For what it's worth, I danced a "right shoulder 'round" (so far it's what
I've been using) with someone who remarked, "I really dislike that term. It
makes me think of a side of beef." OOF! Now that's all I can think of when
I hear the term.

I like "swoop." This is the first time I've heard that proposed. It's
short, sweet and descriptive. I may give that a test whirl. I can imagine
the wings coming out in our community.

I've heard "pixie" and don't care for it. It seems too cute, too close to
gypsy, and isn't descriptive. I know many terms are not descriptive, but
this doesn't have anything going for it, in my book, except it's short and
easy to say.

I appreciate knowing what has worked in other communities, and as long as
the conversation stays constructive and informative I am all for it.

-Amy

On Mar 14, 2018 9:04 AM, "Don Veino via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

I've successfully tried both Glance (around) and Swoop (around) with
dancers. Several have told me they really liked Swoop and thought it was
the best alternative they've heard so far (and I've seen folks having fun
making "wings" on the floor as they do it).

A caution on terms that explicitly use "eye" in them: we have a regular
dancer who is blind and that person and their friends are strongly offended
by those terms. As eye locking is styling and not the essential motion,
it's not necessary to the call.

Also, on some of these sound-alike terms... if I were to call you a
"plucking gerk" would you not be offended just the same? I submit for the
same reason that a replacement term we settle on should not sound like the
original term we're trying to replace. Similar metrics, sure - but not a
minor tweak of the original sound. For this reason I've never tried making
"Glance" into "Glancey."

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Bob Hofkin via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

>
> [snip]

>
> I appreciate the reports of what different callers are trying and their
> degree of success. At the same time, it makes a lot of sense to avoid
> rehashing the same arguments, as you suggest. Right now, we're in an
> empirical phase--trial and error--and rapid dissemination of results seems
> like the way to go. If that process suggests a few good candidates, it
> might be time to debate their merits.
>
> Bob
>
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/>
>

[snip]



_______________________________________________
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
_______________________________________________
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Reply via email to