Import1

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

2524 discussions

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

by Richard Hart via Callers

I agree with much of what you say, Tony. In response to your question, "Do we really want to go down that road?", we have clearly already done that. In reality, there are still many, relatively parallel contra dance roads, some a little rougher than others. We have not yet reached the point that square dancing has reached with just a few roads, many of which are unpassable for many dancers. I'd also add to your two requirements (enjoyable and in a safe space), a third one. that is that our dances should also be welcoming to all, regardless of their position in life, and dance skills. As callers, we all try to chose dances and calls that are appropriate, and acceptable for the local dancers. That should not change. Rich hart. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Tony Parkes via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Chet Gray wrote: > > > > <<In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly > alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand > consensus. > > I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different > communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for > eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and > "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means > drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square") > dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while > others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three > different promenade positions, and each is default in different > communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never > have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra > dances.>> > > > Amen! > > > > One of the things I’ve long lamented about the modern square dance > movement is the disappearance of regional variations. If square dancing is > viewed as a hobby, it makes sense (given the mobility of people in > industrialized countries) to standardize the meaning of calls, hand and arm > positions, and other rules and customs. But if it’s viewed as a folk art, > it’s a crying shame to lose the variations. To me, standardizing a folk > dance form is like saying there’s only one right way to cook chicken. > (Given how far MSD has strayed away from tradition and toward > homogenization, it feels to me as if they’re saying KFC is the only right > way to cook chicken.) > > > > The contra dance world has never had an entity like Callerlab with the > clout to convince local groups to standardize, and I don’t think it needs > one. Two of the big attractions of contra dancing (IMO) are its lack of > regimentation and the small number of terms a newcomer must learn. That > small number (again IMO) means that adjusting from one village to another > is not difficult: Typically only 3 or 4 terms out of 15 or 20 are > understood differently. > > > > A big question in my mind is whether there’s anything approaching a > consensus among contra callers (and interested organizers and dancers) on > any points beyond the obvious: that dancing should be enjoyable and a dance > venue should be a safe space. I would strongly caution folks against > thinking there’s a consensus when only a small percentage of callers and > leaders has been heard from. I’m thinking here, not specifically about the > gender-free vs. gendered issue or which gender-free terms to adopt, but > about the big picture – which includes those issues, but also includes > standardization vs. local styles, “gypsy” vs. a new term (and again, which > one to adopt), and which, if any, of the many new movements to expect > dancers to memorize. This last issue is much on my mind, as the contra > vocabulary has more than tripled since I started dancing. Do we really want > to go down that road? > > > > Getting back to the issue of gender-free terms (though I’ve changed the > subject line to allow more general discussion), I hope that here, as > elsewhere, we can feel free to experiment and not feel constrained by what > other people and groups are doing. > > > > Tony Parkes > > Billerica, Mass. > > www.hands4.com > > New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

8 years, 2 months

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

by Tony Parkes via Callers

Chet Gray wrote: <<In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand consensus. I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square") dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three different promenade positions, and each is default in different communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances.>> Amen! One of the things I’ve long lamented about the modern square dance movement is the disappearance of regional variations. If square dancing is viewed as a hobby, it makes sense (given the mobility of people in industrialized countries) to standardize the meaning of calls, hand and arm positions, and other rules and customs. But if it’s viewed as a folk art, it’s a crying shame to lose the variations. To me, standardizing a folk dance form is like saying there’s only one right way to cook chicken. (Given how far MSD has strayed away from tradition and toward homogenization, it feels to me as if they’re saying KFC is the only right way to cook chicken.) The contra dance world has never had an entity like Callerlab with the clout to convince local groups to standardize, and I don’t think it needs one. Two of the big attractions of contra dancing (IMO) are its lack of regimentation and the small number of terms a newcomer must learn. That small number (again IMO) means that adjusting from one village to another is not difficult: Typically only 3 or 4 terms out of 15 or 20 are understood differently. A big question in my mind is whether there’s anything approaching a consensus among contra callers (and interested organizers and dancers) on any points beyond the obvious: that dancing should be enjoyable and a dance venue should be a safe space. I would strongly caution folks against thinking there’s a consensus when only a small percentage of callers and leaders has been heard from. I’m thinking here, not specifically about the gender-free vs. gendered issue or which gender-free terms to adopt, but about the big picture – which includes those issues, but also includes standardization vs. local styles, “gypsy” vs. a new term (and again, which one to adopt), and which, if any, of the many new movements to expect dancers to memorize. This last issue is much on my mind, as the contra vocabulary has more than tripled since I started dancing. Do we really want to go down that road? Getting back to the issue of gender-free terms (though I’ve changed the subject line to allow more general discussion), I hope that here, as elsewhere, we can feel free to experiment and not feel constrained by what other people and groups are doing. Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass. www.hands4.com<http://www.hands4.com> New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

8 years, 2 months

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

by Angela DeCarlis via Callers

*applause* On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I'll echo this viewpoint. I value the opportunity to go different places > and learn different ways of doing things. I feel that much more is lost in > uniformity than is gained. > > Jacob > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Chet Gray via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly >> alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand >> consensus. >> >> I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different >> communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for >> eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and >> "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means >> drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square") >> dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while >> others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three >> different promenade positions, and each is default in different >> communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never >> have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances. >> >> — Chet Gray >> dance caller >> Louisville, KY >> (502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008> >> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and >>> such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand >>> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the >>> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with >>> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at >>> different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. >>> >>> Donna >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

8 years, 2 months

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

by Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Callers

I'll echo this viewpoint. I value the opportunity to go different places and learn different ways of doing things. I feel that much more is lost in uniformity than is gained. Jacob On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Chet Gray via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly > alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand > consensus. > > I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different > communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for > eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and > "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means > drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square") > dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while > others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three > different promenade positions, and each is default in different > communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never > have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances. > > — Chet Gray > dance caller > Louisville, KY > (502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and >> such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand >> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the >> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with >> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at >> different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. >> >> Donna >> >

8 years, 2 months

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

by Donna Hunt via Callers

I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. Donna -----Original Message----- From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Barbara Groh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups? Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you personally is super privileged. Ron Blechner On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the Luddite Club. I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling). You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't say anything more....except this: Please, let's not start an argument over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite! Barbara Groh On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it. Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we want these people as well to come to our dances. It can be difficult enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me, what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight' individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined. Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people who go to our dances! Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2 > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands" > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers. > > Best, > Ron Blechner > > > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers(a)lists.s > haredweight.net> wrote: > > This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's > > all part of the folk process. > > > > So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a > > couple weeks ago. > > > > Mun and Wem. > > > > They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both > > callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up > > words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say. > > > > Mun and Wem. > > > > Okay, I've done my bit. > > > > Keith Tuxhorn > > Springfield IL > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers@ > > lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this > > > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason > > > we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that > > > regular contra dancers from other places can come in and dance > > > without needing anything to be explained to them since the terms > > > are pretty similar to "gents" and "ladies." > > > > > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of > > > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: http://amh > > > erstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf > > > > > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd > > > give it a try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try > > > and there are certainly plenty of reasons to try. > > > > > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as > > > rubies, but for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or > > > whose gender expression doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd > > > like to think that formally separating dance roles from gender is > > > validating in a meaningful way. > > > > > > Dugan Murphy > > > Portland, Maine > > > dugan at duganmurphy.com > > > > > > www.DuganMurphy.com > > > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com > > > www.NufSed.consulting > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Callers mailing list > > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n > > > et > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 2 months

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

by Michael Barraclough via Callers

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 09:04 -0500, Angela DeCarlis via Callers wrote: And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it meant being more inclusive, more just? I understand that from your perspective we would be more inclusive if we used gender-free terminology. It is my belief, however, that the majority of the population would see the use of gender-free terminology for roles as something that 'excluded' them - additional terms used by a private club of people with their own rituals, kind of like masonry. They can understand why we might need funny terms for the moves. They cannot understand why we need funny terms for people when (as far as they are concerned) we already have perfectly good terms - men/gents/blokes and women/ladies/sheilas etc. From their perspective it is definitely not 'inclusive'. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Dance title, author and choreography

by QuiAnn2 via Callers

Hi, Saw this dance on-line (it’s the video that is on the GoFundMe page for the Dayton, VA dance) and I like the dance. Does anyone know the title, author and author's choreography of the dance? I can work out the choreography but would like to see how the author describes the B1 and B2 of the dance. Thanks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51&v=fs1nS2NCKyc <https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51&v=fs1nS2NCKyc> Jacqui

8 years, 2 months

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

by Keith Wood via Callers

Here's another contribution to the Dublin Bay collection, hopefully fulfilling the criteria below: Liffey Outflow Formation: Becket formation Music: 32 bar reels Source: Keith Wood Jan 2017 Notes: Following online discussions about the Dublin Bay movement I decided to create a dance that incorporated it. 1-4 Gypsy opposite 5-8 1st man and 2nd woman (at the bottom of each minor set) back-to-back and finish facing down, while the others cross (right shoulder) and move to the end of a line of four facing down, men on one side, women on the other 9-12 Dublin Bay: lines of four back up (up the hall) and then come forward, turning individually half-way (toward same-sex neighbour) at the last moment to face up 13-16 Lines of four back up (down the hall) and then come forward, turning individually to face same-sex neighbour at the last moment 17-22 3/4 hey for four passing same-sex neighbour right-shoulder to start (until meeting your partner the second time) 23-24 Circle left half-way (men together and women together) 25-28 Swing partner 29-32 Slice left: advance towards the couple on your left diagonal, then retire straight back from them (progression); spare couples wheel onto the opposite side Cheers Keith Wood > I'd love to see more Dublin Bay dances that aren't all glossary moves > surrounding the down-hall move. > > ... > > So. What else we got? :) > > Ron Blechner --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

8 years, 2 months

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

by Jeff Kaufman via Callers

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

8 years, 2 months

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

by Ron Blechner via Callers

Hi Jeff, Some points: "You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care either way." If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles are not as scary as some have claimed. "The particular dances that have been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't look to me like they're growing tremendously. Instead, newer fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching to it. I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting." Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with. I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of overall genderfree dancing? "Some pushback seems reasonable to me. Just like I think people should be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra dances should move to being gender free. Not immediately -- it's fine to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a community." That may be in many peoples' beliefs, but I hadn't seen it specifically brought up by anyone in this email discussion until now. I might have understood pushback had it been brought up, but it wasn't. Best, Ron On Jan 27, 2017 12:58 PM, "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree > terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those > dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western > Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and > Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones > I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a > demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on > several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender > free roles. You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care either way. > These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously > in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*. That's not what it looks like to me. The particular dances that have been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't look to me like they're growing tremendously. Instead, newer fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching to it. I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting. > This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree > traditional dances. Let us talk. Some pushback seems reasonable to me. Just like I think people should be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra dances should move to being gender free. Not immediately -- it's fine to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a community. Jeff

8 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1