Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"
See the link below for more information on the dance The Spanish Gypsy (or Jeepsie), the song from which the tune for the dance came, and the 1623 play from which the song came, which had the title "The Spanish Gypsy". http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/lod/vol4/spanish_gipsy.html I'll go out on a limb and make some historical pronouncements which cannot be proven, but which seem most probable to me: The dance title The Spanish Gypsy came from the dance being done to a tune associated with the play The Spanish Gypsy. The dance figure Gypsy got its name from the prevalence of the figure in the dance The Spanish Gypsy. The Morris dance figures whole-gyp and half-gyp were originally called whole-gypsy and half-gypsy. (Although parts of England had and ancient tradition of seasonal dancing under the name Morris Dance, it seems likely, from the nature of the dances, that the form of the Cotswold dance traditions collected by Cecil Sharp only went back to the Elizabethan period.) I offer the above hypotheses to counter the claim that the dance term "gypsy" was based on an ethnic stereotype. Of course, even if I'm right about these hypotheses, they have nothing to do with the fact that the term "gypsy" offends some people, which we want to avoid. Jacob On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 5:47 PM, James Saxe via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Let me point out that the 1651 edition of Playford also > includes a dance titled "The Spanish Jeepsie" (listed as > "Spanish Jepsies" in the contents). This dance has a similar > figure to the one in "Cuckolds all a row": > > ... go all about your We. not turning your faces. ... > > In fact the second and third parts of "The Spanish Jeepsie" > have > > ... go about your own as before ... > > So the figure occurs more often in that dance than it does in > "Cuckolds all a row". > > I don't know of (and haven't looked for) any specific evidence > linking "The Spanish Jeepsie" to the terms "half-gip" and > "whole-gip" in Morris dancing. I also don't know of (and > haven't looked for) any evidence linking the choreography of > "The Spanish Jeepsie" to anything that occurs in traditional > Romani dancing (or it traditional Spanish dancing). > >
[Callers] How to explain the charms of square dances (was More on Programming)
Many thanks to Cary Ravitz for explaining why some dancers prefer contras to squares. (You can see that explanation below.) Tom Hinds said that, when dancers tell him they don't like squares, he tells them, "then stay home when I call". I wouldn't be comfortable giving that reply. While square dances might not offer dancers the " dancer, music, motion connection", without the voice of a caller intruding, that they might find in contra dances, the square dances offer other benefits. I would rather come up with a way of describing those benefits, in the hope that some of those dancers will find things to enjoy in the squares. How would those of you who enjoy both squares and contras describe what you get out of dancing square dances? Jacob On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers >> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> > Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let >> me >> > re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly. >> > >> > Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to >> > connect your movement to the music. >> > Yes. > > > Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually >> > danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the >> > dancing time. >> > No, in my experience as a dancer, squares take longer to teach and this is > compensated with shorter dance time. > > >> > Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your >> > original partner than in a contra. >> > Yes. > > >> > Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only >> make >> > movements in place during some of the music. >> > In my experience as a dancer, visiting couple square use the interaction > sequence 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 2-3, 2-3, 2-4, 2-1 and 3-4, ... so for 2/3 of > the dance half the dancers are not included. > > >> > In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with >> the >> > relationship you would like to have with the music. >> > Yes. > > >> > >> > Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite >> understood >> > your meaning? >> > *For me*, this all comes down to > > dancer, music, motion connection. It can be wonderful in a contra. I've > never found it in a square. > >
Re: [Callers] Do these dances exist?
If we're going into similar dances, I wrote Sound The Trumpets in June of 1988. It's different from both of your dances, but with distinct similarities. Sound The Trumpets, duple improper A1: Neighbor Allemande Left 1 1/2, Ladies Chain across A2: Left shoulder Gypsy Shadow, Right shoulder Gypsy Partner B1: Swing Partner B2: Circle Left 3/4, Neighbor Allemande Right 1 1/2 Jacob On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Martha Wild via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Maia, > I wrote Blue-Eyed Pogo, 2/26/2000, and it is almost identical exept for > the ladies allemande right 1X: > > Blue-Eyed Pogo, duple improper > > A1) Allemande left N 1 1/2 > Do-si-do NEXT neighbor 1X > A2) Balance and swing original neighbor > B1) Circle left 3/4, swing P > B2) Circle left 3/4, allemande right neighbor 1 1/2 > > Of course, maybe there is something else similar that predates that…. > Martha > > On Jun 26, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers wrote: > > Dance the First, improper > A1: (new) N alle L 1 1/2 ladies alle R 1x > A2: N b > B1 circle L 3/4 P sw > B2: circle L 3/4 N alle R 1 ½ > > Dance the Second, improper > A1: neighbor gypsy > half hey, women by L > A1: neighbor gypsy > neighbor swing > B1: circle L 3/4 > partner swing > B2: R/L through across > circle left 3/4 and pass through > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > > > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >
Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
You raise a good point. It took a long time for someone to impress upon me that, although I have no problem with positional calling, many people do. Different people have different strengths. When calling for a group of beginners, I've found that things go more smoothly if I know several ways to describe an action, and use them all. "Look for the next, look away from the couple you've been dancing with, for a new person." Some people will understand that they are dancing with one couple after another and turn the right way when I say "Look for the next", some are orienting themselves relative to the other couple and find "look away from the other couple" clearer, and some do not have a strong positional sense but will look around for a new person to dance with. Different calls work best for different dancers. Jacob On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Aahz Maruch via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015, Jim Hemphill via Callers wrote: > > > > I realize that it is much easier on callers to just substitute a label > for > > ladies and gents on their calling cards. It shifts the burden onto the > > dancers who haven't grown up in a genderless dance environment as their > > brains translate the label into a term they are used to. Positional > > teaching and calling is more challenging for the caller. Not every dance > > will lend itself to this technique but I bet with a little thought most > > would. > > Positional calling is also considerably more difficult for at least some > dancers. My perception is that changing the "gender" label is pretty > easy for most dancers -- at least, I've never seen many people struggling > with it, and I do see people struggling with contra corners (which is the > most common use-case in standard contra dancing). > -- > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 > http://rule6.info/ > <*> <*> <*> > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >
[Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?)
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > ... > > It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set > of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s > generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of > criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix. > There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but which I find very disturbing. The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be standardization. This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western Square Dance movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching programs. They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are some advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost. It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and appreciate regional differences. I don't care about being able to go to a new place just to find that things there are done in the same way that I'm used to them being done back home. I care about being able to go to new places and learning the way things are done there. What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that it's a good thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using different terminology, and consider what language will work best for their dance. It would be a BAD thing if anyone switched terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other people were doing. It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places. In the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would be. Jacob Bloom
Re: [Callers] Anyone seen this dance?
How true. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Robert Golder via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > As anyone who has danced with Amy knows, any alternative renderings of > Bill's composition ought to collectively entitled: > > You WISH You Were Dancing With Amy! > > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Amy Larkin via Callers < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > This makes me feel so special! > :-) > Amy > On Apr 30, 2015 10:57 AM, "Bill Olson via Callers" < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> Funny, because I *almost* danced with (the) Amy at NEFFA this past >> weekend! >> >> dance is similar but not the same for sure.. >> >> DANCING WITH AMY A Becket formation contra by Bill Olson >> >> A1: Circle L 3/4, Sw Neighbor (16) (face couple on RIGHT diagonal*) >> A2: W chain on R diag (to Shadow #1)(8) (face new couple across) L/H star >> with couple across x 1 (8) (Partner will be coming out of adjoining star >> give R hand to Partner, L hand to Shadow #1 to form long wavy line ALONG >> set) >> B1: Bal wave (towards partner first)(4), slide R as in Rory O'More (R/H >> to Shadow #2, L/H to Partner)(4), Bal wave (towards partner on Left) (4), >> slide L (4) >> B2: Partner Bal and Sw (16) >> >> for Amy Richardson Larkin >> >> -- >> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:32:17 + >> To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Anyone seen this dance? >> From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> >> Then it should be named "Almost Dancing With Amy" >> >> Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844 >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:29 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers < >> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> >> Very close to Dancing with Amy, by Bill Olson. >> Linda >> >> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Perry Shafran via Callers < >> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> Since folks generally check here to see whether dance compositions have >> already been written, I thought I might as well. Tentatively calling this >> "Charm City Contra". >> >> Becket dance >> >> A1 Circle L 3/4 >> Pass thru, swing next N >> A2 L chn >> LH star >> B1 Al rt shadow #1 to wavy line, gents facing in >> Bal wave, spin rt >> B2 Bal & Sw P >> >> Perry >> >> ___ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> >> >> ___ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> >> >> ___ Callers mailing list >> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> ___ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > > > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >
Re: [Callers] Triple dosado?
While we're on the subject of Broken Sixpence variations: Open Rehearsal Duple Improper - Jacob Bloom Ladies Dosido All Dosido Partner Gents Dosido Swing Neighbor Down four in line, turn as couples Return, bend the line Ladies chain over and back On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Don Veino via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > This was created mostly by mistake. While transcribing a capture from my > notes 5/10/2011, I patched the A1 LLFB onto Broken Sixpence. Figured out > what I'd done and then revised it to swap the remaining DSDs order. The > result seems to be a good fit for early on in a program with a > mixed-beginner crowd. > > Broken Transcription – DI – Don Veino > Starts opened out into long lines, P across set, Gent on N Lady's Rt. > A1 > (8) LLFB > (8) Gents Dosido (on slight Lt. diag. in same 4) > A2 > (8) Ladies Dosido (on slight Rt. diag.) > (8) Ones Swing in middle, end facing down the hall > Twos tack on to outside ends > B1 > (8) Down the Hall 4 in Line, turn Alone > (8) Up the Hall, Bend the Line > B2 > (8) Ladies Chain to P > (8) Ladies Chain to N > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Patricia Campbell < > countrydancecal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What's your Broken Transcription, Don? > > > > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > ___ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Re: [Callers] Solo fiddler or recorded music?
I would absolutely believe that the dancers were completely confounded by "right and left through". I remember how surprised I was, when I called my first dance, to discover how much more confusing it was than a Ladie's Chain. If you are used to both of them, then you tend to think of them as being similar. If you've never done either, then one of them has you connected to other people, while the other leaves you by yourself, trying to figure out which way to turn (and usually getting it wrong.) But learning which figures are easier and harder comes quickly. Learning which dances to call for a given crowd and how to teach them efficiently is a neverending process! Jacob On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Brooks Hart via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > So, as the original poster, I am reporting back. > > The dance with the solo fiddler was a mixed bag. The music was very nice, > but because I am new to calling, and our dancers are 99% beginners, way too > much time was spent on walk-throughs and teaching. The fiddler sat out for > long stretches of time, which seemed like a waste of his time and the money > spent on live music. > > I thought I had picked easy dances, but you wouldn't believe how > confounded so many of the people were at "right and left through", and > that falls on me and my lack of experience with teaching and crowd > wrangling. > > A special moment for everyone, though, was doing a circle waltz dance with > the fiddler playing, unplugged, in the center of the circle. > > So, thanks again for everyone's input and encouragement, > Brooks > > > > > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:50:51 -0700 > > To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Solo fiddler or recorded music? > > From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net > > > > [resting up before the CALLERLAB convention, catching up on some older > > messages] > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote: > > > > > > So, the moral of the story is that if a caller isn't USED to working > with a > > > band, live music isn't necessarily going to result in the best > experience > > > for the dancers. > > > > My experience as a relatively new caller is that it also depends on the > > caller's experience as a dancer. My hearing makes it a bit difficult to > > tune into the phrasing of a live band to call at the correct times, but > > because I've been contra dancing for so many years (almost exclusively to > > live music) I can roughly manage it -- and I know what it's supposed to > > sound like. > > -- > > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ > > <*> <*> <*> > > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html > > ___ > > Callers mailing list > > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > ___ Callers mailing list Callers@lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Re: [Callers] Grand Marches
I usually lead a Grand March by myself, either by having a partner and positioning us as the first couple, or without a partner and having the first couple follow me. Having a partner is easier if you are just going to do figures that involve everyone following the person in front of them, such as leading the line of march in patterns around the room, and an Arbor March (tunneling through arches.) If you are going to have the couples come up by battalions (2,4,8,16) then you need to have someone at the front of the room waving the couples to one side or the other, so I find it easier if I do not have a partner. I recruit the first two couples in line as collaborators on the fly, quickly explaining what I want them to do when they reach the foot of the hall. The most common problem I've run into has come when doing an arbor march - sometimes people go through the arches, turn around, make an arch, and stand still, causing a line of stationary arches to grow. If there isn't enough room for the line of stationary arches to keep growing, things can get cramped until everyone has gone through the arches, at which point the arches become willing to move again. This can be avoided if you have a wireless mike and are very clear when starting the arbor march that the arches should keep walking - if the first several arches are holding one hand and moving, the rest will follow along. Watch out for the second or third couple making a two-handed arch, since that will probably bring them to a full stop. As for other ways to end a Grand March: You can bring people up eight by eight, stop the music, divide the lines of eight in the middle in to two sets of foursomes, have every other foursome turn around, and teach a four-facing-four dance. Or you can bring them up four by four and divide them into longways sets for a contra. Or you can lead them back into a circle of couples, have every other couple turn around, and do a Sicilian Circle. Jacob Bloom On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Beth Parkes via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >- moves that work well, and how to prompt them > > There are many, many different figures that work well. You don’t prompt > them, you lead them. Tony and I were leading the Ralph Page grand march you > noted below. > >- how to gauge space and timing > > This is the hardest issue. You need enough people, but too many makes a > serious challenge. The aforementioned Ralph Page march is a) very long and > b) rather slow because there are just too many people for the space. I’ve > had the honor of leading that grand march several times and the one you > linked to is one of my more successful adaptations to the very crowded > environment issue. > >- how to best enroll collaborators (must they be planned ahead, what >can you do on the fly) > > Depending on the crowd, you probably need one collaborator to be your > partner and perhaps to help with the 2/4/8 columns. If I’m not sure the > crowd has done columns, I will talk to the first two couples before sending > them off left and right, to be sure they know to make a line of four at the > foot. You have a few seconds in which to do this as the rest of the line > comes down the center. If Tony is with me, he will scoot to the foot to > make sure this goes well. > >- Train wrecks to avoid > > If you have a lot of people in a small space you will constantly be > working to avoid running into the end of the line. (You can see this in the > vid when I waited a long time at the foot for folks to get back in pairs.) > There are only a handful of figures that work well in crowded spaces. > > Too few people will also cause problems, certain figures just don’t work > well (the “ball of yarn” spiral figure, for instance, will fall apart > without out enough folks.) You can see the problem in the NE Dancing Maters > vid. (Speaking of that, the Royal Canadian Musical Ride performs that on > horseback!! You can see it here at 7:00 > http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=royal+canadian+musical+ride=VIRE5#view=detail=538552112873BEBEABB4538552112873BEBEABB4 > > While on the subject of Ball of Yarn, the secret to having that work well > is to get it tight enough when spiraling in. If it is too loose when you > make the turn, it will cease to be a spiral before you get back out. > Another key is to ask people to “move toward the center” as you come back > out. You want it tight in the middle and it wants to spread out. > > I’ve not really worked out how to avoid it, but another train wreck can be > when a part of the line starts following another part of the line. I can > remember a spectacular mess (at Ralph Page, even) where I had the line I > was leading and another group around the edges who were in their own loop. > I finally just left Tony, ran over, and redirected a couple to the end of > my line.) > > Not really a train wreck, but if the first two couples (as mentioned > above) don’t know to form up in 4s
