I'm a little late responding to this thread, but after reading some of Greg's comments below, I had to reply, specifically to Greg's contention that it is misleading and incorrect to try and categorize dancers into beginners, intermediate and advanced.
Well, I think I understand the desire not to pigeonhole dancers, but those categories are sometimes useful. If I'm calling a dance out of town where I've never called before, I would find it helpful if the dance organizer told me ahead of time "you should expect that at least half of the dancers will be total novices", or "our group consists mostly of very experienced dancers who will welcome new and challenging dances from a visiting caller". When I call a dance I don't just pull dance cards out at random, I develop a program for the evening, usually beginning with less complicated dances. And having some basic information about the average skill level of the group I'm calling to is really useful. It's just common sense. If Greg has not been able to identify any beginning dancers at any of the venues where he's been a caller, he may be trying a little too hard to overlook those poor souls who need the caller to continue calling for longer than usual (and yes, sometimes all the way to the end). The argument against categorizing dancers reminds of a similar argument, that because there exists a spectrum of human skin color based on the amount of melanin in our skin, then there's no such thing as race. In a real world, practical sense, we all know that's not true. -Lewis Land ---- Greg McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > Friends, > > Below is a discussion in which I am challenging some basic assumptions > common on this list. The statements I am analyzing come from one dance > caller. But I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing any > individual caller. I am challenging some of the frames we all use to think > about our open, public, contra dances. These frames are used by the vast > Martha also wrote: > > > I believe strongly that we must try to meet the needs of at least three > > groups of dancers: beginners, intermediate dancers and advanced dancers. > > > > This is an area that I have done research on and I was unable to find any > "beginners,"intermediate dancers," or "advanced dancers" at any of the > contra dance events I surveyed. None. In the contra dance tradition there > is no "course of study" available to anyone that would define such > demarcations. There is not even any typical path to gaining experience in > dancing contras. > > Furthermore you cannot define these terms in any meaningful way. (I have > tried using the number of contras attended and the time spent dancing > contras. Neither one makes sense for these categories.) My challenge to > any of you who use these terms is to show me a system for categorizing any > contra dancer into one, and only one, of these three classifications. It > must be based upon observable and verifiable behaviors that we can come to > some agreement on such as "figures or moves mastered by each level" and a > means of testing dancers. > > You cannot do that. > If you try you will meet substantial resistance from many of us who love > this dance form. >
