Import1 February 2017

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
35 discussions

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

by Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers

Neal, Can you clarify? Do you mean that you dance differently depending on which side you begin the dance on? How does your style change? Thanks, Alex On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I have danced at a bunch of genderfree dances, as well as my home dance > having a lot of people who dance both roles. I can't say I've ever had this > "diet contra" experience. > > My home dance is widely known among musicians and callers as a lively > crowd who brings good energy to performers. Proper and improper have little > relevance, but that doesn't stop a seeming endless supply of new > choreography being generated and called by various callers. Does it really > matter if I'm allemanding or swinging with a particular gender? I guess a > person can still choose to only dance with one gender if they really felt > strongly. > > But saying that genderfree dancing is bland? I mean, it's a folk community > dance. The whole point is we all dance in one big set together. If dancing > only to swing people of one gender means so much that contra is "diet" > without it, I would ask what exactly contra means to you? > > > Best regards, > Ron Blechner > > > > On Feb 13, 2017 6:17 PM, "Woody Lane via Callers" < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies > with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons. > > Woody > > -- > Woody Lane > Caller, Percussive Dancer > Roseburg, Oregon > http://www.woodylanecaller.com > home: 541-440-1926 <(541)%20440-1926> cell: 541-556-0054 > <(541)%20556-0054> > ------------------------------ > > On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote: > > I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own > experience. > > Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on > how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing. I > started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares, > contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency. Seeing > a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has > never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks > well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is > necessary to fill out a set. It is also an important skill for any caller, > and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special > situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first > encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to > adjust on the fly. > > That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose > (?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago. I didn't know > what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they > lined up and started teaching. > > They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some > older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from > Berea's Christmas Country Dance School. Aside from momentary confusion, > adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem > for me. > > What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the > character of the dances I knew. They became less elegant, less > interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B > position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor > pattern. Proper and improper had no relevance. There was no stylistic > mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically > demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there > weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold > onto even as a guideline for playacting. The dances completely lost their > flavor and character. They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke. > (I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE? Just drink water!) > > Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree > with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms > "gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence how > people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done. I don't > worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want > everyone to get up and have a good time. But encouraging folks to learn > both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a > meaningful difference between the roles. > > I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and > corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances > for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play > football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our > general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So why not let > the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends than taking a > wonderful dance with character and making it into "gender free diet > crystal contra." > > Just my 2 cents. > Neal > > Neal Schlein > Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library > > > _______________________________________________ > 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, 10 months

[Callers] from geopmercer@gmail.com

by geopmercer via Callers

Hi! Have you already seen it? http://www.stowemedia.com/lkitwm.php?geopmercer_gmail_com geopmercer(a)gmail.com

7 years, 10 months

Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 34, Issue 11

by K Panton via Callers

Ron, I could not locate use of the word "bland" in the post you reference. In any event... Did you not read the paragraph following that which contained the reference to diet soda? The author stated that others may disagree. Obviously, you disagree. Please don't belittle the views of others as you demonstrate your egalitarian viewpoint. I happily agree with most of what Neal wrote. I don't go contra dancing to dance with guys, primarily. I go to dance with women. Yes, for me there is quite a (fortunate) difference between dancing with men & women. I'll dance with men but those "sublime" moments have happened only when dancing with women. Couples dancing originated as gendered. I would argue that it continues to be primarily gendered simply because couples are gendered whether identified by physical difference or role predeliction. I know of homosexual dancers who have preference for one role over the other; they are not ambi-dance-trous in that sense. I.e. they do not get a similar level of enjoyment dancing both roles. Argue away, but please avoid the "holier than thou". Ken Panton Message: 1 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:49:24 -0500 From: Ron Blechner via Callers < I have danced at a bunch of genderfree dances, as well as my home dance having a lot of people who dance both roles. I can't say I've ever had this "diet contra" experience. My home dance is widely known among musicians and callers as a lively crowd who brings good energy to performers. Proper and improper have little relevance, but that doesn't stop a seeming endless supply of new choreography being generated and called by various callers. Does it really matter if I'm allemanding or swinging with a particular gender? I guess a person can still choose to only dance with one gender if they really felt strongly. But saying that genderfree dancing is bland? I mean, it's a folk community dance. The whole point is we all dance in one big set together. If dancing only to swing people of one gender means so much that contra is "diet" without it, I would ask what exactly contra means to you? Best regards, Ron Blechner On Feb 13, 2017 6:17 PM, "Woody Lane via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons. Woody -- Woody Lane Caller, Percussive Dancer Roseburg, Oregon http://www.woodylanecaller.com home: 541-440-1926 <(541)%20440-1926> cell: 541-556-0054 <(541)%20556-0054> ------------------------------ On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote: I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience. Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing. I started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares, contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency. Seeing a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is necessary to fill out a set. It is also an important skill for any caller, and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to adjust on the fly. That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose (?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago. I didn't know what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they lined up and started teaching. They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from Berea's Christmas Country Dance School. Aside from momentary confusion, adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem for me. What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the character of the dances I knew. They became less elegant, less interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor pattern. Proper and improper had no relevance. There was no stylistic mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold onto even as a guideline for playacting. The dances completely lost their flavor and character. They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke. (I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE? Just drink water!) Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms "gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence how people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done. I don't worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want everyone to get up and have a good time. But encouraging folks to learn both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a meaningful difference between the roles. I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So why not let the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends than taking a wonderful dance with character and making it into "gender free diet crystal contra." Just my 2 cents. Neal Neal Schlein Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

7 years, 10 months

[Callers] The Gene, resequenced

by Tavi Merrill via Callers

For anyone who's fooling around with left swings, in knee-saving workshops and such... Margarine becket: from improper, circle RIGHT ;) 3 places A1. circle R 3, turn to new Neighbor, swing! (standard clockwise swing) A2. Long lines forward & (returning) Gents Neighbor roll away along Gents RH chain (standard courtesy turn with roles reversed) B1. Gents pass R: full hey B2. Partner gypsy L (or seesaw) swing L (counterclockwise)!!! Tavi

7 years, 10 months

Re: [Callers] has anybody else written / similar sequences?

by Dugan Murphy via Callers

Hi, Tavi, Thanks for sharing! I can't say if anyone else has authored these dances as you have them, but I can think of two dances very similar to three first one you shared. The first is "Stop, Drop, and Roll," which I also wrote as a simple dance to introduce the rollaway and half sashay to less experienced crowds: http://www.duganmurphy.com/dances-i-wrote/ The other is "Roll Around A" by Cary Ravitz, which was the inspiration for my dance: http://www.dance.ravitz.us/#ra Dugan Murphy Portland, Maine dugan at duganmurphy.com www.DuganMurphy.com www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com www.NufSed.consulting (I drafted this message on a device that likes to autocorrect my words in ways I don't always notice. Thank you for your understanding.) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:14:49 -0700 From: Tavi Merrill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net, Ronald Nieman <nieman(a)cox.net> Subject: Re: [Callers] has anybody else written / similar sequences? danged Gmail sent when i tabbed! Checking in with y'all to share new chore, confirm whether it is "original," and ask if others have sequences they use for similar intents and purposes. Both are as yet un-danced, though i'm certain enough they are sound to say feel free to use them. Additional recently tested chore in the pipeline, though the rest has very low odds of duplicating others' efforts. Bread improper A1. Ring balance; Ladies Neighbor roll away (with a half sashay) along Ring balance; Gents Partner rollaway across A2. Neighbor balance and swing B1. Circle L 3 places; Partner swing B2. Ring balance; Gents Neighbor rollaway across Ring balance and (either pass R or arch/duck) to meet new neighbors (1/2017) Roll away with a half sashay is perhaps the purest distillation of weight-sharing, yet compared to the more complex chain, conspicuously absent from much of the choreography used with beginning dancers. In the interest of teaching only one new move per dance, i sought here to use the rollaway as a means of drilling weight sharing, building muscle memory, and reinforcing key hall awareness concepts "along/across" in an early-evening sequence. A2 can be articulated as either a ring balance or a two-hand neighbor balance. For dancers already familiar with the petronella spin, "Sourdough" variation: B2. Ring balance; Ladies Partner rollaway along; Ring balance; all spin R 1.5 to meet new neighbors. Water improper: waves across, right hand to Neighbor, Ladies take left A1. Waves balance, walk forward to new neighbors Right hand (wrist) star 3 places; Neighbor pull by R across A2. Partner L hand alleman 1.5 Partner promenade across B1. Ladies R hand alleman 1 Partner swing B2. Gents L hand alleman 1.5 Neighbor R hand alleman 1+ to waves (1/2017) I've sought here to deconstruct both chain and R&L through, focusing dancers on the A2 promenade and two exaggerated, hands-connected "pass R" elements in A1. From A1 to A2, ladies may need a reminder to turn left toward their partner for the alleman - better taught here than during a square-through. ?Heavy Water? variation: If dancers are already familiar with the courtesy turn, make A2 a Partner power turn and promenade across. "Super-heavy Water:" That substitution, and gypsy (/whatever you prefer to call it) in place of the B1 and B2 right-hand allemans, transform this into a dance more suited to seasoned dancers and crowded spaces. Courtesy twirls, Tavi

7 years, 10 months

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

by Woody Lane via Callers

I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons. Woody -- Woody Lane Caller, Percussive Dancer Roseburg, Oregon http://www.woodylanecaller.com home: 541-440-1926 cell: 541-556-0054 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote: > I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own > experience. > > Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending > on how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up > dancing. I started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, > Scottish, squares, contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels > of proficiency. Seeing a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman > dancing the gent's role, has never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap, > requires technical skill, speaks well of a dancer who can do it well > stylistically, and sometimes is necessary to fill out a set. It is > also an important skill for any caller, and one callers need to know > how to handle when it happens in special situations; the callers I > grew up with talked about when they first encountered gay or > one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to adjust on the fly. > > That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and > Rose (?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago. I > didn't know what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD > event until they lined up and started teaching. > > They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some > older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned > from Berea's Christmas Country Dance School. Aside from momentary > confusion, adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up > was not a problem for me. > > What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the > character of the dances I knew. They became less elegant, less > interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B > position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different > floor pattern. Proper and improper had no relevance. There was no > stylistic mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to > historically demanded or intended stylistic differences had been > stripped out--there weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; > there was nothing to hold onto even as a guideline for playacting. > The dances completely lost their flavor and character. They became > like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke. (I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT > EVER MADE? Just drink water!) > > Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and > agree with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the > terms "gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively > influence how people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is > done. I don't worry about that at special or family events, of > course; I just want everyone to get up and have a good time. But > encouraging folks to learn both roles to become better dancers is only > meaningful if there is a meaningful difference between the roles. > > I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners > and corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go > to dances for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd > play football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority > of our general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So > why not let the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends > than taking a wonderful dance with character and making it into > "gender free diet crystal contra." > > Just my 2 cents. > Neal > > Neal Schlein > Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library

7 years, 10 months

Re: [Callers] has anybody else written / similar sequences?

by Tavi Merrill via Callers

danged Gmail sent when i tabbed! Checking in with y'all to share new chore, confirm whether it is "original," and ask if others have sequences they use for similar intents and purposes. Both are as yet un-danced, though i'm certain enough they are sound to say feel free to use them. Additional recently tested chore in the pipeline, though the rest has very low odds of duplicating others' efforts. Bread improper A1. Ring balance; Ladies Neighbor roll away (with a half sashay) along Ring balance; Gents Partner rollaway across A2. Neighbor balance and swing B1. Circle L 3 places; Partner swing B2. Ring balance; Gents Neighbor rollaway across Ring balance and (either pass R or arch/duck) to meet new neighbors (1/2017) Roll away with a half sashay is perhaps the purest distillation of weight-sharing, yet compared to the more complex chain, conspicuously absent from much of the choreography used with beginning dancers. In the interest of teaching only one new move per dance, i sought here to use the rollaway as a means of drilling weight sharing, building muscle memory, and reinforcing key hall awareness concepts "along/across" in an early-evening sequence. A2 can be articulated as either a ring balance or a two-hand neighbor balance. For dancers already familiar with the petronella spin, "Sourdough" variation: B2. Ring balance; Ladies Partner rollaway along; Ring balance; all spin R 1.5 to meet new neighbors. Water improper: waves across, right hand to Neighbor, Ladies take left A1. Waves balance, walk forward to new neighbors Right hand (wrist) star 3 places; Neighbor pull by R across A2. Partner L hand alleman 1.5 Partner promenade across B1. Ladies R hand alleman 1 Partner swing B2. Gents L hand alleman 1.5 Neighbor R hand alleman 1+ to waves (1/2017) I've sought here to deconstruct both chain and R&L through, focusing dancers on the A2 promenade and two exaggerated, hands-connected "pass R" elements in A1. From A1 to A2, ladies may need a reminder to turn left toward their partner for the alleman - better taught here than during a square-through. “Heavy Water” variation: If dancers are already familiar with the courtesy turn, make A2 a Partner power turn and promenade across. "Super-heavy Water:" That substitution, and gypsy (/whatever you prefer to call it) in place of the B1 and B2 right-hand allemans, transform this into a dance more suited to seasoned dancers and crowded spaces. Courtesy twirls, Tavi On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Tavi Merrill <melodiouswoodchuck(a)gmail.com > wrote: > Checking in with y'all to share new chore, confirm whether it is > "original," and ask if others have sequences they use for similar intents > and purposes. > > > Bread > > improper > > A1. Ring balance; Ladies Neighbor roll away (with a half sashay) along > Ring balance; Gents Partner rollaway across</td> > </tr><tr> > <td class="sched-table">A2.</td> > <td>Neighbor balance and swing > </td> > </tr><tr> > <td class="sched-table">B1.</td> > <td>Circle L 3 places; > Partner swing</td> > </tr><tr> > <td class="sched-table">B2.</td> > <td>Ring balance; Gents Neighbor rollaway across > Ring balance and (either pass R or arch/duck) to meet new > neighbors</td> > </tr> > </table> > (1/2017) Roll away with a half sashay is perhaps the purest distillation > of weight-sharing, yet compared to the more complex chain, conspicuously > absent from much of the choreography used with beginning dancers. > In the interest of teaching only one new move per dance, i sought here to > use the rollaway as a means of drilling weight sharing, building muscle > memory, and reinforcing key hall awareness concepts "along/across" in an > early-evening sequence. > There's a hidden agenda here: Doing a "wowee" figure in the second half > with minimal additional teaching. > A2 can be articulated as either a ring balance or a two-hand > neighbor balance. For dancers already familiar with the petronella spin, > "Sourdough" variation: B2. Ring balance; Ladies Partner rollaway along; > Ring balance; all spin R 1.5 to meet new neighbors. > >

7 years, 10 months

[Callers] has anybody else written / similar sequences?

by Tavi Merrill via Callers

Checking in with y'all to share new chore, confirm whether it is "original," and ask if others have sequences they use for similar intents and purposes. Bread improper A1. Ring balance; Ladies Neighbor roll away (with a half sashay) along Ring balance; Gents Partner rollaway across</td> </tr><tr> <td class="sched-table">A2.</td> <td>Neighbor balance and swing </td> </tr><tr> <td class="sched-table">B1.</td> <td>Circle L 3 places; Partner swing</td> </tr><tr> <td class="sched-table">B2.</td> <td>Ring balance; Gents Neighbor rollaway across Ring balance and (either pass R or arch/duck) to meet new neighbors</td> </tr> </table> (1/2017) Roll away with a half sashay is perhaps the purest distillation of weight-sharing, yet compared to the more complex chain, conspicuously absent from much of the choreography used with beginning dancers. In the interest of teaching only one new move per dance, i sought here to use the rollaway as a means of drilling weight sharing, building muscle memory, and reinforcing key hall awareness concepts "along/across" in an early-evening sequence. There's a hidden agenda here: Doing a "wowee" figure in the second half with minimal additional teaching. A2 can be articulated as either a ring balance or a two-hand neighbor balance. For dancers already familiar with the petronella spin, "Sourdough" variation: B2. Ring balance; Ladies Partner rollaway along; Ring balance; all spin R 1.5 to meet new neighbors.

7 years, 10 months

[Callers] "booker" fee for tour planning

by Donna Hunt via Callers

Hi Just wondering aloud since this is not something I've ever seen discussed here. Do you (or a musician you're traveling with) take a "booker fee" for planning a tour, or even a single community dance when there is a lot of planning with the event host and time spent booking musicians? How much of a fee do you usually ask for from the event host or cut for yourself from the total fee to the group? Donna Hunt

7 years, 10 months

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

by P. Campbell via Callers

This is very interesting information from the questions you posed. If I were going to use either, I would probably lean towards jets and rubies (though I have nothing against larks and ravens) for one main reason - In both French and Spanish (I'm not sure of any other language at this moment), the word Lark is a feminine noun and the word Raven is a masculine noun. Aside from the difficulties I imagine when I'm leading the historical dances, for contemporary circle, square, and longways it would be a major challenge to my brain to connect a left-side-historically-gent-position with a feminine noun (speaking enough if the language for that to interfere) or a right/side-historically-lady-position with a masculine noun. Jets and rubies have more of a sound appeal to my ear (totally personal preference ), though I still feel we're only substituting a new set of words for words that apparently make some people uncomfortable. I don't know how long it would take for me to see them as gender neutral terms and not just layered over "gents & ladies", which were the roles the dances originated in, except perhaps for the gender-free dances written explicitly that way in recent years. That said, I do primarily community/family/school dances and historical dances, not the monthly contra dances, and I have my own workarounds when I need to use them. Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues? P.S. I would never use lead/follow. Patricia Campbell Newtown, CT Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what they thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this sort of change, or do they think it's a bad idea? > > I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who are currently booked, to ask them whether: > > A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse, or about the same. > They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies. > They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance required that. > Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without my having suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow. > > Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the switch. Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no. > > Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but no one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not Larks/Ravens. > > Some freeform responses, lightly edited: > > "I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of 'L'/'R' matching the default swing ending position with the initial letters but I think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a decision though. > > "My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because it's easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced Larks/Ravens would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is to distance the roles even further from gender, than I'd go with Larks/Ravens. Jets/Rubies sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some callers slip up and say 'Gents' for 'Jets'." > > "The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?) associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds." > > "I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but if I had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies carries a lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it invites the reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical association between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate human activity) makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being run by an in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing reactions are contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily rational ones.) Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story, and also of airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a dance context has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones. Larks/Ravens has no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes, and has a built-in mnemonic with the L/R initials." > > "Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to 'Gents' that I think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell." > > "My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very feature makes it the less desirable choice in some people's view.)" > > "As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the easiest to use." > > "I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy to use either one." > > "I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I will not use are Leads/Follows." > > "I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging choice for some people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I like it because those terms have dance connotations" > > "I like Jets/Rubies because 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/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens sounds a little silly." > > "As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies because they sound almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and patter, it's a pretty easy substitution. But my first impression of the terms is that they are still kind of gendered, or at least can be interpreted that. 'Jets' sounds aggressive and masculine, and 'Rubies' are definitely feminine. " > > "I can't imagine trying to turn a singing square gender free." > > "From the point of view of a caller trying to get a new set of words out of my mouth when significant chunks of my teaching and prompting are automatic, I think that I would prefer Jets/Rubies for a few reasons. First, I think that I would manage to confuse myself and stumble around switching 'Gents' to 'Larks', which starts with the same letter as 'Ladies', and might be more likely to flip-flop the two. Also, I know that it has been successfully used, but the initial consonants of Larks/Ravens aren't nearly as contrasted as are those of Jets/Rubies (or of Gents/Ladies)." > > "Not really a preference, although as a caller perhaps Jets/Rubies is a slightly easier transition." > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

7 years, 10 months

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 February 2017