Import1

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

2524 discussions

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

by Don Veino via Callers

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). Included below is a follow-up spin with a more traditional Down the Hall to simplify further. Names were contributed by our 5 year old daughter, which then inspired the choreography. Happy Dancing! Don *I ♥ Faeries - DI - Don Veino 20170125* *A1* Neighbor Balance & Swing, end facing down (Twos in center) *A2* Line/4 DTH and Back, Dublin Bay Style (4 steps fwd down the hall, turn single to face up, continue 4 steps down in reverse, 4 steps fwd up the hall, turn single to face down, continue 4 steps up in reverse) Bend the line (so Twos are above the Ones) *B1* Mirror Mad Robin - Ones Through the Center First (starting up towards head of the hall) [G1 and L2 dyad moving CW, L1 and G2 moving CCW] 1s Swing in Center, end facing UP *B2* 1s Half Figure 8 up through the 2s (around opposite role N, to end BELOW - improper and facing progression) 2s Swing, end facing UP Tune suggestion: Becky Tracy's Black Rock https://youtu.be/GHoJ3B-LgPY *I ♥ Unicorns - DI - Don Veino 20170203* NOTE: All swings in this dance end facing down. *A1* Neighbor Balance & Swing, end facing down (Twos in center) *A2* Line/4 DTH - Turn as a Couple - Return, Bend the Line (so 2s above 1s) *B1* Mirror Mad Robin - Twos Through the Center First (starting down towards foot of the hall) [G1 and L2 dyad moving CCW, L1 and G2 moving CW] Twos Swing in Center, end facing DOWN *B2* Twos Half Figure 8 DOWN through the Ones (around opposite role N, to end above - improper and facing progression) Ones Swing, end facing DOWN

7 years, 11 months

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

by James Saxe via Callers

Amy, Could you say more about the group you'll be calling for? By a "... local community dance" do you mean that it's a regular (e.g., monthly or weekly) series where most of the attendees will be repeat dancers, thus somewhat experienced at whatever kind of dancing the series features? Or is it a one-time (or maybe annual) event with a preponderance of of first-time or very infrequent dancers? If it's a regular series, what's the usual program like? * all squares (except maybe a last waltz and another couple dance or two)? * squares plus stuff like whole set dances (e.g., Virginia Reel?), circle mixers, and such? * squares and contras? * almost all contras (but for some reason they've decide to have an evening of squares and inexplicably picked a mainly-contra caller to lead it)? Assuming it's a regular series where squares are the usual bulk of the program and if you haven't attended it at least occasionally, you might want to contact other callers who've called there and/or the organizers and find out a little about the usual repertoire and the likely dancer skill mix. Are the dancers used to phrased New-England-style squares or to more of a southern and/or trad. western repertoire? Are there certain dances that get done fairly often and would be familiar to many of the dancers (e.g., "Texas Star", "Forward Six" [Right Hand High, Left Hand Low], particular singing squares, particular visiting couple figures, ...). How familiar are the regular dancers with various things that come up in different kinds of squares? For example: * If you do a partner-changing figure and use grand right and left as part of a break, will they know that "meet your partner and promenade" refers to the partner they had at the start of the grand right and left (who may not be their original partner)? * Suppose you teach a dance where heads go out to the right, circle half with the sides, and head gents break to make lines of four at the sides of the set. If you then switch to having sides go out to the right, etc., will the experienced 90% of the dancers know that the lines of four should now form at the heads (and get new 10% to follow along)? Or are there likely to be squares where the lines have again formed at the sides (and with goodness knows who at the left end)? And so on. Or you could describe some dances you're thinking of calling and ask your informant(s) whether the dancers are familiar with those dances or ones like them. In sum (and at the risk of prattling on about what you already know), whether a particular figure or transition or pattern seems easy or difficult can depend immensely on whether it's already familiar to the majority of dancers present. The more you know about the dancers' skills--and also the more you know about their expectations--the better you can plan your program to suit them while also not getting too far out of your own comfort zone as a caller. --Jim On Feb 4, 2017, at 9:26 AM, 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

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

by Amy Cann via Callers

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] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Donna Hunt via Callers

Amy, that's exactly why I'm wondering from those of us on sharedweight who might be reluctant to reply. If there's not enough folks willing to post their information then it's probably not worth putting in the effort to create the document. I agree with you completely about the "pressure". There's a lot of push back on this list when we voice concerns and opinions. Personally I think we should be kinder with those who are responding. There are many people who don't reply on this list and I personally believe it's because of the "pressure" and aggressive replies when different opinions are raised. Donna -----Original Message----- From: Amy Wimmer <amywimmer(a)gmail.com> To: Donna Hunt <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> Cc: jeff <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>; Dave Casserly <david.j.casserly(a)gmail.com>; callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2017 12:32 pm Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" Donna, I can imagine a scenario in which organizers would be shy to share this information for fear of retaliation or pressure from those who want them to change their practices. Having received such pressure, personally, I am sure it will happen to others. I'm not saying all pressure to change is bad, but that some people don't like being pushed. It is a (smallish) issue around the term "gypsy" in my neck of the woods. -Amy On Jan 31, 2017 6:39 AM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: If we were creating a doc for attendance and opening it up to the "world of contra dances organizers" to comment why not add some other categories that we've been discussing? Linda Leslie suggested the Organizers group might have stats. I'm wondering if CDSS keeps any? When Jeff replied to my query about LGBTQ dances and groups using non-gender terminology I wasn't at all surprised to see the list (since I know most of those groups), but I was surprised to realize that there were no groups in other major cities throughout the country. Topics that might be on the Doc: Dance Organizations that use non-gender terminology Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non-gender terminology Dance Organizations that have decided to use a non "gypsy" terminology Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non "gypsy" terminology There could be a write in section where Dance Organizations could state which terms they use. I would request that the attendance be under 25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100, etc. Or even increments of 20. There are several small groups in this country that survive with under 20 attendance and other groups where a drop in 25 dancers means serious financial hardship. Dave is concerned that groups might be wary about posting such information. Are there groups represented on this list that might NOT participate in this information gathering? Seems useless to even create the Doc unless folks are willing to post the data. Donna Hunt -----Original Message----- From: Dave Casserly via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could self-report their attendance? Something like, a column for the state where the dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in ranges of 1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with the same ranges? I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how many dances are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are, but wouldn't give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy about publicly releasing data. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their attendance numbers fully public. Something like a googledocs spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers. (I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years (unsuccessfully). We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.) On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind of > data. > Linda > > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for > this to be polled out to various dances. > > Best regards, > Ron > > On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on. > > Jeff and Ron: You both seem like the statisticians here. Is there any data > that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and > where the communities that use gender-free terminology are? > > Just curious. > > Ron: When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about > that compared to dances where attendance is not down? Again, looking for > information country wide or even geographic area. > > Thanks > Donna Hunt > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- David Casserly (cell) 781 258-2761 _______________________________________________ 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 Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers

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

7 years, 11 months

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

by Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers

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

7 years, 11 months

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

by Amy Wimmer via Callers

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

7 years, 11 months

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

by Donna Hunt via Callers

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

7 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus

by Tom Hinds via Callers

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

7 years, 11 months

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

by John Sweeney via Callers

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

7 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1