Chrissy, Are you main concerned about dance series "no one" likes to go to or just bands/callers that "no one" likes and won't go to a dance that hires these bands/callers?  I think we're talking about entirely different issues here.  Having different visions for different dances is a great idea.  But what about those regular series that are well-attended but often hire bands that "no one" likes? (And BTW, I understand why you put "no one" in quotes - there will always be supporters of these bands for whatever reason.)  Here's a case in point.  Open bands generally tend to draw less than well-established bands.  However, open bands are good so musicians can hone their skills at a live contra dance, even if they may not be good enough to stand alone in a regular band.  But "no one" likes open bands. They're not as hot as other bands, their repertoire is the same and is getting boring, whatever reason. Should we do away with them?  Hire them less?  Of course doing so would take away opportunities from developing musicians who actually get better thanks to their participation in these bands.  (Same for developing callers - they need mic time to get better.) Perry ________________________________ From: Chrissy Fowler <ktaadn_me(a)hotmail.com> To: "organizers(a)sharedweight.net" <organizers(a)sharedweight.net> Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:15 AM Subject: [Organizers] the band/caller that "no one" likes Peter, THANK YOU for posting the link to David's essay.  So many spot-on points in that! http://davidmillstonedance.com/writing/essays/35-essay-hot-dance-philosophty One thing I have long wondered is this --- Just who is "no one" that is passing judgment?  In some ways it brings me right back to 7th grade, when there were always those kids that "no one" liked (cruelly given that status, often by no particular action of their own.)  And why not have different flavors for different people?  For example, there are plenty of people who strongly dislike and don't attend the series I co-organize, among them some of my favorite dance partners.  But there are others who do like and attend it.  As to the question of bands/callers who own the dance, Merle's point caught my attention -- If a band "no one" likes is willing and able to put on a dance, then more power to them.  Even if 15 people attend, then that's 15 people who've done something different than sit in front of their computer on a Saturday night. And likewise, why couldn't "no one" organize an alternative dance in the area?  They already don't want to go to the other dance, and probably many of them don't.  Why not have another option for those other people to get out and dance too? I read lots of David's essays, so it might have been a different one that made the point about having it be "normal" to play fiddle tunes.  But I think the same way about dancing.  Wouldn't it be awesome if there were so much dancing in the area that people thought it was "normal"? One more thing about community-mindedness.  I agree with Perry that this is an important aspect of our dance forms.  Still, I think it's okay for people to want different things. Yours in pondering, Chrissy Fowler "Dance, when you're broken open... dance, when you're perfectly free" ~ Rumi chrissyfowler.com belfastflyingshoes.org westbranchwords.com                         _______________________________________________ Organizers mailing list Organizers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers