mornings when, with what pleasure, with what joy,
you enter harbors you're seeing for the first time.
~Constantine Cavafy, "Ithaka" 1911
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. c
I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this sentence.
I've never danced at, or called, ore even heard about a dance where the
caller could "just wait for people to get into position." Where does this
happen?
I've experienced a few (notable for their rarity) dances where the dancers
IMMEDIATELY take hand four and cross when the caller asks the first time,
for example Montpelier in the late 1990s/early 2000s. (Quite shocking for
a caller used to having at least 4 requests worth of time to talk w band,
etc. before the hands four improper status is achieved.) But this notion
of actually lining up improper is new to me.
Would the caller just know, at a glance, that everyone in a crowded hall
was correctly in position to start the walkthrough? How would dancers
joining the set know that the folks above them were in position correctly?
How much less time does it take than lining up proper and taking hands
four accordingly?
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast, ME
PS In case anyone is taking down data...
- I find as a caller and a dancer that it works well/efficiently to have
all gents in one line, all ladies in the other, start at top, take hands
four, id ones/twos and down/up line of direction for progression, id
neighbors. Even when I'm calling only duple improper contras all night.
- I have no attachment to using terms proper/improper, or
actives/inactives, with duple proper symmetrical dances.
- I think that habitual "insensitive twirling" (late, dangerous, awkward,
confusing-for-twirlee) is a detriment to the spirit of trad NE social
dance. And I say this as someone who has done every one of those sorts of
twirls as a dancer (late, dangerous, awkward, confusing-the-twirlee -- in
my case, with gents who don't expect me to initiate a twirl for them) But
when I do it, I know it's a problem for others around me. You know, sort
of like when you look down and realize you are going 60 in a 35mph zone.
Whoopsy!
From: callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:00:22 -0400
Send Callers mailing list submissions to
callers(a)sharedweight.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
2. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(George Mercer)
3. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(Charles Hannum)
4. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
(95sg23(a)comcast.net)
5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:32:09 -0400
From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <20120504183209.GA1973(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400
From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh=
xMwkPHCA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Good point. I agree. Thanks, George
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu
wrote:
kOQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400
From: Charles Hannum <root(a)ihack.net>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<CAEqW=hNoJ3xs+_JH6sAMSLruQWagnox6joqw15TC+=8ZuG= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu
wrote:
like
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?
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. Much why triplets, triple minors, and even squares, do
not work well in the
Boston-area contra dance scene any more, even though they used to be
called
frequently back in the VFW days.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: 95sg23(a)comcast.net
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID:
<
596413448.2373327.1336158198630.JavaMail.root(a)sz0061a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:16:24 -0400
From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <20120504201624.GA4784(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Charles Hannum wrote:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
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.
I would say that if a caller wants to do something uncommon they
should be prepared to teach it to the people who haven't seen it
before.
You seem to be proposing that callers teach things they don't intend
to use so callers at future dances don't have to.
(I wasn't trying to get into the question of whether the caller was
wrong to program an evening without any proper or unequal-turn dances,
though I don't think they were.)
Jeff
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400
From: Linda Leslie <laleslierjg(a)comcast.net>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Message-ID: <E9D77335-70AF-4120-AF3A-908AE6F093F7(a)comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I agree with 95sg23(a)comcast.net. I very often will ask a large group
of new dancers to line up proper (and I explain what that means), for
*my* benefit. I share that when dancers line up in this way, it
signals me that they are ready to start dancing, and that it is easier
to organize the actual formation that comes next. This also leads to a
more direct understanding of what improper then means, so what we
teach/dance than takes on some logic. I also mention some history,
but never take too long doing it.
And even if I don't call an actual proper formation dance, there are
lots of times when it is useful to let dancers know that they are
"proper" and that this is the correct position to be in. A good
example would be a contra corners (cc) dance (not talking about
beginners here). It is helpful for folks to know that they are in
proper formation at the start of the cc (at least for most cc dances).
The time spent on this concept is minimal, and I believe well worth
the time. Sharing information is more inclusive, and I believe dancers
appreciate this.
Interesting thread! Thanks, Jeff!
warmly, Linda Leslie
On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, 95sg23(a)comcast.net wrote:
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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
End of Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
**************************************
4375
days inactive
4379
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Chrissy Fowler -
Jeff Kaufman -
Martha Edwards