Import1 December 2015

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
49 discussions

[Callers] Proactive Management of “Problem Dancers” — Creating a Dance Environment Safe for All

by William Loving via Callers

Country Dance and Song Society (CDSS) has just published my article: "Proactive Management of “Problem Dancers”—Creating a Dance Environment Safe for All" in the Winter "CDSS News" If you are involved in community dance organizing in any form, I encourage you to take a look. http://www.cdss.org/images/newsletter_archives/articles/CDSS_News_winter_20… Will Loving • Downtown Amherst Contra Dance (most Wednesdays) http://amherstcontra.org https://www.facebook.com/pages/Downtown-Amherst-Contradance/196206887090444 • Greenfield Challenging Contras (4th Fridays) https://www.facebook.com/groups/greenfieldchallenge/

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Proactive Management of “Problem Dancers” — Creating a Dance En...

by via Callers

Great article Will. Very informative. Thanks for writing and posting it. Joe De Paolo In a message dated 12/14/2015 1:01:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net writes: Country Dance and Song Society (CDSS) has just published my article: "Proactive Management of “Problem Dancers”—Creating a Dance Environment Safe for All" in the Winter "CDSS News" If you are involved in community dance organizing in any form, I encourage you to take a look. http://www.cdss.org/images/newsletter_archives/articles/CDSS_News_winter_201 5-2016_proactive_management_loving.pdf Will Loving • Downtown Amherst Contra Dance (most Wednesdays) http://amherstcontra.org https://www.facebook.com/pages/Downtown-Amherst-Contradance/196206887090444 • Greenfield Challenging Contras (4th Fridays) https://www.facebook.com/groups/greenfieldchallenge/= _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?

by John Sweeney via Callers

Hi Ron, Try Dopeca: http://www.contrafusion.co.uk/Dances/Dopeca.html Happy dancing, John John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?

by Brooks Hart via Callers

I just introduced Petronella twirl to my beginner group and used "Heartbeat Contra" by Don FlahertyHeartbeat Contra by Don FlahertyDuple improperA1 (8) Ring balance, petronella (8) Ring balance, petronellaA2 (16) Ring balance, Neighbor swingB1 (8) Ladies Gypsy R 1.5 (8) Partner SwingB2 (8) Circle L 3/4 (8) Partner balance, california twirl[Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?Actions Brooks Hart 3:28 AM To: Ron Blechner Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:13:27 -0500 To: callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net Subject: [Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande? From: callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net Any suggestions for your favorite easy or intermediate Petronella spin dance with no chain, no allemandes? Thanks, Ron Blechner _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 4 months

[Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?

by Ron Blechner via Callers

Any suggestions for your favorite easy or intermediate Petronella spin dance with no chain, no allemandes? Thanks, Ron Blechner

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

by Yoyo Zhou via Callers

On Dec 10, 2015 11:45 AM, "Rich Sbardella via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Folks, > > One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that they do not like Beckets. This is unusual behavior. More on that below. > Is there a negative sentiment about Becket formation among many dancers? If so, can someone explain the reason? No and no. Imagine that instead of Becket, the caller announced, the last dance will be a square. Or a shadow swing dance. Or a triple minor chestnut with no partner swing. Or a mazurka quadrille, with footwork. How would it be reasonable for the dancers to respond? What if you didn't know ahead of time? Say you start out improper and circle all the way instead of 3/4, and surprise, actually Becket. Or a shadow swing unannounced. Or the caller asks you to do something dangerous. Or a dance that the caller is simply unprepared to teach well. How do you respond? We have an unstated social contract (thanks to Seth Tepfer from whom I learned this idea) between the band, the caller, and the dancers. The dancers and band trust the caller to lead the event; in doing so, they cede some of their autonomy. They agree to listen to the caller and go along with their program, not dancing their own dance or playing their own music whenever they feel like it. But this trust depends on the caller's ability to earn it. (It's this way in any teaching situation.) As callers, we show the dancers we are worthy of their trust by knowing what we are doing, and by meeting community expectations. (For example, at least in my area, some callers call both English dances and contra dances, but these communities have come to expect different styles of teaching.) Call dances which flow nicely, are fun, are not too hard to learn, are contra dances, etc. but occasionally teach us something new, do a square dance, etc. On the dancers' side, the social contract I think includes a lot of measures of commitment. If the caller is doing their job well, you agree to dance with a partner, in a line, across from neighbors, and keep doing the dance the caller is leading, and respect your fellow dancers' boundaries. Or maybe you sit out if you're tired, you don't like this formation, or you just don't want to dance. These are your choices, and you don't have to involve other people in them. It definitely feels awkward when people go outside the social contract: The caller doesn't know what they're talking about. The caller calling out individuals for 'doing it wrong'. Dancers disrupting the caller. Dancers making each other uncomfortable. Dancers dropping out of the middle of the set. Dancers making a dramatic departure. So I'm not sure what dancers are accomplishing by making a show of not liking Becket dances and leaving*. Presumably Becket dances are as much a part of your community's expectations as they are of mine. Having bought into the social contract, we respond with "those people are being weird", not "the caller should not call Beckets". (*: actually, in your original example, Rich, I'm not sure if they were obnoxious about it or just said it privately to the dancers near them.) Yoyo Zhou

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

by John Sweeney via Callers

Next time you see this couple at a dance, call for Rifleman Formation! Maybe they will stay to see what it is. Yes, before the relatively recent introduction of the term "Becket Formation" that formation was known as "Rifleman Formation", after the English country dance The Rifleman. Yes, we were using that formation in the 19th century, and possibly earlier, way before Becket Reel was written! Please note I use the term "English country dance" not capitalised, i.e. not what Americans dance and call ECD. We do lots of English country dancing with the " increased exertion and tempo" of contra dancing. Young dancers over here tend to use their energy through stepping rather than spinning, but the energy level at a good dance is the same as at a contra! Progression: most of my Becket dances end with "Yearn on the Left Diagonal" giving a full eight beats for the dancers to meet their new neighbours, high five them and retire to their new place ready to start the dance again. Happy dancing, John John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

by janet via Callers

My first guess isbthatvthey were not overly familiar with what a Becket dance is. Recently I asked a person to dance who had been coming fairly frequently for a few weeks after the caller announced it was a Becket. He was going to sit out because he didn't know what a Becket dance was. Some callers don't say Becket, they just say turn your circles one place to the left/right. As the last dance of the evening, I would hope the call didn't have anything too complex (a major programming flaw in my book). To address comments in the email below ... 1. Diaganol figures ... Except maybe slice left to a new couple, I can't think of much I would consider for a last dance. Last dances should be relatively simple so dancers can enjoy the music and the flow. 2. Debecketize maneuver ... I find this slightly annoying when callers say "like all Becket dances" circle left and pass through. I hate more when they either skip that part entirely in the walk through or start it un Becketized and then tell you afterwards that it is Becket. If you don't teach the walk through the way the dance is actually danced, you very well could have confused newer dancers, especially. Since he is unlikely to say anything himself, I will point out that the "as with all Becket dances" comment was so annoying that Cary Ravitz once called an entire evening where none of the Becket dances have that progression ... None! And as most of you probably know, he writes a lot of Becket dances. Partner swings at the end of the dance. .. To me that is the number one reason to have a Becket dance, especially as the last dance. You get to end with your partner and the caller doesn't have to break the moment to fudge the end to make you end with your partner. That being said, I do know a couple Beckets that do not end that way. Cary's Autumn Air is a pretty easy Becket that does not end with a partner swing. 3. If callers fudge the end of a duple improper dance to make it end with your partner, it is generally their responsibility to make sure it works smoothly. Most choreographers do not include an alternate ending to suggest how to make this work, so it is on the caller to figure it out. If poorly done, it can be really disappointing. Janet Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Date: 12/10/2015 8:25 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation Actually, I can see this. As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor experiences with dances in Beckets. That said, there are two fairly common tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating and another which absolutely drives me up a wall. Other callers and dancers don't seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely avoid the dances which have the last one. 1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like them myself. They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly right and left throughs; people run into each other. Add to this the slight disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can be unpleasant. In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine. Not a problem so much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle all at once and it's confusing. 2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever." How many beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and end with "Partner swing on the side!" (answer: TOO MANY) If all you are going to do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems like a cheap trick done just to make the dance "different." Again, not an inherent problem of the formation, just a problem of choreographic selection. 3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature swings at the end of the dance: partial or non progression. This problem, unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the formation: such a difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and it drives me absolutely NUTS. I have experienced a number of dances in which the caller instructs the dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge" or some such to make the dance work. The contra doesn't actually progress the couples down the line, but leaves them 1/2 progressed or non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the outside, but not always. Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; swinging on the outside and fudging down the hall is another. The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches it well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial progression problem always jars and simply seems to be excessively lazy choreography.Beak Neal SchleinYouth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library Currently reading: The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, John W Gintell via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: My favorite progression requires Becket formation: circle left and then slide up/down and circle with the next pair. > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a number of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in Winnipeg. It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get interest from other dancing groups, that some people know what they like and what they don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English country dance often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and tempo. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's got their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose. > > We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at the end of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't want to start learning new things late in the evening. > > Greg > > _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

by Bill Olson via Callers

Well, any improper dance that has a partner swing on the side could be rephrased to be Becket, actually it wouldn't even have to be a swing.. just a partner interaction that ended facing across the set. So you could argue that just about ANY modern improper contra dance "goes through" Becket formation at some time during the dance.. But, truth is, people are gonna do what they're gonna do and have their reasons. With this particular couple it may not have had anything to do with Becket Formation at all!! b Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:21:08 -0500 To: nschlein(a)gmail.com CC: callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation From: callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net If confronted with that bias again, one could always point out that many improper dances if started in the b section instead, become Becket dances and vice versa. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Actually, I can see this. As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor experiences with dances in Beckets. That said, there are two fairly common tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating and another which absolutely drives me up a wall. Other callers and dancers don't seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely avoid the dances which have the last one. 1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like them myself. They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly right and left throughs; people run into each other. Add to this the slight disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can be unpleasant. In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine. Not a problem so much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle all at once and it's confusing. 2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever." How many beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and end with "Partner swing on the side!" (answer: TOO MANY) If all you are going to do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems like a cheap trick done just to make the dance "different." Again, not an inherent problem of the formation, just a problem of choreographic selection. 3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature swings at the end of the dance: partial or non progression. This problem, unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the formation: such a difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and it drives me absolutely NUTS. I have experienced a number of dances in which the caller instructs the dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge" or some such to make the dance work. The contra doesn't actually progress the couples down the line, but leaves them 1/2 progressed or non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the outside, but not always. Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; swinging on the outside and fudging down the hall is another. The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches it well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial progression problem always jars and simply seems to be excessively lazy choreography.BeakNeal SchleinYouth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library Currently reading: The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, John W Gintell via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: My favorite progression requires Becket formation: circle left and then slide up/down and circle with the next pair. > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a number of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in Winnipeg. It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get interest from other dancing groups, that some people know what they like and what they don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English country dance often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and tempo. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's got their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose. > > We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at the end of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't want to start learning new things late in the evening. > > Greg > > _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

by Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers

If confronted with that bias again, one could always point out that many improper dances if started in the b section instead, become Becket dances and vice versa. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Actually, I can see this. > > As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor > experiences with dances in Beckets. That said, there are two fairly common > tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating > and another which absolutely drives me up a wall. Other callers and > dancers don't seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely > avoid the dances which have the last one. > > 1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like > them myself. They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly > right and left throughs; people run into each other. Add to this the > slight disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can > be unpleasant. In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine. Not a problem > so much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle > all at once and it's confusing. > > 2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever." How many > beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and > end with "Partner swing on the side!" (answer: TOO MANY) If all you are > going to do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems > like a cheap trick done just to make the dance "different." Again, not an > inherent problem of the formation, just a problem of choreographic > selection. > > 3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature > swings at the end of the dance: *partial or non progression*. This > problem, unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the > formation: such a difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and > it drives me absolutely NUTS. I have experienced a number of dances in > which the caller instructs the dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge" > or some such to make the dance work. The contra doesn't actually progress > the couples down the line, but leaves them 1/2 progressed or > non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the outside, but not always. > Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; swinging on the outside > and fudging down the hall is another. > > The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches > it well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial > progression problem always jars and simply seems to be excessively lazy > choreography. > Beak > > Neal Schlein > Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library > > > Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist > Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system. > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, John W Gintell via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> My favorite progression requires Becket formation: circle left and then >> slide up/down and circle with the next pair. >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a >> number of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in >> Winnipeg. It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get >> interest from other dancing groups, that some people know what they like >> and what they don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English >> country dance often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and >> tempo. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's >> got their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad >> experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone >> does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event >> because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to >> make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose. >> > >> > We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at >> the end of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't >> want to start learning new things late in the evening. >> > >> > Greg >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >

8 years, 4 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 December 2015