I'm loving reading this discussion! Some replies:
Peg, I think it's important we take into account what Allison wrote: I haven't seen published examination of Positional calling's effect with people with Left/Right confusion. Allison: It's approximately 1 of 7 people. It's not a small number. Positional: I really love much of what Louise has written. I think principles of "do we NEED to use roles here?", deconstructing the language we use, and making our calling more concise are all great takes. However, there's assumptions she states, even once you get a caller and dancers accustomed to Positional, that I think are major, unsolved obstacles: - You can't really do a medley / hash calling for anything but the simplest dances. I can't imagine, for example, a NEFFA without the medley sessions. Losing hash calling and medleys are a rich part of our dance history, and I think contra would be reduced without them. - Overall, it makes some walkthroughs longer, some prompts wordier, but doesn't offer any advantages over Larks/Robins other than "no birds". And I think I covered the resistance to bird-terms in my earlier reply. Thus, my short version is: I think a lot of Louise's suggestions from Positional apply even with role-term calling, and could be adopted for cleaner, more concise dancing. But it's not the panacea that is being advertised. (But I'm always open to more evidence!) Jim: Thank you for asking. I guess it surprises me that so many folks are not aware of the history. Coincidentally, I'm listening to a CDSS podcast with Mary Wesley and Chris Riccioti on genderfree dancing. https://cdss.org/podcasts/podcast/from-the-mic-episode-8-chris-ricciotti/ As others (like Gabrielle) have mentioned, there's been an incredible amount of work by easily hundreds of people in experimenting and evaluating new terms. And Amy Cann definitely mentions an example of why this can be so finicky. (And, side-note: I urge Positional advocates to do the same level of critique of Positional as has been done with other genderfree terms.) And, in the end, Larks/Robins is advocated strongly by the overwhelming majority of LGBTQ dancers for a reason. Larks/Robins is a current culmination of 30+ years of work, and has deep buy-in by queer folks. Ridge: I understand that this is a personal issue, and appreciate your honesty and vulnerability in sharing this. Our culture, from our youth, bombards us - especially boys and men - that men showing even platonic touch or affection is "gay" and "bad". Toxic masculinity harmed us all. I know that contra helped me confront this in myself, and it took _years_ of examination, dancing with other men, etc, to be comfortable with it. I empathize with you. And, further, because of how deeply society's toxic attitude towards male-male platonic touch and affection has been forced on us, it may not be something everyone can ever fully reconcile. :( Thus, I am always happy to do an alternate swing to someone else's comfort. I would hope that you also can see the real issue here - with how society has harmed us men, how it's very different in less Puritanical countries, and how we should share a goal for making this better for the younger generations. Tony: I really appreciate your perspective on this, given your decades of involvement, your stewardship for the history of our dance, calling, choreography, etc. You wrote: " I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a consummation devoutly to be wished.”" Yeah, you know, this is a great point. In my beginner lessons, I've begun to make clear both that "anyone can dance any role" but that some people still prefer to do one role or the other. I don't think there's anything wrong with just sticking with one role, and, anyone who's had an injured shoulder could add that there may be _physical limitations_ for one role or the other. And, as a committee member of another genderfree dance, I also agree, mostly, with Jeff K. So I like symmetrical swings as an option, but losing ballroom-hold would seem like an unnecessary loss. And the good news is that it's not _that_ hard for someone who prefers a symmetrical swing to signal it. Perhaps alternate swings is something that genderfree dances could/should be teaching / workshopping, more? Jeff S + others who've said: "I hear lark and think lady" Yeah, I had the same experience. I was accustomed to ladies/gents, and it took a while to adjust. The good news is that eventually it does get to be no big deal. Like anything with the brain - repetition. Jeff K: Agree. To elaborate, I think that the concept of "how much lead and how much follow?" is a nuanced one. These are very much styles, not roles, but, at the same time, from what I've learned from Blues, Swing, and other couples' dance forms with more pronounced Leader/Follower roles, "Lead role" doesn't really mean "In charge" despite the layman's understanding of the term. I think that conversation about "what does leading mean?" is something that may sink in once a dancer has danced a couple times before, however, that's very much a personal opinion, and I'm willing to be convinced. That all said, "Lead/Follow" as role terms is still a no-go for me because "Follows, lead across, leads, follow", etc - too many examples of this kind of linguistic trap. Perry: Amen to what you've said about the chain, and the implications of that beyond to other moves and choreo. ... in dance, Julian Blechner On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:56 AM Perry Shafran via Contra Callers < contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > It feels to me that one of the things that modern contra is trying to do > is to make the roles more symmetrical. I mean, we can all do the > ladies/robins right-hand chain with no problem, but when it comes to any > other chain (lark RH chain or any LH chain), even the most adept contra > dancers get confused. I feel that this comes from the notion that one role > leads and one role follows. > > Even in a robins RH chain, the robin bears some responsibility in both > direction of the flow and also the weight given. If it's treated as a > shared move, it actually feels more graceful and feels better. Swings also > should be taught as a shared move, and robins should easily be able to > decide the speed and ending of the swing if need be. This can be > demonstrated by observing an experienced robin dancer dancing/teaching a > new lark dancer. > > I *do* suggest that people should learn to be comfortable in one role > first before tackling the other role, perhaps after several evenings of > dance. But I'm not totally *un*comfortable in suggesting that there aren't > much differences between the roles other than one starts on the left and > the other on the right. > > And while I'm here, on the topic of positional dancing, after having taken > a workshop with Louise recently, I've begun to learn that positional > calling is a newly learned skill, way beyond just "lefts turn right" and > such. The way it was described set off a light bulb for me to the point > where it makes a lot of sense to teach that way. And it seemed that Louise > agreed that if it's a good way to bridge the gap between dancers, why not > try it? > > I certainly need much more learning before I decide to try positional on a > full-time basis, but I do think it's good to understand what positional > calling is and positional calling isn't before passing judgement. It seems > to have worked really well in places where it has been used, and when done > well, it's so smooth that most dancers don't even know that it's positional > calling. But I'm still going to use larks/robins for the time being. > > Perry > > On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 10:36:01 AM EST, Tony Parkes via Contra > Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue > that I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much > about this publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong” > side of a controversy or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind. > > > > Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each > dance event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in > such a brief session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles > and what differentiates one from the other. Fine. > > > > Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for > the roles. Also fine. > > > > But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers > not to indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either > male/female or leading/following. > > > > This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers *as long as* the contra > dance repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b) > moves (e.g. courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very > often leads the other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare). > > > > I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role > of their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a > part associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only > if the two roles are truly equal in the physical movements required and the > physical sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and > following in present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen > as something to work toward extinguishing. I feel that to be fair and > consistent, the contra world should either do away with the asymmetrical > moves (not likely) or give new folks the option of choosing to lead or > follow. > > > > At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles > are fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over > from an earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you > start as a lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a > robin.” I fail to see the problem with this. > > > > As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins > about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns > both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a > consummation devoutly to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with > this, but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do > and what one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced > dance. That gap has been widening over the last couple of decades anyway, > as the list of accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But > I’ve said enough for now. > > > > Tony Parkes > > Billerica, Mass. > > www.hands4.com > > New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century > > (available now) > > > > > > *From:* Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers < > contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:52 AM > *To:* Shared Weight Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > *Subject:* [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin') > > > > Dear All, > > > > I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies > to women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders > and followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into > positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing. > > > > Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem > in the actual dancing. > > > > "Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance > in the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups > publish on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement -- > anyone who attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance > community wants to change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal, > then I must, perforce, support that decision. > > > > Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly uncomfortable > doing a ballroom swing with other same-gender dancers. > > > > I've discussed my feelings with other dancers in my area, and I know I am > not alone, both among dancers of my gender and dancers of the opposite > gender. Yet, by even raising the question, I have also been described (not > to my face) in very unflattering terms. > > > > About ten thousand years ago, when I first started dancing, there was a > commonly accepted symmetrical swing that was used. It was, in retrospect, a > little bit uncomfortable as it involved reaching the right arm across the > other dancer's body and hooking a hand around the other dancer's torso. In > retrospect, not good. A two-hand turn is, in my mind, not a very acceptable > alternative to a ballroom swing. I have seen some folks do some lively > variations with crossed hands and such so that it can work, but I think > there is a better option that I have been encouraging dancers to learn. I > call it a Scottish swing. (John Sweeny includes it in his videos of > eleventy-seven ways to swing as a Northumbrian swing.) > > > > Here's what it looks like. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HWhKWRn_jk> > > > > I like it because I can give a clear signal for the kind of swing that I > want to do, I feel completely comfortable doing it with any dancer, and it > allows my swinging partner and me to enjoy a very satisfactory swing. It's > easy to learn. I have even found that I can teach it to dancers on the fly > in the middle of a dance. > > > > Maybe it is not the best option for a symmetrical swing (an alternative to > a ballroom swing). If someone can propose a better alternative, I'll give > it a try. > > > > But for all of the concern about words and terminology, it seems to me > that the overall dance community ought to pay attention to this particular > aspect of actually dancing. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Ridge > > > > > Ridge Kennedy [Exit 145] > > > > Hey -- I wrote a book! *Murder & Miss Austen's Ball. * > It's a novel with musical accompaniment. Now that's different. > > > > Read all about it here! <https://www.hedgehoghousebooks.com> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:57 AM Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers < > contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > As a member of the LGBT community, my view (personal, from talking to > others, and from votes in local contra dances in Western Massachusetts) is > it's very good to have a consistent term that isn't inherently gendered. > > > > After local debate and dance-specific polls, we've been using larks and > robins/ravens here since about 2018, and I think it's been a big > improvement over ladies/gents. Larks and robins are my personal preference, > since it's what everyone here is used to, and I at least don't have enough > bird knowledge to get confused about robins or larks having some inherent > gendering. I don't have any cultural stance against positional calling, but > the confusion of "lefts allemande right" seems a lot worse than learning > new terms. > > > > Thanks, > > Gabrielle > > > > On Feb 9, 2023, at 13:45, Jim Thaxter via Contra Callers < > contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > > Just a thought, but has anyone checked with the lgbtq community about what > terms they would like to have used? > > > > Another thought, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the > terminology issue had been discussed thoroughly some time ago and the > decision had been made to go with the birds. I don’t remember seeing or > hearing about a general survey sent out to all the CDSS affiliates or any > other general list of dance groups around the country or world vetting that > decision > > > > Personally, I’m exploring positional calling. Just my gut feeling, but I > think fewer people would be challenged by right/left directional calls than > by being called bird names. > > > > Jim Thaxter > > Columbia, MO > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:31 AM Amy Cann via Contra Callers < > contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire > personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology. > > When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the > "red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-brownish? That's the > male. In my childhood I read any number of books with > anthropomorphised birds, and Mister Robin Redbreast was male. In a > bunch of the stories there was also small, sweet-singing female lark. > > Add to that that in the states the robin is a different bird from in > the UK, and much larger, I've got two good reasons to think of the > robin as being the "male" role. My brain weighs the imagery and > memories against that silly little detail of starting with "R" or "L" > and defaults obstinately to the exact wrong conclusion every time. > EVERY time. It's somewhat maddening. But "Ravens" was even worse, > because ravens are black and men in formal clothing dress in black, so > I guess things are better now?? > > Whew. Change is hard. > > On 2/9/23, Peghesley via Contra Callers > <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Bree, I’m making the same change as well and am calling without > reference to > > role and don’t need bird terms. Louise Siddons’ position is a compelling > > one. > > > > Peg Hesley > > www.peghesley.com > > > > Sent from my iPhone using voice recognition > > > >> On Feb 8, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Bree Kalb via Contra Callers > >> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I made the same changes Chrissy did and for the same reason. I think it > >> was 4-5 years ago when I switched from M and W to Gents and Ladies. And > >> it seems to me that almost all the local callers did the same. > >> > >> ( Now I’m calling without reference to gender or role. Louise Siddons > >> booklet “Dance the Whole Dance” from CDSS describes well what many of us > >> are learning to do.) > >> > >> If it matters, my dance community is in a progressive/liberal area, so > >> calling styles here might be different than in other places. > >> > >> Bree Kalb > >> Carrboro, NC > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:18 PM Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Contra Callers > >> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> At the Ralph Page Legacy day last month, Chrissy Fowler did a session > in > >>> which she called dances as she called them at different times in her > >>> career. In it, she talked about how, at one point, she and other > female > >>> callers were insisting on the term "women" because they weren't ladies, > >>> and then several years later they were insisting on the term "ladies" > >>> because that was understood to be the name of a role. > >>> > >>> I can't give a year when it happened, but I do believe I remember a > time > >>> when at least some callers were making it explicitly clear that the > terms > >>> Gents and Ladies referred to roles, and anybody could dance either > role. > >>> > >>> Jacob > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 2:29 PM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers > >>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I believe it’s in Myrtle Wilhite’s Lullaby of the Swing and other > contra > >>>> dances, tunes, waltzes, and essays (Madison, WI, 1993). I can’t lay my > >>>> hand on my copy at the moment, but perhaps someone else has one. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tony Parkes > >>>> > >>>> Billerica, Mass. > >>>> > >>>> www.hands4.com > >>>> > >>>> New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century > >>>> > >>>> (available now) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Mary Collins <native...@gmail.com> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:11 PM > >>>> To: Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu> > >>>> Cc: Tony Parkes <t...@hands4.com>; Joe Harrington > >>>> <contradancer...@gmail.com>; contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net > >>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin') > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jeff, me too...if you find it, share please. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> mary > >>>> > >>>> "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those > who > >>>> couldn't hear the music." - Nietzsche > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> “Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass ... it's about > >>>> learning to dance in the rain!” ~ unknown > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:58 AM Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers > >>>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Aside: does anyone have a copy of the "I am not a lady" essay? I'd > be > >>>>> interested to read it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Jeff > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:54 AM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers > >>>>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joe Harrington wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > When I started dancing in the late 1980s… 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Where was this, Joe? And are you talking about contra callers > (rather > >>>>>> than ECD)? I can only speak about the NYC area in the 1960s and > early > >>>>>> ’70s, and New England starting in the late ’60s and continuing to > the > >>>>>> present. In both regions, square/contra callers (contras were a > >>>>>> subcategory of square dance until around 1975) universally used > >>>>>> “gents/ladies.” (I believe ECD teachers have always used > “men/women,” > >>>>>> presumably emulating Playford and Cecil Sharp.) AFAIK, northeastern > >>>>>> callers pretty consistently used “gents/ladies” until some of them > >>>>>> started to move away from gender-related terms. Tolman and Page’s > >>>>>> Country Dance Book (1937) uses “gents/ladies,” as do most of the > other > >>>>>> standard American dance books from the 1900s to the 1950s (a few, > >>>>>> aimed at schoolteachers, use “boys/girls”). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know of no region where callers changed from “men/women” to > >>>>>> “gents/ladies.” I know that some callers, beginning I think in the > >>>>>> ’80s, changed from “gents/ladies” to “men/women,” feeling that > >>>>>> “gentlemen” and “ladies” smacked of classism. (One female caller, in > >>>>>> an essay titled “I am not a lady,” requested that other callers not > >>>>>> use her contra compositions if they adhered to “gents/ladies.”) As > an > >>>>>> amateur (= lover) of dance history, I would like to know about past > >>>>>> changes of which I was unaware. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tony Parkes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Billerica, Mass. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> www.hands4.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (available now) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> 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 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
