Import1

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

2524 discussions

by George Mercer via Callers

Not disagreeing with anything but explaining that when I tell dancers "squares are just like contras only you have to listen" I am not so much characterizing one or the other, but asking, even begging, the dancers to pay attention to what the caller is calling. Many contra dancers are notoriously bad listeners, especially experienced ones and they tend to set an example for inexperienced dancers, good and bad. Noit listening in a contra can lead to problems. Not listening in a square is often an outright disaster. That's all. On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I didn't read Cary's comments about squares as an "objection", just > that Cary was rebutting the comment by George: "squares are just like > contras, only you have to listen." > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let > me > > re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly. > > > > Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to > > connect your movement to the music. > > Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually > > danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the > > dancing time. > > Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your > > original partner than in a contra. > > Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only > make > > movements in place during some of the music. > > In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with > the > > relationship you would like to have with the music. > > > > Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite understood > > your meaning? > > > > Jacob Bloom > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers > > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Some things that people to not like about squares - > >> > >> less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing > >> having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection > >> teaching time > >> mixer squares breaks the partner connection > >> visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods. > >> > >> I find squares and contras completely different. > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >

10 years

Re: [Callers] How to explain the charms of square dances (was More on Programming)

by Perry via Callers

There are two square dance series near me, one in DC and one in Baltimore, who get tremendously large crowds for their dances. They are young as well and most people there are not contra dancers but there are some contra dancers who happen to be square lovers too. I always wonder how these dances get up to 200 people and some of the contra dances struggle to draw. Perry Sent from my Galaxy S®III <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom Hinds via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> </div><div>Date:06/27/2015 8:38 AM (GMT-06:00) </div><div>To: Jacob Nancy Bloom <jandnbloom(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [Callers] How to explain the charms of square dances (was More on Programming) </div><div> </div>Yes you are correct, pointing out the benefits of squares is a much better option than telling them to stay home. I included that comment in hopes that callers might consider being less afraid of what dancers think. I have no illusions that others would say that to a dancer. One aspect that makes squares attractive is the changing patterns. For myself and others, dancing choreography that wasn't walked through is very enjoyable. And changing the pattern doesn't have to be challenging. For partner changing squares there's a certain satisfaction/challenge in performing the choreography well as a group and ending with your partner again. Picking the correct square for this is crucial-not too easy and not too hard. Some people enjoy dancing squares to music where the phrasing is less distinct. It's hard for me to describe but it's like dancing without holding back. Or could it be described as charging ahead? Perhaps some of you can describe this gooder than I can. This works well with driving old time music. Although I don't enjoy the visiting couple type square, I understand that there are a number of groups who enjoy these types of squares with very fast music. In central Virginia there're getting large turnouts. I'm told that most of these dancers are young and not contra dancers. I often hear of other groups in the country where young dancers are discovering squares. Is this the future? T _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

10 years

Re: [Callers] More on Programming

by Aahz Maruch via Callers

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote: > > Adding squares regularly to our programs would enhance and expand the > experience. Maybe. In the SF area (and apparently in many other areas), contra dances used to include trad squares as a significant component. There are many reasons they've mostly vanished, to the point that I think nobody can really say definitively which ones were significant. Nevertheless, those reasons exist, and unless a significant number of them are addressed, I'd be doubtful that trad squares can be resurrected at contras. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

10 years

Re: [Callers] How to explain the charms of square dances (was More on Programming)

by Aahz Maruch via Callers

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers wrote: > > How would those of you who enjoy both squares and contras describe what you > get out of dancing square dances? Keeping in mind that I'm talking about MWSD -- I don't particularly like trad squares: I mainly enjoy the challenge. Square dancing requires hearing, brain, and body all working together. There's a surprise factor that mostly doesn't happen in contra dances. There's overall more feeling that it's a team of people working together, rather than pairs of couples. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

10 years

[Callers] How to explain the charms of square dances (was More on Programming)

by Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers

Many thanks to Cary Ravitz for explaining why some dancers prefer contras to squares. (You can see that explanation below.) Tom Hinds said that, when dancers tell him they don't like squares, he tells them, "then stay home when I call". I wouldn't be comfortable giving that reply. While square dances might not offer dancers the " dancer, music, motion connection", without the voice of a caller intruding, that they might find in contra dances, the square dances offer other benefits. I would rather come up with a way of describing those benefits, in the hope that some of those dancers will find things to enjoy in the squares. How would those of you who enjoy both squares and contras describe what you get out of dancing square dances? Jacob On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers >> <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> > Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let >> me >> > re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly. >> > >> > Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to >> > connect your movement to the music. >> > Yes. > > > Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually >> > danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the >> > dancing time. >> > No, in my experience as a dancer, squares take longer to teach and this is > compensated with shorter dance time. > > >> > Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your >> > original partner than in a contra. >> > Yes. > > >> > Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only >> make >> > movements in place during some of the music. >> > In my experience as a dancer, visiting couple square use the interaction > sequence 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 2-3, 2-3, 2-4, 2-1 and 3-4, ... so for 2/3 of > the dance half the dancers are not included. > > >> > In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with >> the >> > relationship you would like to have with the music. >> > Yes. > > >> > >> > Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite >> understood >> > your meaning? >> > *For me*, this all comes down to > > dancer, music, motion connection. It can be wonderful in a contra. I've > never found it in a square. > >

10 years

Re: [Callers] Giving Weight

by Read Weaver via Callers

Are you asking about grapevine step? A twisting step, where you alternate the right foot going in front of and behind the left as you walk sideways. It’s how circles (of 4 or 8) are done in modern western square dancing, and in the last several years increasingly seen, to the dismay of all right-thinking people, on contra dance floors. Read Weaver Jamaica Plain, MA http://lcfd.org > On Jun 26, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Rich Sbardella <richsbardella(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Read, > I did not understand your reference to grapevining in MWSD. Can you elaborate? > Rich > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Read Weaver via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > In my separate beginners’ workshops, I have people take allemande hold, and then move around as fast as they comfortably can (“faster than you ever would in a dance”), paying attention to what that feels like in their hands and arms. I then have them do it again, starting fast and then slowing down a lot (slower than in a dance), keeping that same feeling in their hands/arms. Then I’ll have them do a 2-hand turn with that same feeling (my workshops most often combine contra & English), and then a circle of 4. I talk about the circle 4 being the most boring move in contra when it’s done without weight, and pointing out that it has quite a nice feeling when everyone is giving weight. (That’s also where I explain grapevining—why it’s done in MWSD (giving weight isn’t part of their style, so grapevine makes it a more interesting figure), and why it’s a bad thing to do in contra (because it makes it so much harder to give weight).) > > Giving weight is the first thing I teach in a beginners’ session, partly to emphasize how important it is, and partly because it gives me the opportunity to point out everywhere else where you do it, including just a little like in a courtesy turn. > > Read Weaver > Jamaica Plain, MA > http://lcfd.org <http://lcfd.org/> > > > On 6/24/2015 11:29 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote: > >> > >> How do you descibe giving weight, and how do you teach it for circles, > >> allemandes, and, swings? > >> Rich > >> Stafford, CT

10 years

Re: [Callers] Do these dances exist?

by Martha Wild via Callers

Maia, I wrote Blue-Eyed Pogo, 2/26/2000, and it is almost identical exept for the ladies allemande right 1X: Blue-Eyed Pogo, duple improper A1) Allemande left N 1 1/2 Do-si-do NEXT neighbor 1X A2) Balance and swing original neighbor B1) Circle left 3/4, swing P B2) Circle left 3/4, allemande right neighbor 1 1/2 Of course, maybe there is something else similar that predates that…. Martha On Jun 26, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers wrote: > Dance the First, improper > A1: (new) N alle L 1 1/2 > ladies alle R 1x > A2: N b&s > B1 circle L 3/4 > P sw > B2: circle L 3/4 > N alle R 1 ½ > > Dance the Second, improper > A1: neighbor gypsy > half hey, women by L > A1: neighbor gypsy > neighbor swing > B1: circle L 3/4 > partner swing > B2: R/L through across > circle left 3/4 and pass through > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

10 years

Re: [Callers] More on Programming

by Perry Shafran via Callers

Completely agree with this perspective. Contra is, at its heart, more of a community dance than a partner dance, because you dance with so many different people during the course of one dance. I think that, over the years, contra has become more of a partner-centered dance, and I often see dancers outright ignore their neighbors to give full attention to their partners at all times. I also must be from the old school, because short periods of inactivity during a dance has never bothered me, and like Rich I do tend to appreciate that. I think that the desire for contra to be fast-paced and always-moving, while exciting for many contra dancers, has turned off many other long-time contra dancers. But the trend does seem to be for fast-moving high-energy dancing, and I do think that callers need to be somewhat concerned with that. However, I also think that callers also need to be concerned with the folks who don't move so fast and like the periods of inactivity, where they can get themselves set if need be and be where they want to be for the next move. Trying to integrate all types of dancers is what makes this a true form of community dance. Perry From: Rich Sbardella <richsbardella(a)gmail.com> To: Perry Shafran <pshaf(a)yahoo.com> Cc: Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] More on Programming I differ with Cary's generalized storyline of contra being "uniting of partners". If I had to generalize a storyline, it would be of building community. I may be wrong, but I think David Kaynor, in his calling booklet, referred to your "hands four" group as your "neighborhood". I love that terminology. I often choose new or weak dancers as partners, and I rely on the support of these neighborhoods to make the dance enjoyable. In a square the neighborhood changes from four dancers to eight but you stay with them longer. In most mixer squares, if called and danced correctly, the partner relationship is restored as the dance resolves. As a dancer, I love squares. It is a refreshing change, thus adding variety without difficulty, during an evening of contras. Squares often provide a rest period as others dance. This is a plus, not a minus; as I age, I appreciate the rest. I have found that some callers who are quite competent with contras, are terrible with squares, I also see callers choosing squares that are too difficult for an open contra dance, thus causing failure on the floor. Calling squares is a different art than calling contras. Choosing squares carefully with an adequate walk thru is essential. If a caller gets too much negative feedback, or no positive feedback, perhaps that caller should not be calling squares. Another problem is that squares are not called often enough at some series. The concept of corners, opposites, home position, RH lady, etc,, are foreign to many contra dancers. These are all EZ concepts but all together in a four minute blitz, every once in a while, can be overwhelming. Adding squares regularly to our programs would enhance and expand the experience. Squarely, (can I say that?)Rich SbardellaStafford, CT On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: See, this is what I mean, when I get advice from some callers that say one thing and advice from other callers that say the complete opposite. I figure that there are lots of different people on the floor. Some people LIKE squares, believe it or not. Whenever I see squares called, yeah, there are some people who head for the sidelines, but generally I see dancers on the floor having a good time. So I learned some time ago that for everyone who grumbles about a square being called, there are 10 others who love it. As for insisting that every dance has two swings AND the neighbor swing MUST come before the partner swing, that seems to be a personal preference rather than a hard and fast rule. I think that most dancers don't really care which one comes first. I went to a dance weekend this past weekend where there were more than a few dances with no neighbor swing, and it appeared that everyone had a great time dancing. I have long been taught that variety is the spice of life, and people do enjoy squares mixed in with a contra, as well as varied choreography. Varied choreography makes the dance interesting. Hard and fast rules limit the choreography that you can do and excludes many all-time great dances that might have a neighbor swing or a partner swing first (like Joyride and Ramsay Chase). And let's not even talking about throwing in an occasional chestnut in there - we have to get rid of all those wonderful dances because they are "boring" by today's standards. (Except to those folks who love them of course!) Perry From: Cary Ravitz via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] More on Programming Why swings in every dance - because that is a huge part of the contra experience, a swing with the person that you asked to dance. Why should the partner swing follow the neighbor swing - because this is an art form, not an exercise routine. The storyline of a contra is the uniting of partners, not the the breaking up of partners (that's my preference anyway). And in practical terms, I want to be with my partner at the end of a dance to thank them quickly before finding another partner. "Squares are just like contras, only you have to listen" - this is not correct. Some things that people to not like about squares - less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection teaching time mixer squares breaks the partner connection visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods. I find squares and contras completely different. On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM, George Mercer via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: I may not be a good example or even that good a caller, but ... I like swings, I have no need to have a neighbor swing in every dance and most certainly don't care where in the dance the neighbor swing happens. That's making up rules for the sake of having rules. I like the buzz step, but to put it mildly there are many dancers with whom a buzz step is impossible, difficult or merely uncomfortable. I teach a walking swing and sometimes demonstrate a buzz step with a little time for practice. Far too many callers and beginner workshop instructors teach a buzz step in a way that promotes bouncing, which in turn makes swinging difficult or worse. I've also heard more than one caller-instructor tell dancers that to "give weight" (an inadequate term) they should lean back. Just kill me. As a dancer, I often combine a walking swing-with a buzz step -- especially if we have gotten out of sync with the music. I come down on to the floor when I think it's required. On two occasions recently while dancing, the person I was dancing with said, "Well, this a dance the caller has never actually danced before. If she or he had, she or he wouldn't have chosen it." Amen. I was at an dance recently where a mixer was called near the end of the evening. I'm not sure what that was all about. Once early in my limited calling career,just as the first dance got underway about 20 newcomers walked in. I then called several dances without swings, just to get them acclimated to moving in rhythm and with the music. I'll never do that again. I was too cautious and shouldn't have been. I honestly was afraid the experienced dancers were going to hurt me. And they say I can't learn. Perhaps my biggest peeve on the dance floor is the experienced dancers who insist on sharing their bad dance habits (swinging backwards, excessive and unexpected twirling -- I almost wrote twerking --, inappropriate dipping, showing how athletic and fancy they are, etc.) with new dancers rather than helping them learn the basic fundamentals, timing and courtesy. I love squares. Not everyone does, but I often explain to people in my square, "squares are just like contras, only you have to listen." And finally, callers, please stop telling people that when they reach the end of the line, "they're out." This seems to encourgae dancers to think, "Well now, I don't have to pay attention." While they are on the floor they should "stay in the dance." That just may be me. Thanks, George -- Cary Ravitz caryravitz(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

10 years

[Callers] Do these dances exist?

by Maia McCormick via Callers

Dance the First, improper A1: (new) N alle L 1 1/2 ladies alle R 1x A2: N b&s B1 circle L 3/4 P sw B2: circle L 3/4 N alle R 1 ½ Dance the Second, improper A1: neighbor gypsy half hey, women by L A1: neighbor gypsy neighbor swing B1: circle L 3/4 partner swing B2: R/L through across circle left 3/4 and pass through

10 years

[Callers] Dances with One Swing

by Rich Sbardella via Callers

I am happy to see that I am not alone in my perspective. I oftn dance 18th Century contras with little or no swinging and they are indeed enjoyable. That being said, I have very few mondern contras with one, or no swings included. Can anyone suggest some good ones to add to my collection? Rich Sbardella Stafford, CT On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Completely agree with this perspective. Contra is, at its heart, more of > a community dance than a partner dance, because you dance with so many > different people during the course of one dance. I think that, over the > years, contra has become more of a partner-centered dance, and I often see > dancers outright ignore their neighbors to give full attention to their > partners at all times. > > I also must be from the old school, because short periods of inactivity > during a dance has never bothered me, and like Rich I do tend to appreciate > that. I think that the desire for contra to be fast-paced and > always-moving, while exciting for many contra dancers, has turned off many > other long-time contra dancers. > > But the trend does seem to be for fast-moving high-energy dancing, and I > do think that callers need to be somewhat concerned with that. However, I > also think that callers also need to be concerned with the folks who don't > move so fast and like the periods of inactivity, where they can get > themselves set if need be and be where they want to be for the next move. > Trying to integrate all types of dancers is what makes this a true form of > community dance. > > Perry > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Rich Sbardella <richsbardella(a)gmail.com> > *To:* Perry Shafran <pshaf(a)yahoo.com> > *Cc:* Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:41 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Callers] More on Programming > > I differ with Cary's generalized storyline of contra being "uniting of > partners". If I had to generalize a storyline, it would be of building > community. I may be wrong, but I think David Kaynor, in his calling > booklet, referred to your "hands four" group as your "neighborhood". I > love that terminology. I often choose new or weak dancers as partners, and > I rely on the support of these neighborhoods to make the dance enjoyable. > > In a square the neighborhood changes from four dancers to eight but you > stay with them longer. In most mixer squares, if called and danced > correctly, the partner relationship is restored as the dance resolves. > > As a dancer, I love squares. It is a refreshing change, thus adding > variety without difficulty, during an evening of contras. Squares often > provide a rest period as others dance. This is a plus, not a minus; as I > age, I appreciate the rest. > > I have found that some callers who are quite competent with contras, are > terrible with squares, I also see callers choosing squares that are too > difficult for an open contra dance, thus causing failure on the floor. > Calling squares is a different art than calling contras. Choosing squares > carefully with an adequate walk thru is essential. If a caller gets too > much negative feedback, or no positive feedback, perhaps that caller should > not be calling squares. > > Another problem is that squares are not called often enough at some > series. The concept of corners, opposites, home position, RH lady, etc,, > are foreign to many contra dancers. These are all EZ concepts but all > together in a four minute blitz, every once in a while, can be overwhelming. > > Adding squares regularly to our programs would enhance and expand the > experience. > > Squarely, (can I say that?) > Rich Sbardella > Stafford, CT > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > > See, this is what I mean, when I get advice from some callers that say one > thing and advice from other callers that say the complete opposite. > > I figure that there are lots of different people on the floor. Some > people LIKE squares, believe it or not. Whenever I see squares called, > yeah, there are some people who head for the sidelines, but generally I see > dancers on the floor having a good time. So I learned some time ago that > for everyone who grumbles about a square being called, there are 10 others > who love it. > > As for insisting that every dance has two swings AND the neighbor swing > MUST come before the partner swing, that seems to be a personal preference > rather than a hard and fast rule. I think that most dancers don't really > care which one comes first. I went to a dance weekend this past weekend > where there were more than a few dances with no neighbor swing, and it > appeared that everyone had a great time dancing. > > I have long been taught that variety is the spice of life, and people do > enjoy squares mixed in with a contra, as well as varied choreography. > Varied choreography makes the dance interesting. Hard and fast rules limit > the choreography that you can do and excludes many all-time great dances > that might have a neighbor swing or a partner swing first (like Joyride and > Ramsay Chase). And let's not even talking about throwing in an occasional > chestnut in there - we have to get rid of all those wonderful dances > because they are "boring" by today's standards. (Except to those folks who > love them of course!) > > Perry > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Cary Ravitz via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> > *To:* Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Callers] More on Programming > > Why swings in every dance - because that is a huge part of the contra > experience, a swing with the person that you asked to dance. > > Why should the partner swing follow the neighbor swing - because this is > an art form, not an exercise routine. The storyline of a contra is the > uniting of partners, not the the breaking up of partners (that's my > preference anyway). And in practical terms, I want to be with my partner at > the end of a dance to thank them quickly before finding another partner. > > "Squares are just like contras, only you have to listen" - this is not > correct. > > Some things that people to not like about squares - > > less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing > having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection > teaching time > mixer squares breaks the partner connection > visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods. > > I find squares and contras completely different. > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM, George Mercer via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > I may not be a good example or even that good a caller, but ... I like > swings, I have no need to have a neighbor swing in every dance and most > certainly don't care where in the dance the neighbor swing happens. That's > making up rules for the sake of having rules. I like the buzz step, but to > put it mildly there are many dancers with whom a buzz step is impossible, > difficult or merely uncomfortable. I teach a walking swing and sometimes > demonstrate a buzz step with a little time for practice. Far too many > callers and beginner workshop instructors teach a buzz step in a way that > promotes bouncing, which in turn makes swinging difficult or worse. I've > also heard more than one caller-instructor tell dancers that to "give > weight" (an inadequate term) they should lean back. Just kill me. As a > dancer, I often combine a walking swing-with a buzz step -- especially if > we have gotten out of sync with the music. I come down on to the floor when > I think it's required. On two occasions recently while dancing, the person > I was dancing with said, "Well, this a dance the caller has never actually > danced before. If she or he had, she or he wouldn't have chosen it." Amen. > I was at an dance recently where a mixer was called near the end of the > evening. I'm not sure what that was all about. Once early in my limited > calling career,just as the first dance got underway about 20 newcomers > walked in. I then called several dances without swings, just to get them > acclimated to moving in rhythm and with the music. I'll never do that > again. I was too cautious and shouldn't have been. I honestly was afraid > the experienced dancers were going to hurt me. And they say I can't learn. > Perhaps my biggest peeve on the dance floor is the experienced dancers who > insist on sharing their bad dance habits (swinging backwards, excessive and > unexpected twirling -- I almost wrote twerking --, inappropriate dipping, > showing how athletic and fancy they are, etc.) with new dancers rather than > helping them learn the basic fundamentals, timing and courtesy. I love > squares. Not everyone does, but I often explain to people in my square, > "squares are just like contras, only you have to listen." And finally, > callers, please stop telling people that when they reach the end of the > line, "they're out." This seems to encourgae dancers to think, "Well now, > I don't have to pay attention." While they are on the floor they should > "stay in the dance." That just may be me. Thanks, George > > > > > -- > Cary Ravitz > caryravitz(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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

10 years

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1