Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow in a Swing

[Bree Kalb]

Thank you. Andrea!

I'd like to repeat the point that the terms lead/follow are implicitly 
communicating to (some) male dancers that they are in charge. Not only does 
this create pressure, but I think it contributes to a growing trend I'm 
noticing at my local dance; fairly new male dancers assume I'll happily 
follow their lead and seem dismayed (even insulted) if I choose not to. This 
sets up a dynamic of conflict rather than the friendly cooperation I 
consider the soul of contra dancing.


Bree Kalb
Carrboro, NC

-Original Message- 
From: Andrea Nettleton

Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 4:51 AM
To: Caller's discussion list
Subject: Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow in a Swing

Sometimes a dance weekend comes along just in time.  So I am at Chattaboogie 
in TN, and thought very hard about what was going on between me and all the 
people I danced with, and I think I finally understand why, in my mind, 
lead/follow are actively bad terms to use in contra, and why when we teach 
the idea of flourishes, I really don't want anyone thinking of one role as 
lead, and the other as follow.

Re: [Callers] Inclusivemess & Older Dancers

[Donald Perley]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Kalia Kliban  wrote:


> "Thank you for your support in advance of the first (of many!) Gentle
> English dances in Baltimore.  The intent was to provide tempo and
> choreographic accommodations to allow long-time dancers and new dancers
> alike to be challenged by a variety of dance puzzles, enjoy stunning music,
> and enjoy community, even if our bodies have been cranky about the idea."

Different dancers will have different issues.  One elderly dancer I
encounter regularly seems to be able to handle all the normal
maneuvers except she consistently takes 9 or 10 beats to get once
around in a swing.

Some adaptation can come from education (that all dancers should get).
 Allemande 1 1/2 can turn in to 1/2. Petronella twirl can be just a
shift. If you fall behind, you WON'T be able to catch up, so just get
to where you need to be for the next thing.

Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow

[John Sweeney]

Hi Andrea,
  I agree entirely. A great dance is one where you and your partner
perform as a single entity, reading each other intuitively so that
everything flows beautifully.

  I love it when I dance with a complete stranger and afterwards someone
else comes up and says we looked great, then asks how long have we been
dancing together! :-)


Happy dancing,
John

John Sweeney, Dancer, England j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

Re: [Callers] 3-33-33

[Donna Calhoun]

I called it in Knoxville at 11:30. I explained the concept and I think the 
dancers enjoyed knowing that others around the country were dancing it with 
them.

Sent from my iPad

> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:50:23 -0500
> From: Louie Cromartie 
> To: Caller's discussion list 
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Last minute New years idea
> Message-ID: <805e2c41-f9fb-4e1e-a6cb-1be318591...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii
> 
> Hi Rich,
> Yes that's the same dance. I left out a hyphen and in shorthand always leave 
> out the last 33. 
> 
> I know Adina called it at Glen Echo, Keith Cornett Eustis called it in 
> Charlotte, Steve Z-A called it a couple nights earlier as his last called 
> dance of 2012. Joyce Miller on the west coast had plans to call it. I called 
> it in Chapel Hill. Anyone else?
> Happy New Year
> Louie
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:08 AM, Richard Hart  wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 333. I don;t easily find a dance with
>> this name, but I do sometimes call the dance by Steve Zakon-Anderson
>> that is called 3-33-33, and, in fact, I did call this dance on New
>> Year's eve. I think that some people may have shortened the name Steve
>> used to 333. I think that Steve said the title comes from a long line
>> of coincidences involving the number 3 that occurred while driving to
>> call a dance (in New Jersey, I think). The dance called 3-33-33 is
>> available on the net, and goes like this:
>> 
>> A1 Balance N1, N1 pull by R, N2 pull by L
>>N3 Balance, box the gnat
>> A2 N3 pull by R, N2 pull by L
>>N1 swing
>> B1 Circle L 3/4; Partner Swing
>> B2 Long Lines, Forward & Back
>>Ladies dosido 1 1/2 x.
>> 
>> And that was a great idea to call the same dance on New Year's Eve. I
>> wonder how many actually did so? I told the dancers that there were
>> thousands calling and dancing that same dance at that same time!
>> 
>> Rich Hart.
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Louie.cromartie
>>  wrote:
>>> Hello Friends!
>>> Many of you will be calling dances tomorrow night. Wouldn't it be fun if we 
>>> all called the same dance at 11:30-ish pm? We could all share a 
>>> wider-community experience within our respective time zones.
>>> 
>>> I was thinking about something like 333, but am looking for any ideas 
>>> especially if you would like to participate. If we can settle on something 
>>> and post it to F-book by tonight it might work!
>>> 
>>> Louie Cromartie
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> call...@sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> call...@sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow in a Swing

[Alan Winston]

Beautiful!

Thank you, Andrea.

-- Alan

On 1/5/2013 1:51 AM, Andrea Nettleton wrote:

Sometimes a dance weekend comes along just in time.  So I am at Chattaboogie in 
TN, and thought very hard about what was going on between me and all the people 
I danced with, and I think I finally understand why, in my mind, lead/follow 
are actively bad terms to use in contra, and why when we teach the idea of 
flourishes, I really don't want anyone thinking of one role as lead, and the 
other as follow.
The evening rolled along, and I danced both positions with both genders of 
partners.  Late in the evening, I reflected about which dances I had enjoyed 
the most.  It came down to one dance with a woman, who is a very accomplished 
younger than me dancer.  We fluidly played off one another, making no 
distinction about who was in charge, a different one landing in the 'you go' 
position at the last second at every possible opportunity.  It was like contact 
improv in a contra line.  We could not have said who was leading, and neither 
could anyone watching.  It was transcendent.  The other wonderful dance was 
with a man.  He dances in the usual position, is a wonderful dancer, but 
doesn't often offer a flourish.  Instead he absolutely loves for me to create 
sequences of flourishes for both of us to do, but I end on the right.  Why were 
these experiences so notable, I had to ask myself.  It is because most men have 
come to think they must be in charge of flourishes, to the point tha
  t they don't seem open to my flourishes, or at best are in a state of 
surprise which makes reacting to the suggestions awkward.  Most women I dance 
with are entirely passive, can receive a flourish from me if I am in the lefty 
role, but don't have anything to give back, sometimes not even good weight.  
There are a few who can swap positions, and offer flourishes from the lefty 
position, but in my transcendent dance, we were completely interchangeable, and 
the game was who would wind up where.  Even we didn't know!
  
I think the root of the problem is that, without meaning to, we have begun to foster a culture of expectations of bifurcated roles.  Using the terms lead/follow only codifies and ultimately ossifies something I would like to do away with.  I know some people are only going to dance one role, and some may only be able to participate in one way lefty to righty flourishes.  But I want more people to be able to open their minds to the kind of experience I had tonight.  Using the terms lead/follow to indicate the expectations of dancing one side or the other will tend to shut that down, and I think it would be a crying shame.  We have subtly given up something I treasure.  It is not the right to dance in a staid old fashioned way, it is a formerly pervasive concept of the dance as a an equal opportunity chance to play being replaced with a male dominated one way I am in charge of you thing.  I can't listen to defenses of that, to me, perversion of my beloved play space.  I don't w

  ant the experiences I had to be rare, outside the box, ones.  I want them to 
be as obvious a choice as any.
The discussion began with the idea that maybe we need a better set of terms for 
the two positions we dance.  This was to acknowledge that some in our community 
don't want their dance position defined, even by archaic implication, as 
something to do with gender.  I am not personally bothered by gent/lady, but if 
I'm going to call to people who are, let the alternate terms not imply 
something about the dance which I do not wish to convey.   Let them not limit, 
by seeming to prescribe and proscribe who can and should do what, what we in 
fact choose to do.  Let's try to generate something humorous, elevating, easy 
to say and remember, and truly neutral. All we need them for is to say who is 
crossing in a chain, and who needs to end the swing where in order for the 
dance not to turn into a mixer.  We could always resort to diagonals for same 
role moves, even chains for that matter.
  
So.  Some people want no change from trad terms.  Fine.  Know that a certain number of dancers may object or not return, but it's your dance.  Some want new terms.  Ok.  If they are awesome, I bet even trad series might adopt them eventually.   Arguing whether we should change them is different from arguing which of the terms we already use to keep using, and different again from evaluating the merits of new alternatives.  It's become a bit of a mash up.

I don't know whether we should, as a whole community, abandon trad terms for 
new ones.
That doesn't keep me from gleefully generating new terms, just in case we hit 
on that totally perfect set.  (See the FB thread.)
But when I see people arguing for terms which by their use change how it is 
likely for people to conceptualize the roles, in a way that curtails the 
potential for the kind of beautiful shared dancing I saw and felt  tonight, I 
have to say no.  No, that is not a set of terms 

Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow

[John Sweeney]

John Sweeney wrote:
> The middle of a swing is a beautiful symmetrical move with 
> the man and lady completely equal. ... But in a swing there 
> is also the entry and exit.

Jeff said, "It depends how you dance.  In the way I'm most used to
dancing the whole swing is a time for interesting variations, and this
includes the middle as much as the beginning and end.  I think of the
swing, middle included, as much more lead-follow than the rest of
contra."

Hi Jeff,
  Yes, absolutely. If I get a good partner then, especially if there is
a Partner Balance & Swing, I will do a different swing every time
through, with interesting stuff in the middle as well as at the
beginning and end, including doing symmetrical swings, and using moves
borrowed from other dance forms.

  But I was focussing on the average swing.  The most common flourish
(and, yes, it is a flourish, not part of the basic swing) is a twirl on
entry or exit.

  I think this whole thread started because someone asked for new
terminology and suggested that the "Men" replacement term should
indicate that the man leads.

  I disagree completely.

  The first book on this dance form was published by John Playford in
1651.  The preface starts with, "The Art of Dancing... is a commendable
and rare Quality fit for young Gentlemen, if opportunely and civilly
used."  It continues with five more references to men and not a single
mention of ladies!

  The second dance sets the tone even further: "First man set to his
owne, the last man set to his owne, the 2. man salute his owne and turn
her."

  All instructions are directed at the man!

  It was very much still this way 300 years later when I learnt these
dances, with calls such as "swing the lady" still very common.

  But over the last 50 years it has changed completely in most
communities.  The call is now "swing your partner".

  Most callers these days make sure that they use neutral terminology to
address all the dancers equally; I find it very strange now when I hear
an older caller give an instruction to the men only.

  The point is that the reference to men in calls is historically
connected to the roles of men and ladies in society at the time.  It is
nothing to do with lead and follow and it has been removed from most
modern dance communities.

  I agree that contra dancing is NOT a lead/follow dance style in the
commonly accepted meaning of those terms in the world of dance.

  While lots of dancers help their partners and neighbours with their
eyes and their hands it is equally done by men and ladies.

***To add some implication of leading to a new name for the person on
the left would be very wrong.***

  There can still be lead and follow in some flourishes, but that is not
an intrinsic part of the dance.  And, as has been said, who is leading
and who is following in those moves depends on the skill of the dancers.

  There have been references in these threads asking callers not to use
the terms leader and follower.  Do callers really do that?  I don't
believe I have ever heard a caller say "leader" or "follower".

  Personally I use the words "Men" and "Ladies" and have never
experienced any feedback.  We have lots of ladies taking the man's role,
and occasionally a man taking the lady's role. They just do it.

Happy dancing,
John

John Sweeney, Dancer, England j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow in a Swing

[Andrea Nettleton]

Sometimes a dance weekend comes along just in time.  So I am at Chattaboogie in 
TN, and thought very hard about what was going on between me and all the people 
I danced with, and I think I finally understand why, in my mind, lead/follow 
are actively bad terms to use in contra, and why when we teach the idea of 
flourishes, I really don't want anyone thinking of one role as lead, and the 
other as follow.
The evening rolled along, and I danced both positions with both genders of 
partners.  Late in the evening, I reflected about which dances I had enjoyed 
the most.  It came down to one dance with a woman, who is a very accomplished 
younger than me dancer.  We fluidly played off one another, making no 
distinction about who was in charge, a different one landing in the 'you go' 
position at the last second at every possible opportunity.  It was like contact 
improv in a contra line.  We could not have said who was leading, and neither 
could anyone watching.  It was transcendent.  The other wonderful dance was 
with a man.  He dances in the usual position, is a wonderful dancer, but 
doesn't often offer a flourish.  Instead he absolutely loves for me to create 
sequences of flourishes for both of us to do, but I end on the right.  Why were 
these experiences so notable, I had to ask myself.  It is because most men have 
come to think they must be in charge of flourishes, to the point that they 
don't seem open to my flourishes, or at best are in a state of surprise which 
makes reacting to the suggestions awkward.  Most women I dance with are 
entirely passive, can receive a flourish from me if I am in the lefty role, but 
don't have anything to give back, sometimes not even good weight.  There are a 
few who can swap positions, and offer flourishes from the lefty position, but 
in my transcendent dance, we were completely interchangeable, and the game was 
who would wind up where.  Even we didn't know!
 
I think the root of the problem is that, without meaning to, we have begun to 
foster a culture of expectations of bifurcated roles.  Using the terms 
lead/follow only codifies and ultimately ossifies something I would like to do 
away with.  I know some people are only going to dance one role, and some may 
only be able to participate in one way lefty to righty flourishes.  But I want 
more people to be able to open their minds to the kind of experience I had 
tonight.  Using the terms lead/follow to indicate the expectations of dancing 
one side or the other will tend to shut that down, and I think it would be a 
crying shame.  We have subtly given up something I treasure.  It is not the 
right to dance in a staid old fashioned way, it is a formerly pervasive concept 
of the dance as a an equal opportunity chance to play being replaced with a 
male dominated one way I am in charge of you thing.  I can't listen to defenses 
of that, to me, perversion of my beloved play space.  I don't want the 
experiences I had to be rare, outside the box, ones.  I want them to be as 
obvious a choice as any.
The discussion began with the idea that maybe we need a better set of terms for 
the two positions we dance.  This was to acknowledge that some in our community 
don't want their dance position defined, even by archaic implication, as 
something to do with gender.  I am not personally bothered by gent/lady, but if 
I'm going to call to people who are, let the alternate terms not imply 
something about the dance which I do not wish to convey.   Let them not limit, 
by seeming to prescribe and proscribe who can and should do what, what we in 
fact choose to do.  Let's try to generate something humorous, elevating, easy 
to say and remember, and truly neutral. All we need them for is to say who is 
crossing in a chain, and who needs to end the swing where in order for the 
dance not to turn into a mixer.  We could always resort to diagonals for same 
role moves, even chains for that matter. 
 
So.  Some people want no change from trad terms.  Fine.  Know that a certain 
number of dancers may object or not return, but it's your dance.  Some want new 
terms.  Ok.  If they are awesome, I bet even trad series might adopt them 
eventually.   Arguing whether we should change them is different from arguing 
which of the terms we already use to keep using, and different again from 
evaluating the merits of new alternatives.  It's become a bit of a mash up.  
I don't know whether we should, as a whole community, abandon trad terms for 
new ones.
That doesn't keep me from gleefully generating new terms, just in case we hit 
on that totally perfect set.  (See the FB thread.)
But when I see people arguing for terms which by their use change how it is 
likely for people to conceptualize the roles, in a way that curtails the 
potential for the kind of beautiful shared dancing I saw and felt  tonight, I 
have to say no.  No, that is not a set of terms which serve us well.  No fine 
tuning of your arguments will convince me that 

Re: [Callers] Inclusivemess & Older Dancers

[Kalia Kliban]

On 1/4/2013 10:34 PM, Paul Wilde wrote:

Hey all,

Seeing the topic of inclusiveness has just popped up, I would like to start
a new thread.  I would like to see us share some dance choices that are
best suited for older dancers, ones that are fun and interesting to dance,
but not quite so physically demanding as some of the high energy and
sometimes high count dances.  Wouldn't it be great to have a section of our
dance decks especially set aside for this?


There was a thread about this on the ECD list back at the beginning of 
September.  Someone was starting a series of "gentle English" for 
experienced dancers who just aren't up to the slipping and setting and 
speed (oh my!) but still really want to dance.


Here's a snip from the initial post, from Susan Taylor:
"Baltimore is initiating a new Gentle English series.
We are aiming to encourage all dancers, and particularly dancers for 
whom some tempi and joint-jarring choreography have become bodily 
unpleasant, to dance in community (with wonderful music and lively good 
times)."


As Paul has, she was asking about suggestions of dances that would be 
enjoyable and mentally challenging without leaving anyone limping or 
broken.  After some suggestions came in, she posted this:


"Thank you for your support in advance of the first (of many!) Gentle 
English dances in Baltimore.  The intent was to provide tempo and 
choreographic accommodations to allow long-time dancers and new dancers 
alike to be challenged by a variety of dance puzzles, enjoy stunning 
music, and enjoy community, even if our bodies have been cranky about 
the idea."


Paul, is this similar to what you were thinking?  I don't have any good 
suggestions for dances but will be very curious to see what comes up.


Kalia

Re: [Callers] Lead/Follow in a Swing

[Jeff Kaufman]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, John Sweeney  wrote:
> The middle of a swing is a beautiful (almost) symmetrical move with the
> man and lady (almost) completely equal. ... But in a swing there is also the
> entry and exit.
>

It depends how you dance.  In the way I'm most used to dancing the
whole swing is a time for interesting variations, and this includes
the middle as much as the beginning and end.  I think of the swing,
middle included, as much more lead-follow than the rest of contra.

Jeff

[Callers] Inclusivemess & Older Dancers

[Paul Wilde]

Hey all,

Seeing the topic of inclusiveness has just popped up, I would like to start
a new thread.  I would like to see us share some dance choices that are
best suited for older dancers, ones that are fun and interesting to dance,
but not quite so physically demanding as some of the high energy and
sometimes high count dances.  Wouldn't it be great to have a section of our
dance decks especially set aside for this?

It's late, so I'll offer up a few of my own choices on the subject soon.

Paul

Re: [Callers] Flourishes

[Laur]

 On this:   > everybody should release their neighbors or partners in time to 
dance with me
> on time, and should dance in a way that shows awareness and at least
> minimal consideration of the people around them.

I so TOTALLY agree.  As in all flourishes.  I'm so tired of waiting for the 
dipping guy to finish his "thing" so I can dance with my neighbor or with my 
neighbors or with HIM.  

I want to be connected during the dance, not truncated. or "Hot dogged".

I have danced with those who twirl me beyond others and - I'm on time, and 
stable.  I'm grateful for them.  For those that are inventive and vibrant and 
yet - there for me and for my neighbors.  I'm grateful for the young that dance 
with the less young but with recognition of our vitality and ingenuity, and - 
being on time, and staying connected.

Laur\\  snipping alot of previous post...
~


>
> From: Aahz Maruch 
>To: Caller's discussion list  
>Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 10:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [Callers] Flourishes
> 
>On Fri, Jan 04, 2013, Alan Winston wrote:
>> On 1/4/2013 7:49 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
>>>On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Kalia Kliban wrote:
On 1/3/2013 8:21 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Alan Winston wrote:
>>
>>I don't think you need this for the argument; there were flourishes
>>when I started contra dancing in 1985 (but we called the people who
>>did them "hot-doggers" and complained about them).
>
>
>> Over the years the flourish baseline has adjusted, we don't hear a
>> lot about hot-dogging, and so on.  But *I* internally still feel
>> that no other dancer should do anything to me without at least my
>> implied consent that keeps me from following the callers directions,
>> no other dancer should rob me of agency (and the stupid "make an arch
>> instead of R thru" thing is asymmetrical, keeps me from following
>> the directions, and doesn't give me a way to decline), everybody
>> should release their neighbors or partners in time to dance with me
>> on time, and should dance in a way that shows awareness and at least
>> minimal consideration of the people around them.
>>
>
>Overall I agree; I try to maintain awareness of other dancers around me
>and avoid flourishes that will affect anyone who either doesn't want or
>isn't prepared to deal with them.
>
>However, I'm indeed guilty of the arch on R thru.  ;-)  I like it
>because it permits the more balanced twirling of a California twirl
>(I think it's easier for the man to twirl with a California twirl than
>the standard courtesy turn because of the forward movement).
>
>