Import1 January 2017

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
89 discussions

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

by Keith Tuxhorn via Callers

This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's all part of the folk process. So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a couple weeks ago. Mun and Wem. They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say. Mun and Wem. Okay, I've done my bit. Keith Tuxhorn Springfield IL On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason we chose > "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that regular contra dancers > from other places can come in and dance without needing anything to be > explained to them since the terms are pretty similar to "gents" and > "ladies." > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: > http://amherstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd give it a > try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try and there are > certainly plenty of reasons to try. > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as rubies, but > for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or whose gender expression > doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd like to think that formally > separating dance roles from gender is validating in a meaningful way. > > Dugan Murphy > Portland, Maine > dugan at duganmurphy.com > www.DuganMurphy.com > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com > www.NufSed.consulting > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Kalia Kliban via Callers

I can't figure out the transition from the Dublin Bay figure to the P bal/sw. Can you elaborate? K On 1/19/2017 11:49 PM, Erik Hoffman via Callers wrote: > I find, when dancing the one or two dances I’ve danced that try to steal > the Dublin Bay figure, they have a line backing up bending into a > circle. I found this transition not to my taste. So I took a stab at a > different transition. I think it works, but it’s a bit tricky: > > Happy Birthday, Susan > Erik Hoffman > Becket > A1 Wm “Chain the line” (Wm Al R ¾, then to next Wm, Al L ¾ to meet > Nb on R diag – across from Shadow); > Neighbor Swing > A2 LLF&B; Wm Chain to Shadow > B1 Dublin Bay DH4inL ends loop back, centers step forward to > B2 Pt B&S > > Given to Susan Petrick on her birthday, while on tour with the > OpporTunists in 2010 (I think). > The Dublin Bay DH4inL: Down for 4, turn alone backing up for 4, > up for 4, turn alone, backing up for 4. From the ECD dance Dublin Bay. > Others have used the Dublin Bay move, but ended it with a “fold into a > circle. That backing up, then circling has never felt good to me. This > is my attempt to come up with a segue I like. > Note, even though it’s a Becket dance, there is a difference in > roles in this dance between the “ones” and “twos”. > > ~Erik Hoffman > Oakland, CA

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Erik Hoffman via Callers

I find, when dancing the one or two dances I've danced that try to steal the Dublin Bay figure, they have a line backing up bending into a circle. I found this transition not to my taste. So I took a stab at a different transition. I think it works, but it's a bit tricky: Happy Birthday, Susan Erik Hoffman Becket A1 Wm "Chain the line" (Wm Al R ¾, then to next Wm, Al L ¾ to meet Nb on R diag - across from Shadow); Neighbor Swing A2 LLF&B; Wm Chain to Shadow B1 Dublin Bay DH4inL ends loop back, centers step forward to B2 Pt B&S Given to Susan Petrick on her birthday, while on tour with the OpporTunists in 2010 (I think). The Dublin Bay DH4inL: Down for 4, turn alone backing up for 4, up for 4, turn alone, backing up for 4. From the ECD dance Dublin Bay. Others have used the Dublin Bay move, but ended it with a "fold into a circle. That backing up, then circling has never felt good to me. This is my attempt to come up with a segue I like. Note, even though it's a Becket dance, there is a difference in roles in this dance between the "ones" and "twos". ~Erik Hoffman Oakland, CA

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Lead & Follow

by John Sweeney via Callers

Cara asked, "Is there something wrong with Lead and Follow? Not sure if I have posted this on here before; my apologies if you read it all before. My beliefs, understandings, opinions - some points: 1) Contra is not intrinsically a lead/follow dance style; calling the roles "leader" & "follower" is incorrect, misleading and generally a bad idea 2) Within Contra there are opportunities to do some lead and follow, but either role can be the leader 3) There is a difference between leads, signals and connections, though connections are often used to lead beginners 4) Lead & Follow works better if both dancers have good lead/follow technique, and some flourishes also benefit from good technique 5) Leads can be with fingertips, body angles, eyes, and anything else that works 6) The end of a ballroom-hold swing is not symmetrical and it is often much easier to let the "man" control the end of the swing; that's not sexist, it is physics! 7) Most dancers would benefit from good teaching on this subject, but sadly there is very little teaching provided Details below. Read on if you are interested... First, I should perhaps explain my background. I have been dancing for nearly fifty years and teaching dance for over forty years. As well as contra, square, ECD, Contra, Morris, clog, etc. I also dance many partner dances such as West Coast Swing, Lindy/Swing, Argentine Tango, contra waltz and Modern Jive/LeRoc/Ceroc: http://www.modernjive.com. Modern Jive is an English, simplified form of Swing which has no fixed footwork and very few close-hold moves. It is led primarily by the man's fingertips and has a very wide range of moves. I specialise in Double Trouble: one man leading two ladies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE6Iu6Fh6bw This is a cabaret performance so we are doing some choreographed moves, but most of it is being led by me and the ladies don't know what I am going to do next. When I go to new venues I dance with lots of ladies to see how well they follow, then I dance Double Trouble with two of the good followers and I can lead them into a wide range of interesting moves. Leading two strangers simultaneously only works if they are following well, and because I have spent a lot of time studying lead and follow and developing my leading skills so that I can do this. So, back to Contra: 1) Contra is not intrinsically a lead/follow dance style; calling the roles "leader" & "follower" is incorrect, misleading and generally a bad idea I agree entirely with what many others have said already. The caller teaches the dance. The dancers dance it to the music. Everyone knows (at least in theory!) what is coming next, so there can be no lead or follow. The whole point of lead and follow is that the leader chooses the next move and has to let the follower know what it is through the lead; the follower then has to react to that lead in whatever way they choose. 2) Within Contra there are opportunities to do some lead and follow, but either role can be the leader When you execute the dance as the caller called it then there is no lead or follow. If you add some flourishes then they MAY involve some lead and follow, but which role leads depends on the actual move. A nice flourish at the end of "Up the Hall in Lines of Four; Bend the Line" is for a middle person to raise their hand and turn their end person into the circle. This is not part of the dance; the end person may not be expecting it and has to react to it; this is lead & follow. The genders/roles of the participants are completely irrelevant. Note: this can also be performed by the twirlee as an independent flourish - as long as the dancer whose hand you are holding allows it! Many dancers are so rigid that I can't raise their arm to twirl under it! (If only everyone would relax the muscles that they don't need to be using, and let their hands be moved!) 3) There is a difference between leads, signals and connections, though connections are often used to lead beginners When you help each other to redirect your momentum that is not really lead & follow. Examples are "Circle Left; Neighbour Dosido" or "Long Lines Go Forward & Back with the Ladies Rolling the Men Away from Right to Left; Ladies' Chain". Keeping connected and using the elastic in your arms to redirect the momentum and change direction makes these really satisfying moves. But no-one is leading or following; you are both just using good technique to help each other execute pre-defined moves. Of course if one dancer is experienced and the other is new to Contra, this type of connection can be used to help the new dancer to move in the correct direction. Connection, gestures and eyes are all great for helping everyone achieve the dance. Signals are pre-defined gestures that lead to choreographed moves that both participants know. An example is the twirls at the end of a Ladies' Chain. As a man, I offer my left hand high, fingers pointing down to let the lady know that I am willing to help her twirl - this is a signal; she responds with a high or low hand to let me know what she wants to happen. If she goes high then we start the twirls and I make very small circular movements directly above her head to help her twirl twice (or just once if she resists). Once I have established rapport with a dancer and realised they want to do more twirls then, on subsequent interactions, we may get up to around seven twirls - but only if both of us have good dance technique. Of course, a lady can lead herself into this move as well by just raising the man's hand and hoping he doesn't resist too much! Again this is more a signalled, playful, co-operative move than a lead and follow, since the lady knows what is going to happen and is equally involved in the decision about how many twirls are done. Genuine lead & follow, where the leader leads a follower into something they are not expecting, is quite rare in Contra. 4) Lead & Follow works better if both dancers have good lead/follow technique, and some flourishes also benefit from good technique Moves like Ladies' Chain twirls works best when both dancers have good technique. The techniques for leading and following and executing good twirls are identical to those used in Modern Jive. There is an article about lead and follow and twirling technique at http://www.modernjive.com/history/tension.html - you may find some useful material there. 5) Leads can be with fingertips, body angles, eyes, and anything else that works When I dance Modern Jive with a beginner lady, I spend the first couple of minutes teaching her the techniques for following; I do this through simple moves and exercises. If she has a good sense of rhythm and good balance then, during the second track that we dance to together, I can lead her through fifty different moves - she doesn't need to know the moves; she needs to know how to follow. This is lead & follow, and is very different from what happens in a Contra dance. The main leads are done with the fingertips, but a good leader will use anything that works to let the follower know what they are trying to achieve. The lead is an invitation. The follower can react in many ways to the invitation and the two dancers can play off each other in fun ways. Of course, always remembering that, if this is in the middle of a dance, you need to have both players facing the right way in the right place for beat one of the next move! 6) The end of a ballroom-hold swing is not symmetrical and it is often much easier to let the "man" control the end of the swing; that's not sexist, it is physics! N.B. This is about swings where you end side-by-side with the man on the left and the lady on the right. When you spring back to your own side at the end of a swing then the ending is somewhat different. A simple swing does not involve lead and follow, but someone has to control the end of the swing. The objective is to end in the right place side by side facing the right way. If the lady stops when she is facing the right way then the man has already turned too far and he is facing the wrong way; he then has to turn back against his momentum. To avoid this the lady would have to stop the man, get out of his embrace, and continue turning herself while making the man stay still. This is quite hard, but good dancers often do this, especially with beginners, or men who have no idea how to finish a swing well. On the other hand, If the man stops the swing on around beat 6 then he just releases the lady and her momentum takes her out smoothly to face in the same direction as the man. This is just physics, based on the fact that we choose to swing clockwise and to finish with the man on the left. This is not lead and follow; this is a mutual agreement as to how many times to go around, and how fast, and then to let the man end the swing so that it ends smoothly. Good dancers of course make the end of the swing flow into the next move. But here I am talking about a basic swing for ordinary dancers. Of course if one of you wants to twirl or be twirled at the end of the swing then you start moving into lead & follow territory, and since many of the embellishments are based on moves stolen from couple dances, then most such flourishes are led by the man. But that is not a rule - the lady can initiate a twirl of herself or her man, or both if she has good leading technique and he has good following technique. 7) Most dancers would benefit from good teaching on this subject, but sadly there is very little teaching provided As I have said, elements such as leading, following and twirling work well if the dancers have developed good technique. But where will they learn it in the Contra world? I teach workshops on the subject, but that seems to be quite rare. I also occasionally teach flourishes at our regular weekly dances. Sometimes it only needs a caller to drop in a few good one-liners into an evening's calling to pass along a little bit of knowledge. If callers don't do it who will? Hmmm... I have probably rambled on for too long now. I hope some of you find some of that useful. If you want to hear me talk on the subject for nearly two hours please contact me about getting a cheap copy of my Toolkit DVD: http://www.modernjive.com/tmjt.html :-) Happy dancing, John John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

7 years, 11 months

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

by Dugan Murphy via Callers

Since it was an article about my dance series that started this conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that regular contra dancers from other places can come in and dance without needing anything to be explained to them since the terms are pretty similar to "gents" and "ladies." We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of gender-free role terms people have been talking about: http://amherstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd give it a try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try and there are certainly plenty of reasons to try. Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as rubies, but for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or whose gender expression doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd like to think that formally separating dance roles from gender is validating in a meaningful way. Dugan Murphy Portland, Maine dugan at duganmurphy.com www.DuganMurphy.com www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com www.NufSed.consulting

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Gary Shapiro via Callers

I modified Bob Dalsemer's dance, Dog Branch Reel, so that the transition into the neighbor swing would be more conventional. To give it even more English flavor, I tried changing B2 to fall back, turn single while advancing, 2s swing, but it was a hard sell at the contra dance. In my own records I call this version "Dog Branch, Really?". duple, improper A1 N do-si-do; 1s swing A2 Line of 4 down the hall 4 steps turning alone on step 4, continue down the hall walking backwards; up the hall 4 steps turning alone on step 4, continue up the hall walking backwards, bend the line B1 Circle L; N swing B2 Long lines forward and back; 2s swing On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Tavi Merrill via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Dance genealogy question: The figure first appearing in "Dublin Bay" (aka > "We'll Wed and We'll Bed," its title in Playford) morphed in contra into a > modified "lines of four down the hall." > > I know a version of it from Sue Rosen's dance "Handsome Young Maids," > where dancers facing down take four steps forwards, turn alone, and > continue down the hall with four backward steps, then repeat the figure to > return up the hall. > > I'm curious how many other contras this figure, or a version of it, > appears in. Does anyone know of other dances? And any astute dance > historians out there know what the first contra to use this figure is? > > Tavi > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

7 years, 11 months

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

by Cara Sawyer via Callers

Hi everyone again, Angela, Jeff thank you. I appreciate knowing the emotional attachment many had to the history of these calling terms. I had no clue. From where I was coming from, it was more of a logistical question for my calling aspirations, trying to figure out what is easiest for the dancers to understand. I have had personal experience with it being difficult to remember if I was a Band or Bare, it seems arbitrary and now I see that this is intentional. It is good to hear some of the rationale and what others have experienced. Best, Cara Sent to you using thumbs. > On Jan 18, 2017, at 18:59, Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t.kaufman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Cara! > > There is definitely a history! Many dancers don't like lead/follow as terms because they either don't think contra has a lead/follow dynamic or they don't want to encourage lead/follow dancing. > > Some dance series, primarily ones with younger dancers, do use those terms, but there are enough dancers opposed to them that I don't see them as a potential community-wide replacement the way rubies/jets could be. > > Jeff > >> On Jan 18, 2017 7:53 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> Hello all, >> I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call, but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and Follow? >> >> When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't sure what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is what is used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people switch in that dance style as well. >> >> Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about his/her/their role. >> >> Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to think of this. >> >> Thanks! >> Cara >> >> Sent to you using thumbs. >> >>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> >>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground." >>> >>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make for easy teaching. >>> >>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and Ladies. >>> >>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. >>> >>> Happy calling, everyone! >>> >>> Angela >>> >>>> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>> Not that Portland, the other Portland. ;-) >>>> >>>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-dancing-takes-a-… >>>> >>>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that >>>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get >>>> away from "bands" and "bares". >>>> -- >>>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ >>>> <*> <*> <*> >>>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by QuiAnn2 via Callers

I’ve also written a dance with this down the hall figure in it. I like to call it early in the evening since it’s very connected and has “rest” time for each couple. I haven’t run it through the Shared Weight gauntlet to see if anyone else has written it. Please let me know if it’s already out there. Pivot the Line by Jacqui Grennan, 5/1/2016 Contra/Improper/Easy A1 ----------- Four steps down the hall, turn alone, rejoin hands in lines of 4 Four more steps down the hall, walking backwards Four steps up the hall, turn alone, rejoin hands in lines of 4 Four more steps up the hall, walking backwards. Bend the line A2 ----------- (16) 2’s gypsy RIGHT/swing, face up to same N’s B1 ----------- (16) Same N B&Sw B2 ----------- (8) 1’s DSD across set (8) 1’s P Sw (2’s get ready for DTH, 1’s end the swing facing down between new neighbors). > On Jan 17, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Tavi Merrill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Thanks to Linda, Mac, and Jonathan for their responses. So far for dances featuring "Dublin Bay" variants, i have: > > contra variants of the figure, in best-guess chronological order: > Leaving Home - Al Olson > Jim's Reel - Steve Schnur > Handsome Young Maids - Sue Rosen > Please Don't Call Me Surely - Lynn Ackerson (Lynn says this is very similar to Olson's dance) > Crossing the Streams - Nicholas Rockstroh > > figure exactly as it appears in Dublin Bay: > Doublin' Back - Erna-Lynne Bogue > > The reason for my question around the move's history is that i've written a new dance featuring it, and was curious who first imported it from ECD to contra. So far i've gotten works-on-paper nods from a couple fellow choreographers, and a previous version of this dance was successfully tested. Might as well put it out there, as i'm pretty sure it hasn't been written before. > > Here 'tis: > > Belfast Bay (becket R) > > from improper: circle left three and swing partner to end facing UP the hall: > > A1. in lines of four, reverse "Dublin Bay" variant: > > > take four steps backwards, turn toward partner to face down, take four steps forward; > > repeat, returning up the hall, and bend the line to a ring > > A2. Ring balance, ladies draw gents over to > > N1 neighbor swing > > B1. Long lines forward & back > > N2 neighbor swing > > B2. Ring balance, ladies draw gents over to > > Partner swing > > Here, the "Dublin Bay" figure (as it’s more commonly seen in contra, a modified “down the hall”) has been inverted to make the starting formation a line of four facing up - intended for those times a caller wants all dancers facing the stage. The sequence’s overall design was driven by the intention to facilitate band introductions before a break or goodbyes before a final waltz, with dancers beside their partner. As a last dance before the break, the A1 figure can be walked without “bend to a ring,” and voila! Dancers are in lines of four facing up ready for announcements; the rest is simple enough to run no-walk-through. > > Compact variation! Start instead with dancers facing DOWN the hall and make A1 the original “Dublin Bay” figure: lines of four facing down take four steps backwards (toward the stage), four steps forwards; turn alone to face up, and repeat. Voila! Lines of four facing up. > > Dancers waiting out at the ends should join in the long lines. > > In honor of Chrissy Fowler and the Belfast Flying Shoes dance in Belfast, Maine. > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Linda Leslie <laleslierjg(a)comcast.net <mailto:laleslierjg@comcast.net>> wrote: > Al Olson used the move in his dance “Leaving Home”. It was published in Give & Take by Larry Jennings in 2004. Larry spent a number of years putting this book together, so the dance was written well before this. I did not find the dance in Zesty Contras, Larry’s fist book, published in 1988; but this might mean that Larry did not have space to include it, rather than it had not been written yet. If I were of a betting nature…..I would bet that the dance was from the 1980’s, maybe 1990’s. > Linda > > On Jan 16, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Tavi Merrill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > >> >> Dance genealogy question: The figure first appearing in "Dublin Bay" (aka "We'll Wed and We'll Bed," its title in Playford) morphed in contra into a modified "lines of four down the hall." >> >> I know a version of it from Sue Rosen's dance "Handsome Young Maids," where dancers facing down take four steps forwards, turn alone, and continue down the hall with four backward steps, then repeat the figure to return up the hall. >> >> I'm curious how many other contras this figure, or a version of it, appears in. Does anyone know of other dances? And any astute dance historians out there know what the first contra to use this figure is? >> >> Tavi >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-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

7 years, 11 months

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

by Angela DeCarlis via Callers

Yes, Cara, definitely a history! Thank you for inquiring. Another argument I've heard against Lead/Follow is that if we change the role known up to now only as "Gents" to "Leads," and likewise "Ladies" to "Follows," we could unwittingly be reinforcing the cultural notion that only men can be leaders and that women can only be follows. This is not the most common argument used (see Jeff's comments), but it is the one I most often cite, since I do prefer contra to include the *option *for a lead-follow dynamic. Either way, while most partner dances do have this dynamic absolutely and inherently, contra does not have to include it and since we're already using gendered terms that have for generations described gendered roles that we're trying to move away from, switching to Lead/Follow has proved a less-popular choice. Hope this helps! Angela On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Hi Cara! > > There is definitely a history! Many dancers don't like lead/follow as > terms because they either don't think contra has a lead/follow dynamic or > they don't want to encourage lead/follow dancing. > > Some dance series, primarily ones with younger dancers, do use those > terms, but there are enough dancers opposed to them that I don't see them > as a potential community-wide replacement the way rubies/jets could be. > > Jeff > > On Jan 18, 2017 7:53 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call, >> but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now >> need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and >> Follow? >> >> When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't >> sure what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is >> what is used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people >> switch in that dance style as well. >> >> Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same >> 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage >> of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about >> his/her/their role. >> >> Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to >> think of this. >> >> Thanks! >> Cara >> >> Sent to you using thumbs. >> >> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using >> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the >> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' >> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the >> ground." >> >> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly >> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make >> for easy teaching. >> >> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral >> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and >> Ladies. >> >> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. >> >> Happy calling, everyone! >> >> Angela >> >> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> Not that Portland, the other Portland. ;-) >>> >>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d >>> ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/ >>> >>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that >>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get >>> away from "bands" and "bares". >>> -- >>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 >>> http://rule6.info/ >>> <*> <*> <*> >>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

7 years, 11 months

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

by Cara Sawyer via Callers

Hello all, I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call, but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and Follow? When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't sure what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is what is used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people switch in that dance style as well. Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about his/her/their role. Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to think of this. Thanks! Cara Sent to you using thumbs. > On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground." > > And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make for easy teaching. > > Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and Ladies. > > That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. > > Happy calling, everyone! > > Angela > >> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> Not that Portland, the other Portland. ;-) >> >> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-dancing-takes-a-… >> >> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that >> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get >> away from "bands" and "bares". >> -- >> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ >> <*> <*> <*> >> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

7 years, 11 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