Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Jeff Kaufman]

Jeff Kaufman wrote:
> Chrissy Fowler wrote:
> > 
> > I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this
> > sentence.  I've never danced at, or called, or even heard about a
> > dance where the caller could "just wait for people to get into
> > position."
> 
> Sorry, you're right.  I wasn't rememebring well.  I should have said
> "wait for people, and then when they're mostly ready say 'hands four'
> a few times".  The point is that usually the dancers don't need to be
> instructed in how to get into position, just prompted to actually do
> it.
>

I called at MIT in Cambridge Tuesday night and I thought I would
follow up.

The dancers mostly lined up improper and in hands four without my
prompting.  On the second dance I saw a couple standing reversed [1]
and said "ones cross over", and that couple switched.  A couple times
I could start the walkthrough simply with "with your neighbor balance
and swing" but most of the time I needed to say "hands four",
primarily to get them to stop talking and pay attention.

Jeff

 [1] This is complicated.  I could tell they they didn't intend to be
 swapped because I knew them.  But if you make a point of getting
 any couple standing gender-swapped to switch you'll annoy dancers
 who are dancing that way on purpose.  (And I think more people
 should dance both roles, so I don't want to annoy or embarass
 people doing it.)  It helps not to single anyone out and instead
 just say something generic like "ones cross over".

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Don Veino]

If by partner interaction you mean touching then I'd agree with you. If by
visual connection then there's a lot of it. But not just partner - in this
area the R for MM are done the old style (or what I'm told is the old
style): pull by with hands and then do a parallel/tandem CT shoulder to
shoulder with eye contact only.

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Donald Perley  wrote:

> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Don Veino
> >
> wrote:
> >  My wife was originally not fond of
> > Money Musk, until she got a chance to dance it with a great partner at
> > Ralph Page/UNH and "got it".
>
> Interesting... I like Money Musk, but of all the dances I know it is among
> the least for partner interaction.
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Don Veino]

I feel lucky that in our area these dances are occasionally part of a
standard "social dance" program (from whence they originally came). While I
can no longer claim to be a new dancer, when I was one I got exposed to
these dances and it opened my dance horizons, enough so that I wanted to
seek out opportunities to learn more about them at a more focused workshop
(which David does so well).

British Sorrow IMO is an example of a very fun dance that shows its age
well and is very accessible. Chorus Jig is done in at least one dance
community near me as a weekly feature. My wife was originally not fond of
Money Musk, until she got a chance to dance it with a great partner at
Ralph Page/UNH and "got it". It became such a favorite for her that I
taught myself to do a singing call of it for her as a gift at our
post-wedding dance party.

I enjoy getting a chance to dance these alongside the latest hot new DI
dance in our area dances.

-Don

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Greg McKenzie  wrote:

>  Dave wrote:
>
> > Sure, there are times at festivals where callers might program a
> > particular theme and
> >
> discuss dance history, or experienced dances where callers might teach
> > complex dance figures, but these are not the open, public dances that
> > you're talking about.
> >
>
> I'm glad we are in agreement on this.  Keeping the program appropriate for
> the venue was the main point I was making.
>
> Dave then wrote:
>
> > Fostering musical and dance traditions does not come at the cost of
> > accessbility.  I don't see how doing so takes away from the "central
> > purpose" of having a fun evening.
> >
>
> Good point.  It doesn't necessarily conflict.  It's a matter of being aware
> of the purpose of the event.
>
> Incidentally, I have not heard David Millstone call, so I would not presume
> to comment on his conduct of an open public contra dance.  I'm sure David's
> cultural enrichment is all very appropriate for an open, public event.
>
> - Greg
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Greg McKenzie]

 Dave wrote:

> Sure, there are times at festivals where callers might program a
> particular theme and
>
discuss dance history, or experienced dances where callers might teach
> complex dance figures, but these are not the open, public dances that
> you're talking about.
>

I'm glad we are in agreement on this.  Keeping the program appropriate for
the venue was the main point I was making.

Dave then wrote:

> Fostering musical and dance traditions does not come at the cost of
> accessbility.  I don't see how doing so takes away from the "central
> purpose" of having a fun evening.
>

Good point.  It doesn't necessarily conflict.  It's a matter of being aware
of the purpose of the event.

Incidentally, I have not heard David Millstone call, so I would not presume
to comment on his conduct of an open public contra dance.  I'm sure David's
cultural enrichment is all very appropriate for an open, public event.

- Greg

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Dave Casserly]

Greg,

Your comments seem to be a bit of a non sequitur-- I'm not sure that
I've ever heard a caller give "lectures" or talk about what a person
who wrote a dance said once when calling dances.  Sure, there are
times at festivals where callers might program a particular theme and
discuss dance history, or experienced dances where callers might teach
complex dance figures, but these are not the open, public dances that
you're talking about.

Simply because a dance is in a different formation does not make it
more or less difficult.  I've been to several dances that David M.
calls, including ones where he'll have us dance something with a
formation other than duple improper or becket.  I don't remember any
of those nights involving more complex figures than other contra
dances, and certainly can't remember being lectured.

Fostering musical and dance traditions does not come at the cost of
accessbility.  I don't see how doing so takes away from the "central
purpose" of having a fun evening.

-Dave

On 5/7/12, Brian Hamshar  wrote:
> Very well put, Greg. Thank you!
>
> Brian Hamshar
> Virginia
>
> Greg McKenzie  wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>> As as a long-time New England caller, I admit to a special fondness for
>>> the so-called chestnuts, most of which are in proper formation; I think
>>> that dancers can appreciate having these in their repertoire as a
>>> connection to the long traditions of music and dance we inherit, and a
>>> community does well to foster those connections.
>>>
>>
>>I think fostering "...connections to the long traditions of music an dance
>>we inherit,..." is a good and important goal.  The question is one of
>> venue
>>for this purpose.
>>
>>If we are talking about open, public contra dances (as opposed to a
>>gathering of social dance enthusiasts) then I would urge callers to be
>>mindful of the central, social purpose of these events.
>>
>>I see the regular open, public contra dances as social events and as
>> public
>>outreach events.  In essence the dance community is offering a social
>>event--with live music and called dances--to the general community.  Our
>>flyers say "No experience needed." and "No need to bring a partner."  That
>>implies an open social event.
>>
>>Personally, I do not attend these social events to be connected with an
>>historic tradition, to learn the history of that tradition, or to re-enact
>>some of the historic dances done in generations past.  My own research
>>suggests that most of those in the hall at these events do not come for
>>those reasons either.  People attend open, public dances primarily for the
>>social experience.
>>
>>While there is certainly a place for some "cultural enrichment" at open,
>>public social dance events we need to keep focused on the purpose of the
>>venue.  There are camps, festivals, workshops, and special events that may
>>be more appropriate for this kind of diversified cultural enrichment--and
>> I
>>hope dance communities continue to offer such events, which are targeted
>>specifically for social dance enthusiasts.
>>
>>But I do not attend the open, public contra dances to stand and listen to
>>lectures, or to learn complex dance figures and to hear about the history
>>of the name of each dance, who wrote the dance, or what that person said
>>once at a dance festival.  No offense intended.  I can tolerate only a
>>limited amount of cultural enrichment at social events I attend.
>>
>>As a caller at open, public contra dances I see my role differently.  I
>>want people to experience the excitement and joy of dancing to live
>>music--without having to attend separate classes.  I want the regulars to
>>experience the excitement and joy of sharing their passion for social
>>dancing with newcomers who are discovering this tradition for the first
>>time.
>>
>>We should talk more about our purpose, the purpose of the event, and the
>>purposes of those who attend.  There is certainly room for those who seek
>> a
>>deep understanding of the cultural roots of the dance.  We should discuss
>>how that goal can best be achieved.
>>
>>Soapbox is now available.
>>
>>- Greg McKenzie
>>___
>>Callers mailing list
>>call...@sharedweight.net
>>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>


-- 
David Casserly
(cell) 781 258-2761

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Brian Hamshar]

Very well put, Greg. Thank you!

Brian Hamshar
Virginia

Greg McKenzie  wrote:

>David wrote:
>
>> As as a long-time New England caller, I admit to a special fondness for
>> the so-called chestnuts, most of which are in proper formation; I think
>> that dancers can appreciate having these in their repertoire as a
>> connection to the long traditions of music and dance we inherit, and a
>> community does well to foster those connections.
>>
>
>I think fostering "...connections to the long traditions of music an dance
>we inherit,..." is a good and important goal.  The question is one of venue
>for this purpose.
>
>If we are talking about open, public contra dances (as opposed to a
>gathering of social dance enthusiasts) then I would urge callers to be
>mindful of the central, social purpose of these events.
>
>I see the regular open, public contra dances as social events and as public
>outreach events.  In essence the dance community is offering a social
>event--with live music and called dances--to the general community.  Our
>flyers say "No experience needed." and "No need to bring a partner."  That
>implies an open social event.
>
>Personally, I do not attend these social events to be connected with an
>historic tradition, to learn the history of that tradition, or to re-enact
>some of the historic dances done in generations past.  My own research
>suggests that most of those in the hall at these events do not come for
>those reasons either.  People attend open, public dances primarily for the
>social experience.
>
>While there is certainly a place for some "cultural enrichment" at open,
>public social dance events we need to keep focused on the purpose of the
>venue.  There are camps, festivals, workshops, and special events that may
>be more appropriate for this kind of diversified cultural enrichment--and I
>hope dance communities continue to offer such events, which are targeted
>specifically for social dance enthusiasts.
>
>But I do not attend the open, public contra dances to stand and listen to
>lectures, or to learn complex dance figures and to hear about the history
>of the name of each dance, who wrote the dance, or what that person said
>once at a dance festival.  No offense intended.  I can tolerate only a
>limited amount of cultural enrichment at social events I attend.
>
>As a caller at open, public contra dances I see my role differently.  I
>want people to experience the excitement and joy of dancing to live
>music--without having to attend separate classes.  I want the regulars to
>experience the excitement and joy of sharing their passion for social
>dancing with newcomers who are discovering this tradition for the first
>time.
>
>We should talk more about our purpose, the purpose of the event, and the
>purposes of those who attend.  There is certainly room for those who seek a
>deep understanding of the cultural roots of the dance.  We should discuss
>how that goal can best be achieved.
>
>Soapbox is now available.
>
>- Greg McKenzie
>___
>Callers mailing list
>call...@sharedweight.net
>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Greg McKenzie]

David wrote:

> As as a long-time New England caller, I admit to a special fondness for
> the so-called chestnuts, most of which are in proper formation; I think
> that dancers can appreciate having these in their repertoire as a
> connection to the long traditions of music and dance we inherit, and a
> community does well to foster those connections.
>

I think fostering "...connections to the long traditions of music an dance
we inherit,..." is a good and important goal.  The question is one of venue
for this purpose.

If we are talking about open, public contra dances (as opposed to a
gathering of social dance enthusiasts) then I would urge callers to be
mindful of the central, social purpose of these events.

I see the regular open, public contra dances as social events and as public
outreach events.  In essence the dance community is offering a social
event--with live music and called dances--to the general community.  Our
flyers say "No experience needed." and "No need to bring a partner."  That
implies an open social event.

Personally, I do not attend these social events to be connected with an
historic tradition, to learn the history of that tradition, or to re-enact
some of the historic dances done in generations past.  My own research
suggests that most of those in the hall at these events do not come for
those reasons either.  People attend open, public dances primarily for the
social experience.

While there is certainly a place for some "cultural enrichment" at open,
public social dance events we need to keep focused on the purpose of the
venue.  There are camps, festivals, workshops, and special events that may
be more appropriate for this kind of diversified cultural enrichment--and I
hope dance communities continue to offer such events, which are targeted
specifically for social dance enthusiasts.

But I do not attend the open, public contra dances to stand and listen to
lectures, or to learn complex dance figures and to hear about the history
of the name of each dance, who wrote the dance, or what that person said
once at a dance festival.  No offense intended.  I can tolerate only a
limited amount of cultural enrichment at social events I attend.

As a caller at open, public contra dances I see my role differently.  I
want people to experience the excitement and joy of dancing to live
music--without having to attend separate classes.  I want the regulars to
experience the excitement and joy of sharing their passion for social
dancing with newcomers who are discovering this tradition for the first
time.

We should talk more about our purpose, the purpose of the event, and the
purposes of those who attend.  There is certainly room for those who seek a
deep understanding of the cultural roots of the dance.  We should discuss
how that goal can best be achieved.

Soapbox is now available.

- Greg McKenzie

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Bob Isaacs]

David:
 
Always enjoy hearing you in soapbox mode.
 
On the dip and dive, there's also Dip and Dive by Tom Hinds.  It's in one of 
his earlier books - 
 
Bob

 

> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:18:06 -0400
> From: david.millst...@valley.net
> To: call...@sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> 
> --- Martha wrote:
> This is probably a regional or specific community thing. In our village, St 
> Louis, 
> Missouri, we just line up improper
> --- end of quote ---
> 
> I'd agree that what Martha describes is increasingly the norm, especially in 
> relatively 
> new series and outside of New England. There are still dance series and 
> callers 
> where dancers enjoy a wider variety of dances in an evening than duple 
> improper 
> or Becket, including a mix of contras, squares and other formations. And even 
> within the contras-only format, one might encounter proper dances or-- 
> gasp!-- 
> triple minors, both old favorites or new compositions in that "hands six" 
> formation.
> 
> /entering soapbox mode/
> 
> Myself, with a strong curmudgeonly streak, I think that such variety adds 
> richness 
> to a program as well as helping dancers become more experienced by exposing 
> them 
> to more choreographic possibilities. (Take, for example, dip and dive; that's 
> a common square dance move and there are triplets and triple minor contras 
> that 
> use it, but only one contra that I know of, David Smukler's Frog in the Well.)
> 
> As as a long-time New England caller, I admit to a special fondness for the 
> so-called 
> chestnuts, most of which are in proper formation; I think that dancers can 
> appreciate 
> having these in their repertoire as a connection to the long traditions of 
> music 
> and dance we inherit, and a community does well to foster those connections.
> 
> /stepping off soapbox/
> 
> David Millstone
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
  

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[David Millstone]

--- Martha wrote:
This is probably a regional or specific community thing. In our village, St Louis,  
Missouri, we just line up improper

--- end of quote ---

I'd agree that what Martha describes is increasingly the norm, especially in relatively  
new series and outside of New England. There are still dance series and callers  
where dancers enjoy a wider variety of dances in an evening than duple improper  
or Becket, including a mix of contras, squares and other formations. And even  
within the contras-only format, one might encounter proper dances or-- gasp!--  
triple minors, both old favorites or new compositions in that "hands six" formation.


/entering soapbox mode/

Myself, with a strong curmudgeonly streak, I think that such variety adds richness  
to a program as well as helping dancers become more experienced by exposing them  
to more choreographic possibilities. (Take, for example, dip and dive; that's  
a common square dance move and there are triplets and triple minor contras that  
use it, but only one contra that I know of, David Smukler's Frog in the Well.)


As as a long-time New England caller, I admit to a special fondness for the so-called  
chestnuts, most of which are in proper formation; I think that dancers can appreciate  
having these in their repertoire as a connection to the long traditions of music  
and dance we inherit, and a community does well to foster those connections.


/stepping off soapbox/

David Millstone

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Martha Edwards]

nnum)
> >4. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> >   (95s...@comcast.net)
> >5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
> >6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:32:09 -0400
> > From: Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>
> > To: Caller's discussion list <call...@sharedweight.net>
> > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> > Message-ID: <20120504183209.ga1...@melfpelt.swarpa.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> > especially callers, still think of it that way.
> >
> > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> > absorbing?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
> >
> >   http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400
> > From: George Mercer <geopmer...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <call...@sharedweight.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> > Message-ID:
> >   <CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh=
> xmwkp...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Good point.  I agree.  Thanks, George
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> > > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> > > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> > > especially callers, still think of it that way.
> > >
> > > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> > > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> > > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> > > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> > > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> > > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> > > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> > > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> > > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> > > absorbing?
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
> > >
> > >  http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> > > ___
> > > Callers mailing list
> > > call...@sharedweight.net
> > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400
> > From: Charles Hannum <r...@ihack.net>
> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <call...@sharedweight.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> > Message-ID:
> >   

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Chrissy Fowler]

tp://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400
> From: George Mercer <geopmer...@gmail.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <call...@sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID:
>   <CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh=xmwkp...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Good point.  I agree.  Thanks, George
> 
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote:
> 
> > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> > especially callers, still think of it that way.
> >
> > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> > absorbing?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
> >
> >  http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > call...@sharedweight.net
> > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400
> From: Charles Hannum <r...@ihack.net>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <call...@sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID:
>   

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Linda Leslie]

Thanks, Mark. Obviously, I agree with your approach to this thread.

Another interesting anecdote, related to your story about how to start  
a hey: I did an Intro to Contra at NEFFA a few weekends ago. We did a  
hey that started with facing one's partner (from the men doing an  
allemande left in the center). A dancer asked me if this was a  
mistake. I clarified that heys can start in many different ways. She  
seemed relieved, and shared with the group that someone at NEFFA had  
told her that a hey "always, always" starts with the women passing  
right in the center, and that this is the only correct way.


For me, the take home message is that we each will have ideas and  
techniques about program planning, formation use, and teaching that  
will vary. Having an open approach to accepting this in callers leads  
to variety and a healthy acceptance of differences. As long as the  
dancing is safe and inclusive, we should celebrate these differences.

Cheers! Linda Leslie


On May 5, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Mark Hillegonds wrote:


So many ways this conversation could go:
- allowing the folk process to evolve (or not)
- our collective caller's responsibility (or not) to broaden (or  
not) the

knowledge of dancers
- teaching moves in beginners workshops that we may (or may not) use  
in the

evening
- the value (or not) of tossing in the occasional chestnut or  
otherwise

non-duple improper formation
- etc.

So as not to deviate too far from direction of this thread, I'll  
stay on

topic.

I called a dance recently where I called a very simple proper dance  
"Cheat
the Lady." One of the moves in the dance is a R & L thru across and  
back. I
had already called a R & L thru in an improper dance earlier in the  
evening
and it went just fine. I was quite surprised, therefore, when the  
dance
pretty much broke down and needed some pretty extensive teaching to  
get

folks to understand how to do the move in proper formation.

Such a simple move was rendered difficult to many long-time dancers  
in that
community simply by changing the formation to Proper. Some people  
never
really did get it. They remained flustered as to how to handle the  
same

gender courtesy turn.

It is well understood that if one doesn't exercise one's muscles,  
they will
atrophy. It seems that some contra communities are not exercising  
their
contra brains and bodies in that they are limiting the formations  
and moves
they do on a regular basis. Another example is that in another  
community, I
was chastised for having the audacity to have the men start a left  
shoulder
hey. "We just don't do that here," said the dance organizer to me  
after the

dance.

It is partly for this reason (and partly because I enjoy variety)  
that I
frequently call a proper dance or some other formation in an  
evening. I try
to keep it simple and accessible. I've received many compliments by  
more

experienced dancers that they enjoyed doing something different.

Mark Hillegonds

cell:  734-756-8441
email:  mhillego...@comcast.net
blog:  www.defriction.com


-Original Message-
From: callers-boun...@sharedweight.net
[mailto:callers-boun...@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kaufman
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Caller's discussion list
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with  
gents
in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's  
history,

however, that was the standard formation and many people, especially
callers, still think of it that way.

I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were  
many new
dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for people  
to get
into position. They told all the couples to stand with the ladies in  
one
line and the gents in another, to take hands for from the top, and  
that this
was proper formation. Then they introduced 1s and 2s and had all the  
ones
cross over. But they didn't call any proper or assymetric dances all  
night!

Which is fine; I think they chose good dances for the crowd. But why
introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be  
absorbing?


Jeff

PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:

 http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Mark Hillegonds]

So many ways this conversation could go:
- allowing the folk process to evolve (or not)
- our collective caller's responsibility (or not) to broaden (or not) the
knowledge of dancers
- teaching moves in beginners workshops that we may (or may not) use in the
evening
- the value (or not) of tossing in the occasional chestnut or otherwise
non-duple improper formation
- etc.

So as not to deviate too far from direction of this thread, I'll stay on
topic.

I called a dance recently where I called a very simple proper dance "Cheat
the Lady." One of the moves in the dance is a R & L thru across and back. I
had already called a R & L thru in an improper dance earlier in the evening
and it went just fine. I was quite surprised, therefore, when the dance
pretty much broke down and needed some pretty extensive teaching to get
folks to understand how to do the move in proper formation.

Such a simple move was rendered difficult to many long-time dancers in that
community simply by changing the formation to Proper. Some people never
really did get it. They remained flustered as to how to handle the same
gender courtesy turn.

It is well understood that if one doesn't exercise one's muscles, they will
atrophy. It seems that some contra communities are not exercising their
contra brains and bodies in that they are limiting the formations and moves
they do on a regular basis. Another example is that in another community, I
was chastised for having the audacity to have the men start a left shoulder
hey. "We just don't do that here," said the dance organizer to me after the
dance.

It is partly for this reason (and partly because I enjoy variety) that I
frequently call a proper dance or some other formation in an evening. I try
to keep it simple and accessible. I've received many compliments by more
experienced dancers that they enjoyed doing something different.

Mark Hillegonds

cell:  734-756-8441
email:  mhillego...@comcast.net
blog:  www.defriction.com


-Original Message-
From: callers-boun...@sharedweight.net
[mailto:callers-boun...@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kaufman
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Caller's discussion list
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with gents
in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's history,
however, that was the standard formation and many people, especially
callers, still think of it that way.

I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were many new
dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for people to get
into position. They told all the couples to stand with the ladies in one
line and the gents in another, to take hands for from the top, and that this
was proper formation. Then they introduced 1s and 2s and had all the ones
cross over. But they didn't call any proper or assymetric dances all night!
Which is fine; I think they chose good dances for the crowd. But why
introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be absorbing?

Jeff

PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:

  http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Linda Leslie]

I agree with 95s...@comcast.net. I very often will ask a large group  
of new dancers to line up proper (and I explain what that means), for  
*my* benefit. I share that when dancers line up in this way, it  
signals me that they are ready to start dancing, and that it is easier  
to organize the actual formation that comes next. This also leads to a  
more direct understanding of what improper then means, so what we  
teach/dance than takes on some logic.  I also mention some history,  
but never take too long doing it.


And even if I don't call an actual proper formation dance, there are  
lots of times when it is useful to let dancers know that they are  
"proper" and that this is the correct position to be in. A good  
example would be a contra corners (cc) dance (not talking about  
beginners here). It is helpful for folks to know that they are in  
proper formation at the start of the cc (at least for most cc dances).


The time spent on this concept is minimal, and I believe well worth  
the time. Sharing information is more inclusive, and I believe dancers  
appreciate this.

Interesting thread! Thanks, Jeff!
warmly, Linda Leslie

On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, 95s...@comcast.net wrote:

Without using the terminology of "proper", I  find it easier when  
teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their  
respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change  
places with their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on  
the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing.  If  
i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to  
have them line up that way.


- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Kaufman" 
To: "Caller's discussion list" 
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
especially callers, still think of it that way.

I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
absorbing?

Jeff

PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:

  http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[95sg23]

Without using the terminology of "proper", I  find it easier when teaching a 
beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their respective sides, 
then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change places with their partners , 
ensuring the men have their partners on the right and ladies on the left, 
whichever way they are facing.  If i do call a proper dance during the evening, 
it's easy enough to have them line up that way. 

- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Kaufman"  
To: "Caller's discussion list"  
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM 
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it 

Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with 
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's 
history, however, that was the standard formation and many people, 
especially callers, still think of it that way. 

I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were 
many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for 
people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with 
the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for 
from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced 
1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any 
proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they 
chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology? 
Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be 
absorbing? 

Jeff 

PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there: 

  http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html 
___ 
Callers mailing list 
call...@sharedweight.net 
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers 

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[Charles Hannum]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman wrote:

> I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> absorbing?
>

If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the people in
the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in headlights.  Much like
why triplets, triple minors, and even squares, do not work well in the
Boston-area contra dance scene any more, even though they used to be called
frequently back in the VFW days.

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

[George Mercer]

Good point.  I agree.  Thanks, George

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman wrote:

> Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> especially callers, still think of it that way.
>
> I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> absorbing?
>
> Jeff
>
> PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
>
>  http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>