Regarding the Sennheiser:
Headpiece: ME3-ew
Belt pack and receiver: ew 100 G3
I like the headpiece because it stays in place, the sound quality of the system is excellent and I have never had a problem with it in 8 -10 years.
Also, I recently purchased a "Compact Powered PA System" by the name of SRM 150. It weighs maybe 10 pounds, I can lift it with one finger, and the one speaker sounds great and fills a big room.
Jill
Hey Gang,
Been a member for a while but I haven't posted in a few years. Does any one know if this dance below has been credited already?
Alyssa’s Gift becket by Dan Black
A1. 8,8 Slice on Left Diagonal, Gents allemande Left 1-1/2
A2. 8,8 Star Promenade Neigh, 1/2 Hey, (LR, NL, GR) B1. 4,12 Neigh Bal & SwingB2. 4,12 Give & Take to the Ladies side, PartSwing
Thanks all, See ya on the floor soon.
Dan Black
Was going through an old notebook and found the following scribblings. Can
anyone help identify them, or put choreography to the name?
Many thanks,
Maia
#1, becket
A1: circle L 3/4 and pass through
new ladies alle. L 1/2, partner alle. R 3/4 to long wave
A2: Rory O'Moore
B1: ladies start full hey by L shoulder
B2: partner b&s
#2, improper
A1: (w/ new Ns) star R
N spiral
A2: ladies cross, gents follow to swing N
B1: gents alle. L 1 1/2
swing P
B2: ladies chain
star L to new Ns
#3, Country Doctor's Reel, by Merilee Karr
Hi Amy and all,
I’m a new family dance (and contra) caller. I’d love to see your new inspired program, as I don’t have an archive of Shared Weight emails YET.
I’d love to hear about other folks favorite family/community dances? (I know the Spiral, basic CL, CR, in/out, Sasha, longways from a few books)
I get to call for our son’s nature class, which has preschool up to adults. And it’s outside, WITHOUT amplification….
I also get to call at our local contra during the break, as we are a Sunday afternoon dance and families show up with kids!
Thanks for sharing!
Claire Takemori (Campbell CA)
On Sep 11, 2016, at 1:02 PM, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 17:14:48 -0400
From: Amy Cann via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@sharedweight.net>>
Subject: [Callers] Just had to share this:
Message-ID:
<CALZWU+szPyZwnQ3FcqCmSTA-twvJGxk_zdx1Lg+fA5q86awEWw(a)mail.gmail.com <mailto:CALZWU+szPyZwnQ3FcqCmSTA-twvJGxk_zdx1Lg+fA5q86awEWw@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It's 5:00. At 7:30 tonight I'll be calling a dance for about 150 Putney
School teens freshly-returned from their Long Fall wilderness trips.
They'll be smelly and exuberant.
An hour ago at 4:00 I was planning my program and had a sudden wave of
"Gosh, I'm sick of my own material."
You know how it's easy to stick to the tried-and-true favorites you *know*
will work?
But once in a while your repertoire starts to feel like the pillowcase when
you've been stuck sick in bed for too long? You turn it over and over but
you can't find a fresh cool spot anymore?
So I went to my gmail <sharedweight> archive, typed in "circle mixer",
browsed a bunch of old threads, and am now going out the door freshly
invigorated.
What a vital, valuable, inspiring community this is.
Thanks, all of you.
Amy
It's 5:00. At 7:30 tonight I'll be calling a dance for about 150 Putney
School teens freshly-returned from their Long Fall wilderness trips.
They'll be smelly and exuberant.
An hour ago at 4:00 I was planning my program and had a sudden wave of
"Gosh, I'm sick of my own material."
You know how it's easy to stick to the tried-and-true favorites you *know*
will work?
But once in a while your repertoire starts to feel like the pillowcase when
you've been stuck sick in bed for too long? You turn it over and over but
you can't find a fresh cool spot anymore?
So I went to my gmail <sharedweight> archive, typed in "circle mixer",
browsed a bunch of old threads, and am now going out the door freshly
invigorated.
What a vital, valuable, inspiring community this is.
Thanks, all of you.
Amy
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 repeatedly
bring up in online forums, largely leaving flourishing as a foregone
conclusion. We spend precious little stage time delivering the sort of
style points that can help dancers flourish safely, courteously, and with
consent.
I would argue one reason we don't address that enough is that we are either
approaching the courtesy turn from a bare-bones beginner angle, or as a
foregone conclusion wherein advanced dancers require no additional
teaching. A few callers do teach how to signal and interpret signals
indicating a desire for or granting consent for flourishes, and i tip my
hat to them. But to the issue many (female) dancers raise: too many male
dancers don't ask, and either fail to recognize or fail to respect cues
around flourishing.
Why? Probably because many male dancers much less regularly end up on the
twirling (as opposed to facilitating) side of flourishes. Dancers are going
to flourish whether or not we teach them how to do it well. But we can help
alleviate rampant bad and/or injurious flourishing if we choose. How? By
more frequently adding style points in intermediate settings, and by giving
dancers an opportunity to experience the other side of the equation.
[Now, many of us agree that contra is not a lead/follow dance form, and
some go so far as to suggest that in the traditional promenade and courtesy
turn, dancers move as a unit that lacks any lead/follow dynamic. I disagree
there: placement of the gent's hand behind the lady's back puts the gent in
a position to propel the lady. No interpretation of this dynamic is
accurate without considering the historical context our dance form emerges
from, in which a gendered imbalance is unmistakably present. Consider the
gendered language of singing squares recorded by Ralph Sweet. I say this
not to criticize Sweet, or any caller who uses such language (eg "put her
on the right" or "chain the ladies," the latter an expression i once
unquestioningly used in my own calling), merely to point out that
traditionally, the gents' role has been considered the more "active" one,
and that this gendered sense of agency is reinforced by the ubiquitous
and overwhelmingly lopsided promenade and courtesy turn. Contra dance has
historically been a gendered form; to deny this is to perpetuate male
privilege - the source of bad/injurious flourishing - by denying its
presence in the form. In that many contemporary dancers choose to play both
roles on the floor, and in that there is a broad consensus among callers
that lead/follow terminology is not appropriate to describe an ideal
expression of our dance's contemporary practice, a shift is occurring.
Nonetheless this is an active shift. To pretend that contra has always
lacked a lead/follow dynamic is ignorant of even recent history.]
Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend
virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed)
chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl;
understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as
opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances*
rarely get called. As with right-handed chains, getting to a flourish
requires first mastering the directional flow of the reversed courtesy turn
(right with right in front, left hands behind, lady backs up and the gent
goes forward). But whether it's boiling the reversed courtesy turn down to
an allemande right or writing gents' RH chain dances, it seems precious few
callers care enough to bother with teaching and using the LH chain. We have
it, for frell's sake, let's USE it. Dancers CAN and WILL gain familiarity
if we do, but such progress can occur only if a critical mass of callers
are on the same page.
Why does this matter? Because if indeed we believe our tradition to be one
in which both roles are equally active, we shouldn't have ladies being
twirled against their wishes. Addressing that would be simpler if we agree
to stop shortchanging the one move in our choreography that truly
challenges the historical gender dynamic.
Want to innovate in choreography? What about featuring promenades in
reversed hold, or left-and-right through?! Though they exist, rarity
renders them the province of advanced dance sessions. Yet every second we
spend teaching standard promenade hold turns is something dancers could
easily generalize to isomers, if the isomers were on a more equal footing.
Because they share a common backbone in the reversed hold (a la Rich's
point about the standard RH chain) increased frequency of such isomers
would raise dancers' familiarity with the reversed hold, reducing our need
to teach it, or isomeric moves, as "unusual," while adding variety to
evenings of dance. Should folks indeed be writing them, I am eager to
collect such sequences.
It struck me a few months ago that, while i have some fantastic dances in
my collection involving the gents' LH chain, i knew of none involving a
gents LH chain over and back. So here y'all go. This isn't a beginner
dance. It's intended for remedial education. Should you use this, I am
eager to hear how it is received.
"You've Got To Be Carefully Taught (To Twirl)"
becket R
A1. Partner balance & swing
A2. Gents pass L half hey, ladies pushback; Neighbor swing
B1. Gents LH chain over & back
B2. RH star to meet NEW neighbors in a wave (GR, NL); waves balance, spin
right
*great gents LH chain dances: "Swain the Hey" by Chris Page, "The Broken
Mirror" by Bill Olson, "Rollaway Sue" by Bob Isaacs, "The Curmudgeon Who
Ruined Contradance" by Eileen Thorsos, "Generation Gap" by Thankful
Cromartie, and the obvious reverse-engineered variation on "Secret Weapon"
by Lisa Greenleaf
Please note: The preceding theory arguments are premised on a notion that
to survive, traditional forms evolve. Some elements of the form - the
ubiquity of a historically gendered dynamic that drives problematic dance
behaviors - could stand to be lost in this process. I believe that a truly
equal dance dynamic would preserve the best elements and tendencies of the
form and increase the safety, joy, and appeal of community dance.
Practically speaking, we'd be doing all the same moves, just without the
lopsidedness, by widely adopting both isomers.
In curmudgeonliness,
Tavi
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:47:10 -0400
> From: Richard Hart via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: "Callers(a)Lists.Sharedweight.net" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Favorite dance to teach a ladies chain?
> Message-ID:
> <CAB16f6Ceg6PTXKQrWL60ko8=+hOVC_JD6zaQ3+9TxBVXfN8AgQ(a)mail.gm
> ail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I usually try to separate the courtesy turn from the chain. A courtesy
> turn is used in a number of moves, including R&L through, and a
> promenade. Practice that first with your partner. Man backs up and the
> woman gores forward, with arms around your partner's back. .Remember
> to stop facing the right direction, and as a caller remember to tell
> dancers which way to face. This can be done in a couple of minutes or
> so.
>
> My first dance with a courtesy turn may use it with a promenade,
> depending on the crowd. Then move on to dances with a chain or R&L.
> Once the turn is understood and well done, the others are easy.
>
> I agree with Erik (and Dudley!) The walkthrough and instruction should
> be short. They'd all rather be dancing, so don't introduce much new
> stuff in any single dance.
>
> And thanks for this discussion. I love seeing new dances to try and
> new possibilities to teach when there are a lot of beginners.
I sent this last week but got a message from Dave Casserly telling me
the message had been marked as spam, so I'm guessing it mostly
disappeared into everyone's lint filter. I've read the previous threads
on headsets going back to 2014 and there aren't a lot of specifics.
JoLaine, if you're reading this, I'd love to know what model you use.
You mentioned that it was a Shure and that you loved it. And Rich
Sbardella mentioned last year that his Shure had been giving him
trouble. Rich, what model is yours, and are you happy with your
replacement?
Here's the mail from last week, to get those of you who didn't see it on
the same page with those who did:
Hi all
I was just working a wedding gig and my old Samson headset mic crapped
out. If the piano player hadn't had hers along, I would have been in
serious trouble. Time for a new and more reliable headset mic. I use
my hands a LOT when I'm doing ONS gigs, so a handheld cordless isn't an
option for me.
I'd love recommendations from any of you about specific models to look
at. I'm planning to plow the funds from this wedding and some of my
caller piggy bank into a new mic, so I want something that's really good
quality. It doesn't have to be tiny and invisible, but it does need to
be reliable and sturdy. If it doesn't have a belt pack that's a plus,
but it seems like most of the good-quality headset mics have belt packs.
I'll deal with it if that's the best bet. So, recommendations?
For reference, the one I was working with was a Samson Airline 77, often
referred to as the "aerobic instructor mic." It had the transmitter on
the headset, so there were no wires or belt pack, and it worked just
fine for a long time until suddenly it didn't. I would like to hear
what folks are using who rely on a headset mic for their calling gigs.
Kalia Kliban in Sebastopol, CA
Hi Kalia,
I use a Countryman Associates hands free headset. Countryman is very high
performance company that many professionals speakers and performers use.
You can contact them directly to ask questions. Their web site is
http://www.countryman.com/
I have been using their Isomax headset with my Shure PGX1 wireless
transmitter for years now.
Hope this was helpful. Good luck.
Joe De Paolo
In a message dated 9/5/2016 11:12:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net writes:
I sent this last week but got a message from Dave Casserly telling me
the message had been marked as spam, so I'm guessing it mostly
disappeared into everyone's lint filter. I've read the previous threads
on headsets going back to 2014 and there aren't a lot of specifics.
JoLaine, if you're reading this, I'd love to know what model you use.
You mentioned that it was a Shure and that you loved it. And Rich
Sbardella mentioned last year that his Shure had been giving him
trouble. Rich, what model is yours, and are you happy with your
replacement?
Here's the mail from last week, to get those of you who didn't see it on
the same page with those who did:
Hi all
I was just working a wedding gig and my old Samson headset mic crapped
out. If the piano player hadn't had hers along, I would have been in
serious trouble. Time for a new and more reliable headset mic. I use
my hands a LOT when I'm doing ONS gigs, so a handheld cordless isn't an
option for me.
I'd love recommendations from any of you about specific models to look
at. I'm planning to plow the funds from this wedding and some of my
caller piggy bank into a new mic, so I want something that's really good
quality. It doesn't have to be tiny and invisible, but it does need to
be reliable and sturdy. If it doesn't have a belt pack that's a plus,
but it seems like most of the good-quality headset mics have belt packs.
I'll deal with it if that's the best bet. So, recommendations?
For reference, the one I was working with was a Samson Airline 77, often
referred to as the "aerobic instructor mic." It had the transmitter on
the headset, so there were no wires or belt pack, and it worked just
fine for a long time until suddenly it didn't. I would like to hear
what folks are using who rely on a headset mic for their calling gigs.
Kalia Kliban in Sebastopol, CA
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's
back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join
left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk
forward and gents back up"? It's not, but....
A numerical argument:
Say in a typical evening of 13 dances, 6 dances include a ladies' chain,
R&L through, or promenade across (wherein turning to face back in counts as
a courtesy turn) and 2 more dances contain either two of one or one each of
two. (I consider that a conservative estimate given the ubiquity of ladies'
chains!) That makes 10 iterations of standard courtesy turn; if each
sequence is run for an average of 8 minutes (16 iterations of the dance)
that's 160 iterations of standard courtesy turn in a typical evening of
dance.
Now, since a small minority of callers ever get off their butt and use a
gents LH chain (because it's soooooooooo difficult), let's say one gents
chain shows up in every 10 evenings of dance we go to (this time, a very
liberal estimate). Same assumptions of average dance run time, so that's 16
iterations to practice the reverse courtesy turn.
But since we danced ten evenings to get that one gents LH chain in, we had
a whopping *1,600 iterations of practice for the standard courtesy turn to
our 16 iterations of practice for the reverse*.
The only real reason* the standard turn *seems* "easier" is because we get
s---loads more practice at it! That will never change unless the reverse
turn gets more use. It's hard because we so rarely do it, and we don't do
it because it's hard. Great work everybody. Look at us exceeding our
programming.
Aahz, I would say the same for myself - a regular role-swapper, heavy-duty
twirler in both roles, and "usually good about paying attention" - but I
don't really care how often other callers dance both roles. The fact
remains that many dancers don't, and of the dancers that don't, many lack
the enhanced sensitivity to whether others want to be twirled that comes
with being ambidancetrous. How aware we are is not an argument against the
necessity of raising dancers' awareness. Let's elevate the level of dance
in our communities.
*The other possible reason: resistance to any actual built-in choreographic
challenge to gender-normativity. When we're voluntarily swapping roles, we
are queering the dance, and the dance's built-in gender inequity is
secondary to our experience - but when the choreography itself challenges
the form's built-in gender assumptions, it feels somehow wrong. I use
traditional, gendered calling language in posts about choreography and
gender inequality in the dance for a reason. How many dances involve the
ladies doing a move - do-si-do, gypsy, et cetera - while the gents stand
around and watch? How many dances involve ladies' chains? How few
iterations of the reverse are there? No matter how much the ambidancetrous
among us queer it on the floor, no matter how much we gloss over it by
using alternative term sets, the prominence of gender in the roles is
pretty hard to miss. Alternative term sets and role swapping have their
place. I'm interested in the fact that neither of these things makes a
perfectly good figure easier to use.
Meh. I think you've got part of a point, but as someone who gender-swaps
> regularly (often within a single set), I find doing the reverse courtesy
> turn way more difficult than doing a regular courtesy turn dancing raven.
> And I'm also a heavy-duty twirler, both lark and raven. And I'm usually
> good about paying attention to whether someone wants to be twirled.
>
> Probably I could learn the reverse courtesy turn, but I think you're
> underestimating the difficulty.
