2 Jun
2015
2 Jun
'15
7:49 p.m.
Ron Blechner wrote:
Contra grew out of ECD, and the terms changed to fit.
The fact that
contra grew out of using [...]
Sorry -- fallacy. Contra and today's ECD have a common (and complex)
ancestry, but they are both living and changing. There are both continuity
and innovation in both communities; let's learn what we can, without
assuming that our current local status is the pinnacle of evolution.
For example, one innovation in global ECD seems to be to call to places not
to faces. It does seem that this makes the dance more open in many ways,
and might foster better dancing besides. Good things, yes?
- Roger Hayes
PS: Andrea: hear, hear.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Comparing ECD and Contra has uses. But only to a
point.
Consider:
ECD walkthroughs often take many times longer than contra walkthroughs.
The pace and tempo of ECD and Contra are often exceedingly different.
Contra dancers often have far less time to react to words they hear.
Contra has medleys.
Contra and ECD pull from different move sets, and while similar, is a
factor.
Contra dances need to work with a variety of musical tunes.
So with those in mind, rhetorical statements like "If they were that
awkward, they would have long since been replaced." don't work. Relying on
"it works in ECD so it works in contra" - or vice versa - is not feasible.
Also, they *have* been replaced. Contra grew out of ECD, and the terms
changed to fit. The fact that contra grew out of using corners is evidence
that corners doesn't work for contra. Else, why'd it ever grow away from
those terms?
On Jun 2, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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>et>; 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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net