Callers fill one of many roles required for conducting a successful contra
dance and building a dance community (along with dance organizers,
musicians, dancers, etc.) and therefore have their own unique set of
responsibilities to fill that role.
If you accept this view, what would the unique duties/responsibilities of a
caller be?
Some possible caller responsibilities:
- Responsible for preparing and selecting dances to match the dancers
and enhance their enjoyment of the event
- Responsible for coordinating with the musicians to match tunes and
dance selections
- Responsible for managing the dance program timing to meet organizers'
schedule
- ?
What do you think?
-Don
As a beneficiary of Bob and Martha's Calling parties I can't think of a
better environment to learn calling skills. They combine practice with
live dancers, instantanious feedback on what you are doing right and what
you can improve upon and access to several really good mentors. Thanks
Martha, Bob, Dale, Karen and the other callers who occasionally drop in.
I developed an interest in choreography when I began calling, and as Martha
said, the calling parties are the ideal environment to try out new dances.
If you would like to see the process in action, check out the link below.
http://dancevideos.childgrove.org/contra/contra-modern/298-the-square-engli…
Jim Hemphill
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: New choreo list / traffic volume (Martha Edwards)
> 2. Re: Mentorship for Choreographers (Martha Edwards)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:34:29 -0500
> From: Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume
> Message-ID:
> <CAJjmMcNf=kM+GFbGsCCA7+PxTwO9qia6JW23wj-a5UYKD9SZEg(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I'm definitely in favor of one list, and yes, list-serve ettiquette demands
> deleting everything except what is relevant to your post. Also,
> remembering to make the subject line actually reflect the discussion is
> key, although I'm not really happy to see discussions bifurcated when
> someone makes a small change to the subject line.
>
> Perhaps what could help is a code word in the subject - like a tag -
> "newdance", say, or "choreo" or whatever. Those of us who use email
> filtering could then use our email settings to automatically delete the
> posts in question, or, like me, automatically file them in a special folder
> for later viewing.
>
> M
> E
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Paul Wilde <zenyente(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I totally agree w/ Chrissy, John, & Hilton,
> >
> > Please delete everything that has already been posted which is not
> > absolutely essential to your new post.
> >
> > Thank you everyone,
> > Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> >
>
>
>
> --
> As you set out for Ithaka, pray that your journey be long, full of
> adventure, full of discovery...
> May there be many summer mornings when, with what pleasure, with what joy,
> you enter harbors you're seeing for the first time.
> ~Constantine Cavafy, "Ithaka" 1911
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:57:01 -0500
> From: Martha Edwards <meedwards(a)westendweb.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Mentorship for Choreographers
> Message-ID:
> <CAJjmMcN6Vu3GN7vQ7NABspTuHnKen2wD1xPJAc1733PrQctUFQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I've said this before, but this may be a good thread on which to repeat it.
> One of the unexpected delights of our Calling Parties, set up to give us a
> place to call dances in private before we call them in public, to find out
> where the trouble spots might be, has been the development of dance
> writers.
>
> And not just our dance writers.
>
> A select group of people from around the country send us dances, and we try
> them out at our Calling Parties, take videos of the Good, the Bad, and the
> Ugly and send them back to the choreographer, who can tell where and why we
> went wrong, and whether we enjoyed it, both of which we often do. Voila!
> Instant mentorship, straight from the sorts of people who will be doing the
> dances, namely, dancers.
>
> You could do the same thing. Buy a camera (ours is a Zoom, since we first
> wanted a pretty good sound recorder) and a gorillapod/tripod and invite
> over some people, call your dance and see where it needs to go back to the
> drawing board. I've seen some dances go through ten or more revisions over
> several months - but in the end, they turned into a dance for the ages.
>
> If you do this, you will never have to waste dancers' time at a regular
> dance with something that just doesn't work. Or, if it does work, but just
> needs better calling, you'll have a place to make that happen, too.
>
> Start having Calling Parties!
>
> M
> E
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
In your calling career, do you now or have you ever had a mentor? If so, who was
it and what specific things did they do to help you grow as a caller and a
person?
thanks,
Lynn
Hello SW callers,
I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion about
starting a new choreography list. My thought is that most if not all
callers would want to be on both lists, so why not have them be the same
list? My only answer that I could think of why not is if the callers
list volume is getting too heavy for some people.
So I would like to know is if there are many people who would _not_
subscribe to a choreography list?
Also, what do you think of the traffic volume lately? If you think that
the volume is too heavy lately, would you rather have it divided into
two lists to increase the signal to noise ratio?
Thanks to everyone for your interest and participation, even if it's
just lurking.
Chris Weiler
Your friendly neighborhood SharedWeight moderator.
Craftsbury, VT
Gee, Alan, it sounds like you're ready to to be a mentor! It's a relationship that enriches both sides. Often the mentor learns as much from the mentee (is that a word?) as the "student" from the "master". I use quotes because I think the true master always feels a bit of a fraud just because they know how much they don't know.
Rich
----- Reply message -----
From: "Winston, Alan P." <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu>
To: "'Caller's discussion list'" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] mentorship
Date: Mon, May 7, 2012 5:49 pm
Part of me would still like to get formally mentored; part of me thinks that might be kind of emotionally
Difficult when I've been calling for 27 years and am (in some ways) pretty good, and in a fair amount of
demand (when you add up the ONS, Regency, Civil War, English, and contra, I gigged about 50 times last year
and seem to be on track to do that again this year). I know I don't know everything, by a long shot.
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
Hi all,
I haven't followed the whole thread, so I apologize if I am repeating
something.
I can't speak for everyone here, but I know that this applies to some of
us. I have been calling for over thirty years. I am now on "emeritus" status,
but am still very grateful to all of the callers, dancers, and musicians who
mentored me. Some of these callers are still active: Glen Morningstar, Tony
Parks, Larry Edelman, Fred Parks, and my hero, Bill Alkire come to mind.
Each of these callers made a huge impression on me through classes,
observation, and in their willingness to discuss our craft. Some of my early
influences have passed on: Ted Sannela, Gene Ward, Bud Pierce, Dean Wooden, and my
dear friend, David Park Williams are some of those I remember.
How many of us have shown how much we appreciate what others have shared
with us? I sometimes wonder. David Park Williams was past his prime when I met
him, but his enthusiasm for dancing and his willingness to share continued
until his death at 86. I thought it was important for others to see how it
used to be, so I had David share the microphone with me at most of my public
dances. I know that he was grateful. He went out of his way to mentor a few
newer callers at our Grange's monthly family dance. I know that David
enjoyed the after dance discussions we had. Several new callers were thus able to
learn from him and to continue to share with a new generation of dancers. I
was able to pick Ted's brain at Pinewoods in the early 90s. I still am
mindful of some of his tips when I call these days. Several of us often went to
dance to Gene Ward's calling at the late Webberville, Michigan Square dance.
This was a very different culture than the dances we were used to! I was so
thrilled when Gene called his version of the "Northern Lights" square at my
wedding reception.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that we should be mindful that it's really
important to remember that what we are doing is part of a long living
tradition. Sure, some of us get left behind by change. I wouldn't recognize a "Mad
Robin" if it bit me on my rear. Remember those who helped you get to where
you are, and do your part to make sure that this continues for generations to
come.
John B. Freeman, SFTPOCTJ
I agree with the comments of John Sweeney (copied below - after deleting unneeded material).
Hilton Baxter
607 651-8768
> I would rather have a single list.
>
> I would also love to cut down on volume.
> But not by reducing the number of posts.
> By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE of them.
> Too many people just do a "Reply", type what they want, and then press
> "Send".
>
> There is one other crucial step. Before pressing "Send" check what it
> is that you are sending and delete all the material that is not required
> or not relevant.
>
> Happy dancing,
> John
> I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> people to get into position. c
I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this sentence. I've never danced at, or called, ore even heard about a dance where the caller could "just wait for people to get into position." Where does this happen?
I've experienced a few (notable for their rarity) dances where the dancers IMMEDIATELY take hand four and cross when the caller asks the first time, for example Montpelier in the late 1990s/early 2000s. (Quite shocking for a caller used to having at least 4 requests worth of time to talk w band, etc. before the hands four improper status is achieved.) But this notion of actually lining up improper is new to me.
Would the caller just know, at a glance, that everyone in a crowded hall was correctly in position to start the walkthrough? How would dancers joining the set know that the folks above them were in position correctly? How much less time does it take than lining up proper and taking hands four accordingly?
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast, ME
PS In case anyone is taking down data...
- I find as a caller and a dancer that it works well/efficiently to have all gents in one line, all ladies in the other, start at top, take hands four, id ones/twos and down/up line of direction for progression, id neighbors. Even when I'm calling only duple improper contras all night.
- I have no attachment to using terms proper/improper, or actives/inactives, with duple proper symmetrical dances.
- I think that habitual "insensitive twirling" (late, dangerous, awkward, confusing-for-twirlee) is a detriment to the spirit of trad NE social dance. And I say this as someone who has done every one of those sorts of twirls as a dancer (late, dangerous, awkward, confusing-the-twirlee -- in my case, with gents who don't expect me to initiate a twirl for them) But when I do it, I know it's a problem for others around me. You know, sort of like when you look down and realize you are going 60 in a 35mph zone. Whoopsy!
> From: callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:00:22 -0400
>
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> callers(a)sharedweight.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
> 2. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> (George Mercer)
> 3. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> (Charles Hannum)
> 4. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> (95sg23(a)comcast.net)
> 5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
> 6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:32:09 -0400
> From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID: <20120504183209.GA1973(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> especially callers, still think of it that way.
>
> I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> absorbing?
>
> Jeff
>
> PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
>
> http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:44:34 -0400
> From: George Mercer <geopmercer(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID:
> <CACRi76shnLzgLhpPsK2+38KuiwA-z8HAfKBU+HHNh=xMwkPHCA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Good point. I agree. Thanks, George
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote:
>
> > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> > especially callers, still think of it that way.
> >
> > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> > absorbing?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
> >
> > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:42 -0400
> From: Charles Hannum <root(a)ihack.net>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID:
> <CAEqW=hNoJ3xs+_JH6sAMSLruQWagnox6joqw15TC+=8ZuG=kOQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>wrote:
>
> > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> > absorbing?
> >
>
> If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the people in
> the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in headlights. Much like
> why triplets, triple minors, and even squares, do not work well in the
> Boston-area contra dance scene any more, even though they used to be called
> frequently back in the VFW days.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
> From: 95sg23(a)comcast.net
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID:
> <596413448.2373327.1336158198630.JavaMail.root(a)sz0061a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Without using the terminology of "proper", I? find it easier when teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change places with their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing.? If i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to have them line up that way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM
> Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
>
> Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> especially callers, still think of it that way.
>
> I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> absorbing?
>
> Jeff
>
> PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
>
> ??http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:16:24 -0400
> From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID: <20120504201624.GA4784(a)melfpelt.swarpa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Charles Hannum wrote:
> >
> > If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the
> > people in the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in
> > headlights.
> >
>
> I would say that if a caller wants to do something uncommon they
> should be prepared to teach it to the people who haven't seen it
> before.
>
> You seem to be proposing that callers teach things they don't intend
> to use so callers at future dances don't have to.
>
> (I wasn't trying to get into the question of whether the caller was
> wrong to program an evening without any proper or unequal-turn dances,
> though I don't think they were.)
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400
> From: Linda Leslie <laleslierjg(a)comcast.net>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> Message-ID: <E9D77335-70AF-4120-AF3A-908AE6F093F7(a)comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> I agree with 95sg23(a)comcast.net. I very often will ask a large group
> of new dancers to line up proper (and I explain what that means), for
> *my* benefit. I share that when dancers line up in this way, it
> signals me that they are ready to start dancing, and that it is easier
> to organize the actual formation that comes next. This also leads to a
> more direct understanding of what improper then means, so what we
> teach/dance than takes on some logic. I also mention some history,
> but never take too long doing it.
>
> And even if I don't call an actual proper formation dance, there are
> lots of times when it is useful to let dancers know that they are
> "proper" and that this is the correct position to be in. A good
> example would be a contra corners (cc) dance (not talking about
> beginners here). It is helpful for folks to know that they are in
> proper formation at the start of the cc (at least for most cc dances).
>
> The time spent on this concept is minimal, and I believe well worth
> the time. Sharing information is more inclusive, and I believe dancers
> appreciate this.
> Interesting thread! Thanks, Jeff!
> warmly, Linda Leslie
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, 95sg23(a)comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Without using the terminology of "proper", I find it easier when
> > teaching a beginner's workshop to line up all the men/women on their
> > respective sides, then teach 1s & 2s, then have the 1's change
> > places with their partners , ensuring the men have their partners on
> > the right and ladies on the left, whichever way they are facing. If
> > i do call a proper dance during the evening, it's easy enough to
> > have them line up that way.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu>
> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> > Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM
> > Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
> >
> > Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> > gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> > history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
> > especially callers, still think of it that way.
> >
> > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over. But they didn't call any
> > proper or assymetric dances all night! Which is fine; I think they
> > chose good dances for the crowd. But why introduce the terminology?
> > Especially when there's so many other terms we want them to be
> > absorbing?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > PS: I also posted this on my blog, and there are some comments there:
> >
> > http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-05-04.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Callers mailing list
> > 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 93, Issue 5
> **************************************
AMEN to what John said below. Especially the last sentence.
If you are a person who habitually sends the entire history at the end of your SW posts, and there's no compelling reason for you to include all those lines, PLEASE consider taking a few seconds to only include the relevant parts - for the benefit of your fellow list-mates.
Cheers,
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast
(PS I almost sent an apology to the list when my fingers flew too fast the other day and I
sent a reply with the whole giant digest history appended. But then I
decided that would mean sending a non-essential email.)
>
> I would also love to cut down on volume.
>
> But not by reducing the number of posts.
>
> By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE of them.
>
> Too many people just do a "Reply", type what they want, and then press
> "Send".
>
> There is one other crucial step. Before pressing "Send" check what it
> is that you are sending and delete all the material that is not required
> or not relevant.
>
> Happy dancing,
> John
I would rather have a single list.
I would also love to cut down on volume.
But not by reducing the number of posts.
By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE of them.
Too many people just do a "Reply", type what they want, and then press
"Send".
There is one other crucial step. Before pressing "Send" check what it
is that you are sending and delete all the material that is not required
or not relevant.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk <http://www.contrafusion.co.uk/> for
Dancing in Kent
