I haven't been following this topic of lead/follow at all but Bree's
statement really caught my eye. I'm very curious to know what it's
like to dance as a women with men who have a wide range of skills and
personalities.
Sorry if this has already been discussed...
I should set aside an evening and dance disguised as a women to
really understand what the experience is like.
Tom
>
> I'd like to repeat the point that the terms lead/follow are implicitly
> communicating to (some) male dancers that they are in charge. Not
> only does
> this create pressure, but I think it contributes to a growing trend
> I'm
> noticing at my local dance; fairly new male dancers assume I'll
> happily
> follow their lead and seem dismayed (even insulted) if I choose not
> to. This
> sets up a dynamic of conflict rather than the friendly cooperation I
> consider the soul of contra dancing.
>
> Bree Kalb
> Carrboro, NC
>
> -
Perry got me thinking that much of this may well be due to the culture of
particular dances. My experience has been that there are more flourishes and
"in" moves at dances that are considered to be "hot" dances. In my formative
dance years, the late 70s through the early 80s, some dances were ones that
people would travel more than an hour to in order to dance at what was
perceived as a higher level. Dances where such dancers congregated at tended to
have fancier moves than the local dances. Dancers at most local dances
weren't as likely to use fancier moves, other than a twirl during a courtesy
turn.
As a caller, I have tried to keep an eye on dancers who were using a lot of
fancier moves. I am all for having fun. My concern was that they not
interfere with the fun of the other dancers or the flow of the dance. A dancer who
twirls his partner too many time to be ready for the next figure is not an
advanced dancer. Then there was the male dancer who was referred to as
"squish" due to his sweaty flannel shirts. Women often asked me to have him
change his shirt.
I don't mind a few flourishes as long as they don't take away from the
enjoyment of the other dancers. I would hope that dancers would take the needs
and feelings of the other dancers into consideration. Dancing is supposed to
be fun, not a competition.
John B. Freeman, SFTPOCTJ
Hi "call"eagues,
As a minor-league caller working towards a National-league position, i'm
always on the search for new repertoire. Unfortunately, whenever i peruse
collections - be they callers' websites or books like "Zesty Contras" - i'm
easily distracted by bright, shiny choreography that fascinates my
nerd-mind (Marshmallow Surprise! A Slice of Life! Possums in the House!),
but often takes a rare crowd of dancers to appreciate. Even the favorite
dances we tend to share with caller friends often veer toward the highly
"interesting". It's easy to find simple dances with a down-the-hall figure,
but i'm specifically looking for low to medium piece-count dances WITHOUT
down the hall.
I'm wondering if anyone could point me towards dances that really hit a
homer - things like: Jubilation (Gene Hubert), Thanks to the Gene (Tom
HInds) Another Nice Combination (Tome Hinds), Star Struck (Nick Boulet),
Simplicity Swing (Becky Hill), The Carousel (GH), The Baby Rose (David
Kaynor), All You Can Eat (Ted Crane), 20 Below (Bill Olson)... dances that
can be the bread and butter of a less advanced evening, or just a handy
fall-back for more capable crowds. Dances without down-the-hall, and
without awkward transitions (right&left through -> circle L?! agh!).
What are the best places to go looking for other bread-and-butter
repertoire like those? Anybody have a favorite fall-back or
last-of-the-night dance they'd like to share?
I'm not only asking for myself, but for anyone out there who finds it very
easy to collect 'advanced' level dances but harder to find accessible
dances that are truly satisfying with good flow.
The middle of a swing is a beautiful (almost) symmetrical move with the
man and lady (almost) completely equal.
I added the "almost"s because it is traditional for the man to place his
right arm under the lady's left arm causing a small, but important,
asymmetry.
Of course you can do completely symmetrical swing (Galway Swings,
Northumberland Swing, Ceilidh Swing, Sweetheart Swing, etc.), and
indeed, especially in the more reserved UK, I always go for a Galway
Swing when I meet a man for a swing. (Galway Swing = start an Allemande
Right, use your left hand to cup your partner's right elbow, buzz-step
and fly!)
But in a swing there is also the entry and exit.
Question 1:
In your community if one partner twirls under the other person's arm
while entering or exiting a swing, then is it the man or the lady that
twirls?
In my experience, watching countless dancers in many US states and UK
counties over the years, it is the lady who twirls 99% of the time.
Question 2:
When you do that type of twirl, do you find it easier if, as a man, you
provide a good lead, or, as a lady, you follow well?
In my experience (mainly as a man) then it is MUCH easier to execute
those twirls without effort and on time if the lady is a good follower.
Then there are more complex swing-exit-flourishes such as an extended
Apache Whip (the last part of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSLttdtKOHs
then raise your arm so that the lady keeps turning under it). Also
Ladies' Chains where the lady wants to twirl half a dozen times. These
work MUCH better if there is good lead and follow (in fact, you can do a
lot of damage in an extended Apache Whip exit if you DON'T have good
lead and follow).
Question 3:
In a swing, who decides when to stop turning? Have you ever been jerked
by someone deciding to stop the swing earlier than you had planned? Or
been left late for the next move by someone carrying on for an extra
turn when there is no time?
Is there lead & follow in deciding when to stop?
So, yes, the middle of a swing doesn't involve lead and follow. But
taken as a whole maybe it does!
:-)
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Hi Andrea,
I agree entirely. A great dance is one where you and your partner
perform as a single entity, reading each other intuitively so that
everything flows beautifully.
I love it when I dance with a complete stranger and afterwards someone
else comes up and says we looked great, then asks how long have we been
dancing together! :-)
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
I called it in Knoxville at 11:30. I explained the concept and I think the dancers enjoyed knowing that others around the country were dancing it with them.
Sent from my iPad
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:50:23 -0500
> From: Louie Cromartie <louie.cromartie(a)gmail.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Last minute New years idea
> Message-ID: <805E2C41-F9FB-4E1E-A6CB-1BE318591946(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi Rich,
> Yes that's the same dance. I left out a hyphen and in shorthand always leave out the last 33.
>
> I know Adina called it at Glen Echo, Keith Cornett Eustis called it in Charlotte, Steve Z-A called it a couple nights earlier as his last called dance of 2012. Joyce Miller on the west coast had plans to call it. I called it in Chapel Hill. Anyone else?
> Happy New Year
> Louie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:08 AM, Richard Hart <richhart49(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 333. I don;t easily find a dance with
>> this name, but I do sometimes call the dance by Steve Zakon-Anderson
>> that is called 3-33-33, and, in fact, I did call this dance on New
>> Year's eve. I think that some people may have shortened the name Steve
>> used to 333. I think that Steve said the title comes from a long line
>> of coincidences involving the number 3 that occurred while driving to
>> call a dance (in New Jersey, I think). The dance called 3-33-33 is
>> available on the net, and goes like this:
>>
>> A1 Balance N1, N1 pull by R, N2 pull by L
>> N3 Balance, box the gnat
>> A2 N3 pull by R, N2 pull by L
>> N1 swing
>> B1 Circle L 3/4; Partner Swing
>> B2 Long Lines, Forward & Back
>> Ladies dosido 1 1/2 x.
>>
>> And that was a great idea to call the same dance on New Year's Eve. I
>> wonder how many actually did so? I told the dancers that there were
>> thousands calling and dancing that same dance at that same time!
>>
>> Rich Hart.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Louie.cromartie
>> <louie.cromartie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Friends!
>>> Many of you will be calling dances tomorrow night. Wouldn't it be fun if we all called the same dance at 11:30-ish pm? We could all share a wider-community experience within our respective time zones.
>>>
>>> I was thinking about something like 333, but am looking for any ideas especially if you would like to participate. If we can settle on something and post it to F-book by tonight it might work!
>>>
>>> Louie Cromartie
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
>
John Sweeney wrote:
> The middle of a swing is a beautiful symmetrical move with
> the man and lady completely equal. ... But in a swing there
> is also the entry and exit.
Jeff said, "It depends how you dance. In the way I'm most used to
dancing the whole swing is a time for interesting variations, and this
includes the middle as much as the beginning and end. I think of the
swing, middle included, as much more lead-follow than the rest of
contra."
Hi Jeff,
Yes, absolutely. If I get a good partner then, especially if there is
a Partner Balance & Swing, I will do a different swing every time
through, with interesting stuff in the middle as well as at the
beginning and end, including doing symmetrical swings, and using moves
borrowed from other dance forms.
But I was focussing on the average swing. The most common flourish
(and, yes, it is a flourish, not part of the basic swing) is a twirl on
entry or exit.
I think this whole thread started because someone asked for new
terminology and suggested that the "Men" replacement term should
indicate that the man leads.
I disagree completely.
The first book on this dance form was published by John Playford in
1651. The preface starts with, "The Art of Dancing... is a commendable
and rare Quality fit for young Gentlemen, if opportunely and civilly
used." It continues with five more references to men and not a single
mention of ladies!
The second dance sets the tone even further: "First man set to his
owne, the last man set to his owne, the 2. man salute his owne and turn
her."
All instructions are directed at the man!
It was very much still this way 300 years later when I learnt these
dances, with calls such as "swing the lady" still very common.
But over the last 50 years it has changed completely in most
communities. The call is now "swing your partner".
Most callers these days make sure that they use neutral terminology to
address all the dancers equally; I find it very strange now when I hear
an older caller give an instruction to the men only.
The point is that the reference to men in calls is historically
connected to the roles of men and ladies in society at the time. It is
nothing to do with lead and follow and it has been removed from most
modern dance communities.
I agree that contra dancing is NOT a lead/follow dance style in the
commonly accepted meaning of those terms in the world of dance.
While lots of dancers help their partners and neighbours with their
eyes and their hands it is equally done by men and ladies.
***To add some implication of leading to a new name for the person on
the left would be very wrong.***
There can still be lead and follow in some flourishes, but that is not
an intrinsic part of the dance. And, as has been said, who is leading
and who is following in those moves depends on the skill of the dancers.
There have been references in these threads asking callers not to use
the terms leader and follower. Do callers really do that? I don't
believe I have ever heard a caller say "leader" or "follower".
Personally I use the words "Men" and "Ladies" and have never
experienced any feedback. We have lots of ladies taking the man's role,
and occasionally a man taking the lady's role. They just do it.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
I disagree re. lead and follow being the most accurate. I don't think of it as residual baggage, but merely inaccuracy. In my experience, there just isn't a leader and follower dynamic in contradancing. Not the way that there is in other forms of partnered dance. Or that there historically may have been in contra or its related genres.
It does seem that some women dancers depend on leadership from the gent role, and some men dancers feel pressure to direct the non-gent role dancers. But I don't think there's any lead/follow component inherent in the contra dance form.
All my opinion,
Chrissy Fowler
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Alternate Role Terms
>
> Why don't the terms "lead" and "follow" suffice? Is there just too much
> residual baggage there? Because to me, it seems like the most accurate pair
> of terms...
>
> Maia
I'm trying to make sense of the discussion of this and another forum I
frequent. When did gender terminology become a "problem"? And, is it a problem
that is this serious?
I have been dancing and playing for dances since 1979, and calling since
1981. I "get" referring to "actives" and "inactives" as "ones" and "twos", or
something similar, since modern contras tend to have both couples active
most of the time. This I can deal with. I have run a family dance series since
1990 and also have led many school-age dances. Most dances I use for these
events can easily be danced without reference to gender. This makes dancing
much more easy for children to buy into. Leading historical dancing as part
of learning about history does tend to go best if boys and girls dance the
part of their gender.
So, when did referring to males and females as something gender-neutral
become the fashion? I've called many dances that had gender imbalances. Heck,
one almost-a-dawn-dance I led had twice as many men to begin with. Those of
us who wanted to dance danced the women's part. It wasn't a big deal. A
popular square and contra dance I ran for many years had 80 or so women from a
sorority show up one night. They were dressed in western attire. We just
adapted the program to make them feel comfortable. (A side note to those who know
our Pittsfield Grange. The band counted 15 squares this dance. The hall
usually feels crowded with 8 squares.)
The first time I remember resistance to gender roles was during the early
90s. Two of my female caller friends tried to change traditional square dance
calls to more gender-free ones. This didn't work well at all for most
singing squares! One of them wrote an article for the CDSS News that shared her
viewpoint. I wrote a response that the editor heavily edited so that my point
was completely missed. A caller/morris dancer from Minneapolis then
"roasted" me in his response. This from a man who danced in an all-male morris side
that women weren't allowed to join! This whole process forever soured me on
the CDSS.
I learned from many older callers, both square dance and contra, who
followed the traditions of the communities they called for. To use artificial
terms for communities that had no problem with gender terms was just wrong. I
was especially offended by "outsider" callers trying to change things that had
worked for sometimes generations. Who the heck are we to force our views
on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change.
Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering.
John B. Freeman
Considering the intense discussion this relatively straightforward topic
has provoked, the United States Congress' inability to reach consensus
should not surprise anyone
The first letters of the Greek alphabet are alpha, beta, gamma, delta.
The first letters of the Hebrew alphabet are aleph, beit, gimel and dalet
A pair of these should suffice. Possibilities abound
a) alphas and betas
b) betas (or bets) and gammas (the shortened version "bets," has a
single syllable, just like "men")
Those who need an explicitly analogy to the sex roles can
imagine boys and girls
c) beits and gimels
d) gims (monosyllabic shortening of gimel) and dalets
Those who need an explicitly analogy to the sex roles can
imagine guys and dolls
