30 May
2015
30 May
'15
6:10 p.m.
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
...
It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a
generally accepted set
of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s
generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of
criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix.
There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but
which I find very disturbing.
The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be
standardization. This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western
Square Dance movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their
teaching programs. They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any
square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately know
exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are some
advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be
a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at
a tremendous cost.
It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and
appreciate regional differences. I don't care about being able to go to a
new place just to find that things there are done in the same way that I'm
used to them being done back home. I care about being able to go to new
places and learning the way things are done there.
What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that
it's a good thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of using different terminology, and consider what language
will work best for their dance. It would be a BAD thing if anyone switched
terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other people were doing.
It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted
because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be
that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally
accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places. In
the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if
there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to
what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would
be.
Jacob Bloom
31 May
31 May
10:06 a.m.
On Sat, May 30, 2015, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via
Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Sounds more like you're making an assumption from my POV. "...ultimately
a good thing" may well be considering the net benefit rather than
believing there are only positive features.
It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set
of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that???s
generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of
criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix.
There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but
which I find very disturbing.
The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be
standardization. This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern
Western Square Dance
movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching
programs. They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any
square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately
know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are
some advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you
happen to be a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot
hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost.
It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and
appreciate regional differences. I don't care about being able to go
to a new place just to find that things there are done in the same way
that I'm used to them being done back home. I care about being able
to go to new places and learning the way things are done there.
It's not clear what you mean by "hot hash". The most common definition
within the MWSD community these days refers to very fast-paced calling,
and if that's the definition you're using, I completely disagree with
your point. (Speaking as someone who's been doing MWSD for more than a
quarter-century and is currently approaching my second anniversary as a
square dance caller.)
"Mainstream" is the smallest program that's used by a significant
fraction of the MWSD community, and it generally takes about a year to
become proficient at it, to the point that ear, brain, and muscle all
work together at nearly instinct level. There's simply no way to switch
between groups within a single city without some level of
standardization, and once you've committed to the standardizing process,
there's a lot of benefit to scaling the standardization as large as
possible.
Side note: the standardization overall benefits callers more than
dancers, which I hadn't appreciated until I became a caller. I believe
the gay square dance community has stuck with gendered terms for similar
reasons.
If you dislike the way that MWSD expects dancers to execute figures
completely ad hoc, you probably should try a different kind of square
dancing -- but don't tell us how we should be doing things.
I've recently learned about Rueda, I haven't been able to find out how
much standardization there is within the Rueda community, but because
Rueda is couple-based rather than four-couple-based, it probably has more
opportunity for regional variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rueda_de_Casino
It may well be that a certain set of terms will become
generally accepted
because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be
that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally
accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places. In
the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if
there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to
what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would
be.
That's a sentiment I can agree with.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
11:53 a.m.
Thank you, Jacob. I think you have identified the real issue. We don't need for
everyone to do the same thing as long as our audiences understand what we are saying.
Susan Elberger
From: Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Delia Clark <deliaclark8(a)gmail.com>
Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 7:10 PM
Subject: [Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux:
gems?)
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
...
It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set of words
(certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s generally accepted across the
country, if possible) that meet the range of criteria, along the lines of those suggested
by Ron in his matrix.
There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but which I find very
disturbing.
The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be standardization.
This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western Square Dance movement to
standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching programs. They wanted any
square dancer to be able to go to any square dance club in the country, or in the world,
and immediately know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are some
advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be a globe-hopping
square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost.
It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and appreciate regional
differences. I don't care about being able to go to a new place just to find that
things there are done in the same way that I'm used to them being done back home. I
care about being able to go to new places and learning the way things are done there.
What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that it's a good
thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using
different terminology, and consider what language will work best for their dance. It
would be a BAD thing if anyone switched terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other
people were doing.
It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted because it works
better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be that dances which were written
to be gender-neutral will be generally accepted because they work better for the dancers
in a lot of places. In the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good
thing if there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to what
advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would be.
Jacob Bloom
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
1:53 p.m.
Thank you Jacob too - Toronto held Square Dancing in the Parks three evenings a week
during the summer months in the 1990s using live music
and traditional Canadian callers. The MWSD dancers that came would insist on doing
dosados passing right shoulders, when traditionally these
dancers (as with some US "eastern" square dance venues) would pass left
shoulders (as a left allemande no hands) when in a static square.
Attitude: Those "club" dancers would lecture, scold, and barge. I would say the
left position of a couple is typically the gents-side and call it thatway - using that
terminology. Senior ladies, more apt to to fill the left side role out of need, seem to
have no problem with terms....but whateverworks for you and your group. Attitude!
Bob LivingstonMiddletown, CT
From: susanelberger via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To:
Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms
redux: gems?)
Thank you, Jacob. I think you have identified the real issue. We don't need for
everyone to do the same thing as long as our audiences understand what we are saying.
Susan Elberger
From: Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Delia Clark <deliaclark8(a)gmail.com>
Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 7:10 PM
Subject: [Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux:
gems?)
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
...
It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set of words
(certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s generally accepted across the
country, if possible) that meet the range of criteria, along the lines of those suggested
by Ron in his matrix.
There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but which I find very
disturbing.
The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be standardization.
This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western Square Dance movement to
standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching programs. They wanted any
square dancer to be able to go to any square dance club in the country, or in the world,
and immediately know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are some
advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be a globe-hopping
square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost.
It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and appreciate regional
differences. I don't care about being able to go to a new place just to find that
things there are done in the same way that I'm used to them being done back home. I
care about being able to go to new places and learning the way things are done there.
What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that it's a good
thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using
different terminology, and consider what language will work best for their dance. It
would be a BAD thing if anyone switched terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other
people were doing.
It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted because it works
better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be that dances which were written
to be gender-neutral will be generally accepted because they work better for the dancers
in a lot of places. In the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good
thing if there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to what
advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would be.
Jacob Bloom
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
3252
days inactive
3253
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Aahz Maruch via Callers -
Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers
-
Robert Livingston via Callers
-
susanelberger via Callers