My point is not about novelty: I'm taking that as a given. I'm asking what people think about redefining a call that's well establish by modern squares. It's not even the hundreds of calls in the entire repertoire but calls from the Basic and Mainstream programs, the two simplest there are many which would be familiar to seasoned contra dancers. I am not lobbying for contra callers to learn modern squares but at least be aware of the overlap potential.
\bob On Dec 4, 2011, at 13:04, Martha Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed! Interestingly, you can actually "get used to" a dance (or a life) > filled with novelty. People who are used to having dances with lots of new > things in them get upset when you do all glossary dances. > > M > E > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Mark Hillegonds > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm starting a new thread to respond to Greg's comments below. This post is >> not about whether Greg's approach is right or wrong. If the people who >> attend his dances are happy, then that's what really matters for Greg and >> his dancers. >> >> I'd like to broaden the discussion to a more general idea of avoiding "mild >> confusion" and not pushing dancers beyond that comfort zone. >> >> I've noticed that when I have trouble calling, it's almost always the >> perpetual beginner dancers who complain about doing something new. They >> aren't able to see beyond their own limited abilities. I once called for a >> community who was used to dancing only certain moves and to a few local >> callers. I was almost thrown out for having the audacity to have the men >> start a hey. This community was so ossified it was no longer open to doing >> anything outside of its normal routine. >> >> New dancers don't know that this move is considered easy and that move is >> considered hard. They don't know what they should or shouldn't be able to >> do. I'd argue that the primary reason they're at the dance in the first >> place is because they want to do something different than the same ol' >> thing >> they usually do. They're looking for new and interesting challenges. >> >> It's my opinion that dancers need to "exercise" their dancing bodies and >> brains, much as one exercises one's muscles. If we don't push ourselves a >> little, as callers and dancers and organizers, then we and our communities >> will atrophy. >> >> Mark Hillegonds >> >> cell: 734-756-8441 >> email: [email protected] >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg McKenzie >> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:57 AM >> To: Caller's discussion list >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square >> dancing >> >> I think standardization is a good thing, in all forms of engineering. >> Personally, I stick to calling dances that require only a small set of >> standardized figures. My goal is to keep this art form available to the >> most people possible. I know that I, personally, would not have kept >> dancing contras if a lot of new calls had been thrown at me every time I >> attended. My goal is to keep that venue open to the general non-dancing >> public. >> >> So I would not use the call. I have a number of dances in my collection >> that I no longer use because they contain calls that could cause "mild >> confusion" for some dancers. Of course, almost all of the dances I call >> are open to the general public. >> >> - Greg McKenzie >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers >
