This is probably a regional or specific community thing. In our village, St Louis, Missouri, we just line up improper, and there's a bit of a confused scuffle if a caller decides (rarely) to call a proper dance. Even though we do that, our callers usually say, just for tradition's sake, "Line up for a contra dance, ones cross over" or, if the caller has been calling for 20-30 years, "actives change places", but it's usually irrelevant, since the whole hall is already in that formation.
We do mention in the beginners class that, historically, the men lined up in one line and the women in the other and that at some point most dances began starting with the top couple crossed over, but I doubt if anyone really remembers that along with all the other, more useful information we give them in that class. Mostly, it's just "men on the left, ladies on the right," and people do what others around them are doing. After they do it often enough it becomes "just what we do." So we just line up improper, with no thought for the historical precedent. Some people might momentarily wonder "What's an active?" So I'm surprised that your experience is so different, and it makes me think that your dancers must have started dancing a lot longer ago than our dancers - oh, wait! They did! So your village speaks a different dialect. Cool. M E On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Chrissy Fowler <[email protected]>wrote: > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > people to get into position. c > > I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this sentence. > I've never danced at, or called, ore even heard about a dance where the > caller could "just wait for people to get into position." Where does this > happen? > > I've experienced a few (notable for their rarity) dances where the dancers > IMMEDIATELY take hand four and cross when the caller asks the first time, > for example Montpelier in the late 1990s/early 2000s. (Quite shocking for > a caller used to having at least 4 requests worth of time to talk w band, > etc. before the hands four improper status is achieved.) But this notion > of actually lining up improper is new to me. > > Would the caller just know, at a glance, that everyone in a crowded hall > was correctly in position to start the walkthrough? How would dancers > joining the set know that the folks above them were in position correctly? > How much less time does it take than lining up proper and taking hands > four accordingly? > > Chrissy Fowler > Belfast, ME > > PS In case anyone is taking down data... > - I find as a caller and a dancer that it works well/efficiently to have > all gents in one line, all ladies in the other, start at top, take hands > four, id ones/twos and down/up line of direction for progression, id > neighbors. Even when I'm calling only duple improper contras all night. > - I have no attachment to using terms proper/improper, or > actives/inactives, with duple proper symmetrical dances. > - I think that habitual "insensitive twirling" (late, dangerous, awkward, > confusing-for-twirlee) is a detriment to the spirit of trad NE social > dance. And I say this as someone who has done every one of those sorts of > twirls as a dancer (late, dangerous, awkward, confusing-the-twirlee -- in > my case, with gents who don't expect me to initiate a twirl for them) But > when I do it, I know it's a problem for others around me. You know, sort > of like when you look down and realize you are going 60 in a 35mph zone. > Whoopsy! > > > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5 > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:00:22 -0400 > > > > Send Callers mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman) > > 2. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > (George Mercer) > > 3. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > (Charles Hannum) > > 4. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > ([email protected]) > > 5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman) > > 6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:32:09 -0400 > > From: Jeff Kaufman <[email protected]> > > To: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]> > > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > absorbing? > > > > Jeff > > > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > > > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400 > > From: George Mercer <[email protected]> > > To: "Caller's discussion list" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > Message-ID: > > <CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh= > [email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Good point. I agree. Thanks, George > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > > > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > > > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > > > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > > > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > > absorbing? > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > > > > > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Callers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400 > > From: Charles Hannum <[email protected]> > > To: "Caller's discussion list" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > Message-ID: > > <CAEqW=hNoJ3xs+_JH6sAMSLruQWagnox6joqw15TC+=8ZuG= > [email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > > absorbing? > > > > > > > If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the people in > > the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in headlights. Much > like > > why triplets, triple minors, and even squares, do not work well in the > > Boston-area contra dance scene any more, even though they used to be > called > > frequently back in the VFW days. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:03:18 +0000 (UTC) > > From: [email protected] > > To: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > Message-ID: > > < > 596413448.2373327.1336158198630.javamail.r...@sz0061a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > Without using the terminology of "proper", I? find it easier when > teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their > respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change places with > their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on the right and > ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing.? If i do call a proper > dance during the evening, it's easy enough to have them line up that way. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeff Kaufman" <[email protected]> > > To: "Caller's discussion list" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM > > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > absorbing? > > > > Jeff > > > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > > > ??http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:16:24 -0400 > > From: Jeff Kaufman <[email protected]> > > To: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > Charles Hannum wrote: > > > > > > If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the > > > people in the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in > > > headlights. > > > > > > > I would say that if a caller wants to do something uncommon they > > should be prepared to teach it to the people who haven't seen it > > before. > > > > You seem to be proposing that callers teach things they don't intend > > to use so callers at future dances don't have to. > > > > (I wasn't trying to get into the question of whether the caller was > > wrong to program an evening without any proper or unequal-turn dances, > > though I don't think they were.) > > > > Jeff > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400 > > From: Linda Leslie <[email protected]> > > To: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > > I agree with [email protected]. I very often will ask a large group > > of new dancers to line up proper (and I explain what that means), for > > *my* benefit. I share that when dancers line up in this way, it > > signals me that they are ready to start dancing, and that it is easier > > to organize the actual formation that comes next. This also leads to a > > more direct understanding of what improper then means, so what we > > teach/dance than takes on some logic. I also mention some history, > > but never take too long doing it. > > > > And even if I don't call an actual proper formation dance, there are > > lots of times when it is useful to let dancers know that they are > > "proper" and that this is the correct position to be in. A good > > example would be a contra corners (cc) dance (not talking about > > beginners here). It is helpful for folks to know that they are in > > proper formation at the start of the cc (at least for most cc dances). > > > > The time spent on this concept is minimal, and I believe well worth > > the time. Sharing information is more inclusive, and I believe dancers > > appreciate this. > > Interesting thread! Thanks, Jeff! > > warmly, Linda Leslie > > > > On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Without using the terminology of "proper", I find it easier when > > > teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their > > > respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change > > > places with their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on > > > the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing. If > > > i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to > > > have them line up that way. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Jeff Kaufman" <[email protected]> > > > To: "Caller's discussion list" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM > > > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it > > > > > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with > > > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's > > > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, > > > especially callers, still think of it that way. > > > > > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were > > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for > > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with > > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for > > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced > > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any > > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they > > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? > > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be > > > absorbing? > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: > > > > > > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Callers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Callers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > > End of Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5 > > ************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > -- As you set out for Ithaka, pray that your journey be long, full of adventure, full of discovery... May there be many summer mornings when, with what pleasure, with what joy, you enter harbors you're seeing for the first time. ~Constantine Cavafy, "Ithaka" 1911
