2 Jun
2015
2 Jun
'15
4:02 p.m.
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>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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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
_______________________________________________
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 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
2 Jun
2 Jun
6:16 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
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:
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
3 Jun
3 Jun
4:02 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 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?
Possibly you're seeing selection bias in English. At least in the SF Bay
Area, contra is more popular than English, and I wonder how much of that
difference is due to this issue. (This discussion is making clear that
a significant chunk of my ECD dislike is due to this issue.)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
5:46 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
I'm pretty sure contra is more popular than ECD everywhere, and most ECD groups call
to gents and ladies as well as corners, partners, neighbors, so I doubt this is the issue.
That the music often sounds classical rather than modern is one issue, that you only
flirt with eyes and fingertips is another. It's more cerebral, less athletic.
It's a different high, which aligns less well with tastes of our age than contra. You
are the first person I have heard say that they dislike ECD because discreet roles are
less necessary.
I don't think every contra series is going to suddenly go gender free, far from it,
but even if they did, the things people like about contra would still be there: the
zestiness, the music, the swings, the predictable format, the flirting, the sweat, the
patterns we love, the stomping, the gliding.
Atlanta has a dance weekend every November, and each year there is a different theme. On
Saturday night there is a concert, a skit, then the dance. For several years, I led the
skit creation. As it happens, yesterday my daughter handed me a binder which contained
the lyrics for our West Side Contra skit of several years ago. I don't currently have
a link to Dave Pokorney's video, or I'd include it. You might be wondering why I
bring it up. In the skit, instead of Jets and Sharks, we had the Trads and the Mods.
Each hated the other's influence on the contra scene, the Trads decrying the twirls
and dips, sleaze and bad timing, taste for pop tunes and jazz riffs, the claps on
petronellas, while the Mods bristled at the use of old time, the straight dancing, the
rigid adherence to old standards and ideals. After some build up, they meet at a dance,
and during the contra, fighting breaks out and many are left prostrate including Tony. In
the end they all recover and agree that all the things they love about dancing are more
important than the differences, ultimately they all just want to dance. I was poking fun,
but also serious that we all tend to get really wound up, especially when things we love
undergo change. But the truth is, we can all adapt, and continue enjoy that which we
love. Some groups are going to embrace gender free, some may even go for positional
calling. I hope that dancers can continue enjoying everything they have always loved
about dance, whatever their community chooses. I'm asking us to look at positional
calling in light of all the positive things it can do, and seeing how we might make it
work so we lose as little as possible of what we care most about. Every community and
every caller will have to decide what they are up for. Our job here is to sincerely
attempt to determine if it can work, which can only be accomplished if we set aside our
emotional reactions, our fear and distaste, and work at it like a crossword puzzle, with
detached intelligent attention. Raising questions is important; let's please continue
that, as it gets us analyzing the possibility realistically. Those not interested in the
enterprise are free to ignore.
Cheers,
Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
On Jun 3,
2015, at 12:02 PM, Aahz Maruch via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 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?
Possibly you're seeing selection bias in English. At least in the SF Bay
Area, contra is more popular than English, and I wonder how much of that
difference is due to this issue. (This discussion is making clear that
a significant chunk of my ECD dislike is due to this issue.)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
5 Jun
5 Jun
3:25 a.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015, Andrea Nettleton wrote:
I'm pretty sure contra is more popular than ECD everywhere, and most
ECD groups call to gents and ladies as well as corners, partners,
neighbors, so I doubt this is the issue. That the music often sounds
classical rather than modern is one issue, that you only flirt with
eyes and fingertips is another. It's more cerebral, less athletic.
It's a different high, which aligns less well with tastes of our age
than contra. You are the first person I have heard say that they
dislike ECD because discreet roles are less necessary.
No, what I said was that I think that *part* of my dislike of ECD comes
from the use of positional descriptions. That is, I find it difficult to
remember what "first corner" and "second corner" mean, and I think
that
the difficulty many people have with contra corners means that this is a
common problem.
I note that I seem to be much better at articulating my difficulties than
many people, so I am not at all surprised if you've never heard anyone
else complain this way.
I also note that I'm a square and folk dancer (I've been doing contra,
square, and folk for more than a quarter century), so it's not exactly the
case that more cerebral and less athletic are negatives for me.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
3488
days inactive
3491
days old
import1@lists2.sharedweight.net
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Aahz Maruch via Callers -
Andrea Nettleton via Callers
-
Ron Blechner via Callers