Keith wrote: > At the Pinewoods A&E week last summer, Jacqui from Michigan (Henry's wife) > told me she had read a research article that studied peoples' sense of > rhythm and timing. The article concluded that about 20% of all people never > develop a "sense" of rhythm/timing as they age. They further found that, of > that 20%, almost none of them were able to improve their rhythm even after > extensive work to improve their timing. Rhythm is apparently something you > pick up when you're younger, and if it's not gotten then, you likely aren't > getting it... So that's one thing to keep in mind when dealing with newbies, > or some of the perpetual beginners in your dance groups.
> But Alan and Martha touch on something else. People who just don't connect > in some sensory way that we expect them to.... Some people have very extreme > and/or erratic reactions to new experiences, one or more senses will do > surprising things. The guy at the calling party didn't understand until the > end that the caller is telling you what to do--why didn't he? He probably > observed everyone else moving along to what a caller said, and the same > words were said when he got individual instruction--but nothing sank in. No > offense, Martha, but did anyone simply tell him to listen to the caller? > Some part of his hearing, or learning process, was simply shut down until > the end of the dance. Who knows why? Fear? Embarrassment? Literally being > "out of his mind" and not allowing himself to focus on the real world? You do see people who seem to be in that state. Sometimes you can tell by the panicky look that they've stopped accepting input. (Partners who tell them, convincingly, that its all going to be fine, are sometimes helpful.) > I've had one woman tell me directly, and have heard the same from another > indirectly, that the dancing was so tactilely and physically stimulating > that she would get close to orgasming on the floor, and that made it > difficult to hear and follow the caller... This example is probably a less > common one, but the point is, we have no idea of all the emotional, mental > and physical things happening on the dance floor that may be getting in the > way of people being more successful. You just try to get their attention, > and lead them gently to where you want to go if you get it. (This is one > argument for keeping beginner sessions short: they already come in with so > much on their minds, you shouldn't be trying to dump 30-45-60 minutes of new > info into an already-addled brain. Get 'em moving, to get them out of their > heads ASAP.) Indeed. (Although there's maybe more head in ECD generally than in contra generally.) > Alan, if that Portabella sequence is what you used to judge your beginner > with... well, we have regular dancers with talent who would mess up that > sequence 3 times out of 10. Give me _some_ credit. Portabella was the fourth dance of the evening. The only dance that worked for him at all was "Double Lead Through" (where, with a swing-and-change progression, you don't need to worry about whether you're casting down the outside or going up the middle, and your partner can insist on where you end up). But I couldn't run a whole evening of swing-and-change dances, or of ceilidh or barn dances. "Zephyrs and Flora" was too much for him. The A music of "Trip to Tunbridge" was too much for him (down the outside and back; down the middle and back and cast off); he still didn't have a concept of which was which. Portabella just displayed really clearly that he wasn't recognizing where the sequence began or ended. -- Alan -- =============================================================================== Alan Winston --- [email protected] Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056 Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025 ===============================================================================
