[Callers] Labor Day dances

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hey all, 
Can someone point me to the thread I imagine already exists with dances for 
Labor Day?  Or, if you have written or know of some good ones, please let me 
know?  Anything about work, workers, labor, and the like.
The one I have that came to mind was Labor of Love, by, I think, Kathy Anderson.
Thanks!
Andrea


Sent from my external brain
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at Hampshire 
over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of global 
terminology for gender free contra.  I would contend that if used, everyone 
would become more aware of the structure of dances.  Only the most unusual 
figures/sequences would be unable to be called.  The addition of first and 
second corner positions to the arsenal makes it possible for same role dancers 
to also be called upon to dance together without reference to gender.  Second 
corners chain, or first corners allemande L 1 1/2 for example.  It would have 
to be agreed that this refers to those standing in those positions at that 
moment.  In ECD we use first and second corners to refer to the people, first 
and second diagonals for the positions.  But since we use diagonal to refer to 
those across and over one set, this seems unhelpful.  Simply corner positions 
works better.  I'm glad some folks are trying it out at last.  I had hoped for 
an opportunity myself before now.
Cheers,
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers 
>  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

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Michael,
Partners neighbors and shadows have not changed.  Corners as accurately 
designates which two dancers must allemande as any other designation, with the 
bonus that they don't even have to be the same role.  You could put the N you 
intend to swing on the diagonal by making the dance proper, but first corner is 
still those who could step straight fwd from long lines  and have near hands be 
R.  
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Jun 1, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Michael Fuerst via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> How can one simply, consistently  and clearly designate two persons to 
> participate in an allemande ?
>  
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 1, 2015 5:41 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> RE: Dave:
> 
> Clockwise / counterclockwise - too wordy, and some people have trouble
> with this regardless.
> 
> Hey: What about on the left diagonal? Along the set?
> 
> I also really don't like the blaming of the dance if it's not 100%
> intuitive. Plenty of dances flow great but have a counter-intuitive
> element. Restricting dances to those without counter-intuitive moves
> is basically saying, "Sorry, if we want to be genderfree, we need to
> put a cap on how difficult a dance is. Sorry genderfree dancers, you
> aren't allowed to dance too advanced."  That's a big problem.
> 
> Rollaways can *not* be handled from left to right - who does the
> rolling is not indicated at all!
> 
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dave Casserly
> <david.j.casse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also with regard to Ron's questions, numbers 2 and 3 (who-leads-whom and
> > who-walks-forward) can be handled by using the terms "clockwise" and
> > "counterclockwise."  As to 4 (who passes whom for a hey), I agree with Bob
> > that if the dance is good, it should be obvious, but even if not, "pass left
> > shoulders in the middle for a hey for four" can only be interpreted one way,
> > so that fixes the issue of referring to roles.  Roll-aways can be handled
> > with "roll away from the left to the right" or "roll away from the right to
> > the left."
> >
> > I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it is actually quite doable to call a
> > dance without referring to roles at all, even without resorting to first or
> > second corners.
> >
> > Perry asked for an example of a dance with global terminology used.  Here's
> > one (just picking a common, typical dance):
> >
> > Square Affair, by Becky Hill
> >
> > A1 Long Lines, 1st corners chain (or just say "chain" if you're dealing with
> > experienced dancers and don't want to use the corners terminology)
> > A2 Balance and pull by partner, pull by neighbor, balance and pull by
> > partner, pull by neighbor
> > B1 New neighbors balance and swing
> > B2 Circle 3/4, partner swing
> >
> > Perry, you also mentioned that you are trying to figure out how global
> > terminology would work for proper dances.  I have always called proper
> > dances using global terminology without even thinking about it.  For Chorus
> > Jig, for instance, why would you ever need to use the term "gent" or "lady"?
> > Down the outside, back, down the middle, back and neighbor around-the-waist
> > turn, 1s turn contra corners, 1s balance and swing.  Nothing that any
> > particular role does that the other role isn't doing at the same time.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Bob Morgan via Callers
> > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> With regard to Ron's questions
> >>
> >> 1. Would be easily covered by 1st or 2nd corners walk forward to a wave
> >>
> >> 2. Again can be done with reference to corners
> >>
> >> 3. Not so familiar with these.
> >>
> >> 4. You usually only need an obvious first pass person so not an issue I
> >> think
> >>
> >> 5.  If you're facing out you turn, if you're facing across you walk is how
> >> I call it anyway
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
> >> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Andrea, how would you handle the following:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip to
> >>> Lambertville, et all?
> >>>
> >>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / b

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

e right, if facing out you are a 2nd corner, get ready to be 
>> > scooped
>> > you can end the swings any way you want.
>> >
>> > Ron, you are certainly right that not all dances can be easily taught in
>> > this manner, but in no way are all of these type of dances simple. I
>> > struggled with translating a "choose your noun" for ladies or gents because
>> > that is how I learned and think about the dance roles. The translation
>> > process adds a layer of complexity for me. I am just offering a different
>> > approach that works for me.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
>> > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> RE: Dave:
>> >>
>> >> Clockwise / counterclockwise - too wordy, and some people have trouble
>> >> with this regardless.
>> >>
>> >> Hey: What about on the left diagonal? Along the set?
>> >>
>> >> I also really don't like the blaming of the dance if it's not 100%
>> >> intuitive. Plenty of dances flow great but have a counter-intuitive
>> >> element. Restricting dances to those without counter-intuitive moves
>> >> is basically saying, "Sorry, if we want to be genderfree, we need to
>> >> put a cap on how difficult a dance is. Sorry genderfree dancers, you
>> >> aren't allowed to dance too advanced." That's a big problem.
>> >>
>> >> Rollaways can *not* be handled from left to right - who does the
>> >> rolling is not indicated at all!
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dave Casserly
>> >> <david.j.casse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Also with regard to Ron's questions, numbers 2 and 3 (who-leads-whom and
>> >> > who-walks-forward) can be handled by using the terms "clockwise" and
>> >> > "counterclockwise." As to 4 (who passes whom for a hey), I agree with
>> >> > Bob
>> >> > that if the dance is good, it should be obvious, but even if not, "pass
>> >> > left
>> >> > shoulders in the middle for a hey for four" can only be interpreted one
>> >> > way,
>> >> > so that fixes the issue of referring to roles. Roll-aways can be
>> >> > handled
>> >> > with "roll away from the left to the right" or "roll away from the right
>> >> > to
>> >> > the left."
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it is actually quite doable to
>> >> > call a
>> >> > dance without referring to roles at all, even without resorting to first
>> >> > or
>> >> > second corners.
>> >> >
>> >> > Perry asked for an example of a dance with global terminology used.
>> >> > Here's
>> >> > one (just picking a common, typical dance):
>> >> >
>> >> > Square Affair, by Becky Hill
>> >> >
>> >> > A1 Long Lines, 1st corners chain (or just say "chain" if you're dealing
>> >> > with
>> >> > experienced dancers and don't want to use the corners terminology)
>> >> > A2 Balance and pull by partner, pull by neighbor, balance and pull by
>> >> > partner, pull by neighbor
>> >> > B1 New neighbors balance and swing
>> >> > B2 Circle 3/4, partner swing
>> >> >
>> >> > Perry, you also mentioned that you are trying to figure out how global
>> >> > terminology would work for proper dances. I have always called proper
>> >> > dances using global terminology without even thinking about it. For
>> >> > Chorus
>> >> > Jig, for instance, why would you ever need to use the term "gent" or
>> >> > "lady"?
>> >> > Down the outside, back, down the middle, back and neighbor
>> >> > around-the-waist
>> >> > turn, 1s turn contra corners, 1s balance and swing. Nothing that any
>> >> > particular role does that the other role isn't doing at the same time.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Bob Morgan via Callers
>> >> > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With regard to Ron's question

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket almost as 
much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people so they stick.  
I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris use diagonal.  In 
contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, meaning the next pair 
along across the set to the right or left.  The corner reference we have is 
actually close to right, probably having grown out of triple minor dances.  
Right diagonal is first corner, Left diagonal is second.  Make it fit in a 
hands four and you have pairs of corners along opposite angles.  It's a place 
not a person.  Then I can write a dance beginning with a second corner chain, 
and it will be those formerly identified as gents, but will work totally fine.  
If the dance were proper, you could still have a second diagonals chain and it 
would be one of each 'role'.  A direct transfer of the system to contra is not 
as useful as adapting, IMHO.
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. <wins...@slac.stanford.edu> 
> wrote:
> 
> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global calling 
> since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller self 
> improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in not 
> gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can answer.  
> 
> The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published the 
> most in) is designed for proper longways.  Men's line is left file, ladies 
> line is right file.   In a square or Becket formation gents place are first 
> diagonals, ladies are second diagonals.  Corner is reserved for contra 
> corners and the immediate neighbor in a square. 
> 
> However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set, first 
> gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second gent).  If 
> you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was suggesting, the 
> ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second corners. 
> 
> The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we now do 
> with gender is to substitute a corner reference.  First corners make a wave 
> in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in.  
> 
> 
> You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to becket, 
> where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply before you 
> becketize, which would be my preference. 
> 
> Does that clear it up ?
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
>> Andrea, how would you handle the following:
>> 
>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip to 
>> Lambertville, et all?
>> 
>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star?
>> 
>> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers, 
>> Jurassic Redheads, etc.
>> 
>> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey.
>> 
>> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate?
>> 
>> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't 
>> mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways?
>> 
>> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>>> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" 
>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at 
>>> Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of 
>>> global terminology for gender free contra.  I would contend that if used, 
>>> everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances.  Only the most 
>>> unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called.  The addition of 
>>> first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it possible for same 
>>> role dancers to also be called upon to dance together without reference to 
>>> gender.  Second corners chain, or first corners allemande L 1 1/2 for 
>>> example.  It would have to be agreed that this refers to those standing in 
>>> those positions at that moment.  In ECD we use first and second corners to 
>>> refer to the people, first and second diagonals for the positions.  But 
>>> since we use diagonal to refer to those across and over one set, this seems 
>>> unhelpful.  Simply corner positions works better.  I'm glad some folks are 
>>> trying it out at last.  I had hoped for an 

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

bject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
>> 
>> If you want to redefine "corner" as a person, not a position...
>> On Jun 2, 2015 10:41 AM, "Perry Shafran via Callers" 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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 <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfue...@yahoo.com> 
>> Cc: "call...@sharedweight.net" <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 couple after 
>> swings, chains, and R thrus. The twofold active attention might have 
>> served them far better than the arbitrary labels.  Understanding that the 
>> pattern of the dance depends on knowing your geography makes sense.  Adding 
>> into that the need to remember a label doesn't improve the odds the 
>> geography will stick, at least it didn't there. In my opinion, looking for a 
>> person is less reliable than knowing your place in the dance.  People mess 
>> up, but the place is always there.
>> 
>> AN
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers 
>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Consider this dance
>>> 
>>> E.J.M.J.F. in CincinnatiDuple Improper   Michael Fuerst 
>>>   March, 1991
>>> 
>>> A1  Balance and swing neighbor.
>>> 
>>> A2  Men allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner.
>>> 
>>> B1  Long lines forward and back.  Women chain to neighbor.
>>> 
>>> B2  Women allemande right (4).
>>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until
>>>neighbors on the side they started the dance (8).
>>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left  along set to 
>>> meet new
>>>neighbors (4).
>>> Using this thread's suggestions, I think this becomes (as long as dancers 
>>> understand that those starting as second corners always end the swing on 
>>> the right)
>>> E.J.M.J.F. in CincinnatiDuple Improper   Michael Fuerst 
>>>   March, 1991
>>> 
>>> A1  Balance and swing neighbor.
>>> 
>>> A2  First corners allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner.
>>> 
>>> B1  Long lines forward and back.  Second corners chain to neighbor.
>>> 
>>> B2  Second corners allemande right (4).
>>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until
>>>neighbors on the side they started the d

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

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 <letsda...@rgoldman.org> 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 <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfue...@yahoo.com> 
> Cc: "call...@sharedweight.net" <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 couple after swings, 
> chains, and R thrus. The twofold active attention might have served them 
> far better than the arbitrary labels.  Understanding that the pattern of the 
> dance depends on knowing your geography makes sense.  Adding into that the 
> need to remember a label doesn't improve the odds the geography will stick, 
> at least it didn't there. In my opinion, looking for a person is less 
> reliable than knowing your place in the dance.  People mess up, but the place 
> is always there.
>  
> AN
>  
> 
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>  
> 
> 
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> Consider this dance
>  
> E.J.M.J.F. in CincinnatiDuple Improper   Michael Fuerst   
> March, 1991
>  
> A1  Balance and swing neighbor.
>  
> A2   

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

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. <wins...@slac.stanford.edu> 
> 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 <letsda...@rgoldman.org> 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 <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>>> To: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfue...@yahoo.com> 
>>> Cc: "call...@sharedweight.net" <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 giv

Re: [Callers] sticky floors

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Talc is a mineral, in character like asbestos.  Not only is it a hazard for 
anyone with breathing problems, it's a problem for everyone.  Please, do not 
talc the floor!
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Jerome Grisanti via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> If you can find UNscented talc (and good luck with that!), try it in a small 
> area to see if it works on your floor. 
> 
> Do NOT use scented baby power -- the cure would be worse than the disease.
> 
> --Jerome
> 
> Jerome Grisanti
> 660-528-0858
> http://www.jeromegrisanti.com
> 
> "There's no point in being unhappy about things you can't change, and no 
> point being unhappy about things you can."
> 
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Fwd: Fw: Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

> 
> Maia,
> Did we give you what you needed?  If so, could you let us know and put a stop 
> to the thread?  Callers are now more busy calling one another out for getting 
> off topic or being inappropriate than generating new answers.  
> Summary of suggestions, as best I remember:
> 1) don't call the dance
> 2) call the dance with the disclaimer farther in advance than the teach.
> 3) call the dance with a substitute choreography, not mentioning the 
> possibility of a swing.
> 4) call the dance and at that place in the dance say: with your shadow either 
> swing or (substitute move) and end x-ly (probably traded places either facing 
> across or with one person facing across ready to do the next move (if the 
> substitute was an allemande 1.5)).  
> 
> While some advocated for disclaimers, many felt it is bad for the community 
> to imply from the mic that people might be uncivil. Others objected that some 
> might take the disclaimer as license to avoid dancers for any number of 
> reasons, some being petty prejudices rather than a sense of real danger.  
> Overall there were more voices against disclaimer and for offering an 
> alternative movement should you feel this was the right dance for the moment. 
>  
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong.  Could we leave this alone unless someone has a 
> truly new idea for Maia?
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrea
> 
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
> 
>>> On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Aahz Maruch via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 On Tue, Sep 08, 2015, Michael Fuerst via Callers wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 1:53 PM, Luke Donforth 
>  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Michael Fuerst via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Asking about how to appropriately do dances with shadow swings seems
> like asking how men can appropriately grope women during a dance.
 
 I again think your attempt to inject levity into a conversation have
 come across as crass and inappropriate.  Asking about shadow swings
 on a list for calling is pertinent; joking about men groping women
 dancers isn't.
>>> 
>>> Your assessment is inaccurate. This is not a matter where levity is
>>> acceptable. Creating a situation which could force someone into close,
>>> almost intimate proximity with a person perceived as emotionally or
>>> physically threatening is inappropriate. A lesser problem is that one
>>> can get a shadow who one considers personable, but very unpleasant
>>> for swinging (for example, due to either height difference, or a body
>>> position or weight distribution which unnecessarily strains one's own
>>> body).
>> 
>> Well, I share Luke's assessment.  The phrasing you used to compare shadow
>> swings and groping implies either levity or a disregard of the difference
>> between groping and a shadow swing.  Regardless of the seriousness with
>> which you view "forcing" a shadow swing, it is clear that many other
>> people disagree, and your comparison is not appropriate, especially given
>> Maia's original request to AVOID any discussion of whether shadow swings
>> are appropriate.
>> -- 
>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://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

Re: [Callers] Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Richard,
My bad.  That was suggested (by Luke D?), as a triplet-esque solution, whereby 
smaller sets, run shorter, limited the potential for problems.

If the problem is dancers who are new, or easily confused, short sets can 
increase the confusion as you get turned around that much faster, with fewer 
dancers in the middle to reinforce the pattern of the dance.  If the problem is 
a very uncomfortable swing or strong aversion to the shadow, I personally would 
prefer a long set, but alternate choreography to the swing, suggested by the 
caller. 
I definitely think that a shadow becomes an anchor, so suggesting line swapping 
will remove what, for some, will make a confusing dance doable at all.  If I 
were calling, that is one thing I wouldn't choose.

Thanks for the new/missing from summary suggestion.
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Richard Fischer via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Here's a suggestion I don't think I've seen in this discussion. If you want 
> to call a dance with a shadow swing, how about save it for time when you can 
> have several shorter sets, and remind couples they can join other sets when 
> they reach the top or the bottom, to get an opportunity to dance with a 
> bigger variety of people. (And of course remind dancers they may have the 
> surprise of a new shadow.)
> 
> Richard
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers wrote:
>> 
>> Hey all,
>> 
>> First, a disclaimer: Some people on this listserv thing shadow swings are 
>> problematic. Some don't see any issue with them. This is NOT the 
>> conversation I want to have in this thread; I ask that you respond to the 
>> question I'm asking and do not debate my premise--at least not in this 
>> particular thread. This should help keep this thread on track and hopefully 
>> reduce excess noise and go-nowhere discussions on this listserv. Thanks!
>> 
>> Anyway, the actual question I wanted to ask (whew!)--
>> 
>> There do exist some really fabulous shadow-swing dances that I would love to 
>> be able to call, as long as I could do so without putting anyone in an 
>> uncomfortable position. Do folks have ideas for ways to mitigate the 
>> potential harms of shadow swing dances? I was considering, at the beginning 
>> of the dance, having dancers identify their shadow and mentioning, "this 
>> will be a shadow swing dance, so if you need to make any changes, do so now" 
>> (or something like that)--haven't gotten the wording down-pat, but the idea 
>> is giving dancers advance warning of a shadow swing so they can move 
>> (thereby changing their shadow) if they need to. Any thoughts on this 
>> method? Suggestions of others?
>> 
>> 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

Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Well that was weird!  Not sure why my last email came through empty. Trying 
again.  
Ron et al,
In general I really like this dance.  That loop right will snag people at least 
a few times through though, in that it will make them want to gypsy L with the 
next, continuing the weave, when they need to make it feel like a pass through 
so their body flow can take them into a R gypsy.  It might be worth pointing 
that out, or teaching them to finish the half hey face N, pass through.  Just a 
thought.
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Sep 14, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi callers,
> 
> I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:
> 
> Becket
> A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
> A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
>Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
> B1: Mad Robin (8)**
>1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
> B2: Gents Pass L (2)
>P Gypsy + Swing (14)
> 
> * Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I think 
> either works, but ideas welcome.
> ** Gents in front, CW
> 
> Thanks,
> Ron
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hmm.  Perry, I wasn't thinking the loop R was part of the hey at all, nor that 
the timing needed any adjustment.  I do think that the half hey doesn't end 
with the gents in the center. Ron clearly wrote that the gents pass R in the 
center.  That theoretically puts them at the side or nearly so, and heading 
that way.   The ladies will be looping the back at that point.  A loop R will 
feel like turning to a hey the line, especially for the ladies.  My point is 
that it will take several iterations of the dance for dancers to remember to 
flatten it out as they travel toward the next N so they can gypsy R with them.  
If you told them to balance and swing, it would happen more easily, but I can 
see that Ron is trying to keep it glassy smooth.  My experience suggests that 
whatever we intend, dancers will interpret "loop" with varying degrees of 
curve, many making it  deep enough to spoil the transition to the R gypsy, 
unless the teach specifically prevents this.  if you just told the gents to 
pass L in the middle, and continue to the side, then face the N and pass 
through to gypsy the next, the curve would evolve on its own as people danced 
it, and be just right.  My opinion only.

As for timing, no matter what you call it, I'm betting that loop is going to 
cross the phrase for many, and the new N gypsy will be short.  Possibly, just 
looping to a new N Sw would work.  Might be a long swing for some.  
Best,
Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Sep 14, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Perry Shafran <ps...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> I would agree with that, although the 1/2 hey is over when the gents pass in 
> the center, so it would be more like a 5/8 hey, with 2 beats of that hey 
> coming in the A2.  "Loop right" seems to be a way to avoid calling it part of 
> the hey, and since it's the start of a new phrase, I can see why one would 
> want to differentiate it from the hey.  
> 
> Perry
> 
> From: Andrea Nettleton via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com> 
> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance
> 
> Ron et al,
> In general, I really like this dance.  That loop right will snag people at 
> least a few times through though, in that it will make them want to gypsy L 
> with the next, continuing the weave, when they need to make it feel like a 
> pass through so their body flow can take them into a R gypsy.  It might be 
> worth pointing that out, or teaching them to finish the half hey face N, pass 
> through R Sh .  Just a thought.
> Andrea
> 
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi callers,
>> I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:
>> Becket
>> A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>>1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
>> A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
>>Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
>> B1: Mad Robin (8)**
>>1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
>> B2: Gents Pass L (2)
>>P Gypsy + Swing (14)
>> * Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I think 
>> either works, but ideas welcome.
>> ** Gents in front, CW
>> Thanks,
>> Ron
>> ___
>> 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] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Meh.  I meant gents pass Left in the center.
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Sep 14, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hmm.  Perry, I wasn't thinking the loop R was part of the hey at all, nor 
> that the timing needed any adjustment.  I do think that the half hey doesn't 
> end with the gents in the center. Ron clearly wrote that the gents pass R in 
> the center.  That theoretically puts them at the side or nearly so, and 
> heading that way.   The ladies will be looping the back at that point.  A 
> loop R will feel like turning to a hey the line, especially for the ladies.  
> My point is that it will take several iterations of the dance for dancers to 
> remember to flatten it out as they travel toward the next N so they can gypsy 
> R with them.  If you told them to balance and swing, it would happen more 
> easily, but I can see that Ron is trying to keep it glassy smooth.  My 
> experience suggests that whatever we intend, dancers will interpret "loop" 
> with varying degrees of curve, many making it  deep enough to spoil the 
> transition to the R gypsy, unless the teach specifically prevents this.  if 
> you just told the gents to pass L in the middle, and continue to the side, 
> then face the N and pass through to gypsy the next, the curve would evolve on 
> its own as people danced it, and be just right.  My opinion only.
> 
> As for timing, no matter what you call it, I'm betting that loop is going to 
> cross the phrase for many, and the new N gypsy will be short.  Possibly, just 
> looping to a new N Sw would work.  Might be a long swing for some.  
> Best,
> Andrea
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Perry Shafran <ps...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would agree with that, although the 1/2 hey is over when the gents pass in 
>> the center, so it would be more like a 5/8 hey, with 2 beats of that hey 
>> coming in the A2.  "Loop right" seems to be a way to avoid calling it part 
>> of the hey, and since it's the start of a new phrase, I can see why one 
>> would want to differentiate it from the hey.  
>> 
>> Perry
>> 
>> From: Andrea Nettleton via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com> 
>> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 
>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance
>> 
>> Ron et al,
>> In general, I really like this dance.  That loop right will snag people at 
>> least a few times through though, in that it will make them want to gypsy L 
>> with the next, continuing the weave, when they need to make it feel like a 
>> pass through so their body flow can take them into a R gypsy.  It might be 
>> worth pointing that out, or teaching them to finish the half hey face N, 
>> pass through R Sh .  Just a thought.
>> Andrea
>> 
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi callers,
>>> I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:
>>> Becket
>>> A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>>>1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
>>> A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
>>>Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
>>> B1: Mad Robin (8)**
>>>1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
>>> B2: Gents Pass L (2)
>>>P Gypsy + Swing (14)
>>> * Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I think 
>>> either works, but ideas welcome.
>>> ** Gents in front, CW
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ron
>>> ___
>>> 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] Who're all the whos?

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Yes.  In a Down the Hall, far left gent turn alone, center gent do a right hand 
high left hand low to switch the ladies and turn to face up.  For example.  You 
have to say who, either by place alone (left end person), or by place and role, 
or place and facing direction (in a wave, the person at the end facing up the 
hall do X).
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:24 PM, Amy Wimmer via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Is there ever a designation for doing something alone? 
> -Amy
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Don Veino via Callers 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Back in 2008 I wrote a dance to celebrate my first year of contra dancing 
>> and Chris Weiler was kind enough to go through it with me. In doing so I 
>> heard my first mention of the Who-What-How Much format for dance description.
>> 
>> I'm working on a personal project where I'd like to be sure I've identified 
>> all the "Who" roles in that model. For my purposes, I'm doing this in the 
>> context of contras, traditional squares, triplets, family dances, etc. (but 
>> not necessarily English, Ceilidh, Scottish, etc. - though I'm not closed to 
>> gathering any that may exist uniquely therein).
>> 
>> I've listed below what I've collected so far from my personal cards deck 
>> review & research through several published works.
>> 
>> Are there any Whos I've missed?
>> 
>> Please note: I've deliberately left the primary role designation for last as 
>> I wish to avoid rehashing that topic once more. Let's please just accept 
>> there's a designation for the primary roles and agree they'll be determined 
>> by circumstance and conscience, as fits a given dance community.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Don
>> 
>> ROLE DESIGNATORS - "WHO"
>> 
>> Partner
>> Neighbor
>> Corner
>> Opposite
>> Everyone (All)
>> Center/End
>> Shadow/Trail Buddy
>> Couple
>> Top/Middle/Bottom; Ones/Twos, etc.; Heads/Sides; First/Second, etc. (var. of 
>> Couple or Primary Role)
>> Travel Buddy (4F4)
>> Active/Inactive (is this distinctly required, or is it always an alternate 
>> name for another role var., e.g.: 1s?)
>> Neutrals/Ends (var. of Couple or Primary Role)
>> Ring of N (4,8, etc.)
>> 
>> And of course...
>> Primary Role (Lark/Raven, Righty/Lefty, Lady/Gent, Talls/Smalls, etc.), in 
>> plural or specific variation (e.g.: Talls, Raven 2, End Lady)
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Gypsies

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

I don't like the idea that a term we use might be offensive to someone.  I 
think part of its tenacity is that it can be used for a whole family of similar 
eye locking moves.  The term walk around will not serve in what is now called a 
gypsy star, or in a traveling gypsy, gypsy chase, or gypsy hey, which all have 
eye contact as a common element.  
In discussing with dancers, I heard objection to the terms catching eyes, 
grabbing by the eyes etc.  made them think of hands in eyes.  Not that they 
didn't understand, but it was distasteful to them.  
Perhaps we could agree to a term like 'facing' to link the diverse moves 
together.  It is used in squares in cases where instead of the usual facing 
someone's back, you are face to face (as in a facing diamond).  This un-knots 
all the alternative moves (facing star, facing hey, travel facing).  
I don't actually think of a plain gypsy as involving a shoulder, but rather a 
side of my face.  Go R face round your N, ladies L face round each other?  
Facing indicates where we should look more or less without demanding eye 
contact.  I like eye contact, but some are profoundly uncomfortable with it.  I 
dislike when they choose to twirl their bodies rather than at least look in my 
general direction.  Facing helps with that. I'm sure we will come up with 
something better, but I'd like a solution that acknowledges this family of 
moves.

I'm not fond of eddy, for its aural similarity to the name Eddie.  Spiral, 
vortex etc, while all sort of indicative of rotation, also indicate to me the 
funnel effect, which is not the only way we use the move.  Many gypsies merely 
move us smoothly on to another dancer.  
One final thought, offered mostly for grins.  I have occasionally thought of a 
gypsy as two people walking round a maypole.  We could say R maypole round your 
N, Ladies L maypole in the center, go one and a half to your P, R maypole and 
swing your partner. :D

Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Joy Greenwolfe via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> I once had someone explain the gypsy as not trusting someone enough to take 
> their eyes off of them (!), so I agree that the underlying meaning can be 
> problematic, to say the least. Other moves have historical meanings too, but 
> Gypsy as a term is more pejorative than, say, Allemande, which references 
> traditional German folk dance hand holds. 
> 
> I like Michael's suggestion for "eyes." When teaching, it could be described 
> as "walk around holding eyes," which is similar to how I already describe it 
> (holding eyes instead of hands). Then during the dance, the call could be 
> shortened to "eyes" or "hold eyes." Something like "Ladies hold eyes" seems 
> to roll off the tongue with a good rhythm.  Or maybe "Ladies by the eyes?" 
> 
> Melting could still be melting. Not sure how I'd fix my gypsy chase move, 
> though.  
> 
> There is also the issue of avoiding similar directions that would confuse the 
> dancers, such as in a Mad Robin where you are encouraged to hold eyes with 
> the person across from you, but not actually rotate around them. Maybe we 
> need an alternate descriptive/evocative term, like the way a Mad Robin is 
> sometimes called Sliding Doors. 
> 
> A single orbit? Eyes single? Star single? Hands off? 
> 
> I'm also curious about thoughts about to what degree we might explain the 
> change to dancers. From most of the dancers' perspective, it may be "if it 
> ain't broke, don't change it." We might get push-back from dancers 
> exasperated with what seems to them like an arbitrary term change. Maybe if 
> the term is more descriptive, they won't notice as much. "Holding Eyes" works 
> for me. 
> 
> Just some thoughts. 
> 
> Joy Greenwolfe
> Durham, NC
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

I've been reading all the historical origins discussion.  It's seems to me we 
are far from concluding that the term 'gypsy' is associated with Romani people. 
 We have that Cecil Sharp probably heard Morris Dancers using whole and half 
gip, and appropriated the movement and term for broader use in country dance, 
apparently without investigating origin.  And we have a possible association 
between an Elizabethan? theater production called the Spanish Gypsy, with a 
dance of similar name with movement that may or may not be what we now call 
gypsy, but was not so named in said dance.  We are all assuming that at some 
point, someone was referring to the Roma, to their hands free dance, to their 
gaze, or something, but we don't know.  
That said, the trouble comes on situations like that Amy Wimmer encountered.  
People from outside come in, and THEY make the assumption and association.  And 
some feel it is not politically correct, and take offense.  We haven't heard of 
a case of Romani people taking offense, presumably because we haven't had any 
attend a contra? That doesn't make using the term ok, it just means we have no 
usable specific data.  Sargon's question therefore remains unanswered.  What 
are the criteria for removing a term from our vocabulary?  What level of 
provable offense constitutes reason for removal?  Even if the answer is none, 
it's worth asking ourselves.
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Since "gypsy" as a contra/ECD term almost certainly refers to Romani, it 
> differs from say, geological terms or whatnot. The swastika is a sad thing, 
> because the Nazis basically ruined it, even though they use a reverse 
> direction version.
> 
> That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy" move, 
> just stating that there are some clear differences.
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" 
>>  wrote:
>> This has been a fascinating and edifying conversation regarding how and when 
>> to use the term. At the risk of getting too deep in the philosophical 
>> questions regarding use of the word "gypsy," I have a sincere and seriously 
>> non-loaded question about what conditions must be met in order to justify 
>> removing it from our calling vocabulary. Of course I acknowledge that when 
>> use of a pointed term meant to represent a certain group of people is deemed 
>> by that group of people to be offensive, then care should be taken to 
>> eliminate use of such a word (the Washington, D.C. football team comes to 
>> mind). There is no alternate etymology to that term other than the reference 
>> to Native Americans (well, unless their helmets had always featured 
>> red-skinned potatoes, of course). But now, in playing devil's advocate I 
>> ask: doesn't context and origin matter for "gypsy"? Isn't the etymology of 
>> the term's use in contra dancing relevant to whether it can rightfully be 
>> cast aside for being an offensive term? 
>> 
>> To those who say it doesn't, then how do we reconcile that with offensive 
>> terms or displays that have similar outputs that arose completely 
>> independently? For example:
>> - The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a 
>> swastika.
>> - The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK.
>> - Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common rock 
>> formation.
>> - Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks."
>> - The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains.
>> 
>> If we agree that all of these displays and uses are legitimate and 
>> appropriate for continued use, then doesn't the history of "gypsy" in contra 
>> dancing matter? Or does the surficial cause of offense warrant elimination? 
>> Not trying to weasel out of the situation here, but rather genuinely trying 
>> to refine the precise reasoning behind decisions in contra vocabulary. 
>> Curious about any/all perspectives on this -- thanks!
>> Sargon
>> 
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Winston, Alan P. via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Apologies for putting words in your mouth.  I misunderstood what you were 
>>> saying.
>>> 
>>> -- Alan
>>> 
>>> 
 On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
> I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as you
> say on the web page.
 Alan -
 
 I don't believe I say that.  I say that Sharp's handwritten notes use
 the word "gipsies", and I give links to prove it.  I agree that morris
 dancers use "gyp".
 
 Colin Hume
 
 
 ___
 Callers mailing list
 Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
 

Re: [Callers] another new word idea

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

I love this!  And it has a playful kind of sound, despite its technical origin. 
:-) reminds me of jabberwocky somehow...
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Jan 25, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Jonathan Sivier via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
>   I've been thinking about this as well.  I'd like to propose "Gimbal" as a 
> substitute for gypsy.  You could even spell it "Gymbal" if you liked.  ;-)  
> This also has the same number of syllables and starts with the same letter as 
> a bonus.  A gimbal is a pivoted support that allows the rotation of an object 
> about a single axis, so it also makes some sense with respect to the movement 
> being named.  It is sometimes used as a verb, as in the movement of rocket 
> motors used for guidance, as well as being a noun.
> 
> Jonathan
> -
> Jonathan Sivier
> Caller of Contra, Square, English and Early American Dances
> jsivier AT illinois DOT edu
> Dance Page: http://www.sivier.me/dance_leader.html
> -
> Q: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
> A: It depends on what dance you call!
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] another new word idea

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

You all are tickling me every which way today!  Mome raths and slithy toves, 
raths and toves.  :D which is which?
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Jan 25, 2016, at 12:49 PM, David Chandler <chandler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Jabberwocky, as in:
> ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
>   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
> 
> I'm not sure dancers will appreciate being called "slithy toves," though we 
> have been looking for new terms to use to describe dancers in different 
> positions. Perhaps the other position could be "mome raths" as in:
> All mimsy were the borogoves,
>   And the mome raths outgrabe.
> 
> Raths and toves?
> 
> David
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> I love this!  And it has a playful kind of sound, despite its technical 
>> origin. :-) reminds me of jabberwocky somehow...
>> Andrea
>> 
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> 

[Callers] Walk around, ease around etc.

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

What I feel
Is missing from these expressions is twofold.  One is memorability.  We 
remember things better to which we attach emotions of some kind.  A name people 
giggle or oo ah about is going to stick and be pleasurable each time they hear 
it.  I love the name Mad Robin, as an example of a distinctive and whimsical 
name for a dance move, which could as easily be called a sideways do si do.  
The second is the sense of playful interaction that gypsy has always 
engendered.  I don't want to restart the discussion of why that is, but I do 
want to keep that in the move, along with eye contact, rather than go to a dry 
workmanlike term.  So nice of to have to invite play, but perhaps only need to 
mention that you look at your P, N, Sh, as you (new name) around them by the 
(R/L Sh).  I think that was the appeal to me of the word Gimbal, which somehow 
revoked both rotation and play all in one. I hope I'm not alone in this desire, 
though I know we are often of very diverse opinions as a group.
Cheers,
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

Re: [Callers] Walk around, ease around etc.

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Thanks, Delia, for somehow understanding what I meant despite the spate of 
autocorrects and typos.  

It is pronounced with a hard "g" as in gill, just to be clear.

Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Jan 27, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Delia Clark <deliacla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree that a playful name would be a wonderful way to go for this very 
> playful move. I like Gimbal for that reason. Just checking, it’s pronounced 
> “gym-bal” right?
> 
> There was one other playful suggestion sometime in the past couple of weeks, 
> in addition to gyre, but try as I might, I just can’t find it in the rich 
> flow of email on this topic, so if someone wants to re-nominate it, with the 
> goal of a rememberable and playful name in mind, please do. I know that 
> indicates it’s not passing the rememberability test for me at the moment but, 
> to be fair, I was just skimming on a work night when it flew by. 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2016, at 5:57 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> 
>> What I feel
>> Is missing from these expressions is twofold.  One is memorability.  We 
>> remember things better to which we attach emotions of some kind.  A name 
>> people giggle or oo ah about is going to stick and be pleasurable each time 
>> they hear it.  I love the name Mad Robin, as an example of a distinctive and 
>> whimsical name for a dance move, which could as easily be called a sideways 
>> do si do.  The second is the sense of playful interaction that gypsy has 
>> always engendered.  I don't want to restart the discussion of why that is, 
>> but I do want to keep that in the move, along with eye contact, rather than 
>> go to a dry workmanlike term.  So nice of to have to invite play, but 
>> perhaps only need to mention that you look at your P, N, Sh, as you (new 
>> name) around them by the (R/L Sh).  I think that was the appeal to me of the 
>> word Gimbal, which somehow revoked both rotation and play all in one. I hope 
>> I'm not alone in this desire, though I know we are often of very diverse 
>> opinions as a group.
>> Cheers,
>> Andrea
>> 
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> 
> 
> <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
> 
> Delia Clark
> PO Box 45
> Taftsville, VT 05073
> Office/mobile: 802-457-2075
> deliacla...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Callers] looking for zesty Proper dances?

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Here's one of mine that has made the rounds in the south and PNW with success:

A Proper Cuppa Tea
Proper
Note: you will have a shadow.  Consider them temporary.  As a function of the 
dance, you will get a new shadow when you get out at the end.
A1 •In a Ring Bal, Spin R, to a wave
 (After Pet. Spin, Face P, take P by
 L hand. M face UP, W face Down.)
 •Wave Bal F, walk fwd to Shadow
A2 Sh Gypsy R 1x **
  P Sw
B1 M Alle L 1 1/2
  N Sw
B2 LL F
  1's 1/2 figure 8 up thru original 2's
  And end facing down, 2's face up
  
Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:11 PM, Andy Shore via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm looking for some zesty Proper dances to add to my collection.
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> aTdHvAaNnKcSe  (thanks in advance)
> /Andy Shore
> http://andyshore.com/
> 
> best email - andysh...@gmail.com
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Slip jigs

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Gene Hubert's Fan In The Doorway
-Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

Re: [Callers] Role Scramblers dances with balances

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Why not post for all?
Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Apr 5, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Lindsey Dono via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Any chance you could send Dancing Frog, Chain the Swain, and Digital Divide 
> (I have this one in a notebook somewhere...)? 
> 
> 
> From: Yoyo Zhou 
> To: Lindsey Dono  
> Cc: Caller's Discussion List 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Role Scramblers dances with balances
> 
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Lindsey Dono via Callers 
>  wrote:
> Hi Callers,
> 
> I'm working on a themed contra workshop called "Role Scramblers," and just 
> realized that all of the dances I've shortlisted are very smooth. I'm looking 
> for dances with elements for each dance role that are more typically danced 
> by the other role (such as Jeff Spero's "Equal Opportunity," which has the 
> ones chain). I have "Roll Away Sue" by Bob Isaacs (a gent's chain), but would 
> love other dances with balances and waves that might fit this theme.
> 
> 
> Some that I have that are more balancey (feel free to email me if you need 
> the notes):
> 
> The Dancing Frog by Jeff Spero - gents do a right-hand chain
> Chain the Swain by Becky Hill - gents do a right-hand chain
> Coming Home from Toohollie by Janet Shepherd - ladies rollaway partners into 
> a swing; petronella
> The Digital Divide by Jeremy Korr - alternates gents/ladies chain and 
> give-and-take to gents'/ladies' side; balance + square thru
> 
> Yoyo Zhou
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Dolphin Heys

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi all,
I'm still recovering from the red eye I took back from my most recent PNW trip. 
 Below find my first crack at a Dolphin Hey contra, referred to by Lindsey, 
written about 6 months ago.

Porpoiseful Play
Imp
A1 LL F [In the original, which is a tad more challenging, this is a Mad 
Robin CW around New N's.] 
 1's gypsy 1+ until M1 can face M2, with W2 falling in right behind.
A2 Dolphin Hey for three across, 1's acting as a unit.  M1 passes M2 Rsh to 
begin.
At the end of the hey, the ones keep curving over the M2's original place, 
passing M2 again as M 2 heads across the set to his P. 
B1 P Gypsy and Sw
B2 M Alle L 1 1/2
  N Sw
I called an even smoother version in Portland, with a leave 'em then love 
'em Mad Robin, in which the ones go in and to the R while the 2's go out and to 
the L to begin.  This is still a CW MR, but you gaze at your partner on the 
long diagonal as you separate, then return.  The crowd contained more ECD 
dancers than the usual contra crowd, but everyone seemed to get it equally 
well, and enjoyed the whole confection.

Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Jun 13, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Lindsey Dono  wrote:
> 
> Luke,
> 
> Andrea Nettleton (cc'ed here) also has a dance with a dolphin hey!
> 
> Lindsey
> 
> 

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi Tavi et al,
 I have to challenge you on your history.  As a lover of chestnuts, in 
which the vast majority of courtesy turns are same gender as the dances are 
proper, and a one time historical dancer, I find your conception of the history 
of courtesy turn flawed.  In the 18th and 19th century, there was no right hand 
touching any part of the lady during the historical versions of these moves.  A 
Chaine Anglaise (English chain) is the precursor to a right and left through, 
and was done with a right hand half turn across or pull by, and then an open 
left hand turn, with the gent swiveling to face in at the last moment.  The 
courtesy being that the lady did not have to alter her body position.  Chaine 
des dames, ladies chain, entailed the gents casting out over their left 
shoulder to loop into a position to left hand turn the ladies who had turned 
half by the right.  No leading.  Just everyone attending to their place in the 
dance.  Eventually, gents began doing what looked more like an escorting of the 
lady, holding their right arm in a non touching curve behind the ladies backs.  
I promise you, in the contredanses and quadrilles, there was no more active 
role for the gents than the ladies.  The dances were often complex and every 
dancers had to know all the details if the set were to succeed.  

 So this whole courtesy turn as we know it is a 20th century thing, and the 
hyper flourishing a phenomenon of the last decade or two, which seemed to me to 
have come in about the time swing had a renaissance in the late eighties.  Till 
then, if any flourish occurred, it was a single twirl to the right hand dancer. 
 And I have a theory for its existence.  In many old halls, space is at a 
premium, and lines were crowded.  Doing the twirl allows couples to slot 
through a narrow gap one at a time, no elbow jostling in the attempt to turn as 
a joined couple.  Fundamentally, historically, chains and R thru, are 
symmetrical, move as a unit, with the CT action in the joined left hand.  There 
is no scooping or leading in that right hand, and in fact attempting to do so 
tends to unbalance the couple, allowing neither to retain a nice upright 
posture.

Let's not conflate squares and contras either.  I'd have to agree that squares 
have frequently been taught and called, by men, as if the men were leading.  
Which if you dance them, is utter nonsense.  If the ladies aren't fully in 
chArge of where they have to go, the square will break down.  In a singer, 
language like put her on the right is just filler, not an indication of what's 
actually happening.  For sure perpetuated by what was once, and may still be, a 
male dominated calling culture, I still think we ought to discuss squares 
separately from contras.

I'm all down with you that the dance has become very /lead left, follow right/ 
in recent times.  But let's not blame the dance form itself.

Do I think that habitual gent/left dancers would be more courteous about 
flourishes if they were flourished more often themselves?  Sure!  We could 
easily write dances that put them on the right and do courtesy turn moves from 
there.  Or just dance chestnuts, with same gender rights and lefts.  But do 
them in a modern flourishy style.  

Beyond that, the aspect of the culture which is most to blame is the idea that 
it matters which sex person stands on the right.  If we all danced both sides, 
and no one thought a thing about it, everyone would learn to flourish and be 
flourished, and it wouldn't be seen as the province of men to twirl women, or 
even of left to twirl right dancers.  I'll look again at the left hand chain 
choreo, but as I remember it, none of it is particularly exceptional and worthy 
outside of the left chain, which right now seems novel, but if we did it all 
the time, would not seem special at all.  You have not persuaded me, Tavi, that 
there's a compelling reason to add left chains to the repertoire, especially 
considering many people have trouble with R vs L already, and new dancers 
doubly so as they are busy absorbing so many new concepts.  Talk to me about 
flow and moving people around or something, but address gender issues where 
they originate, in the expectation that men dance left, women right.  

Cheers,
Andrea


Sent from my external brain

> On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:45 PM, tavi merrill via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Per Richard's excellent point about separating the courtesy turn from the 
> chain, an approach i too use, i want to address the related questions of 
> - lack of attention to chains beyond the beginner level, resulting in
> - bad/injurious flourishing, partly due to
> - gendered dynamics in the standard (New England-style) promenade turn
> - the rarity of gents' LH chains
> - a call for choreographers to help address all the above
> 
> We callers spend plenty of time dissecting how to teach the ladies' chain... 
> and almost never address a corollary issue dancers 

Re: [Callers] What dance is this?

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Sent from my external brain

> On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Rich Sbardella via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> While we are at this, here is another untitled dance.  I am not sure where I 
> collected it.
> 
> Can anyone name it?
> 
> a1  N B
> a2  LL, Ladies Alle R 1 1/2
> b1  P B
> b2  CL 3/4, Veer Left, Veer Right 

This looks like Boys from Urbana
> 
> Rich Sbardella
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:29 PM, frannie via Callers 
>>  wrote:
>> I have it as a variation of Berkeley Bind by Erik Hoffman. Long lines 
>> instead of a full circle Left.   If it's actually something else I'd love to 
>> give it correct credit. 
>> 
>> ~Frannie
>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Any insights?
>>> 
>>> A1: neighbor B
>>> A2: long lines
>>> gents alle. L 1 1/2
>>> B1: PB
>>> B2: circle L 3/4
>>> Bal. the ring, CA twirl to face new neighbors
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Maia
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Wrist-Lock Stars

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

John, 
Somewhere south of Asheville and leading west possibly into the lower Midwest, 
is the land of hands across stars.  They are standard in Atlanta, the heart of 
hands-across-land.
Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 8:37 AM, Dave Casserly via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jeff Kaufman wrote a paper on regional variations in contra dance.  Here's 
> what he found for wrist-grip stars (page 31 of the link).  Basically, they're 
> common everywhere in the US except in some parts of the South.  This is based 
> on data from ten or more years ago, so I'm not sure if that's still true.  I 
> would not be surprised if it isn't-- there's enough cross-contamination that 
> wrist-grips could have taken over even in the South.  We do have people from 
> Georgia and North Carolina on the list; hopefully they'll chime in.
> 
> -Dave
> Washington, DC
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 4:31 AM, John Sweeney via Callers 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have been to contra dances and festivals all over America and
>> everywhere I have danced everyone automatically uses a wrist-lock star
>> (unless the caller has specified hands-across because of the subsequent
>> choreography).
>> 
>> But I am constantly challenged in England by people claiming that
>> wrist-lock stars are not the standard in America.
>> 
>> When I go to somewhere like The Flurry and see 600 people from all
>> over the country all doing wrist-locks it seems to me that it must be the
>> standard way of doing things.
>> 
>> And obviously it has been common in America for a long time; this
>> video is from 1964 in Northern Vermont and shows wrist-lock stars:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZubTju7g_s
>> 
>> So, are there still significant communities that don't use
>> wrist-locks?
>> 
>> Is the wrist-lock the de facto standard?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Happy dancing,
>>John
>> 
>> John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802
>> 940 574
>> http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs
>> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Casserly
> (cell) 781 258-2761
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Really Angela?  Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"?  I'll happily call 
with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using 
lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the 
dancers, which I object to.  And I was vocal in earlier discussions about 
positional calling being a preferable alternative.  (Alan, I'll get back to you 
about short calls).  But where are the stats?  I believe there may be some 
objectors.  And some who support them.  But vast numbers?  Clear majority?  
Don't see it.  I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the country and 
have not seen this.
-Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate 
> with "Left" and "Right".
> 
> There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to do 
> with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to Square 
> Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for moves 
> fail to describe the exact movements in question. 
> 
> Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by gendered 
> terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards to gendered 
> restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't feel comfortable 
> or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary when, in actuality, 
> many of us exist somewhere between two points in a spectrum. [1] Notably, 
> it's different to feel "offended" than to feel "unwelcome." Many of you claim 
> to feel the former, but that's a privilege compared to feeling unwelcome or 
> even shunned from a community. 
> 
> And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and that's 
> great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it meant being 
> more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that things will 
> be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance! Not only have 
> I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more confused than at 
> regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and happier. They have 
> this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and smile and dance with 
> whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers dancing together and 
> accidentally switching roles every time through the dance, and nobody told 
> them they were doing it wrong. They just danced with them, and it was great! 
> In short, they are better dancers. 
> 
> And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more 
> work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer 
> the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as difficult 
> as walking through a new dance for the first time. 
> 
> If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the 
> work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and others 
> have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and genderfree 
> restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series.
> 
> Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this conversation 
> and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look forward to seeing 
> you all on the dance floor. 
> 
> Angela
> 
> [1] 
> http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" 
>>  wrote:
>> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones 
>> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred to 
>> as some form of rock or bird or whatever.
>> 
>> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their 
>> partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on.  Working from 
>> that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without 
>> reference to gender.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role terms 
>>> "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem.  When teaching, I explain 
>>> these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are dancing.  
>>> Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem.  The experienced 
>>> dancers are very helpful as well.  I agree with Donna in the aspect of 
>>> teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new words that 
>>> don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to me, who 
>>> understands the process.  Throw all this at new dancers who move from venue 
>>> to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well.  There is an 
>>> old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  Maybe we should all rethink 
>>> this.
>>>  
>>> 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

uot; and the source of data is 
> only dances with gendered role terms, of course we'd be excluding all of the 
> dances who don't come because of the terms. 
> 
> I call at both genderfree and traditional dances. Seriously, I do not 
> understand this pushback we are getting for discussion of role terms for 
> *genderfree* dances. This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree 
> traditional dances. Let us talk.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ron Blechner
> 
> 
> On Jan 27, 2017 10:51 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Really Angela?  Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"?  I'll happily 
> call with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using 
> lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the 
> dancers, which I object to.  And I was vocal in earlier discussions about 
> positional calling being a preferable alternative.  (Alan, I'll get back to 
> you about short calls).  But where are the stats?  I believe there may be 
> some objectors.  And some who support them.  But vast numbers?  Clear 
> majority?  Don't see it.  I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the 
> country and have not seen this.
> -Andrea
> 
> Sent from my external brain
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> 
>> For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate 
>> with "Left" and "Right".
>> 
>> There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to do 
>> with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to Square 
>> Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for moves 
>> fail to describe the exact movements in question. 
>> 
>> Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by gendered 
>> terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards to 
>> gendered restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't feel 
>> comfortable or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary when, in 
>> actuality, many of us exist somewhere between two points in a spectrum. [1] 
>> Notably, it's different to feel "offended" than to feel "unwelcome." Many of 
>> you claim to feel the former, but that's a privilege compared to feeling 
>> unwelcome or even shunned from a community. 
>> 
>> And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and 
>> that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it 
>> meant being more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that 
>> things will be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance! 
>> Not only have I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more 
>> confused than at regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and 
>> happier. They have this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and smile 
>> and dance with whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers 
>> dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the 
>> dance, and nobody told them they were doing it wrong. They just danced with 
>> them, and it was great! In short, they are better dancers. 
>> 
>> And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more 
>> work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer 
>> the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as difficult 
>> as walking through a new dance for the first time. 
>> 
>> If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the 
>> work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and others 
>> have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and genderfree 
>> restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series.
>> 
>> Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this 
>> conversation and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look 
>> forward to seeing you all on the dance floor. 
>> 
>> Angela
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs
>> 
>>> On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" 
>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones 
>>> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred 
>>>

Re: [Callers] Does this dance already exist?

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi Esther,
   If anyone has not mentioned it, I feel there is a kink in the flow trying to 
go from a petronella to a chain.  As you spin R, it is the left hand which 
feels available as you face the set because your body has been rotating 
clockwise, even as it move CCW around the minor set. So there will be this 
washing machine action to get into the chain.  You might be counting on the 
claps to arrest that movement, but I still feel it's not an especially 
satisfying entry into the chain.  A gents chain, otoh, would be peachy.

What, to you, is the hook in this dance? What were you going for?  

Best,
Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Esther Fraser via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hey folks,
> 
> Has anyone seen this dance already?
> 
> A1: Balance the ring & petronella
>Ladies Chain
> A2: Full Hey, Ladies pass R (16)
> B1: Ladies Chain
>   P Allemande L
> B2: Balance the ring & Petronella
>Balance the ring & California twirl
> 
> Also interested in other dances that have a Ladies' Chain to into Allemande 
> Left (with the one you chain to) combo. I think I might have seen it 
> somewhere, but I can't remember where.
> 
> Thanks,
> Esther Fraser
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Does this dance already exist?

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hey Martha,
   I agree some dances are entirely too clockwise.  But there's a difference 
between graceful shifts in direction to unwind, like circle L to Cir R with the 
next, or M alle L to P Alle R, or such, and contactless momentum changes.  Some 
of us spin hard.  With nothing but our own knees and muscles to accomplish the 
shift, it's gonna feel awkward, not a poise point.  But to each their own 
opinion.  I think the dance gets you progressed and all, so if the question is 
will it "work", yeah.  Not convinced about all the transitions.  Shrug.  
Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 2:39 AM, Martha Wild via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all. Actually, I think the transition from the petronella to the ladies 
> chain is a good one. There are certain moves in dancing, that I’ve heard 
> called “poise points,” where one purposefully switches direction, and it can 
> be very satisfying. For me, the spin to the right feels like the winding up 
> of a spring that you then unleash in the other direction. Some dances that 
> look as if they have good flow end up having so much clockwise spin that it 
> tires people.
> 
>> On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Esther,
>>If anyone has not mentioned it, I feel there is a kink in the flow trying 
>> to go from a petronella to a chain.  As you spin R, it is the left hand 
>> which feels available as you face the set because your body has been 
>> rotating clockwise, even as it move CCW around the minor set. So there will 
>> be this washing machine action to get into the chain.  You might be counting 
>> on the claps to arrest that movement, but I still feel it's not an 
>> especially satisfying entry into the chain.  A gents chain, otoh, would be 
>> peachy.
>> 
>> What, to you, is the hook in this dance? What were you going for?  
>> 
>> Best,
>> Andrea
>> 
>> Sent from my external brain
>> 
>>> On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Esther Fraser via Callers 
>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hey folks,
>>> 
>>> Has anyone seen this dance already?
>>> 
>>> A1: Balance the ring & petronella
>>>Ladies Chain
>>> A2: Full Hey, Ladies pass R (16)
>>> B1: Ladies Chain
>>>   P Allemande L
>>> B2: Balance the ring & Petronella
>>>Balance the ring & California twirl
>>> 
>>> Also interested in other dances that have a Ladies' Chain to into Allemande 
>>> Left (with the one you chain to) combo. I think I might have seen it 
>>> somewhere, but I can't remember where.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Esther Fraser
>>> ___
>>> 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] Poise points (WAS: Does this dance already exist?)

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hey Ric,
 Some thoughts:
I have danced chains up and down, as the lady, and really hate them.  There's 
often too little room between sets for the ladies from adjacent hands four to 
safely and comfortably pass without bumping.  Variable skill level and 
attention increases that risk.  Why up and down?
If you want a partner swing, how about after a neighbor swing, diagonal chain 
to shadow, then swat the flea and pull by to P?  If it doesn't matter who you 
are getting to, chain to N from becket, then STF and pull by to swing a new N.  
Still by and large the same movement, but with normal chains to start, and, I 
dare say, you'd already be facing the one you want to swing, no rotating to 
find them.
About the transition to L hand hold for STF, I realized as I was writing that I 
didn't know if you meant that the pair would just roll to face or if the lady 
would be unfurled across the gents body and end on the other side.  It would 
make a difference as to how well my ideas above would work, though I think the 
main adjustment would be to whom the ladies chained.  Neat idea though, either 
way.

You didn't say balance before the seat the flea.  You implied in your notes 
however.  I do think it might be needed for timing except maybe with the 
diagonal chain which can be less forgiving depending on the crowd.

My two cents.  Curious about why the up and down chain.  

Best,
Andrea


Sent from my external brain

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Ric Goldman - Letsdance via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martha,
>  
> Interesting idea about transitions and poise points.  I’m working on a dance 
> with transitions I think are interesting, but worry they could be too jarring 
> (have not tried it on human salt shakers yet).  Here’s the first part:
>  
> Start: improper
> A1   1-4  Ladies chain up and down set to neighbor, courtesy 
> turn (at end releasing right hand, hold on to the left, facing each other 
> across the set)
> 5-8  Swat the flea
> A2   1-8  (turn up/down the set to) Balance and swing partner
>  
> One possible way to “smooth” the transition from the courtesy turn might be 
> to release the right hand early and use left hands to turn the lady under 
> (clockwise, lady turn right) before going into the balance for the swat, but 
> I resist having it be a forced twirl.  Perhaps folks would “discover” that on 
> their own.
>  
> What other transistions or poise points do folks find interesting?
>  
> Thanx, Ric Goldman
> letsda...@rgoldman.org
>  
> From: Callers [mailto:callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of 
> Martha Wild via Callers
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:39 PM
> To: Caller's discussion list <call...@sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Does this dance already exist?
>  
> Hi, all. Actually, I think the transition from the petronella to the ladies 
> chain is a good one. There are certain moves in dancing, that I’ve heard 
> called “poise points,” where one purposefully switches direction, and it can 
> be very satisfying. For me, the spin to the right feels like the winding up 
> of a spring that you then unleash in the other direction. Some dances that 
> look as if they have good flow end up having so much clockwise spin that it 
> tires people.
>  
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>  
> Hi Esther,
>If anyone has not mentioned it, I feel there is a kink in the flow trying 
> to go from a petronella to a chain.  As you spin R, it is the left hand which 
> feels available as you face the set because your body has been rotating 
> clockwise, even as it move CCW around the minor set. So there will be this 
> washing machine action to get into the chain.  You might be counting on the 
> claps to arrest that movement, but I still feel it's not an especially 
> satisfying entry into the chain.  A gents chain, otoh, would be peachy.
>  
> What, to you, is the hook in this dance? What were you going for?  
>  
> Best,
> Andrea
> 
> Sent from my external brain
> 
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Esther Fraser via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> Hey folks,
>  
> Has anyone seen this dance already?
>  
> A1: Balance the ring & petronella
>Ladies Chain
> A2: Full Hey, Ladies pass R (16)
> B1: Ladies Chain
>   P Allemande L
> B2: Balance the ring & Petronella
>Balance the ring & California twirl
>  
> Also interested in other dances that have a Ladies' Chain to into Allemande 
> Left (with the one you chain to) combo. I think I might have seen it 
> somewhere, but I can't remember where.
>

Re: [Callers] New Dance: Dirty Rotten Double Crosser

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

The timing of the cross trail here is not dissimilar to that in Joel's in the 
Kitchen by Sue Rosen, (to give an example of a x trail where you pass across, 
pass up and down to the next) where you Bal, X trail, (8), then Sw a new N (8). 
 Because it's a Sw, there is some fudging.  If one is late, you can shorten the 
swing.  Getting into a ring for a petronella is another kettle of fish.  I 
agree that a square through, using hands to propel you, might make it likelier 
to succeed.  Either way, the music had better not be burning fast.  The dance 
still looks fun, Don!

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:08 PM, Chris Page via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Aahz Maruch via Callers
>  wrote:
> 
>> You definitely need to be careful explaining this -- I think of Cross
>> Trail as leaving dancers facing the same direction, although your variant
>> is also common.  (No idea which is more common, particularly given the
>> collapse of "Cross Trail" in general.)
> 
> Cross Trails facing the same direction is something I've only
> encountered in the MWSD Callerlab Advanced definitions. (And even
> there, I understand, that decision was contentious.) Every instance
> I've seen in a contra dance of crosstrails through has dancers facing
> the next. (Pass right across, face along, pass left along the set, and
> on to the next.)
> 
> My main concern with the dance is the timing. Four beats is fast,
> though at least you can steal some timing from the balances.
> 
> -Chris Page
> San Diego
> ___
> 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] Self flagellation

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

I'm sure every caller has been there, just as every dancer was once new and 
stumbling, and no matter how long we've been doing it, every one of us will 
make mistakes.  You will take stock, and try to note patterns and correct them. 
 But striving for perfect is never going to result in being perfect.  I have 
come to believe the thing to strive for, in each moment, is joy.  In the moment 
of a mistake, if your forever goal is joy, you will automatically reach for 
your smile, your humor, the sparkle inside yourself, and share it with the 
dancers, and instead of you or anyone feeling bad, people will remember the 
spark, the warmth, that kept things spinning along.  If you catch yourself 
mid-flogging, you might could laugh at yourself for such a silly choice, and 
give yourself permission to think instead of a moment when you knew the dancers 
and band were all with you and that synergy was happening and be glad you could 
be part of it.  
I have had to do a lot of self reflection as a result of things going badly 
when I'm on mic.  I have realized some profound things about myself as a result 
of thinking about my patterns as a caller.  They aren't just applicable in 
calling, but are one instance, in a big public forum, of patterns I have been 
acting out in all areas of my life forever.  Yep.  I'm working on them still, 
not just on stage, but all the time.  I think it's finally making a difference. 
 Those learning opportunities may go deeper than you think.  And the beating up 
only increases the chances of repeating the mistakes, or reacting negatively to 
new mistakes.  When you pick up the mic, reach inside for your place of joy, 
and share it.  Enjoy your work in progress.
-Andrea 

Sent from my external brain
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] Balancing left in a wave

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi Maia,
A balance, ideally, is first toward, then away from, the dancer with whom one 
is about to interact, and even better if it is in, then against, the flow of 
movement.  Even better if the choreography does the work for you by flowing 
into the balance.  
In this particular dance, you have the best of all worlds, but I slightly 
disagree with your preference.  
The Allemande R has everyone flowing forward.  The flow of the Allemande L is 
also, fundamentally, forward.  In my opinion, a balance (gently) forward, and 
back, is ideal.  The choreography helps a little with a left first lean as you 
reach for the next person's L hand.  But in this case, I think the safe teach 
is for both balances to be forward and back.  Noting before you say F, that 
body flow is supported by that choice helps mark it in people's minds.  To 
further get people's minds away from the R balance, I'd not say R after the 
word balance at all, even if you decide to go for L instead of back..  You want 
them to only have in their heads words which reinforce the movement you want.  
Well worth the extra moment to emphasize the gathering of LEFT hands with the 
next, and letting the body flow of the forward movement of the first Allemande 
to go into the balance Fwd.  
if the following move had been, for example, a Rory o More, I would have 
completely agreed with the L balance, FWIW.  Body flow is partly there getting 
in, and the person you are interacting with and eventually moving past is on 
the L.  
Good question.
Best,
Andrea

Sent from my external brain
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] Preschool dances

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Luke,
The age range you describe actually has extremely variable abilities.  A three 
year old is just learning to control their body, likely cannot yet skip, or 
leap from one foot among the many as yet unlearned skills.  A five year old is 
much more in control of both their body, and their social self.  But the whole 
age range can enjoy follow the leader and other imitative dance, the elder end 
readily do two hand turns, elbow swings, circles.  They might enjoy being led 
through individual movements, even in a sitting circle, (butterfly knees, swan 
wings, upside down beetle, cat loaf, etc) and scattered about but moving 
(different kinds of jumping (like a frog, like a kangaroo), walking in 
different styles (stomping like and elephant, wading like an egret, scurrying 
like a squirrel...)).  Moving to different rhythms and moods, swaying to slow 
stuff but bopping to fast stuff can be fun.  Dance that tells a story can work 
if more of the kids are older.  Enjoy!
Andrea

Sent from my external brain
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] More substitute terms for the g-word

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi everyone,
Here we are once more, sharing our likes and dislikes, our preferred term 
(I’ve shared and still like whimsy, but look-see got my attention) of the 
moment.  But why are we circling this wagon again? Though everyone is polite, 
and thankfully we haven’t begun to rehash whether gypsy is a slur or not, I 
also see no fresh approach, no new insight, to clarify for one and all a 
single, simple, right answer.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sure there is one.  
But I’m positive we won’t get there by having more of the same back and forth 
we’ve already had.  While I  R eyelemande my neighbor, you’re going to R 
shoulder round yours, and as far as I can tell, that’s where we are and will 
be.  Could we please maybe back away from the specifics a bit, and see if we 
can generate a new way of framing the debate?  And if we can’t, just let the 
experiment continue without rehashing the already well trodden ground?
Thanks,
Andrea


Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 13, 2018, at 11:53 PM, Cara Sawyer via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jo Mortland of the Chicago Barn Dance group here came up with Dipsy. Nice and 
> silly and sounds similar enough it requires no explanation. Sort of like 
> Kipsy! 
> 
> Guess what they say about great minds is true!
> 
> Sent using two thumbs
> 
>> On Mar 13, 2018, at 14:41, Perry Shafran via Callers 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I happen to *like* right shoulder round and have liked it ever since three 
>> callers at a dance event used it and it went rather flawlessly.  I like the 
>> fact that it is actually descriptive in what you're doing.  I think that the 
>> more we try to invent made-up words to try to make it sound fun and whimsey, 
>> the more we are likely to upset dancers who don't like that we're changing 
>> terms as it is.  It may *sound* like a boring descriptor, but I feel my job 
>> as a caller is to describe the move and let the dancer decide what the mood 
>> is going to be for that individual dancer, based on their own feelings and 
>> their own connection to the music.  So I plan to stick with "right shoulder 
>> round".
>> 
>> Perry
>> 
>> 
>> From: Martha Wild via Callers 
>> To: Caller's discussion list  
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:03 PM
>> Subject: [Callers] More substitute terms for the g-word
>> 
>> Interesting discussion on the Portland Country Dance Community Facebook 
>> page. Lots of great suggestions. A lot of people really don’t like “right 
>> shoulder round” (I’m one of them). I tried one of their suggestions last 
>> night - Kipsey - and it worked amazingly well. Easy to say, particularly 
>> when you are cutting down the calling to one word (what do you do with right 
>> shoulder round? shoulder? Ick.) And everyone can hear the similarity and 
>> knows what to do. I had tried spiral for a while and people just seemed 
>> confused. The other suggestion that I noticed today was from Susan Michaels 
>> - “look-see” That has the virtue of a similar rhyming two syllable call, and 
>> it’s upbeat and fun and has emphasis on facing the other person. Check out 
>> the discussion. 
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/62950211264/permalink/10155943260651265/
>> 
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Hand Turns & Safety

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi all,
I’m going to add a controversial note.  I also loathe the many poor allemandes 
I get, unweighted, awkward handed, arm pulled in like a chicken wing, what have 
you.  As a MWSD, I have come to love the forearm allemande for arm turns.  
Callerlab made the switch some years ago, and at first I was like, wut???  But 
it’s a position which save everyone’s hands and wrists, and even shoulders, is 
intrinsically very stable, and makes the chicken wing almost impossible.  I 
started using it for dances with revolving doors, as a dancer, because those 
turns are so brief and necessarily tight and need a quick strong connection.  I 
was so pleased I began using them elsewhere.  People generally go along with 
it.  I have been wishing Contra could just switch to this for all allemandes.  
I know it would be an uphill struggle to get everyone on board. But I had to 
put it out there.

Currently I still teach an old fashioned allemande.  I demonstrate and 
emphasize meaty parts of the thumb together, fingers curled around the base of 
the opposite’s thumb, flat wrist.  And I always add that the thumb itself is an 
injurious device which lands at a tender spot if depressed, so leave it loose.  
Then I demonstrate how to produce enough connection to make a 2 person unit 
that turns on a post.  I’m sure everyone on this list has similar teaches.  
If teaching this allemande was ever going to work, it would have by now.  I 
suspect it’s failure as a hold is why callerlab opted for the forearm hold 
instead.
My 2c,
Andrea N
Arlington VA

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 17, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> John Sweeny below hoped we callers would teach more about hand turns and the 
> like.
>  
> I’ve been thinking on this for quite a while. Years ago I had a discussion 
> with Brad Foster. We both lamented the loss of the allemande with mildly 
> interlocking thumbs to the modern overprotective thumb against the side of 
> the palm allemande. At that time I think I was still in Santa Barbara, thus 
> it must have been pre 1994. I wrote an article for our dance rag called, “If 
> Allemande Left, Where’d Allemande Go?”
>  
> I talked about what I do when someone grips my hand—and I think all of us 
> should remove that word, “grip” from our caller’s vocabulary…
>  
> But the most important thing I discussed is:
> Our Wrist is Strongest When It’s Straight
> Our Fingers are Strongest When Curved
> Thus, however one does an allemande, it should be a hook, with curved fingers 
> and a straight wrist.
>  
> Lately I’ve seen teachers promote the straight fingers, bent wrist, and flat 
> palm method. The almost always makes one person’s wrist uncomfortable. Not as 
> bad as when someone draws the others hand into that 
> almost-Aikido-put-them-on-the-ground position, but usually quite 
> uncomfortable.
>  
> Thus I hope most of us learn the curved fingers, straight wrist, no grip, 
> and, no thumb clamping allemande, ECD hand turn, two hand turn type hand 
> connections.
>  
> ~Erik Hoffman,
>Oakland, CA
>  
> From: Callers  On Behalf Of John 
> Sweeney via Callers
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 2:09 PM
> To: 'Caller's discussion list' 
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Name that Dance
>  
> Hi Rich,
>   I would just call it a “Big Set Mixer”.  It is a slight 
> variation of the one in the Community Dances Manual.  Callers just make up a 
> 32 bar sequence that works for their dancers.
>  
>   While it is a good example of all ages having fun together, I 
> really wish callers would teach the dancers just a tiny bit about how to do 
> better hand/arm turns and swings :-)
>  
> Happy dancing, 
>John  
>
> John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
> 574 
> http://contrafusion.co.uk/KentCeilidhs.html for Live Music Ceilidhs   
> 
> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent 
> 
> http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive DVDs
>  
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Hand Turns & Safety

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi all,
I think that particular video is a poor example of what forearm turns can be.  
I can’t deny the potential for sweat, but, confession, my hands sweat like 
crazy anyway, and I seem to collect plenty of other people’s sweat in swings 
and courtesy turns, as it is. 
I disagree about weight.  The difference is that the connection puts less 
stress on joints and therefore feels lighter, but is, in fact, tighter.  At 
contra dances, doing a traditional allemande, where according to Rich we should 
find it easy to give weight, instead there’s a panoply of styles of mangling 
hands wrists and shoulders, flexing or flopping elbows, which result in all too 
few actually satisfying and well weighted allemandes, regardless of role 
danced.  If it were easy for that allemande to be well executed and well 
weighted, wouldn’t it more generally be so?  Wouldn’t there be fewer defensive 
variants?  
The forearm turn is almost impossible to mess up, with fewer joints involved, 
and even when less weight is applied, is firm and close enough to result in 
timely movement.  Whatever else can be said about it, it does not permit wide 
spacing between bodies, and people do automatically bend their elbows to 
something like the appropriate angle.  There only being one angle to adjust 
makes it easier to fine tune, in my opinion.
Richard Fisher requested, I think, a description.  To be as accurate as 
possible I asked my partner, who, like me, has been a long time contra and 
English dancer, as well as a MWSD dancer.  (I have always danced at gay clubs, 
which, I understand may be zestier than average?, and he is a  MIT Tech squares 
alum, which, being a college club, may also dance with higher energy than the 
club in the video) to simply give me a MWSD forearm as if we were about to, for 
example, swing thru.  He gave me what I expected, and what I consider good 
form: full hand and fingers solidly on the meaty inside of my forearm, which 
let me do the same, forming a flat wristed, full hand through forearm 
connection for both of us.  Instead of a W, you get more like a \__/ look. The 
outsides of the fingers are to a wall, the insides pushing at the forearm, like 
we pressure the hand in a traditional hold. It feels more like the whole arm is 
involved to me, less muscle action needed, only enough to maintain the arm 
position. We varied in how we held our digits, I had mine more open, he kept 
his flat, either way it functions like a mitt.  Both of us used our palms to 
make the primary connection, fingers lighter.  As in any allemande, the elbow 
and shoulder firm up to complete the connection.  It can be very zippy indeed!  
I’m still searching for a clear example in video form.  I’ll let you all know 
if I find one from sources I have access to.

FWIW, I am exhausted from the last few years of the community arguing about 
words and terms.  So I’m leery of us picking yet another thing to get exercised 
over.  If anyone truly gets near perfect results from their teach of a trad 
allemande, I will adopt their words on the spot.  Otherwise I’ll continue to 
see the leas than desirable quality of allemandes experienced as a pitfall of 
the hold itself combined with the usual humans being human, each with 
individual understandings, abilities, etc leading to highly variable execution, 
rather than a consequence of sub par teaching.
Peace everyone.
Andrea

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Yes, sweaty men’s arms? IckQ! Sweaty women’s arms? Glowing!
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Callers  On Behalf Of Rich 
> Sbardella via Callers
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 5:34 PM
> To: Don Veino 
> Cc: Caller's discussion list 
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Hand Turns & Safety
>  
> Don, 
> That is why Gents wear long sleeves all year in MWSD.
> No skin too skin.
> Rich
>  
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Don Veino via Callers 
>  wrote:
> Not to mention a lot less sweaty skin contact!
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Hand Turns & Safety

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

I think thumb pressure, even finger “pressure” has to be avoided and it’s 
avoidance taught thoroughly no matter the hold.  I once had nerve pain for 
weeks after a cupped elbow hold in which that nerve going into the front inside 
of the elbow was deeply squashed by a zealously gripping digit, I think thumb.  
The non universality and also the too close to my bust fingers (both asthe hand 
enters and if any jostling occurs) make me dislike that cupped elbow hold very 
much, totally besides that nerve pinch I had.  The forearm is taught explicitly 
as not a grip and I think it works fine for every turn I’ve attempted.  Rory o 
mores and box circulates, not being turns, would be taught using a W arm, 
fingertip connection or however we want to cast that.  
I too want to hear how the flat palm to palm could even work and how it is 
motivated.
Also, while we have extolled the virtues of forearm and elbow cup, or even the 
old hold, I haven’t heard anyone deny how often it fails, with wrists twisted 
and shoulders and elbows straining, fingers squished, tender parts of hands 
hurt, and/or weight utterly missing or arm wrestle level.  Above all I’m 
waiting for someone to say they have a way to teach it that truly prevents 
these many evils.  I can’t get behind it whole heartedly, however theoretically 
universal, until we have that.  
Andrea

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2019, at 7:46 AM, John Sweeney via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> The Cupped-Elbow Forearm Hold is NOT suitable for all moves!
>  
> Waves are unquestionably much better with the standard contra Elbows-Down 
> Palm-to-Palm hand holds.  As are Swing Thrus.  As Callerlab says, “All hands 
> are joined in hands-up position, elbows in close. Exert slight pressure to 
> assist opposite dancer in turning. Arcing turns should be utilized rather 
> than pull by type of movements and should flow effortlessly from one turn to 
> the other so that you are in a sense, "weaving" along the line.”  (Sadly very 
> few of the MWSD dancers that I have danced with seem to have understood this; 
> they do lousy Waves with hand-holds at waist level and Grand Right & Left 
> instead of Swing Thru!)
>  
> I don’t find dis-engagement to be an issue with a Cupped-Elbow Forearm Hold 
> in the moves that I use it for.  But it certainly doesn’t give the ability to 
> spin out of it.  The standard contra Allemande is much better if you want to 
> spin out of Allemande Left 1.5 or Contra Corners.  If only we could find a 
> way to get people to do it better…
>  
> Happy dancing, 
>John  
>
> John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
> 574 
> http://contrafusion.co.uk/KentCeilidhs.html for Live Music Ceilidhs   
> 
> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent 
> 
> http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive DVDs
>  
>  
> From: Folk Dance  
> Sent: 21 May 2019 12:12
> To: John Sweeney 
> Cc: Caller's discussion list 
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Hand Turns & Safety
>  
> I agree with John's concerns over gripping in the forearm hold, and the 
> increased security of the elbow cup - provided dancers are reminded that 
> thumbs do not belong in the soft, vulnerable inside of elbows!
>  
> However, I think the full elbow cup grip gives up a certain freedom of 
> disengagement and if we tried to use it universally would result in some 
> awkward transitions - balance the wave to swing through for instance would be 
> clunky with an elbow cup.  A well taught hooked or flat  hand (properly 
> vertical and balanced!) hand allemande would be my preference.  
>  
> I'm not sure I'm clear on the "flat" grip issues - could someone give me a 
> clear definition of what they consider to be this problematic option? 
>  
> Bob
>  
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:19 AM John Sweeney via Callers 
>  wrote:
> Hmm… I seem to have stirred up a hornet’s nest!  It is great to see 
> discussion on this important topic.
>  
> There are two very different forearm holds.
>  
> *** In front of the elbow ***:
> This is the MWSD version. Callerlab defines it as:
> “Forearm: The arms are held past the wrist but not past the elbow joint. Each 
> dancer places the hand on the inside of the arm of the person with whom he is 
> to work. The fingers and thumb are held in close. The center of the turn will 
> be at the joined arms, so, while turning, each dancer is moving equally 
> around the other.”
>  
> I think this is what Andrea is describing (my apologies if I am wrong).
>  
> I don’t like this one.  Sorry.
>  
> The connection is not as good as it could be.
> Good connection can often only be achieved by gripping the other person’s arm.
> It provides the opportunity to grip hard.
> I often find that, due to different arm lengths, the gap between by thumb and 
> 

Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 61, Issue 9

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Stephen, 
I assure you that at Hotlanta, DC Lambda, and the conventions I've attended, 
people are not in traditional garb, but in shorts and T-shirts, just like in 
contra.  And you bet we sweat.  It has not impacted the use of the hold.  
Andrea

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2019, at 4:38 PM, Stephen via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> The forearm turn works well in MWSD because men wear long-sleeved shirts.  
> Don’t know about you, but with short sleeved Ts typically worn by men in 
> contra dancing, I’d hate to get a load of sweat on my arm , especially up and 
> down the line with the all-too-frequent gents (or larks) allemand left once 
> and a half.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On May 21, 2019, at 4:07 PM, callers-requ...@lists.sharedweight.net wrote:
>> 
>> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
>>   callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>   http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>   callers-requ...@lists.sharedweight.net
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>   callers-ow...@lists.sharedweight.net
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>  1. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Richard Fischer)
>>  2. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Rich Sbardella)
>>  3. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Don Veino)
>>  4. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Rich Sbardella)
>>  5. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Erik Hoffman)
>>  6. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Andrea Nettleton)
>>  7. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (John Sweeney)
>>  8. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Folk Dance)
>>  9. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (John Sweeney)
>> 10. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (Andrea Nettleton)
>> 11. Re: Hand Turns & Safety (John Sweeney)
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 18:58:41 -0400
>> From: Richard Fischer 
>> To: Andrea Nettleton 
>> Cc: Caller's discussion list 
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Hand Turns & Safety
>> Message-ID: <52479a7c-5587-493a-8b69-f85f8519b...@verizon.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> Andrea, could you describe the forearm allemande?  I don't think I've seen 
>> it and can't quite picture it.  Or maybe send a link to a video that shows 
>> it?
>> 
>> Of possible interest to some, one of the scenes portrayed on the Shield of 
>> Achilles in the Iliad shows youths and maidens dancing, "holding their hands 
>> on one another's wrists."
>> 
>> With best wishes,
>> 
>> Richard Fischer
>> Princeton, NJ
>> 
>>> On May 18, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> I?m going to add a controversial note.  I also loathe the many poor 
>>> allemandes I get, unweighted, awkward handed, arm pulled in like a chicken 
>>> wing, what have you.  As a MWSD, I have come to love the forearm allemande 
>>> for arm turns.  Callerlab made the switch some years ago, and at first I 
>>> was like, wut???  But it?s a position which save everyone?s hands and 
>>> wrists, and even shoulders, is intrinsically very stable, and makes the 
>>> chicken wing almost impossible.  I started using it for dances with 
>>> revolving doors, as a dancer, because those turns are so brief and 
>>> necessarily tight and need a quick strong connection.  I was so pleased I 
>>> began using them elsewhere.  People generally go along with it.  I have 
>>> been wishing Contra could just switch to this for all allemandes.  I know 
>>> it would be an uphill struggle to get everyone on board. But I had to put 
>>> it out there.
>>> 
>>> Currently I still teach an old fashioned allemande.  I demonstrate and 
>>> emphasize meaty parts of the thumb together, fingers curled around the base 
>>> of the opposite?s thumb, flat wrist.  And I always add that the thumb 
>>> itself is an injurious device which lands at a tender spot if depressed, so 
>>> leave it loose.  Then I demonstrate how to produce enough connection to 
>>> make a 2 person unit that turns on a post.  I?m sure everyone on this list 
>>> has similar teaches.  
>>> If teaching this allemande was ever going to work, it would have by now.  I 
>>> suspect