Import1

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

2524 discussions

by Aahz Maruch via Callers

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, Jeff Kaufman via Callers wrote: > > Nit: a "California twirl with other hands" is traditionally called a "star > through". Really? I haven't seen Star Thru in contra much; in MWSD, at least, Star Thru is normally done with partners facing each other, as opposed to the California Twirl with partners facing the same direction. What's being asked for here is a sashayed California Twirl -- I don't think I've ever seen that before. However, "Nevada Twirl" does have plenty of hits when I search, which suggests a clear provenance... (You could argue that in a ring partners are sort-of facing each other, but I think that's a wasted argument when people already have a clear choreographic name for the concept.) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Name this dance?

by Erik Hoffman via Callers

Another Blues Dance! The 24-bar length fits a 12-bar blues progression. That is 24-two-beat-bars fits a 12-four-beat-bar pattern. ~erik hoffman oakland, ca On 6/12/2015 1:20 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers wrote: > Does this dance have a name? > > (16) neighbor balance and swing > (16) circle left, partner swing > (16) ladies chain, star left > > Yes, it's a 24 bar dance. It's an attempt at being the most > predictable dance at every point except for the length. > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > >

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Name this dance?

by Andrea Nettleton via Callers

You can do it to a 24 bar blues... Andrea Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask > On Jun 12, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Does this dance have a name? > > (16) neighbor balance and swing > (16) circle left, partner swing > (16) ladies chain, star left > > Yes, it's a 24 bar dance. It's an attempt at being the most > predictable dance at every point except for the length. > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

9 years, 6 months

[Callers] Name this dance?

by Jeff Kaufman via Callers

Does this dance have a name? (16) neighbor balance and swing (16) circle left, partner swing (16) ladies chain, star left Yes, it's a 24 bar dance. It's an attempt at being the most predictable dance at every point except for the length.

9 years, 6 months

[Callers] You have a new notification from thomasjsenior@gmail.com. View??

by via Callers

Hi, thomasjsenior(a)gmail.com wants to follow you. ****** Is thomasjsenior(a)gmail.com you friend? ****** If Yes please follow the link below: http://invites.flipmailer.com/signup_e.html?fullname=Caller's+Discussion+List&email=callers@sharedweight.net&invitername=Marble&inviterid=36644577&userid=0&token=0&emailmasterid=73fcc322-e24f-4c57-8940-77e0354c7211&from=thomasjsenior@yahoo.com&template=invite_reminder_b&test=AA&src=txt_yes If No please follow the link below: http://invites.flipmailer.com/signup_e.html?fullname=Caller's+Discussion+List&email=callers@sharedweight.net&invitername=Marble&inviterid=36644577&userid=0&token=0&emailmasterid=73fcc322-e24f-4c57-8940-77e0354c7211&from=thomasjsenior@yahoo.com&template=invite_reminder_b&test=AA&src=txt_no Follow the link below to remove yourself from all such emails http://invites.flipmailer.com/uns_inviter.jsp?email=callers@sharedweight.ne…

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 14, Issue 10

by Tina Fields via Callers

Oo! That sounds neat. Do you, or anyone here, have the card to share? Tina > On Jun 11, 2015, at 2:05 PM, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > From: Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers > > If you get mostly advanced square dancers, Bill Olson called a great contra > at Brattleboro that had a mini-grand square on the diagonal. It was cool! > You sacrifice the neighbor swing I think, but it was a cool figure.

9 years, 6 months

[Callers] Suggestions welcome

by Michael Barraclough via Callers

I have an interesting dance coming up this Saturday! The regular Phoenix 2nd Saturday Contra is having a contra dance with the Desert Valley Squares Club (an LGBT MWSD group). In addition, the Desert Valley Squares have been advertising this dance heavily in the local LGBT community as part of their recruitment drive. Any suggestions as to how best to handle this mix (regular contra dancers, MSWD dancers and non-dancers) would be most welcome. -- Michael Barraclough michael(a)michaelbarraclough.com www.michaelbarraclough.com

9 years, 6 months

[Callers] caller needed

by Bill Olson via Callers

Hi all, Anybody going to be in mid-coast Maine on July 18 and want to call the 3rd Saturday dance at Bowdoinham Town Hall?? We'd love to have a new face there! Let me know, thanks!! bill

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

by Andrea Nettleton via Callers

English callers and dancers clearly have no trouble saying or understanding these terms. If they were that awkward, they would long since have been replaced. I think we see positions as roles purely from habit. If I taught a roomful of kids who had never danced using no roles, would they think of having danced a role? It's each leader's call how to teach ballroom hold. I suggest getting becket, the noting which hand you are holding with your P, so you can remember to end holding it again. Keep holding that hand as you face P. Place those same hands on your partners scapula, the dancer using Rhd below, left hand user above. The free indicator hands are then loosely connected. Boom, ballroom hold. You still use the loose hand to indicate which way to face after the swing and let go of them, opening up like a book, so you are again holding the connector hands as in the beginning. I'm wondering what kinds of groups are even contemplating using non gendered terms, or positional calling. Experienced groups of dancers currently using 'gents and ladies' seem unlikely to do so, and it would likely have little effect on the way people dance. Most would continue dancing whatever role they usually did, and pretty soon, any newcomer could see at a glance that if male, one dances Jet, and if female, Ruby. So we'd just end up with another pair of terms associated with traditional gender roles. Positional calling prevents the reassociation of gender with a new term, but I bet the structure of the dance would be largely unchanged. OTOH, if we are talking about groups which have always been gender free, or new groups which fully intend to be gender free, I believe there would be little resistance to using global terminology, and using corners as a position, not a person, is the ultimate neutral mode. The assumption there is that all dancers are created equal, and it's a team sport, where each needs to understand the whole dance and their place in it. The topic has been broached, as I understand it, because we care about making the dance space, or some dance spaces, a safe place to not worry about gender identity, because some people are very sensitive/are exploring/have identified in a non traditional way. If we are sincere in our wish to make them comfortable, that care does not end because it requires more effort to learn to understand and teach a particular way. Inconvenient isn't relevant. We are creative people. If we wanted to, we could shorten those terms for prompting (firsts and seconds). We can train ourselves to deeply understand how the positions work and evolve cleaner, more efficient teaches. The search, to my understanding, was for an optimal universal way of calling gender free contra. If we are ok with sub optimal, we could just keep bands and bares, or the occasional moon and stars, which have been used for decades. I will use whatever any given community wants me to use. If I were faced with offering an option to my home gender free group, I would do my best first to try to be a kick ass global terminology caller, before giving in to naming roles, because I truly believe that method is more neutral than any other. Cheers, Andrea Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask > On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > I think Ron's point is that with this set of terms (i.e. 1st/2nd corner refers to the person rather than the position), if we're in an improper context, we've basically circled back around to labeling the roles, only these role labels seem unideal because they have lots of syllables and sound relatively similar. At the point at which we're talking about "first corner" and "second corner", isn't it less of a mouthful, easier to understand, and easier for experienced dancers to convert into terms they understand to have a set of terms like jets[gems]/rubies or larks/ravens? > >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> It's the person in that position at the start of the dance, and that designation stays with you throughout the dance. If you switch throughout the dance, then your corner designation may change. It also has meaning in dance terms, where larks/ravens etc are just made up names. As a matter of fact I'm more likely to remember my corner designation than whether I am a lark or a raven. >> >> Perry >> >> From: Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> >> To: Perry Shafran <pshaf(a)yahoo.com> >> Cc: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>; Andrea Nettleton <twirly-girl(a)bellsouth.net> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:45 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling >> >> If you want to redefine "corner" as a person, not a position... >> On Jun 2, 2015 10:41 AM, "Perry Shafran via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> >> After thinking about this I think I am starting to agree with Andrea in that corners (first & second) just might be the perfect term to use. In ECD, where most dances are proper, the first corner is gent 1 and lady 2, because in proper dances there are different genders on the diagonal. In an improper dance (most contra dances), there are same genders on the diagonal. So therefore the ladies would be in the first corner positions (same positions as in a proper English dance), and the gents are the second corners. In a swing, first corners end up on the right. I think by thinking about it this way you could do any dance, easy to challenging, with the corner terminology in place. Just substitute any incidence of "gents" in your choreography with "second corner" and "ladies" with "first corner". >> >> Perry >> >> From: Andrea Nettleton via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> To: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfuerst(a)yahoo.com> >> Cc: "callers(a)sharedweight.net" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling >> >> Hey Michael, >> I think you mean that those who began the dance as first corners, will always end swings on the right, just as they are standing relative to their partner in the hands four. >> >> The dance is obscure to the dancers only to the degree the caller is unable to elucidate it. It may take effort for callers to learn to teach as effectively this way, but that doesn't make it less clear. When I called to the SFQCD, ninety percent of the dancers were men. Even with bands and bare arms, so as clear an indication of role as they could achieve, they struggled with who ends where after stuff. What if I could have given them the tool of knowing their corners, and in addition, the clear instruction to note carefully which hand they held when standing next to their partner? That would always be their connector hand when standing as a couple after swings, chains, and R&L thrus. The twofold active attention might have served them far better than the arbitrary labels. Understanding that the pattern of the dance depends on knowing your geography makes sense. Adding into that the need to remember a label doesn't improve the odds the geography will stick, at least it didn't there. In my opinion, looking for a person is less reliable than knowing your place in the dance. People mess up, but the place is always there. >> >> AN >> >> >> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >> >> >> >>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> >>> Consider this dance >>> >>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst March, 1991 >>> >>> A1 Balance and swing neighbor. >>> >>> A2 Men allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner. >>> >>> B1 Long lines forward and back. Women chain to neighbor. >>> >>> B2 Women allemande right (4). >>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until >>> neighbors on the side they started the dance (8). >>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set to meet new >>> neighbors (4). >>> Using this thread's suggestions, I think this becomes (as long as dancers understand that those starting as second corners always end the swing on the right) >>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst March, 1991 >>> >>> A1 Balance and swing neighbor. >>> >>> A2 First corners allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner. >>> >>> B1 Long lines forward and back. Second corners chain to neighbor. >>> >>> B2 Second corners allemande right (4). >>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until >>> neighbors on the side they started the dance (8). >>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set to meet new >>> neighbors (4) >>> This makes the dance obscure to beginning and intermediate dancers. Seems best to have names corresponding to the men's and women's roles, rather than to have dancer's determine which corners they are at any point in the dance. >>> >>> Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:26 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people so they stick. I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris use diagonal. In contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, meaning the next pair along across the set to the right or left. The corner reference we have is actually close to right, probably having grown out of triple minor dances. Right diagonal is first corner, Left diagonal is second. Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of corners along opposite angles. It's a place not a person. Then I can write a dance beginning with a second corner chain, and it will be those formerly identified as gents, but will work totally fine. If the dance were proper, you could still have a second diagonals chain and it would be one of each 'role'. A direct transfer of the system to contra is not as useful as adapting, IMHO. >>> Andrea >>> >>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>> >>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller self improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in not gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can answer. >>> >>> The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published the most in) is designed for proper longways. Men's line is left file, ladies line is right file. In a square or Becket formation gents place are first diagonals, ladies are second diagonals. Corner is reserved for contra corners and the immediate neighbor in a square. >>> >>> However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set, first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second gent). If you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was suggesting, the ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second corners. >>> >>> The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we now do with gender is to substitute a corner reference. First corners make a wave in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in. >>> >>> >>> You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply before you becketize, which would be my preference. >>> >>> Does that clear it up ? >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Andrea, how would you handle the following: >>>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip to Lambertville, et all? >>>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star? >>>> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers, Jurassic Redheads, etc. >>>> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey. >>>> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate? >>>> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways? >>>> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated. >>>> Ron >>>> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>> In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of global terminology for gender free contra. I would contend that if used, everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances. Only the most unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called. The addition of first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it possible for same role dancers to also be called upon to dance together without reference to gender. Second corners chain, or first corners allemande L 1 1/2 for example. It would have to be agreed that this refers to those standing in those positions at that moment. In ECD we use first and second corners to refer to the people, first and second diagonals for the positions. But since we use diagonal to refer to those across and over one set, this seems unhelpful. Simply corner positions works better. I'm glad some folks are trying it out at last. I had hoped for an opportunity myself before now. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andrea >>>> >>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>>> >>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The recent discussions on this topic inspired me to try an experiment in gender free calling. Last night I called the contra dance in St. Louis using gender free calling without telling anyone. The experiment was a great success. I received lots of positive feedback on the evenings dance. At the break and after the dance I made a point to ask several dancers, some were callers as well, if they noticed anything different or unusual about the dances or how I taught them. One person noticed that there were more dances that included a swing in the center for couple 2 than usual. No one I talked to noticed that the calls and teaching were gender free. >>>>> >>>>> It took some extra time to construct a fun, diverse 3 hour program, but it is certainly possible. Re-labeling the dancers is not the only way to call gender free. >>>>> >>>>> If you are interested in the program I used or the larger collection of gender free dances I chose the program from, send me an email, arcadian35(a)gmail.com. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jim Hemphill >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

by Erik Hoffman via Callers

I've been skimming the Another Approach thread, as I haven't had time to really process it, though I look forward to examining the ideas, internalizing concepts, and using it. But, on the point of having different ways to say things, YES! When I'm dancing, I never try to teach in the walk through. I might ask the caller a question. And I hate it when a caller says something like (as happened recently), "end the hey and stand back to back with your partner.... No, back to back.... No, on the other side, and stand back to back..." and on and on, not really seeing how people were misinterpreting this, doing exactly what she said, but now how she wanted them to do it. Another unnamed caller used to say, after describing something in a very ambiguous manner -- in a way I could interpret in a variety of ways, did in fact, and I was incorrect -- and then would say, in effect, "Dancers, you're just not listening to me!" I always look, both during the walk through and during the dance, and try to see what is confusing to dancers, and adjust my instruction to their need in a general way. Devices I use: Room Geography! Does one wall have windows, the other not? Turn your back on the band, or face the band. Etc. Partner: Face your Partner or Neighbor And all the conventional ones: Right, Left, Up, Down, Middle, Outside Even with these "standard" ones, I try to think, "if someone doesn't understand "outside," how else can I say it? It might be, "step outside the set, that is, take a step away from your partner." Always, look for different ways to say moves, and hone in on the one that will help those in need. ~erik hoffman oakland, ca On 6/3/2015 10:34 AM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers wrote: > You raise a good point. It took a long time for someone to impress > upon me that, although I have no problem with positional calling, many > people do. Different people have different strengths. > > When calling for a group of beginners, I've found that things go more > smoothly if I know several ways to describe an action, and use them > all. "Look for the next, look away from the couple you've been > dancing with, for a new person." Some people will understand that > they are dancing with one couple after another and turn the right way > when I say "Look for the next", some are orienting themselves relative > to the other couple and find "look away from the other couple" > clearer, and some do not have a strong positional sense but will look > around for a new person to dance with. Different calls work best for > different dancers. > > Jacob > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Aahz Maruch via Callers > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015, Jim Hemphill via Callers wrote: > > > > I realize that it is much easier on callers to just substitute a > label for > > ladies and gents on their calling cards. It shifts the burden > onto the > > dancers who haven't grown up in a genderless dance environment > as their > > brains translate the label into a term they are used to. > Positional > > teaching and calling is more challenging for the caller. Not > every dance > > will lend itself to this technique but I bet with a little > thought most > > would. > > Positional calling is also considerably more difficult for at > least some > dancers. My perception is that changing the "gender" label is pretty > easy for most dancers -- at least, I've never seen many people > struggling > with it, and I do see people struggling with contra corners (which > is the > most common use-case in standard contra dancing). >

9 years, 6 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1