Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Yoyo Zhou via Callers]

On Dec 10, 2015 11:45 AM, "Rich Sbardella via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for the last dance ,
put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that they do not like
Beckets.

This is unusual behavior. More on that below.

> Is there a negative sentiment about Becket formation among many dancers?
If so, can someone explain the reason?

No and no.

Imagine that instead of Becket, the caller announced, the last dance will
be a square. Or a shadow swing dance. Or a triple minor chestnut with no
partner swing. Or a mazurka quadrille, with footwork. How would it be
reasonable for the dancers to respond?

What if you didn't know ahead of time? Say you start out improper and
circle all the way instead of 3/4, and surprise, actually Becket. Or a
shadow swing unannounced. Or the caller asks you to do something dangerous.
Or a dance that the caller is simply unprepared to teach well. How do you
respond?

We have an unstated social contract (thanks to Seth Tepfer from whom I
learned this idea) between the band, the caller, and the dancers. The
dancers and band trust the caller to lead the event; in doing so, they cede
some of their autonomy. They agree to listen to the caller and go along
with their program, not dancing their own dance or playing their own music
whenever they feel like it. But this trust depends on the caller's ability
to earn it. (It's this way in any teaching situation.)

As callers, we show the dancers we are worthy of their trust by knowing
what we are doing, and by meeting community expectations. (For example, at
least in my area, some callers call both English dances and contra dances,
but these communities have come to expect different styles of teaching.)
Call dances which flow nicely, are fun, are not too hard to learn, are
contra dances, etc. but occasionally teach us something new, do a square
dance, etc.

On the dancers' side, the social contract I think includes a lot of
measures of commitment. If the caller is doing their job well, you agree to
dance with a partner, in a line, across from neighbors, and keep doing the
dance the caller is leading, and respect your fellow dancers' boundaries.
Or maybe you sit out if you're tired, you don't like this formation, or you
just don't want to dance. These are your choices, and you don't have to
involve other people in them.

It definitely feels awkward when people go outside the social contract: The
caller doesn't know what they're talking about. The caller calling out
individuals for 'doing it wrong'. Dancers disrupting the caller. Dancers
making each other uncomfortable. Dancers dropping out of the middle of the
set. Dancers making a dramatic departure.

So I'm not sure what dancers are accomplishing by making a show of not
liking Becket dances and leaving*. Presumably Becket dances are as much a
part of your community's expectations as they are of mine. Having bought
into the social contract, we respond with "those people are being weird",
not "the caller should not call Beckets".

(*: actually, in your original example, Rich, I'm not sure if they were
obnoxious about it or just said it privately to the dancers near them.)

Yoyo Zhou

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[John Sweeney via Callers]

Next time you see this couple at a dance, call for Rifleman Formation!
Maybe they will stay to see what it is.

Yes, before the relatively recent introduction of the term "Becket
Formation" that formation was known as "Rifleman Formation", after the
English country dance The Rifleman.  Yes, we were using that formation in
the 19th century, and possibly earlier, way before Becket Reel was written!

Please note I use the term "English country dance" not capitalised, i.e. not
what Americans dance and call ECD.  We do lots of English country dancing
with the " increased exertion and tempo" of contra dancing.  Young dancers
over here tend to use their energy through stepping rather than spinning,
but the energy level at a good dance is the same as at a contra!

Progression: most of my Becket dances end with "Yearn on the Left Diagonal"
giving a full eight beats for the dancers to meet their new neighbours, high
five them and retire to their new place ready to start the dance again.

Happy dancing,
John

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

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Neal Schlein via Callers]

to suggest
> how to make this work, so it is on the caller to figure it out.   If poorly
> done, it can be really disappointing.
>
> Janet
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Neal Schlein via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Date: 12/10/2015 8:25 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To:
> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>
> Actually, I can see this.
>
> As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor
> experiences with dances in Beckets.  That said, there are two fairly common
> tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating
> and another which absolutely drives me up a wall.  Other callers and
> dancers don't seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely
> avoid the dances which have the last one.
>
> 1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like
> them myself.  They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly
> right and left throughs; people run into each other.  Add to this the
> slight disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can
> be unpleasant.  In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine.  Not a problem
> so much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle
> all at once and it's confusing.
>
> 2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever."  How many
> beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and
> end with "Partner swing on the side!"  (answer: TOO MANY)  If all you are
> going to do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems
> like a cheap trick done just to make the dance "different."  Again, not an
> inherent problem of the formation, just a problem of choreographic
> selection.
>
> 3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature
> swings at the end of the dance: *partial or non progression*.This
> problem, unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the
> formation: such a difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and
> it drives me absolutely NUTS.  I have experienced a number of dances in
> which the caller instructs the dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge"
> or some such to make the dance work.  The contra doesn't actually progress
> the couples down the line, but leaves them 1/2 progressed or
> non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the outside, but not always.
> Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; swinging on the outside
> and fudging down the hall is another.
>
> The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches
> it well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial
> progression problem always jars and simply seems to be excessively lazy
> choreography.
> Beak
>
> Neal Schlein
> Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
>
>
> Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
> Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, John W Gintell via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> My favorite progression requires Becket  formation: circle left and then
>> slide up/down and circle with the next pair.
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a
>> number of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in
>> Winnipeg. It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get
>> interest from other dancing groups, that some people know what they like
>> and what they don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English
>> country dance often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and
>> tempo. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's
>> got their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad
>> experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone
>> does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event
>> because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to
>> make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose.
>> >
>> > We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at
>> the end of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't
>> want to start learning new things late in the evening.
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>
>

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[janet via Callers]

My first guess isbthatvthey were not overly familiar with what a Becket dance 
is. Recently I asked a person to dance who had been coming fairly frequently 
for a few weeks after the caller announced it was a Becket.  He was going to 
sit out because he didn't know what a Becket dance was.  Some callers don't say 
Becket,  they just say turn your circles one place to the left/right.  As the 
last dance of the evening,  I would hope the call didn't have anything too 
complex (a major programming flaw in my book).
To address comments in the email below ...
1. Diaganol figures ... Except maybe slice left to a new couple,  I can't think 
of much I would consider for a last dance. Last dances should be relatively 
simple so dancers can enjoy the music and the flow. 
2. Debecketize maneuver ... I find this slightly annoying when callers say 
"like all Becket dances" circle left and pass through. I hate more when they 
either skip that part entirely in the walk through or start it un Becketized 
and then tell you afterwards that it is Becket. If you don't teach the walk 
through the way the dance is actually danced, you very well could have confused 
newer dancers,  especially. 
Since he is unlikely to say anything himself,  I will point out that the "as 
with all Becket dances" comment was so annoying that Cary Ravitz once called an 
entire evening where none of the Becket dances have that progression ... None!  
And as most of you probably know,  he writes a lot of Becket dances. 
Partner swings at the end of the dance. .. To me that is the number one reason 
to have a Becket dance,  especially as the last dance.  You get to end with 
your partner and the caller doesn't have to break the moment to fudge the end 
to make you end with your partner. That being said,  I do know a couple Beckets 
that do not end that way.  Cary's Autumn Air is a pretty easy Becket that does 
not end with a partner swing. 
3.  If callers fudge the end of a duple improper dance to make it end with your 
partner, it is generally their responsibility to make sure it works smoothly. 
Most choreographers do not include an alternate ending to suggest how to make 
this work, so it is on the caller to figure it out.   If poorly done, it can be 
really disappointing. 
Janet
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 
From: Neal Schlein via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 
Date: 12/10/2015  8:25 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To:  
Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 
Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation 

Actually, I can see this.
As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor 
experiences with dances in Beckets.  That said, there are two fairly common 
tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating and 
another which absolutely drives me up a wall.  Other callers and dancers don't 
seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely avoid the dances 
which have the last one.
1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like them 
myself.  They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly right and 
left throughs; people run into each other.  Add to this the slight 
disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can be 
unpleasant.  In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine.  Not a problem so 
much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle all at 
once and it's confusing.
2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever."  How many 
beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and end 
with "Partner swing on the side!"  (answer: TOO MANY)  If all you are going to 
do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems like a cheap 
trick done just to make the dance "different."  Again, not an inherent problem 
of the formation, just a problem of choreographic selection.
3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature 
swings at the end of the dance: partial or non progression.    This problem, 
unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the formation: such a 
difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and it drives me absolutely 
NUTS.  I have experienced a number of dances in which the caller instructs the 
dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge" or some such to make the dance 
work.  The contra doesn't actually progress the couples down the line, but 
leaves them 1/2 progressed or non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the 
outside, but not always.  Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; 
swinging on the outside and fudging down the hall is another.
The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches it 
well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial progression 
problem always jars and simp

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Bill Olson via Callers]

Well, any improper dance that has a partner swing on the side could be 
rephrased to be Becket, actually it wouldn't even have to be a swing.. just a 
partner interaction that ended facing across the set. So you could argue that 
just about ANY modern improper contra dance "goes through" Becket formation at 
some time during the dance.. 
 
But, truth is, people are gonna do what they're gonna do and have their 
reasons. With this particular couple it may not have had anything to do with 
Becket Formation at all!!
 
b
 
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:21:08 -0500
To: nschl...@gmail.com
CC: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net

If confronted with that bias again, one could always point out that many 
improper dances if started in the b section instead, become Becket dances and 
vice versa. 

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Actually, I can see this.
As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor 
experiences with dances in Beckets.  That said, there are two fairly common 
tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating and 
another which absolutely drives me up a wall.  Other callers and dancers don't 
seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely avoid the dances 
which have the last one.
1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like them 
myself.  They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly right and 
left throughs; people run into each other.  Add to this the slight 
disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can be 
unpleasant.  In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine.  Not a problem so 
much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle all at 
once and it's confusing.
2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever."  How many 
beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and end 
with "Partner swing on the side!"  (answer: TOO MANY)  If all you are going to 
do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems like a cheap 
trick done just to make the dance "different."  Again, not an inherent problem 
of the formation, just a problem of choreographic selection.
3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature 
swings at the end of the dance: partial or non progression.This problem, 
unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the formation: such a 
difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and it drives me absolutely 
NUTS.  I have experienced a number of dances in which the caller instructs the 
dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge" or some such to make the dance 
work.  The contra doesn't actually progress the couples down the line, but 
leaves them 1/2 progressed or non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the 
outside, but not always.  Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; 
swinging on the outside and fudging down the hall is another.
The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches it 
well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial progression 
problem always jars and simply seems to be excessively lazy 
choreography.BeakNeal SchleinYouth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library

Currently reading: The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, John W Gintell via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
My favorite progression requires Becket  formation: circle left and then slide 
up/down and circle with the next pair.





> On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a number 
> of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in Winnipeg. 
> It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get interest from 
> other dancing groups, that some people know what they like and what they 
> don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English country dance 
> often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and tempo. 
> Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's got 
> their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad 
> experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone 
> does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event 
> because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to 
> make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose.

>

> We don't do Becket formation here

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers]

If confronted with that bias again, one could always point out that many
improper dances if started in the b section instead, become Becket dances
and vice versa.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Actually, I can see this.
>
> As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor
> experiences with dances in Beckets.  That said, there are two fairly common
> tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating
> and another which absolutely drives me up a wall.  Other callers and
> dancers don't seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely
> avoid the dances which have the last one.
>
> 1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like
> them myself.  They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly
> right and left throughs; people run into each other.  Add to this the
> slight disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can
> be unpleasant.  In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine.  Not a problem
> so much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle
> all at once and it's confusing.
>
> 2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever."  How many
> beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and
> end with "Partner swing on the side!"  (answer: TOO MANY)  If all you are
> going to do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems
> like a cheap trick done just to make the dance "different."  Again, not an
> inherent problem of the formation, just a problem of choreographic
> selection.
>
> 3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature
> swings at the end of the dance: *partial or non progression*.This
> problem, unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the
> formation: such a difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and
> it drives me absolutely NUTS.  I have experienced a number of dances in
> which the caller instructs the dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge"
> or some such to make the dance work.  The contra doesn't actually progress
> the couples down the line, but leaves them 1/2 progressed or
> non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the outside, but not always.
> Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; swinging on the outside
> and fudging down the hall is another.
>
> The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches
> it well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial
> progression problem always jars and simply seems to be excessively lazy
> choreography.
> Beak
>
> Neal Schlein
> Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
>
>
> Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
> Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, John W Gintell via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> My favorite progression requires Becket  formation: circle left and then
>> slide up/down and circle with the next pair.
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a
>> number of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in
>> Winnipeg. It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get
>> interest from other dancing groups, that some people know what they like
>> and what they don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English
>> country dance often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and
>> tempo. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's
>> got their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad
>> experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone
>> does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event
>> because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to
>> make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose.
>> >
>> > We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at
>> the end of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't
>> want to start learning new things late in the evening.
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Becket Formation

[Neal Schlein via Callers]

Actually, I can see this.

As others suggested, it is probably a matter of the couple's prior poor
experiences with dances in Beckets.  That said, there are two fairly common
tendencies in Becket formation choreography which are somewhat aggravating
and another which absolutely drives me up a wall.  Other callers and
dancers don't seem to mind so much, but were it possible I would completely
avoid the dances which have the last one.

1. The first tendency has to do with diagonal figures, even though I like
them myself.  They are often scrunched and uncomfortable, particularly
right and left throughs; people run into each other.  Add to this the
slight disorientation for someone not used to diagonal figures, and it can
be unpleasant.  In a nice open hall, they're perfectly fine.  Not a problem
so much with the formation as with the fact that everyone is in the middle
all at once and it's confusing.

2. The second is what I like to call the "DeBecketize Manuever."  How many
beckets start with, "Circle left 3/4 (and usually swing your neighbor" and
end with "Partner swing on the side!"  (answer: TOO MANY)  If all you are
going to do with the first move is take the dance out of Becket, it seems
like a cheap trick done just to make the dance "different."  Again, not an
inherent problem of the formation, just a problem of choreographic
selection.

3. The third choreographic tendency is often tied to dances which feature
swings at the end of the dance: *partial or non progression*.This
problem, unlike the others, is actually made possible because of the
formation: such a difficulty isn't possible in a regular duple minor, and
it drives me absolutely NUTS.  I have experienced a number of dances in
which the caller instructs the dancers to "fudge" or "maneuver" or "sludge"
or some such to make the dance work.  The contra doesn't actually progress
the couples down the line, but leaves them 1/2 progressed or
non-progressed--usually swinging partners on the outside, but not always.
Sliding up the outside from a circle is one thing; swinging on the outside
and fudging down the hall is another.

The annoyance of a non-progression can be mitigated if the caller teaches
it well (end facing across, look left and...), but to me the partial
progression problem always jars and simply seems to be excessively lazy
choreography.
Beak

Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library


Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, John W Gintell via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My favorite progression requires Becket  formation: circle left and then
> slide up/down and circle with the next pair.
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a
> number of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in
> Winnipeg. It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get
> interest from other dancing groups, that some people know what they like
> and what they don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English
> country dance often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and
> tempo. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's
> got their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad
> experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone
> does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event
> because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to
> make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose.
> >
> > We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at the
> end of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't want
> to start learning new things late in the evening.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[John W Gintell via Callers]

My favorite progression requires Becket  formation: circle left and then slide 
up/down and circle with the next pair.


> On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Greg Allan via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That is a somewhat familiar story from my point of view. I dance in a number 
> of different folk dancing communities - a varied program here in Winnipeg. 
> It's quite common, as people from one group attempt to get interest from 
> other dancing groups, that some people know what they like and what they 
> don't like, and that's that. For example, people who English country dance 
> often don't like contra because of the increased exertion and tempo. 
> Personally, I'm not much of a fan of triple minor dances. Everyone's got 
> their thing. But there's always a reason for it. It could be a bad 
> experience, or it could be a stylistic feature of a region, where everyone 
> does a figure in a way you find unpleasant. Hard to say. To leave an event 
> because someone programmed something you didn't like? ... I'm not sure to 
> make of it. You don't like it you don't like it, I suppose.
> 
> We don't do Becket formation here at all, really. If someone left at the end 
> of a night because of Becket formation, I would assume they didn't want to 
> start learning new things late in the evening.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Greg Allan via Callers]

an that one though.
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 2015, at 1:04 PM, jill allen via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Here's something new:
> >
> > Signs of Life
> > duple improper contra
> > by Jill Allen
> >
> > A1  circle R X1, M allem L 1 1/2 to face P
> > A2  hey for 4, start by passing R
> > B1  gypsy and swing P (or B & S)
> > B2  circle L 3/4, balance the ring, calif twirl to face the next..
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > Columbia Contra
> > duple improper contra
> > by Gene Hubert
> >
> > A1  Allem R N aprox 1 1/4, W allem L 1/2, allem R P X1 ending with Women
> facing each other in the middle
> > A2  hey for 4, W pass L to begin
> > B1  B & S P
> > B2  W chain, star L
> >
> > I call both of these quite frequently.  Both have timing which is
> forgiving for beginners.
> > Jill Allen : )
> >
> >
> >>> Hello Folks,
> >>> >
> >>> > I am relatively new at calling contras and I am looking for some asy
> to intermediate contras to introduce the hey to a group that includes many
> beginners. and/or club square dancers.
> >>> >
> >>> > "Butter" by Gene Hubert is my go to dance, but I am looking for a
> few more.  I like Butter because the flow from ladies chain into a RH hey
> is great, and because all the other calls are introduced earlier in most
> evening.
> >>> >
> >>> > I love simple, but different choreography, so I am open to most
> suggestions.
> >>> >
> >>> > Rich Sbardella
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151209/600f919f/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> From: Rich Sbardella via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <call...@sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> Message-ID:
> 

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Ryan Smith via Callers]

As Mac pointed out, becket dances can be more complex/confusing.  Removing
a need to separate you from your partner at the end of the dance, allows
for some choreographic flexibility.  All the same, most beckets are not
notably more complex/confusing than most improper contras.

My guesses are:
1 - this couple had a bad experience that they associate with 'becket
formation' rather than whatever confounding factors go into making a dance
experience pleasant or unpleasant
2 - was this a contra event (all duple-minors all the time) or a more
varied program?  Maybe the couple doesn't like contras much?
3 - Maybe they are confusing it with some other formation (sicilian, 4 face
4, squares, triplets, etc.)

--Ryan Smith

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Sorry, I meant Rich.
On Dec 10, 2015 3:54 PM, "Ron Blechner" <contra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
> On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
>> set - making them slightly more complex.  Perhaps they had some bad
>> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
>>
>> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
>> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
>>
>> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they
>> can end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
>>
>> Mac McKeever
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Bill Olson via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> *To:* Caller's discussion list <call...@sharedweight.net>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>>
>> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
>>
>> bill
>>
>> --
>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
>> To: call...@sharedweight.net
>> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
>> From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
>> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
>> Becket formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
>> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
>> they do not like Beckets.
>>
>> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
>> Beckets in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
>> formation among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> ___ 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] Becket Formation

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
> set - making them slightly more complex.  Perhaps they had some bad
> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
>
> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
>
> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they can
> end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
>
> Mac McKeever
>
> --
> *From:* Bill Olson via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *To:* Caller's discussion list <call...@sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>
> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
>
> bill
>
> ------
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> To: call...@sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> Becket formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> they do not like Beckets.
>
> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> Beckets in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> formation among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
>
> Rich
>
> ___ 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] Becket Formation

[Mac Mckeever via Callers]

The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor set - 
making them slightly more complex.  Perhaps they had some bad experiences with 
a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they are 
just more comfortable with what they are used to.

I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they can end 
with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
Mac McKeever

  From: Bill Olson via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
 To: Caller's discussion list <call...@sharedweight.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
 Subject: Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
   
#yiv5824956374 #yiv5824956374 --.yiv5824956374hmmessage 
P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv5824956374 
body.yiv5824956374hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv5824956374 
Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
 
bill
 
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
To: call...@sharedweight.net
Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net



Folks,
I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited dancers 
to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in Becket 
formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for the last 
dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that they do not 
like Beckets.
Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40% Beckets 
in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket formation 
among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
Rich
___Callers mailing 
listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://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] Becket Formation

[Michael Fuerst via Callers]

Or maybe they were confusing Becket with gypsy Michael Fuerst      802 N 
Broadway      Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844 


On Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM, Bill Olson via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
 

 #yiv5709207139 #yiv5709207139 --.yiv5709207139hmmessage 
P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv5709207139 
body.yiv5709207139hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv5709207139 
Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
 
bill
 
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
To: call...@sharedweight.net
Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net

Folks,
I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited dancers 
to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in Becket 
formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for the last 
dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that they do not 
like Beckets.
Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40% Beckets 
in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket formation 
among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
Rich
___Callers mailing 
listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://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] Becket Formation

[Bill Olson via Callers]

Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
 
bill
 
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
To: call...@sharedweight.net
Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net

Folks,
I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited dancers 
to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in Becket 
formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for the last 
dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that they do not 
like Beckets.
Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40% Beckets 
in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket formation 
among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
Rich

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 
  

[Callers] Becket Formation

[Rich Sbardella via Callers]

Folks,

I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
Becket formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
they do not like Beckets.

Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
Beckets in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
formation among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?

Rich