Import1 January 2017

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
89 discussions

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers

There's also a gender free LGBTQ dance in Chicago. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Donna Hunt <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> wrote: >> Is there any data >> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and >> where the communities that use gender-free terminology are? > > The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones > that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ. > > I believe it's: > > LGBTQ: > * Oakland CA > * Aptos CA (camp) > * Woodstock CT (camp) > * Becket MA (camp) > * Boston MA > * Montague MA > * New York City NY > > Other gender free: > * San Jose CA > * Berkeley CA > * Hayward CA > * Portland ME > * Montpelier VT > * Amherst MA > * New York City (NY) > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers

It seems to come and go On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote: > Looking at https://www.facebook.com/ContraChicago and > http://lcfd.org/queer-contra-dance-chicago.html it looks like the > Chicago dance is defunct? > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Alexandra Deis-Lauby > <adeislauby(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There's also a gender free LGBTQ dance in Chicago. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers > > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Donna Hunt <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > > > Is there any data > > > > that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and > > > > where the communities that use gender-free terminology are? > > > > > > The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones > > that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ. > > > > I believe it's: > > > > LGBTQ: > > * Oakland CA > > * Aptos CA (camp) > > * Woodstock CT (camp) > > * Becket MA (camp) > > * Boston MA > > * Montague MA > > * New York City NY > > > > Other gender free: > > * San Jose CA > > * Berkeley CA > > * Hayward CA > > * Portland ME > > * Montpelier VT > > * Amherst MA > > * New York City (NY) > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >

8 years

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Amy Wimmer via Callers

Donna, I can imagine a scenario in which organizers would be shy to share this information for fear of retaliation or pressure from those who want them to change their practices. Having received such pressure, personally, I am sure it will happen to others. I'm not saying all pressure to change is bad, but that some people don't like being pushed. It is a (smallish) issue around the term "gypsy" in my neck of the woods. -Amy On Jan 31, 2017 6:39 AM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: If we were creating a doc for attendance and opening it up to the "world of contra dances organizers" to comment why not add some other categories that we've been discussing? Linda Leslie suggested the Organizers group might have stats. I'm wondering if CDSS keeps any? When Jeff replied to my query about LGBTQ dances and groups using non-gender terminology I wasn't at all surprised to see the list (since I know most of those groups), but I *was* surprised to realize that there were no groups in other major cities throughout the country. Topics that might be on the Doc: Dance Organizations that use non-gender terminology Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non-gender terminology Dance Organizations that have decided to use a non "gypsy" terminology Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non "gypsy" terminology There could be a write in section where Dance Organizations could state which terms they use. I would request that the attendance be under 25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100, etc. Or even increments of 20. There are several small groups in this country that survive with under 20 attendance and other groups where a drop in 25 dancers means serious financial hardship. Dave is concerned that groups might be wary about posting such information. Are there groups represented on this list that might NOT participate in this information gathering? Seems useless to even create the Doc unless folks are willing to post the data. Donna Hunt -----Original Message----- From: Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could self-report their attendance? Something like, a column for the state where the dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in ranges of 1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with the same ranges? I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how many dances are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are, but wouldn't give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy about publicly releasing data. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their > attendance numbers fully public. Something like a googledocs > spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers. > > (I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years > (unsuccessfully). We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.) > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind > of > > data. > > Linda > > > > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers > > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > > No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile > for > > this to be polled out to various dances. > > > > Best regards, > > Ron > > > > On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on. > > > > Jeff and Ron: You both seem like the statisticians here. Is there any > data > > that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and > > where the communities that use gender-free terminology are? > > > > Just curious. > > > > Ron: When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data > about > > that compared to dances where attendance is not down? Again, looking for > > information country wide or even geographic area. > > > > Thanks > > Donna Hunt > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761 <(781)%20258-2761> _______________________________________________ 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

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Donna Hunt via Callers

If we were creating a doc for attendance and opening it up to the "world of contra dances organizers" to comment why not add some other categories that we've been discussing? Linda Leslie suggested the Organizers group might have stats. I'm wondering if CDSS keeps any? When Jeff replied to my query about LGBTQ dances and groups using non-gender terminology I wasn't at all surprised to see the list (since I know most of those groups), but I was surprised to realize that there were no groups in other major cities throughout the country. Topics that might be on the Doc: Dance Organizations that use non-gender terminology Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non-gender terminology Dance Organizations that have decided to use a non "gypsy" terminology Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non "gypsy" terminology There could be a write in section where Dance Organizations could state which terms they use. I would request that the attendance be under 25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100, etc. Or even increments of 20. There are several small groups in this country that survive with under 20 attendance and other groups where a drop in 25 dancers means serious financial hardship. Dave is concerned that groups might be wary about posting such information. Are there groups represented on this list that might NOT participate in this information gathering? Seems useless to even create the Doc unless folks are willing to post the data. Donna Hunt -----Original Message----- From: Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could self-report their attendance? Something like, a column for the state where the dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in ranges of 1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with the same ranges? I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how many dances are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are, but wouldn't give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy about publicly releasing data. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their attendance numbers fully public. Something like a googledocs spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers. (I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years (unsuccessfully). We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.) On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind of > data. > Linda > > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for > this to be polled out to various dances. > > Best regards, > Ron > > On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on. > > Jeff and Ron: You both seem like the statisticians here. Is there any data > that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and > where the communities that use gender-free terminology are? > > Just curious. > > Ron: When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about > that compared to dances where attendance is not down? Again, looking for > information country wide or even geographic area. > > Thanks > Donna Hunt > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761 _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus

by Tom Hinds via Callers

On Jan 30, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: > If I need to teach a box the gnat or a square-thru to a room with a > number of new dancers, does it matter whether that move is taught > for a contra or a square? I think it depends on your creativity and more specifically the move/ dance/program. In the past there have been plenty of instances where I've introduced moves in a square first and of course the other way around. If I have a move I want the dancers to know very well I may use a contra to introduce it because they'll do it many times. Have fun with it!

8 years

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

by John Sweeney via Callers

Yes, but… Variations in local styling can be very unsatisfying unless: 1) visiting dancers are prepared to accept the local styling 2) if the caller sees problems then they explain what the local styling is and ask visitors to respect it At my contra dances I always ask visiting callers to announce, during the first Star that they call, that our local styling is Wrist-Locks. This is important in my area as there are lots of local dancers who do country dancing where the default is Hands-Across. It always amazes me how reluctant callers are to do this. Some of them seem terrified of actually doing any teaching of style or technique. If everyone just does what they want, you end up with uncomfortable Allemandes and Stars. I just spent a month experiencing this at MWSD sessions in Phoenix. For example, the CALLERLAB manuals are quite clear for Waves: “STYLING: Dancers should use hands-up position.” “Hands Up: Hands are joined in crossed palm position;” “Swing Thru: All hands are joined in hands-up position, elbows in close. Exert slight pressure to assist opposite dancer in turning. Arcing turns should be utilized rather than pull by type of movements and should flow effortlessly from one turn to the other so that you are in a sense, "weaving" along the line.” But because there are regional variations CALLERLAB could not get a consensus and finally published “Styling has also been standardized. While great strides were made in the 1970s and 1980s certain areas and groups continued to use styling that did not match the approved styling (e.g., “hands up” vs. “hands down” in Ocean Waves). In 1992 our membership acknowledged its inability to have one styling used by all dancers with a motion which said, “CALLERLAB recognizes that regional differences in styling exist.”” As a result callers are scared to tell people what they should do, and with a community made up of dancers from all over the States (enjoying the sunshine in Phoenix) it was a mess. I would be doing Swing Thrus down the line with Half Allemandes and then the next guy is offering his arm horizontally at waist level, making the experience less than satisfactory. And most stars were lumps where everyone grabbed any part of anyone else’s hand that they fancied. Moves like Promenades can vary without problem since how you do it doesn’t affect anyone else. Terminology is a completely different matter; everything works as long as the caller defines their terms carefully. I do lots of different Dosidos, but give them different names, otherwise it would be impossible for the dancers to follow the call, especially when I do a dance which uses three different Dosidos! Happy dancing, John John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574 http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent From: Tony Parkes via Callers [mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net] Sent: 30 January 2017 14:06 To: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Subject: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies") Chet Gray wrote: <<In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand consensus. I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square") dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three different promenade positions, and each is default in different communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances.>> Amen! One of the things I’ve long lamented about the modern square dance movement is the disappearance of regional variations. If square dancing is viewed as a hobby, it makes sense (given the mobility of people in industrialized countries) to standardize the meaning of calls, hand and arm positions, and other rules and customs. But if it’s viewed as a folk art, it’s a crying shame to lose the variations. To me, standardizing a folk dance form is like saying there’s only one right way to cook chicken. (Given how far MSD has strayed away from tradition and toward homogenization, it feels to me as if they’re saying KFC is the only right way to cook chicken.) The contra dance world has never had an entity like Callerlab with the clout to convince local groups to standardize, and I don’t think it needs one. Two of the big attractions of contra dancing (IMO) are its lack of regimentation and the small number of terms a newcomer must learn. That small number (again IMO) means that adjusting from one village to another is not difficult: Typically only 3 or 4 terms out of 15 or 20 are understood differently. A big question in my mind is whether there’s anything approaching a consensus among contra callers (and interested organizers and dancers) on any points beyond the obvious: that dancing should be enjoyable and a dance venue should be a safe space. I would strongly caution folks against thinking there’s a consensus when only a small percentage of callers and leaders has been heard from. I’m thinking here, not specifically about the gender-free vs. gendered issue or which gender-free terms to adopt, but about the big picture – which includes those issues, but also includes standardization vs. local styles, “gypsy” vs. a new term (and again, which one to adopt), and which, if any, of the many new movements to expect dancers to memorize. This last issue is much on my mind, as the contra vocabulary has more than tripled since I started dancing. Do we really want to go down that road? Getting back to the issue of gender-free terms (though I’ve changed the subject line to allow more general discussion), I hope that here, as elsewhere, we can feel free to experiment and not feel constrained by what other people and groups are doing. Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass. www.hands4.com <http://www.hands4.com> New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

8 years

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

by Tony Parkes via Callers

Ron Blechner wrote: > With regards to Tony's question about the number of terms increasing in contra, a question: > I understand that squares used to be more commonly interspersed with contras at dances, correct? Yes, up until around 1975–1980, most New England series of my acquaintance were either 50/50 or mostly squares. Outside the Northeast, it depended on who a series’ first callers were and who they learned from. Some series were mostly or all contras, some were closer to 50/50. It’s my understanding that squares have all but disappeared from many of the latter. > Squares provide so many different moves that they need special teaching for individual dances. So are modern contras that much different? It depends on what kind of squares you have in mind. New England squares, by and large, are based on 19th-century quadrilles and draw from the same very short list of moves that pre-1970s contras did. (Between 1950 and roughly 1980, trad-revival New England callers started using a handful of modern SD terms such as “box the gnat,” probably no more than half a dozen.) Southern squares typically have a dominant figure (like “duck for the oyster”) that’s unique to that dance, just as the key moves in Petronella and Rory O’More were unique until the current contra revival. Naturally, a group unfamiliar with a specific Southern square will need a careful walkthrough (how careful depends on how complex the figure is; some are simpler than others). In some Southern communities, a dance set consists of 3 to 6 dominant figures that are called in random order, but 90+ percent of the crowd know the figures by heart. I can’t think of a square dance tradition that has “many different moves” compared to contras. That’s a hallmark of modern “Western” squares (aka club squares or federation squares). I think the modern contra vocabulary, with its recent explosion of terms, is starting to look more like modern “Western” squares than like either trad New England or trad Southern squares. > If I need to teach a box the gnat or a square-thru to a room with a number of new dancers, does it matter whether that move is taught for a contra or a square? Not at all. I’m not saying it’s inherently wrong to borrow terms from other dance forms, or even to invent new terms. But I do worry that the 80 percent of contra dancers who are neither beginners nor super-experienced will be expected to know more and more terms without much explanation. Either that or we’ll have to discard an old term for every one we add. When I started contra dancing in the mid-1960s, there were about 14 terms that an accomplished dancer needed to know. Between then and 2000, about 14 more were introduced, about half of them from modern SD. Since 2000, I’ve read about or encountered at least 17 more. I can only hope that the more complex ones are left as dominant figures, special features of a tiny handful of dances, and not added to the collective vocabulary. > I agree that the contras themselves have gotten more complex in the past few decades, but the overall choreography over time? I might like to hear more voices of long-time callers / dancers for perspective. Not sure what you mean here, Ron. I’m not getting the distinction between “the contras themselves” and “the overall choreography.” (I do agree that there are many more contras in general circulation of a type I consider complex; I have my doubts as to how many dancers prefer them.) Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass. www.hands4.com<http://www.hands4.com> New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

8 years

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

by Ron Blechner via Callers

Hearing the multiple-prompts-for-same-move topic framed in a new way has been helpful to me. I've enjoyed that local communities have different feels to them. I like that this discussion led to Tony and others indicating that term variations are part of the charm of local variations. With regards to Tony's question about the number of terms increasing in contra, a question: I understand that squares used to be more commonly interspersed with contras at dances, correct? Squares provide so many different moves that they need special teaching for individual dances. So are modern contras that much different? If I need to teach a box the gnat or a square-thru to a room with a number of new dancers, does it matter whether that move is taught for a contra or a square? I agree that the contras themselves have gotten more complex in the past few decades, but the overall choreography over time? I might like to hear more voices of long-time callers / dancers for perspective. Best regards, Ron Blechner On Jan 30, 2017 10:17 AM, "Tony Parkes via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Rich Hart wrote: << I'd also add to your two requirements (enjoyable and in a safe space), a third one. that is that our dances should also be welcoming to all, regardless of their position in life, and dance skills. As callers, we all try to chose dances and calls that are appropriate, and acceptable for the local dancers. That should not change.>> I deliberately kept my list of requirements short, because I’m not convinced there’s consensus on any others. You might think “welcoming to all, regardless of… dance skills” would be a no-brainer, but in reality, some series are (perceived as) far less welcoming than others. One could even argue (though I’m not arguing here) that this is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there’s at least one series in every metropolitan area that nurtures beginners. I do want to say that I find it somewhat troubling when a series that doesn’t bill itself as “challenging” or “experienced” develops a reputation for freezing out newcomers. I agree that callers try to present programs that are “acceptable for the local dancers”; but that’s not the same as being “welcoming to all.” The local dancers may be quite sophisticated in their tastes and capacities, and it may be hard (though not impossible) to please them and still foster an inclusive atmosphere. The disparity between series attitudes may be a good thing, a bad thing, or some of each, but it’s the reality in many areas. Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass. www.hands4.com New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017) _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Rich Sbardella via Callers

In the New England MWSD Community, there is one weekend a year that dances collect data. This method, although it has problems, is probable good at seeng long term trends. Rich Sbardella On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for > this to be polled out to various dances. > > Best regards, > Ron > > On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on. > > Jeff and Ron: You both seem like the statisticians here. Is there any > data that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are > and where the communities that use gender-free terminology are? > > Just curious. > > Ron: When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data > about that compared to dances where attendance is not down? Again, looking > for information country wide or even geographic area. > > Thanks > Donna Hunt > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

8 years

[Callers] Folk Dance Books Available

by Jerome Grisanti via Callers

Recently, the university where my wife works got rid of their dance department, and my wife brought home to me multiple copies of a bunch of folk dance books, including: Folk Dances of the British Isles (Anne Schley Duggan, Jeanette Schlottmann, Abbie Rutledge -- at least three copies) Folk Dances of European Countries (Anne Schley Duggan, Jeanette Schlottmann, Abbie Rutledge -- at least three copies) Folk Dances of the United States and Mexico (Anne Schley Duggan, Jeanette Schlottmann, Abbie Rutledge -- at least three copies) Folk Dances of Scandinavia (Anne Schley Duggan, Jeanette Schlottmann, Abbie Rutledge -- at least three copies) The Teaching of Folk Dance Teaching of Ethnic Dance (Joukowsky) American Indian and Other Folk Dances (Shafter) Caller/Teacher Manual for the Extended Basics Program for American Square Dancing (Ruff) (Two books: Levels 1-3 and Beyond Level 3) Folk Dancing in High School and College (Grace I. Fox) Folk Dance Progressions (Lidster and Tamburini) AND, she wants me to clean up my dance library. Any help you can offer to move them to new homes (come and get them, I'll send them to you, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Jerome Jerome Grisanti 660-528-0858 http://www.jeromegrisanti.com "Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and power and magic in it." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

8 years

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 January 2017