I think that Andrea (hi Andrea!) is seeking 2 changes in the way we tend to do things. Personally, I don't agree with the first but very much like the 2nd.

The first point relates to positional calling v gender calling. I am yet to be persuaded that the former is a sensible replacement for the latter. Using positional calling requires agreement as to whether it is 'relative', ie where I am now or 'absolute', where I started this dance. I think that most people are more aware of whether they are male or female than which corner they are. If you are dancing the opposite gender role then that is your choice, you know it, and can respond almost immediately. If you are 'male' or 'female' then you know that instantly. My contention is that it takes much longer for people to realize that they are supposed to be moving if you describe the move in terms of corners. This is much more important if you are working with newer dancers and perhaps less so with those who attend dance camps. My experience working with, mostly or all female groups of dancers, is that the dancers are much happier with the use of gender terms (and some of them using neckties or some other marker to identify them as 'men') than they are with positional terminology. I have also experimented with the concept of 'left-hand' and 'right-hand' person. Whilst this has some attraction it fails for me because it is not possible to guarantee that the dancers concerned are in the correct position (eg not circling far enough, ending swing on the wrong side). It also fails for me because it requires absolute certainty regarding who the current group of four are - after all, everyone is on the left-hand of someone and the right-hand of someone else

I will also continue to beat the drum that probably about 90% of the population are cis-gendered and that eliminating the use of gender terms makes contra (and ECD etc) much less accessible to new dancers. IMHO we should be doing everything we can to encourage more people to join us rather than frighten them away.

Andrea's second point is about the courtesy turn. I had never thought of it like this but I love the concept of doing it 'with' someone and that it is always the person who is moving across or along the set who keeps moving forward and the receiving person who rotates backwards. Thank you Andrea! It just goes to show that you are never too old to learn a new trick :)

Michael Barraclough

www.michaelbarraclough.com

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 6:25:09 PM MST Andrea wrote:

Regarding designating a pair to chain, or do anything else:

If we introduced the concept of corner positions as ECD uses the term, for within the hands four (as opposed to contra corners which extends beyond it), you could just say --corners chain.  Whoever happened to be there would chain, whether gent, lady, lark, raven, what have you.  "On the second corner chain" from becket, would mean the ladies chain, but from improper, facing across, second corners chain would be gents, chaining from the right.  And we could equally call first corners chain from either of those positions with the opposite result.  Getting people used to corners would mean you could call any two person move without designating a gendered role.  Every pairing can be named: partner, neighbor, shadow, 1's, 2's, either corner, in short waves-centers or ends, in long waves in-facers and out-facers.  People might need to be more precise about fractional things.  This is not necessarily bad.

If we do as Michael has, still keeping role names, we need to be careful how we describe the courtesy turn.  He said 'gents pull by left then courtesy turn (the one they meet)'.  Often courtesy turn is described thus, as something done to another.  I like using the word 'with' to  make it the more mutual movement it is.  It might need to be emphasized that the crosser is the one who moves forward and the receiver the one who backs up.

First stab,

Andrea

Sent from my external brain

On Mar 23, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Roger Diggle diggle@contrawise.net [trad-dance-callers] <trad-dance-callers@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ...
This is a subject that probably deserves its own thread - so
I'll start it.

On 3/20/17 at 10:27 PM, trad-dance-callers@yahoogroups.com
(Michael Barraclough michael@michaelbarraclough.com
[trad-dance-callers]) wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2017 9:46:43 PM MST Dale wrote:
>The move at the beginning of B2 is usually called a "men's
>chain" -- at least here in Saint Louis. It's not a common
>move, but it's not unheard of.
>
>I deliberately didn't call it a "men's chain", which it of
>course is :) because I see that term used ambiguously as to
>whether the chainee starts on the left or on the right of the
>chainer; which hands the chainees take to start the chain; and
>also who backs up in the courtesy turn.
>
>Michael Barraclough
>www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
>