On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, Tom Hinds via Callers wrote: One MWSD caller (Bob Elling) likes to point out that there is in fact a sashay (as opposed to a half-sashay) that basically is a reversed Mad Robin (although he doesn't use that term). And yes, he does sometimes call sashay. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

In my message of August 25 about rollaways, I wrote: Here are the promised rantings, er, comments: First off, I agree with Chris Page and others who have pointed out that such actions are quite rare in contemporary contra dancing. I think that most experienced contra dancers are habituated to assume that a roll[away] involves dancers changing places, whether or not the caller explicitly says something like "with a half sashay" or "roll ... to swap". Thus I agree with Chris's advice: In the more usual case, where the assisting dancer does shift sideways into the other dancers place, experienced dancers won't need explicit instruction, but some of the new dancers may. And note that dance jargon like "with a half sashay" may mean nothing to new dancers. * * * * * * * * * * Now I come to the main point of this message. So far we've discussed two interpretations of rollaway: 1. Dancers swap places. (Very common in contemporary contras) 2. One dancer (the "assister") holds his/her ground while the other dancer rolls past. (Rare in contras) In practice, there's a third thing that can happen: 3. Assister shifts just partway into the other dancer's place. I now describe two examples of situations where this has come up. * * * * * * * * * * Example 1 (Rainbow Walk) In a message on August 21, 2015, Erik Hoffman described something he has seen in the old-time square dance revival scene in Oakland, CA: [While Erik hasn't said who does what, my experience is that men roll their successive corners from left to right. --js] Like Erik, I prefer the interpretation in which adjacent dancers swap places during the rollaways. And I think it odd that a caller would actually say "with a half sashay" and then teach that "the man stays put." But rather than muse about the perils of the folk process, I'll get on with my story. As a break figure in a square dance at a mostly-contra event, the caller called something that moved everyone half-way around the square (e.g., grand right and left four changes; meet partner and swing) and then continued by calling the Rainbow Walk--that is, four repeats of up to the middle and back that way [men] roll your corner with a half sashay The caller was expecting that dances would swap places during the rollways, so that we would end up back at home, ready to start the next round of the main figure of the dance. What happened in my square--and I think it at least some of the other squares--was that the men stepped only partway into their corners' places and made the women do most of the traveling. The total effect of four rollaways was thus that the men moved to the left only about 1/4 of the way around the square (instead of halfway) while the women moved to the right about 3/4 of the way around. So instead of being back home, we had the original heads couples near the side places and the sides near the head places. When the caller called for the heads or the sides (or perhaps it was some numbered couple) to do the first move of the main figure, there was some uncertainty about whether we should interpret the call based on our current positions or our original positions. Note that if even one man--call him Rocky (as in "rock in the stream")--steps only partway into his successive corners' places, he can effectively obstruct the progression of his entire square. The person most likely to be aware of the situation is the next man to Rocky's right. But if that man tries to be insistent about moving a full place to the left each time in hope of crowding Rocky into moving along, the women will begin to feel the effect long before Rocky does. So rather than get in the way of the women, the other men in the square end up deferring to the pace Rocky sets. Meanwhile Rocky may notice that the caller is calling to "heads" or "sides" or "couple number such-and-such" at a time when dancers aren't in home positions, but he likely will be genuinely and completely unaware that his own dancing style has anything to do with the situation. The lesson for callers: Be aware of situations like this where a sequence that gets dancers home in theory may not get them home in practice. After calling such a sequence and before calling to heads or sides or a particular numbered couple, call something like "promenade home" (or to gent's home in a mixer where ladies progress, ...) or "circle ...; when you get home, swing your own." * * * * * * * * * * Example 2 ("Roll Away" but Stohl & Rob) On August 24, John Sweeney wrote: At http://contradances.blogspot.com/2012/03/roll-away.html the authors give the choreography of "Roll Away" as follows: Becket, Duple Minor A1: Gents lead Half-hey by the Left Ladies Ricochet (8) Neighbor Swing (8) A2: Ladies Chain with a Courtsey Turn (8) Ladies Right Allemande 1 time (8) B1: Partner Balance and Swing (16) B2: Circle Left half-way and Balance Circle (8) Gent Roll the Lady, Lady Roll the Gent (to progress) (8)* *Note: Rolls do not include Sashays (that's an extra charge). If the gents really, truly hold their ground during beats 9-13 of B2 and roll the ladies all the way into the position just occupied by the next lady along the line, and if the ladies then really, truly hold their ground and roll the gents to the position of the next gent, then the dance will work out to be a double progression. (If you don't see why, try carefully diagramming the actions in B2 for dancers in at least two adjacent foursomes.) I pointed this out in a message to the trad-dance-callers list on Sept 12, 2012, after the dance had come up for discussion there. In my message, I also guessed that the dance was more likely than not intended to be a single progression. And indeed a few weeks later (Oct 2, 2012), Heather Robinson (the "Rob" in "Stohl & Rob") wrote to say that the dance was indeed intended to be a single progression. So what's going on? Why does practice (single progression) differ from theory (double progression)? I can think of two reasons. First, despite the instruction that there's no half-sashay, I think the assisting dancers probably do move a little bit sideways. Second, we may imagine dancers theoretically standing in a series spots equally spaced along the sides of the set (the "stations" in the terminology of Larry Jennings [_Give-and-Take_, sec. 3.3]), but in practice, the roll-aways in "Roll Away" probably start with dancers standing closer to their partners than to the nearest dancer in the next foursome. While the dance works well--and was intended by its authors--as a single progression, it's possible that if the caller instructs dancers not to do a half sashay, some dancers might reasonably attempt to be scrupulous about not doing one. Imagine what will happen if such dancers get their part of the set to do the dance as a double progression while others in the same set are dancing it as a single progression. One result could be that there are repeated occasions where a couple find themselves alone between two full foursomes and end up going to the bottom. Another result could be that some dancers become impatient with each other. By being aware both of the logic behind the double-progression interpretation and of the reasons the dance works well in practice as a single progression, a caller can be prepared to avert mixed interpretations and to give tactful but authoritative answers to dancers' questions. Cheers, --Jim