Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure ("Pivot the Line", yay)
"Pivot the Line" is a good dance; I called it at our regular Madison dance tonight, it went well. I enjoyed seeing the dancers figure out how to dance the unfamiliar figures -- nothing was too hard, the beginners got through it fine, and people enjoyed refining the timing for the Dublin Bay figure. I taught it without being very precise on the timing, to give people the joy of discovery. It was interesting to me that practically none of the dancers pre-bent the line for the A2. I think the 2's were enjoying the swoop across the set to start the (figure formerly known as a) gypsy; it's more dramatic than the usual oh-you're-here-already start of that figure. - Roger H On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:28 PM, QuiAnn2 via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I’ve also written a dance with this down the hall figure in it. I like to > call it early in the evening since it’s very connected and has “rest” time > for each couple. I haven’t run it through the Shared Weight gauntlet to see > if anyone else has written it. Please let me know if it’s already out there. > > *Pivot the Line* > by Jacqui Grennan, 5/1/2016 > Contra/Improper/Easy > > A1 --- > Four steps down the hall, turn alone, rejoin hands in lines of 4 > Four more steps down the hall, walking backwards > Four steps up the hall, turn alone, rejoin hands in lines of 4 > Four more steps up the hall, walking backwards. Bend the line > A2 --- > (16) 2’s gypsy RIGHT/swing, face up to same N’s > B1 --- > (16) Same N B&Sw > B2 --- > (8) 1’s DSD across set > (8) 1’s P Sw (2’s get ready for DTH, 1’s end the swing facing down between > new neighbors). > > > >
[Callers] A new dance: Cassoulet
I've been thinking about dances with distinctive figures recently. Here's one that people have enjoyed; I think it may be the minimal improper dance with contra corners, as it avoids the half figure eight which, while fun, causes confusion for beginners. -- Cassoulet Duple minor improper contra dance Roger Hayes, August 2016 A1 Circle left ½, Ladies roll away L to R with neighbor Circle left ½, Gents roll away L to R with neighbor A2 Demi pousette, Long lines forward and back B1 Contra corners B2 Actives balance and swing Demi pousette: 1’s do a ½ draw pousette starting above improper, ending below proper, while 2’s do a normal ½ pousette to move up. So the 1 gent pulls partner out of the set and back in, moving in an arc with the gent always in the forefront, while the 2 gent pulls partner out of the set then 2 lady pulls partner back in, describing a V shape. This dance benefits from spacious circles.
Re: [Callers] Is Pony Fun Unique?
I know it's not what she intended, but here's what comes to my mind from a literal interpretation of the original instructions: A1 Right hand star with (current) neighbors, Left hand star with (previous) neighbors A2 Go back to (current neighbor) and swing, Ladies roll away to partner swing B1 Gents chain, starting with a left hand (the free hand) pull-by, courtesy turn with gent on left walking forward Gents chain back B2 Circle L 3/4, pass through It's not a good dance like this, though -- too busy, too dizzy, and the B2/A1 transition is awkward. I suppose this might stand as a cautionary example for anyone reconstructing dances from the historical record; the intended dance as recorded by Don is different from this particular minimal literal reconstruction. - Roger Hayes Madison WI On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Don Veino via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Last night at bedtime my 5 year old daughter and I had the following > interaction: > > Raeden: "Daddy. I want to write a new dance, Pony Fun." > Me: "OK, how does it go?" > R: "Star, Star, Swing. Swing, Courtesy Turn, Circle 3 places, Pass > Through, repeat." > > A little bit of back and forth figuring out the glue resulted in the > following. Has someone else written it first? > > Thanks, > Don > > Pony Fun - DI - Raeden Veino 20161012 > > A1 > Star Left > Neighbor Allemande Left 1x > Gents start Hands-Across Star Right (1/4x) > > A2 > Ladies join Star behind N, all Star Right 3/4x > Partner Swing > > B1 > Give & Take to Gents Side, N Swing > > B2 > Ladies Chain > Circle Left 3/4, Pass Through > > BTW, in case you may call this, Raeden's name is pronounced "RAY-den > VEE-no" > > > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >
Re: [Callers] Challenging Contras
"Fiddleheads" by Ted Sanella - Roger Hayes from mobile
[Callers] Calling and timing
Some thoughts on timing, in part inspired by the recent discussion of "Young Adult Rose" (btw, I hope we get a series of dances up to and including "Revered Elder Rose" -- alternatively "That Old Rascal Rose"). As the dancers get the dance into their body, I'll shift from calling early for direction to calling on the beat for timing. Of course it would be ideal to be able to do both; I think it's possible with artful word choice, but not always, not for me. Sometimes I get the control thing going and want to exert a strong influence over the timing -- "balance Now!". It's often more fun to shut up and let the dancers sort out the timing - it's great to see people adjust to make a dance flow. Sometimes I enjoy dancing a dance with imperfect timing or flow, just to see how the hall will adjust and make sense of it. A lot of the figures we dance are not so precise as we think they are; for example, many "allemande once" figures are really more like 1/2, to reverse direction. This is why I prefer to teach with "far enough so you can..." rather than "exactly N" -- I want the dancers to think about flow and connection, not about completing one figure before attending to the next. On the other hand, I'm a total curmudgeon about lazy not-quite-far-enough circles. And being late for your neighbor? Awful. Breaks down the trust that builds up when we're all there for each other, on time and in the right place. - Roger Hayes
Re: [Callers] Simple Revolving door dances?
Hmm, with enough space a figure like this might be fun: Pass through to a Swing (like pass-though-to-a-wave mixed with revolving-door) pass through across the set, except ladies commence an allemand left rather than passing each other ladies allemand back round to the other gent & swing him (gents will, of course, turn right after crossing the set, if they want to swing) The leaves ladies' right hand free for a spacious and gentle entry to the swing. - Roger Hayes On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:13 AM, frannie via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Ron Buchanan's "Revolving Door" figure is described well by Rick Mohr. In > "Revolving Door", couples start a "wrong side" half promenade where women > pass right instead of men passing left. As the women meet they catch right > hands and allemande right once around. The men drop out after crossing the > set, and partners swing as the women come around. It flows easily and feels > good. I often do a floor demo, both because it's unfamiliar and because > it's pretty cool to watch. Since the promenade only lasts for a beat or two > I think the easiest hold is for neighbors to join left hands, with the > man's right arm briefly behind the woman's back. > > Dances that include that figure are > Puttin' Cheese on the Ritz by Ron Buchanan > Glenside Promenade by Ron Buchanan > Gaye's Groove by Rick Mohr > Cup of Joe by Rick Mohr > Better Late than Never by Steve Z-A > Not a Trip to Vegas by Chris Page > > Rick Mohr is also credited with varying this dance to include a Revolving > Door. It's the easiest of the dances. > > *The Missing Piece* > > Bronwyn Woods > > Type: Contra > > Formation: Duple-Improper > > > A1 --- > > (16) Neighbor balance and swing > > A2 --- > > (8) Revolving door (W take N across set drop them off and return home to P) > > (8) Partner swing > > B1 --- > > (8) Long lines, forward and back > > (8) Women Chain > > B2 --- > > (8) Balance the ring and spin to the right (petronella) > > (8) Balance the ring and spin to the right (petronella) turn away from > these N to new N > > > Notes: Original A2 Men allemande L 1.5 to P swing > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> Hmm. Alex, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that "revolving >> doors" was the reverse of a half promenade and butterfly whirl...? >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers < >> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> I interpreted that as a move that goes from one circle with neighbors to >>> another circle with other neighbors, such as David Kaynor's "Open Doors" >>> >>> (Sourced from: http://www.davidkaynor.com/Compositions.html ) >>> >>> *Open Doors* >>> >>> Duple Improper >>> A1 Circle Left 3/4; Swing Partner >>> A2 Down Hall 4 - in - line; Wheel around as couples; return; bend line >>> into long line >>> B1 Long lines forward; Ladies pull neighbors out; swing neighbors; end >>> progressed >>> B2 Long Lines forward & back; Circle Right; turn alone to face new >>> neighbors >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Aahz Maruch via Callers < >>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016, Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers wrote: > > Anyone have any beginner or intermediate revolving door dances? What's a revolving door dance? (Yes, I did try searching.) -- 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Luke Donforth >>> luke.donfo...@gmail.com >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > twirls, > Frannie > > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >
Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
I like this idea. I'm not quite clear on how it works with varying facings -- if the dancers turn (in place) from long lines to facing their neighbor, does their designation at that instant switch to the other corner? It would make sense, since that's the orientation for the interaction, but I wonder if it places a too-rigid emphasis on facing? It seems to me that subtle adjustments in facing are one of the ways skilled dancers make the dance flow. And after a circle left, for example, the facing may not be evident. Perhaps I'm over-thinking this. Anyone care to chime in with the voice of experience? - Roger On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Exactly, Alan. No role names needed if corner is a place not a person. > Andrea > > Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Winston, Alan P. > wrote: > > Just clarification again. By first corners you mean the people who are > standing in first corners at the time of the call? If so that's why this > isn't a substitution of role names. > > Is this what you mean? > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Ric, > The ECD confusion is a result of our often using corners to refer to > people, but not 100% of the time. I propose that we never refer to corners > as the people, only use those words to refer to the position. In any hands > four no matter where anyone lands, someone is in the top first corner, > someone else in too second corner, etc. you can swap, the dance can move > you around, but that position is forever. > Andrea > > Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Ric Goldman wrote: > > Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but even in ECD the > terminology for corners is subject to confusion. If folks have shifted > from their original positions (for example after a “trade places with > partner” move), a reference to “1st corners do such-and-such” is often > met by a question from the dancers “is that people or places?”.For > example, if you’re facing across the set, and during a fwd-and-back, > there’s a rollaway with a half sashay, would you call the person on the > right the 1st corner (right diagonal based on the facing direction) or > the 2nd corner (left diagonal based on where they were facing at the > beginning of the dance). Therein lies the potential confusion. > > > > I wonder what the impact of this would be on chaos contra with the > additional position or role swappring mid dance. Of course, that’s the > dancers’ conundrum, not the callers. J > > > > Thanx, > > Ric Goldman > > > > *From:* Callers [mailto:callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Perry Shafran > via Callers > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 02, 2015 7:42 AM > *To:* Andrea Nettleton > *Cc:* call...@sharedweight.net > *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling > > > > 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 > *To:* Michael Fuerst > *Cc:* "call...@sharedweight.net" > *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 c
Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
Ron Blechner wrote: > Contra grew out of ECD, and the terms changed to fit. The fact that > contra grew out of using [...] Sorry -- fallacy. Contra and today's ECD have a common (and complex) ancestry, but they are both living and changing. There are both continuity and innovation in both communities; let's learn what we can, without assuming that our current local status is the pinnacle of evolution. For example, one innovation in global ECD seems to be to call to places not to faces. It does seem that this makes the dance more open in many ways, and might foster better dancing besides. Good things, yes? - Roger Hayes PS: Andrea: hear, hear. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 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" < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 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 as
Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
Check out Brooke Friendly and Chris Sackett's English Country dances - they use "geographic" terms, and structure the dances without gender roles. It's different, but the dance does keep changing, it's a live art. http://www.brookefriendlydance.com/ Aside from Mr. Hemphill's effort recently here described, I know of no comparable endeavor in contra dance choreography - I suppose we're more traditional than ECD. Does anyone have info to share? Roger Hayes Jim - I don't think I am alone in wondering how you managed this without telling the dancers. I take that to mean you didn't make it gender free by the terminology you used (jets or whatever) but by the kinds of dances you chose. I'd love to read more details about what this entailed. Please share more! Amy 206 330 7408 a...@calleramy.com On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 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, arcadia...@gmail.com. Thanks, Jim Hemphill ___ 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] Itty-bitty dances, triplets, odd numbers
Kalia-- Carol Ormond's "Thanks to the Pharmacist" is a fun triplet. - R On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I just called a tiny dance last night, and went through several of my > triplets along with a big pile of English 3-couple dances that we did to > old-time tunes (that was a little weird for me but the dancers enjoyed > them, so what the heck). I was grateful to have the few triplets I had, > and I'd like to expand my collection. The ones I used were Microchasmic, > David's Triplet #7 and Ted's Triplet #24, which all have distinctive bits > in them (contra corners, round two/drop through, and a cast to invert then > 1s lead up, respectively). I like triplets that have some choreographic > substance to them, something for the dancers to chew on. > > Do you have favorites you enjoy dancing as well as calling? I get the > impression sometimes that triplets are "that thing you do to fill time > until the real dancing starts," but 3-couple sets can be a whole lot of > fun. And sometimes they can save your butt as a caller. > > We had lots of odd numbers last night, so in addition to the triplets and > 3-couple English dances I used dances like Domino 5 (5 dancers) and Pride > of Dingle (for 9). For a short while we had 4 couples and did contras but > most of the evening was "other." Got any good dances for odd numbers? > > Kalia > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >
Re: [Callers] Anyone seen this sequence?
Hmmm. How about, rather than ring balance: neighbor balance, box the gnat, switch to left hands, allemand 1 1/2 This might have some educational benefit, as I imagine it's going to be painfully awkward unless you give decent weight. - R On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I'm not entirely clear on what's happening in B2 1-4. One possible > stumbling point, though, is that pass-throughs are almost always by the > right shoulder, so you'll need to come up with a really strong way to teach > that it's left (LEFT, no, the _other_ left). > > Kalia > > On 4/16/2015 3:32 PM, Ric Goldman via Callers wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> In the midst of a discussion with some dancers during the break at a >> recent gig, this dance sequence came up.Has anyone seen its like? >> >> Allemandery, My Dear Watson – improper >> >> A11-4(New) Nbrs alle R 1-1/2 >> >> 5-8Gents alle L 1-1/2 (end in front of and facing Ptnr) >> >> A21-4½ hey (PR, WL, NR, GL) >> >> 5-8Ptnr swing >> >> B11-4Women alle R 1-1/2 >> >> 5-8Nbrs swing >> >> B21-4Balance ring; pass by Nbr (pass thru backwards) L-shoulder and turn >> back L to… >> >> 5-8(Old) Nbrs alle L 1-1/2 (to next cpl) >> >> Thanx, Ric Goldman >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Giant dance database?
A more interesting programming task, and more useful, would be to design & build a system that facilitated crowdsourcing dance definitions. You'd want some kind of authentication and reputation tracking system, and perhaps a lexography of dance moves for cataloguing -- although Peter Norvig cites the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data", and he's been there and done that for semantic analysis of language. I wonder if CDSS would consider hosting such a system? I presume you'd make it open source. No money to be had, I think. - Roger Hayes On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm currently in programming school casting about for programming > projects, and I had the idea of a giant searchable contradance database, > where you can filter by move combination, etc. > > My question: is this something people would be interested in having? Or > does it run the risk of infringing on intellectual property, or > shortchanging dance writers on book sales, etc.? (Obviously no dances would > be included without the author's permission, but it may be that making a > huge ton of dances freely available and searchable in one place online > would be a death blow to published books of dances, or have some other > negative effect I'm not foreseeing right now...) > > Anyway: does anyone have any thoughts on this project? > > Cheers, > Maia > > ___ > 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
