I see a very worrisome problem with the "Scottish Swing": It's too close to the "Bull by the Horns" swing.
In other words, if all the dancers stay upright, everything will be fine, but what if you get a couple of young dancers who decide that it would be more thrilling to lean back as far as they can to feel greater centrifugal forces on their heads? If only one couple does it, then they are only at risk of hitting a head against someone's shoulder, but if you get two couples doing that near each other, then you have the possibility of two heads cracking against each other at high speed, and having to stop the dance until those people have been sent off in an ambulance. I've heard of that happening. I've also heard it suggested that the caller who claimed he had seen it happen made the story up, in order to discourage his dancers from doing something that was clearly dangerous. I don't know which is true, but I have seen dancers in adjacent sets doing that swing, and worried about them synchronizing. (Fortunately they stopped on their own after a short time.) For that reason, I am not planning to recommend the Scottish Swing. Jacob On Thu, Feb 9, 2023, 12:23 PM Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers < contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Hello from Halifax, NS, Canada! > I'd like to add to this convo by saying that for many years (as both a > dancer and then a caller), I've had the desire to cultivate the roles as > equal, rather than the Larks having more of a leader role. > > I wasn't sure that that was an ok thing to want though, so I kept it to > myself at first. I'm thrilled to now read that there are others also > consciously pushing the roles in that direction. > > Our group was doing gents and ladies when i started to dance, and there > were definitely many gents in our group who wanted to lead me around. I > didn't particularly enjoy being relegated to the follow role because of my > gender. (and yes, there was in theory the option to dance the other role, > but as I was easily confused back then, I preferred to stick with the role > I was slowly getting used to). At the same time, as I started to learn > more, I noticed there were many "gents" who had no sense of leading, and I > began to enjoy as the "lady" being able to "back-lead" them to help them > feel the wonderful centripetal and balancy forces at play. I became quite > the expert back-leader in the ladies chain! But I always hated the term > "back-lead" as I felt it had a negative connotation. (That pushy lady is > back-leading the gent, just like a back-seat driver!). I even remember > once, an experienced dancer from the US telling me it was totally > inappropriate to desire to "back-lead" and I still feel annoyed by that > today ;) > > Anyhow, we've now switched over to a non-gendered dance with Larks and > Ravens (with beautiful bird-labels that the dancers wear, which is why we > haven't evolved to Robins here) and it is working wonderfully for us. > > With so many new dancers coming in and old ones fading away over the > years, I think the majority of our dancers don't have any idea there even > *were* gender roles in our type of dancing. (We are quite an isolated > community out here, so for many people, we are the only thing they know > about contra dancing). I think that is so cool! When you look around the > room at our dances, we have reached the point where there is no correlation > between visible gender and bird-role - everyone randomly assigns > themselves. For us, it's been an amazing change - and we've heard directly > from both the queer community and from many women that they feel more > comfortable at our dances now. And the cisgender men keep coming so I > presume they are having an ok time too :) > > As I've become more confident in my calling and am now the defacto caller > for our group (nobody else is currently available though I'm going to train > some new folks this spring), I've felt more bold to cultivate the roles as > I'd like to see them. > > I never mention a notion of leading or following, and instead I talk about > the delightful "push-me-pull-you" feeling of contra, where each dancer > feels an "elastic connection" to the other, and how (in my view) this > special shared connection, along with a feeling of never-ending movement, > is what makes contra magical. > > We get a very large proportion of beginners each month, and also many > repeat dancers who don't become particularly skilled (they perhaps attend > once every 2-3 months on average, so their learning curve is slow, and they > forget a lot after our 3-month summer break). > > As such, we do a lot of dances without swings (I try to get at least > halfway through the dance without introducing a swing), and I'm trying > Larks chains as well as Robins chains prior to swinging these days. > Post-covid, we've been doing swings with a modified ballroom hold (Larks > left hand in Robins' right, but other hands cupped on each others' elbows), > which creates more space between the dancers -- both for personal comfort > for any gender when dancing with a stranger--and also less germs-in-face > feeling during these covid times. > (Though I plan to try the Scottish Swing that Ridge suggested at our next > dance, just out of interest! :) ) > > I find the swing in this modified ballroom position feels symmetrical to > me and to our dancers- both dancers are supporting each other by the elbow, > and one does not feel more inherently "lead-y". > > I've also replaced "California Twirl" with what I call "tug and turn" - I > tell the dancers to tug off the hand they are holding (i.e inside hand) to > pass by the right shoulder - then catch by the new inside hand facing the > other way. When this happens with partners, sometimes they end up doing a > cali-twirl as an embellishment - but the base move is symmetrical. > > So I feel I'm close to achieving my personal vision for a no leads/follow > dance. :D > > > I have always loved contra as a way for two dancers or 4 dancers or a > whole line of dancers to feel these interesting connections and forces at > play, while never stopping moving. I personally have never been interested > in contra as something that resembles "couples dancing", so the approach we > have in our group is emphasizing the elements of contra that I personally > love best. As our dances are well attended and growing, it seems to be > working for our group. Which is gratifying for me for sure :) > > All that said! > One of the most interesting parts of this discussion is to read about all > the diverse approaches that callers are taking throughout the world, and > how different approaches seem to work super well in different communities. > I am totally intrigued by positional calling. I don't forsee trying it > myself any time soon, only because what we have going for us right now is > working really well and it's taken many years to get here... but I'm super > keen to try it out at a dance elsewhere, and maybe in the future I'll give > it a try in Halifax. > And while I LOVE our non-gendered dances here in Halifax, I could see > myself as a cisgender person getting a kick out of going to a dance > somewhere far away with my sweetheart on a date night, where they call with > men and ladies and the gender roles are quite rigid, and getting into that > vibe for the evening. And though I am personally terrified of the idea of > dancing at one of those fusion events where the contra dancers do some > red-hot swing/blues type dancing with their partners, I *adore* watching > videos of it, it's amazing! > > So I wanted to say that I hope everyone continues to contribute to this > discussion in the spirit of "Here is what works for me/ here is what works > for my group in case it interests you" rather than in a critical or > prosthelytizing fashion :) > > Cheers from Halifax! > Kat Kitching > https://halifaxcontra.ca <http://www.halifaxcontra.c> > > > > > > Perry Shafran via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:55 AM > It feels to me that one of the things that modern contra is trying to do > is to make the roles more symmetrical. I mean, we can all do the > ladies/robins right-hand chain with no problem, but when it comes to any > other chain (lark RH chain or any LH chain), even the most adept contra > dancers get confused. I feel that this comes from the notion that one role > leads and one role follows. > > Even in a robins RH chain, the robin bears some responsibility in both > direction of the flow and also the weight given. If it's treated as a > shared move, it actually feels more graceful and feels better. Swings also > should be taught as a shared move, and robins should easily be able to > decide the speed and ending of the swing if need be. This can be > demonstrated by observing an experienced robin dancer dancing/teaching a > new lark dancer. > > I *do* suggest that people should learn to be comfortable in one role > first before tackling the other role, perhaps after several evenings of > dance. But I'm not totally *un*comfortable in suggesting that there aren't > much differences between the roles other than one starts on the left and > the other on the right. > > And while I'm here, on the topic of positional dancing, after having taken > a workshop with Louise recently, I've begun to learn that positional > calling is a newly learned skill, way beyond just "lefts turn right" and > such. The way it was described set off a light bulb for me to the point > where it makes a lot of sense to teach that way. And it seemed that Louise > agreed that if it's a good way to bridge the gap between dancers, why not > try it? > > I certainly need much more learning before I decide to try positional on a > full-time basis, but I do think it's good to understand what positional > calling is and positional calling isn't before passing judgement. It seems > to have worked really well in places where it has been used, and when done > well, it's so smooth that most dancers don't even know that it's positional > calling. But I'm still going to use larks/robins for the time being. > > Perry > > On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 10:36:01 AM EST, Tony Parkes via Contra > Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue > that I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much > about this publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong” > side of a controversy or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind. > > > > Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each > dance event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in > such a brief session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles > and what differentiates one from the other. Fine. > > > > Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for > the roles. Also fine. > > > > But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers > not to indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either > male/female or leading/following. > > > > This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers *as long as* the contra > dance repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b) > moves (e.g. courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very > often leads the other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare). > > > > I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role > of their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a > part associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only > if the two roles are truly equal in the physical movements required and the > physical sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and > following in present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen > as something to work toward extinguishing. I feel that to be fair and > consistent, the contra world should either do away with the asymmetrical > moves (not likely) or give new folks the option of choosing to lead or > follow. > > > > At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles > are fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over > from an earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you > start as a lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a > robin.” I fail to see the problem with this. > > > > As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins > about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns > both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a > consummation devoutly to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with > this, but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do > and what one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced > dance. That gap has been widening over the last couple of decades anyway, > as the list of accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But > I’ve said enough for now. > > > > Tony Parkes > > Billerica, Mass. > > www.hands4.com > > New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century > > (available now) > > > > > > *From:* Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers > <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:52 AM > *To:* Shared Weight Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > *Subject:* [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin') > > > > Dear All, > > > > I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies > to women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders > and followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into > positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing. > > > > Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem > in the actual dancing. > > > > "Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance > in the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups > publish on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement -- > anyone who attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance > community wants to change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal, > then I must, perforce, support that decision. > > > > Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly uncomfortable > doing a ballroom swing with other same-gender dancers. > > > > I've discussed my feelings with other dancers in my area, and I know I am > not alone, both among dancers of my gender and dancers of the opposite > gender. Yet, by even raising the question, I have also been described (not > to my face) in very unflattering terms. > > > > About ten thousand years ago, when I first started dancing, there was a > commonly accepted symmetrical swing that was used. It was, in retrospect, a > little bit uncomfortable as it involved reaching the right arm across the > other dancer's body and hooking a hand around the other dancer's torso. In > retrospect, not good. A two-hand turn is, in my mind, not a very acceptable > alternative to a ballroom swing. I have seen some folks do some lively > variations with crossed hands and such so that it can work, but I think > there is a better option that I have been encouraging dancers to learn. I > call it a Scottish swing. (John Sweeny includes it in his videos of > eleventy-seven ways to swing as a Northumbrian swing.) > > > > Here's what it looks like. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HWhKWRn_jk> > > > > I like it because I can give a clear signal for the kind of swing that I > want to do, I feel completely comfortable doing it with any dancer, and it > allows my swinging partner and me to enjoy a very satisfactory swing. It's > easy to learn. I have even found that I can teach it to dancers on the fly > in the middle of a dance. > > > > Maybe it is not the best option for a symmetrical swing (an alternative to > a ballroom swing). If someone can propose a better alternative, I'll give > it a try. > > > > But for all of the concern about words and terminology, it seems to me > that the overall dance community ought to pay attention to this particular > aspect of actually dancing. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Ridge > > > > > Ridge Kennedy [Exit 145] > > > > Hey -- I wrote a book! *Murder & Miss Austen's Ball. * > It's a novel with musical accompaniment. Now that's different. > > > > Read all about it here! <https://www.hedgehoghousebooks.com> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:57 AM Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers < > contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > _______________________________________________ > Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net > To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net > To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net > To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net >
_______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net
