Import1

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

2524 discussions

by Dale Wilson via Callers

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with > some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. > Don't just stick their name on it. > > An interesting take on this issue, and one that I like very much. Certain "glossary" dances appear over and over an that, in itself, is an interesting bit of knowledge. Dale

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Bill Olson via Callers

Recently it has pretty much been the custom to attribute dance authorship to the first one who came up with the sequence. I agree that Luke came up with this sequence independently but someone else did that before him. It's only fair, since it's not unlikely that the second author (Luke, me, you anyone) actually picked up the dance somewhere and remembered the basic figures.. It would be nice if we could attribute "co-authorship" like was done by Gene Hubert and Steve Schnur with "Summer of '84". In that case it didn't matter who came up with the dance *first*, both authors recognized that the other came up with the sequence independently and agreed to co-authorship. .. It seems to me that there are plenty of dance sequences in the modern (vast) repertoire that have credit taken by separate authors. I have no problem with that either.. That being said, I'd be happy with "If you can walk you can dance" being a unique title.. All that being said, I have memorized this sequence for future use as a "beginning of the dance" dance. It's a good one. bill ________________________________ From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:59 PM To: Luke Donforth; callers Subject: Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance? As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me. (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.) The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke. If we attribute everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances are created and spread. When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark. That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to folk genres). As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled us. So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. Don't just stick their name on it. Just my 2 cents. Neal Neal Schlein Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library Currently reading: The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system. On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Ladies chain (8) Long lines, forward and back B1 ----------- (8) Right & left through (8) Partner promenade across B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad habits. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com<http://www.michaelbarraclough.com> -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: Hello all, I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it in my box. Anyone recognize it? Improper A1 ----------- (8) Neighbor Do-si-do (8) Neighbor swing A2 ----------- (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 (8) Partner swing B1 ----------- (8) Promenade across the Set (8) Long lines, forward and back B2 ----------- (8) Circle Left 3/4 (4) Balance the Ring (4) Pass through During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines of couples for a contra set). If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if and only if statement). _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net -- Luke Donforth Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com<mailto:Luke.Donev@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Dave Casserly via Callers

Regarding attribution, I like the way David Kaynor puts it on this website: "Some of my dances are "compositions" only in the loosest sense of the word; they fall into the category of "glossary" contras which basically amount to minimally imaginative resequencing of ordinary contra dance elements. Do such dances…especially if conceived spontaneously in a teaching/calling situation… qualify as "compositions?" Maybe. Maybe not." I'm in the maybe not camp. They're not protected by any copyright here (at least in my view, which has generally been shared by most people on this list when the topic comes up on occasion). I don't call regularly; most of the time when I call dances, I'm doing so late at night after a singing event or at somebody's house or at a more-or-less spontaneous outdoor gathering, where I don't have dance cards with me. I know several dances by name and memory, but most of the dances at such events are things I've made up on the spot. I am almost certain that every single one of these dances is a progression I have danced before at some point in the past, and that somebody has written and put their name on Partner Balance and Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Swing, Long Lines, Ladies Chain, Left-Hand Star, New Neighbor Do-Si-Do. Good for whoever that person is, and if it's a catchy title, that can be a useful way for us to refer to that particular glossary dance. But I wouldn't call it a composition, and I certainly wouldn't feel like I need to research whoever wrote that dance and the title and attribute it to that person. Where I differ from Neal is that I don't really want a dozen people to be putting their name on that above dance I just made up (after I've danced it many times already, after somebody else made it up, etc). It's just not interesting enough of a sequence to be worth attributing at all. It gets a bit tougher when we're talking about dances that, when written, were really compositions, adding something new or fresh to the repertoire, but could now be considered glossary dances because of how common those figures have become in modern contra dances. But that's not the case for most of the dances. -Dave Washington, DC On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way > we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me. > > (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down > the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the > first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely > legitimate.) > > The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The > sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a > previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's > creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke. If we attribute > everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly > misrepresenting how dances are created and spread. > > When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and > everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to > Mark. That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and > why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming > that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both > incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to > folk genres). > > As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if > many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK > DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a > single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant > matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. > Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has > misled us. > > So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with > some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. > Don't just stick their name on it. > > Just my 2 cents. > Neal > > > Neal Schlein > Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library > > > Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist > Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system. > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use >>> that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left >>> through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is >>> >>> A1 ----------- >>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do >>> (8) Neighbor swing >>> A2 ----------- >>> (8) Ladies chain >>> (8) Long lines, forward and back >>> >>> B1 ----------- >>> (8) Right & left through >>> (8) Partner promenade across >>> B2 ----------- >>> (8) Circle Left 3/4 >>> (4) Balance the Ring >>> (4) Pass through >>> >>> >>> and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want >>> to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad >>> habits. >>> >>> Michael Barraclough >>> www.michaelbarraclough.com >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" >>> introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around >>> with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have >>> it in my box. Anyone recognize it? >>> >>> Improper >>> >>> A1 ----------- >>> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do >>> (8) Neighbor swing >>> A2 ----------- >>> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 >>> (8) Partner swing >>> B1 ----------- >>> (8) Promenade across the Set >>> (8) Long lines, forward and back >>> B2 ----------- >>> (8) Circle Left 3/4 >>> (4) Balance the Ring >>> (4) Pass through >>> >>> During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring >>> balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included >>> that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, >>> Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade >>> (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines >>> of couples for a contra set). >>> >>> If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll >>> call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if >>> and only if statement). >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Luke Donforth >> Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Neal Schlein via Callers

As someone with an academic background in the field of Folklore, the way we talk about attribution and authorship bothers me. (NOTE: what I'm talking about here is distinct from trying to track down the source of a dance you collected somewhere, or according respect to the first person to dream up a sequence. Both of those goals are entirely legitimate.) The dance Luke described was created by him, not Mark Goodwin. The sequence happens to be the same as one dreamed up by Mark Goodwin at a previous place and time, which is very important to know, but Luke's creation was independent and should be attributed to Luke. If we attribute everything to the first person ever to dream up a sequence, we are grossly misrepresenting how dances are created and spread. When we attribute Luke's dance to Mark, we are saying that Luke (and everyone else) got the dance from Mark, or from a source tracked back to Mark. That is factually incorrect in this case; Luke can point to when and why he came up with the dance. Legally, it would also mean we are claiming that Mark holds the only legitimate copyright claim, which is again both incorrect and total nonsense (as copyright usually becomes when applied to folk genres). As both an academic and participant in our tradition, I want to know if many people independently came up with the same dance (making it a FOLK DANCE). Otherwise, I am falsely giving credit and responsibility to a single creative genius. The difference between those two is a significant matter in the question of how folklore is created and who owns it. Personally, I feel our cultural tendency to accord authorial rights has misled us. So please...if you came up with a dance put your name on it along with some of the details---and then tell me who else came up with it, too. Don't just stick their name on it. Just my 2 cents. Neal Neal Schlein Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system. On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Thanks. I'll attribute it to Mark Goodwin. > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use >> that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left >> through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is >> >> A1 ----------- >> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do >> (8) Neighbor swing >> A2 ----------- >> (8) Ladies chain >> (8) Long lines, forward and back >> >> B1 ----------- >> (8) Right & left through >> (8) Partner promenade across >> B2 ----------- >> (8) Circle Left 3/4 >> (4) Balance the Ring >> (4) Pass through >> >> >> and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want >> to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad >> habits. >> >> Michael Barraclough >> www.michaelbarraclough.com >> >> >> -- >> >> On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" >> introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around >> with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have >> it in my box. Anyone recognize it? >> >> Improper >> >> A1 ----------- >> (8) Neighbor Do-si-do >> (8) Neighbor swing >> A2 ----------- >> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 >> (8) Partner swing >> B1 ----------- >> (8) Promenade across the Set >> (8) Long lines, forward and back >> B2 ----------- >> (8) Circle Left 3/4 >> (4) Balance the Ring >> (4) Pass through >> >> During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring >> balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included >> that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, >> Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade >> (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines >> of couples for a contra set). >> >> If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll >> call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if >> and only if statement). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://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 >> >> > > > -- > Luke Donforth > Luke.Donforth(a)gmail.com <Luke.Donev(a)gmail.com> > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Ralph Page Style

by Bob Stein via Callers

I started dancing in the Boston area in the late 60s and the transitions B2->A1 in Chorus Jig and Rory O’More were exactly as Jim has described them. It was in fact fun to vary the transition from one form to the other to make the dance more interesting. Both rolling into a cast off and pulling across (after moving back but not letting go from the swing) were both great fun. It needs to be remembered however that the style of swing was generally different back then. Most people used some form of barrel hold (as was promoted by Ted S.) rather than a ballroom hold. (Also important for dancing in often very crowded halls.) Bob

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Pre-existing dance?

by Michael Barraclough via Callers

I have that exact dance as To Wedded Bliss by Mark Goodwin (2014). I use that in my Lesson and then, after teaching ladies chain and right & left through, follow that with my dance The Lesson (2009) which is > A1 ----------- > (8) Neighbor Do-si-do > (8) Neighbor swing > A2 ----------- > (8) > Ladies chain > (8) Long lines, forward and back > B1 ----------- > (8) Right & left through > (8) Partner promenade across > B2 ----------- > (8) Circle Left 3/4 > (4) Balance the Ring > (4) Pass through and yes, I know it doesn't have a swing - it's in the lesson and I want to minimize the use of partner swings so that new couples don't get bad habits. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com -- On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 22:45 -0400, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote: > Hello all,> > I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance" introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have it in my box. Anyone recognize it?> > Improper> > A1 ----------- > (8) Neighbor Do-si-do > (8) Neighbor swing > A2 ----------- > (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2 > (8) Partner swing > B1 ----------- > (8) Promenade across the Set > (8) Long lines, forward and back > B2 ----------- > (8) Circle Left 3/4 > (4) Balance the Ring > (4) Pass through > > During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy, Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade (something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines of couples for a contra set). > > If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if and only if statement).> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Contra Friendly Squares -- people left over.

by Richard Hopkins via Callers

Over the past several years, we have had several ‘extra’ dances here in Tallahassee that are advertised to the contra dance listserv and elsewhere as old-time or square dances, or old time square dances, with live music. We have had anywhere from 8 to 30 dancers come. One of the things we heard from dancers was that they did not like being left out — wanting to dance but not enough dancers for a full square. We decided on a policy of leaving no-one sitting who wants to dance. That means that we don’t decide what dance to call (at least not for sure) until we see how many couples stand up to dance; and it means that I have dances ready to go for 4, 5, 6 or 7 couples. With 6 or 7 it can be a longways set, a contra, a circle mixer, or a big circle square-dance. With 8 or 12 it’s a 4-couple square. Folks seem to appreciate the concern for their enjoyment, and there are plenty of good dances to choose from for any number of couples. (Although I could wish for more good five-couple dances, the vast repertory of circle mixers comes in handy.) I have also used a couple of 6- or 9-couple dances I learned from Phil Jamieson. Others have recently dealt with the situation where you have only three or even two couples. Richard `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Richard Hopkins 850-544-7614 hopkinsrs(a)comcast.net

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Ralph Page Style

by James Saxe via Callers

I started contra dancing in 1980, so got in on the tail end of the period when the "Chestnuts" were staples of the repertoire and well known to many dancers. The way I remember dancing the transition from the end of one round of "Rory O'More" to the beginning of the next was for the active dancers to end their swing by falling back to proper sides, facing partner across the set, ready to cross and cast down the improper side. Commonly, instead of falling all the way back into line at the end of B2, active dancers would fall back (almost) to arm's length and catch hands so as to initiate the crossing at he start of A1 with a little tug. You can see some examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jPqECMr9Y8 For "Chorus Jig", I think the most common thing was to end the swing in B2 side-by-side with partner, facing up, gent on the left and lady on the right (thus on proper sides of the set), ready to cast down the outside. A variation I would occasionally use was to finish the swing by falling back face-to-face with my partner towards *improper* sides, catch hands (as described above for "Rory O' More"), and pull by to proper sides, at which point we would be facing out of the set and ready to start the dance over by going down the outside. (I don't recall whether I picked that flourish up from someone or discovered it on my own, and I don't know how many other people ever used it.) Looking at some old videos of Chorus Jig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE (1986) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFnxKaBV_as (1992) I didn't spot any instances of the fall-back-improper-and-pull-by flourish, but in this more recent video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9OWAsUb48 (2007) you can see it done about 0:33-0:36 by the *second* active couple from the top of the set in front of the camera (man with headband and woman in blue and whit print dress). All these B2->A1 transitions flow very nicely for dancers wha are familiar with them. In all three of these videos, you can also see examples of active men spinning clockwise after guiding their partners into the initial cast. You can also see some other variations, some of which (and I'm not going to single them out) may not have been entirely intentional. I can't speak with any authority about how the transitions from B2 to A1 in "Chorus Jig" and "Rory O'More" were commonly danced in 1970 or 1960, 1950, etc. --Jim On Oct 17, 2016, at 9:01 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Richard, I also recall reading that comment about Page's opinion on Chorus Jig--I think it was in A Time to Dance, but might have been in Shadrack's Delight. > > I find a ball room swing that ends facing up and casting down the outside (one’s own side) a lot of fun - but perhaps you mean if you end the swing facing down - that certainly doesn’t flow as well. > Martha > > > I was particularly thinking of an improper cast, yes, but the other depends on the specific choreography, partner, music, speed, and line spacing. Sometimes it works just fine, as you say, but the floor pattern isn't as elegant and the relative speed can be all wrong for the dance narrative. If you are swinging to improper and then are supposed to cast down, however, that's simply not possible from a standard ballroom swing; the best you can do is end the swing facing down and step apart to go down the outside. Then the dance loses its visual structure because there's no actual cast. > > It also doesn't work well if you are supposed to cross and cast--the timing changes because you are already close together, plus you need to disentangle. > > I may have a somewhat unusual way of enjoying and assessing the flow of dances, because I always envision them from above as I dance. I'll tolerate somewhat non-flowing choreography so long as the visual pattern created is crisp and elegant. On the other hand, dances that don't create a distinctive and pretty floor pattern irk me greatly if the sequence isn't 100% natural. (This includes just about every dance that needs the phrase "ooze" or "shift" to describe the progression. Circling to a slide, or promenading, or similar things are fine; "oozing" makes me think of radioactive sludge!) > > Neal > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Is Pony Fun Unique?

by Aahz via Callers

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016, Don Veino via Callers wrote: > > You mean in public, I'm sure - that's TBD. Mom and Dad have been able to > enjoy her "calling" at home for quite some time now. :) ;-) > BTW, she's ambidanceterous, taking either role when we dance together at > public events - which blows a few minds fairly frequently ("Huh? A tiny > girl coming at me as a Gent?"). Congrats! -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Ralph Page Style

by Neal Schlein via Callers

Richard, I also recall reading that comment about Page's opinion on Chorus Jig--I think it was in A Time to Dance, but might have been in Shadrack's Delight. I find a ball room swing that ends facing up and casting down the outside > (one’s own side) a lot of fun - but perhaps you mean if you end the swing > facing down - that certainly doesn’t flow as well. > Martha > > I was particularly thinking of an improper cast, yes, but the other depends on the specific choreography, partner, music, speed, and line spacing. Sometimes it works just fine, as you say, but the floor pattern isn't as elegant and the relative speed can be all wrong for the dance narrative. If you are swinging to improper and then are supposed to cast down, however, that's simply not possible from a standard ballroom swing; the best you can do is end the swing facing down and step apart to go down the outside. Then the dance loses its visual structure because there's no actual cast. It also doesn't work well if you are supposed to cross and cast--the timing changes because you are already close together, plus you need to disentangle. I may have a somewhat unusual way of enjoying and assessing the flow of dances, because I always envision them from above as I dance. I'll tolerate somewhat non-flowing choreography so long as the visual pattern created is crisp and elegant. On the other hand, dances that don't create a distinctive and pretty floor pattern irk me greatly if the sequence isn't 100% natural. (This includes just about every dance that needs the phrase "ooze" or "shift" to describe the progression. Circling to a slide, or promenading, or similar things are fine; "oozing" makes me think of radioactive sludge!) Neal

8 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1