Import1 January 2017

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
89 discussions

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

by Dave Casserly via Callers

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

7 years, 2 months

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

by Linda Leslie via Callers

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

7 years, 2 months

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

by Ron Blechner via Callers

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

7 years, 2 months

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

by Tony Parkes via Callers

Jeff Kaufman wrote: > The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ. I trust that the series in the second category are careful to mention their gender-free policy when (if) they invite new-to-the-series callers to come. No one likes awkward surprises. Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass. www.hands4.com New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

7 years, 2 months

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

by Donna Hunt via Callers

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 -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kaufman via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Fri, Jan 27, 2017 2:26 pm Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional > venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles > are not as scary as some have claimed. Sure, I think that's probably true. But I think the most likely possibility is "most people don't care that much" not "several thousand dancers want it". > > Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in > attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with. I'm not disputing this (though I also don't have firsthand evidence of it) I just don't think gender free terms are *causing* the attendance change, as opposed to both attendance changes and gender free naming being caused by an underlying factor. > I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for > a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of > overall genderfree dancing? The dances that have been gender free for decades and the dances that have recently one gender free are pretty different. The older dances have a community, culture, and core that formed several decades ago to be LGBT/queer spaces, while the newer gender free dances are mostly mainstream dances in a modern mainstream that is much more queer friendly. Jeff _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

7 years, 2 months

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

by Tony Parkes via Callers

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<http://www.hands4.com> New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

7 years, 2 months

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

by Richard Hart via Callers

I agree with much of what you say, Tony. In response to your question, "Do we really want to go down that road?", we have clearly already done that. In reality, there are still many, relatively parallel contra dance roads, some a little rougher than others. We have not yet reached the point that square dancing has reached with just a few roads, many of which are unpassable for many dancers. 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. Rich hart. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Tony Parkes via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > 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 > > 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 > >

7 years, 2 months

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

by Tony Parkes via Callers

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)

7 years, 2 months

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

by Angela DeCarlis via Callers

*applause* On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I'll echo this viewpoint. I value the opportunity to go different places > and learn different ways of doing things. I feel that much more is lost in > uniformity than is gained. > > Jacob > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Chet Gray via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> 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. >> >> — Chet Gray >> dance caller >> Louisville, KY >> (502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008> >> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and >>> such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand >>> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the >>> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with >>> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at >>> different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. >>> >>> Donna >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

7 years, 2 months

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

by Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Callers

I'll echo this viewpoint. I value the opportunity to go different places and learn different ways of doing things. I feel that much more is lost in uniformity than is gained. Jacob On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Chet Gray via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> 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. > > — Chet Gray > dance caller > Louisville, KY > (502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and >> such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand >> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the >> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with >> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at >> different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. >> >> Donna >> >

7 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 January 2017