Import1 October 2016

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
123 discussions

Re: [Callers] Wrist Lock Stars - Summary

by John Sweeney via Callers

David said, " I would rather have a lump star moving promptly than a beautiful wrist star three steps late". Absolutely! Which is why I always teach the dancers to move their feet first and worry about their hands once they are moving. 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, 2 months

[Callers] Wrist Lock Stars - Summary

by John Sweeney via Callers

Thanks to all those who contributed. Here is a summary of the key points that were made. It is clear that the wrist lock star is indeed the standard across the USA, with only a few areas using hands across. Summary Names: Wrist Star, Box Star, Wrist-Grip Star, Wrist-Lock Star, Pack-saddle Star, Wagon-Wheel (Star), Basket Handhold Also, but these can mean Hands Across: Millstone Star, Mill, Windmill, Moulinet, Old Mill Alternative Star Holds: Hands Across (that term goes back to at least 1650!) Palm Star (MWSD only) Lump (Bunch of Bananas, Limp Lettuce) - to be avoided at all costs Etymology of Mill references: Alan Winston: Go back far enough (1700s) and you get "moulinet" in French sources, "mill" in some English sources, for what I'm pretty sure are hands-across stars. Colin Hume: In the Netherlands it's called "molen" which means "windmill". John Sweeney: The early 19th century Quadrilles and dances like The Lancers used the term Moulinet for Star. As far as we know it was always a Hands Across Star. Moulinet means turnstile, crank or propeller. Whether it independently became known as a Windmill/Mill or whether it was badly translated as Moulin = Windmill is unclear. Wagon-Wheel: in the Appalachians it was a shoulder star - see 2 minutes in at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht9kjeKcOsg. There is a general view that the term Wrist-Grip should be avoided, and that it should be emphasised that you don't grip (keep your thumb up top with your fingers!). I like the term "Wrist Lock" since it makes it clear that we are using wrists, and since the shape you make looks like the Lock that sword and rapper dancers make when they interlink them all and raise them high. I also love that wrist-locks work perfectly for three or five dancers in a star (I call lots of different styles). But I am sure that although the move may become even more ubiquitous, the terminology will retains its local flavour. Any ideas on when it started? Dan Pearl: Sylvia Miskoe, in rec.folk-dancing on March 4, 1999 said: "Wrist grip stars became popular after the appearance at New England Folk Festival (NEFFA) of the Lithuanian Dance Group doing their dances and they all used wrist grips. The square dancers thought it was a neat idea and adopted it." Any idea when that festival was? 1964 in Northern Vermont shows wrist-lock stars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZubTju7g_s 1981 Ted Sanella's "Balance & Swing" defines a star in New England as "grasp the wrist of the dancer ahead". 1983 Larry Jennings' "Zesty Contras" refers you to Ted's book. Exceptions: When choreography dictates, e.g. "men drop out, ladies chain" works better with hands across One night stands Dave Casserley: https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/linguistics/ 2007_kaufman_jeff.pdf This shows that ten years ago wrist-stars were common everywhere in the US except in some parts of the South. Amy Wimmer (Seattle): The wrist lock is the common star formation in the Northwest, with a hands across being the exception. Tim Klein (TN): I call for dances in Knoxville, TN and occasionally in the surrounding area (Jonesboro, Chattanooga). I've been dancing here for 30 years. I recall hands across stars in Knoxville, Atlanta, Brasstown, Asheville and points between, but wrist grip stars in Lexington, Louisville and Nashville. Chet Gray (KY): I tend to consider my home dance, Louisville, KY, and nearby Lexington, as two of the last bastions of hands-across-by-default. Wrist-grip seems to be the default even in relatively nearby cities: Indianapolis, Bloomington, IN, Nashville, Cincinnati. Not sure about Berea and Somerset, KY, also nearby. Jerome Grisanti (Midwest): I agree with Chet that Louisville's default star is hands-across, although weekend festivals in nearby cities tend toward the millstone star. The Midwest where I dance/call now is pretty solidly wrist-star territory (St. Louis, Columbia MO, Kansas City, Lawrence). BUT... Susan McElroy-Marcus: Just a bit of Louisville dance community history on this subject-when my husband started dancing there in the late '70s and I came in 1982, the Monday night dance was a mix of English and contra. The default contra dance star grip was the "wrist lock" not hands across as in English. We called it a basket handhold or wrist grip. Our influence came from New England because our friend, Norb Spencer, who started the group along with Marie and Frank (Cassidy?) and who called much of the time-learned in New England. We then taught it that way when we moved to Cincinnati and started that group. Louisville only became a "bastion of hands-across-by-default" sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s during my calling hiatus. When I re-entered the calling scene 6-7 years ago, I was surprised and bemused upon calling in Louisville to learn of the high regard held for their 'traditional' hands-across star style. Andrea Nettleton: Somewhere south of Asheville and leading west possibly into the lower Midwest, is the land of hands across stars. They are standard in Atlanta, the heart of hands-across-land. George Mercer: The wrist lock dominates everywhere I've danced over the years Meg Dedolph (Chicago): Checking in from Chicago, where wrist-grip stars are the norm and hands-across stars need to be specified. When I started dancing, 14 or 15 years ago, in Michigan, many dancers reached for a hands-across star first, though I don't see that so much anymore. Jane Thickstun (Michigan) When I was dancing in Michigan, I found it to be a mess, with maybe half doing wrist grip and half hands-across, and everyone just throwing their hands in the middle without doing either. I wish callers would specify for each dance which kind of star they recommend, to avoid this kind of thing. Angela DeCarlis (Florida): Where I've called recently, in the Northeast and in New England, wrist-grip is definitely the default, and I wasn't aware that parts of the south default to hands-across. Neat! Here to comment that Florida, where I'm from originally, holds true to its role as the Exception to the Rule: despite being in the South, they definitely default to wrist-grip there, as well. Jacob Bloom: When I attended the Berea Christmas Dance School forty years ago, and put my hand on the wrist in front of me during a walk through, someone complained, saying, "He said a star, not a mill!" Don Veino: "lay it on the wrist of the person in front of you, like a pack saddle on a horse" [Thanks! I could never work out why it was called a pack saddle! JS] And yes, very much the default star form from my experience. Louise Siddons (Stillwater, OK): Here in Oklahoma I call it a wagon-wheel grip, but I think I picked up that term in either Michigan or California when I was starting to dance contra circa 2008. Wagon-wheel stars are the default in OK/TX/KS/MO local dances, and also seem standard in the SF Bay Area. Neal Schlein: Whatever you call it, today a wrist star is the US standard for most of the country. Joy Greenwolfe (Durham, NC): Central North Carolina here. In this region, wrist-grip or wagon-wheel stars are the default. Some dances specify hands-across if the choreography asks for it. John Sweeney (itinerant): I have danced in Florida, San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Asheville, Phoenix and festivals such as Berea Christmas Dance School, LEAF, Flurry and don't remember ever seeing anyone do Hands Across in a regular contra dance. Chet questioned the relevance of dance weekends, but my point was that when people from different area get together, in my experience, they tend to use wrist-lock stars, which, to me, does seem to be an indicator that it is accepted as the default. Of course, as Chet says, some of those dancers may well use their regional style at their home dances. Rich Sbardella referenced MWSD: In MWSD, hands are often just put into the center, sometimes raised as in a contra allemande, sometimes just straight forward from the shoulder. >From CallerLab: "Palm Star: Place all hands together with fingers pointing up and thumbs closed gently over the back of the adjacent dancer's hand to provide a degree of stabilization. Arms should be bent slightly so that the height of the handgrip will be at an average eye level.. Men's outside arms in natural dance position, women's outside hands work skirt. Some areas dance any stars containing men with a Box Star/Pack-saddle Star: Four men with palms down take the wrist of the man ahead and link up to form a box." Neal Schlein: The Palm Star was the standard style around Colorado in the 1930s when Lloyd Shaw got started, and for many years after. Pretty much, you'll only find it among square dancers, people who danced with Calico and Boots in Boulder, Colorado, or folks with an exaggerated respect for history. Guess I qualify as all three. John Sweeney: I have heard that ladies don't join in wrist-stars in MWSD because of the hairy, sweaty men's wrists in the south! 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, 2 months

[Callers] For Canadian shared weight callers list members

by Emily Addison via Callers

Dear Shared Weight Callers List, This message is for those of you who are CANADIANS and who not only call but who are involved in ORGANIZING dances. (Apologies to those for whom this doesn't apply. I'm putting this out on the organizers list as well but I know that many of you are organizers and this list is so much more active!) *IN BRIEF:* The Country Dance and Song Society (CDSS) **wants to hear from you** as we look at *how to best support *local organizers* of traditional dance music and song throughout Canada*. We see local organizers like you as key to creating the vibrant and thriving traditional dance, music and song scenes we all care about! We are running a *survey of local organizers until November 17th*. The goal of the survey is to learn: What are you organizing? What successes are you having? What challenges do you face? What immediate needs do you have? What ideas have you thought of for growing your community/activities? What supports would help you in the work that you do? *WHY PARTICIPATE?* Whether you are involved in PEI fiddling, NFLD traditional song, Metis step dancing, or other (as there are so many!) each tradition is culturally significant. They reflect the shared values and heritage of that community and help to define a sense of identity and belonging for individuals. Yet despite the diversity, there is much commonality in the organizational requirements across traditions. For instance, organizers of a Cape Breton traditional square dance, contra dance in British Columbia, and les danses folkloique Québécoises often do similar work, share similar challenges and could benefit from similar supports. By sharing with each other, we create more vibrant and resilient communities for all. By participating in the survey, you are not only informing CDSS on what we can do to support organizers throughout the country, but also other umbrella arts organizations and the Canada Council for the Arts with whom we will be sharing the findings. We will work to take action on common interests that arise from the survey, some in partnership with other umbrella organizations and many of which would be free or at little cost. We will also look at ways to address various particular interests where we can. (As a participant, you will be emailed a copy of the findings.) *HOW TO PARTICIPATE:* Complete the online survey by Thursday, November 17th. It will take 15-20 minutes. SURVEY LINK HERE: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CDSSCanadianOrganizers-EN We hope that multiple organizers from the same group will participate. Also - please share with other local organizers in your area. As you know, connections within our traditions are often by word-of-mouth! More information about the survey and larger project is available below. We look forward to hearing from you, *Emily Addison (pourparler list member) and also Sarah PilzerThe CDSS Canadian Initiative* =================================== *MORE INFORMATION ON THE SURVEY* *Who is an organizer ... for the purpose of this survey?* For the purpose of this survey, an organizer is anyone involved in making a traditional dance, music, or song event, activity, or community happen. The activities vary widely from house concerts to dances, folk clubs, song circles, group lessons, jam sessions, festivals, etc. Organizers can be volunteers OR paid, single individuals OR committees, part of a non-profit OR commercial business, new OR experienced, run one-off-events OR ongoing series - you name it! *What traditions are included ... for the purpose of this survey?* CDSS' core focus has been on traditions that have evolved in N America and/or those with English roots. For example, traditional square dancing from places like Cape Breton and Quebec fit well having evolved in N America. Think everything from morris teams, traditional song circles, old-time music jam sessions, step-dancing traditions from all over, folk clubs that present traditional music concerts, etc. AND - we are still very much interested in hearing and supporting the wider trad scene. Thus, if organizers involved in trad activities such as Irish set dancing, scandinavian jam sessions, or international folk want to participate, please do! *Who is CDSS?* CDSS has been a leader and partner of traditional dance, music, and song across North America for over a century. We provide services to members as well as the wider traditional dance, music and song community in Canada. If you're interested in knowing more, visit cdss.org

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Contra Friendly Squares

by Tony Parkes via Callers

Tom Hinds wrote: > There are many reasons some contra dancers don't like squares. One > is that they take a long time to teach. _Some_ squares take a long time to teach with any group, because they're complex even by square dance standards. Other squares take longer to teach to contra dancers than to people used to squares. I try to avoid both types if I'm doing one or two squares in an evening of contras. There are squares that can be taught to contra dancers in roughly the same amount of time as, say, a contra with good flow but a high piece count. > For some squares it's a good idea to walk through the figure for both the heads and sides. True, because the two parts are so different. I avoid squares like that with contra groups unless I'm very sure of my audience. > Depending on the caller and dancers a full length break may be taught as well. I've seen this done way too often. I firmly believe that this practice is a major reason some contra dancers don't like squares. Full-length square dance breaks belong in square dance workshops (e.g. at dance weeks or weekends where people are open to different material). A modern contra dance evening is no place for them. People already think squares take a long time to teach, even though that's not necessarily true. Why double the teaching time when you don't have to? If you're not comfortable ad-libbing your breaks (a major reason callers give for teaching the break), memorize two or three simple breaks that contra dancers can do without a walkthrough. > I also highly recommend squares written by Tony Parkes. He's written > many that are accessible and at the same time interesting. That's always my goal when I write material. (Thanks for the plug, Tom.) If anyone is interested, I have two collections (Shadrack's Delight and Son of Shadrack), available at hands4.com, that each contain about 20 squares. In addition, I'm about to give away the farm by publishing the bulk of my personal square dance repertoire. (Well, maybe not give it away... but sell it way too cheap.) Watch for my new square-calling text and accompanying CDs with calls. Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass.

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Wrist Lock Stars - Summary

by Tony Parkes via Callers

Tom Hinds wrote: > I thought it was saddle-pack not that it really matters. Someone (sorry, can't remember who or where) once insisted to me that it was "paddlestack," because it looked like "a stack of paddles." I doubt this very much, as I don't get any Google hits for "paddlestack" in a square dance context. I can't think of any field where a stack of paddles would make sense. A steamboat's wheel is made up of blades that I suppose are called paddles, but they're certainly not arranged in a stack. Everyone else I've heard or read on the subject of stars has used "packsaddle." The summary of star-forming style is fascinating. It's nice to have a description of dance practice that's based on multiple witnesses. So often in researching dance history, one is confronted by bald statements with no idea whether they represent widespread practice or are solely one person's view of what's done in one area (or even what that person thinks _should_ be done). Example: In 1941 "Allemande Al" Muller, apparently writing in New York's Hudson Valley, declared flatly after describing a couple of allemandes, "There are no other calls involving the word Allemande. You can never allemande your partner." This would have been startling news to the master caller Floyd "Woody" Woodhull of Elmira in the same state, who routinely called "Allemande left with your corner, allemande right with your partner, allemande left with your corner again and a grand right and left." Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass.

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Erik Hoffman via Callers

I, too, agree. I think of a dance by Bill Cochran: Third Friday Improper A1: Neighbor Balance & Swing A2: Down Hall 4 in Line, turn as couples, return B1: Women Chain over & back B2: Balance & Square Through 2, twice, starting with Partner This might have been the first dance with the Partner: Balance, Pull by, Neighbor Pull By, Partner: Balance, Pull by, Neighbor Pull By to progress Being a modern contra dancer, I wanted to add a partner swing, so, for a dance I called the Second Third Friday, crediting Bill Cochran, my version went: A2: Men Allemande Left 1-1/2, Partner Swing B1: Right & Left Through across; Women Chain Later I found Tony Parkes had the same idea, and came up with Friday Night Fever, also crediting Bill Cochran. His version is the same as mine, with one (better) idea: B1: Partner Promenade, Women Chain And, his adaptation preceded mine. So now I just call Friday Night Fever... Sometimes, though: I've come up with a major alteration Gene Hubert's wonderful dance, The Nice Combination A1: Neighbor Balance & Swing A2: Circle Left ¾; Partner Swing B1: Hey, Women start Right shoulder B2: Women Chain, Star Left And I usually introduce it as a major variation of The Nice Combination... I've got many "Innominate," dances, or "unnamed." Many are just glossary dances as David Kaynor suggests. ~Erik Hoffman Oakland, CA From: Callers [mailto:callers-bounces@lists.sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Bill Olson via Callers Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:29 PM To: Neal Schlein <nschlein(a)gmail.com>; Dave Casserly <david.j.casserly(a)gmail.com>; callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? Yep, I agree.. bill ________________________________ From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers-bounces@lists.sharedweight.net>> on behalf of Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM To: Neal Schlein Cc: callers Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this website: "Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of the word; they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance elements. Do such dances...especially if conceived spontaneously in a teaching/calling situation... qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not." I'm in the maybe not camp. They're not protected by any copyright here (at least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on this list when the topic comes up on occasion). I don't call regularly; most of the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a singing event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous outdoor gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me. I know several dances by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things I've made up on the spot. I am almost certain that every single one of these dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the past, and that somebody has written and put their name on Partner Balance and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain, Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do. Good for whoever that person is, and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to that particular glossary dance. But I wouldn't call it a composition, and I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance and the title and attribute it to that person. Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it many times already, after somebody else made it up, etc). It's just not interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all. It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written, were really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire, but could now be considered glossary dances because of how common those figures have become in modern contra dances. But that's not the case for most of the dances. -Dave Washington, DC On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me. (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.) The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke. If we attribute everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances are created and spread. When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark. That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to folk genres). As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled us. So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. Don't just stick their name on it. Just my 2 cents. Neal 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 Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Ladies chain (8) Long lines, forward and back B1 ----------- (8) Right & left through (8) Partner promenade across B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad habits. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com> -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it in my box. Anyone recognize it? Improper A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 (8) Partner swing B1 ----------- (8) Promenade across the Set (8) Long lines, forward and back B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines of couples for a contra set). If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if and only if statement). _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com<mailto:Luke.Donev@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Luke Donforth via Callers

Lots of interesting points, thanks for sharing! >From my perspective, while I know that I lay in bed thinking about dance moves and came up with the sequence; I can not say that in the last decade+ of dancing, I haven't already danced it. Did I write it then, yes. Under the influence of some tentative memory? I can't counter-prove that (the lawsuit over George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" comes to mind as an extreme example). I write a lot of dances, with varying degrees of compositional meat behind them. I think it's more challenging to write a fun easy dance than a fun hard dance; and so am perhaps more inclined to give credit for glossary dances. I greatly respect David Kaynor's contribution to the community. If he doesn't want to label a dance, that's his prerogative. But when I call something I got from him (directly or indirectly), I try to note that (even if only to myself). Figuring out earlier authors of sequences feels, to me, like a way of honoring the heritage of a tradition I'm grateful to participate in. I think a name (emphasis *singular*) also helps discuss and organize dances. The name is a short-hand for discussions about good first dances (for instance). It can be unpacked if the folks in the discussion don't know it; or not if everyone is familiar with it. Multiple names mean we might not realize we're talking about the same thing. If I keep identical dances with multiple names in my (digital) box, then it complicates my own record keeping of what I called the last time I was at a venue. So I'll try to avoid re-naming something that already exists. I may note on my card that I also wrote it, but only as a tertiary matter. If someone asked me what the dance was, I'd say "To Wedded Bliss" by Mark Goodwin. A side note, I like the title "If you can walk, you can dance". I'll try to find something else it fits. And I do think that little shifts can make a noticeable difference in a dance. You might say this dance is functionally identical if you replace the promenade with a right and left through, or a half hey; or replace the N DSD & Swing with a Balance & Swing. I don't think those would work as well, and wouldn't add them to my box; this one I will. (Although I will freely admit to tweaking dances at the mic, possibly including those changes, to fit programmatic needs.) As a final note, I spend a lot of time in my own head thinking about dances (see the earlier comment about lying in bed writing them...). Knowing that Mark Goodwin wrote a solid accessible dance means that I now know another choreographer to go look up and crib from. Win all around. Nice to hear how other people think about it. Thanks again for sharing. On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Bill Olson via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Yep, I agree.. > > > bill > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of > Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM > *To:* Neal Schlein > *Cc:* callers > *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? > > Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this > website: "Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of > the word; they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically > amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance > elements. Do such dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a > teaching/calling situation… qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not." > > I'm in the maybe not camp. They're not protected by any copyright here > (at least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on > this list when the topic comes up on occasion). I don't call regularly; > most of the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a > singing event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous > outdoor gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me. I know several > dances by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things > I've made up on the spot. I am almost certain that every single one of > these dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the > past, and that somebody has written and put their name on Partner Balance > and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain, > Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do. Good for whoever that person is, > and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to > that particular glossary dance. But I wouldn't call it a composition, and > I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance > and the title and attribute it to that person. > > Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be > putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it > many times already, after somebody else made it up, etc). It's just not > interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all. > > It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written, > were really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire, > but could now be considered glossary dances because of how common those > figures have become in modern contra dances. But that's not the case for > most of the dances. > > -Dave > Washington, DC > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way >> we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me. >> >> (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down >> the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the >> first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely >> legitimate.) >> >> The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The >> sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a >> previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's >> creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke. If we attribute >> everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly >> misrepresenting how dances are created and spread. >> >> When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and >> everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to >> Mark. That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and >> why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming >> that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both >> incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to >> folk genres). >> >> As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if >> many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK >> DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a >> single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant >> matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. >> Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has >> misled us. >> >> So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with >> some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. >> Don't just stick their name on it. >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> Neal >> >> >> 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 Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers < >>> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I >>>> use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & >>>> left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is >>>> >>>> A1 ----------- >>>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do >>>> (8) Neighbor swing >>>> A2 ----------- >>>> (8) Ladies chain >>>> (8) Long lines, forward and back >>>> >>>> B1 ----------- >>>> (8) Right & left through >>>> (8) Partner promenade across >>>> B2 ----------- >>>> (8) Circle Left 3/4 >>>> (4) Balance the Ring >>>> (4) Pass through >>>> >>>> >>>> and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want >>>> to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad >>>> habits. >>>> >>>> Michael Barraclough >>>> www.michaelbarraclough.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" >>>> introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around >>>> with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have >>>> it in my box. Anyone recognize it? >>>> >>>> Improper >>>> >>>> A1 ----------- >>>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do >>>> (8) Neighbor swing >>>> A2 ----------- >>>> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 >>>> (8) Partner swing >>>> B1 ----------- >>>> (8) Promenade across the Set >>>> (8) Long lines, forward and back >>>> B2 ----------- >>>> (8) Circle Left 3/4 >>>> (4) Balance the Ring >>>> (4) Pass through >>>> >>>> During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring >>>> balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included >>>> that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, >>>> Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade >>>> (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines >>>> of couples for a contra set). >>>> >>>> If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, >>>> I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not >>>> an if and only if statement). >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Luke Donforth >>> Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > David Casserly > (cell) 781 258-2761 > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com>

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Bill Olson via Callers

Yep, I agree.. bill ________________________________ From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:25 PM To: Neal Schlein Cc: callers Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this website: "Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of the word; they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance elements. Do such dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a teaching/calling situation… qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not." I'm in the maybe not camp. They're not protected by any copyright here (at least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on this list when the topic comes up on occasion). I don't call regularly; most of the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a singing event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous outdoor gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me. I know several dances by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things I've made up on the spot. I am almost certain that every single one of these dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the past, and that somebody has written and put their name on Partner Balance and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain, Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do. Good for whoever that person is, and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to that particular glossary dance. But I wouldn't call it a composition, and I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance and the title and attribute it to that person. Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it many times already, after somebody else made it up, etc). It's just not interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all. It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written, were really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire, but could now be considered glossary dances because of how common those figures have become in modern contra dances. But that's not the case for most of the dances. -Dave Washington, DC On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me. (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.) The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke. If we attribute everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances are created and spread. When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark. That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to folk genres). As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled us. So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. Don't just stick their name on it. Just my 2 cents. Neal 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 Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Ladies chain (8) Long lines, forward and back B1 ----------- (8) Right & left through (8) Partner promenade across B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad habits. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com> -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it in my box. Anyone recognize it? Improper A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 (8) Partner swing B1 ----------- (8) Promenade across the Set (8) Long lines, forward and back B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines of couples for a contra set). If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if and only if statement). _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com<mailto:Luke.Donev@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Dale Wilson via Callers

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with > some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. > Don't just stick their name on it. > > An interesting take on this issue, and one that I like very much. Certain "glossary" dances appear over and over an that, in itself, is an interesting bit of knowledge. Dale

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Bill Olson via Callers

Recently it has pretty much been the custom to attribute dance authorship to the first one who came up with the sequence. I agree that Luke came up with this sequence independently but someone else did that before him. It's only fair, since it's not unlikely that the second author (Luke, me, you anyone) actually picked up the dance somewhere and remembered the basic figures.. It would be nice if we could attribute "co-authorship" like was done by Gene Hubert and Steve Schnur with "Summer of '84". In that case it didn't matter who came up with the dance *first*, both authors recognized that the other came up with the sequence independently and agreed to co-authorship. .. It seems to me that there are plenty of dance sequences in the modern (vast) repertoire that have credit taken by separate authors. I have no problem with that either.. That being said, I'd be happy with "If you can walk you can dance" being a unique title.. All that being said, I have memorized this sequence for future use as a "beginning of the dance" dance. It's a good one. bill ________________________________ From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:59 PM To: Luke Donforth; callers Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me. (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.) The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke. If we attribute everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances are created and spread. When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark. That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to folk genres). As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled us. So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. Don't just stick their name on it. Just my 2 cents. Neal 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 Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Ladies chain (8) Long lines, forward and back B1 ----------- (8) Right & left through (8) Partner promenade across B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad habits. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com> -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it in my box. Anyone recognize it? Improper A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 (8) Partner swing B1 ----------- (8) Promenade across the Set (8) Long lines, forward and back B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines of couples for a contra set). If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if and only if statement). _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com<mailto:Luke.Donev@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
13
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 October 2016