Import1

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

2524 discussions

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

by Angela DeCarlis via Callers

Thanks Jeff for putting together this survey! This is all really interesting information. On Feb 12, 2017 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, 11 months

[Callers] Role term survey responses

by Jeff Kaufman via Callers

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."

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] ACK! First time calling night of *squares* -- any last minute advice?

by John Sweeney via Callers

Hi Meg, Or you may have seen the Grand Chain, sorry Grand Right & Left for you Americans, without the Allemande in other dance styles. English ceilidh dances don’t bother with the Allemande. And of course it occurred in 1650 dances as well. The earliest record I know of is in the square dance Murry, from before Playford: http://contrafusion.co.uk/lovelace.htm#Murry: “They all standing ni their places, they shall goe round apac a kind of hay only of giving of hands, as they goe unto every one, both men and woemen, and when they shall meete with their own again, sthey shall turne quite round both of them together, and meting any other but their owne, they shall turne but halfe round, and soe after this manner, they shall goe round as often as they please, the tune is played akording :4: or 5: goings round” That looks like a Grand Right & Left to me, with no Allemande! 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: Meg Dedolph [mailto:meg.dedolph@gmail.com] Sent: 07 February 2017 13:21 To: John Sweeney <john(a)modernjive.com>; callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net Subject: Re: [Callers] ACK! First time calling night of *squares* -- any last minute advice? Ha! I read that book, but I thought I came up with that trick on my own. Maybe I remembered it long after I read it and thought I'd invented it. :) Meg

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] ACK! First time calling night of *squares* -- any last minute advice?

by Woody Lane via Callers

Hi Amy, I've been calling squares for a long time. If they are western/southern squares, they are very different than contras, and the caller's role is very different, both in terms of the dancers and of the music/band. If the dances are New England quadrilles, then they are essentially contras in square-formation. My comments are primarily about the former rather than the latter, although the underlying principles are the same. Squares are fun! Smile a lot; be playful. I would suggest that you don't spring new things on the dancers during the dance, especially if these are contra dancers, but don't hesitate to do something like (especially for an opening): swing someone in your square; now swing someone in a different square; now swing someone you've never swung before; now run back home and swing your own! Which can get lots of folks giggling like 10-year-old kids. Call to the dancers, not to the music. I'm not saying "ignore the phrasing", but OTOH, you don't want folks standing still waiting for the phrase to come around while one other square struggles to catch up. Scan the room; do not call to the slowest square(s). You can call one move ahead of most of the dancers. Use your voice. Most western-style and southern-style squares are not phrased to a 32-bar tune. OTOH, by keeping the phrasing in your head while you call, or at least listening to the tune, you can skillfully weave the calls so that, when the music comes around to the top of the tune, you can begin a new part of the dance. Subtle, but very satisfying all around. You can use moves like: Swing your partner, promenade, all join hands and circle left -- all which take up music and can bring the entire room together. Not every break has to be grand-right-and-left or its variations or Alamo-style complexities. Simple breaks work, and they can be used as refreshing breathers after the main figure -- a way for the dancers to experience a reset. A variation of: join hands 8 and circle left all the way around, swing your partner, now promenade home -- will work as a simple break. (or even just "circle left all the way around" -- good for weddings, etc.). Put laughter in your voice. Lead your friends through the dance, like at a party, not just prompt. Good luck! Woody <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Woody Lane Caller, Percussive Dancer Roseburg, Oregon http://www.woodylanecaller.com home: 541-440-1926 cell: 541-556-0054 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2/4/2017 9:26 AM, Amy Cann via Callers wrote: > It's a friendly low-key local community dance, and they know I'm > mainly a contra caller, so the potential for hurled tomatoes is low -- > but I still want to not stink too much. > > Any suggestions for dance choices or thought-habit adjustments? > > Back to scribbling on my 3x5 cards and re-reading Lloyd Shaw... > > Amy

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] ACK! First time calling night of *squares* -- any last minute advice?

by Susan Davis and Scott Russell via Callers

Here’s a piece I wrote several years ago. I hope it’s of help. > On Feb 4, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Amy Cann via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > It's a friendly low-key local community dance, and they know I'm mainly a contra caller, so the potential for hurled tomatoes is low -- but I still want to not stink too much. > > Any suggestions for dance choices or thought-habit adjustments? > > Back to scribbling on my 3x5 cards and re-reading Lloyd Shaw... > > Amy > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] ACK! First time calling night of *squares* -- any last minute advice?

by Laur via Callers

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } I find the simple square is fun and accessible to any group. Done it for kids, teens, older adults, festivals. It's the old singing square Solomon Levi that's not singing. Couple back to back, around the outside track, pass by right, pass by right again, K almd l, r to p r/l grand, meet partner prom home. All home all swing. Then after I do all couples I do odd couples, then even couples then ALL COUPLES. They have a blast. All ages, all stages. Agree with Meg, watch one or maybe two squares call to them. Don't fall into the call to the to be fixed. In squares often times there are one or two that just don't make it. But they have their own fun, if you set it up that way. Just tell them to keep moving... And again, I often find I'm just ready to wait for the top of the phrase and - well when I do find myself doing that I swing or into middle or .. I try to remember to say ahead of time not everyone will be together and if you are home and the call isn't there - swing that thing. Also agreeing with Meg that 1st Quadrille is your good friend. I keep Solomon Levi and 1st quadrille close to my heart at EVERY dance. Anothers in your pocket are birdie in the Cage even without the cage and Two sisters. Also bow to Jonathan's sharing. You'll find a lot of similarities. My best experience was calling a dance with an elderly church group - 50 got up to dance - surprise. And they said at the end that they never knew how much fun it could be to get something wrong..... I remember that when I had my first dance to an old time caller back in the day when it was in someon'e yard I laughed so much on how I couldn't do anything right more than when I got it right. Laurie Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Monday, February 6, 2017, 10:01 AM, Meg Dedolph via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Tips I found that helped me, presented in random order: Pick one or two squares to watch, preferably with more experienced dancers, and call to them. It will help with the timing. When I started calling squares, a friend helpfully pointed out that I was waiting for the tops of the musical phrases to roll around again before starting the next figure, and that meant people were sometimes standing around during a square and that was Not Fun, so I had to learn to let go of the idea that figures had to begin with the musical phrase, like they do in contras. That turned out to be hard for me to do, fyi. Your mileage may vary. Other advice I've gotten is to start with New England squares, which are assembled in 8 and 16 count phrases like contras. If you're unsure about how the timing works, it can be very educational to call a square while you're dancing it. I've had to do that a few times, where there are only seven dancers, and it really taught me a lot about when to start calling various figures. Make a pot of chili and invite seven friends over? Finally, I find that the First Night Quadrille, by Bob Dalsemer, is a great square to have in your box if you don't already. Easy to teach to beginners, call without a walkthrough for more advanced dancers and have fun. Oh! So a common break is allemande left your corner, face your partner, grand right and left. I have better luck teaching that to beginners if I teach the grand right and left first and *then* add the allemande left, rather than teach it in the sequence it's presented in the dance. I have no more advice. Good luck! You'll have a great time!Meg On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:08 PM Jonathan Sivier via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Here is my experience in calling squares for the first time, for what it is worth. I had been calling contras for several years and thought I would like to expand my repertoire to include some squares. I chose what I thought was a fairly straightforward square that had been done by the local group, called by other callers, several times in the past. While the dance itself (Texas Star with the Alamo Ring break) wasn't especially hard, what I hadn't taken into account was that there would be a lot of other things for me to be dealing with in calling a square which don't generally occur in contras. So my first attempt at calling a square didn't go very well. Here are some of the things I found I needed to deal with in squares that I hadn't encountered in contras. If there are multiple squares they won't all keep in sync the way contra sets typically do. So one square will have finished promenading home, while another will still be working on getting there. So you may need to tell the one group to do something like swing at home until the others catch up. The more squares there are the more this will be the case. The chances are good you will get off from the music. In contras the dances and music go together very well, but some squares don't fit the music as well and even when they do the fact that some squares may lag behind means you will often end up being off from the music. At first I worried about this a lot and trying to keep track of that and keep things with the music was one more thing overloading my mental resources when I was trying to call squares. So I decided to not worry about it and free up those resources to think about other things. To do that I intentionally get off the music right at the start by doing an intro that takes less than 64 beats. Something like "Circle left, circle right, into the center and back, do it again." Then I can start the dance proper and not worry about being off the music. Of course that leaves the problem of knowing where you are in the music for purposes of ending the dance and music at the same time. This has taken some practice and I'm still not great at it, but most bands are good about ending on a given signal, if you let them know beforehand. It was also a surprise, and challenge, to me that I had to keep calling the whole time. I should have seen that coming. As you know the longer you keep calling a dance the more likely you are to make a mistake. So having to call squares all the way through meant I was making more errors. I think that is where patter calling comes in. If you have a nice little rhyming phrase for something you can recite it without really having to think about it and will, hopefully, make fewer mistakes. So what I ended up doing was choosing an even easier dance, Sheehan's Reel by Roger Whynot, and a very straightforward break. I deliberately got off the music at the start of the dance and came up with some little rhyming phrases that I could use for some of the calls. I didn't do all of this right away, but my second attempt at calling a square, with a simpler dance, went much better. I hope this is helpful. Jonathan ----- Jonathan Sivier Caller of Contra, Square, English and Early American Dances jsivier AT illinois DOT edu Dance Page: http://www.sivier.me/dance_leader.html ----- Q: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? A: It depends on what dance you call! On 2/4/2017 11:26 AM, Amy Cann via Callers wrote: > It's a friendly low-key local community dance, and they know I'm mainly > a contra caller, so the potential for hurled tomatoes is low -- but I > still want to not stink too much. > > Any suggestions for dance choices or thought-habit adjustments? > > Back to scribbling on my 3x5 cards and re-reading Lloyd Shaw... > > Amy _______________________________________________ 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

[Callers] Gene Murrow Workshop in Rancho Bernardo area of San Diego

by Martha Wild via Callers

Gene Murrow is giving a caller’s workshop, details below, on Monday evening. This is open to ECD and contra caller’s if you are interested and can attend. I’ve put the details below: "The caller's workshop with Gene Murrow will be at Casa de Las Campanas at 18655 W Bernardo Drive in Rancho Bernardo. A donation of $20/person is requested. This is the campus where Priscilla [one of our dancers] lives. Workshop starts at 6:30 and ends at 9:30. Here's what Priscilla says: 'Casa has 3 major construction projects going on right now. Car-pooling will help the parking situation Attendees will bear right up the hill as they enter the campus from W. Bernardo Dr. and go to the Sur Building reception area. That is the main entrance to Casa. I will be waiting to point down the hall to the Craft Room. Rest rooms close by. I'm pretty sure wifi is available in the Craft Room.'"

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] ACK! First time calling night of *squares* -- any last minute advice?

by Jonathan Sivier via Callers

Here is my experience in calling squares for the first time, for what it is worth. I had been calling contras for several years and thought I would like to expand my repertoire to include some squares. I chose what I thought was a fairly straightforward square that had been done by the local group, called by other callers, several times in the past. While the dance itself (Texas Star with the Alamo Ring break) wasn't especially hard, what I hadn't taken into account was that there would be a lot of other things for me to be dealing with in calling a square which don't generally occur in contras. So my first attempt at calling a square didn't go very well. Here are some of the things I found I needed to deal with in squares that I hadn't encountered in contras. If there are multiple squares they won't all keep in sync the way contra sets typically do. So one square will have finished promenading home, while another will still be working on getting there. So you may need to tell the one group to do something like swing at home until the others catch up. The more squares there are the more this will be the case. The chances are good you will get off from the music. In contras the dances and music go together very well, but some squares don't fit the music as well and even when they do the fact that some squares may lag behind means you will often end up being off from the music. At first I worried about this a lot and trying to keep track of that and keep things with the music was one more thing overloading my mental resources when I was trying to call squares. So I decided to not worry about it and free up those resources to think about other things. To do that I intentionally get off the music right at the start by doing an intro that takes less than 64 beats. Something like "Circle left, circle right, into the center and back, do it again." Then I can start the dance proper and not worry about being off the music. Of course that leaves the problem of knowing where you are in the music for purposes of ending the dance and music at the same time. This has taken some practice and I'm still not great at it, but most bands are good about ending on a given signal, if you let them know beforehand. It was also a surprise, and challenge, to me that I had to keep calling the whole time. I should have seen that coming. As you know the longer you keep calling a dance the more likely you are to make a mistake. So having to call squares all the way through meant I was making more errors. I think that is where patter calling comes in. If you have a nice little rhyming phrase for something you can recite it without really having to think about it and will, hopefully, make fewer mistakes. So what I ended up doing was choosing an even easier dance, Sheehan's Reel by Roger Whynot, and a very straightforward break. I deliberately got off the music at the start of the dance and came up with some little rhyming phrases that I could use for some of the calls. I didn't do all of this right away, but my second attempt at calling a square, with a simpler dance, went much better. I hope this is helpful. Jonathan ----- Jonathan Sivier Caller of Contra, Square, English and Early American Dances jsivier AT illinois DOT edu Dance Page: http://www.sivier.me/dance_leader.html ----- Q: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? A: It depends on what dance you call! On 2/4/2017 11:26 AM, Amy Cann via Callers wrote: > It's a friendly low-key local community dance, and they know I'm mainly > a contra caller, so the potential for hurled tomatoes is low -- but I > still want to not stink too much. > > Any suggestions for dance choices or thought-habit adjustments? > > Back to scribbling on my 3x5 cards and re-reading Lloyd Shaw... > > Amy

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] I ♥ Dances - was: Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Don Veino via Callers

I was asked off-list how the titles should be verbalized - they are "I Heart..." On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Don Veino <sharedweight_net(a)veino.com> wrote: > BTW, I ♥ Faeries video from this past Thursday now posted: > https://youtu.be/Sg1Lu92NqNE >

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] I ♥ Dances - was: Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Don Veino via Callers

BTW, I ♥ Faeries video from this past Thursday now posted: https://youtu.be/Sg1Lu92NqNE On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Don Veino <sharedweight_net(a)veino.com> wrote: > In response to Ron's challenge, here's my take on a non-glossary way out > of the Dublin Bay figure - via a unique(?) twist on a Mad Robin. Good > response when called at the Concord, MA Scout House Thursday dance this > week (2/2/17). > [trimmed]

7 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1