Ron, I don't dance ECD where you do, so I can't speak to your experience, but where I live, it is not uncommon to do an ECD with one short walk through. Only very complex or long dances require more, but the same can be said of some more outré contras. I would argue that in many ECD's, the moves are piled one on another so the call has to be intricately stacked, and yes, the tempi vary, some being much faster than what contra dancers are accustomed to, some slower. It is so not the case that ECD gives more time to react to the calls, and a late call can train wreck an ECD quite as easily as a contra. Yup, contra sometimes has medleys. These are not the rule. Many communities rarely experience them. And we callers cannot put just any contra in a medley. We rely on experience and quick reaction time. A crowd equally experienced with global positioning would have the same quicksilver instinctive reaction to corner terms as we have to ladies and gents. That a contra has a changeable tune is neither here nor there. I'm getting ready to call an English dance that does just that, requiring merely lively square jigs. I'd say it is possible that the reason corners ceased to be used was exactly because contra was a gendered dance. You could predict who was in what corner based on the choreography and simply call to ladies and gents. In proper ECD, you needed corners because those diagonals contained mixed gender pairs. Proper contras, for whatever reason, stopped using moves involving mixed gender corners, aside from contra corners. I don't know the exact historical reason, but perhaps expedient simplicity, puritanical separation of the sexes, or a move toward non hierarchical dance? Once gendered terms began being used instead of corners, choreography was written utilizing that mode and reinforcing it. That has worked for over a hundred years. Now our society is changing and some would like the dance to reflect that. Re instituting practices which allow for any gender on the corners is merely taking a good old idea and giving it new life. You are saying it can't work, and perhaps are imagining trying to call your normal program to your accustomed crowd without any preparation. Of course you can't do that. I'm saying it can work, because I'm imagining taking many evening of carefully selected dances, well taught, to train people to be as comfortable with positional calling as they are with role names. Then they will have the same reaction time and medleys etc. are totally in the realm of possibility. Anyone imagining that just throwing new names at this issue is going to solve it is naïve. It's going to take work to uproot cultural and subcultural expectations, habits, attitudes. Many will not even see this as desirable. Role name change is a bandaid, a pretty transparent one at that, designed to give the appearance of gender neutrality while changing nothing about how we view ourselves in the dance. Personally, I appreciate Jim Hemphill's hey let's just go for it attitude (though but in from the community would be good). He didn't ask himself all the ways it might fail, he asked himself how he could make it succeed. And succeed he apparently did. I think further success, with all of our repertoire, is within reach. Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask > On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Ron Blechner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comparing ECD and Contra has uses. But only to a point. > > Consider: > > ECD walkthroughs often take many times longer than contra walkthroughs. > > The pace and tempo of ECD and Contra are often exceedingly different. Contra > dancers often have far less time to react to words they hear. > > Contra has medleys. > > Contra and ECD pull from different move sets, and while similar, is a factor. > > Contra dances need to work with a variety of musical tunes. > > So with those in mind, rhetorical statements like "If they were that awkward, > they would have long since been replaced." don't work. Relying on "it works > in ECD so it works in contra" - or vice versa - is not feasible. > > Also, they *have* been replaced. Contra grew out of ECD, and the terms > changed to fit. The fact that contra grew out of using corners is evidence > that corners doesn't work for contra. Else, why'd it ever grow away from > those terms? > >> On Jun 2, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> English callers and dancers clearly have no trouble saying or understanding >> these terms. If they were that awkward, they would long since have been >> replaced. I think we see positions as roles purely from habit. If I taught >> a roomful of kids who had never danced using no roles, would they think of >> having danced a role? >> >> >> It's each leader's call how to teach ballroom hold. I suggest getting >> becket, the noting which hand you are holding with your P, so you can >> remember to end holding it again. Keep holding that hand as you face P. >> Place those same hands on your partners scapula, the dancer using Rhd below, >> left hand user above. The free indicator hands are then loosely connected. >> Boom, ballroom hold. You still use the loose hand to indicate which way to >> face after the swing and let go of them, opening up like a book, so you are >> again holding the connector hands as in the beginning. >> >> I'm wondering what kinds of groups are even contemplating using non gendered >> terms, or positional calling. Experienced groups of dancers currently using >> 'gents and ladies' seem unlikely to do so, and it would likely have little >> effect on the way people dance. Most would continue dancing whatever role >> they usually did, and pretty soon, any newcomer could see at a glance that >> if male, one dances Jet, and if female, Ruby. So we'd just end up with >> another pair of terms associated with traditional gender roles. Positional >> calling prevents the reassociation of gender with a new term, but I bet the >> structure of the dance would be largely unchanged. >> OTOH, if we are talking about groups which have always been gender free, or >> new groups which fully intend to be gender free, I believe there would be >> little resistance to using global terminology, and using corners as a >> position, not a person, is the ultimate neutral mode. The assumption there >> is that all dancers are created equal, and it's a team sport, where each >> needs to understand the whole dance and their place in it. >> The topic has been broached, as I understand it, because we care about >> making the dance space, or some dance spaces, a safe place to not worry >> about gender identity, because some people are very sensitive/are >> exploring/have identified in a non traditional way. If we are sincere in >> our wish to make them comfortable, that care does not end because it >> requires more effort to learn to understand and teach a particular way. >> Inconvenient isn't relevant. We are creative people. If we wanted to, we >> could shorten those terms for prompting (firsts and seconds). We can train >> ourselves to deeply understand how the positions work and evolve cleaner, >> more efficient teaches. The search, to my understanding, was for an optimal >> universal way of calling gender free contra. If we are ok with sub optimal, >> we could just keep bands and bares, or the occasional moon and stars, which >> have been used for decades. I will use whatever any given community wants >> me to use. If I were faced with offering an option to my home gender free >> group, I would do my best first to try to be a kick ass global terminology >> caller, before giving in to naming roles, because I truly believe that >> method is more neutral than any other. >> Cheers, >> Andrea >> >> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >> >>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I think Ron's point is that with this set of terms (i.e. 1st/2nd corner >>> refers to the person rather than the position), if we're in an improper >>> context, we've basically circled back around to labeling the roles, only >>> these role labels seem unideal because they have lots of syllables and >>> sound relatively similar. At the point at which we're talking about "first >>> corner" and "second corner", isn't it less of a mouthful, easier to >>> understand, and easier for experienced dancers to convert into terms they >>> understand to have a set of terms like jets[gems]/rubies or larks/ravens? >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> It's the person in that position at the start of the dance, and that >>>> designation stays with you throughout the dance. If you switch throughout >>>> the dance, then your corner designation may change. It also has meaning >>>> in dance terms, where larks/ravens etc are just made up names. As a >>>> matter of fact I'm more likely to remember my corner designation than >>>> whether I am a lark or a raven. >>>> >>>> Perry >>>> >>>> From: Ron Blechner <[email protected]> >>>> To: Perry Shafran <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]>; Andrea Nettleton >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:45 AM >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling >>>> >>>> If you want to redefine "corner" as a person, not a position... >>>> On Jun 2, 2015 10:41 AM, "Perry Shafran via Callers" >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> After thinking about this I think I am starting to agree with Andrea in >>>> that corners (first & second) just might be the perfect term to use. In >>>> ECD, where most dances are proper, the first corner is gent 1 and lady 2, >>>> because in proper dances there are different genders on the diagonal. In >>>> an improper dance (most contra dances), there are same genders on the >>>> diagonal. So therefore the ladies would be in the first corner positions >>>> (same positions as in a proper English dance), and the gents are the >>>> second corners. In a swing, first corners end up on the right. I think >>>> by thinking about it this way you could do any dance, easy to challenging, >>>> with the corner terminology in place. Just substitute any incidence of >>>> "gents" in your choreography with "second corner" and "ladies" with "first >>>> corner". >>>> >>>> Perry >>>> >>>> From: Andrea Nettleton via Callers <[email protected]> >>>> To: Michael Fuerst <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:31 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling >>>> >>>> Hey Michael, >>>> I think you mean that those who began the dance as first corners, will >>>> always end swings on the right, just as they are standing relative to >>>> their partner in the hands four. >>>> >>>> The dance is obscure to the dancers only to the degree the caller is >>>> unable to elucidate it. It may take effort for callers to learn to teach >>>> as effectively this way, but that doesn't make it less clear. When I >>>> called to the SFQCD, ninety percent of the dancers were men. Even with >>>> bands and bare arms, so as clear an indication of role as they could >>>> achieve, they struggled with who ends where after stuff. What if I could >>>> have given them the tool of knowing their corners, and in addition, the >>>> clear instruction to note carefully which hand they held when standing >>>> next to their partner? That would always be their connector hand when >>>> standing as a couple after swings, chains, and R&L thrus. The twofold >>>> active attention might have served them far better than the arbitrary >>>> labels. Understanding that the pattern of the dance depends on knowing >>>> your geography makes sense. Adding into that the need to remember a label >>>> doesn't improve the odds the geography will stick, at least it didn't >>>> there. In my opinion, looking for a person is less reliable than knowing >>>> your place in the dance. People mess up, but the place is always there. >>>> >>>> AN >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Consider this dance >>>>> >>>>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst March, 1991 A1 >>>>> Balance and swing neighbor. A2 Men allemande left 1 1/2 and swing >>>>> partner. B1 Long lines forward and back. Women chain to neighbor. B2 >>>>> Women allemande right (4). 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left >>>>> shoulder, until neighbors on the side they started the dance (8). >>>>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set to meet new >>>>> neighbors (4). >>>>> Using this thread's suggestions, I think this becomes (as long as dancers >>>>> understand that those starting as second corners always end the swing on >>>>> the right) >>>>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst March, 1991 A1 >>>>> Balance and swing neighbor. A2 First corners allemande left 1 1/2 and >>>>> swing partner. B1 Long lines forward and back. Second corners chain to >>>>> neighbor. B2 Second corners allemande right (4). 1/2 hey, neighbors start >>>>> passing left shoulder, until neighbors on the side they started the dance >>>>> (8). Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set to >>>>> meet new neighbors (4) >>>>> This makes the dance obscure to beginning and intermediate dancers. Seems >>>>> best to have names corresponding to the men's and women's roles, rather >>>>> than to have dancer's determine which corners they are at any point in >>>>> the dance. >>>>> >>>>> Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:26 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket >>>>> almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people >>>>> so they stick. I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris >>>>> use diagonal. In contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, >>>>> meaning the next pair along across the set to the right or left. The >>>>> corner reference we have is actually close to right, probably having >>>>> grown out of triple minor dances. Right diagonal is first corner, Left >>>>> diagonal is second. Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of >>>>> corners along opposite angles. It's a place not a person. Then I can >>>>> write a dance beginning with a second corner chain, and it will be those >>>>> formerly identified as gents, but will work totally fine. If the dance >>>>> were proper, you could still have a second diagonals chain and it would >>>>> be one of each 'role'. A direct transfer of the system to contra is not >>>>> as useful as adapting, IMHO. >>>>> Andrea >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global >>>>> calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller >>>>> self improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in >>>>> not gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can >>>>> answer. >>>>> >>>>> The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published >>>>> the most in) is designed for proper longways. Men's line is left file, >>>>> ladies line is right file. In a square or Becket formation gents place >>>>> are first diagonals, ladies are second diagonals. Corner is reserved for >>>>> contra corners and the immediate neighbor in a square. >>>>> >>>>> However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set, >>>>> first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second >>>>> gent). If you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was >>>>> suggesting, the ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second >>>>> corners. >>>>> >>>>> The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we now >>>>> do with gender is to substitute a corner reference. First corners make a >>>>> wave in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to >>>>> becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply >>>>> before you becketize, which would be my preference. >>>>> >>>>> Does that clear it up ? >>>>> >>>>> Alan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andrea, how would you handle the following: >>>>>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip >>>>>> to Lambertville, et all? >>>>>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star? >>>>>> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers, >>>>>> Jurassic Redheads, etc. >>>>>> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey. >>>>>> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate? >>>>>> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't >>>>>> mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways? >>>>>> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated. >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at >>>>>> Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of >>>>>> global terminology for gender free contra. I would contend that if >>>>>> used, everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances. Only >>>>>> the most unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called. The >>>>>> addition of first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it >>>>>> possible for same role dancers to also be called upon to dance together >>>>>> without reference to gender. Second corners chain, or first corners >>>>>> allemande L 1 1/2 for example. It would have to be agreed that this >>>>>> refers to those standing in those positions at that moment. In ECD we >>>>>> use first and second corners to refer to the people, first and second >>>>>> diagonals for the positions. But since we use diagonal to refer to >>>>>> those across and over one set, this seems unhelpful. Simply corner >>>>>> positions works better. I'm glad some folks are trying it out at last. >>>>>> I had hoped for an opportunity myself before now. >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Andrea >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The recent discussions on this topic inspired me to try an experiment >>>>>>> in gender free calling. Last night I called the contra dance in St. >>>>>>> Louis using gender free calling without telling anyone. The >>>>>>> experiment was a great success. I received lots of positive feedback >>>>>>> on the evenings dance. At the break and after the dance I made a point >>>>>>> to ask several dancers, some were callers as well, if they noticed >>>>>>> anything different or unusual about the dances or how I taught them. >>>>>>> One person noticed that there were more dances that included a swing in >>>>>>> the center for couple 2 than usual. No one I talked to noticed that >>>>>>> the calls and teaching were gender free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It took some extra time to construct a fun, diverse 3 hour program, but >>>>>>> it is certainly possible. Re-labeling the dancers is not the only way >>>>>>> to call gender free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are interested in the program I used or the larger collection of >>>>>>> gender free dances I chose the program from, send me an email, >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Jim Hemphill >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask > On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Ron Blechner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comparing ECD and Contra has uses. But only to a point. > > Consider: > > ECD walkthroughs often take many times longer than contra walkthroughs. > > The pace and tempo of ECD and Contra are often exceedingly different. Contra > dancers often have far less time to react to words they hear. > > Contra has medleys. > > Contra and ECD pull from different move sets, and while similar, is a factor. > > Contra dances need to work with a variety of musical tunes. > > So with those in mind, rhetorical statements like "If they were that awkward, > they would have long since been replaced." don't work. Relying on "it works > in ECD so it works in contra" - or vice versa - is not feasible. > > Also, they *have* been replaced. Contra grew out of ECD, and the terms > changed to fit. The fact that contra grew out of using corners is evidence > that corners doesn't work for contra. Else, why'd it ever grow away from > those terms? > >> On Jun 2, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> English callers and dancers clearly have no trouble saying or understanding >> these terms. If they were that awkward, they would long since have been >> replaced. I think we see positions as roles purely from habit. If I taught >> a roomful of kids who had never danced using no roles, would they think of >> having danced a role? >> >> >> It's each leader's call how to teach ballroom hold. I suggest getting >> becket, the noting which hand you are holding with your P, so you can >> remember to end holding it again. Keep holding that hand as you face P. >> Place those same hands on your partners scapula, the dancer using Rhd below, >> left hand user above. The free indicator hands are then loosely connected. >> Boom, ballroom hold. You still use the loose hand to indicate which way to >> face after the swing and let go of them, opening up like a book, so you are >> again holding the connector hands as in the beginning. >> >> I'm wondering what kinds of groups are even contemplating using non gendered >> terms, or positional calling. Experienced groups of dancers currently using >> 'gents and ladies' seem unlikely to do so, and it would likely have little >> effect on the way people dance. Most would continue dancing whatever role >> they usually did, and pretty soon, any newcomer could see at a glance that >> if male, one dances Jet, and if female, Ruby. So we'd just end up with >> another pair of terms associated with traditional gender roles. Positional >> calling prevents the reassociation of gender with a new term, but I bet the >> structure of the dance would be largely unchanged. >> OTOH, if we are talking about groups which have always been gender free, or >> new groups which fully intend to be gender free, I believe there would be >> little resistance to using global terminology, and using corners as a >> position, not a person, is the ultimate neutral mode. The assumption there >> is that all dancers are created equal, and it's a team sport, where each >> needs to understand the whole dance and their place in it. >> The topic has been broached, as I understand it, because we care about >> making the dance space, or some dance spaces, a safe place to not worry >> about gender identity, because some people are very sensitive/are >> exploring/have identified in a non traditional way. If we are sincere in >> our wish to make them comfortable, that care does not end because it >> requires more effort to learn to understand and teach a particular way. >> Inconvenient isn't relevant. We are creative people. If we wanted to, we >> could shorten those terms for prompting (firsts and seconds). We can train >> ourselves to deeply understand how the positions work and evolve cleaner, >> more efficient teaches. The search, to my understanding, was for an optimal >> universal way of calling gender free contra. If we are ok with sub optimal, >> we could just keep bands and bares, or the occasional moon and stars, which >> have been used for decades. I will use whatever any given community wants >> me to use. If I were faced with offering an option to my home gender free >> group, I would do my best first to try to be a kick ass global terminology >> caller, before giving in to naming roles, because I truly believe that >> method is more neutral than any other. >> Cheers, >> Andrea >> >> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >> >>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I think Ron's point is that with this set of terms (i.e. 1st/2nd corner >>> refers to the person rather than the position), if we're in an improper >>> context, we've basically circled back around to labeling the roles, only >>> these role labels seem unideal because they have lots of syllables and >>> sound relatively similar. At the point at which we're talking about "first >>> corner" and "second corner", isn't it less of a mouthful, easier to >>> understand, and easier for experienced dancers to convert into terms they >>> understand to have a set of terms like jets[gems]/rubies or larks/ravens? >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> It's the person in that position at the start of the dance, and that >>>> designation stays with you throughout the dance. If you switch throughout >>>> the dance, then your corner designation may change. It also has meaning >>>> in dance terms, where larks/ravens etc are just made up names. As a >>>> matter of fact I'm more likely to remember my corner designation than >>>> whether I am a lark or a raven. >>>> >>>> Perry >>>> >>>> From: Ron Blechner <[email protected]> >>>> To: Perry Shafran <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]>; Andrea Nettleton >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:45 AM >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling >>>> >>>> If you want to redefine "corner" as a person, not a position... >>>> On Jun 2, 2015 10:41 AM, "Perry Shafran via Callers" >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> After thinking about this I think I am starting to agree with Andrea in >>>> that corners (first & second) just might be the perfect term to use. In >>>> ECD, where most dances are proper, the first corner is gent 1 and lady 2, >>>> because in proper dances there are different genders on the diagonal. In >>>> an improper dance (most contra dances), there are same genders on the >>>> diagonal. So therefore the ladies would be in the first corner positions >>>> (same positions as in a proper English dance), and the gents are the >>>> second corners. In a swing, first corners end up on the right. I think >>>> by thinking about it this way you could do any dance, easy to challenging, >>>> with the corner terminology in place. Just substitute any incidence of >>>> "gents" in your choreography with "second corner" and "ladies" with "first >>>> corner". >>>> >>>> Perry >>>> >>>> From: Andrea Nettleton via Callers <[email protected]> >>>> To: Michael Fuerst <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:31 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling >>>> >>>> Hey Michael, >>>> I think you mean that those who began the dance as first corners, will >>>> always end swings on the right, just as they are standing relative to >>>> their partner in the hands four. >>>> >>>> The dance is obscure to the dancers only to the degree the caller is >>>> unable to elucidate it. It may take effort for callers to learn to teach >>>> as effectively this way, but that doesn't make it less clear. When I >>>> called to the SFQCD, ninety percent of the dancers were men. Even with >>>> bands and bare arms, so as clear an indication of role as they could >>>> achieve, they struggled with who ends where after stuff. What if I could >>>> have given them the tool of knowing their corners, and in addition, the >>>> clear instruction to note carefully which hand they held when standing >>>> next to their partner? That would always be their connector hand when >>>> standing as a couple after swings, chains, and R&L thrus. The twofold >>>> active attention might have served them far better than the arbitrary >>>> labels. Understanding that the pattern of the dance depends on knowing >>>> your geography makes sense. Adding into that the need to remember a label >>>> doesn't improve the odds the geography will stick, at least it didn't >>>> there. In my opinion, looking for a person is less reliable than knowing >>>> your place in the dance. People mess up, but the place is always there. >>>> >>>> AN >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Consider this dance >>>>> >>>>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst >>>>> March, 1991 >>>>> >>>>> A1 Balance and swing neighbor. >>>>> >>>>> A2 Men allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner. >>>>> >>>>> B1 Long lines forward and back. Women chain to neighbor. >>>>> >>>>> B2 Women allemande right (4). >>>>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until >>>>> neighbors on the side they started the dance (8). >>>>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set to >>>>> meet new >>>>> neighbors (4). >>>>> Using this thread's suggestions, I think this becomes (as long as dancers >>>>> understand that those starting as second corners always end the swing on >>>>> the right) >>>>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst >>>>> March, 1991 >>>>> >>>>> A1 Balance and swing neighbor. >>>>> >>>>> A2 First corners allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner. >>>>> >>>>> B1 Long lines forward and back. Second corners chain to neighbor. >>>>> >>>>> B2 Second corners allemande right (4). >>>>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until >>>>> neighbors on the side they started the dance (8). >>>>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set to >>>>> meet new >>>>> neighbors (4) >>>>> This makes the dance obscure to beginning and intermediate dancers. >>>>> Seems best to have names corresponding to the men's and women's roles, >>>>> rather than to have dancer's determine which corners they are at any >>>>> point in the dance. >>>>> >>>>> Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:26 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket >>>>> almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people >>>>> so they stick. I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris >>>>> use diagonal. In contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, >>>>> meaning the next pair along across the set to the right or left. The >>>>> corner reference we have is actually close to right, probably having >>>>> grown out of triple minor dances. Right diagonal is first corner, Left >>>>> diagonal is second. Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of >>>>> corners along opposite angles. It's a place not a person. Then I can >>>>> write a dance beginning with a second corner chain, and it will be those >>>>> formerly identified as gents, but will work totally fine. If the dance >>>>> were proper, you could still have a second diagonals chain and it would >>>>> be one of each 'role'. A direct transfer of the system to contra is not >>>>> as useful as adapting, IMHO. >>>>> Andrea >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global >>>>> calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller >>>>> self improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in >>>>> not gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can >>>>> answer. >>>>> >>>>> The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published >>>>> the most in) is designed for proper longways. Men's line is left file, >>>>> ladies line is right file. In a square or Becket formation gents place >>>>> are first diagonals, ladies are second diagonals. Corner is reserved for >>>>> contra corners and the immediate neighbor in a square. >>>>> >>>>> However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set, >>>>> first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second >>>>> gent). If you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was >>>>> suggesting, the ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second >>>>> corners. >>>>> >>>>> The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we now >>>>> do with gender is to substitute a corner reference. First corners make a >>>>> wave in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to >>>>> becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply >>>>> before you becketize, which would be my preference. >>>>> >>>>> Does that clear it up ? >>>>> >>>>> Alan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andrea, how would you handle the following: >>>>>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip >>>>>> to Lambertville, et all? >>>>>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star? >>>>>> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers, >>>>>> Jurassic Redheads, etc. >>>>>> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey. >>>>>> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate? >>>>>> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't >>>>>> mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways? >>>>>> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated. >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at >>>>>> Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of >>>>>> global terminology for gender free contra. I would contend that if >>>>>> used, everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances. Only >>>>>> the most unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called. The >>>>>> addition of first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it >>>>>> possible for same role dancers to also be called upon to dance together >>>>>> without reference to gender. Second corners chain, or first corners >>>>>> allemande L 1 1/2 for example. It would have to be agreed that this >>>>>> refers to those standing in those positions at that moment. In ECD we >>>>>> use first and second corners to refer to the people, first and second >>>>>> diagonals for the positions. But since we use diagonal to refer to >>>>>> those across and over one set, this seems unhelpful. Simply corner >>>>>> positions works better. I'm glad some folks are trying it out at last. >>>>>> I had hoped for an opportunity myself before now. >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Andrea >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The recent discussions on this topic inspired me to try an experiment >>>>>>> in gender free calling. Last night I called the contra dance in St. >>>>>>> Louis using gender free calling without telling anyone. The >>>>>>> experiment was a great success. I received lots of positive feedback >>>>>>> on the evenings dance. At the break and after the dance I made a point >>>>>>> to ask several dancers, some were callers as well, if they noticed >>>>>>> anything different or unusual about the dances or how I taught them. >>>>>>> One person noticed that there were more dances that included a swing in >>>>>>> the center for couple 2 than usual. No one I talked to noticed that >>>>>>> the calls and teaching were gender free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It took some extra time to construct a fun, diverse 3 hour program, but >>>>>>> it is certainly possible. Re-labeling the dancers is not the only way >>>>>>> to call gender free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are interested in the program I used or the larger collection of >>>>>>> gender free dances I chose the program from, send me an email, >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Jim Hemphill >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
