Thank you, Jeff, for venturing this calculation. I've been meaning to
try the numbers for some time. I got as far as doing the equations in
my head last night, but couldn't put in numbers before falling asleep.
Chris is right about the factor of two in the equation for the masses.
Think about the center of mass of the whole system. That is the
motionless point you are turning around. In a previous thread someone
compared the effect to holding onto a fixed pole and swinging around
that. The same centripetal force would be needed to keep you on track
as though you had an equal mass partner with equally long arms.
Replacing the pole with a partner does not change that force.
Chris also makes the good point about that centripetal force being
provided by two arms or even four arms in a barrel hold.
Thinking about the numbers, let's look at the distance traveled. Suppose
the radius is 1 foot. The circumference is a little over 6 feet
(2*pi). 4.5 revolutions would be a little over 28 feet. Doing that in
12 beats (steps), not allowing any time for stepping in after the
balance or opening up after the swing, means 2.4 feet per step, which
seems long to me. I'm guessing that a two-foot separation of the
dancers' centers of gravity is incompatible with 4.5 revolutions in 12
beats. Also, that's a 135 degree twist of the planted foot on each step
which may be aggressive for most dancers in a swing.
Looking at the contribution to the centripetal force from the feet, it's
important to note that the friction force there is applied much farther
from the dancer's center of mass vertically than in the case of any arm
connection. If you weren't holding on to your partner, you'd need to
lean in a little to keep your balance, while an earlier theme of this
thread was increasing the separation between dancers. I'm getting away
from quantitative here, but note that if you are turning 135 degrees
with each step, you want low friction which may limit your ability to
apply a centripetal force with your feet.
It's complicated.
David
On 3/27/2024 4:58 PM, Julian Blechner via Contra Callers wrote:
I had poked around with the math as well, but
struggled with all of
the estimates. I'm happy to see Jeff taking a stab at this and
discussing.
I think likely some of that force is taken by core muscles, and
transferred to the feet against floor, and such.
This would be a really cool practical kinesthetics research paper!
Julian
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 1:28 PM Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t.kaufman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks! Note that it's a bit more complicated than where the
center of mass is: you need the moment of inertia. For example,
imagine comparing (a) a point mass at r=1ft and (b) the same mass
divided into two bits at r=2ft and r=0ft. The center of mass in
case (b) still rotates with r=1ft but the cases aren't equivalent:
you need 2x the force in case (b). [1]
But you may well be right that the effective radius is under 1ft!
Jeff
[1] Doing the math:
F_a = m (ω2πr)^2 / r = m * r * (ω2π)^2
F_b = m/2 (ω2π(2r))^2 / (2r) + 0 = m * r * 2 * (ω2π)^2
F_a = 1/2 * F_b
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:18 PM Chris Lahey <clahey(a)clahey.net> wrote:
I addressed this in my other email, but this is a good
example. In this case my back is providing 100lbf to your hands.
I also can't imagine being in this position and having centers
of mass two feet apart, but I would want to measure it before
making this an argument, hence going with your numbers.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 13:15 Jeff Kaufman
<jeff.t.kaufman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for reviewing the calculation! Imagine that I hold
you around your back with both hands, and you put your
hands up in the air and enjoy the ride. While I don't
think we could get anywhere near 4.5x around in 12 beats
if you did that, do you agree that where my hands meet
your back I'd need to provide both enough force for our
combined weight?
(I'm not claiming each person needs to provide ~200lb, but
that this total force must be covered by the couple somehow)
Jeff
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Chris Lahey
<clahey(a)clahey.net> wrote:
I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers,
but you've calculated for a 300lb mass, but you
shouldn't do that doubling. I'm exerting enough force
to provide your centripetal force and vice versa.
Those forces oppose one another, but they don't add
up. That is a factor of two error.
I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm
and read upthread more.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra
Callers <contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade
connection is purely to counteract centrifugal
force. That is not normally a lot of force, so it
shouldn’t make you tired." above. While ideally
you could measure this, I don't think swinging
with a scale between your hand and partner's back
and your hand would be comfortable, and it would
be hard to read. Let's try a bit of physics.
If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x
around in twelve beats, which is 45rpm at a tempo
of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh 150lb
and approximate them as point masses two feet
apart. Doing some math:
r = 1ft
m = 300lb
ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz
v = ω2πr
= 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
= 4.7 ft/s
F = mv^2/r
= 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
= 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
= 6662lbm * ft / s^2
1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft
F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
= 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
= 207lbf
This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the
dancers together! If you're rotating more slowly,
perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
significant 64lb.
Jeff
PS: If you want something you can play with, this
is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 * weight * 1/32.2
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman
<jeff.t.kaufman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance
did in a recording studio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .
I see almost all "outer arms making a point,
gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's
left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold
(hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated
above that's a fraught term). At 0:58 and
then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02 etc there's a
couple with a symmetrical hold where they each
have their right hand around the other's
waist, with their left hands joined low in the
center. I didn't watch the whole video, so
it's possible there were other couples that
did other holds at some point?
Here's 1987 in Mendocino:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q .
I only see ballroom holds.
Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q .
Outdoor demo performance. Almost all ballroom
holds, but at 4:04 the couple all the way on
the right has outer hands in a forearm hold
(which they continue doing in later iterations
of the dance).
Here's 1986 in Francestown NH:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE At
0:30 I see two ballroom holds and two where
the outer arms are holding a bit above the
elbows. At 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one
of the hold from 0:30, and one of the
symmetrical holds I described in the Portland
OR video, though note that this is many of the
same couples. Jumping ahead to 8:38 I see
three ballroom holds and where the outer hands
hold each other's forearms. Separately, I
really like how enthusiastic the balances are:
you can feel the room shake through to the camera!
Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg
Almost all ballroom holds, except for one
couple where the lady's left hand is on the
back of the gent's right arm instead of behind
his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable to me!)
Here's 1976 in Bloomington:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w .
Looks like a performance. At 0:10 I see three
couples where the outer hands are joined as in
ballroom, the gent's right hand is around the
lady's waist, and the lady's left hand is
again on the back of the gent's right arm.
Then there's one couple doing the symmetrical
swing with left hands joined low between their
bodies. Same again at 0:44, 1:11, etc.
Here's 1967 somewhere in New England:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6E1AtqyvFM .
I see ballroom at 0:35, 0:37, 3:15, 3:16,
5:08, 5:10. Then at 1:05 (and then again in
the background at 5:11, and then again at 5:23
and 5:33) I see a forearm hold with arms that
are straighter than I'm used to. At 2:08 I
see a hold where the gents hands are both
around the lady's waist and the lady's hands
are both over the tops of the gent's shoulders.
Here's 1981 in Belmont MA, but it's an hour
and I'm going to bed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTVkWcehZo
Jeff
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:33 PM Stein, Robert
<steinr(a)msu.edu> wrote:
The 1964 film with Dudley Kaufman calling
also shows the same variety of swinging
styles from ballroom to various barrel holds.
Bob
On Mar 26, 2024, at 16:13, Jeff Kaufman
via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Looking through old media to figure out
what swing positions were common sounds
like fun! I think video might be more
promising? Here's a few annotations of a
video, where the numbers are timestamps
and each bullet describes the couple
that's in the middle of the frame at the
timestamp. I only counted each couple once:
Cambridge MA, 1990:
https://youtu.be/dC0qQYWjdh0?si=JWkNH0g93yo6VWrC
* 3:41: lady's hands behind gent's arms,
gent's right hand behind lady's back,
gent's left hand behind lady's arm
* 4:12: outer arms making a point,
gent's right hand behind lady's back,
lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
* 4:14: outer arms making a point,
lady's left hand on gent's shoulder,
gent's right hand on lady's back
* 4:44: outer arms making a point held
way out, lady's left hand behind gent's
shoulder, gent's right hand on lady's back
* 5:16: outer arms overlapping, inner
hands on backs with lady above gent
* 5:17: outer arms making a point held
low, gent's inner hand on lady's back,
lady's inner hand behind gent's shoulder
* 5:18: outer arms making a point and
held out, gent's inner hand on lady's
back, lady's inner hand behind gent's arm
* 5:48: both lady's hands behind gent's
shoulders, gent's left hand behind lady's
elbow, gent's right hand behind lady's back
* 5:49: outer arms making a point,
gent's right hand behind lady's back,
lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
* 5:50: outer arms making a point,
gent's right hand behind lady's back,
lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
The "outer arms making a point, gent's
right hand behind lady's back, lady's left
hand behind gent's shoulder" hold, which I
think of as the standard today, was about
half of them, but there was quite a lot of
variation.
I tried to do this with a Fitzwilliam
1975 clip, but there were too many cuts.
The 1964 video would be another one to try?
Jeff
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:33 PM Julian
Blechner via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Responding to various points.
And, obligatory acknowledgement that
there's always regional differences (and,
perhaps ultimately that is what this
thread is really about?)
I beg you forgive me for directness, and
please assume a friendly tone and desire
for friendly discussion, as that's what's
intended.
I just thumbed through two big choreo
milestone books marking approximately the
beginning of the less-1s&2s age of contra
- Balance and Swing, and Zesty Contras -
and absolutely Ted Sanella and Larry Jennings.
The short version: despite being
contemporaries and the books published a
year apart (1982 and 1983), they describe
slightly different swing holds, where:
- a gent's right hand is either on the
waist on the small of the back (Sanella)
or a little higher (Jennings, via the
illustration on the cover which he points
out in the description is what to follow)
- a gent's left hand is either a typical
ballroom palm-up supporting the lady's
right hand (Sanella) or behind the lady's
right upper arm (Jennings, with Sanella
noting the variation as well) - with a
lady's hands
- a lady's left hand is resting on the
top of the upper arm (Jennings) or "behind
the upper arm" (Sanella)
So even in 1982/1983, there was no
agreed traditional swing position, and
holds described by both did include women
holding men in ways that were supporting
from behind rather than everyone agreeing
that their hand is "resting on top" as
with other couples' dances.
Obviously dance evolves over time, and
I'll circle back around to that after I
touch on some specific points:
RE: Joe: "They lean back or sideways or
press back against the Leftie’s supporting
right hand."
Agree, these are bad habits. The
"leaning back" may be describing "the
feeling of centripetal force", but also I
have definitely experienced people who
lean back.
RE: Neal: "both-palms-flat swing ...
forces the swing together because you are
limited to the length of the shorter arm."
I don't think this is accurate.
This was covered elsewhere in the
thread. The shoulderblade isn't small, and
adjustments can be made to adjust for
height or size differences. There's always
exceptions, sure.
Certainly, when I swing young kids,
we're not doing shoulderblades. Then
again, they have a lot less mass than an
adult, so there's less support that's
needed to be given.
RE: Neal: " putting your palm in the
middle of my back means you’re going to be
on top of me."
I agree, however, a good flat-palms
swing hold is not in the "middle" of the
back. There's a gap between
shoulderblades, so a hand in the middle is
partially off the shoulderblade.
I like how Lisa Greenleaf describes it
as the curve of the hand often can
naturally curve around the shoulderblade.
RE: Neal: " if partners are the same
height/arm length then the arms are coming
in at the same point and going to the same
point, resulting in collision. SOMEONE has
to adjust up or down AND forward."
I mean, I suppose, technically speaking?
But I think everyone on this list here has
been dancing for years, and "elbow
collisions" isn't a thing I've really
experienced or heard discussed.
So, I conclude that this may in theory
be possible, but people just ... do it?
As a lark/lefthand role, my right arm
comes into a swing from a bit of an
under-scooping motion. As a
robin/righthand role, my left arm comes in
more open and I wait half a moment to let
the lark engage their right arm before I
try and wrap my right arm around.
It's similar-ish to the anticipation
leading into a good connection on a star
promenade.
Further to this point, if I were using
the traditional "woman left arm rests on
top", I'd have to wait until the lark's
arm has engaged, anyway.
Which means that traditionally, women
have done that extra bit of work in the
dance of that waiting, reading the other
dancer's movement, and timing their own
move --- and I wonder how much of that had
gone unnoticed.
This all said, the explanation that you
give, Neal, may not work as wellwhen it's
not taller men dancing with shorter women.
Some women are tall and dance the
Robin/Righthand role.
Some men are tall and dance the
Robin/Righthand role.
Some women are shorter and dance the
Lark/Lefthand role.
Some men are shorter and dance the
Lark/Lefthand role.
Some men dance with men, some women with
women.
Etc.
So dancing requires a need to adjust our
arms to "make a swing work for both
people" as a universal and generic skill.
Thankfully, I think it's one that's
actually more automatic than it may seem!
Regardless of how we discuss the
technical and kinesthetic aspects of
contra, I teach (and I think most callers
teach) that dancers need to adjust
themselves to every partner and neighbor,
and find a happy medium that works for
both people.
If someone doesn't want to put their
hand flat on my shoulderblade, that's fine
and I'll adjust by limiting my upper-end
swing speed.
I think we all share the value that a
skilled contra dancer can adjust their
style to meet another dancer's differences
in size, height, ability, tiredness,
injury, age, etc.
In dance,
Julian Blechner
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:28 AM Neal
Schlein <nschlein(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Julian,
Regarding both dancers trying to put
their palm flat on the other persons back,
I agree with Joe.
The both-palms-flat swing does multiple
things.
First, it forces the swing together
because you are limited to the length of
the shorter arm. I’m six feet tall with
broad shoulders and long arms—putting your
palm in the middle of my back means you’re
going to be on top of me. I don’t care who
I’m dancing with—I want space, and I’m not
OK with that. With a standard hold, I can
give partners lots of space. (Also, I
sweat from the head a lot. You want that
space, and no one wants their hand on my
back.)
Second, if partners are the same
height/arm length then the arms are coming
in at the same point and going to the same
point, resulting in collision. SOMEONE has
to adjust up or down AND forward. This
means a changed angle for one person, and
due to the change in angle a shortening of
the hold to match the arm that adjusted
(usually on top), thereby pulling the
swing closer together than otherwise
necessary…which also puts the other
person’s arm (typically lark, and also
typically longer) in a non-natural
position, which is likely to be physically
uncomfortable and potentially harmful.
Neal Schlein
Librarian, MSLIS
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 1:24 PM Julian
Blechner via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Hi Joe,
You mean, palms flat on the back of
shoulderblades? If so, it's how I teach
it, lots of callers teach it, and this is
the first I've heard a complaint about it.
That said, you describe: "I've had my
elbow bent backward by eager robins
pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in
the right place."
That _sounds like_ what I call "arm
clamping". While yes, putting Robin's hand
on the outside of the shoulder also
alleviates the clamping, it's not the only
way to fix it. A Robin can lift their
elbow. (I just workshopped the issue with
my partner in the living room to test a
variety of height and holds out to confirm
what you were saying, as well.)
The other issue is that if both dancers
don't have hands flat on the backs of each
other, it's more difficult to maintain an
open frame when swinging. One usually
winds up _closer_ when hands are resting
on shoulders, unless one dancer is
significantly stronger and the other is
fairly petite.
I know that my right arm will get
seriously fatigued and sore if I have an
evening too many times as Lark with Robins
providing insufficient support. And I've
heard plenty of dancers say similar.
That said, all bodies are different. If
yours works where the swing hold works
better for you the way you describe, that
is what it is, yeah? But I might recommend
considering workshopping swings further,
because what you're requesting is counter
to prevailing teaching. If I understand
correctly (and it's always possible I'm
missing something.)
In dance,
Julian Blechner
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024, 1:13 PM Joe
Harrington <contradancerjoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Not the standard ballroom, with the
robin's arm on top of the lark's, but an
alternative that I've seen occasionally,
but for a number of years now, where the
robin tries to put their left hand in the
same location on the lark's back as the
lark has their right hand on the robin's
back. I know at least one prominent
caller who teaches this hold in their
newbie workshop and tells their dancers
that both sides need to do this to provide
equal support in the swing.
While I like the principle, the practice
can hurt. If the dancers are not grossly
mismatched in size/arm length, it won't be
possible to do this without their elbows
occupying the same space. I've had my
elbow bent backward by eager robins
pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in
the right place. Even if it doesn't go
all the way to pain, it pretty much
eliminates my ability to provide any
support, unless I "fight back" by pushing
my elbow out and resisting the inward
pressure, essentially refusing the
position. I'm also focusing entirely on
protecting my elbow, so it kills any
enjoyment in that swing.
Please gently discourage this hold. If
a robin wants to give major support in a
swing, the symmetric swing holds, the
barrel, the one Jeff described, or even a
mirror of the ballroom where the lark's
arm is on top are much better
opportunities. A robin whose arm is
longer than their lark's arm can also
reach over or around the shoulder in a
ballroom hold (robin's arm on top) to add
support. Just don't push down on the
shoulder.
--jh--
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:21 AM Julian
Blechner <juliancallsdances(a)gmail.com> wrote:
JJ,
I like your point about the sort of
code-switching that the asymmetry of a
ballroom hold provides to reinforce what
role one is dancing.
Joe,
I don't understand what you mean about
the ballroom hold having elbows occupy the
same space. I think I'd need to see it (in
person or picture). That said, it raises
the broader issue, which is the overall
topic, that everyone has different
physical needs and finding happy mediums
is our goal for everyone dancing together.
Your issue with ballroom hold handholds as
such is a good reminder for me that no one
- not even seasoned callers - can
anticipate every need or difference.
In dance,
Julian Blechner
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 10:38 PM JJ
<jcgj95(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Personally for me, the standard ballroom
swing helps me to "flip the switch" in the
brain on which side of the swing I'm
"supposed to" end on (assuming we're not
switching roles back and forth for fun
lol). If my left arm is the "pointy arm,"
I'm ending on the left; if my right arm is
the "pointy arm," I'm ending on the right.
I don't have to consciously tell myself
"I'm the Lark" or "I'm the
Robin," my
muscle memory just takes over and I just
end on whichever side my arm position
tells me to 😅.
I enjoy neutral swings, but if we're not
planning on switching roles without
warning through an individual dance, I
tend to stick with the traditional
ballroom figure.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 22:33 Jeff Kaufman
via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
"At the time, it almost never happened
that the one in the lady's role actually
swung like a lady. I'm not sure when that
became the norm."
When I started dancing both roles,
around 2005, I remember initially doing it
as you said, with gender-neutral swings
with the gents I encountered. I remember
being surprised sometime around 2006-2007
when I ran into a few guys dancing switch
who indicated they wanted to do the
standard ballroom hold. By 2008-2009 I
think my male friends and I were dancing
the lady's role in the standard way?
Jeff
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:16 PM Joe
Harrington via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I love the barrel hold, but some of my
partners have reacted in a way that
indicated it was too intimate for them.
This is especially true if I have to lean
over to do it, as that puts my face pretty
close to theirs (I'm pretty tall). It's
also difficult to do without frontal
contact if one or both partners is well on
the heavy side. But, all that aside, if
you and your partner like fast swings,
it's a great hold, more stable than
ballroom, with four arms providing support
rather than one.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when
guys danced the lady's role (using the
terminology of the time for reasons you'll
see in a moment), we'd almost universally
be offered the "gender-neutral swing",
which is symmetrical and very stable for
fast swinging: both right arms are around
the other's back and both left arms go
over/around the other's right arm, bend 90
degrees at the elbow, pass between you,
and clasp left hands around each other's
forearms between your bodies. At the
time, it almost never happened that the
one in the lady's role actually swung like
a lady. I'm not sure when that became the
norm. I would occasionally do it with a
particular guy partner whom I liked to
dance with. We practiced it first and
then did it with each other, but we
gender-neutral-swung our neighbors. We
got some pretty surprised looks from our
neighbors when we swung each other. At
least one guy asked me if that partner and
I were an item. Times and role terms and
what people read into dance behavior change...
In general, I'm quite happy to swing
with guys in either role when they're
happy to swing with me. But, it's awkward
and uncomfortable in the extreme to be
going up an entire line of consecutive
frowns, growls, and looks of disgust as a
guy dancing the robbin...enough that I
haven't returned to the dance weekend
where that happened in Fall 2022, even
though it was pretty great in other ways.
The one swing style I really dislike is
a modified ballroom position where the
robbin tries to put their hand on the
lark's back in the same place where the
lark's hand is on theirs. I know some
people actually teach it this way, I guess
as some kind of equality thing. It's
terrible, because their elbow and the
lark's elbow then have to occupy the same
space, which, well, physics. If I'm the
lark and their arm is outside mine, when
they try to provide support, it
hyperextends my right elbow, eliminating
any chance I can provide support and
sometimes inducing pain before I can
either force my elbow back out, displacing
their hand from my back, or pull my arm up
to rest it on their arm in a mirror of the
traditional ballroom hold. I hope we can
convince everyone to stop teaching this
hold, as it usually doesn't work as
intended and it can hurt the lark.
One assist that does work in ballroom
position and requires no communication is,
if the robbin's arm is as long as or
longer than the lark's, they rest their
left arm on the lark's right, extending
the entire length of the arm and then
reaching around/over the lark's shoulder
to provide some support on the shoulder
blade. In my case, at least, if they are
short enough that they can't do this, then
they're often also light enough that
additional support isn't critical, though
it does make for more connection. It's
important not to press down on the
shoulder, though. Only pull forward.
--jh--
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:52 PM Julian
Blechner via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
At the last couple of dances in the last
few days, I thought about this email
thread and observations.
Short and simple:
A "barrel hold" swing:
- Seemed to provide a little bit more
space than a ballroom hold
- One neighbor offered it (by chance)
really clearly, as a lark, with his left
arm curved into a sort of "offer a hug"
type position. As we engaged in the swing
hold, he placed his left arm in place, and
it guided things in. It worked pretty well
for me, at least as an experienced dancer.
In dance,
-Julian Blechner
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:18 PM
becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I can’t answer whether the robin's would
always HAVE to go above the lark’s in the
modified ballroom swing, but I would
intuitively think that having that
rule/understanding might make it easier
for dancers to make the transition from
ballroom to modified ballroom because the
robin’s arm is always on top in standard
ballroom swing. Also, the lark’s hand is
typically cupped upwards with the robin’s
hand above the lark’s in things like a
balance or even a handhold in a circle
move, so having the hand/arm orientations
the same in the swing would also seem more
intuitive to me if I were just learning
this swing.
Becky
> On Mar 16, 2024, at 12:25 PM, Katherine
Kitching via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Hi John, thanks for all your comments.
I like this swing at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUiXStkCHGs
from 0:05 to 0:15 - for spacing -- and I'm
going to introduce it at our next dance!
Though what I think Becky found
interesting about the variation we're
working on is that it retains the "pointy
hands", which can be useful.
>
> The one thing that I was confused about
when I read your message: you say when
you tried the swing variation our group
has been experimenting with (visual at
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ebotfe2jksbr3dqbjyiuf/Modified-Ballroom-Swin…
<https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ebotfe2jksbr3dqbjyiuf/Modified-Ballroom-Swing-elbow-hold.jpg?rlkey=ekblzvpc2tk2hkbtfrh9u96au&dl=0>
)
> -- you say that you found the grip
insufficient, for the arms that are
holding just above the elbow.
>
> But in my mind, this hold that me and
my partner are doing with his left hand my
right hand , is supposed to be the same
as the hold you use in this video of yours
- (but in your case, your left hand and
her right hand.)
> Maybe I didn't execute it properly, but
it is what I intended:
>
https://youtu.be/yUbi1B2Edk0?si=HL-3jgI95LtGZBQ_&t=198
<https://youtu.be/yUbi1B2Edk0?si=HL-3jgI95LtGZBQ_&t=198>
>> Starts at 3:18.
>> Thoughts?
>
>> Also, is anyone able to answer my
question to Winston -
>
>> Is it a given, due to something in the
asymmetric nature of the hold, that in
this video referenced by Allan -
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ0R5iHT-l8
or in the photo I shared above via
Dropbox, that the Robin's arm will
*always* go above the Lark's arm?
>
>> Or could the placement of the arms vary
depending on the relative height of the
two dancing partners?
> (for example with a 6' tall Lark and a
5' tall Robin, would the Robin's arm still
be above the Lark's?
>
>> Thanks all!
>> Kat K in Halifax
>>> John Sweeney via Contra Callers
>>> Thursday, March 14, 2024 7:23 AM
>>> Hi Kat,
>>> Yes, I thought you meant something
like you show in your photo. When you
mentioned Jeff's photo I did wonder, as it
is what I call a Foreshortened Hold in my
video and brings you closer together
rather than further apart.
>>
>> I picked up the Foreshortened Hold
from the cover of Zesty Contras and love
it. I was surprised when I analysed the
600 dancers at a contra dance at The
Flurry and realised that nobody else was
using it!
>>
>> We tried your Modified Ballroom Hold
Swing and didn't feel that it really
worked. With my right arm underneath there
didn't seem to be enough connection to
have a really good swing unless Karen
gripped my arm. I felt that my hand might
slide down. With my right arm on top Karen
felt that it was pulling on her shoulder
even though I wasn't gripping - it was
just awkward. So, sorry, but I won't be
using that one.
>>
>> Re all the references to sore
arms/hands/wrists/etc. The biggest problem
is that people are told to "give weight".
I don't want your weight! People
misunderstand and lean back or sideways.
If people control their own weight then
all the connection has to do is counter
centrifugal force and that it not a lot
inless you spin really fast.
>>
>> I always start a Swing lesson by
getting the dancers to Buzz on the spot BY
THEMSELVES. Then when they connect they
keep their own balance and weight.
>>
>> I have had major operations on both my
shoulders (too much Repetitive Strain
Injury from another style of dance that is
taught badly, and then lots of Aerials:
https://youtu.be/CJnL_Y63AnY?si=RqKHSw5MQmhiuIFT
- maybe I shouldn't have started doing
those in my fifties!). Anyway, I can't
afford to let people damage my shoulders.
With a good partner I can Swing at high
speeds with no problem. Whenever someone
leans back or sideways I just slow the
Swing down and lessen my connection so
that they have to take their own weight or
fall over.
>>
>> Anyway, if you can get everyone to
keep their own weight you will find it is
much less strain on your arm/hand/wrist.
>>
>> The standard Quebecois Swing has the
feet interleaved. They seem to do it
without any problem. It is just a
different feel and takes some getting used to.
>>
>> Someone mentioned the challenges with
being too close in a Ceilidh Swing
(
http://contrafusion.co.uk/SwingWorkshop.html#Ceilidh
) - you could always try the Forearm Swing
instead
(
http://contrafusion.co.uk/SwingWorkshop.html#Linked
) - same principle, but further apart so
no bodily contact.
>>
>> Happy dancing,
>> John
>>
>> John Sweeney, Dancer, England
john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802
940 574
Dancing in Kent
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
>> Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers
>> Wednesday, March 13, 2024 10:20 PM
>> For me, the enforced intimacy is about
the proximity of bodies and lack of
physical air space between them. The huge
difference between a swing in contra vs.,
say, agreeing to dance a waltz or a swing
dance with someone, is that by agreeing to
dance you’re agreeing to swing with EVERY
opposite-role person in the line, not just
the person you asked to dance. That’s a
much bigger commitment to physical
contact/intimacy than saying yes to one
person.
>>
>> As a side note, before we got rid of a
lecherous dancer in our group a few years
ago, MANY women in our dance group chose
their contra dance line specifically to
avoid having to swing with him. The most
important intervention was, of course, to
establish a code of conduct which we used
to remove him from the dance group (when
it became clear he would not agree to
change his behaviour). But for women (and
others, but it’s always been women who
have said this to me over the years), when
they come to a dance not KNOWING whether
there MIGHT be a letch in the line, it is
asking quite a lot to expect them to do a
ballroom swing with whoever comes at them.
I am wondering whether the modified
ballroom hold might make contra feel
safer, especially for new dancers.
>>
>> I’d love to hear what folks who have
used both feel about the difference.
>>
>> Becky
>>
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Julian
Blechner <juliancallsdances(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would love to read elaboration /
articulation on why a ballroom hold feels
more "intimate" than other holds?
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
>> Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> Julian Blechner via Contra Callers
>> Wednesday, March 13, 2024 5:34 PM
>> I would love to read elaboration /
articulation on why a ballroom hold feels
more "intimate" than other holds?
>>
>> Is it a matter of the historical
social attachment we have in our minds
with couples dances that use the hold, and
romance in our culture?
>>
>> Is it a physical proximity? (I find
ceilidh holds to be closer, crossed arms
has my hands bearish their belly which has
its own intimacy to me, though sometimes
barrel holds can be done with a bit more
space - though I wouldn't say the default)
>>
>> Is it something else?
>>
>> Maybe if we looked at the why, it'd
give insight to what a solution to an
alternate swing hold and/or an adjusted
mindset might entail?
>>>
>>> In dance,
>>> Julian Blechner
>>> He/him
>>> Western Mass
>>
>>
>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>> Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --
contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to
contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list --contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email tocontracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net