So...I've been thinking about trying to put together a workshop for
experienced dancerd that would consist of dances that have end effects,
but giving the dancers some rules of thumb to go on for different types
of end effects. Would be glad of some help brainstorming different
general categories of end effects (grouped by "coping mechanism").
Here's what I can come up with off the top of my head (Corrections,
additions and clarifications welcome)
Type: Dances where you pull by along the set or do things with one
neighbor after another
Rule: At the ends, when you don't have a neighbor, treat your partner
like your neighbor
Rule: If you have to pass by shadows to get back to your partner, go the
long way at the ends -- don't try to cut the corner
Type: Things on the diagonal
Rule: If there's no one there, stay put and *keep dancing -- you're not
out yet*
Type: Shadow is also neighbor
Rule: Know that Shadow will fill both roles
Type: spit out temporarily (with partner, neighbor or shadow) and then
come back in
Rule: Dance with ghosts
On type #1, Rule: don't cross over immediately when waiting out, face partner and participate in dance using inevitable partner swing to change places .
On type #2 Don't know if this is a rule or not, but when women chain (let's say) to couple waiting out she thinks she's still in the dance and it's the waiting out gent's responsibility to "hold her back"... (and not get drawn back into the dance himself)..
Is it worth mentioning that a pair of couples waiting out at the end of a 4 facing 4 can face across and dance the dance with each other? That's "sort of" an end effect..
bill
> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:27:24 -0400
> From: jamitch3(a)mindspring.com
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] End Effect Rules / Patterns
>
> So...I've been thinking about trying to put together a workshop for
> experienced dancerd that would consist of dances that have end effects,
> but giving the dancers some rules of thumb to go on for different types
> of end effects. Would be glad of some help brainstorming different
> general categories of end effects (grouped by "coping mechanism").
> Here's what I can come up with off the top of my head (Corrections,
> additions and clarifications welcome)
>
> Type: Dances where you pull by along the set or do things with one
> neighbor after another
> Rule: At the ends, when you don't have a neighbor, treat your partner
> like your neighbor
> Rule: If you have to pass by shadows to get back to your partner, go the
> long way at the ends -- don't try to cut the corner
>
> Type: Things on the diagonal
> Rule: If there's no one there, stay put and *keep dancing -- you're not
> out yet*
>
> Type: Shadow is also neighbor
> Rule: Know that Shadow will fill both roles
>
> Type: spit out temporarily (with partner, neighbor or shadow) and then
> come back in
> Rule: Dance with ghosts
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
Erik said (re stars), "Many people call this the "wrist grip" form. I
encourage us all to remove the word "grip" from out teaching lexicon, as
gripping has led to griping, and that (IMHO) horrid no-thumb
allemande... The connection is through hooks and surfaces to lean on,
not through gripping. And, although I don't like the no thumb
allemande, when I teach this form of star, I encourage all five fingers,
thumb included, going over the top of the wrist in front - no grip."
Stars: I agree entirely. "Wrist Lock", "Box", etc are MUCH better
terms.
Allemandes: Sorry. Why do you want someone gripping your thumb with
theirs? I like to be able to spin out of Allemandes, and spin easily in
Rory O'Mores without having to worry about getting someone to let go of
me first.
Many people grip too tightly when they use their thumb, whether it is a
circle, a line, an allemande, a box the gnat or anything else. Painful
and awkward!
I firmly believe that thumbs should not be used, ever, for anything in
dancing! :-)
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Alan wrote:
> I totally agree that we need to rely on and empower experienced dancers to
> teach figures. What I'm talking about however is newcomers who seemed to
> have learned the figure in the walkthrough losing it after the dance starts
> and apparently unable to receive any input from caller or other dancers,
> and what can be done about that.
My apologies. I was not being clear in addressing your question. Earlier
Alan wrote:
> This is likelier to happen if both partners are new, and likeliest to
>> happen if all four in that set are new. But that couple that's new will
>> have that problem repeatedly. When I see that I continue to prompt the
>> figures, maybe with more emphasis - Ladies CHAIN and COURTESY TURN - and
>> it doesn't seem to make any difference.
>>
>
What I was trying to say is that this problem seems to be rooted in the
fact that your hall was not integrated. If all first-timers were paired
with a regular then your situation would be a very different one.
Instead of focusing on tactics to teach multiple couples of paired
first-timers from the mike I am suggesting that we address the root cause
which is the fact that the hall is not integrated.
Obviously, this is more difficult when there are already couples of
first-timers paired with each other. But being pro-active in your efforts
to integrate the hall would solve the root problem for your next gig and
would set a different tone that will allow you to demonstrate to the
regulars that partnering with first-timers is very gratifying and fun.
This is not, by the way, a long-term "problem" that lives in the "local
dance culture." Any caller who can call precisely and clearly using
effective word-order can set a tone that immediately makes it clear that
the regulars have a vital role to play in welcoming and leading newcomers
through the figures. This is what makes contras a "traditional" dance
form. The regulars show the first-timers how it's done...not the caller.
Thank you Donna and JoLaine for your ideas about integration.
JoLaine wrote:
> I often hear callers tell the newbies to find experienced dancers. That's
> like telling a drowning person to go find a lifeguard!
>
This is a good point. But there are some subtle factors to keep in mind
when speaking on mike that can make it more effective to speak directly to
the first-timers. If you tell the regulars to pair up with first-timers
you are sending out some subtle implied messages with negative consequences:
- You will be indicating that you feel the regulars either do not know that
there are first-timers in the room...or worse you will be indicating that
you believe the regulars are not inclined to dance with first-timers and
must be told to do so from the mike.
This point will not be lost on the first-timers themselves, who are likely
to assume that the regulars are not fond of dancing with first-timers (why
else would the caller have to tell them to do it?).
I prefer to address the first-timers directly and assume the full support
of the regulars. The regulars already know who the first-timers are. And
the first-timers need to know that it is the custom that regulars will
partner with them. (The regulars already know this.) I begin my evening
by saying:
"If you are new to this kind of dancing please find someone who has danced
for at least one night. I will tell you everything you need to know and
your more experienced partner will show you all of the moves."
This is a subtle point but it has to do with "leading by assumption." If
you assume the support of the regulars you will get more support than by
ordering them from the mike. The "at least one night" phrase authorizes
everyone in the room--except first-timers--to partner with first-timers,
and this makes the task seem much more manageable because there are many
dancers who can help.
Just a thought,
Greg McKenzie
West Coast, USA
Some clarification for those that didn't read the Blog post, but just read
my text in the email:
When I say that the experienced dancers teach - I mean that they teach by
connection, extending hands, physical cues etc. Our dance angels have
agreed to keep verbal cues to a minimum. It may be a regional thing, but
in general, the Florida communities are pretty good at this. If I see
someone heavily involved in a verbal teaching, I may walk over and see what
I can do to help,
As far as telling the newbies to find experienced partners vs telling the
experienced dancers to find newbies - I still stand by my original premise
that we put the responsibility on the experienced dancers. If I have to
weigh the very subtle message "these dancers have to be told to dance with
me" against the overt message "you're on your own here new dancer and its
up to you to figure out who is an experienced dancer and who isn't, and
even though you've already stretched your comfort zone by making an effort
to do something new in a room full of strangers, I'm going to make you
stretch it even more by telling you to walk up to these strangers and ask
them to dance with you."
I do acknowledge that different communities would present different
challenges depending on the cultural willingness to embrace newbies. I know
of communities where experienced dancers would only dance with newbies
under duress, and a different approach might be needed there, but I haven't
called in those communities yet.
--
JoLaine Jones-Pokorney
"We are as gods and might as well get good at it!"
- Stewart Brand
Barbara G posted Nick Boulet's "Warmin' Up the Car" and started with:
"start in ocean waves along the side of the set"
I have always thought that an Ocean Wave was a wave of four people; in a
contra they would normally be across the set.
I know these terms for waves:
Wave: a formation of two or more dancers holding adjacent hands and with
each dancer facing in the opposite direction to that of the adjoining
dancer(s).
Ocean Wave: Wave for four (though in a square dance it could be from 3
to 7 people - maybe more if you do a grid square!)
Tidal Wave: Wave for all along the line of the whole set (can be down
the centre for just the Ladies or just the Men)
Alamo (Style) Wave/Ring: Circular wave
Mini Wave: Wave for two
Radial Wave: Waves for two in a Circle Mixer - all the couples like the
spokes of a wheel
Microwave: Having described some of the above to the dancers, hold up
one hand and wiggle the fingertips saying "and this is a microwave". :-)
Are these universal? What other terms do people use?
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Ryan Smith said:
> Out of a post-swing position (Man on Left, Lady on Right) the man's
> partner
> can give weight and assistance for him to go into an allemande Left,
> similarly the ladies partner can help her into an allemande Right.
> That's
> not really true for the Man doing an Allemande R or the lady doing an
> Allemande Left.
>
> It's a small thing, but it's the reason that men usually use lefts and
> ladies usually use rights (because you're usually in a post-swing
> position). Breaking this convention doesn't typically ruin the
> dance, but
> it does make it less satisfying.
I agree that there are instances where partners (and neighbors) can
help each by giving weight etc. Sure, after a swing it's very
useful. In my opinion, men rolling their neighbors away followed by
a ladies chain is actually bad flow but It's the team work that makes
that combination fun. I believe this combination would really suck
without giving weight.
But I have to disagree with you on the need to use outside hands in
all cases. In many dances there's a forward and back followed by
for example, the ladies doing an allemande left. One is Ashoken
Hello. There are many ways that choreographers give dancers new
combinations instead of the same old thing. Allemandes with 'the
other hand' after forward and back is just one example.
I too have the ladies allemande left in 3-33-33 but it's after a
forward and back, not after a swing. If you're dancing with someone
who is absolutely clueless simply take her left or his right and lead
it into the center of the set. I don't see using 'the other hand' as
a problem for those with any experience or ability. If you have many
dancers who don't have the skills, then calling 3-33-33 is probably a
bad idea no matter which ending you use.
tom
I totally agree with Greg's suggestion to utilize your experienced dancers
in the training of newcomers. They can gently lead the individuals through
the figures which, from the stage, you can only describe.
However, you have to be able to reclaim the attention of all the dancers
when you are ready to proceed to the next figure. The last thing you need
is "teachers" talking over the caller and confusing the newcomers even
more. It is a slippery slope from asking them to help with figures to
having them talk over your walk-through.
> 4. Re: New contra dancers and similar figures (Greg McKenzie)
>
> Message: 4
>
> Alan,
>
> Thank you for this great question. Situations like this are all too
> common. I see this as a problem of integration. The core principle I use
> is to remember that:
>
> The caller always takes full responsibility for anything that happens in
> the hall.
>
> If first-timers are not integrated with the regulars, this is the caller's
> problem, not the dancer's. At an open public contra dance, integration of
> the hall can be seen as a primary indicator of how well the caller is doing
> their job. The opposite of integration is disintegration...and that is a
> bad thing at contra dances.
>
> So how can the caller assure full integration of the first-timers? The
> answer to that question gets at the heart of good contra dance calling, and
> goes beyond the scope of this discussion because there are many, many
> techniques, strategies, and skills that affect this complex goal. Much of
> it has to do with building the confidence of the dancers.
>
> The ideal situation is that the regulars feel confident and enthusiastic
> about partnering with first-timers and look forward to that as one of the
> primary reasons they attend the dance. The goal is to make dancing with
> first-timers *more *fun than dancing with other regulars.
>
> I think most callers start calling because they really enjoy teaching
> dance. This is all well and good. But we need to remember that the
> regular dancers enjoy this process as much as the caller. One key to
> achieving full integration is to empower the regulars to become leaders who
> have a key role in the process of welcoming newcomers. That means building
> their confidence through precise, clear calling and structuring your calls
> so that the regulars--as well as the first-timers--get the information they
> need at just the moment they need it.
>
> The caller has the resource of dozens of intelligent and helpful hands on
> the dance floor that are more than willing to help the caller *show *the
> dancers all of the moves. My experience is that when the caller uses that
> resource skillfully, the regular dancers respond immediately with boundless
> enthusiasm. The excitement of seeing your partner "swept in" to the
> excitement of contra dancing is an ecstatic one. We all remember that.
> When other regulars see how this process is working most of them will,
> naturally, want to be a part of it and are much more likely to partner with
> a first-timer for the next dance.
>
> Part of this strategy is to be willing to "step back" and allow the
> regulars to take th lead role in this process.
>
> I would like to hear how other callers use this strategy in their calling.
>
> Greg McKenzie
> West Coast, USA
>
> ************************
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Alan Winston <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > Gang --
> >
> > Wasn't really sure of the subject line, but thought I might as well not
> > say "memetic entrapment" because who would want to read it?
> >
> > Anyway, a phenomenon I've noticed several times over the years is that
> > some fraction of people who were in a beginner workshop and who in the
> > walkthrough of the dance were able to do something like "women chain to
> > partner, women allemande 1x, partner balance and swing" are no longer
> able
> > to do it, instead pretty reliably doing "women pull by, partner swing"
> and
> > confusion. [That one's recoverable, although if they then stop swinging
> > early and move on to the after-the-swing figure it can require
> attention.]
> >
> > This is likelier to happen if both partners are new, and likeliest to
> > happen if all four in that set are new. But that couple that's new will
> > have that problem repeatedly. When I see that I continue to prompt the
> > figures, maybe with more emphasis - Ladies CHAIN and COURTESY TURN - and
> > it doesn't seem to make any difference.
> >
> > (I'm reminded of something that happens to beginning English dancers.
> > "Back to back" (non-spinning do-si-do) and "Cross and go below" start
> the
> > same way - striding out to pass partner by the right shoulder. If
> there's
> > a do-si-do in dance #1 and a "Cross and go below" in dance #2, they'll do
> > the cross and go below in the walkthrough once they get the idea, but
> once
> > the dance is up and running, when it comes time for that move they'll try
> > to do-si-do, with resultant levels of chaos. That one has the obvious
> > feature that even if half of the partnership is doing it right the other
> > half can't see them, so there's no feedback about anything going wrong
> > until the 2s move up to fill the spot that one of the 1s is still in, or
> > only one of the 2s moves up, or neither of the 2s moves up.)
> >
> > This either doesn't happen to dancers who have been coming for a while or
> > is corrected quickly if it does, maybe by noticing what everybody else in
> > the line is doing.
> >
> > My hypothesis is that these are people who are still drinking from the
> > firehose. (The first time you come you hear everything important about
> > contra dancing and probably get exposed to half or more of the common
> > figures. It's a big cognitive load. The second time you hear the same
> > things again and get exposed to many fewer new-to-you figures, and by the
> > third time you might be successfully associating the figures with the
> names
> > - the flow of novelty is at a trickle and easy to absorb.) They're not
> > ignoring the caller, per se, but they don't have CPU left over to process
> > the prompts and in any case the words aren't really meaning anything to
> > them yet; if a prompt changes what they're doing they're going to take
> > four-six beats to get organized enough to respond to the prompt. )
> >
> > This will get sorted out if they keep coming back, probably. But they
> may
> > be less likely to return if they were confused and overstretched through
> > the whole evening, and this is the kind of thing that leaves you
> confused.
> >
> > What do you guys do about this kind of thing? I already keep prompting
> > clearly and in a timely way, refrain from shouting "No!" over the
> > microphone, don't lose my cool (a place that took me a while to get to,
> > incidentally). What else can I do to help these people succeed?
> >
> > [Also happy to hear alternative views of what's going on inside these
> > people.)
> >
> > -- Alan
> >
>
--
Donna Calhoun
Knoxville Country Dancers
Knoxville, Tennessee
Although I consider 3,33-33 an excellent dance, so many have designated 3,33-33 as awesome that it, like the word awesome, has become overused.
Some years ago (I speculate 20 or so) Susan Kevra wrote this wonderful dance Trip to Phan Reel (http://www.prismnet.com/contradance/sequences/trip-to-phan-reel.html)
For a year or so one could hardly attend a dance weekend without dancing Trip to Phan Reel. Then it slowly subsided to very occasional use.
Does anyone have any ideas why the calling of 3-33-33 (of the same vintage, as suggested by http://www.cambridgefolk.org.uk/contra/dances/steve_zakon/three_33_33.html), has not similarly subsided ?
Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217-239-5844
Links to photos of many of my drawings and paintings are at www.ArtComesFuerst.com
I base my introductory workshop on George Marshalls, and am a firm believer
that the experienced dancers are the main teachers of the dance. In my
workshop, I always pair the experienced dancers with the newbies. The
workshop doesn't start until every newbie has an experienced partner.
I tell everyone that I'll be calling, but if you're new it will probably
sound like Blah Blah Blah. But that's ok because it is your experienced
partner and neighbors who will help you through this. Then I teach about
connection, giving weight, and line them up to dance Broken Sixpence. The
only "move" I teach in the workshop is the swing.
At the end of Broken Sixpence I tell them that the tradition is that we
trade partners with every dance and that women ask men to dance, women ask
women, men ask women, men ask men. Then I tell the experienced dancers to
find the newbies to dance with. I often hear callers tell the newbies to
find experienced dancers. That's like telling a drowning person to go find
a lifeguard!
When the "real" dance begins, I follow Beth Molaro's advice of "Test - then
Teach." So I might tell them to Allemande R their neighbor. I watch for a
couple of seconds to see the dancers teaching their neighbors to
Allemande. I don't jump in to teach unless I see that there is a need for
it, and there usually isn't, depending on the ratio of newbies to
experienced dancers. And then I often ask a foursome to demonstrate, which
further reinforces the idea that the dancers are the real teachers here. I
verbally describe what is happening while the demonstration is going on, to
help them get used to the words that are describing the process.
The experienced dancers are my allies and will let me know if there is a
need for more instruction.
I wrote a blog post about it. You can find it here:
http://jolainejonespokorney.blogspot.com/2012/11/dancing-with-newbies.html
--
JoLaine Jones-Pokorney
"We are as gods and might as well get good at it!"
- Stewart Brand
