"Callers were taking the revolutionary step of not calling "men" and "women" but rather using "ladies" and "gents", to signal that switching roles was ok"
That sounds really surprising to me: * Ladies/Gents is much older than the 1980s. For example, here's Walter's site with recordings of Duke Miller in 1965 using those terms: http://www.configular.com/duke/ Ex: http://www.configular.com/duke/tunes/C1_LadyWalpolesReel.mp3. Similarly Tolman and Page's Country Dance Book from 1935 uses Ladies and Gents. You do see a range of terms, though, and it's common to see Man/Woman or Girl/Boy mixed in some, and I bet there are other sources that are primarily Man/Woman. * When I started dancing outside of the Boston area in 2006 it was *still* common that people would react badly to me dancing the Lady role at more conservative events. I think it's very unlikely that callers at those events were choosing to call Lady/Gent as a way to signal their support for anyone dancing any role. Jeff On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 11:35 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers < contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Back to the terms, I wanted to relate an experiment I did with the terms, > because I found something different from what I was told I would find. I'm > not advocating a re-opening of the terms can of worms, but I think the > experiment sheds some light on why we think as we do about the terms, and > on how dancers learn. > > But first, a way-back reminder. When I started dancing in the late 1980s, > it was explained to me that it was ok to dance the other role, and I > sometimes did, really enjoyed it, and became a much better dancer. Callers > were taking the revolutionary step of not calling "men" and "women" but > rather using "ladies" and "gents", to signal that switching roles was ok, > since nobody referred to themselves as a "lady" or a "gent" in casual > conversation. I guess that didn't stick, and now we have to do it again! > > Ok, the experiment. I started calling "for real" in summer 2022 to a > group of nearly all newbies in Orlando. I have always had a hard time with > "larks" and "robins", as I hear the start of "lark" the same as the start > of "ladies", think, that's not me, and then realize two beats later that it > is me and I'm late. When I am on the ball, I hear "lark" and think, "Lark > starts with 'L', which means left. Am I on the left? No..yes! Yes! I'm a > lark". Now, I'm four beats late. What I really wanted to hear was, > "left", not "lark". I talked about it with some pretty famous callers, who > said it wouldn't work, as people would get confused with the directionals > given for allemandes and such. > > Knowing a bit about how the brain processes language in a learning > setting, I thought this through and decided it shouldn't be a problem if I > consistently used dancer-action-direction (say, "Rights allemande left," > not, "Left allemande, rights"). So, I started teaching that way (straight > substitution for gents and ladies, not positional calling). It worked like > a charm. Everyone understood it and did it. The hardest part was that > some people don't know their left from their right, but in that case > "larks" and "robins" get even worse, because they still boil down to that, > after the extra step of going from "lark" to "left". Newbies progressed to > intermediates pretty quickly. I felt quite vindicated. > > Except. > > Except that some experienced dancers got really messed up by "lefts" and > "rights" and danced worse than when they first started with "larks" and > "robins". Much worse. Why would the newbies dance anything better than > the experienced dancers? After asking around a bit, I determined that, no > matter what terms you use, you will eventually identify intuitively with a > label - gent, left, lark or lady, right, robin, it doesn't matter - and > won't go through the computation that takes 2-4 beats to derive me or > not-me from a term. BUT, the experienced dancers had already done this for > "left" and "right" in a different way, assigning those words exclusively to > directionals. When I said, "Lefts allemande right", their left hand was up > and they were already shifting weight to enter a left allemande when > seemingly I countermanded it and they realized that I meant, what? what did > he say? and they're late while they're thinking it through logically. And > they're unhappy, because, by taking them out of their intuition, I had made > them newbies. Worse, in a sense, because they had to UNLEARN something for > which they had a firm intuition and years of practice, which is the hardest > of all mental tasks. > > "Lefts" and "rights" are great terms for anyone but an experienced > dancer. Not so much for them. The famous callers were right, for > experienced dancers, who are the majority. > > So, I'm now calling "larks" and "robins". And understanding better how VHS > clobbered Beta... > > Interestingly enough, my lefts-rights dancers are picking up larks-robins > pretty fast. There is nothing for them to unlearn. > > --jh-- > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 5:14 PM Winston, Alan P. via Contra Callers < > contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> Hi, Allison! >> >> Spitball suggestion about courtesy turns for your group in particular >> (not that I’d do it in a regular beginner workshop). Teach them the >> courtesy turn hold as a promenade hold (left in left in front, right in >> right behind), then do a super-simple mixer (partners promenade in that >> hold, still in that hold, forward and back to the center, turn as a couple >> with the lark backing and robin going forward, promenade the other >> direction, turn as a couple enough to be facing in, forward and back to the >> center, face original promenade direction, robins peel off to the lark >> behind them and take left in left, right behind, wheeling all the way round >> to face promenade direction. (I’m not counting beats - work through and >> modify this as needed for the music you’ve got). >> >> I think that gets to a possibly fun-nish dance that teaches the courtesy >> turn divorced from right and left through or chain, and has more elastic >> timing than a regular contra.. (I don’t have a swing or anything because >> I’m really trying to get them used to that courtesy turn hold but only have >> to figure it out once per partner. Once they’re used to the hold and the >> scoop I think that then teaching chain or r&l thru should be a piece of >> cake. You can even turn this into a scatter mixer where you promenade >> around and find another couple, r&l t over and back, chain one way, keep >> the new partner and scatter around.) >> >> I hope this is helpful. I am just pulling this out of nowhere right now >> and haven’t tried it at all, but it seems like it might help in your >> particular circumstances and if you think so too, give it a try, modify as >> needed. >> >> — Alan >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Allison Jonjak via Contra Callers < >> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:40 AM >> To: John Sweeney >> Cc: contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net >> Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin') >> >> On gentlespoons/ladles, that's the "default" nomenclature set up for >> contradb.com--EXPLICITLY BECAUSE it's so ridiculous that it "forces" a user >> to change their dialect to the terms being called at their dance series. >> (Larks/robins, ladies/gents, a couple other defaults I don't recall off the >> cuff, and any custom term set is supported). We just didn't want to drive >> off users by "looking like" we were prescribing one term set or another. >> The downside is if you take a screenshot of a dance when you're not logged >> in, it gives ladles/gentlespoons... sorry! >> >> I was one who "last heard" that the terms were larks/ravens pre-pandemic, >> and have now switched to larks/robins in my local dance series. I'm nervous >> about teaching courtesy turns to a group where 0 dancers have experience, >> but that's only my hangup to address as a caller. (And I'm just >> circumventing it until i gain confidence, which I'm sure I'll work up >> soon.) I've had no pushback from my dancers. (The only feedback I've gotten >> at a break once was "is larks/ravens so you don't have to call us men and >> women?" I nodded. "That's smart!" was the reply.) >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 1:28 PM John Sweeney via Contra Callers < >> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto: >> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: >> I still have great trouble reading dances written with Larks/Ravens – for >> me the L means Ladies means the ones on the right. I have to think twice >> to understand the notation. >> >> When I am using gendered terms (which many of my groups/customers still >> prefer) I would rather use Men than Gents. It has a much clearer sound. >> >> Happy dancing, >> John >> >> John Sweeney, Dancer, England j...@modernjive.com<mailto: >> j...@modernjive.com> 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574 >> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net >> <mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto: >> contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net> >> -- >> Pardon brevity; sent by smartphone. >> _______________________________________________ >> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net >> > _______________________________________________ > Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net > To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net >
_______________________________________________ Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net
