Import1

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

2524 discussions

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

by Aahz via Callers

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016, Maia McCormick via Callers wrote: > > Though Tavi, I wonder, would your proposal here be equally as effective if > we called more gents' right-hand chains? Even as an experienced dancer I > find the left-hand chain counterintuitive, and yes it would be second > nature if we did it a lot, but as far as points about having too much to > teach beginners already, I would expect it to be easier for everyone to > learn the other part of a move and a flow they already know than a > different move entirely (i.e. I would rather endeavor to teach beginners a > gents' right-hand chain than a gents' left-hand chain). This gets my support much more than trying to teach left-handed chains. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

8 years, 4 months

[Callers] headset mics

by jill allen via Callers

Regarding the Sennheiser: Headpiece: ME3-ew Belt pack and receiver: ew 100 G3 I like the headpiece because it stays in place, the sound quality of the system is excellent and I have never had a problem with it in 8 -10 years. Also, I recently purchased a "Compact Powered PA System" by the name of SRM 150. It weighs maybe 10 pounds, I can lift it with one finger, and the one speaker sounds great and fills a big room. Jill

8 years, 4 months

[Callers] Headset mics, take two

by Kalia Kliban via Callers

I sent this last week but got a message from Dave Casserly telling me the message had been marked as spam, so I'm guessing it mostly disappeared into everyone's lint filter. I've read the previous threads on headsets going back to 2014 and there aren't a lot of specifics. JoLaine, if you're reading this, I'd love to know what model you use. You mentioned that it was a Shure and that you loved it. And Rich Sbardella mentioned last year that his Shure had been giving him trouble. Rich, what model is yours, and are you happy with your replacement? Here's the mail from last week, to get those of you who didn't see it on the same page with those who did: Hi all I was just working a wedding gig and my old Samson headset mic crapped out. If the piano player hadn't had hers along, I would have been in serious trouble. Time for a new and more reliable headset mic. I use my hands a LOT when I'm doing ONS gigs, so a handheld cordless isn't an option for me. I'd love recommendations from any of you about specific models to look at. I'm planning to plow the funds from this wedding and some of my caller piggy bank into a new mic, so I want something that's really good quality. It doesn't have to be tiny and invisible, but it does need to be reliable and sturdy. If it doesn't have a belt pack that's a plus, but it seems like most of the good-quality headset mics have belt packs. I'll deal with it if that's the best bet. So, recommendations? For reference, the one I was working with was a Samson Airline 77, often referred to as the "aerobic instructor mic." It had the transmitter on the headset, so there were no wires or belt pack, and it worked just fine for a long time until suddenly it didn't. I would like to hear what folks are using who rely on a headset mic for their calling gigs. Kalia Kliban in Sebastopol, CA

8 years, 4 months

[Callers] headset mics

by jill allen via Callers

I love my Sennheiser. Jill Allen

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Headset mics, take two

by via Callers

Hi Kalia, I use a Countryman Associates hands free headset. Countryman is very high performance company that many professionals speakers and performers use. You can contact them directly to ask questions. Their web site is http://www.countryman.com/ I have been using their Isomax headset with my Shure PGX1 wireless transmitter for years now. Hope this was helpful. Good luck. Joe De Paolo In a message dated 9/5/2016 11:12:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net writes: I sent this last week but got a message from Dave Casserly telling me the message had been marked as spam, so I'm guessing it mostly disappeared into everyone's lint filter. I've read the previous threads on headsets going back to 2014 and there aren't a lot of specifics. JoLaine, if you're reading this, I'd love to know what model you use. You mentioned that it was a Shure and that you loved it. And Rich Sbardella mentioned last year that his Shure had been giving him trouble. Rich, what model is yours, and are you happy with your replacement? Here's the mail from last week, to get those of you who didn't see it on the same page with those who did: Hi all I was just working a wedding gig and my old Samson headset mic crapped out. If the piano player hadn't had hers along, I would have been in serious trouble. Time for a new and more reliable headset mic. I use my hands a LOT when I'm doing ONS gigs, so a handheld cordless isn't an option for me. I'd love recommendations from any of you about specific models to look at. I'm planning to plow the funds from this wedding and some of my caller piggy bank into a new mic, so I want something that's really good quality. It doesn't have to be tiny and invisible, but it does need to be reliable and sturdy. If it doesn't have a belt pack that's a plus, but it seems like most of the good-quality headset mics have belt packs. I'll deal with it if that's the best bet. So, recommendations? For reference, the one I was working with was a Samson Airline 77, often referred to as the "aerobic instructor mic." It had the transmitter on the headset, so there were no wires or belt pack, and it worked just fine for a long time until suddenly it didn't. I would like to hear what folks are using who rely on a headset mic for their calling gigs. Kalia Kliban in Sebastopol, CA _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

by Andrea Nettleton via Callers

Hi Tavi et al, I have to challenge you on your history. As a lover of chestnuts, in which the vast majority of courtesy turns are same gender as the dances are proper, and a one time historical dancer, I find your conception of the history of courtesy turn flawed. In the 18th and 19th century, there was no right hand touching any part of the lady during the historical versions of these moves. A Chaine Anglaise (English chain) is the precursor to a right and left through, and was done with a right hand half turn across or pull by, and then an open left hand turn, with the gent swiveling to face in at the last moment. The courtesy being that the lady did not have to alter her body position. Chaine des dames, ladies chain, entailed the gents casting out over their left shoulder to loop into a position to left hand turn the ladies who had turned half by the right. No leading. Just everyone attending to their place in the dance. Eventually, gents began doing what looked more like an escorting of the lady, holding their right arm in a non touching curve behind the ladies backs. I promise you, in the contredanses and quadrilles, there was no more active role for the gents than the ladies. The dances were often complex and every dancers had to know all the details if the set were to succeed. So this whole courtesy turn as we know it is a 20th century thing, and the hyper flourishing a phenomenon of the last decade or two, which seemed to me to have come in about the time swing had a renaissance in the late eighties. Till then, if any flourish occurred, it was a single twirl to the right hand dancer. And I have a theory for its existence. In many old halls, space is at a premium, and lines were crowded. Doing the twirl allows couples to slot through a narrow gap one at a time, no elbow jostling in the attempt to turn as a joined couple. Fundamentally, historically, chains and R&L thru, are symmetrical, move as a unit, with the CT action in the joined left hand. There is no scooping or leading in that right hand, and in fact attempting to do so tends to unbalance the couple, allowing neither to retain a nice upright posture. Let's not conflate squares and contras either. I'd have to agree that squares have frequently been taught and called, by men, as if the men were leading. Which if you dance them, is utter nonsense. If the ladies aren't fully in chArge of where they have to go, the square will break down. In a singer, language like put her on the right is just filler, not an indication of what's actually happening. For sure perpetuated by what was once, and may still be, a male dominated calling culture, I still think we ought to discuss squares separately from contras. I'm all down with you that the dance has become very /lead left, follow right/ in recent times. But let's not blame the dance form itself. Do I think that habitual gent/left dancers would be more courteous about flourishes if they were flourished more often themselves? Sure! We could easily write dances that put them on the right and do courtesy turn moves from there. Or just dance chestnuts, with same gender rights and lefts. But do them in a modern flourishy style. Beyond that, the aspect of the culture which is most to blame is the idea that it matters which sex person stands on the right. If we all danced both sides, and no one thought a thing about it, everyone would learn to flourish and be flourished, and it wouldn't be seen as the province of men to twirl women, or even of left to twirl right dancers. I'll look again at the left hand chain choreo, but as I remember it, none of it is particularly exceptional and worthy outside of the left chain, which right now seems novel, but if we did it all the time, would not seem special at all. You have not persuaded me, Tavi, that there's a compelling reason to add left chains to the repertoire, especially considering many people have trouble with R vs L already, and new dancers doubly so as they are busy absorbing so many new concepts. Talk to me about flow and moving people around or something, but address gender issues where they originate, in the expectation that men dance left, women right. Cheers, Andrea Sent from my external brain > On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:45 PM, tavi merrill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Per Richard's excellent point about separating the courtesy turn from the chain, an approach i too use, i want to address the related questions of > - lack of attention to chains beyond the beginner level, resulting in > - bad/injurious flourishing, partly due to > - gendered dynamics in the standard (New England-style) promenade turn > - the rarity of gents' LH chains > - a call for choreographers to help address all the above > > We callers spend plenty of time dissecting how to teach the ladies' chain... and almost never address a corollary issue dancers repeatedly bring up in online forums, largely leaving flourishing as a foregone conclusion. We spend precious little stage time delivering the sort of style points that can help dancers flourish safely, courteously, and with consent. > > I would argue one reason we don't address that enough is that we are either approaching the courtesy turn from a bare-bones beginner angle, or as a foregone conclusion wherein advanced dancers require no additional teaching. A few callers do teach how to signal and interpret signals indicating a desire for or granting consent for flourishes, and i tip my hat to them. But to the issue many (female) dancers raise: too many male dancers don't ask, and either fail to recognize or fail to respect cues around flourishing. > > Why? Probably because many male dancers much less regularly end up on the twirling (as opposed to facilitating) side of flourishes. Dancers are going to flourish whether or not we teach them how to do it well. But we can help alleviate rampant bad and/or injurious flourishing if we choose. How? By more frequently adding style points in intermediate settings, and by giving dancers an opportunity to experience the other side of the equation. > > [Now, many of us agree that contra is not a lead/follow dance form, and some go so far as to suggest that in the traditional promenade and courtesy turn, dancers move as a unit that lacks any lead/follow dynamic. I disagree there: placement of the gent's hand behind the lady's back puts the gent in a position to propel the lady. No interpretation of this dynamic is accurate without considering the historical context our dance form emerges from, in which a gendered imbalance is unmistakably present. Consider the gendered language of singing squares recorded by Ralph Sweet. I say this not to criticize Sweet, or any caller who uses such language (eg "put her on the right" or "chain the ladies," the latter an expression i once unquestioningly used in my own calling), merely to point out that traditionally, the gents' role has been considered the more "active" one, and that this gendered sense of agency is reinforced by the ubiquitous and overwhelmingly lopsided promenade and courtesy turn. Contra dance has historically been a gendered form; to deny this is to perpetuate male privilege - the source of bad/injurious flourishing - by denying its presence in the form. In that many contemporary dancers choose to play both roles on the floor, and in that there is a broad consensus among callers that lead/follow terminology is not appropriate to describe an ideal expression of our dance's contemporary practice, a shift is occurring. Nonetheless this is an active shift. To pretend that contra has always lacked a lead/follow dynamic is ignorant of even recent history.] > > Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed) chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl; understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances* rarely get called. As with right-handed chains, getting to a flourish requires first mastering the directional flow of the reversed courtesy turn (right with right in front, left hands behind, lady backs up and the gent goes forward). But whether it's boiling the reversed courtesy turn down to an allemande right or writing gents' RH chain dances, it seems precious few callers care enough to bother with teaching and using the LH chain. We have it, for frell's sake, let's USE it. Dancers CAN and WILL gain familiarity if we do, but such progress can occur only if a critical mass of callers are on the same page. > > Why does this matter? Because if indeed we believe our tradition to be one in which both roles are equally active, we shouldn't have ladies being twirled against their wishes. Addressing that would be simpler if we agree to stop shortchanging the one move in our choreography that truly challenges the historical gender dynamic. > > Want to innovate in choreography? What about featuring promenades in reversed hold, or left-and-right through?! Though they exist, rarity renders them the province of advanced dance sessions. Yet every second we spend teaching standard promenade hold turns is something dancers could easily generalize to isomers, if the isomers were on a more equal footing. Because they share a common backbone in the reversed hold (a la Rich's point about the standard RH chain) increased frequency of such isomers would raise dancers' familiarity with the reversed hold, reducing our need to teach it, or isomeric moves, as "unusual," while adding variety to evenings of dance. Should folks indeed be writing them, I am eager to collect such sequences. > > It struck me a few months ago that, while i have some fantastic dances in my collection involving the gents' LH chain, i knew of none involving a gents LH chain over and back. So here y'all go. This isn't a beginner dance. It's intended for remedial education. Should you use this, I am eager to hear how it is received. > > "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught (To Twirl)" > > becket R > > A1. Partner balance & swing > A2. Gents pass L half hey, ladies pushback; Neighbor swing > B1. Gents LH chain over & back > B2. RH star to meet NEW neighbors in a wave (GR, NL); waves balance, spin right > > *great gents LH chain dances: "Swain the Hey" by Chris Page, "The Broken Mirror" by Bill Olson, "Rollaway Sue" by Bob Isaacs, "The Curmudgeon Who Ruined Contradance" by Eileen Thorsos, "Generation Gap" by Thankful Cromartie, and the obvious reverse-engineered variation on "Secret Weapon" by Lisa Greenleaf > > Please note: The preceding theory arguments are premised on a notion that to survive, traditional forms evolve. Some elements of the form - the ubiquity of a historically gendered dynamic that drives problematic dance behaviors - could stand to be lost in this process. I believe that a truly equal dance dynamic would preserve the best elements and tendencies of the form and increase the safety, joy, and appeal of community dance. Practically speaking, we'd be doing all the same moves, just without the lopsidedness, by widely adopting both isomers. > > In curmudgeonliness, > Tavi > > >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:47:10 -0400 >> From: Richard Hart via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> To: "Callers(a)Lists.Sharedweight.net" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Favorite dance to teach a ladies chain? >> Message-ID: >> <CAB16f6Ceg6PTXKQrWL60ko8=+hOVC_JD6zaQ3+9TxBVXfN8AgQ(a)mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> I usually try to separate the courtesy turn from the chain. A courtesy >> turn is used in a number of moves, including R&L through, and a >> promenade. Practice that first with your partner. Man backs up and the >> woman gores forward, with arms around your partner's back. .Remember >> to stop facing the right direction, and as a caller remember to tell >> dancers which way to face. This can be done in a couple of minutes or >> so. >> >> My first dance with a courtesy turn may use it with a promenade, >> depending on the crowd. Then move on to dances with a chain or R&L. >> Once the turn is understood and well done, the others are easy. >> >> I agree with Erik (and Dudley!) The walkthrough and instruction should >> be short. They'd all rather be dancing, so don't introduce much new >> stuff in any single dance. >> >> And thanks for this discussion. I love seeing new dances to try and >> new possibilities to teach when there are a lot of beginners. > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

by Ron Blechner via Callers

Tavi, Thanks for opening discussion on this topic. I'd like to propose that we call the move what it is: "chain", and we stop calling left-hand chains as "gents chains" and right-hand chains as "ladies chains" for two important reasons: 1. No other common move in contra has the role in the move. It's "chain", being prompted to "ladies", the same way there's no difference between a "gents allemande left" and a "ladies allemande left". In genderfree contras, callers certainly don't prompt, "Rubies, ladies chain" - they swap the role, because that's the role *prompt*, not actually part of the move name. 2. For moves that have a left and right version, there are two conventions, none of which "gents/ladies chain" follows. The conventions are: A. Having two totally different move names. This is often ignored and prompted like "left shoulder dosido" instead of see-saw, leading me to think that having mirrored moves with different names is less useful than the other convention....... B. The move name is the base, and the direction is a modifying prefix or suffix to a prompt* Star, allemande, balance, etc. (Technically, the "hey" as well, since you indicate who-passes-which-shoulder-first). Often, any of these moves, once walked through, are prompted vanilla-flavored, without the direction modifier, because the hand/direction is obvious. (Gents, allemande left, pass your partner, hey for four...) It seems intuitive then that "chain" falls into the latter category, and should be treated as such. The move is "chain", and there's a left and right handed version, and the handedness is usually unnecessary because the role of the people doing it will make the hand used to pull-by obvious. But for calling card notation, the handedness is useful to notate. ... As someone who's been writing and calling gents right-hand chain dances, I see the pros and cons of the gents left-hand chain as follow: Pros: 1. An extra move that can flow into a gents-pass-L / gents alle R / etc next move - so there are new combinations to find. 2. More variation in general. More moves to play with. Cons: 1. Another Clockwise-rotation move that is less usable than a counter-clockwise move. A left-hand chain is simply not as useful as a right-hand chain for this reason. 2. As Aahz pointed out, we're accustomed to twirling with right-hands, and so left-hand twirling is new and unusual. 3. A right-hand chain is just ... a chain. And in dances where you get role-swapping, you need to do zero-to-little teaching of a gents right-hand chain. So rather than promote the left-hand chain, I would broaden any support to be for doing *all* chains. Best, Ron On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:38 PM, tavi merrill via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's > back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join > left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk > forward and gents back up"? It's not, but.... > > A numerical argument: > Say in a typical evening of 13 dances, 6 dances include a ladies' chain, > R&L through, or promenade across (wherein turning to face back in counts as > a courtesy turn) and 2 more dances contain either two of one or one each of > two. (I consider that a conservative estimate given the ubiquity of ladies' > chains!) That makes 10 iterations of standard courtesy turn; if each > sequence is run for an average of 8 minutes (16 iterations of the dance) > that's 160 iterations of standard courtesy turn in a typical evening of > dance. > > Now, since a small minority of callers ever get off their butt and use a > gents LH chain (because it's soooooooooo difficult), let's say one gents > chain shows up in every 10 evenings of dance we go to (this time, a very > liberal estimate). Same assumptions of average dance run time, so that's 16 > iterations to practice the reverse courtesy turn. > > But since we danced ten evenings to get that one gents LH chain in, we had > a whopping *1,600 iterations of practice for the standard courtesy turn > to our 16 iterations of practice for the reverse*. > > The only real reason* the standard turn *seems* "easier" is because we > get s---loads more practice at it! That will never change unless the > reverse turn gets more use. It's hard because we so rarely do it, and we > don't do it because it's hard. Great work everybody. Look at us exceeding > our programming. > > Aahz, I would say the same for myself - a regular role-swapper, heavy-duty > twirler in both roles, and "usually good about paying attention" - but I > don't really care how often other callers dance both roles. The fact > remains that many dancers don't, and of the dancers that don't, many lack > the enhanced sensitivity to whether others want to be twirled that comes > with being ambidancetrous. How aware we are is not an argument against the > necessity of raising dancers' awareness. Let's elevate the level of dance > in our communities. > > *The other possible reason: resistance to any actual built-in > choreographic challenge to gender-normativity. When we're voluntarily > swapping roles, we are queering the dance, and the dance's built-in gender > inequity is secondary to our experience - but when the choreography itself > challenges the form's built-in gender assumptions, it feels somehow > wrong. I use traditional, gendered calling language in posts about > choreography and gender inequality in the dance for a reason. How many > dances involve the ladies doing a move - do-si-do, gypsy, et cetera - while > the gents stand around and watch? How many dances involve ladies' chains? > How few iterations of the reverse are there? No matter how much the > ambidancetrous among us queer it on the floor, no matter how much we gloss > over it by using alternative term sets, the prominence of gender in the > roles is pretty hard to miss. Alternative term sets and role swapping have > their place. I'm interested in the fact that neither of these things makes > a perfectly good figure easier to use. > > Meh. I think you've got part of a point, but as someone who gender-swaps >> regularly (often within a single set), I find doing the reverse courtesy >> turn way more difficult than doing a regular courtesy turn dancing raven. >> And I'm also a heavy-duty twirler, both lark and raven. And I'm usually >> good about paying attention to whether someone wants to be twirled. >> >> Probably I could learn the reverse courtesy turn, but I think you're >> underestimating the difficulty. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

by tavi merrill via Callers

Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk forward and gents back up"? It's not, but.... A numerical argument: Say in a typical evening of 13 dances, 6 dances include a ladies' chain, R&L through, or promenade across (wherein turning to face back in counts as a courtesy turn) and 2 more dances contain either two of one or one each of two. (I consider that a conservative estimate given the ubiquity of ladies' chains!) That makes 10 iterations of standard courtesy turn; if each sequence is run for an average of 8 minutes (16 iterations of the dance) that's 160 iterations of standard courtesy turn in a typical evening of dance. Now, since a small minority of callers ever get off their butt and use a gents LH chain (because it's soooooooooo difficult), let's say one gents chain shows up in every 10 evenings of dance we go to (this time, a very liberal estimate). Same assumptions of average dance run time, so that's 16 iterations to practice the reverse courtesy turn. But since we danced ten evenings to get that one gents LH chain in, we had a whopping *1,600 iterations of practice for the standard courtesy turn to our 16 iterations of practice for the reverse*. The only real reason* the standard turn *seems* "easier" is because we get s---loads more practice at it! That will never change unless the reverse turn gets more use. It's hard because we so rarely do it, and we don't do it because it's hard. Great work everybody. Look at us exceeding our programming. Aahz, I would say the same for myself - a regular role-swapper, heavy-duty twirler in both roles, and "usually good about paying attention" - but I don't really care how often other callers dance both roles. The fact remains that many dancers don't, and of the dancers that don't, many lack the enhanced sensitivity to whether others want to be twirled that comes with being ambidancetrous. How aware we are is not an argument against the necessity of raising dancers' awareness. Let's elevate the level of dance in our communities. *The other possible reason: resistance to any actual built-in choreographic challenge to gender-normativity. When we're voluntarily swapping roles, we are queering the dance, and the dance's built-in gender inequity is secondary to our experience - but when the choreography itself challenges the form's built-in gender assumptions, it feels somehow wrong. I use traditional, gendered calling language in posts about choreography and gender inequality in the dance for a reason. How many dances involve the ladies doing a move - do-si-do, gypsy, et cetera - while the gents stand around and watch? How many dances involve ladies' chains? How few iterations of the reverse are there? No matter how much the ambidancetrous among us queer it on the floor, no matter how much we gloss over it by using alternative term sets, the prominence of gender in the roles is pretty hard to miss. Alternative term sets and role swapping have their place. I'm interested in the fact that neither of these things makes a perfectly good figure easier to use. Meh. I think you've got part of a point, but as someone who gender-swaps > regularly (often within a single set), I find doing the reverse courtesy > turn way more difficult than doing a regular courtesy turn dancing raven. > And I'm also a heavy-duty twirler, both lark and raven. And I'm usually > good about paying attention to whether someone wants to be twirled. > > Probably I could learn the reverse courtesy turn, but I think you're > underestimating the difficulty.

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

by Aahz via Callers

On Sat, Sep 03, 2016, tavi merrill via Callers wrote: > > Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend > virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed) > chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl; > understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as > opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances* > rarely get called. Meh. I think you've got part of a point, but as someone who gender-swaps regularly (often within a single set), I find doing the reverse courtesy turn way more difficult than doing a regular courtesy turn dancing raven. And I'm also a heavy-duty twirler, both lark and raven. And I'm usually good about paying attention to whether someone wants to be twirled. Probably I could learn the reverse courtesy turn, but I think you're underestimating the difficulty. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

8 years, 4 months

Re: [Callers] Favorite dance to teach a ladies chain?

by Claire Baffaut via Callers

Could anyone share a dance that has a promenade with a courtesy turn or can any promenade across the set be adapted to promenade with a courtesy turn? Claire On Sep 4, 2016 7:37 AM, "Jack Mitchell via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Richard said: > "My first dance with a courtesy turn may use it with a promenade, > depending on the crowd. Then move on to dances with a chain or R&L. > Once the turn is understood and well done, the others are easy." > > And thus we come to why teaching moves with a courtesy turn is so much > easier in New England (where promenade and courtesy turn are both done in > the same position). Oh how much easier if we all did a "New England > promenade." > > J > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM Richard Hart via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> I usually try to separate the courtesy turn from the chain. A courtesy >> turn is used in a number of moves, including R&L through, and a >> promenade. Practice that first with your partner. Man backs up and the >> woman gores forward, with arms around your partner's back. .Remember >> to stop facing the right direction, and as a caller remember to tell >> dancers which way to face. This can be done in a couple of minutes or >> so. >> >> My first dance with a courtesy turn may use it with a promenade, >> depending on the crowd. Then move on to dances with a chain or R&L. >> Once the turn is understood and well done, the others are easy. >> >> I agree with Erik (and Dudley!) The walkthrough and instruction should >> be short. They'd all rather be dancing, so don't introduce much new >> stuff in any single dance. >> >> And thanks for this discussion. I love seeing new dances to try and >> new possibilities to teach when there are a lot of beginners. >> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers >> <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> > Hello all, >> > >> > I've been thinking about glossary dances, and building vocabulary for >> new >> > dancers. I'm curious what your favorite dance is for teaching a ladies >> chain >> > for a crowd of mostly new dancers? Or if you don't have a specific >> dance, >> > what do you look for in a dance to make the chain as accessible as >> possible? >> > >> > Just a chain over? Or a full chain over and back? >> > Chain to neighbor? Chain to partner? >> > What move best precedes the chain to set it up? >> > What move best follows the chain that still helps new dancers succeed? >> > Other factors you consider? >> > >> > I don't have a go-to favorite, but I'll walk through some of the things >> I >> > think about: >> > >> > I very seldom call a dance with a full chain. Experienced dancers don't >> > whoop and holler over them, and for new dancers, I'd worry the confusion >> > would snowball. >> > >> > Programatically, in a hall with a reasonable mix of new and experienced >> > dancers, I shoot for the first chain to be to neighbor so that the new >> > dancers can feel it with different experienced dancers; rather than new >> > dancers (who will partner up and clump, no matter how many helpful >> dance >> > angels you have) continually chaining to each other. If I were trying to >> > teach a chain to ALL new dancers... well, I doubt I'd teach a chain to >> > completely new dancers... but if I were, I'd probably go to partner. >> > >> > For moves, while I love the chain->left hand star transition; I'm not >> > convinced it's the best for teaching the chain. It often goes B2 >> > chain->star, find new neighbor; and the new neighbor from a left hand >> star >> > is non-trivial for new dancers. Possibly a dance where the chain->star >> > wasn't followed by the progression would work, but it's such a great >> > progression when they're ready for it; I don't see many of those dances. >> > chain->star->left allemande maybe? I do like long lines either before or >> > after the chain as a set-up; but not on both ends. I'm not sure which >> side >> > of the chain the lines help more. The Trip to ___ dances that end with >> > chains and start with women walking in to long wavy lines flow well, >> but I >> > don't know that they're the best for teaching chains, since the long >> wavy >> > line is another new piece. >> > >> > Anyway, just some of my thoughts (started by the other thread about >> simple >> > glossary dances). I look forward to hearing what others on Shared Weight >> > have to say about the dances they use to teach chains (and I certainly >> won't >> > be offended if folks tangent off into gent's chains; just start a new >> thread >> > ;-) >> > >> > Take care, >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Luke Donforth >> > Luke.Donforth(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 >> > -- > Jack Mitchell > Durham, NC > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

8 years, 4 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1