Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?

[Martha Wild via Callers]

I have a version of it though I’m not sure where it came from. It’s more of a 
play party dance, and rarely goes along with the music.

El Capitan

2 lines facing, can be 4 or 5 couples, 1 extra person with a handkerchief to 
wave (El Capitan). 

Music plays. 

Person who is El Capitan yells “Lines”. Others form two lines (the “Troops" and 
El Capitan walks up and down inspecting the troops.
The Capitan then takes one line, they join hands along the line, and the 
Capitan leads the line anywhere in the room, waving the handkerchief, and 
eventually brings the line back.
The Capitan then swings people randomly from the other line. 
At some point El Capitan yells “Capitan!” and people swing the person across 
from them, if there is one. 

Whoever is out is the new El Capitan and takes the handkerchief and prepares to 
call “Lines”. 


> On Jan 23, 2016, at 7:53 AM, Tom Hinds via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> See if you can find El Capitan on line.  I learned it from Larry Edelman and 
> I believe it's Fr-CA.  I probably have the dance but am to busy with the snow 
> and critters right now to find it.
> 
> T
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Colin Hume via Callers]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:47:04 -0500, Tom Hinds via Callers wrote:
> My understanding is that here in the US choreography can't be
> protected by law but the written word or the description of it can
> be legally copyrighted.
>
> It would be interesting to know what the law is in the UK.

My understanding is that it's the same here.  But when we've discussed
copyright on lists the usual conclusion is that there just isn't
enough money in it for anyone to make a fuss no matter what happens!

Colin Hume

[Callers] Same terminology for a move?

[John W Gintell via Callers]

While considering the replacement for gypsy I’ve recently danced to callers 
using gyre, eyes-swing, and orbit.  Without discussing the merits/flaws to one 
of these or other terms I wonder how important it is for there to eventually be 
an agreed-upon term?

My view is that it would be good for there to be eventually one term only. A 
very important challenge to keeping Contra Dance series healthy is attracting 
and retaining new dancers. New dancers often get overwhelmed by all the 
terminology and if they show up  at the next dance and some of the words are 
different it contributes to confusion - and confusion may contribute to their 
not returning. (I’m not talking about role-names here). 

  John

Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?

[Tom Hinds via Callers]

See if you can find El Capitan on line.  I learned it from Larry  
Edelman and I believe it's Fr-CA.  I probably have the dance but am  
to busy with the snow and critters right now to find it.


T

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Tom Hinds via Callers]

Jeremy,

My understanding is that here in the US choreography can't be  
protected by law but the written word or the description of it can be  
legally copyrighted.


It would be interesting to know what the law is in the UK.

T

Re: [Callers] Weary of the same discussions

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

On Jan 23, 2016 9:20 AM, "Jack Mitchell via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> If you go to the link at the bottom of every message you can change your
subscription status to the digest.
>

On the other hand, digests don't work very well these days because people
don't trim their posts. So you may find digests just as annoying, but for
different reasons.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Weary of the same discussions

[Jack Mitchell via Callers]

If you go to the link at the bottom of every message you can change your
subscription status to the digest.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:30 PM Amy Carroll via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but it really isn't enough to just ignore the posts.  They fill
> my inbox and become another pile of stuff to filter through trying to find
> the email I really need/want to read.
>
> I feel as though this discussion happened already, quite recently, and
> it's just the same thing again.  No one is convincing anyone.  It all
> started with the simple announcement about a lecture, and then some snarky
> comments re sparked this entire discussion. Yuck.
>
> Questions:
> #1) Is it possible to recieve a daily digest of this list instead of each
> individual message?  Like you can do with yahoo groups.  Then I wouldn't
> mind all the junk so much.
>
> #2) Is there a facebook equivalent of this list?  Those are nice, because
> when you don't have time, you don't bother to look.  If you don't comment,
> you don't see the whole discussion unless you really go looking for it.  I
> would appreciate the discussion, even the repeated discussion,  that
> happens here a lot more if it were not in my email.
>
> Other solutions?
>
> yours,
>
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.com/
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
-- 
Jack Mitchell
Durham, NC

Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?

[Richard Fischer via Callers]

Thanks a lot!

Richard

On Jan 23, 2016, at 12:06 AM, Keith Wood via Callers wrote:

> I've written a new one recently: The Curse of Scotland.
> 
> See an animation at 
> http://dancekaleidoscope.org.au/dance.html#TheCurseOfScotland.
> 
> Formation:Longways set for four couples, plus one person extra in the centre 
> between couples 2 and 3
> 
> Music:32 bar reels
> 
> Source:Keith Wood December 2015
> 
> Notes:For Anthony Simon's 60th birthday.
> 
> The 9 of Diamonds playing card is nicknamed the Curse of Scotland, supposedly 
> because every 9th Scottish king (with diamonds in their crowns) was a tyrant. 
> This dance is in the formation of the nine spots on the card.
> 
> The extra person is the nine-spot. If the nine-spot is a woman, then the 
> stars are done left hand at the ends and right hand in the centre, with the 
> nine-spot leading the 1st woman and finishing in her place.
> 
> 1-4   Nine-spot with 2nd couple arch over 1st couple (who don't move), 
> nine-spot and 2nd man arch over 2nd woman to invert the line, and arch back 
> down over 1st couple, 3rd and 4th couples circle left once around
> 5-8   Nine-spot with 3rd couple arch over 4th couple (who don't move), 
> nine-spot and 3rd woman arch over 3rd man to invert the line, and arch back 
> up over 4th couple, 1st and 2nd couples circle left once around
> 9-16  Double figure of eight at each end, 2nd and 3rd couples cast up/down 
> respectively to start, 1st and 4th couples cross down/up
> 17-20 1st and 2nd couples, and 3rd and 4th couples, half rights-and-lefts at 
> each end
> 21-24 1st and 4th couples half rights-and-lefts in the middle (around 
> nine-spot), 2nd and 3rd couples swing with ceilidh hold
> 25-28 1st and 3rd couples with nine-spot star right once around at the bottom 
> (nine-spot in front of 1st man), 2nd and 4th couples star right at the top
> 29-32 1st and 4th couples with nine-spot star left once around in the middle 
> (nine-spot in front of 1st man), finishing with 1st man in the centre of the 
> set as the new nine-spot, and the nine-spot opposite 1st woman, 2nd and 3rd 
> couples swing with ceilidh hold
> Cheers
> 
> Keith
> 
>> Can anyone suggest a 9-person dance?  I'm aware of the traditional Nine-Pin, 
>> and Monkey in the Middle by Sherry Nevins.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Richard Fischer
>> 
>> Princeton, NJ
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>> 
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net