At a small but very fun/energetic dance this weekend, a dancer dashed up to the stage and asked if I could call "a dance with petronellas" for the next one. I was surprised how easy it was for me to grant that request, and also surprised at how I actually enjoyed the fact that she made the request. (Didn't expect either thing - the ease or the pleasure.) Also, she was incredibly pleased & appreciative, and the other dancers apparently enjoyed it too.
Just another data point for the collective knowledge base.
:)
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast, ME
Thanks for that, John!
I see that your source has different progression:
B1: Staying with the person you just turned, balance twice and swing.
(Progression.)
B2: Promenade
~ Becky Nankivell
John Sweeney (Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:53) wrote:
This one mentioned earlier I have as Cincinnati Reel:
A1: partner (right shoulder) dosido, allemande left the one on the left
A2: partner (left shoulder) seesaw, allemande right the one on the right
B1: partner balance & swing
B2: partner promenade (8 counts); [ladies turn back &] gents move up to
next partner
See http://homepage.ntlworld.com/greenery/BarnDances/BigCircles.html
In regular dance groups often the dancers have their favorite group of
partners,
(hopefully at least three!) among whom they choose. Sure, there are always the
neighbors whom they meet along the line - but there are also the folks who are
new and/or shy and/or never chosen for partners and/or - you name it. Mixers
tend to give a sequence of 32 bars - and one's attention to someone hitherto
undiscovered. They are good community builders. And there is a great variety of
them...
Hanny,
who uses mixers in all her programs, but usually only one, and early in the even
ing
There are some longways mixers. I called Al Olson's Left-Diagonal Mixer (Zesty Contras p. 53) once, but it's not for a crowd with lots of newer dancers. On the other hand, it doesn't require lots of empty space in the middle of the hall.
Hilton Baxter
Mac, Thanks for your great response.
I'm afraid that most of those replying on this list have missed the point
entirely. This is not about callers who "dislike mixers." It's about
empowering regular dancers to partner with newcomers.
At open, public contra dances, I put considerable energy into integrating
the hall during the first half of the evening. My unspoken contract with
the regulars is that I will make it fun and easy to partner with
first-timers. This, consequently, often makes regulars partnered together
feel "left out" of the fun.
I also make it clear that all of the first-timers should be partnered with
regular dancers. (I do this without words by "leading through
assumption." This saves much time and many words while making it crystal
clear that the regulars have a vital role to play in partnering with, and
helping to integrate, all of the newcomers into the hall.)
Using this approach, it would be a violation of my contract with the
regulars if I were to "spring" an unannounced mixer on them after they have
put out the effort to partner with a first-timer. This would send mixed
signals and I would risk losing the support of some of the most helpful and
cooperative regular dancers.
The point is to empower the regulars with information so that they can help
you to integrate the first-timers.
- Greg McKenzie
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Richard Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com> wrote:
> Greg -
>
> I think you have hit on an important point. My experience has been that
> much of the objection to a mixer is you ask someone to dance and the don't
> get to keep them as a partner. Announcing the mixer in advance (the dance
> after this one will be a mixer) would address this and, perhaps, make it
> more acceptable. This would then slot the mixer around the 2nd or 3rd
> dance of the evening - which I think is fine. I don't want to start the
> evening with a mixer when we have so many experienced dancers eager to help
> the new ones during the first dance.
>
> Mac McKeever
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com>
> To: Brian Hamshar <bhamshar(a)yahoo.com>; Caller's discussion list <
> callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 2:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Request about requests
>
> There are two points I'd like to make here:
>
> 1. A lot of callers will get "rubbed the wrong way" if you give them any
> guidelines or requirements whatsoever. Callers getting "rubbed the wrong
> way" is probably the only way to make sure that they are paying attention.
> Look at the issue of squares at open, public, contra dances. I have had
> one caller who bristled when I informed him that our Board has an on-time
> start policy. It's good for callers to get "rubbed the wrong way." It
> builds character.
>
> 2. A policy of one mixer is not going to drive people to arrive late. The
> point is to make the first dances lively and fun with little or no
> walk-through. That can work with mixers or without. It is up to the
> caller to make it fun. If folks are arriving late it's probably because
> the callers are not starting on time. That would be the best policy to
> address that problem--with or without a mixer.
>
> As some of you know I don't see the point of using mixers at open public
> contra dances. The way I do it most of the evening is structured as a
> "mixer," even though it's all contras. I would call a mixer if that's how
> they want to do it, but I would be sure to announce it in advance to alert
> the regulars. I would also try to keep it short, lively, and lots of fun.
> I don't think it would cramp my style much.
>
> Just a thought,
>
> - Greg McKenzie
>
> ***********
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Brian Hamshar <bhamshar(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Reportedly it was the feeling of the board that mixers are the best way
> to
> > integrate beginners and thereby improve retention. Thus they feel it's a
> > good enough tool for potentially increasing attendance over time that
> they
> > felt they should codify it. I've never heard of a requirement like this
> > being enacted, although I understand that certain New England communities
> > tend to have one or more mixers at every dance. I'm afraid it'll rub a
> lot
> > of callers the wrong way. I'm rather certain it'll exacerbate the ongoing
> > problem here of experienced dancers showing up a half hour or more after
> > the dance begins (they're not popular with the regular dancers). What do
> > others think?
> >
> > Brian Hamshar
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfuerst(a)yahoo.com>
> > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Request about requests
> >
> > "...
> > new policy requiring callers to program a mixer " What was the
> > reasoning for this ?
> >
> > Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801
> 217-239-5844
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
Thanks to all who've weighed in on the "mixer requirement" sub-topic that's being introduced here in Charlottesville.
I don't claim to know how many callers might be put off by an unusual stipulation like this. Maybe it's a non-issue. I'm certainly not balking myself, even though it's not my style to include mixers except at weddings.
I've heard that some New England communities have a beloved tradition of dancing a certain chestnut in a given time slot - which sounds great to me, if that's what the community loves to do. Our board may have conceived the "mixer" idea out of a similar line of thinking. The board member who told me of this recently moved here from NH, in fact.
I'm not sure the "starting on time" concern really applies here. In Virginia my experience is we start dances on time as long as there are people to dance. This past fall we had kind of a general slump in attendance, a trend which thankfully may already be rebounding on its own. I've seen some nights here where the caller felt forced to wait 10 minutes to begin because there were literally 5 or fewer folks ready to dance until then (often they were beginners only). Wow!
That happened to me a time or two recently as the caller. Once I just waited til we could get 8 in a line, another time I think I started with a waltz so there was something to do. I suppose I could try a triplet (3 facing 3 formation, with contra corners) or even, ahem, a mixer for as few as 6 dancers.
In most cases, a half hour into the dance on those night there would be at least 20-30 dancers. We consider our "norm" to be 50-75.
On a bit of a tangent (not so much a caller subject, sorry): Our board in C'ville has also just introduced a door prize drawing after the very first dance, as a way to encourage folks to feel like they're "really missing something" if they don't arrive by then. Has anyone done or seen that - and what are your thoughts?
Brian Hamshar
-----Original Message-----
Date: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:04:00 pm
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Cc: Brian Hamshar <bhamshar(a)yahoo.com>
From: "Donald Perley" <donperley(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Request about requests
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> . If folks are arriving late it's probably because
> the callers are not starting on time. That would be the best policy to
> address that problem--with or without a mixer.
Not really the norm around here. One time a Burlington dance started
late and I heard about it at a Montpelier dance. There was a good
storm and either the band or caller was coming a long distance.
I enjoy mixers as well. But IMHO the majority of mixers don't appeal to
the MUC dancers mostly because nearly 1/2 of the dance consist of into
middle (repeat), circle R and L.
I love "Love and Kisses" by Ted Sannella but I find that it doesn't get
the dancers "mixed up" enough around the circle. Lucky Seven is better for
moving folks around the circle quickly and meeting new dancers.
I wonder if any of you would like to share your favorite mixers and perhaps
we can build our repertoires?!
Love and Kisses Ted Sannella Circle Mixer
A1. 4,12 Partner balance, & swing
A2. 8 Ladies to center and back
8 Gents to center and return to form wavy ring
(L hands with partner and R with corner)
B1. 4,4 Balance, partner allem L
8 Corner do-si-do – give R to corner (#1)
B2. 16 #1 pull by R, #2 pull by L, #3 pull by R, #4 allemL,
#3 pull by R, #2 pull by L
Lucky 7 Greg Frock Circle Mixer
A1. 4,12 Partner balance, & swing
A2. 16 Partner promenade
B1. 8 All forward and back
8 Partner do-si-do – give R to partner (#1)
B2. 16 Grand Right & left passing six people and stopping at 7
Donna Hunt
"Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we're here we should
dance." -unknown
In a message dated 3/3/2012 11:47:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
maura.volante(a)gmail.com writes:
I love mixers! I love dancing them and I always include a mixer when I call
a dance, generally in about that position others have identified, third
dance from the top. I have not noticed my community balking at dancing
them, perhaps because it seems normal to us. Many of our home and visiting
callers do these dances as part of the program. I also very much appreciate
the points made by other callers in this thread on the topic.
Cheers,
Maura, Ottawa, Ontario
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
Ah, the Luck o’ the Irish to be on
such a beautiful Isle in the
sea:
Beginners Luck
by Ed Bugel
Beginners Luck
by Tom Lehmann
WAVE THE OCEAN Ed Butenhof,
Slaunch to Donegal by Herbie Gaudreau
Here's
to the Fiddler
By Tony Parkes
Be
certain to recite Here’s to the Fiddler of Dooney, a fine poem
indeed
Some
of my favorite foods are loved by the Irish as well:
Scones
& Tea by Ken Kernen
Jacobs Potato by Jacob Bloom
And haven’t you
met such fine Irish folk as these?
Cheery
O'Leary by David Zinkin
Meg's a Dancing Fool
Ellen's
Yarns By Rick Mohr
Sweet
Ellen trad.
IRISH WASHERWOMAN trad
[Portland Fancy Traditional is also known as Irish Washerwoman]
More
dances with cloverleaf moves:
Dishrag Dance
MONEY IN
BOTH POCKETS by Orace
Johnson
* Alternate
B1 and B2 – beginning/intermediate
B1 Down the set four in
line
“Cozy
turn” [1s, without releasing partner’s or
neighbor’s hand, turn back to back beneath their own hands to face
up, while 2s turn towards partner and join their free hands behind the 1s.
Return, and 2s lift their joined hands over 1s head to form a
clover.]
B2
Circle Left as a
clover.
Star Left
Symmetrical Force/Fourths By Fred Field
The Squeaking Wheel
Cary Ravitz
4-02
FUZZY COZY by Linda
Mrosko
Perhaps half of
these titles are beginner dances. If you are curious about some
dance titles and you search but are unable to access them, contact me
individually and I'd be happy to send details and sources.
Karin Neils
kanara - at - triton DOT net
The "below" message didn't come through...my apologies...just was saying how great it was to get all these mixer ideas and that I plan to use one tonight.
Perry
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
