[Callers] Seeking *lists* of tunes for patter squares

[James Saxe via Callers]

[I'm sending this query to the trad-dance-callers list, to the
SharedWeight callers' and musicians' forums, and to a number of
individuals.  Please send responses directly to me *off-list*
(see Note 1 below).  I plan to collect responses for about the
next two months and will summarize results to the lists and to
individual respondents some time in July.  Thanks.  --Jim]

Folks,

As some of you may know, I've worked on and off in fits and starts
for some time at gathering lists of recommended tunes [see Note 2
below] for (traditional-style) patter squares.  [In case you're
wondering what I mean by "(traditional-style) patter squares", see
Note 6 below.]  My idea is to compile lists from a wide variety of
sources and to look for tunes mentioned independently by many
different recommenders.  So far, I've compiled tune lists from a
few dozen books and albums, and I'm currently adding lists from
a bunch more books, articles, record catalogs, etc.  I'm sending
this message because I'd like to supplement all these sources with
lists from current informants, possibly including you.  So ...

* If you are a musician who has substantial experience
  playing for (traditional-stye) patter squares and if
  you have a list of recommended tunes that you're
  willing to share--either an existing set list or a
  list you come up with by sitting down and scratching
  your head for a while--please send it to me *off-list*
  [see Note 1] at 

  jim dot saxe at-sign gmail dot com

* If you are a musician who mostly plays for other things
  than patter squares (e.g., contras or New-England-style
  squares or concert performances) or even if you're not
  a musician, but if you nonethelessAå have accumulated a 
  list of tunes you particularly like *for patter squares*,
  I'd also be interested in hearing from you.

* I'd also be interested if anyone can supply lists of
  tunes played *for patter squares* by players skilled
  in the genre who are no longer living (e.g., Ralph
  Blizard, Lyman Enloe, Benton Flippen, Bob Holt, Pete
  McMahan, Lee Stripling, Joe Thompson, or Melvin Wine,
  to name a few).  However, see Note 5.

* If you know other people who might be willing and able
  to contribute lists of recommended tunes, please feel
  free to pass this request along.  (But please try not
  to put up my email address in places where spammers
  are likely to harvest it.  Also, see Note 1.  Thanks.)

Below are some notes clarifying what kind of responses I am
and am not interested in.  ***Please read at least Notes 1-3
before responding.***

Note 1:  If you got this query via a mailing list, please send
tune lists directly to me and *not* to the entire mailing list.
As stated above, I'm trying to see which tunes get mentioned
*independently* by many recommenders, so I don't want the lists
anyone sends me to be influenced one way or another by whatever
suggestions other people have already sent.  If you pass my
request along to some of your friends, I'd prefer that you each
send tune lists just to me rather than discussing tunes among
yourselves first and then sending me a combined list (unless
you and your friends are in the same regular band and such
discussions are how you normally create your set lists).  Please
look carefully at the "To:" (and "Cc:") line of any reply and
make sure that that it doesn't include the address of any mailing
list.  That would include addresses of the form

James Saxe via ... <...>

where <...> is a list address.

I plan to gather recommendations for the next couple months and
to post a summary some time in July.  

Note 2:  Please *don't* explain to me that the suitability of
a tune for a particular kind of dance can depend very strongly
on how it's played.  I'm already quite well aware of that.
However, I also think it would be widely agreed that some tunes
lend themselves to being played well for dancing more than
others.  (If you strenuously disagree, I will look forward to
your forthcoming album of rip-roaring square dance arrangements
of tunes from the Child ballads and _The Sacred Harp_.  Meanwhile,
please don't respond to my query by attempting to un-ask it.)

After I've settled on a list of frequently-recommended tunes,
a possible follow-on project would be to try to identify one
or more renditions--online and/or on commercial recordings--of
each tune played in a danceable style worthy of study by 
musicians learning to play for patter squares.  For such a
project, style of playing would of course be a prime concern.
But that's not what I'm working on or asking about right now.

Note 3:  Please *don't* give me lists (or references to lists,
albums, tune books, syllabi, etc) where tunes well suited for
patter squares are mixed with other sorts of tunes without
specific indication of which tunes are which.

Note 4:  I'm not all that intereste

Re: [Callers] Ralph Sweet's Birthday Dance

[James Saxe via Callers]

Sorry folks.  I meant to send that last message just to Rich
(copied and pasted the sender's address from Rich's message

 Rich Sbardella via Callers 

into my "To" line and overlooked the real address in the angle
brackets).

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Ralph Sweet's Birthday Dance

[James Saxe via Callers]

Hi, Rich,

I'm interested, and I think I can make it out there.  Can you put
me down for a spot?

Thanks.

--Jim Saxe
   Santa Clara, CA

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Rich Sbardella richsbarde...@gmail.com 
> [trad-dance-callers]  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello Friends,
> 
> I am hosting/organizing a contra dance on Sunday evening, May 21st, to 
> celebrate Ralph Sweet's 88th birthday.  This is the last dance in Ralph's 
> Shindig in the Barn series this season, and next season is not a certainty.  
> Ralph's son Walter is part of a trio of musicians that will be providing the 
> dance music.
> 
> We are planning this dance as a tribute, and a thank you to Ralph for all he 
> is to the dance community, and I am hoping for multiple callers to 
> participate.  If you are available, and would like to call a dance please 
> send me a message.  I can program in about 10 callers, and I will reserve 
> slots on a first come, first serve basis.
> 
> Please consider helping us to make this dance at Ralph's barn a celebration!
> 
> Rich Sbardella
> Stafford, CT

Re: [Callers] Ladies Chain to Allemande Left (Was: Does this dance already exist?)

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Apr 13, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Jacob Bloom wrote:

> My dance You Married My Daughter (written in 1987) has a Ladies Chain into an 
> Allemande Left, although I find it less confusing to teach it as "ladies pull 
> by, allemande left with the opposite gent.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jacob.  If you want the ladies to
pull past each other and then allemande with whichever gent
they meet, then just tell them that--designating which hand
to use, which gent they meet (partner, neighbor, or shadow]),
how far to turn, and where they end up, as appropriate.  If
you describe it using the word "chain"--at least with a crowd
of contemporary American contra dancers--I think there are
likely to be at least a few dancers who will react by doing a
courtesy turn, or the twirls people sometimes put in place o
 a courtesy turn, before you can tell them otherwise.  Then,
having practiced it that way, some of them may continue to do
it that way every time, even after you've attempted to clarify
what action you actually intended, so that they always end up
fumbling around a little to get to wherever they need to be
for the next move.

Even if you don't use the word "chain", the mere act of
ladies pulling past each other and extending their left hands
to the gents they meet may trigger some gents to start a
courtesy turn.  Describing the action as a "chain" can only
increase the number of dancers who have something to unlearn.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Ladies Chain to Allemande Left (Was: Does this dance already exist?)

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Apr 13, 2017, at 3:09 PM, John Sweeney  wrote:

>   Ladies' Chain to Allemande Left is actually the original version of
> the Ladies' Chain!  I believe that the Courtesy Turn was added sometime late
> in the 19th century, or maybe in the first half of the 20th century.

At a workshop I attended a number of years ago, Colin Hume pointed
out that the dance "Parson's Farewell", published in the first 
edition of Playford's _The English Dancing Master_ (1651) includes
an action that is plausibly an early version of the Ladies' Chain.
You can see it about 0:49-0:58 in this videa

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X4wpEIOZIM

and you can read the description (which has been variously interpreted,
as you can see if you look for other videos of the dance) here:

 http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/playford_1651/013small.html

I'd be interested in knowing of the earliest sources anyone can find
with a description or illustration of the modern "courtesy turn".
That would include any reference in which a dancing master admonished
men against putting their hands on the ladies' backs during a "Ladies'
Chain" or a "Right and Left".  I figure that a dancing master wouldn't
publish an admonishment against such a thing unless he has reason to
think some people were doing it.

--Jim

[Callers] More zigzag videos (was Re: ???? Looking for Author of Dance -dancers adjust)

[James Saxe via Callers]

I wrote

> I haven't found any other videos of "Cows Are Watching", ...

but on looking back through recent messages, I see that Vicki Morrison
mentioned one she made with Cis Hinkle calling at Mentone.  Here it is:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Rp5Fdhscc

And here are a couple more:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuDWs0vk8qg
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IVrtMEv7j0

And here's a video of Rick Mohr's "Laura's Zigzag":

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2c3GLAGIl0

Michael Dyck's contra dance index

 http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/index/by_title.html

cites sources for instructions for "Cows Are Watching" and "Laura's Zigzag",
and also for "Weave the Line", which I mentioned in my previous message (and
also for thousands of other dances).

Y'all can watch the videos, read the instructions, and draw your own
conclusions about how practice compares with theory, and about whether
there are any cases where you'd want to expend effort changing that.

--Jim

> On Mar 25, 2017, at 1:20 PM, James Saxe <jim.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The dance "Cows Are Watching" can be seen in this video.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8C4THCx2I
> 
> You can all watch for yourselves and judge how long dancers are taking
> for the various parts and how leisurely or rushed the action appears
> to be.  It seems to me that men are usually starting their allemandes
> sometime between beats 13 and 15 of B1, and more often a shade before
> beat 14 than a shade after.
> 
> According to the YouTube timer, the time for 12x64 beats of music (from
> a beat near the start of the videao to a beat at the same point in the
> tune near the end) is about 6:20, giving an average tempo a little over
> 121 b.p.m.  The hall is not crowded, so dancers have ample space for
> the roll-away in beats 5-8 of B1.  In some cases, but not all, dancers
> appear already to have started to veer ("zig") left by beat 8.  The
> general skill level of the dancing is pretty high, with only occasional
> mind lapses and not a lot of fumbling around or confusion about what to
> do next.  Perhaps the typical timing of the zig zag would be different
> with a different tempo of music, a more crowded floor, or a different
> mix of dancer skills, or with a caller who made a big point about
> asking dancers to take a full four beats to zig left.
> 
> I haven't found any other videos of "Cows Are Watching", but here's a
> video of "Weave the Line":
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8peDGz-zkc
> 
> It seems to me that dancers are completing the sequence
> 
> Veer (zig) left past current neighbors
> Veer (zag) right to face next neighbors and keep veering
> right to pass them
> Veer left to face third neighbors
> 
> pretty much within the first 8 beats of A2, though they may sometimes
> be stealing a beat from the figure before (circle left) and/or from
> the figure after (do-si-do third neighbor). 
> 
> --Jim
> 
> On Mar 25, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Jerome Grisanti via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
>> I tend to think of the zig as four beats and the zag as four more. Four 
>> total would be zesty or rushed, depending on the crowd and music.
>> 
>> Jerome
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, March 24, 2017, Tom Hinds via Callers 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> I believe that zig left, zag right normally takes 4 beats.  If the dancers 
>> zag a little farther so men can easily take a left hand that would take an 
>> additional 2 beats for a total of 6 counts.  I'll confirm the timing this 
>> Saturday.
>> 
>> For me there's this issue of how much we ask the dancers to adjust.  It 
>> seems that asking dancers to adjust is common in English and perhaps less 
>> common in contra.
>> 
>> 
>> Tom
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Callers] ???? Looking for Author of Dance -dancers adjust

[James Saxe via Callers]

The dance "Cows Are Watching" can be seen in this video.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8C4THCx2I

You can all watch for yourselves and judge how long dancers are taking
for the various parts and how leisurely or rushed the action appears
to be.  It seems to me that men are usually starting their allemandes
sometime between beats 13 and 15 of B1, and more often a shade before
beat 14 than a shade after.

According to the YouTube timer, the time for 12x64 beats of music (from
a beat near the start of the videao to a beat at the same point in the
tune near the end) is about 6:20, giving an average tempo a little over
121 b.p.m.  The hall is not crowded, so dancers have ample space for
the roll-away in beats 5-8 of B1.  In some cases, but not all, dancers
appear already to have started to veer ("zig") left by beat 8.  The
general skill level of the dancing is pretty high, with only occasional
mind lapses and not a lot of fumbling around or confusion about what to
do next.  Perhaps the typical timing of the zig zag would be different
with a different tempo of music, a more crowded floor, or a different
mix of dancer skills, or with a caller who made a big point about
asking dancers to take a full four beats to zig left.

I haven't found any other videos of "Cows Are Watching", but here's a
video of "Weave the Line":

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8peDGz-zkc

It seems to me that dancers are completing the sequence

 Veer (zig) left past current neighbors
 Veer (zag) right to face next neighbors and keep veering
 right to pass them
 Veer left to face third neighbors

pretty much within the first 8 beats of A2, though they may sometimes
be stealing a beat from the figure before (circle left) and/or from
the figure after (do-si-do third neighbor). 

--Jim

On Mar 25, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Jerome Grisanti via Callers 
 wrote:

> I tend to think of the zig as four beats and the zag as four more. Four total 
> would be zesty or rushed, depending on the crowd and music.
> 
> Jerome
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 24, 2017, Tom Hinds via Callers 
>  wrote:
> I believe that zig left, zag right normally takes 4 beats.  If the dancers 
> zag a little farther so men can easily take a left hand that would take an 
> additional 2 beats for a total of 6 counts.  I'll confirm the timing this 
> Saturday.
> 
> For me there's this issue of how much we ask the dancers to adjust.  It seems 
> that asking dancers to adjust is common in English and perhaps less common in 
> contra.
> 
> 
> Tom

Re: [Callers] What to do with a really bad new dancer?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Mac McKeever wrote:

> It has been my experience that dancers with limited skills/ability  often do 
> not realize they are different from anyone else.  They assume that being lost 
> and confused during a dance is normal.
> 
> Finding a gentle way to bring this to their attention might be a good way to 
> start

and Ron Blechner replied:

> Mac, suggestions on how?

JD Erskine meanwhile offered this comment:

> If our ... dancer in question is lumbering, stiff, not moving much, and 
> can/may move, then assisting him in that might help make it easier to direct 
> him more in the normal flow of the dance.
> 
> To do more certainly would be best with permission, awareness of offered 
> assistance.

to which Ron similarly replied:

> I'd love to hear suggestions on how to approach a dancer like the one in 
> question, and broach the subject.

So far I haven't seen anyone respond to Ron's request for
suggestions about opening such a potentially delicate
conversation.

I don't have a fully-developed suggestion either, but I have what
may be the germ of an idea: Perhaps the thing to do would be to
start by asking the person a question.  I'll illustrate with a
story.

When I was a new square and contra dancer, I was quite mystified
about just what to do with my feet during a swing.  I remember
trying to watch other dancers' feet when they were swinging and
I was inactive, and I remember not being able to figure it
out--though it seems completely obvious when I watch now.  In
case anyone's wondering, the local dances where I lived at the
time didn't normally include an official new dancers'
workshop/lesson/orientation.  The visiting caller at my very
first trad dance *did* offer some specific instruction on
swinging, but I somehow missed out on it for reasons I won't go
into now.

Anyway, after I'd been going to dances for maybe three or four
months and staggering/stumbling/bumbling through all the swings,
there was some kind of break at a dance one day, and the partner
I'd just danced with took the opportunity to ask me a question
that I remember as something like, "Was that a one-step [perhaps


she actually said "buzz-step"] or a two-step swing you were 

   
doing?" just as if she'd noticed something interesting about my
swing and wanted me to teach her what I had been doing.  I said
that I had no idea what I was supposed to do (which, in
retrospect, she must obviously have already known),  She offered


to teach me.  And that was when I first learned to do a buzz-step   

 
swing, very bouncily at first, then gradually smoothing out over
the next few weeks and months.

Years later, after moving across the country, I was back visiting
my former city and I saw that same woman at a dance.  I asked her
about the conversation I've just described.  She didn't remember
the details, but she agreed with my guess that her question had
probably been a ploy to find out whether I was open to instruction.

A similar sort of ploy would be to ask someone for ideas on how
to teach beginning dancers about such-and-such, naming a topic
that the person you're addressing understands only vaguely if at
all.

Of course, when my friend asked me that ploy question years
ago, she couldn't have known for sure that my response would be
to admit ignorance and seek instruction.  I might, for all she
knew, have responded defensively or even confrontationally (but
I think she could reasonably have expected  my response to be
less emotionally charged than if she had bluntly asked something
like "Do you realize that your swings are really awkward?").  Or
if I were vaguely aware of my lack of skill but also strongly in
denial about it, I might have given an evasive answer accompanied
by nervous laughter: "Well, we all have our own personal styles,
don't we?  Heh, heh, heh."

--Jim

Re: [Callers] ACK! First time calling night of *squares* -- any last minute advice?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Amy,

Could you say more about the group you'll be calling for?

By a "... local community dance" do you mean that it's a
regular (e.g., monthly or weekly) series where most of the
attendees will be repeat dancers, thus somewhat experienced
at whatever kind of dancing the series features?  Or is it
a one-time (or maybe annual) event with a preponderance of
of first-time or very infrequent dancers?

If it's a regular series, what's the usual program like?

* all squares (except maybe a last waltz and another
  couple dance or two)?

* squares plus stuff like whole set dances (e.g.,
  Virginia Reel?), circle mixers, and such?

* squares and contras?

* almost all contras (but for some reason they've
  decide to have an evening of squares and inexplicably
  picked a mainly-contra caller to lead it)?

Assuming it's a regular series where squares are the usual
bulk of the program and if you haven't attended it at least
occasionally, you might want to contact other callers who've
called there and/or the organizers and find out a little about
the usual repertoire and the likely dancer skill mix.  Are
the dancers used to phrased New-England-style squares or to
more of a southern and/or trad. western repertoire?  Are
there certain dances that get done fairly often and would be
familiar to many of the dancers (e.g., "Texas Star", "Forward
Six" [Right Hand High, Left Hand Low], particular singing
squares, particular visiting couple figures, ...).  How
familiar are the regular dancers with various things that
come up in different kinds of squares?  For example:

* If you do a partner-changing figure and use grand right
  and left as part of a break, will they know that "meet
  your partner and promenade" refers to the partner they
  had at the start of the grand right and left (who may
  not be their original partner)?

* Suppose you teach a dance where heads go out to the
  right, circle half with the sides, and head gents break
  to make lines of four at the sides of the set.  If you
  then switch to having sides go out to the right, etc.,
  will the experienced 90% of the dancers know that the
  lines of four should now form at the heads (and get
  new 10% to follow along)?  Or are there likely to be
  squares where the lines have again formed at the sides
  (and with goodness knows who at the left end)?

And so on.  Or you could describe some dances you're thinking
of calling and ask your informant(s) whether the dancers are
familiar with those dances or ones like them.

In sum (and at the risk of prattling on about what you already
know), whether a particular figure or transition or pattern
seems easy or difficult can depend immensely on whether it's
already familiar to the majority of dancers present.   The
more you know about the dancers' skills--and also the more
you know about their expectations--the better you can plan
your program to suit them while also not getting too far out
of your own comfort zone as a caller.

--Jim

On Feb 4, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Amy Cann via Callers 
 wrote:

> It's a friendly low-key local community dance, and they know I'm mainly a 
> contra caller, so the potential for hurled tomatoes is low -- but I still 
> want to not stink too much.
> 
> Any suggestions for dance choices or thought-habit adjustments?
> 
> Back to scribbling on my 3x5 cards and re-reading Lloyd Shaw...
> 
> Amy
> 
>  
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Slice vs Yearn

[James Saxe via Callers]

The term "yearn" was coined by the late George Walker of
Seattle for a double-progression move.  You and your partner
advance diagonally toward one set of new neighbors, then
fall back on the the other diagonal to end facing a second
set of new neighbors.  The explanation for the name is that
you "yearn" to dance with the first set of new neighbors, but
you don't get to (unless of course the dance also includes
some other move the causes a reverse progression).  See


http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/2012-December/005391.html
http://www.quiteapair.us/calling/acdol/dance/acd_121.html

(As a aside, some folks might be interested in this article

http://mikerichardson.org/1996/11/01/affirmation.html

written 20 years ago in memory of George.)

I believe that the term "slice" was coined by Bob Isaacs,
and that he used it to refer to the single-progression figure,
where you go diagonally forward to meet new neighbors and
then fall straight back.  George's "yearn" would be identical
to what Bob would describe as a "double slice".

That said, I agree with John Sweeney that one ought not assume
that all dancers, or all other callers, will have a consistent
understanding of these terms.

And now here's a question in a subject dear to my heart, namely
terminology in teaching:  During a walk through, how do you
describe the backing-up portion of a yearn (or double slice)?
It's pretty clear what it means to go forward "on the left
diagonal"--at least if you make sure that dancers start out
facing across the set.  But when you talk about backing up, I
think that dancers can plausibly decide to make either the
words "left diagonal" or "right diagonal" mean whichever
diagonal they want.  One approach would be to avoid using
either of those terms, for example by telling the dancers
to "continue moving to the left as you back out" (note John
Sweeney's use of those exact words in his message quoted below).
Perhaps some of you have other suggestions.

Note that I'm asking here about words that would be effective
in a situation where most of the dancers are unfamiliar with
the yearn/double-slice action.  (A similar issue about backing
up on a diagonal arises, by the way, in teaching a ricochet
[a/k/a push-back] hey if that figure is new to most dancers
present.)  When you're "teaching" something that most of the
dancers already know, you can often get away with a lot of
imprecision and ambiguity.

Interestingly (to me, anyway), pretty much all dancers seem to
understand what callers mean when they say to go "straight back"
while teaching a (single-progression) slice, even though it's
technically ambiguous.  (Diagonal lines can, after all, be
straight.)

--Jim

On Dec 27, 2016, at 2:43 PM, John Sweeney via Callers 
 wrote:

> Richard Hopkins asked, "What is 'slice'?  And is it different from 'yearn'?"
> 
> I think most people use Slice and Yearn to mean the same thing:
> As a couple move forward diagonally to face the next couple (default is
> usually to the left); high-five them with your spare hands (not the one you
> are using to hold your partner's hand) while turning to face them across the
> set; fall back (push away) to your progressed positions facing them.
> 
> There is also a Double Slice, i.e. forward to the left diagonal couple and
> continue moving to the left as you back out to face the next couple (double
> progression)
> 
> And Bob Isaacs introduced Half a Slice (in the dance of  the same name): "As
> a couple, go forward towards each other on the diagonal.  The top two
> dancers join hands; the bottom two push off to make a line of four facing
> down.  This is an efficient way to get everyone progressed and facing down
> in 8 beats, so there is time for creative or dramatic push-offs."
> 
> Some people sometimes use one term to mean single progression and the other
> to mean double progression, but I don't believe there is any universal
> agreement, so it is always best to write or teach exactly which one you
> mean.
> 
> I like Yearn as it implies more interaction with the couple you are
> approaching.
> 
> Happy dancing,
> John

Re: [Callers] Variations of 3-33 by Steve Zakon-Anderson

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Dec 16, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Bill Olson wrote, regarding the dance
"Three Thirty-Three [Thirty-Three]":

> I personally like the original
[with

B2 Long Lines F, Ladies dosido 1.5 

]
> best of all and don't really think it's hard to teach if you pay attention to 
> telling everyone where they're going to end up after B2 (basically that the 
> Women are crossing the set to find new Neighbors). 

I agree that one of the keys to teaching the do-si-so in B2
is to let people know where they're going to end up, and in
particular to get the ladies to identify their next neighbors.
However, once they have identified their next neighbors, there
is a danger that some ladies will want to do the do-si-do with
their next neighbor lady.  So be sure to call their attention
back to the other lady in their current foursome before you
walk them through the do-si-do.  Also if you use the word
"diagonal" in describing the do-si-do, be sure to make it
clear (in words the dancers will easily understand and at a
time when you have their attention) that you're talking about
a diagonal within their current foursome.  Contra dancers are
more accustomed to hearing the word "diagonal" used for an
action involving a couple from the next foursome up or down
the set.

And now a word about *Fractions*:

The action at the end of B2 is notated as being once and a half
because it causes two ladies to exchange places (along a slight
left diagonal within their foursome).  But in contra dancing we
more commonly use "ladies do-si-do once and a half" to describe
an action that would take them (from the same starting position)
to their current neighbor gent, as in this example from "Scout
House Reel":

 A2. ...
 Ladies chain [across] to partner
 B1. Ladies do-si-so 1.5
 Neighbors swing

The usage in the description of "Scout House Reel" is based on
an unspoken convention that when dancers start from facing
couples, we often calculate the ending position of a action for
the two ladies or an action for the two gents as if the two
participants were starting out directly across the set from
each other.

While it is arguably technically more accurate to use the
words "once and a half" to describe an action like the do-si-do
in B2 of "Three Thirty-Three" than to use them for an action
the do-si-do in the B1 of "Scout House Reel", the latter usage
is certainly more common.  In practice, I think that using any
*other* fraction (such as 1 3/8 or 1 5/8) to describe either of
those actions would be more confusing for the dancers.  So the
only good way to distinguish the two actions, and particularly
to describe the less common one, is to give some additional
information besides the nominal amount (1 1/2) of do-si-do.
The obvious additional information would be who you meet next
and where you meet them.

 * * * * * * * * * *

Analogous remarks to the ones above apply for teaching the gents'
allemande at the end of "Thanks to the Gene" by Tom Hinds.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Reverse prog/becket R dances?

[James Saxe via Callers]

To be precise, Carol's dance is titled "A Piece O' Cake".  It's
found on page 9 of the book _Twirling Dervish Returns_ by Becky
Hill, Paul Balliet, and Carol Kopp (1997).  Except for having
the neighbor balance and swing as the A1 (and consequently having
it be with original neighbor, not "N2"), the choreography is
identical to that in Tom's message quoted below.

--Jim

On Dec 4, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Bob Isaacs via Callers 
 wrote:

> Hi Tom:
> 
> Your memory is correct - the improper version is called Piece of Cake by 
> Carol Kopp.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> From: Callers  on behalf of Tom Hinds 
> via Callers 
> Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 5:49 PM
> To: Maia McCormick
> Cc: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Reverse prog/becket R dances?
>  
> The Host, by TH
> My memory tells me that this might be a Becket version of a  
> previously written improper contra.
> 
> A1  circle left 3/4, balance, Calif. tw.
> 
> A2   bal and swing N2
> 
> B1  hey, men, left
> 
> B2  men pass left a 3rd time and swing P.
> 
> T
> 
> On Dec 3, 2016, at 4:09 PM, Maia McCormick via Callers wrote:
> 
> >  Anyone have some favorites to share?  Especially interested in  
> > dances that are simple enough to be part of a medley (they don't  
> > need to be dead simple, just not absurdly complex).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Maia
> > ___
> > 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
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Positive values on the mic

[James Saxe via Callers]

I like to say things to promote the custom of frequent partner
changes.  So after a dance, I would say at least

 Thank your partner and find a partner for the next contra
 [or "... for a waltz" or whatever is next].

and more likely

 ... and find someone new for ...

or

 ... switch around ...

and perhaps at some point early in the evening

 ... and as usual [or "as is our custom"*] find someone new ...

[*When I first heard "as is our custom" said by Ted Sannella, it
struck me that by injecting those four words, said in a relaxed
tone and taking about two seconds to say, he'd gotten the point
across as effectively, and far more pleasantly, than somebody could
with a two-minute harangue on the subject.]

To be clear, if I see some dancers (new or experienced) who came as
a couple and seem glued together, I will not by any means attempt
to *pressure* them to separate and dance with different partners.
But I do want to empower people to feel comfortable mingling.  In
particular, I don't want dancers who are new and unfamiliar with
the prevailing customs to have the agony of wondering

"If I don't keep this partner for the next dance, will (s)he
think I didn't like dancing with her/him?"

or conversely

"My partner just thanked me and then ran off to dance with
someone else.  Did I do something wrong?"

Also, if new dancers are worried about imposing their klutziness on
experienced dancers, they will perhaps be less timid about making
or accepting an offer to dance if they understand that it's only
expected to be for one dance.

And finally, if someone asks a member of one of those glued-together
couples for a dance, I hope that even if they say "No", awareness
that most people are mingling will keep them from being affronted
by the invitation.

--Jim

On Oct 31, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Ron Blechner wrote:
> I'd like to hear some examples of things you as a caller (or you as an 
> organizer encouraging callers) say on the mic during a dance to promote 
> positive dance values.

[Callers] A Question Re: Contra friendly squares

[James Saxe via Callers]

Among the "contra-friendly squares" suggested in John Sweeney's
message of October 16 (full message below) are "Chippenham
Square" by Colin Hume and "Geezy Peezy" by Larry Edelman.

The opening moves of "Chippenham Square" are:

 A1:  Heads right and left through;
  sides swing opposite and face the nearest head couple.

"Geezy Peezy" begins with:

 Head two couples go forward and back, up
   to the middle and back like that
 Forward again with your opposite swing
 Face the sides and form a ring
 Circle left and keep in time

*** My question is, have any of you ever seen something like this
happen?

 The caller (whether you or someone else, and using whatever
 words) instructs, say, the head dancers to swing their
 opposites, face the nearest side couple, and circle with
 that side couple.  In some square, one of the following
 misinterpretations occurs:

1.  Instead of swinging in a spot directly in front
of one of the side couples, a pair of head dancers
swing either very near the gent's home place or
very near the lady's home place.  (And you believe
that they aren't intentionally dancing offset from
their theoretical position to avoid crowding but
that they actually don't understand where they are
supposed to be.)

  OR

2.  Head dancers swing opposites, then fall back to
home places.  Then they go together with their
*partners* to circle with whichever side couple
they consider "nearest".

 OR

3.  Somehow (whether or not you see exactly how it
happens) dancers end up in a circle of five and
a circle of three.

I'm not asking whether you see such things happen in most squares
most of the time.  What I'd like to know is how many of you can
recall seeing, even once, one of the misinterpretations described
above, either while you were calling or while you were at a dance
with someone else calling.


My point in this message, and in my message of October 14 where
I pointed out potential trouble spots in some of the squares
suggested by Lind Leslie, is not to claim that the squares under
discussion aren't contra friendly.  My point is that even bits of
choreography that aren't really difficult can take more care to
teach efficiently and effectively when they are unfamiliar to
many of the dancers present than when they are familiar to almost
all.

--Jim

On Oct 16, 2016, at 8:00 AM, John Sweeney via Callers 
 wrote:

> Hi Ron,
>   Here are some figures that might fit your needs.  But you also need
> some breaks/choruses that contra dancers will find easy; you don’t have to
> use ones shown with the figures.
> 
> Chippenham Square by Colin Hume
> http://colinhume.com/insts.htm#ChippenhamSquare
> Geezy Peezy by Larry Edelman
> https://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2011.pdf
> Banjos in Love by Erik Hoffman in Contradictions:
> http://www.erikhoffman.com/dancescd.html
> Deer Park Lancers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ1D5IZt_dc
> The Lucky One by Tom Hinds in Bad Hair Decade
> Perceptual Motion by Tom Hinds
> https://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2007.pdf
> Camille’s Quadrille by Walter Lenk
> https://www.cambridgefolk.org.uk/contra/dances/camilles_quadrille.html
> Beaver Lake Jig by Ted Sanella
> https://www.cambridgefolk.org.uk/contra/dances/ted_sannella/beaver_lake_jig.
> html
>  (if the men mess up the first move, then get the ladies to go to their
> left hand man for the allemande right instead – the ladies are often much
> better than the men!)
> 
> Western Quadrille (from Chip Hendrickson) – based on Powell’s First Sett No.
> 3 – 1848
> A1: Men Star Left (Hands Across); Star Right, take Left with Partner to form
> intersecting Waves
> A2: Balance the Wave (L/R), Partner Allemande Left 1/2
> Balance the Wave (L/R), Partner Allemande Left 3/4
> B1: All Four Ladies Chain Half Way x2 – finish by sending the Lady around
> the outside on to the next Man and turning Left to pick up your Corner
> B2: Corner Promenade to Man's Home
> (Original was Ladies’ Stars, but that makes the end of A2 an Allemande Left
> 1 & 1/4 in four beats)
> 
> Or for a slightly more complex one on the same theme:
> Parisian Star https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdwHF2EZ_k
> 
>   Hope that helps.  If you want any of the instructions please e-mail
> me off-list.
> 
> Happy dancing,
>John   
>   
> John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802
> 940 574   
> http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs   
> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent 

Re: [Callers] Wrist-lock Stars

[James Saxe via Callers]

This message is kinda long, so here's the executive summary:

 Can any of you identify sources that describe wrist-hold
 stars in American square or contra dancing before 1949?
 I'd be particularly interested in sources that date from
 significantly earlier and in sources that describe
 wrist-holds as being a new or newly-popular style in
 some area.

On Oct 11, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Dan Pearl quoted a posting by
Sylvia Miskoe to rec.folk-dancing on March 4, 1999 in which
she wrote:

> Wrist grip stars became popular after the appearance at New England Folk
> Festival (NEFFA) of the Lithuanian Dance Group doing their dances and they all
> used wrist grips.  The square dancers thought it was a neat idea and adopted
> it.

I think it would be quite noteworthy if the appearance of the
Lithuanian Dance group at NEFFA could clearly be identified as *the*
point from which wrist-hold stars spread to become common throughout
most of the U.S.  Assuming the Lithuanian dancers indeed set off a
local surge in popularity of wrist-hold stars among square and/or
contra dancers, there may nonetheless have been other times and
places where wrist-hold stars were either imported into American
dance forms from some other tradition or independently discovered
by American dancers.  However, I can't offer much evidence on the
subject one way or the other.

According to the NEFFA history at

 http://www.neffa.org/history.html

the Lithuanian dancers have been regular performers since the very
first Festival in the fall of 1944.  I don't know whether the
appearance that Sylvia described was at that first festival or
at a later one.

*** I'd be interested in any other info of the introduction or use
of wrist-hold stars from before about 1950, either from dancers with
long memories, from written records, or from photos or drawings.
Even an opinion piece disparaging wrist stars as uncomfortable or
inauthentic would be evidence that some dancers were using them at
the time of writing.

Taking a quick look through some of the sources I have at hand,
I'm surprised to see that the earliest mentions or descriptions of
wrist-hold stars that I've found so far date from 1949.  I hasten
to emphasize that I've examined only a relatively small number of
sources, and those only cursorily.  Possibly some of you can find
earlier mentions of wrist-hold stars.  If so, please tell ne about
them.

Here's summary of what I've found in the sources I've checked so
far.  I'll start with the definite mentions, descriptions, or
illustrations or wrist-hold stars, including the earliest ones
I've found and a selection of later ones.  Then I'll go on to
list a few where the descriptions either definitely indicate a
different styling or don't give enough detail to make it clear
just what styling is intended.

==
1949
Ed Gilmore
Square Dance Callers Instruction Course
Linked from http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/581

In the notes on "Texas Star", Ed writes:

Do not teach wrist hold star to beginners at the first
two or three dances. ...

To me this indicates that he does recommend teaching wrist
hold stars eventually.
==
1949
Sets In Order, Vol 1, No. 6, June, 1949

A description of the dance "Four Gents Star" on page 7
reads, in part:

Four gents star in the center of the square.
The four men make a right hand star taking the
wrist of the gent ahead of them.

I own a copy of the complete digitized _Sets In Order_.  This
is the earliest occurrence of the word "wrist" found by a full
text search.  (Note, however, that the magazine only commenced
publication in November 1948).
==
1949
"On Standardization of Fundamentals"
Sets In Order, Vol 1, No. 9, September, 1949
Pages 8-9

This article, reporting on a meeting of about 100 callers from
Los Angeles and surrounding counties offers the following styling
suggestions for stars:

STARS—Gents, wrist hold recommended.
  Ladies, hand hold recommended (because of skirt work).
  This is to be formed by each person putting arm out at
  about shoulder height with palm of hand toward opposite
  person.
  Mixed, hand hold recommended.
  Star with crossed hands—Just that, take hand of person
  across from you.
==
1950
Guy Merrill
Merrill's Standardization of Square Dancing
American Squares, Vol. 5, No. 7, March, 1950
Pages 11-12.

This tongue-in-cheek list of styling recommendations includes the
following (on p. 11):

   27. Wrist hold in star formations—At call "Gents to the
center and form right hand star", always stop still in center of
set, discuss wrist hold, teach newcomers how to do it. Everyone
will enjoy this.  When that chap gets your wrist he'll hurt it
so don't let him get it.

_American Squares_ began publication in September, 1945.  This is
the second-earliest occurrence of "wrist" found by full-text
search.  The one earlier occurrence has nothing to do with stars.

Re: [Callers] (no subject)

[James Saxe via Callers]

Galen,

The dance you're looking for might be "Colorful Corner"
(not "Colorful Contra") by Tom Thoreau.

   Colorful Corner, by Tom Thoreau
   Duple improper contra
 1&2.  Cir L 1x; sw N
   3.  Long lines F
   4.  M almd L 1 1/2 to form wavy line of 4
 5&6.  Bal wave; sw pt [on W's orig side of set]
   7.  Cir L 3/4
   8.  Bal ring; California twirl with pt

I think Tom wrote it after an evening when he had danced
a square in which his corner wore a particularly colorful
outfit.

--Jim

> On Oct 21, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Galen Armstrong via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi all!
> 
> I'm looking for a dance called Colorful Contra. I don't know the author. 
> Anyone know it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Galen 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Ralph Page Style

[James Saxe via Callers]

I started contra dancing in 1980, so got in on the tail end of
the period when the "Chestnuts" were staples of the repertoire
and well known to many dancers.

The way I remember dancing the transition from the end of one
round of "Rory O'More" to the beginning of the next was for the
active dancers to end their swing by falling back to proper
sides, facing partner across the set, ready to cross and cast
down the improper side.  Commonly, instead of falling all the
way back into line at the end of B2, active dancers would fall
back (almost) to arm's length and catch hands so as to initiate
the crossing at he start of A1 with a little tug.  You can see
some examples here:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jPqECMr9Y8

For "Chorus Jig", I think the most common thing was to end the
swing in B2 side-by-side with partner, facing up, gent on the
left and lady on the right (thus on proper sides of the set),
ready to cast down the outside.  A variation I would occasionally
use was to finish the swing by falling back face-to-face with my
partner towards *improper* sides, catch hands (as described above
for "Rory O' More"), and pull by to proper sides, at which point
we would be facing out of the set and ready to start the dance
over by going down the outside.  (I don't recall whether I picked
that flourish up from someone or discovered it on my own, and I 
don't know how many other people ever used it.)  Looking at some
old videos of Chorus Jig

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE  (1986)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFnxKaBV_as  (1992)

I didn't spot any instances of the fall-back-improper-and-pull-by
flourish, but in this more recent video

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9OWAsUb48  (2007)

you can see it done about 0:33-0:36 by the *second* active couple
from the top of the set in front of the camera (man with headband
and woman in blue and whit print dress).  


All these B2->A1 transitions flow very nicely for dancers wha
are familiar with them.  In all three of these videos, you can
also see examples of active men spinning clockwise after guiding
their partners into the initial cast.  You can also see some other
variations, some of which (and I'm not going to single them out)
may not have been entirely intentional.

I can't speak with any authority about how the transitions from
B2 to A1 in "Chorus Jig" and "Rory O'More" were commonly danced in
1970 or 1960, 1950, etc.

--Jim

On Oct 17, 2016, at 9:01 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers 
 wrote:
> 
> Richard, I also recall reading that comment about Page's opinion on Chorus 
> Jig--I think it was in A Time to Dance, but might have been in Shadrack's 
> Delight.
> 
> I find a ball room swing that ends facing up and casting down the outside 
> (one’s own side) a lot of fun - but perhaps you mean if you end the swing 
> facing down - that certainly doesn’t flow as well.
> Martha
> 
>  
> I was particularly thinking of an improper cast, yes, but the other depends 
> on the specific choreography, partner, music, speed, and line spacing.  
> Sometimes it works just fine, as you say, but the floor pattern isn't as 
> elegant and the relative speed can be all wrong for the dance narrative.   If 
> you are swinging to improper and then are supposed to cast down, however, 
> that's simply not possible from a standard ballroom swing; the best you can 
> do is end the swing facing down and step apart to go down the outside.  Then 
> the dance loses its visual structure because there's no actual cast.
> 
> It also doesn't work well if you are supposed to cross and cast--the timing 
> changes because you are already close together, plus you need to disentangle.
> 
> I may have a somewhat unusual way of enjoying and assessing the flow of 
> dances, because I always envision them from above as I dance.  I'll tolerate 
> somewhat non-flowing choreography so long as the visual pattern created is 
> crisp and elegant.  On the other hand, dances that don't create a distinctive 
> and pretty floor pattern irk me greatly if the sequence isn't 100% natural.  
> (This includes just about every dance that needs the phrase "ooze" or "shift" 
> to describe the progression. Circling to a slide, or promenading, or similar 
> things are fine; "oozing" makes me think of radioactive sludge!)
> 
> Neal
> 
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Wrist-Lock Stars

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Oct 10, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Read Weaver via Callers 
 wrote, in reference to
wrist-hold stars:

> When I’m teaching, I make the point that it’s pretty much the only move in 
> contra where you _shouldn’t_ give weight even though you could—human wrists 
> being neither strong nor flexible in that direction. And that if someone 
> behind you is uncomfortably giving weight, you can just let go and turn it 
> into a single file for yourself, since you’re not giving weight to aid the 
> circle's momentum anyway.

In a wrist-hold star, I think it feels best if everyone,
(including the person behind me), does give at least a *little*
weight--maybe not enough to achieve any significant transfer
of momentum around the star, but enough so that there's some
sense of connection rather than each dancer just laying their
hand like a dead fish on the wrist ahead.  The amount of
"weight"/force needed to get a such a feeling of connection is
much, much smaller than the amount involved in carrying even a
typical ten-year-old child in a "four-handed seat" of the sort
shown on page 4 of this document;

http://adminopsnet.usc.edu/sites/default/files/all_departments/FireSafetyEmergPlanning/CERTLiftsandCarries.pdf

Of course, if someone has a weak or injured wrist, the other
dancers should give consideration for that priority over their
own preferences about just how strongly connected they'd like
the star to be.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Fewer than 6 dancers - Ideas?

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Oct 4, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Yoyo Zhou via Callers 
 wrote:

> - Do 4-person dances and let the 5th person cut in wherever they please.

The notion of cutting in can also apply to other situations
where you have a fixed-size set or sets and an extra person
(or more than one, but not enough for another whole set).

At the risk of stating the obvious, this works best when
everyone involved understands what's going on and is
willing to play and not to get their nose out of joint
if they get separated from original partners for the
duration of the dance.   It's not so good if a cut-out
person stumps off to the sidelines and sits there moping
instead of cutting back in on someone else.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Fewer than 6 dancers - Ideas?

[James Saxe via Callers]

The Appalachian dance tradition has a bunch of two-couple
figures.  See, for example, 

 http://www.bubbaguitar.com/squaredance/littletoc.html
 http://round.soc.srcf.net/round/dances/krs/guts

Usually they'd usually be used in a context where pairs of
couples dance together and then one or both couples in each
pair move on to dance with a new couple, either by orderley
progression around the a square or a big circle or by a
scatter promenade.  In a pinch, ypu can use them wit just
two couples.

Teach a few figures.  Call them in any order.  For asymmetric
figures let give both couples turns at the "active" role.
Mix in some use of "I'll swing yours and you swing mine" (or
whatever words you want to use to say that) then "Swing your
own; leave mine alone" (or some other way of saying the same
thing), or just call the first swing and then have them keep
that one as parter for a while and dance some figures in the
new pairings.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Floor Space Requirement

[James Saxe via Callers]

Rich,

Several other people have already addressed the point that the
bride and groom are being unrealistic if they expect both the
kind of dancing they're used to at regular dances and a high
level of participation by their non-contra-dancer friends and
relatives.  You're clearly well aware of it as well.  And I'm
sure you know it's even more so if alcohol will be served.

Turning to the topic of space requirements, here are my thought:

On Aug 1, 2016, at 3:29 PM, David Harding wrote:

> ...  
> The distance from your left hand to your right hand is the distance along the 
> line that you and your partner occupy.  People of different sizes will have 
> different comfort factors.  We've all been in lines that were too scrunched 
> up and lines where we couldn't even reach the next person.  3-5 feet per 
> person feels acceptable to me, with about 4 feet being a good compromise.  
> Your foursome needs twice the space, of 8'.

The late Larry Jennings suggests [See _Give-and-Take, sec. III-3,
"Set Spacing"that a spacing of 3' per couple or 6' per foursome is
about ideal, and from my own observations I'm inclined to agree.

Of course some dances include figures that are more comfortable
with more more space along the set--for example a roll away across
the set.

On the other hand, I think that balances in long waves begin to feel
uncomfortably stretched out with a spacing of more than 3'.  Some
readers may recall the occasional practice of dancers kissing their
partners--and sometimes even their shadows--during the balances in
"Rory O'More".   I'm not advocating here that any caller set out to
revive that practice (fun for the mutually consenting, but not
necessarily hygienic), but I think that a comfortable spacing should
not be such as to make it impossible.  Try balancing right and left
while holding a yardstick horizontally at shoulder height with one
hand cupped over each end as if you were holding the hands of
adjacent dancers.  I think you will easily convince yourself that
with a 4' spacing, and with everyone keeping hold of hands along
the wavy line, people with arms of ordinary length would have a
hard time getting within a foot of each other's faces.

David also wrote:

> Of course, if you are doing any down-the-hall figures, you need some extra 
> space.

Of course I agree.  I haven't called many weddings, company parties,
or similar one-nighters, but I do recall one where I called a
simple contra with a "down the hall" figure (perhaps "Jefferson's   
Reel") and where there wasn't enough space for dancers to go a
whole eight steps. Experienced contra dancers who run out of room
to go down the hall know that they need to slow down or stop and
use up the right amount of music before starting back up.  Not
so the inexperienced dancers at this party.  As soon as the
bottommost dancers ran out of room, after about four steps, they
simply had to turn around and start back up, and the other couples
then followed suit.  Nothing I could say--or at least nothing I
could think of to say while the music was playing--seemed to have
the least effect at dissuading them.  (There was actually enough
space in the room, by the way.  The obstacle was a table set up
a few feet past the end of the set. If I'd been on the ball, I'd
have made sure it got moved out of the way before the dance
started.)

If the room doesn't have a usable stage, you'll need to allow
space for yourself, the sound system, and the band (if you're
using live music).


Regarding the width of a contra set, I'll call attention--as I
have on other occasions when this topic has come up--to the
"Folk Floor" used for contra dancing at the Northwest Folklife
Festival.  The top layer of this floor consists of gray painted
4'x8' sheets of masonite with very visible 3"-wide white tape
at the seams.  During well-attended sessions, the contra lines
tend very strongly to gravitate into the seven 8'-wide "lanes"
(as I'll call them) defined by the strips of tape running the
length of the hall. Even when there are fewer than seven sets,
dancers often center their sets in some of the the "lanes" and
spill only slightly into adjacent empty lanes.  Not everyone is
aware of this phenomenon, but it's strikingly obvious once you
pay attention.

From experience dancing at Folklife, I consider the 8' set width
to be slightly crowded.  Seven-foot-wide sets feel quite crowded
(based on experience at another hall I happened to measure).  I
think a width of ten feet per set would be quite comfortable and
that twelve feet per set would be spacious.  I haven't made
careful observations on this point, but I'd guess that with a
spacing of twelve feet per set it would already be somewhat
inconvenient for inactive dancers to steal a swing with someone
in an adjacent set while actives are swinging in the middle.

Of course if you want to have chairs along one or both side walls,
and if you want space for people to walk between the front and
back of the hall without 

Re: [Callers] Box circulate dances

[James Saxe via Callers]

I believe that the first contra to use a box circulate was
"The Twenty-Fourth of June" by Steve Schnur.  See

 
https://www.cambridgefolk.org.uk/contra/dances/steve_schnur/twenty_fourth_of_june.html

--Jim

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Vicki Morrison via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello all. In addition to the lovely Du Quoin Races dance by Orace Johnson, 
> are you familiar with any other box circulate dances that you could share? 
> Thanks!
> 
> Vicki Morrison
> Tallahassee, FL
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] [trad-dance-callers] Need musical advice

[James Saxe via Callers]

Kalia,

Is there any of the band's music you can listen to--e.g., on
their web site, on YouTube, free samples (and modestly-priced
full tracks) on CD Baby, ...?  (It seems a bit late in the game
for them to get you a physical CD.)  If there is, maybe you can
identify some pieces that would be suitable for your purposes,
though perhaps with some modifications (omitting any lyrics,
adjusting the tempo, eliminating breaks).

And yes, I realize (and you should, too), that bands might
differ in how clearly they would understand details of a request
to modify the arrangement of a tune, in how happy they'd be about
accommodating such a request, and in reliable they'd be about
remembering to play the modified arrangement and not slipping
into their usual version.

--Jim

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Kalia Kliban kalia.kli...@gmail.com 
> [trad-dance-callers]  wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I'm posting this to several different callers' lists (ECD, 
> trad-dance-callers and shared weight) in hopes of some speedy advice. 
> I'm heading off shortly (Weds. evening, 6/8) for an event that is not a 
> dance event, but at which I've been asked to lead a short community 
> dance session on "honky tonk night." The band for this is _not_ a 
> traditional dance band. They're more of a garage band with bar-band 
> aspirations. I wrote to them several weeks ago to check in about music, 
> and when I didn't hear back, wrote again about a week ago. Then again, 
> and finally heard back right as I was getting ready to leave for the 
> airport for a weekend gig, from which I've just returned.
> 
> Their contact person tells me that sheet music would be useful, which 
> puts me in the position of trying to figure out a very small assortment 
> of tunes to send them. We're doing about 1/2 hour of dancing, so at the 
> most it'll be 3 dances. With 2 jigs and 2 reels I can make this work. 
> The question is "which ones?" And that's where you all come in. I'm 
> looking for recommendations for a small assortment of simple, enjoyable 
> tunes for community dancing. As a non-musican, I have no idea which 
> tunes are easy to pick up quickly and which aren't, so I'm hoping some 
> of you can help me out.
> 
> Kalia Kliban
> 
> 
> __._,_.___
> Posted by: Kalia Kliban  
> Reply via web post•   Reply to sender •   Reply to group  
> •   Start a New Topic   •   Messages in this topic (1)
>  
> Have you tried the highest rated email app?
> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app 
> on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes 
> (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 
> 1000GB of free cloud storage.
> The Traditional Dance Callers List: Subscribe by sending a blank e-mail 
> message (no subject, no message) to: 
> trad-dance-callers-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> VISIT YOUR GROUP
> • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> 
> .
>  
> 
> __,_._,___

Re: [Callers] Microphones and/or technique for a deep voice.

[James Saxe via Callers]

Darwin,

Here are a few thoughts:

Besides working on mic technique, pay attention to enunciation.
Somecallerstendtoruntheirwordstogetheranditmakesthemimeanthecallerswellactuallyboththewordsandthcallerswhosaythosewordshardtounderstand.
I'm not saying that you should hyper-enunciate to the point of
sounding stilted, but if you want to be understood in spite of
room reverberation and competing sounds (crowd noise, music,
electric fans) a little hyper-enunciation can help.

One way to check yourself on enunciation (and more) is to make
a recording from the back of the hall and force yourself to
listen to it.

If you're a guest caller at someone else's dance, politely let
the sound tech know that your voice may be different from the
main caller's, and ask for whatever help (s)he can give to make
sure you're intelligible.

Try to arrive early at the gig so that you and the sound tech
can have a few minutes to experiment with what equalization
and what mic position work best for you (e.g., what's not too
close, but not too far), at a time when dancers aren't waiting
for a walk-thru to start.

If you don't 100% trust the sound tech to give ample priority
to caller intelligibility--and maybe even if you do--enlist a
trusted friend who can offer feedback during your sound check
and who can call problems to your attention while there's time
to do something about them, instead of after the dance is over.

I agree with those who have recommended speaking along the axis
of the mic.  While there are people who have learned to get good
results with the ice-cream-cone style of mic hold, it's easier
for most of us if we point our mouth at the mic and point the
mic at our mouth.  Keep the mic fairly close, but not to the
point of "eating" it.

As for overpowering the mic, I doubt that you would actually
be speaking loudly enough to force the mic element to the
extremes of its travel.  It is possible that the first stage of
amplification (usually controlled, on analog mixers, by a knob
at the top of your mic channel labeled "sensitivity", "gain",
or "trim") could be set too high, resulting in clipping, which
could make you sound loud, horrible, and unintelligible all at
once.  A competent sound tech will know how to set the gain
structure to avoid this.  If the sound tech is a turf-conscious
clown, then you have a problem, but you won't solve it by trying
to offer advice based on stuff you read on an internet mailing
list while you yourself are inexpert.

You wrote:

> ... the sound guy was sitting there and I'm sure would have done something ...

If the sound board is near the stage, the sound tech can easily
be unaware of a problem until (s)he stands up and walks to the
middle or the back of the hall.  Assuming the sound tech isn't
a turf-conscious clown, a request to "please check that I'm
intelligible in the back of the hall" can be part of the same
kind of polite conversation as "my voice may be different from
the main caller ...".

Good luck.

--Jim


> On May 18, 2016, at 7:09 PM, Darwin Gregory via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> I am a new caller, and I have called two dances.  The first, I completely 
> blew the microphone part. Since then, I practiced holding the mic close to my 
> mouth like was suggested to me.
> 
> The second dnce, I was told that my voice was too deep for the microphone, 
> and I was overpowering it.  It was suggested that I hold the microphone 
> further away and project, which I tried, but again, not something I practiced.
> 
> Someone afterwards suggested that it could have been dealt with by the sound 
> board.  Although, the sound guy was sitting there and I'm sure would have 
> done something if it would have helped.
> 
> So, any advice?  Is there a particular mic or mic type that is good for deep 
> voices?  Any techniques to practice?  Sound guy/gal need to be on the ball?
> 
> Any advice welcome.
> 
> ... Darwin
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Role Scramblers dances with balances

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Apr 8, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Erik Hoffman wrote:

> Don’t know if you call squares, but Ted Sanella
[Sannella --js]
> called this square—a number of times when I was lucky enough to dance to his 
> calling.
> ... 
[remainder of Erik's message w/ full dance description copied
below]

Erik,

Do you remember anything about the break figures Ted used with
this dance?

If the breaks included allemande left (with corners) and right
and left grand, dancers would have to cope with looking in what
could feel like the "wrong" direction to find corners and with
going in what could feel like the "wrong" direction for the
right and left grand.  If the allemande left came after a partner
swing, that might have been particularly challenging for dancers
unused to that sort of thing.  [Side note:  Using an Alamo Ring
type chorus could meet Lindsay Dono's original request for
"dances with balances and waves," but, just as with a regular
right and left grand, some dancers could find that the action
felt disconcertingly different when they changed gender roles.]

Breaks included things like "head couples right and left through"
or "side 'ladies' chain" or "all four 'men' left hand star" might
similarly have required dancers to keep their wits about them (or
drawn upon their capacity to remain cheerful in the face their
own and each other's goofs).

The sort of stuff I'm talking about strikes me as more suited
for a challenging session at a dance camp/weekend than for a
regular evening dance--and even more so now than at the time of
Ted's visits to California 25-30 years ago, on account of the
generally lower average familiarity of contras dancers with
squares.  Indeed, if someone were calling at the kind of dance
camp/weekend where the acceptable number of squares to call is
quite limited, I'd hope they'd lean towards squares that they
were confident they could put across without stressing the
dancers' readiness to remain cheerful in the face of confusion.

--Jim

>  
> Sex Change Dance
> Mixer
> from Ted Sanella
[Sannella]
>  
> Couple One Swing at Home and Promenade the outside of the Ring
> All the way, Man One stop at home, Woman One keep going to the left side of 
> Gent Three
> Those Three go Forward to the middle and Stand There Pat
> Side Couples R Thru—Around the Line of Three
> Lonely Gent “Do Si Do” around the Threesome then
> Lonely Gent: Right Hand Round with Partner, Left Hand Round with Woman Three
> Left Elbow Round with Gent Three,

[Is Left Hand Round followed by Left Elbow Round really what
you (Erik) meant?  --js]

> and Take Him Home!

[I presume that at this point Gent 3 takes on the role of
Lady 1 and vice versa.  Right? --js]

>  
> Everybody Home with Partner Swing
>  
> —Four times around and all have changed sex roles.  Four more times, and all 
> are back “home”

[As I understand it, the second round would be led by Couple 2,
and would swap Lady 2 with Gent 4.  Then the next round would
be led by "Couple 3" but with the role of "Gent 3" being danced
by the original Lady 1.  And so on.  --js]

Re: [Callers] Boomerang

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Laur via Callers  
wrote:

> I am not comfortable with the timing in Boomerang. Am I off or .. is there 
> something I'm missing???  
> 
> I've tried (with my imaginary friends) several theories but - always the 
> timing isn't quite there.
> 
> Laurie
> West MI


Laurie,

You don't say what part of the dance you're uncomfortable with, but
I'm going to guess that it's the B1 part.  The timing as given by
Gene Hubert in _Dizzy Dances, Volume II_ is:

Pass thru ACROSS the set and turn alone(4).
Circle left, go all the way around(8).
Pass thru ALONG the set to meet your partner(4).

The timing is a bit unusual in that the circle crosses the middle
of the phrase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
Dancers who aren't used to circling all the way around in 8 beats
can make up time on the pass thru (or pull thru) along and on the
forward part of the subsequent balance.  On the other hand, if the
dancers can easily circle once in 8 beats and if they think that 4
beats for pass thru along is a bit leisurely, they can try rearing
back at the end of the circle, or even add a spin during the pass
thru.

You can see a video of _Boomerang_ here:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj49YHAMGnk

(Thanks to Chris Page for supplying the title in a comment, so that
the video was easy to find.)  If you study the video, you'll see
many examples of dancers managing to meet their partners just in
time for the balance at the start of the B2 music--and also a few
examples of dancers being either early or late.  Beware that there
are a number of places where the video cuts to a different camera
angle and the new cut doesn't pick up at the same place in the tune
as the previous cut ended.

I hope some of this is helpful.

Cheers,
--Jim

Re: [Callers] New dance?

[James Saxe via Callers]

This isn't exactly a case of naming a dance after a politician
(in the sense of someone seeking or holding elective government
office), but the description of "Monadnock Reel" in the syllabus
from the 2011 Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend includes the
following comment:

 Dudley [Laufman] added, "[Ralph] Page originally named the
 dance MacArthur's Reel after General Douglas MacArthur, but
 when the boys came home to Keene after the war, Ralph found
 that many of them did not share a love for the general. So
 he changed the name to Monadnock Reel."

--Jim

On Monday, March 28, 2016 9:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
 wrote:

> Let me rephrase:
> Is there a precedent for naming a dance after a living politician?

Re: [Callers] Family dance- educational supplements?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Claire,

A while back, you wrote:

> I’m calling my first Family dance on March 6th for a home-school community.   
> I was hoping to offer a page of INTERESTING , Kid-friendly, FUN info, 
> activities, links in case someone wants to delve further into the history, 
> dance or music.


Here are a few items that may be fun, educational, or both:

1.  This web page 

http://www.voyagerrecords.com/LN358.htm

has some interesting (to me, and perhaps also to some of the
older kids in the group you'll be calling for) information
about the role of music and dance in the Lewis and Clark
expedition.  These are notes to accompany a CD of tunes from
that era.  If you look at the note on the individual tunes,
you'll learn (from the notes for track 18) that the Virginian
Reel, also known as "Sir Roger de Coverley", was a favorite
dance of George Washington.  (Washington died in 1799, just
a few years before the start of the Lewisand Clark expedition
[1804-1806]).

2.  In this video

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/71

dance caller, musician, and historian Phil Jamison talks
about the role of African American musicians i(mostly slaves,
some free) in the development of dance calling.

3.  Here's a Paramount newsreel (I wonder how many kids today
know what newsreels were) about the world's biggest square
dance, held as part of the Sant Monica Diamond Jubilee in
1950:

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/1311

This page

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/browse?tag=Santa+Monica

has links to various other items about the event.  You can
read about some of the amazing organizational work that went
into putting it on.  (Chartered buses bringing in dancers from
square dance clubs in surrounding cities, where they'd been
practicing dances from the Diamond Jubilee program at their
regular dance nights; local boy scouts with flags [pieces of
colored cardboard on long sticks] signaling places where
squares needed another couple so that they'd be more easily
spotted in the huge crowd; all sorts of special preparations
by the city 

 Well, we’ll repave the street – we’ll put up this band
 stand – we’ll get the local anti-aircraft battery still
 stationed here to furnish the lighting – we’ll go to the
 studios – we’ll get them to set up the speakers – ...

etc.)

4.  Speaking of studios, did you know that Chuck Jones, one
of the animators of Bugs Bunny and other Warner Brothers
cartoon characters, was an avid square dancer?  He sometimes
contributed artwork and articles to _Sets in Order_ square
dance magazine.

Here are covers from all the issues of the magazine

 http://newsquaremusic.com/sioindex.html

Can you some covers featuring Bugs and friends?
Scroll down for a list of the ones I've found.

  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
   Keep going.
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
   Just a little more.
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V
  |
  |
  V

I see Bugs Bunny on the covers for March, 1951; April 1954;
and June, 1956.  The cover for June, 1962, shows Pepé Le Pew
on his way from Paris to the National Square Dance convention
in Miami.

Cheers,
--Jim

Re: [Callers] Family dance- educational supplements?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Claire,

Are you looking for stuff like this?

 http://makingmusicfun.net/htm/f_mmf_music_library/hey-kids-its-a-violin.htm

Or this (but maybe with more pictures and fewer words)?

 http://www.kidzsearch.com/wiki/Dance

Or the kind of stuff that might be here

 http://kidzsearch.com/wiki/Country_Dance

but isn't?  Or super-easy crossword puzzles with answers like
"fiddle", "banjo", "circle", "dosido", etc?  Pictures of dancers
from different times in history (colonial period, 19-century west,
...)?  ...?

--Jim


> On Feb 2, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Claire Takemori <c...@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Rich, Jim, Ben and all!  
> 
> What I’m asking for is Kid-friendly information about music/dance.  I’m sure 
> someone has already taught a folk class or found resources online?  I’m 
> preparing for infants in carriers to teens dancing with parents and I’ll 
> invite local contra dancers to help me hold the group and coordinate.  I’m 
> hoping to do a Grand March near the end if the group is able, and know I will 
> want helpers to get lines to split at the top and join at the bottom. 
> 
> Yes I’ve been attending barn dances for a few months, dancing and learning 
> from a great barn dance caller.  I’ve got the Laufman book/CDs, as well as 
> Peel the Banana.  And I consulted with Frannie Marr who gave me a lot of 
> great ideas for working with kids. 
> 
> Thanks so much for your time and help! 
> Claire
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 2, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Rich Sbardella <richsbarde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My apologies to Dudley and Jacqueline.  Their Traditional Barn Dances book, 
> with DVD and CD are also on my shelf.  Together they were an early 
> inspiration, as I added community dance to my calling skills.  I remember 
> driving to Scout House to observe Dudley's unique calling/teaching style one 
> Sunday afternoon, after purchasing his book, and before I tried to call any 
> such dance programs myself.  His simple dances were so effective with the 
> families on hand.
> 
> Additionally, I stress attending the types of dances that you want to call, 
> as often as you can.  Dancing a particular dance, is a great way to learn it, 
> and to place it appropriately in your repertoire.  I have many dance cards in 
> my collection that I have not called, but I frequently call the ones that 
> brought me joy as a dancer.
> 
> Rich
> Stafford, CT
> 
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM, James Saxe via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hi, Claire,
> 
> I've done only a tiny amount of calling for the family dance
> crowd, but from what I've seen of the New England Dance Masters
> material and Marion Rose's material, and from seeing the authors
> in action either live or on video, I'd second both of Rich's
> recommendations.
> 
> Another resource worth looking at is Dudley Laufman's _Traditional
> Barn Dances and Calling_, which comes packaged with two CD's of
> music (called and uncalled) and a DVD showing some of the dances.
> See
> 
>  
> http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/traditional-barn-dances-with-calls--fiddling?isbn=9780736076128
> 
> SF Bay area caller Erik Hoffman has a book called "Old-Time Dance
> Calling for Weddings, Parties, and One-Night Stands"
> 
>  http://www.erikhoffman.com/otdancebk.html
> 
> If you get in touch with him and tell more about the group you're
> expecting to call for (What age-range of home-schoolers?  Will a
> bunch of their younger siblings be there?), he might advise you
> as to how much of the material in it would be suitable for you.
> 
> Cheers,
> --Jim
> 
> > On Feb 2, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers 
> > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Claire,
> >
> > Here are two excellent resources.
> >
> > New England Dancing Masters offer many books, Cds, and DVDs for 
> > Family/Community Dance.  I cannot say enough good about this material.
> >
> > www.dancingmasters.com
> >
> > Marion Rose also has a series of books Called Step Lively.  They have 
> > dances and CDs with family friendly dances.
> > www.communitydance.ca.  Many, but not all, of the dances in this series, 
> > are tune specific.
> >
> > Youtube is also an excellent series, and I would recommend Cal Campbell's 
> > dancing for busy people blog and the BDPLS (Beginner Dance Party Leaders 
> > Seminar) channel on youtube.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Rich
> > Stafford, CT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Claire Takemori via Callers 
> > <callers@lists.sharedweight.n

Re: [Callers] Family dance- educational supplements?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Hi, Claire,

I've done only a tiny amount of calling for the family dance
crowd, but from what I've seen of the New England Dance Masters
material and Marion Rose's material, and from seeing the authors
in action either live or on video, I'd second both of Rich's
recommendations.

Another resource worth looking at is Dudley Laufman's _Traditional
Barn Dances and Calling_, which comes packaged with two CD's of
music (called and uncalled) and a DVD showing some of the dances.
See

 
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/traditional-barn-dances-with-calls--fiddling?isbn=9780736076128

SF Bay area caller Erik Hoffman has a book called "Old-Time Dance
Calling for Weddings, Parties, and One-Night Stands"

 http://www.erikhoffman.com/otdancebk.html

If you get in touch with him and tell more about the group you're
expecting to call for (What age-range of home-schoolers?  Will a
bunch of their younger siblings be there?), he might advise you
as to how much of the material in it would be suitable for you.

Cheers,
--Jim

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello Claire,
> 
> Here are two excellent resources.  
> 
> New England Dancing Masters offer many books, Cds, and DVDs for 
> Family/Community Dance.  I cannot say enough good about this material.
> 
> www.dancingmasters.com
> 
> Marion Rose also has a series of books Called Step Lively.  They have dances 
> and CDs with family friendly dances.
> www.communitydance.ca.  Many, but not all, of the dances in this series, are 
> tune specific.  
> 
> Youtube is also an excellent series, and I would recommend Cal Campbell's 
> dancing for busy people blog and the BDPLS (Beginner Dance Party Leaders 
> Seminar) channel on youtube.
> 
> Have fun,
> Rich
> Stafford, CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Claire Takemori via Callers 
>  wrote:
> I’m a new contra dance caller (took Nils’ workshop at American Week last 
> July).  And my goal is to offer calling for Family dances to help spread folk 
> music/dance in our community. (maybe College contras, but that’s a different 
> thread)
> I’m calling my first Family dance on March 6th for a home-school community.   
> I was hoping to offer a page of INTERESTING , Kid-friendly, FUN info, 
> activities, links in case someone wants to delve further into the history, 
> dance or music.
> 
> Any great resources out there?  I don’t have a ton of time to put this 
> together from scrap. And I don’t know enough yet to figure out the history.  
> I’m learning as I go!
> 
> thanks !
> Claire Takemori
> Bay Area California
> ___
> 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

Re: [Callers] another new word idea

[James Saxe via Callers]

I tried typing each of the following into the Google search box:

 "frontier twirl" square dance

 "frontier whirl" square dance

The "whirl" version got more hits, but the "twirl" version also
got enough to show that it's more than just one person's
idiosyncratic variant.

Bonus history tidbit:  In Ed Gilmore's dance "The California
Whirl", as published in the May 1951 _Sets in Order_ magazine
and on page _Sets In Order_'s _5 Years of Square Dancing_
compilation (a/k/a _Five Years of Sets In Order_), the term
"California Whirl" is used to mean what would now be called
a "Left Star Thru".  That is, it's done by dancers who are
facing each other, rather than by those who are side-by-side,
with gent using left hand and lady using right hand.  On the
other hand (as it were), when Ed describes the "Inside Arch
Outside Under" routine in his 1949 callers course syllabus

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/581

he uses "California Whirl" just as we now use "California
Twirl'.  The terminology just wasn't as precicodified in
those ®®days as it is in MWSD today.

--Jim

> On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Rich Sbardella via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Erik,
> I have heard Frontier Whirl as a California Twirl, but never Frontier Twirl?  
> Are you sure?  (Maybe I am mistaken.)
> Rich Sbardella
> Stafford, CT
> 
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> What Michael Fuerst said at a readable size (It's still coming through to me 
> in some microscopic font):
> 
> > Are you also contemplating  to abandon the awkward to say "California
> > Twirl"
> > If you use your gypsy alternative for new dancers, will you advise them
> > of all the synonyms being conjured ?
> 
> Aha! A whole new topic. Well, actually old. Larry Edelman, one of my favorite 
> dance callers, and someone I feel lucky to have spent time with, and from 
> whom I have learned so much, use to complain about "California Twirl." I 
> don't recall his reasons, but he always called it a "Frontier Twirl," which I 
> think he got from old square dance books. 
> 
> I've been using "right shoulder turn," and "left shoulder turn," and 
> mentioning that there's been a discussion on the use of the word Gypsy. Then 
> again, somewhere around sixty percent of the time I tend to call a "right 
> hand turn," instead of "allemande right," as it's more descriptive. 
> 
> This, in some ways, gives another reason for using different words: the use 
> of descriptive calls. Thus abandoning a non-descriptive call for one that is 
> more readily interpreted by all dancers has other benefits than just 
> abandoning a word that some--or all--find pejorative .
> 
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
> 
> 
> On 1/27/2016 7:03 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers wrote:
>> Are you also contemplating  to abandon the awkward to say "California Twirl"
>> If you use your gypsy alternative for new dancers, will you advise them of 
>> all the synonyms being conjured ?
>>  
>> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[James Saxe via Callers]

As a couple of you have kindly pointed out, I unintentionally
sent my last message to the entire list.  Ooops.  I hop I didn't
say anything that will get me too much flak.

As most of you know, in order to avoid bad interactions with
anti-spoofing policies of so service providers, including AOL
and Yahoo


http://www.pcworld.com/article/2141120/yahoo-email-antispoofing-policy-breaks-mailing-lists.html

this list is set up to change senders' addresses from something
like

 John Smith 

to

 John Smith via Callers 

I remembered to make sure I used Seth's actual address in my
"To" line, but slipped up and left Neal as

 Neal Schlein via Callers 

Sorry if I've added noise to the discussion.

--Jim

   

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Seth,

I'm writing this just to you (and to Neal, for reasons that you'll
see) and not to the whole list.  I see myself as someone whose mind
might be changed.  For example, if an alternative term for "gypsy"
became common in places where I dance and call--say, common enough
that you could use it while calling a medley and experienced dancers
would immediately know what you meant--and if I didn't find the new
term inherently objectionable for some reason, I'd probably go along
with using it.  Or if we heard from a fair number of Roma saying
they don't find the term "gypsy" objectionable as used in contra
dancing, and furthermore expressing the opinion that those who claim
offense are similar to, say, people who take offense that not all
English speakers everywhere are willing to adopt gender-free pronouns,
then I might feel happy to write off the whole issue.

As it is, the last time I called a dance using the figure in question,
I described it as a "two-eye turn" and everyone seemed to know what I
was talking about.  But if I'd seen some confusion, I'd have been
quick to add something like "otherwise known as a gypsy".  And if,
when I said "two-eye turn", someone had asked "Do you mean gypsy?",
I'd have said Yes, and I probably would not have gone into a spiel
about how some people find the term objectionable.

That said, I doubt that I or anyone else will likely be swayed by
the same people on the list continuing to repeat the same points
more emphatically.  So I agree with you there, and I thank you for
asking people to consider whether their replies are adding anything.

Neal,

You wrote:

> I've met Carol Silverman, ...  She and her husband are folk dancers and 
> musicians (mainly Balkan, but also contra).

I think this is the first I've read about Professor Silverman being
a contra dancer herself, as opposed to her merely having heard about
the use of the term "gypsy" in contra dance through correspondence
from someone on the SW callers' list.  If she indeed is at least an
occasional contra dancer, then I wonder:

 * Has she asked the callers where she dances to find an
   alternative term to "gypsy"?

 * If so, have they followed her request?

 * If so, what term do they now use and haw much acceptance
   and familiarity has it gained among local dancers and among
   other callers in her area and beyond?

Answers to these questions would bring at least a little new
information to the discussion, rather than more rehashing of what
has already been said.

Cheers,
--Jim

Re: [Callers] That g word

[James Saxe via Callers]

Alan Winston asked (replying to Janet Bertog):

> Where did you find a dance description for Flowers of Edinburgh in the 1500s?

I, too, am curious.  I suspect that Alan is asking this question,
as I am, more from an interest in the history of dancing and dance
terminology than for the purpose of deciding what terminology to
use in the future.  (To be clear, I believe that both topics--the
history and what to do now--are entirely appropriate for this
list.)  Please supply a reference if you have one.

Speaking as someone who claims no formal training or other
qualification as a dance historian, but who is nonetheless an
interested dabbler in dance history, I think that a genuine
16th-century source using "gip" (or "gyp"/"gipsy"/"gypsy"/
"jib"/,,,) as the name of a dance figure would be quite an
interesting find, especially if the source also included some
clue about what the term actually meant at that time.  On the
other hand, a 20th-century description of a dance with a "gip"
(or "half gip/gyp/gipsy/..." or "whole gip/...") together with
a vague allusion to a dance of the same title having existed
in the 16th century wouldn't be so exciting.  

With a little searching, I turned up various descriptions of
Bampton morris dancing that list half gip[/gyp/...] and whole
gip as common figures and "Flowers of Edinburgh" as one of the
specific dances.  Here's just one example:

 http://www.tvmm.org.uk/Notes/Bampton.htm

And here's a video:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2QtfnKrB8

Note the whole gips starting about 1:37.

My searching also turned up many references to an RSCDS-style
Scottish dance titled "Flowers of Edinburgh."   This site

 
http://www.scottish-country-dancing-dictionary.com/video/flowers-of-edinburgh.html

has half a dozen videos of the dance being done by different
groups, plus an animation and a link to dance instructions.
As you can see, this "Flowers of Edinburgh" includes no
"gypsy" figure and bears practically no resemblance to the
morris dance of the same name except that both are done in
some kind of longways set.

I also turned English Country Dance versions, including these:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48y_4FU9EFU
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMID3ExAas

The first one lightly resembles the RSCDS version in that it
has a sort of "swing and change" in B2 where the RSCDS version
has a poussette.  The one version in the second video is
yet different.

In the absence of further evidence, a 16th-century dance 
called "Flowers of Edinburgh", if such existed, might, for
all I knew, have been wildly different from all the versions
I've cited above.

On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
 wrote:

> The equivalent of the Welsh word gip is glance or gaze.

That does suggest a tempting etymology for the dance figure.
But, as we know, tempting etymologies sometimes turn out to
lack support (as, for example, in the case of "a la main"
for "allemande").  So, again, if you know of sources from
even as late as the 19th century connecting the Welsh "gip",
meaning glance/gaze with the similarly named morris dance
figure or with "gypsy" as used in ECD and (more recently)
contra dancing, please share the details.

Again, I'm asking out of historical interest, not making
any claim about how the history should or shouldn't affect
callers' choices about terminology today.

Thanks.

--Jim

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Alan Winston via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/21/16 10:48 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers wrote:
>> This was my original suggestion (see discussion in November). Then I found 
>> gip in Welsh, which seems to fit better except foe one thing. The earliest 
>> dance I can find with a gip/gypsy is Flowers of Edinburg from Scotland in 
>> the 1500s (note the date precedes the use of the word Gypsy by the English). 
>> It doesn't matter though. To many, the word is a slur in one context to some 
>> people and so should not be used, no matter what the origin.
>> 
> Where did you find a dance description for Flowers of Edinburgh in the 1500s?
> 
> -- Alan
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Mad Robin (was Re: As in Petronella)

[James Saxe via Callers]

Several recent messages to this mailing list have mentioned
alternative--and perhaps more descriptive--names for the
contra dance figure known as "Mad Robin" (after an English
country dance that includes a vaguely similar, but far from
identical, figure):

 side gypsy
 shuttle
 sliding doors [though actual sliding doors don't go
  around each other]
 slide about, men (or women) in front

As I've pointed out previously

 
http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/2013-June/006194.html

the earliest contra I know to use the figure is "Saint Paddy's
Day" by Kirston Koths, who referred to the figure as a (full)
sashay.  Kirston tells me he finished composing the dance on
Oct. 14, 1982.  It was first called at Pattie Whitehurst's
wedding reception the same day.

Some time in the 1990's someone else (perhaps Susan Kevra with
"One Hundred Years of Mischief", written in 1995) reintroduced
the figure (independently, I presume), the name "Mad Robin" got
attached to it, and other callers began incorporating it into
new dances.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Ron Blechner wrote (perhaps in reference to Erik Hoffman's
mention of Tom Thoreau's dance "Barbarella"):

> Anything with 4 Petronella spins doesn't really fit my programming style.

I can't help noticing that that description fits "Petronella"
itself.  Of course, there are many callers these days whose
programming styles exclude dances like "Petronella"--whence
the incongruity some have noted in saying "as in 'Petronella'"
to a room full of dances most of whom may not have danced 
"Petronella" even once.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Mystery dance from Contracopia

[James Saxe via Callers]

I believe the correct title for the dance described below by Laur
is "Mange Tak" (not "Mange Talk", "Mongatack", or "Manga Tok").
That's how it's spelled in the 2009 RPDLW syllabus

 http://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2009.pdf

It's the correct spelling for "many thanks" in Danish, which is
what the title is based on.

The dance Maia asked about has a clear resemblance to "Mange Tak"
but also is clearly different, with more balances (which Maia
says she definitely recalls) and with no shadow allemande.  It's
apparently an intentionally written variation, perhaps to achieve
a little simplification, since Maia collected it from Ron
Buchanan's calling, and it's unlikely he would unwittingly have
called a folk-processed garbling of his own dance.  I don't know
whether this variation is one that Ron came up with himself nor
whether it has a more specific title than something like "Mange
Tak (variation)".

--Jim


On Dec 7, 2015, at 6:38 PM, Laur via Callers  
wrote:

> Is this it
> 
> Mange Talk By Ron Buchanan Formation: Contra, duple improper 
> 
> A1 - Give left hand to neighbor : balance and swing 
> A2 - Pass through to an ocean wave (see note), balance Allemande right 
> neighbor halfway, gents allemande left halfway, allemande right partner ¾ 
> B1 - Turn shadow by the left and swing your partner 
> B2 - Pass through to an ocean wave, balance Allemande right partner halfway, 
> gents allemande left halfway, allemande right neighbor ¾ to a new neighbor 
> The title is Danish for “Many Thanks.” 
> 
> 
> To pass through to an ocean wave: start to pass opposite by the right 
> shoulder, ladies catch left hands and turn just ¼ as gents walk all the way 
> to the other side and take right hands with the lady to form a wavy line -of- 
> 4 across. 
>  
> Laurie P 
> West MI
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 9:10 PM, Maia McCormick via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Ron Buchanan this one at Contracopia, and it was a lot of fun!
> 
> ???, by ??? (becket)
> A1: pass the ocean and balance
> partner R 1/2, gents L 1/2, balance
> A2: neighbor R 3/4, new neighbor swing
> B1: pass the ocean and balance
> neighbor R 1/2, gents L 1/2, balance
> B2: partner swing

Re: [Callers] dances in unusual formations

[James Saxe via Callers]

Another dance I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread is the
six-couple circle dance "Thread the Needle", not to be confused
with various other, very different dances also titled "Thread the
Needle".  Here's a description:

 Thread the Needle
 Circle of six couples, numbered (in ccw order) 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3

 #1 ladies go out to the right and circle with that #2 couple
 until #1 ladies are facing ccw around the big circle.
 #2 couples arch and #1 ladies duck through to #3 couples while
 #2 gents follow up to form circles with #2 couples.
 All circle 3 once around.  #2 & #3 couples arch and #1 dancers
 duck to next couple ccw around the set.)
 Repeat circling and ducking to next two more times.  [At this point
 #1 ladies are again with their original #2 couples.]
 #3 couples with #1 gents circle left once while #2 couples with #1
 ladies circle just halfway.  #2 and #3 couples arch and #1
 dancers duck through to original home positions.
 All swing partners.

 The whole dance repeats with #2 ladies starting (and #2 gents
 following) and again with #3 dancers active.

When I've danced this, the callers have mixed the main figure described 
above with "break figures", typically involving a grand right and left
or some variation thereof.  There are lots of square-dance break figures
that you can easily adapt to work for a six-couple circle .  For one
example, see this video of "Thread the Needle" with calling by Phil
Jamison:

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/297
 (also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Ha27GDnSU )

--Jim

Re: [Callers] dances in unusual formations

[James Saxe via Callers]

A dance I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is "Pride of
Dingle" (originally "Pride of Pingle") by Ken Alexander.  You
can find various slightly differing versions here:

 
http://www.izaak.unh.edu/dlp/NorthernJunket/pages/NJv14/NJv14-02/NJv.14.02.p24.htm
 http://www.dancerhapsody.com/handouts/DancesForNonDancers.pdf
 
http://archives.mvfolkdancers.com/0_Other%20Items%20of%20Interest/0_Dance%20Instructions/pride%20of%20dingle%202.pdf
 
http://www.barndances.org.uk/dance-detail.php?danceNameParam=pride-of-dingle
 https://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2005.pdf

The first version listed above (as published in _Northern Junket_)
seems closest to the way I remember learning it.  I don't know
which is closest to the Ken Alexander originally wrote it.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] dances in unusual formations

[James Saxe via Callers]

Jacob Bloom mentioned this dance:


> Borrowdale Exchange - Scatter mixer
> Formation: three couples in circle
> 
> Circle left, Circle right
> Forward and Back, partner dosido
> Hands-across right hand star.  Starting with the two people whose hands are 
> lowest, each pair pulls their partner to them for a swing
> Promenade with your new partner to make new sets

I've also seen something similar where dancers mix only
within their group of three couples (eventually getting
original partners back) and throughout the whole hall.
You can see a version called by Phil Jamison (under the
name "Pull the Lady Through") here:

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/301
 (also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm5KTs-yTI8 )

And here's an archived message where I described (as best I
remembered it) a version I danced to the calling of Dolores
Heagy:

 
http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/2014-March/007599.html


Jacob also mentioned:

> Billingsdale Pattern - Chip Hendrickson
> Two couples in line, women back to back
> 
> Hey for four
> Dosido partner, Swing
> Right hand star, Left hand star
> Ladies Allemande R once and a half, Allemande L Neighbor.  Start with Ladies 
> back to back first two times, Gents back to back second two times.

On page 81 of _Zesty Contras_, Larry Jennings describes both
"Billingsdale Pattern" and his own variant of it, titled
"Chippendal Ornament".)

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

[James Saxe via Callers]

Jeff Kauffman referred us to:

> http://www.jefftk.com/p/history-of-the-term-gypsy

That page mentions Playford's 1651 description of the
dance "Cuckolds all a row," which includes the directions:

..., goe about the Co. We. not turning your faces.
..., goe about your owne not turning faces.

[I'm using spelling from

 http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/playford_1651/074small.html

Jeff's page seems to have facsimilie pages of a different
edition.]

Jeff writes that

> Sharp interpreted this section as a series of whole-gips,

where "whole-gip" is a figure from Morris dancing, and noted
that this leaves us with the question of how the Morris figure
got that name.

Let me point out that the 1651 edition of Playford also
includes a dance titled "The Spanish Jeepsie" (listed as
"Spanish Jepsies" in the contents).  This dance has a similar
figure to the one in "Cuckolds all a row":

... go all about your We. not turning your faces. ...

In fact the second and third parts of "The Spanish Jeepsie"
have

... go about your own as before ...

So the figure occurs more often in that dance than it does in
"Cuckolds all a row".

I don't know of (and haven't looked for) any specific evidence
linking "The Spanish Jeepsie" to the terms "half-gip" and
"whole-gip" in Morris dancing.  I also don't know of (and
haven't looked for) any evidence linking the choreography of
"The Spanish Jeepsie" to anything that occurs in traditional
Romani dancing (or it traditional Spanish dancing).

None of this historical stuff helps with the issue of the term
"gypsy" causing offence of with the task of picking a preferable
term.  One thing I think I can safely predict is that those who
are offended by the term "gypsy" would be even more offended by
"gip" (pronounced the same as "gyp", meaning to swindle).

--Jim

> On Oct 24, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Chris Page via Callers
>  wrote:
>> "Gypsy" comes from Cecil Sharp, when he was trying to name a figure that
>> appeared in the literature of two dancers going around each other.
>> 
>> My hearsay understanding is that he named it after some Romani dances he
>> knew of where partners didn't touch each other.
>> 
> 
> Sharp called the figure "Whole-Gip" in The Country Dance Book Part II,
> and seems to have taken the name from Morris:
> 
>The figures which occur in the course of the dances described in
> "The Dancing Master" are very varied and very numerous. With the
> exception of the Set, the Side, and the Honour, and others of a like
> character, all of which are essentially Country dance figures, I have
> been able to connect nearly all of them with similar evolutions in the
> Morris or Sword dances. The Whole-Poussette and, of course, the Roll,
> are sword-dance figures, and I believe that all those Country Dance
> figures, in which an arch is made by the joining of hands,
> handkerchiefs, or ribbons, were originally derived from the same
> source. Other evolutions such as Whole-Gip, Back-to-Back, Cross-over,
> Foot-up, Corners, etc., are familiar Morris figures.
> 
> If anyone knows where to look for how Morris dancers got "gip" I'd be
> very curious.
> 
> http://www.jefftk.com/p/history-of-the-term-gypsy
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Seeking contras for a crowded hall

[James Saxe via Callers]

Paul,

Thanks for mentioning mescolanzas (a/k/a 4-face-4 or Portland Fancy
formation dances).  I'll try to pick out a couple where the figures
aren't expansive lengthwise and have them ready for possible use
depending on how I see the dancers fitting into the available space.

I'll make a couple comments on space requirements of 4-face-4 dances
below.  Meanwhile I hope people will keep contributing other ideas
(both general suggestions and specific dances) for contra dances in
crowded halls.

 * * * * * * * * * *

I think people often misjudge the space requirements for 4-face-4
dances, both in term of width and length.

I've sometimes seen callers combine four contra sets into two
4-face-4 sets (and leave them like that) at times when I thought
that three 4-face-4 sets would have fit comfortably into the width
of the hall and would have been much more comfortable than two
sets in terms of length.  By conrast, I once saw a caller--wisely,
in my opinion--put dancers into four 4-face-4 sets at a dance
weekend where, as far as I'd noticed, the best-attended sessions
had never had more than five regular contra lines, and where six
contra lines might have felt just a little bit crowded in width.

Dancers may line up for a 4-face-4 with foursomes closer to each
other than optimal, particularly if the dance includes a figure
that is expansive lengthwise.  Consider, for example, Al Olsen's
"First Bloom" [see _Zesty Contras_ or RPDLW syllabi for 2007 and
2009], where dancers get into a temporary square and the ladies
do a grand chain over and back.  If foursomes start out too closely
spaced, the "square" will end up having head couples close together
and side couples far apart, and the chain will become awkward, both
because the head ladies have to wait for the side ladies to rush to
the center and because the head ladies will be uncomfortably close
to dancers in the next group up or down the set during the courtesy
turns.  If the caller suggests, before the walk-through, that
dancers stretch their sets to use the full length of the hall, and
if the dancers respond half-heartedly, the caller might get better
results by repeating the suggestion *after* the walk-through or,
if convenient, just after walking through ladies' grand chain (or
whatever figure in a particular dance is most in need of space
along the set).

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Back in September, we discussed a topic raised by Maia McCormick:

> ...
> 
> There do exist some really fabulous shadow-swing dances that I would love to 
> be able to call, as long as I could do so without putting anyone in an 
> uncomfortable position. Do folks have ideas for ways to mitigate the 
> potential harms of shadow swing dances?

[See below for Maia's full message.]

I've had an idea that I don't think anyone mentioned.  First, a
disclaimer:  I don't imagine that what I'm about to say will
sway any of you who are dead-set against shadow swings in any
circumstances.  However, if you feel compelled to reiterate your
opposition, I hope you'll have the courtesy to respect Maia's
original request and do so under a different "Subject" line.

Anyway, my idea is:  Use the occasion as a "teachable moment".

When you get to the shadow swing during the walk-through, or
perhaps during the second walk-through, point out to the
dancers that they'll be swinging the same person every time,
and give them a chance to discuss what is or isn't comfortable
for them.  You might give examples: "Please don't dig you're
thumb into my neck", "My arm is not a pump handle', "Not too
fast", "Not so close", etc.  Or you could make general remarks
about believing you shadow if they say something hurts, or
about how the person whose less interested in being flirty is
the one who gets to decide, etc.  And remind people to that
they can make additional adjustments during the dance.
Exactly what points you (the caller) want to mention, what
words you choose, whether to employ humor, etc., will depend
on what fits your personality, what you see as the likely
issues in the particular community, how much time you feel
you can spend before moving along with the dance, etc.

Note that this idea can be applied to shadow interactions
other than swings.

For example, if a dance has an allemande with shadows, you
might let women and men (or dancers in those roles) take turns
showing each other their preferred hand holds, strength of
connection, etc.  You might encourage them, if they have
different preferences, to give each other's suggestions a
fair try, but with the very important proviso (better stated
sooner than later) that nobody should be pressured into
doing something they think may be painful.

If the action with shadows is a chain or a right and left
through, you could give dancers a chance to talk about their
preferences regarding twirls or about making the courtesy
turns feel comfortably connected without being *too*
comfy cosy for anyone's comfort.

You could also occasionally invite people (and give them
some time) to have such discussions with their partners.

Just a thought.

--Jim

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> First, a disclaimer: Some people on this listserv thing shadow swings are 
> problematic. Some don't see any issue with them. This is NOT the conversation 
> I want to have in this thread; I ask that you respond to the question I'm 
> asking and do not debate my premise--at least not in this particular thread. 
> This should help keep this thread on track and hopefully reduce excess noise 
> and go-nowhere discussions on this listserv. Thanks!
> 
> Anyway, the actual question I wanted to ask (whew!)--
> 
> There do exist some really fabulous shadow-swing dances that I would love to 
> be able to call, as long as I could do so without putting anyone in an 
> uncomfortable position. Do folks have ideas for ways to mitigate the 
> potential harms of shadow swing dances? I was considering, at the beginning 
> of the dance, having dancers identify their shadow and mentioning, "this will 
> be a shadow swing dance, so if you need to make any changes, do so now" (or 
> something like that)--haven't gotten the wording down-pat, but the idea is 
> giving dancers advance warning of a shadow swing so they can move (thereby 
> changing their shadow) if they need to. Any thoughts on this method? 
> Suggestions of others?
> 
> Cheers.
> Maia
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Amy dances

[James Saxe via Callers]

Michael Dyck's contra dance index

 http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/index/by_title.html

lists the following

 Amy Absconds (Ted Hodapp)
 Amy Asked for a Gypsy (Charley Harvey)
 Amy J, My Love (Peter Stix)
 Amy's Harmonium (Cary Ravitz)
 Dancing with Amy (Bill Olson)
 Gypsy for Amy (Linda Leslie)

with references to sources, including online sources for most.
It also lists various dances written by people named Amy.

--Jim

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi friends,
> I'm calling at my home dance this weekend, and my good friend Amy let me know 
> it's her birthday.  I want to call some dances with Amy in the title to honor 
> her.  Could you please share any Amy titled dances with me?  Include 
> instructions if you have them, so I don't have to hunt around.
> Amy and I thank you,
> Andrea N.
> Atlanta
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Sticky floors

[James Saxe via Callers]

In my recent message about negatives of applying wax to a
slow floor, I wrote:

> ...
> Note also that wax, unlike, say, corn meal, will not easily be
> removed by sweeping at the end of the evening.


As it happens, while looking for something else, I just came
across a 2013 thread on the trad-dance-callers list where
someone mentioned corn meal and another list member replied
with a cautionary tale about a local dance series that ...

> ... had to temporary relocate, and settled in a church basement which had a 
> tile floor. The caller sprinkled corn meal over the floor in hopes of 
> improving it since it had been waxed.
> As the evening progressed, the crowded unairconditioned hall became quite hot 
> & humid and the cornmeal grains absorbed the moisture, softening and sticking 
> to the floor.
> It couldn't be swept off after the dance. It had to be laboriously *scraped* 
> off by the custodian on hands & knees.
> 
> The dance was evicted from the church, never allowed to return.

I'm not sure why the experience reported here differs from
what I've seen with corn meal.  Was it the humidity?  Was it
something about the underlying floor or about what had been
done to it before the corn meal was added.  (For example, had
it not been well cleaned after an event the previous evening
where people had dropped food and spilled sugary drinks?)
Was it something about the kind of corn meal? Was it really
corn starch?  BUt I thought I should pass along the report.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Sticky floors

[James Saxe via Callers]

A couple people have mentioned wax as a possible remediation
for sticky floors.  There are several potential problems with
wax:

1.  As with any floor additive, you could get on the wrong
side of the hall owners if you use it without permission.
Note also that wax, unlike, say, corn meal, will not easily be
removed by sweeping at the end of the evening.

2.  If you have a finished floor, and there are areas where
the finish has worn down to the bare wood, then wax can get
worked into the grain of the wood, making it difficult for
future coats of finish to adhere properly.  See


http://www.waterlox.com/faqs/woodworking/apply-wood-finish-over-previously-finished-surfaces

3.  When you sprinkle wax by hand, it's practically impossible
to apply it evenly to the entire floor.  Having (relatively)
slippery spots next to (relatively) sticky spots can be
particularly hazardous.  If dancers apply wax to their own
shoes, it can rub off onto the floor, creating local slippery
spots.  (My experience with corn meal, btw, is that it tends
to get more evenly spread around floor by dancers feet than
dance wax does, though it's still hardly perfect in this
regard.)


I have occasionally danced on floors that were waxed and
machine buffed with good results, but note the following
contrasts with the situations described above:

* The machine buffing spread the wax uniformly, avoiding
  local slippery or sticky spots.

* Either the floors in question were never intended to
  be given given some other finish (e.g. urethane) or
  the wax was applied over a coat of finish that was
  never allowed to wear down to the wood.

* The waxing was done with permission of the floor owner.

Also, the people doing the waxing had researched brands of
floor wax that would give an appropriate level of slipperiness
for dancing without being too slippery.  (Note, however, that
a puddle of spilled water on any waxed floor can be extremely
slippery.)

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Help for a caller

[James Saxe via Callers]

Note that New England Dancing Masters have also produced
a video to go with the _Chimes of Dunkirk_ book and CD.
The description here

http://www.dancingmasters.com/store/books-cds-dvds/chimes-of-dunkirk-video

says that it includes teaching of the dances. 

Disclaimer: I don't own this video and haven't watched it.
But the quality of the NEDM books and CDs makes me guess
it would be similarly well produced.  Perhaps there's
someone on this list who could give a first-hand review.

--Jim

On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Delia Clark via Callers 
 wrote
(re the inquiry from Sr. Mary Joseph forwarded by Cary Ravitz):
> 
> If she has any budget at all, I really recommend the New England Dancing 
> Masters books:  
> http://www.amidonmusic.com/books-cds-store/new-england-dancing-masters which 
> I learned about from David Millstone.
> I especially like Chimes of Dunkirk and Sashay the Donut. They’re FULL of the 
> kinds of dances she’s looking for!

Re: [Callers] Title and author if this dance, please?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Keith,

I don't have a title or author for the dance you ask about,
but I hae a question.  Are you sure you mean

> B1 Hey for 4, M start R

?  When men start a hey after a swing, I think it's much
more common for them to start by left shoulders than by
right.

--Jim

> On Jul 11, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Keith Tuxhorn via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Becket
> 
> A1 Circle L 3/4; bal, CA twirl
> A2 N bal/swing
> B1 Hey for 4, M start R
> B2 M cross, P swing
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Keith Tuxhorn
> Austin TX
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] How to teach various steps to beginners?

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Jul 8, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Sue Hulsether wrote:

> ...
> I practiced with imaginary people in my living room:  practicing (out loud!) 
> the walk-through, practicing the calling,

Hey, kids!  Modern technology is your friend!  Just put on a
Bluetooth and you can practice teaching and calling dances
almost anywhere without getting funny looks.

[Disclaimer:  I haven't actually tried this myself.  This is
not official advice, legal or otherwise.  I assume no liability,
won't bail you out of the drunk tank, etc., etc., yadda, yadda,
blah, blah, blah.]

Sue continued

> dancing in each position while I practiced the calling

That part might best be kept to places like your living room.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] How to teach various steps to beginners?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Amy Wimmer listed several ways to learn teaching techniques:

> I have learned lots just by closely listening to callers I like as they call.
> Take notes.
> Ask if you may record them.
> A very valuable tool is house dances, where a small, supportive group
> gathers for the purpose of learning together. (We're doing this
> tonight in Seattle)
> Get a small group of callers together to talk about the way they teach moves.
> Look for calling workshops.
> Try open mic dances.
> Check out the books available through CDSS.

I'll add

 Notice what other callers do at newcomers' sessions

At the dance series I help organize, our practice is to offer
callers the choice of leading the pre-dance newcomers' session
themselves or of having us supply someone to do it.  Most callers
choose to lead it themselves.  So by attending newcomers' sessions
at our series--or at any series with the same practice--one would
have the opportunity over a period of months to observe the ways
that a variety of callers teach contra dance basics.  They'd also
get to see which things the different callers try to teach in the
newcomers' session, where there may be lots of newcomers and only
a modest number of experienced dancers to help out, and which
things they leave for later, when newcomers will be surrounded by
a much larger number of experienced dancers.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] How to explain the charms of square dances (was More on Programming)

[James Saxe via Callers]

Jacob Bloom asked:

> How would those of you who enjoy both squares and contras
> describe what you get out of dancing square dances?

First off, I'll offer an opinion about this whole "contras vs.
squares" discussion that keeps popping up from time to time
on this list and elsewhere:

 I think the likelihood of convincing someone, purely by
 force of argument, to fall in love with a particular
 dance form is similar to the likelihood of convincing
 someone, purely by force of argument, to fall in love
 with a particular other person.

That said, I can tell you that what first got me hooked on
both contras and squares (at my first evening of traditional
dancing, which included both) was surely the friendliness
of the people, together with the exuberant energy level
and the fact that I somehow muddled through without making
a complete fool of myself (or at least without being told
that I had).

It couldn't have been the swings, because I'm sure my swing
footwork was a stumbling, bumbling mess until I learned to
do a buzz-step swing several months later.  Similarly it
couldn't have been the cool choreography or other things
that I wouldn't have been able to appreciate as a new
dancer.

Five or six years later, after I'd moved from a (then)
square-centric community to a contra-centric community, a
thing I realized I missed about my former home was dancing
squares in the manner shown here:

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/269
 ( also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAKT_PT-DSs )

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/270
 ( also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH9eozGRfpg )

Some notes on these videos:

1.  For best effect be sure to watch with a fast connection.
If you get a lot of compression artifacts and/or pauses for
buffering, it'll really water down the excitement level.

2.  I've never danced in the hall where these videos were made,
at Lovely Lane Church in Baltimore.  Alas, I don't know of any
videos showing traditional square dancing in Pittsburgh, PA,
from when I lived there in the 1980s.  These videos are the
ones that come closest to capturing the kind of dancing I
remember.  Larry Edelman, the caller in these videos, was one
of the regular callers in Pittsburgh when I lived there.  He
moved to Baltimore around the time I moved to California, and
he now lives in Colorado.

3.  The music in the videos is darn fast.  When I asked Larry
about it, he wrote "... there wasn't any way to put the brakes
on that band - I tried!!"  The usual tempos for square dances
in Pittsburgh (and probably also in Baltimore) weren't as fast
as that, though they were faster than typical contra tempos.
While the tempos that night may have been higher than usual,
it's clear that the dancers in the videos were up to dancing
at that speed.

4.  Larry assures me that the videos are not from a special 
event or weekend, but from a regular open-to-the-public dance
with a program that included a mix of squares and contras.
Bob Dalsemer, who made the video, did tell me that he was
focusing on squares with the most skilled/experienced dancers
When I try to look carefully at the squares in the background,
I do seem to notice occasional glitches, but they don't happen
often, and the dancers seem to recover quite quickly.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] How to Describe a Ricochet Hey

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Jun 18, 2015, at 6:43 AM, Dale Wilson via Callers 
 wrote:

> ... I [spend] a lot of time thinking about how to teach dance moves

So do I.  And I think Dale says some good stuff.

> during a workshop and during a walk-thru (they are different.)

[Dale, I'd be interested if you'd care to amplify on the remark
"they are different" and particularly if you have specific
examples of what you might do differently when presenting
the same figures in a "workshop" situation vs. a walk-through.]

> 
> A couple guidelines:
> 
> 1: Make it concrete.   "Gents look at each other."  That's concrete. Look at 
> the place your neighbor is standing -- that's concrete (ish)

Even more concrete would be "Gents *point* at each other".  If
they point instead of just looking, then

* you (the caller) can visually confirm that they have
  heard and understood your instructions;

* dancers who didn't catch your instruction might see what's
  happening around them and maybe figure out their part in it
  ("The people around me are doing something; I guess it's
  time to start paying attention.  Oh, someone's pointing at
  me; I guess I should point back."); and

* dancers who did catch your instructions can see whether
  there are other dancers nearby who aren't on track (e.g.,
  someone who's woolgathering instead of pointing, or
  someone who's pointing in the wrote direction) and perhaps
  manage to wave at them and get their attention.

[Alas, the idea of "point at  and *keep
pointing* so that the caller and your fellow dancers can see"
can be a difficult sell to some dancers.  They seem to think
that it's enough that they have mentally identified the
designated person and to see no value in giving a visual
indication of that fact.  We've all seen the similar situation
where some dancers seem satisfied with mentally identifying
their own minor set and don't bother to take and hold hands
four for the benefit of those below them.]

> Imagine a slice of pizza.  Nope.

Despite having heard the pizza slice analogy recommended by a
caller whose teaching I generally admire highly, I nonetheless
share Dale's skepticism.  Dancers who already understand how
to do a ricochet hey may recognize that their path vaguely
resembles the perimeter of a giant pizza slice.  But the ones
who need help are the ones who don't already understand--the
ones who want to "ricochet" directly back on the same path they
came in on or who want to "ricochet" their way to the far side
of the set.  And I think those people will have no idea what
"pizza slice" the caller is talking about.

Possibly if you do a demo, and if you can get all the people
near the demo set to hunker down or back away so that everybody
in the room has a 100% unobstructed view of the action, and if
you point at the floor and describe the edges of the imaginary
pizza slice as you walk them, maybe that will put the idea
across to the people who didn't already get it.  (Or maybe not.)
But if you just stand on the stage and tell people to imagine a
pizza slice, I'm not convinced it will do much to help the
dancers who need help most.

> 
> 3) Try to serve up the teaching in bite-sized chunks (ooh--an analogy).

Yup.  In Dale's previous message, he wrote:

> Gents look at each other.  Now look at your neighbor.   When I say 'GO' (not 
> now) you will meet
[that is, you will meet the other gent, not your neighbor]
> in the center and push back to your neighbor's place.

For new dancers, and even for some experienced dancers learning
a new figure, the description above is already approaching the
limit of how much you can reasonably ask them to visualize ahead
of time without moving.  In this case, I don't see an easy way to
ask for much less visualization into the future, but it's a good
thing not to be asking for more.

The total amount of action people can hold in their heads goes up
if the action can be grouped into familiar chunks.  Experienced
dancers who already understand heys and ricochets could likely
cope with being told something like

When I say 'GO' (not now) men will start a hey for four
by left shoulder, but when the men meet again in the center,
they'll ricochet and swing their neighbors.

They might not visualize where everybody would end up as a result
of those actions, but they'd understand enough so that you could
say "GO" and then prompt them through the actions.  If you tried
having a typical group of brand new dancers stand and listen
while you described the same action by enumerating all the little
pieces of the hey, they'd of course be hopelessly overloaded.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Lost a posting, please help

[James Saxe via Callers]

Jean,

The conversation you're looking for is archived at

 
http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/2015-April/date.html

and

 
http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/2015-May/date.html

The SharedWeight archives are still somewhat in disarray.
I'm sure Seth is just as bothered as anyone by it and is working
to find a solution.  Meanwhile, at the time of writing, I can
find the URLs above by going to

 http://www.sharedweight.net

then clicking "Callers" in the left column, "LIst Archives" on
resulting page, and then either of the links marked "Date".  While
the main page for the callers' list archive

 http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/

currently only displays links for April and May of this year, it's
easy to guess how to modify the URLs listed at the beginning of
this message to look for archives from other months.  (Searching,
alas, is still broken.)

I believe the specific video you're looking for is
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URKq4xSqDtc
referenced by Colin Hume on April 30.  The dance shown is Kim's Game,
by Colin Hume.  Colin wrote:
> And the YouTube video is correct (though naturally the band aren't 
> playing the tune I wrote for it).


The description in the video references Colin Hume's book
Dances With a Difference, Vol. 4.  The dance is also described
in the 1999 and 2006 RPDLW syllabi (as I found thanks to
Michael Dyck's Contradance Index).  The 2006 syllabus has this
note:

The author writes: “Kim Pankhurst challenged me to
write a longways dance where couples progressed
across the set rather than up and down. So some
couples progress the normal way; others just go 

across and back. I’ve had people complain that they
didn’t progress, even though I had explained this—
one man was so annoyed that he walked out of the
dance! But men don’t complain that they don’t
progress in a square. You’re dancing with the same
partner and a different neighbor each time—does it
really matter which piece of floor you’re on?”

The dance description says that the dance is for "two
side-by-side [contra] sets that interact in the B part".
You might wonder what would happen if you tried to do it
with three of more sets interacting.  (It's easy enough
to change the arch and dive figure in the B1 into an
ordinary pass through, so that people in the middle sets
don't have to identify "inside" and "outside" couples.)
If I've analyzed the choreography correctly, as the number
of sets increases, there will be more and more dancers who
not only stay near the same part of the floor, but also
nteract repeatedly with the same neighbors.  Specifically,
with three sets, there will be dancers who interact with
familiar neighbors and new neighbors in alternate rounds.
With four or more sets there start to be some dancers who
interact with just two different neighbors over and over.

--Jim


On May 19, 2015, at 10:28 AM, jean francis via Callers 
 wrote:

> I thought I'd saved a fairly recent discussion on 'transgressive 
> contras'...there was one posting that had a link to a video of 2 contra lines 
> where the 1's bounced back and forth from line to line in subsequent verses. 
> Could some kind soul who did save that please email me the link and any 
> relevant discussion they saved at catherinea...@yahoo.com. Sadly I do not 
> know how to access any archives...tried googling 'transgressive contra shared 
> weight' and just brought up a long discussion from 2006
> 
> Many thanks!
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] monkey in the middle instructions?

[James Saxe via Callers]

The author of "Monkey in the Middle" is Sherry Nevins of Seattle.
Her original version is slightly different from the version
(collected by Lynn from Carol) in Val's recent message.

 Monkey in the Middle, by Sherry Nevins
 9-person set: circle of 8, plus 1 in the middle

 A1 Circle left (8)
Circle right (8)
 A2 Into the middle & back (8)
Into the middle & back (8)
 B1 One in the middle, swing [some]one [Ballroom,
elbow, or 2-hand swing.  Choose fast!] (8)
Those 2, swing 2 [The swinging pair let go of each other, and
each swing someone new.] (8)
 B2 Those 4, swing 4 [Each swings one of the remaining five.  The
left-over person becomes the ...] (16)
New monkey in the middle.  [The other eight] join hands and ...

In a message I have from Sherry, she wrote (in 2011):

> ... I found a page
> from late December 2003 or early January 2004 headed "9 Pin Var."
> with the dance written out ...  It appears I first called
> it (listed as "9 Pin Var.") at the South End Square Dance on
> 1/30/04. On 2/1/04 it was written on the set list for the Family
> Dance as "Monkey in the Middle".

Note that Sherry considers the formation to be a "circle" of eight--
rather than a "square"--plus one extra person.  While Sherry got her
inspiration from traditional versions of Ninepin Reel, her dance
has no calls directed to "heads" or "sides", and there needn't be
any presumption that swinging pairs will be in opposite gender roles.

Another thing that distinguishes the dance from traditional versions
on Ninepin Reel is the sequence in the B part

 One in the middle, swing [some]one
 Those 2 swing 2
 Those 4 swing 4

with the person left over becoming the new "Monkey in the Middle".
This contrasts with the usual method of choosing a new "ninepin",
in which five dancers race to dance with four potential partners.
The result of Sherry's method is that the person not chosen in one
round of the dance gets to be the first chooser in the next round.

The pattern of having 2, then 4, then 8 dancers swinging is
reminiscent of a "multiplication" (a/k/a "snowball") dance of
the sort sometimes done at wedding receptions or used as an
ice-breaker at teen parties.  I can remember seeing such dances
in the 1960s, and I'm sure the idea wasn't new then.  But so
far as I know, Sherry is the first to have integrated the
multiplication/snowball idea into a version of the ninepin
dance.

Sherry composed her dance as a 32-bar phrased sequence (though as
you can see, her version is just a little different from what Carol
apparently called at RPDLW).  Some of the people who have since
spread the dance call it unphrased, for example Michael Ismerio
as heard in this video:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg2xx9tkxmE

Note also that Michael only has dancers go in and back once
before the middle person starts the series of swings.  It didn't
take many steps of folk processing to produce these differences:
Michael tells me he learned the dance from Sherry.  While Sherry
understands that once a dance is released "into the wild", the
folk process will follow its course, I believe that if the dance
is published anywhere, she'd like her original phrased version to
be given.

The words

 ... swing one.
 Those 2 swing 2
 Those 4 swing 4

are the way Sherry calls the action in the B parts.  I use those
calls also.  But during the walk-through, I explicitly tell the
first swinging pair to let go of each other and each swing
someone new.  I do that because the very first time I called the
dance, I said "Those 2 swing 2 more" during the walk-through,
and I saw some people swinging in a basket of four.

Note, by the way, that the dance adapts very easily to a 10-person
version.  Just have two people in the middle each time and have
them start the sequence of swings by swinging each other.

--Jim

On May 18, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Val Medve wrote (to the SharedWeight
callers' forum):

> Hi all. Several folks asked me off-line for the Monkey directions. Here's 
> Lynn Ackerson's note and dance instructions, with her permission -- and our 
> thanks. And thanks, too, to Rich Goss for his even speedier reply to my 
> request! Val
> 
> From Lynn Ackerson:
> The [RPDLW 2015] syllabus will be available for sale soon. We usually wait a 
> year before putting it online. But as a sneak peak, here's how the dance will 
> look in the syllabus:
> 
> Monkey in the Middle
> 
> As called by Carol Ormand
> Source: Unknown
> Formation: Ninepin: 4 couples in a square, with an extra person (the 
> “monkey”) in the middle
> Music: Joys of Quebec 
>  
> A1Circle left
>  Circle right
> A2Into the middle and back
>  Monkey in the middle, swing someone
> B1Those two separate and swing two more
> B2Those four separate and swing four more; finish in a square with a new 
> monkey in the middle
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Val Medve 

Re: [Callers] Name this Robert Cromertie dance!

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Michael Dyck via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On 14-07-23 03:53 PM, James Saxe via Callers wrote:
>> ... the 2007 Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend syllabus contains a dance
>> titled "Jane's Contra" by Ken Bonner with a Dixie Twirl.  The syllabus
>> lists the source as _Ken's Contras_ (published in the late 1980s, I
>> think)
> 
> Yup, 1988.

Thanks for confirming that, Michael.

> 
>> ... The note Eric quoted from his card says that the rightmost pair make
>> the arch.  But I've usually heard callers instruct that the *center* pair
>> make the arch. [...] The description of "Jane's Contra" in the 2007 RPDLW
>> syllabus says that the centers make the arch.  [...] However, RPDLW 2007
>> (presumably following Bonner) and Burleson both say that it's the couple
>> on the *right* who go under the arch, [...]
> 
> Bonner (in the Note for "Jane's Contra") says:
>Dixie Twirl in A2:- in the line of 4 still facing down,
>keeping hands held, 2's make arch in centre,
>No. 1 man walk across to other side of set and
>No. 1 lady go through arch to other side of set --
>ALL KEEPING HANDS JOINED
> [his emphasis]

And the dance (per 2007 RPDLW syllabus) begins

 A1- Dos-a-dos neighbor and swing, end
 facing down
 A2- Down the hall 4-in-line, “Dixie twirl”
 ...

so the No. 1 lady is on the *right* end of the line of four.
By contrast, in Robert Cromarties's "Dixie Gal" (as described
in _Give-and-Take_), the couple on the *left* go under the
arch.


While I'm writing, I'll add that I agree with those who have
said that the original dance of unknown name that Vicki
Herndon posted at the start of this thread works fine if, as
specified, W2 leads a right-hand-high/left-hand-low to swap
M1 and M2 (while W1 turns individually).

--Jim




___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Name this Robert Cromertie dance!

[James Saxe via Callers]

Linda Leslie wrote:

> ...
> 
> And I believe that some of the confusion might be caused by interchanging the 
> phrase “Dixie Twirl” with a different move: right hand high/left hand low. …

Like Linda, I would reserve the name "Dixie Twirl" for an action
that reverses the order of a line of four dancers, and I'd refer
to the somewhat similar action involving three dancers as "Right
Hand High/Left Hand Low".

Eric Black wrote, re Robert Cromartie's dance "Dixie Gal":

> ... I have scanned images of my cards so I can check before I go home.
> 
> ..., the dance as I have it from Robert Cromartie is called “Dixie Gal”.
> 
> The note about the Dixie Twirl move is:
>   Dixit Twirl: don’t let go!  Left-most leads under arch made by right-most 
> pair to other side, right-most
>   sweeps across to other side.  Inverts the line, left-most down is left-most 
> up.

I have a comment about that, but first I need to make a brief
digression about the history of "Dixie Twirl".

Until today, I had been under the impression that "Dixie Twirl"
was a recent coinage, perhaps by Robert Cromartie.  However,
when I started searching, I found that the 2007 Ralph Page Dance
Legacy Weekend syllabus contains a dance titled "Jane's Contra"
by Ken Bonner with a Dixie Twirl.  The syllabus lists the source
as _Ken's Contras_ (published in the late 1980s, I think) and
it includes this note:

 The figures, “flutterwheel” and “Dixie twirl” are both
 from Modern Western Square Dancing. Although the
 dixie twirl has become obsolete the flutterwheel is
 still in common use.

Consulting Clark Baker's database of square dance calls, I find
that Clark says the call "Dixie Twirl" was introduced by one Roy
Watkins in 1959 and that it's call number 59 in Bill Burleson's
_The Square Dancing Encyclopedia_.

Now to get to my comment.  The note Eric quoted from his card
says that the rightmost pair make the arch.  But I've usually
heard callers instruct that the *center* pair make the arch.
The description that Linda Leslie quoted from _Give-and-Take_
says the center pair make the arch.  The description of "Jane's
Contra" in the 2007 RPDLW syllabus says that the centers make
the arch.  And so does the description in my copy of Burleson.
However, RPDLW 2007 (presumably following Bonner) and Burleson
both say that it's the couple on the *right* who go under the
arch, which, I'll note, would make the whole action be like 
California Twirl for couples.

I personally think the sort of action described by Eric--with
either the rightmost pair or the leftmost pair making the
arch--offers a smoother flow than having the center pair make
the arch.  To achieve this smooth flow, however, it is important
that whichever end dancer helps make the arch also takes the
initiative to start moving across the set without waiting to
be dragged by the other arching dancer.  Often dancers who make
an arch are inclined to stand with feet planted, waiting for
someone to duck under it.  The point about arching dancers
needing to move (or equivalently about both end dancers
crossing the set at the same time) may need some emphasis
during the walk-through, preferably as an integral part of
teaching the figure and at a time when dancers are paying
attention and reacting to the caller's instructions.  A mere
verbal remark made while dancers are lined up waiting for the
music, with feet still and mouths moving, is not likely to
be very effective.

--Jim

On Jul 23, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers 
 wrote:

> The Dixie Gal by Robert Cromartie (verified in Give & Take), is quite a 
> different dance from that shared by Vicki Herndon. Here it is:
> 
> The Dixie Gal 
> by Robert Cromartie
> A1 ---
> (8) Long lines, forward and back
> (8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2
> A2 ---
> (16) Partner balance and swing
> B1 ---
> (16) Down the hall four in line  Dixie Twirl* and return
> 
> B2 ---
> (8) Circle Left 3/4
> (8) Neighbor swing
> * Dixie Twirl: Without anyone releasing hands, the left-most pair, led by the 
> end dancer, go under an arch made by the central pair to become the left-most 
> pair in a line of four facing up. Simulataneously, the right-most pair sweep 
> across the set to become the right-most pair in the inverted line.
> 
> And I believe that some of the confusion might be caused by interchanging the 
> phrase “Dixie Twirl” with a different move: right hand high/left hand low. 
> The dance above is, as the title indicates, using a Dixie Twirl, with all 
> four dancers changing position. There are a number of dances that have a 
> different move: right hand high/left hand low, or an arch and duck under 
> movement for three dancers. Chip Hedler mentions one of the first dances with 
> this move: The Nova Scotian, by Maurice Hennigar. For this move, two dancers 
> change position relative to each other, but the other two maintain their 
> positions in the line (an end dancer turns alone; 

Re: [Callers] Yet Another "Does this dance already exist?"

[James Saxe via Callers]

Eric Black asked, in response to my comments on the alternating
version of "Chorus Jig":

> As for the CW/CCW and needing to free a right hand, isn’t that actually 
> typical of any cast off?

In the dance Erik Hoffman posted at the start of this thread
(which turned out to be an alternating version of "Hillsboro
Jig"), it's always the men who have their right hand free to
start contra corners and the women who have to "disentangle"
it from the assisted cast.  In the alternating "Chorus Jig",
#1 men have right hands free as usual, but on rounds where
couple 2 leads, it's W2 who has her right hand free after the
cast and M2 who needs to free his.  (And as Bob Isaac noted,
it's about time.)

In the alternating "Chorus Jig" the assisted casts always happen
with everybody proper.  In alternating "Hillboro Jig" (and also
in Jim Kitch's "Double Deal") the cast happen alternately with
everyone proper and with everyone improper.  That's going to
make for some kind of differences in the details about hands
being free or encumbered (and also in the details about men/women
turning cw or ccw).

As a side note, I think that getting the right hand free will
generally be easier if the casting dancer makes sure to have
his/her right arm *below* the left arm of the "assisting"
dancer during the cast.

--Jim

On Jul 23, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Eric Black via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Yes, the 1’s fall back into line.  I call “end the swing facing up, 2’s cast 
> up the outside” and teach it as the 2’s coming together to [gently] push off 
> each other in the middle, as many English dancers do.  Then the 1’s step back 
> into line (and don’t step on the 2’s going up the outside).
> 
> After the 2’s swing, I also say “end facing up” and the 1’s cast down the 
> outside, then the 2’s separate and fall back into line.
> 
> As for the CW/CCW and needing to free a right hand, isn’t that actually 
> typical of any cast off?
> 
> -Eric
> 
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 10:11 AM, James Saxe <jim.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> So, Eric, in your alternating version of "Chorus Jig", what
>> happens after the #1 couples swing?  Do they fall back to
>> proper sides (M1 to caller's R; W1 to caller's L) and the 2s
>> cast up the hall from a standing start?  And then after the
>> 2s have their partner swing, do they also fall back proper
>> (M2 to caller's R, W2 to caller's L?  If dancers are indeed
>> proper (men to caller's R, women to callers L) in A1 and A2,
>> regardless of whether 1s or 2s are busy, then, as I figure
>> it, dancers alternately experience cw and ccw rotation during
>> the assisted cast off (by contrast with the ordinary "Chorus
>> Jig" where it's always ccw for men and cw for women) and it
>> will be M2 rather than W2 who needs to free his right arm
>> from around his same-sex neighbor's back in order to start
>> contra corners.  Do I have this right, or am I missing
>> something?
>> 
>> --Jim
>> 
>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Eric Black via Callers 
>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I’ve done an alternating contra corners of Chorus Jig since shortly after 
>>> Jim Kitch started the trend.  Hadn’t thought about whether it would work 
>>> for any contra corners dance.
>>> 
>>> Eric Black
>>> e...@mirador.comhttp://eric-black.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Kiran Wagle once pointed out that, after a post DC dance discussion, some 
>>>> people discovered that any contra corners dance could be turned into an 
>>>> alternating corners dance. Having considered this on most, if not all, of 
>>>> the contra corners dances I know, I don't feel right about calling an old 
>>>> contra corners dance by a new name just because I called it in the 
>>>> alternating style. With that in mind:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for telling me the name of the dance! I'm sure I the Hillsboro Jig 
>>>> in my collection.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> ~erik hoffman
>>>> oakland, ca
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Yet Another "Does this dance already exist?"

[James Saxe via Callers]

So, Eric, in your alternating version of "Chorus Jig", what
happens after the #1 couples swing?  Do they fall back to
proper sides (M1 to caller's R; W1 to caller's L) and the 2s
cast up the hall from a standing start?  And then after the
2s have their partner swing, do they also fall back proper
(M2 to caller's R, W2 to caller's L?  If dancers are indeed
proper (men to caller's R, women to callers L) in A1 and A2,
regardless of whether 1s or 2s are busy, then, as I figure
it, dancers alternately experience cw and ccw rotation during
the assisted cast off (by contrast with the ordinary "Chorus
Jig" where it's always ccw for men and cw for women) and it
will be M2 rather than W2 who needs to free his right arm
from around his same-sex neighbor's back in order to start
contra corners.  Do I have this right, or am I missing
something?

--Jim

On Jul 23, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Eric Black via Callers 
 wrote:

> I’ve done an alternating contra corners of Chorus Jig since shortly after Jim 
> Kitch started the trend.  Hadn’t thought about whether it would work for any 
> contra corners dance.
> 
> Eric Black
> e...@mirador.comhttp://eric-black.com
> 
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Kiran Wagle once pointed out that, after a post DC dance discussion, some 
>> people discovered that any contra corners dance could be turned into an 
>> alternating corners dance. Having considered this on most, if not all, of 
>> the contra corners dances I know, I don't feel right about calling an old 
>> contra corners dance by a new name just because I called it in the 
>> alternating style. With that in mind:
>> 
>> Thanks for telling me the name of the dance! I'm sure I the Hillsboro Jig in 
>> my collection.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> ~erik hoffman
>>   oakland, ca
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Callers] Yet Another "Does this dance already exist?"

[James Saxe via Callers]

On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:28 AM, James Saxe <jim.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If a dance is completely asymmetric, it may not be exactly clear
> how to make it alternating while otherwise retaining the feel of
> the original dance.  Consider "Chorus Jig" or "Rory O'More" and
> think about what would have to happen to feel of the transition
> from B1 to A1 (and also about whether the alternating version

That should read "B2 to A1" of course.

> would be proper or improper).
> 
> --Jim


--Jim


___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Yet Another "Does this dance already exist?"

[James Saxe via Callers]

If a dance is completely asymmetric, it may not be exactly clear
how to make it alternating while otherwise retaining the feel of
the original dance.  Consider "Chorus Jig" or "Rory O'More" and
think about what would have to happen to feel of the transition
from B1 to A1 (and also about whether the alternating version
would be proper or improper).

--Jim

On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
 wrote:

> Kiran Wagle once pointed out that, after a post DC dance discussion, some 
> people discovered that any contra corners dance could be turned into an 
> alternating corners dance. Having considered this on most, if not all, of the 
> contra corners dances I know, I don't feel right about calling an old contra 
> corners dance by a new name just because I called it in the alternating 
> style. With that in mind:
> 
> Thanks for telling me the name of the dance! I'm sure I the Hillsboro Jig in 
> my collection.
> 
> Cheers,
> ~erik hoffman
>oakland, ca
> 
> 
> On 7/22/2014 7:41 PM, Linda Leslie wrote:
>> I have the non-alternating version of this dance as “Hillsboro Jig” by Bill 
>> Thomas. There might be some interesting discussion about whether or not 
>> making it alternating is a “new dance” worthy of a new name/choreographer.
>> LInda Leslie
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm at Stockton Folkdance Camp, And I arrived at a workshop where I 
>>> inadvertently left my cards behind. I'm doing a series of Old and New:
>>> 
>>> Did Petronella then a dance called Terry O'Less that has the Petronella 
>>> move in it.
>>> 
>>> Today I did Chorus Jig, then a dance that had alternating corners. Since I 
>>> didn't have my cards, I made one up:
>>> 
>>> 1st A1 Neighbor B
>>> 1st A2 Ones down center, turn as couple return, same-sex cast off
>>> 1st B1 Ones turn contra corners
>>> 1st B2 Ones B
>>> 2nd A1 Neighbor B
>>> 2nd A2 Twos up center, turn as couple, return, same-sex cast of
>>> 2nd B1 Twos turn contra corners
>>> 2nd B2 Twos B
>>> 
>>> Is this one of Jim Kitch's ideas, or another dance that does the 
>>> alternating thing?
>>> 
>>> ~erik hoffman
>>>oakland, ca
>>> ___
>>> 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

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] An observation about end effects -- becoming neutral three times at each end

[James Saxe via Callers]

I have a little observation to share about end effects that I've
never heard anyone else mention.

For background, note that in a simple duple-minor contra with no
out-of-minor-set actions, dancers who reach an end of the set make
the transitions

 inactive -> neutral -> active

at the top or

 active -> neutral -> inactive

at the bottom, in either case becoming neutral and then rejoining
the body of the set exactly once.


*** Now, how many of you have noticed that in a (duple minor,
single progression) dance with a single temporary excursion out of
the minor set, dancers will typically become neutral and return to
the body of the set not twice, but *THREE* times?


For example, suppose dancers leave their minor set to do an action
such as a do-si-do, allemande, or star with their future neighbors
(call this action the "sneak preview") and then return to original
neighbors for the rest of the sequence before genuinely progressing
to the new neighbors.  An inactive couple starting in a foursome at
the top of the set will experience the following transitions:

1.  They leave their minor set and become neutral at the start
of the sneak preview action.  They might then wait in place
during the sneak preview action, dance the action with
"ghost" neighbors, or dance the action across the set
with partners acting as neighbors.

2.  At the end of the sneak preview action, they reenter
the body of the set to dance the remainder of the
sequence with original neighbors.

3.  Then they finally progress to start the next round neutral
at the top.

4.  They temporarily enter the body of the set to dance the
next repeat of the sneak preview action.

5.  At the end of that sneak preview, they return to being
neutral.

6.  And finally they progress into the body of the set for
good (or until they get to the bottom).

The transitions are:

inactive -> neutral -> inactive -> neutral -> active -> neutral - 
> active


Similarly, a couple reaching the bottom would experience the
transitions:

active -> neutral -> active -> neutral -> inactive -> neutral ->  
inactive


A similar analysis applies to dances where dancers briefly revisit
previous neighbors or where dancers briefly depart (in various
possible ways) from partners for an interaction with shadows.

I only noticed this fact last year, after over 30 years of dancing
and nearly 30 years of calling, during which I've both danced and
called numerous dances with out-of-minor-set actions.  I had
previously noticed occasional dances in which out-of-minor-set
actions result in dancers dealing with end effects three times,
but I'd never before done a careful enough analysis to notice
just how common it is.  I suspect I'm not alone in not noticing.

--Jim


___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Contra in a Cross

[James Saxe]

On May 12, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Eric Black wrote (re "Zia formation")


Here’s some discussion on this very mailing list from 2008:

   http://www.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers/2008-July/001634.html



In the thread Eric cites, there are a couple references to what
seems to be the original use of "Zia" formation, "Weston Mountain
Zia".  When I clicked on the link in those messages from 2008

 http://fam.bmi.net/zia.htm

I found it was no longer valid.  A little searching revealed the
the information is now at

 http://fam.bmi.net/westonmtzia.htm

--Jim

Re: [Callers] 1820s-1830s Dances

[James Saxe]

Rich,

Two books come to mind that might have material somewhat relevant
to your request, though not exactly on target: _Heritage Dances of
Early America_ by Ralph Page (abbreviated HDoEA below) and _Colonial
Social Dancing for Children: Social Dancing of Washington’s Time
arranged for Today’s Young People_ by Charles Cyril ("Chip")
Hendrickson [CSDfC below].  Here's a little more information about
them, with the caveat that I don't have my copy of either book at
hand  and my memory may be faulty on some of the details.

 * * * * * * * * * *

HDoEA was published in or about 1976 by the Lloyd Shaw Foundation.
It appears to be out of print.  It's indexed in  Michael Dyck's
contra dance index, and many of the dances in it (or versions of
them) appear in other sources.  You can find them by going to

 http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/index/by_title.html

and searching for the string "HDoEA".  (The page

 http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/index/sources.html

is a key to the source abbreviations.)

IIRC, the dances in HDoEA are from sources dating from the 1790s
through the first decade or two of the 1800's, so a little earlier
the period you asked about, though some may have remained popular
for some time after.  All or almost all are longways triple minors,
though some might be of the sort that are readily adapted to duple
minor form.  For each dance, Page give both the description as it
appeared in the original source and an interpretation in modern
terminology.

The part about being "easy enough for children" could be
problematical to say the least, for reasons that will be evident
to anyone who has tried teaching relatively "easy" contras to
groups (whether children or adults) where almost all are unfamiliar
with how progression works, dancing to the phrase, etc.  Even
experienced contemporary contra dancers could have difficulties
with things like triple-minor progression, right-and-left four
from proper position (in communities where older dances like
"Petronella" and "Hull's Victory" have disappeared from repertoire),
crossover heys for three, or choreography that asks you to turn a
four-person star just halfway around in eight beats.

 * * * * * * * * * *

CSDfC and a companion CD appear to be currently available from the
Colonial Music Institute

 http://www.colonialmusic.org/CSD-bkcd.htm

As the title implies, the book is specifically oriented to
presenting the material to children.  But (without having the
book at hand to refresh my memory) I'm pretty sure it's mainly
about situations where the material can be presented over multiple
sessions and not just a single afternoon or evening.

I have essentially no experience teaching/leading dance for
children (except for occasions when a small number of children
show up among a mostly-adult group), and no experience using the
material in CSDfC with dancers of any age.  And, while I'm a
dabbler in dance history, I don't know enough about the early
American era to have a clear idea of the similarities and
differences in the dancing of the era covered CSDfC vs. that of
small town New England in 1820-1840.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who does have experience
using CDSfC, or from anyone who can offer knowledgeable comments
about how either the choreography or the general teaching methods
it offers would transfer to 1820-1840 era.

--Jim

On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:11 PM, rich sbardella wrote:

I am looking for some period dances that might have been danced in  
small New England towns in 1820-1830.  Should be easy enough for  
children.

Any suggestions?

Also, does any know the steps to "Barrel of Sugar"?  Recommended  
music?


Rich Sbardella
Stafford, CT



___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Dummer's Reel + Cottontail Rag (was Re: Three Couples or Less Dances)

[James Saxe]

On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Erik Hoffman wrote:

Jim Saxe gives a long discussion about how to "teach" getting into  
the basket.


In fact, I offered three options for dealing with potential
confusion about forming the basket from the circle.  In brief,
they were:

1.  ... just relax ...  ... As different people take turns
being "Jack", the action of making the basket can start
working better and batter ...

2.  ... dispense with the fancy method of forming the basket.
...

3.  ... During the walkthrough have "Jack" raise *both*
arms ...  Now "Jack" can successfully turn ... either way.
... [Really a pretty brief suggestion, though I led up to
it with a somewhat wordy analysis.]

I understand Erik to be advocating option 1, and I fully agree
that that can often be a good choice.  I wasn't at all intending
to put it up as a "straw man" and then knock it down.

By the way, in "Cottontail Rag"/"Hot Tub Rag"/"Jack Turn Back", as
described in the RPDLW syllabi I cited, dancers form the basket
starting from a ring where one dancer is already facing out with
arms crossed.  So the issue I address with option 3 (getting into
that position from an ordinary circle with all facing in) doesn't
even come up.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Three Couples or Less Dances

[James Saxe]

Here's another three-couple dance that I don't think I've
seen mentioned yet in this thread.  Like "Cottontail Rag"
(a/k/a "Hot Tub Rag" a/k/a "Jack Turn Back") discussed in
my previous message, this dance involves ducking under
arches and may not be suitable for the group of seniors
Rich Sbardella mentioned in the message that started this
thread.  (However, Rich, see my additional comments below
the row of asterisks.)  But it might be useful for readers
who sometimes call to small (or not-so-small) groups where
most dancers are limber.

I don't know an "official" title for this sequence but "Pull
the Bottom Lady Through" seems appropriately descriptive.

"Pull the Bottom Lady Through"
Formation:  Circle of three couples
Figure:

 Circle left
 Circle right
 Forward and back
 Right hands across (Dancers for a handshake-style star--
 each dancer taking right with the opposite-sex dancer
 directly across the ring--and turn the star)
 Left hands back
 "Pull the bottom lady through" (One pair of dancers will
 have their joined hands lower than the other two pairs.
 That gent pulls his opposite lady to his place under
 as the other dancers raise their joined hands to
 let her through.)
 "Pull her through and swing her too" (The [former] bottom
 lady, who has just been pulled through the arches, swings
 with her [formerly] opposite gent in his place.  The
 other dancers meanwhile do *not* resume turning their
 star.)
 And now the next (The gent of the remianing pair whose hands
 are lower pulls his opposite lady through thearch formed
 by the remaining pair, and they swing.)
 And everybody swing (Last gent pull the last lady to his
 place and all swing.)

Dancers finish their swing facing in in normal couple position
(gent on left, lady on right) with their new partners.  If gents
stay in order during the "pull the lady" actions (holding their
ground and pulling the ladies to gents' placs), two more repeats
of the whole sequence will get everyone back to their original
partners.

I've generally seen this sequence (or variants) combined with
other figures in the same way that traditional squares have a
mix of main figures and chorus figures.  Here's a video of Phil
Jamison calling a version of figure at the 2011 "Dare to Be
Square" weekend in Brasstown, NC:

 http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/301

In addition to a version of the distinctive figure described
above (but omitting the preliminary circle right and forward
and back), the dance in the video includes a grand right and
left and reverse and a three-couple version of "Dive for the
Oyster".

You can see dancers in the video sometimes competing to be
bottom pair in the handshake stars, the idea being that the
pair who do the first pull-through get rewarded with the
longest swing.  Other dancers may prefer to take a more sedate
approach and reward their knees and backs with less bending.

I learned "Pull the Bottom Lady Through" from the calling of
Dolores Heagy.  If I recall correctly, one of the figures she
combined it with besides "Dive for the Oyster" was a three-
couple "Double Bow Knot".  (See

http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/300

for a square dance with "Double Bow Knot" danced successively
by two couples, then three couples, then all four couples.
There are a few spots in the video where dancers don't do
the figure as intended, but also lot of times where they do.
In Dolores's version, I believe the lead gent started the
Double Bow Knot by dancing under the arch made by himself
and his partner.  Take note of the end ladies leading their
part of the broken ring ccw around the outside.  This
"counterdancing" really adds to the flow of the figure.)

I think Dolores may have learned "Pull the Bottom Lady Through"
from Sandy Bradley.  I don't know any more about the history
of the figure.

************

A variety of traditional-style square dance figures and breaks
can be adapted for use in a three-couple circle.

If dancers do a grand right and left in a three-couple circle,
starting with partners by right hands as usual, then partners
will meet halfway around the ring by left hands.  In the
first video I cited above, Phil Jamison has dancers go around
their partners by left hands into a reverse grand right and
left.  More simply, they could just continue the grand right
and left the whole way around (six changes total) to their
starting places and eet partners by right hands as usual to
start a promenade.  (Or they could meet and swing or do-si-do
or box the gnat ...)

You can also use thing like

(on the corner)
Allemande left like an Allemande X
Pass your partner (or "pass who you swung) and swing the next.

Three repeats (instead of four as in a square) get you back
to your original partner.

Here's another

(on the corner)
   

[Callers] Dummer's Reel + Cottontail Rag (was Re: Three Couples or Less Dances)

[James Saxe]

On Mar 2, 2014, at 6:46 PM, Jacob Bloom wrote:

General Dummer's Reel (for five), my dance Shira's Seven (for  
seven), and
Cornish Six Hand Reel (for six) are three other dances I've found  
useful.

They are described in the archives, at:

http://www.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers/2013-February/ 
005742.html


The page Jacob cites references the description of Dummer's Reel
in the syllabus from the 2006 Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend:

 http://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2006.pdf

(page 38).  In the version as called by Jacob, one dancer--the
one designated as "Jack" in the current round--leads a maneuver
by which a circle of five is transformed into a basket without
anyone releasing hands:

 "Jack" lift left hand, turn over own right shoulder to back
 under the arch, and pull two other dancers under the arch as
 well; all joined hands inside the circle are raised and the
 outside dancers duck under them to form a basket

This move is very cool when it works, but often some dancers will
have difficulty with it.  Here are a few things you can do about
that:

1.  You could just relax about it and encourage the dancers to
be mellow about it as well.  Let them know that if they get into
a tangle trying to make the basket, or if someone want's to let
go instead of twisting their shoulder out of its socket, they can
just let go and form the basket any old how (or skip it and go on
to the circle if it's time).  As different people take turns
being "Jack", the action of making the basket can start working
better and batter (with occasional regressions),  If dancers
succeed at making the basket (at least some of the time)by the
end of the dance after fumbling around with it at first, they
can get a satisfying feeling of accomplishment from it.

2.  You could dispense with the fancy method of forming the
basket.  In this rec.folking-dancing thread from 1998

 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.folk-dancing/ 
91ANPzO7apQ


Chris Brady describes what he says is an older version Dummer's
reel, with no mention of pulling two dancers under an arch to form
the basket.  Presumably the dancers all face the middle, and each
dancer simply reaches behind the backs of the adjacent dancers on
either side to take hands with the next ones around the ring.

3.  If you do want to teach the fancy way for forming the basket,
here's an idea that may make it a little easier.  Perhaps the most
common mistake dancers make in trying to form the basket is that
"Jack" will lift his (or her) left hand and then turn to the left
(ccw) as if to walk forward under the arch instead of turning
right (cw) and backing under the arch.  The idea of forming an
arch and turning your back on it can seem so counterintuitive as
to be rejected apparently without even being considered.  One time
when I was in a set while another caller was walking us through
this dance, I suggested to "Jack" that she she needed to "turn the
other way."  She took the suggestion, but as she did so, she
lowered her left had and raised her right hand to form a different
arch!  Oops.  Thinking about that afterwards, I arrived at the
idea I now share:  During the walkthrough have "Jack" raise *both*
arms to form arches.  Now "Jack" can successfully turn around (180
degrees) either way.  In either case, "Jack" will end up in the
middle of the ring facing out with one hand crossed over the other,
and can use whichever arm is lower to pull tow dancers through the
arch made by the higher arm.  After that, the dancers still have to
figure out which arms go over which heads to finish forming the
basket, so the opportunities to get into a tangle aren't entirely
eliminated, though I think they're reduced.

 * * * * * * * * * *

Another dance that uses the idea of pulling two dancers through an
arch to form a basket of five is "Cottontail Rag" by Steve Schnur.
You can find it described in the 2007 RPDLW syllabus

 http://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2007.pdf#page 
=19a


under the title "Jack Turn Back" and in the 2012 syllabus

 http://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2012.pdf#page 
=15b


under the title "Hot Tub Rag" (based on the idea the the basket
resembles a group of people sitting around a hot tub).

You can see a video of the dance (or something like it) here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EiPQhvD0QM

[As I write this, I see that Martha Wild has just posted about
the same dance.]

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Three Couples or Less Dances

[James Saxe]

Michael Dyck's Contradance [and related dances] Index has
a page with dances sorted by formation:

 http://www.ibiblio.org/contradance/index/by_formation.html

You can find dances for small numbers of people by looking
for formation types involving small numbers not preceded by
the letter "m" (which would signify that the numbers refer to
a "minor set" within a larger formation).  For example, "C 3x2"
denotes a circle of three couples and "L 3x2" denotes a
longways set of three couples (i.e., a triplet).  Further
notations may be used to indicate mixers or to specify whether
particular couples in a longways set start proper or improper.

--Jim

On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:01 AM, rich sbardella wrote:


Friends,
I have a small weekly dance session with seniors in CT and often  
lack dancers.  If anyone could share dances for 5 or 7 people, or  
two or three couples, I would greatly appreciate it.  I often fall  
back on solo lines similar to the electric slide, or I dance them in  
squares with a phantom (not too successful).

Thanks,
Rich Sbardella
Stafford, CT
___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Fwd: New dean dance - is it new?

[James Saxe]

On Feb 23, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Bob Isaacs wrote:


Jack:

Did you get the dance correctly?  What was sent does not progress,  
and as I read it the A2 swing is with partner, not neighbor.  ...


The sequence Jack had posted (on behalf of Dean Snipes) was


RH Star
N Alle R

Gent pass L, 1/2 hey
N Sw

Gents Alle L 1 1/2
P Sw

Ladies chain
LH Star


I think I see a source of mis-communication.  Notice the line


Gent pass L, 1/2 hey


at the start of A2.  I believe Bob interpreted this as

Gents pass by L shoulder [to face partner]
Then all dance 1/2 hey (PR, WL, NR, ML) [to meet partner
on M's original side* of the dance]

But I think that what Jack (and Dean) meant was

Gents start a "half" hey [really 3/8] by passing L shoulder
(ML, PR, WL) [to meet neighbor again, all opposite
original sides]

I'm not saying this to chastise Jack (or Dean, if Jack was quoting
Dean verbatim) for poor or ambiguous notation.  Nor do I mean to
accuse Bob of careless reading.  I just want to clear up a point of
confusion, and also to point out how easy it is for something that
seems perfectly clear to a writer (or speaker) to seem ambiguous--
or, worse, to seem perfectly clear but with a different meaning--
to a reader (or listener).  I'll add that it was certainly better
for Bob to have studied Jack's message and asked


Did you get the dance correctly? ...


than for him to have simply copied the sequence onto a card, taught
it at a dance without having checked it, come across the same point
of ambiguity, and then had to sort out the resulting confusion on
the spot.

[*Note: By "on M's original side", I mean that each man is on the
same side as he was at the start of A1, and not, say, that each
man is on the same side as he was a the start of the (PR, WL,
NR, ML) sequence.]

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Fwd: New dean dance - is it new?

[James Saxe]

The transition from Star Right to Allemande Right with same neighbors
actually flows pretty nicely.  You can see a dance with that transition
in this video:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCBguZj8zL4

[Note:  At the beginning the camera shows only the stage area.  It pans
to show the dancers at about 1:40.  A while later it pans back to the
stage then back to dance floor again.]

The dance in the video, "You're Among Friends" by Bob Isaacs, is based
on "Al's Safeway Produce" by Robert Cromartie.  "Al's Safeway Produce"
is the first contra in which I recall seeing this sort of transition
(in that case from a left hand star to a left allemande).

--Jim

On Feb 23, 2014, at 10:14 PM, rich sbardella wrote:

I do not write contra dances, but is the Star Right really followed  
by Allemande Right?  To a square dancer, it seems awkward two RH  
movements.

Rich

Re: [Callers] Allemandes

[James Saxe]

On Feb 15, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Erik Hoffman wrote, re teaching about
allemande holds:

I say, "Wrists are strongest when straight. Fingers are strongest,  
when curved -- their natural state." ...


I totally agree.  Straight wrists and curved fingers are the
most natural state for the hand when pulling on almost anything,
at least if the shape of whatever you're holding permits the
fingers to curve around it.  For some examples, look at the
hands in these images:

 
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/woman-carrying-shopping-bag-advertising-sale-18189476.jpg
 
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/business-woman-carrying-briefcase-8692358.jpg
 
http://static7.depositphotos.com/1192060/760/i/950/depositphotos_7608804-Woman-carrying-briefcase-with-colleague.jpg
 http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/cms/uploads/1/chinup_1.jpg
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RenoufHelpingHand.jpeg  
[rowers]

 http://www.freestockphotos.biz/pictures/14/14027/rowboat.jpg
 
http://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1026019/112272908/stock-photo-gold-metallic-style-plate-for-pull-to-open-the-door-sign-isolated-on-white-background-112272908.jpg
 
http://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1571630/142589590/stock-photo-close-up-of-a-hand-pulling-open-an-office-door-142589590.jpg
 
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/03/nyregion/03subway.span.600.jpg
 http://etischer.com/europe/Pentax1_10_Hand_holding_pole_on_subway.jpg
 http://www.skye4birds.com/toons.htm [parachute ripcord]
 http://d3thflcq1yqzn0.cloudfront.net/025912724_iconv.jpeg   
[drawer]

 http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/hand-opening-cabinet-door-26630046.jpg
 http://img2-2.timeinc.net/toh/i/a/yard/lawn-mowers-2-00.jpg
 http://images.colourbox.com/thumb_COLOURBOX4846423.jpg [curtain]
 http://www.thewhirlingwind.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/voting-lever1.jpg
 
http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/HU021966/female-brakeman-pulling-lever
 http://coffeegeek.com/images/1828/pavoni_lever.jpg
 http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-42-15677132.jpg?size=67=94ed6d3c-2df5-428a-a855-d70783d4d3a0 
 [child's wagon]

 
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-51015478/stock-vector-vector-illustration-of-a-hand-pulling-a-switch-in-a-pop-art-comic-style.html
 
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/110296/110296,1255861628,1/stock-photo-multicolored-kite-high-in-clear-blue-sky-string-holding-in-male-hand-focused-on-kite-39079510.jpg
 
http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes//celebrities/201107055706/geri-halliwell-water-skiing-sardinia-holiday-henry-beckwith/0-21-296/geri-halliwell4--z.jpg

[Some mail software may split long URLs, and you might need to take
some care to reassemble them correctly.]

Note the variety of situations depicted in the images.  The hands
are pulling in various directions: upward, downward, horizontally,
diagonally.  The forces involved can be small (carrying a small
briefcase or opening a cabinet door) or large (doing chin-ups).
The object may simply be held from moving or may actually be
moved, or the person may move toward the object (chin-up bar).
The elbows may be straight or bent.  Of course none of the things
people are holding in the pictures will actually grab someone's
hand and unexpectedly twist it into an uncomfortable position,
but there are certainly cases in which the object's resistance to
the person's pull is somewhat unpredictable (kite string spool,
oars in rough water, poles and bars in moving transit vehicle,
water ski bar).  Still, all these images show curved fingers and
straight (or nearly straight) wrists.

Now imagine someone doing any or all of the activities shown in
the pictures listed above, but keeping their wrists sharply flexed
and their fingers straight as shown in the these pictures:

 
http://nervesurgery.wustl.edu/NerveImages/MISC%20-%20EM%20(Images%20Require%20Captions)/FCR---IMG_3574.jpg
 http://cloud.golfloopy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Wrist-Flexion2.jpg
 
http://www.sonomaorthopedics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Wrist-flexion-for-study.jpg

It would seem bizarre, wouldn't it?

And yet I've seen many, many dancers offer their hands for
allemandes with wrists bent and fingers straight.  I just don't
get it.

*** Important disclaimer:  Nothing I say is meant to imply that
it's okay to disrespect the needs of dancers with frail or injured
wrists, elbows, shoulders, thumbs, etc.  As just one of many
examples, if someone's physical condition is such that the want
to replace "Men allemande left once and a half" with "Men pass
by left shoulder", other dancers should cheerfully let them do so.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Planned vs. "on-the-fly" call wording (was Re: Circle & pass through as the last move of a dance)

[James Saxe]

Jonathan Sivier wrote:


I like to change around the exact words I use during a dance.


and then offered various reasons.  I think he makes some good points.
But except for the brief remark

I do like to work out economical phrases for complex sequences of  
figures as you mention.



he doesn't say just what he does about the kind of situation I was
describing, namely calling (or preparing to call) a dance that
includes a sequence of short moves for which it may be difficult
to blurt out well-timed calls "on the fly".

Greg's recommendation, as I understand it, is to have calls written
out verbatim (including timing) on the dance card.

I think there are other things a caller can do besides, on the one
hand, reading calls verbatim from a card or, on the other hand,
just coming up with words on the fly.

In the days leading up to a dance event, you could pick out those dances
in your program (including back-up dances) that you think may be hard
for you to call "on the fly."  Then you could play some recordings
of contra dance music and practice calling them, either while seated
or while dancing one person's part and imagining the other dancers,
until you're confident that you've come up with good words and timing
and that you can do so again at the event.  As you practice, you might
try using different wordings, aiming to get to a point where you're
confident that, if you wished, you could vary the wording at the event
without messing up your timing.

If you do write down exact call words and timing, then instead of
reading them at the event, you could memorize them during the time
before the event.  Or you could use them as the starting point for
a practice session where you practice not only with the words you've
written but also with variant wordings.  And after having practiced
to the point where you think you can deliver clear and accurately
timed calls without relying on a card, you might nonetheless keep
the card at hand in case you have a momentary mind lapse while
you're calling.

Conversely, even someone who is an unabashed card reader might find
that if they're planning to call a dance with challenging or unusual
call timing, some practice to music beforehand may help them deliver
the calls more comfortably and with more natural prosody than if
they were to just read the calls cold from the card on the night
of the dance.

The range of things that any particular caller can call without
some advance rehearsal/brush-up  (and without reading from a card)
may vary with experience.  Before I called my very first contra,
"Scout House Reel", I played an album of contra music and practiced
calling the dance all the way through each of several tracks, until
I could do it without ever feeling tongue-tied and I reliably had
my imaginary dancers finishing the B2 as each track ended.  Nowadays
I wouldn't need that sort of preparation for "Scout House Reel" or
even for dances with somewhat more difficult timing issues (the
sequence "circle left 3/4 (6); pass through (2)" that started this
thread being just one of many examples).  But there certainly are
still dances for which I'd be well advised to put in some prep time
before calling.

--Jim

On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Jonathan Sivier wrote:


On 2/13/2014 12:39 PM, James Saxe wrote:

In any case, you must somehow decide what words to include in your
calling (and in what order) and what to leave out.  You could just
lead a walk-through, signal the band to start, watch the dancers, and
trust that the appropriate and well-timed words to help them through
the dance will come into your brain and out of your mouth.  But if  
you

do so, you may find that your first try isn't so great and that it
takes you a few repeats of the dance to refine it.  Those first few
rounds of the dance, however, are the ones where dancers would most
benefit from clear and well-timed calling, both to guide them through
the figures with the right timing and to get the feeling of the right
timing into their memory for the rest of the dance.


  I like to change around the exact words I use during a dance.  In  
part to keep myself and the dancers alert.  Also if a given phrase  
doesn't work for someone then the next time through if I say  
something slightly different it may make more sense for them.  Also  
if some part of the dance seems to be causing problems for some of  
the dancers I may change the words I'm using in order to, hopefully,  
help them out.  This may be as simple as interchanging "Long Lines  
Forward and Back", with "Long Lines" and "Forward and Back", or as  
complex as adding in words to tell in more detail who to do the next  
figure with, or which hand to use or whatever.  I can't think of a  
specific example at the moment, but I know that I do this all of the  
time and it isn't something that I plan ahead of time.


  I do like to work out economical phrases for comple

[Callers] Planned vs. "on-the-fly" call wording (was Re: Circle & pass through as the last move of a dance)

[James Saxe]

Greg can correct me if I'm wrong, but when he refers to "making
up calls on the fly", I don't think he's referring to making up
choreograph on the fly.  I think he's talking about the situation
where a caller has chosen a dance with fixed choreography but is
deciding on the fly what words to use in calling it and what beats
to say them on.

Let me explain by giving some examples.  (And again, Greg can
comment if I'm misrepresenting him.)

If someone were to hand me a dance card with simple figures like

A1.  Neighbors bal & sw
A2.  Fwd and bk
 W chain

I'm confident I could come up with appropriate and accurately timed
calls on the fly.  I could even adjust them on the fly depending on
what I saw happening on the dance floor.  For example, early in the
dance, I might use a 4-beat call like

in LONG LINES go FORward and BACK

After the dance was going a while, I might reduce it to a 2-beat call

FORward and BACK

for a while before dropping out entirely.  If, for some reason, many
dancers were having trouble ending the swing on time, I might make
the call longer to allow more reaction time, for example

and WHEN you've SWUNG, make LONG LINES; go FORward and BACK

In each case, I'd know where to start the call (e.g., on beat 13 of
A1 for a 4-beat call, beat 15 for a 2-beat call, or beat 11 for a
6-beat call).  And if the phrasing of the music was clear, I could
identify the correct starting beat for the call without explicitly
counting to myself.

I think many (most?) of you reading this are similarly able to call
such simple sequences with accurate timing and without needing to
have calls written out verbatim,

But what happens when we get to a dance that has several short moves
in succession, as for example in the B2 part of "Batja's Breakdown"
or of "Southern Swing"?

 From "Batja's Breakdown" by Tom Hinds:

   B2. Pass through to an ocean wave (4)
   Balance the wave (4)
   Neighbors allemande right 1/2; men allemande left 1/2;
   partners allemande right 3/4 and look for your shadow (8)

 From "Southern Swing" by Steve Zakon-Anderson:

   B2. Women allemande right 1x, partners pull by* left hand, men
   pull by* right hand; neighbors allemande left 1 1/4 to
   meet new neighbor.

   [*In place of "pull by left [or right]", I've also seen the  
dance
   notated with "pass by left [right]" or with "allemande L [R]  
1/2".]


In this sort of situation, it may not be so easy to come up with clear,
accurately-timed calls on the fly.  If you try to say for each move
who does it (partners/neighbors/men/women), what the move is (e.g.,
allemande), which hand to use, and how far to go, there simply may
not be enough time to squeeze it all in without starting to call
late.  So you have to decide what to leave out.  Maybe you can
sometimes leave out the word "allemande" (or even "turn") because
the dancers know from the walk-through that the dance ends with a
sequence of hand turns. Maybe you can count on the dancers to remember
that they use alternating hands (or shoulders).  Maybe dancers can
infer how far to turn once you tell them who they have to meet for the
next action. Or, on the other hand, maybe there are points in the
sequence where it will really help dancers if you explicitly say one
of those things that you might have hoped dancers would be able to
remember (from the walk through) or infer on their own.

In any case, you must somehow decide what words to include in your
calling (and in what order) and what to leave out.  You could just
lead a walk-through, signal the band to start, watch the dancers, and
trust that the appropriate and well-timed words to help them through
the dance will come into your brain and out of your mouth.  But if you
do so, you may find that your first try isn't so great and that it
takes you a few repeats of the dance to refine it.  Those first few
rounds of the dance, however, are the ones where dancers would most
benefit from clear and well-timed calling, both to guide them through
the figures with the right timing and to get the feeling of the right
timing into their memory for the rest of the dance.

Greg's suggestion (as I understand it) is that you plan the exact
wording and timing of the calls in advance and have them written on
the dance card.  He might (I'm not sure) carry this idea further
and advocate writing out exact call wording/timing even for simple
sequences like the one I gave near the beginning of this message

A1.  Neighbors bal & sw
A2.  Fwd and bk
 W chain

He might even recommend (again, I'm not sure) that callers use a
notation based on the words and timing of the calls, rather than on
the timing of the figures, as the primary notation (or even the sole
notation) on their dance cards.  (And one more time, let me emphasize
that I don't really know how far Greg goes in this direction.  Only
he can tell us for sure.)

--Jim

On Feb 12, 2014, at 

Re: [Callers] Circle & pass through as the last move of a dance

[James Saxe]

On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Bob Isaacs wrote:

... when the A1 [of a Becket dance] is circle L 3/4 and pass  
through, new neighbor swing, that swing often gets compressed to  
about 6 beats.  Fortunately, Gene Hubert gave us a better alternative:

...
A1.  Slide L and circle L 3/4, neighbor swing


Instead of "Slide L and circle L", you could also use

   (With new neighbors) on the left diagonal, circle L ...

I've somehow gotten the impression that dancers on average find
it a little easier to think about finishing a partner swing (common
as the last move of modern Becket dances) facing new neighbors
on the left diagonal than to think about ending the swing facing
across and then shifting left.  Others may disagree, and it may
mainly be a matter of what dancers in a particular community are
used to.

When the call is "on the left diagonal, circle L" there may be
some question about whether to describe the amount of circling
as "3/4" or some other way (e.g., "7/8" or "almost once"), but
as long as the caller makes the ending position clear ("... until
you're on the side of the set with your neighbor"--adding, if
necessary, that men are on their home side and women are not), I
haven't noticed many dancers having problems with it.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Circle & pass through as the last move of a dance

[James Saxe]

On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Greg Mcenzie wrote, concerning the
dance "Kiss the Bride" by Jeff Spero" (see _Southern California
Twirls_ or http://www.quiteapair.us/calling/acdol/dance/acd_81.html
for instructions):

Kiss the Bride is particularly difficult because it uses the circle  
3/4,
pass through transition at the end and the last call I need to fit  
in is
"dosido" which takes two beats.  Because it is where the progression  
takes
place I also want to say "With the NEXT" to make that clear as  
well.  On my
current dance card I "solved" the problem by giving the "Pass  
Through" call
early.  That is unacceptable to me and I was trying to come up with  
a good

way to make it work using calls that are precisely in time with the
phrasing.



I will beg to differ with Greg on two points.

First, I see no point in urging dancers to brisk circling in cases
where the action following "circle left 3/4; pass through" gives the
dancers adequate opportunity to make up time if they use 8 beats to
circle left 3/4--as, for example, in "Kiss the Bride", where "circle
left 3/4; pass through" is followed by "new neighbors do-si-do and
swing".

Second, in cases where I think inspiring dancers circle briskly *is*
worthwhile--for example, when "circle left 3/4 (6); pass through (2)" is
followed by "new neighbors balance"--I think it is no sin to finish the
call "pass through" before beat 6 of the circle.  In fact, in such
cases, I usually give the call "pass through" on beats 3 and 4.

In illustration of my first point, look at this this video:

http://dancevideos.childgrove.org/contra/contra-modern/235-small-potatoes

The dance is "Small Potatoes" by Jim Kitch (alas, I couldn't find a  
video

of "Kiss the Bride"), called by Karen Jackson.  The description beside
the video frame gives the B2 of the dance as

(8) Circle left 3/4, pass thru;
(8) Next neighbor do si do

But if you watch what the dancers are doing, you'll see that they're
generally taking eight beats to circle 3/4.  You'll also see that they
generally have no trouble completing both the pass through and the
do-si-do in the next eight beats, so that they're ready for the balance
at the beginning of the A1 music.  The caller, by the way, utters the
"through" in "pass through" usually on beat 7 of B2, except in the
second round of the dance, where she says "through" on beat 6, and in
the sixth round, where says "pass through" on beats 9 and 10. (By the
sixth round she may have been about the drop that call altogether but
then noticed a few people who seemed still to need a reminder.)  There
may be some who would criticize Karen's timing, but when I look at the
video I don't notice even the slightest evidence that the call timing
is giving rise to any awkwardness on the floor.

In illustration of my second point (about calling "pass through" during
beats 3 and 4 of the circle), look at these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_-uD_-nV6g
(Steve Zakon-Anderson calls a contra medley at the Concord
Scout House.  Notice his timing on the third sequence in
the medley, Lisa Greenlef's "After the Solstice", wich
starts around 5:40.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMInHQo4mJY
(Maggie Cowan calls "Black Bird in the Night" by Don
Flaherty.)

My mean reason for giving the call "pass through" on beats 3 and 4 is
that I hope the slightly "early" call will implicitly encourage any
slow circlers to pick up their pace.  If you say "pass through" on
beats 5 and 6, it's already too late to help any dancers who haven't
gotten their circles turned 3/4 of the way around by the time you say
"through".

A secondary advantage is that I then have all of beats 5-8 to give
the next call, for example:

 go ON to then NEXT; BALance and SWING
or
 make NEW VAVES and BALance NOW
or
 NEW LAdies  ALlemande LEFT
 [as in "THe Equal Turn" by Tom Hinds]
etc.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Circle & pass through as the last move of a dance

[James Saxe]

our last go-round on "Circle Left 3/4 (6 beats); pass through (2)"
was in June of last year.  You can find the messages (including
my own brilliant insights on the subject) in the archive starting
at

http://www.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers/2013-June/date.html#6252

(There are earlier messages with the subject line "Circle left 3/4"
remarking on the frequent occurrence of that figure and requesting or
supplying dances that don't include it.  The discussion about timing
starts at the point I've indicated above, with a message by Read Weaver
dated Thu Jun 6 08:47:53 EDT 2013.)

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Flow

[James Saxe]

On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Don Veino wrote (about Aahz's dance
"Panix Dot Chat"):


...
However, I don't see the double progression... as I read it, you  
progress
in A1 and then all the play is with your current (new) neighbors  
until the

dance begins again.


The action in A1 is a double progression.


A1  Right-and-left thru on left diagonal (8)
   (Yes, start with progression)
   (Warn ends about not moving)
   Right-and-left thru new couple (8)



You pass one new neighbor couple during the diagonal Right And Left
Thru (and don't do anything else with them), then spend the rest of
the dance with your second new neighbor couple.

Another way to see that it's a double progression (or some even
number of progressions) is to note that the situation at the top
of the set is similar in each repeat of the dance, rather than
having a couple out at the end every other time through.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Flow & Glide Contras

[James Saxe]

John Sweeney asked for dances suitable for a session on "Flow & Glide
Contras."

One I'll suggest is "Joyride" by Erik Weberg.

http://www.kluberg.com/eriksdances.html#Joyride (description)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwO9XRUBk9w (video)

A distinctive feature of the dance is a transition from a half
poussette into a hey.  This transition has delightful flow if
dancers are confident about where they're going, but it's unusual
enough to be a potential teaching challenge.

I've seen callers walk dancers through the half-poussette, ending
like this [top of set at top of screen]

M2> M2>  and pass left
shoulders to start half a hey ...

[Then he had men pass left shoulders one more time swing partner,
etc.]

Note how this approach avoids any need for an explicit description
of the configuration shown in the second diagram.

Note also that by taking a couple steps back, the women opened
ample space so that after the men passed each other, the men
didn't have to make an uncomfortably sharp change of direction
in order to weave into the right shoulder pass with their partners.

Finally, note that Erik taught the action of women backing away
as an integral part of the walk-through.  Contrast this with
what it would be like if a caller taught the transition in
some other way (so that the hey was more cramped during the
walk-through), got the dancers lined up ready for the music
to start, and then threw in a little lecture:

 Now, women, as you make the transition from the pousette
 into the hey, you can give the men an easier path if mrumph
 mrumph mrumph space mrumph mrumph mrumph cut between mruph
 mrumph mrumph ...

Here "mrumph, mrumph, mrumph" is what the caller might as well
be saying, considering that (1) some dancers will take standing
still and being lectured at as a cue to tune out and start
socializing, especially if they detect that the caller is going
off about some "style point"; (2) some dancers will have
difficulty hearing the caller over the surrounding talk, even
if they aren't directly involved in conversations; and (3) some
dancers just aren't very good at visualizing what callers mean
by this sort of description (talking about some action that the
dancers are not currently in position to do) even when the room
isn't noisy.

I think I probably would not have noticed the details of Erik's
teaching or appreciated it's beautiful simplicity if I hadn't
previously noticed some awkwardness in the way some other callers
taught this transition.  As it was, I knew during the walk-through
that we were coming up on something that I'd seen callers struggle
with, and I was primed to pay careful attention to how Erik handled
it.

--Jim

[Callers] Canadian Barn Dance (was Re: Caledonian)

[James Saxe]

On Jan 26, 2014, at 3:28 AM,  wrote:

There's definitely something called the Canadian barn dance .  It's  
a Scottish.


I believe Alan meant it's a Schottische.  (Perhaps "Scottish"
is an alternative spelling for "Schottische," but I think
it's not the usual spelling.)  Or perhaps Alan meant that the
dance is a Scottish dance.  It's certainly in the repertoire
of some groups that describe themselves as Scottish dance groups.
I don't know when the sequence was put together in its current
form, or by whom, or whether that happened in Canada, Scotland,
or elsewhere.

John Tuck , in his original query wrote:


Confused here. There's a dance that I thought was called Canadian Barn
Dance, often done around this time of year. I was told last night that
it
was actually called the Caledonian Barn Dance. Google isn't definitive
yet,
so any ideas?


If I search in Google for the exact phrase

 "caledonian barn dance"

(by including the quotation marks around my search string), it
says

 No results found for "caledonian barn dance".

and then returns hits for the query without quatation marks--that
is, for pages with each of the words "caledonian", "barn", and "dance"
(or inflected forms) but not necessarily in that consecutive order.

If I use the search string

"canadian barn dance"

Google returns lots of hits (though not nearly the "About 267,000"
that it claims), and many of those are for pages with videos or
dance descriptions.  (There are also some hits for pages about a
resort in Alberta called "The Great Canadian Barn Dance" where
activities include dancing.  I don't know whether the dances
currently taught there include the one after which the facility
was apparently named).

Here are a few URLs selected from the results of the Google search:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc0yO39IRKg
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSEBdX4d0QM
 
http://www.scottish-country-dancing-dictionary.com/dance-crib/canadian-barn-dance.html
 http://www.webfeet.org/eceilidh/dances/canadian-barn-dance.html
 http://www.thebigshoogle.com/ceilidh-dance-instructions/canadian-barn-dance
 http://www.folkdance.com/LDNotations/CanadianBarnDance1950LD.pdf

All of these seem to show or describe essentially the same dance,
except for stylistic variations,  The last page on the list also
mentions a progressive version.

--Jim

[Callers] Sets In Order online

[James Saxe]

In my recent long message about the history of "Cross Trail Thru",
I mentioned that the complete run of _Sets In Order_ (a/k/a _Square
Dancing_) magazine has been put online and is accessible at:

 http://digitaldu.coalliance.org/fedora/repository/codu:59239

I think this is a terrific resource, and not only for those of us
interested in historical minutiae.  Especially in the first ten
years or so of publication, there were lots of dances either
suitable for use or easily adapted for use by "traditional"-style
square callers.

On Jan 7, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Sivier wrote:

  It seems like large chunks of the set are missing and many are  
mislabeled.  For example if you look at March of 1955 you actually  
get March of 1954 instead.  However, since they aren't sorted in  
chronological order it's hard to tell for sure what is, or isn't,  
missing.


I don't think large chunks are missing, but they are indeed sorted
into a very strange order.  Issues within the volumes are generally
sorted "alphabetically" by number:

 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

And the volumes are in a weird and irregular order

 First Vols. 1, 10-15
 then the isolated number Vol. 17, No. 12
 then Vols. 18, 19, 2, 21, 3-9, 16,
 then the rest of Vol. 17
 then Vols. 22-37

Jonathan is correct that attempting to access the March 1955 issue
gets you to the March 1954 issue.  I don't know how many errors
of this sort there are or where to report this one.

There's a box labeled "Search within titles", but it doesn't work
for me.  I'm running Safari, Version 5.0.6.  I'd be interested in
knowing whether that search box works for people running other
browsers.

Clicking the tab labeled "Advanced Search" gets you to

 http://digitaldu.coalliance.org/advanced_search

Queries there search a larger corpus of which the _Sets In Order_
collection is only a part.  To keep search results from getting
polluted with lots of irrelevant hits, you can search for "Sets
In Order" in "Titles" together with some other phrase in "Full
Text".

Once you have a single issue displayed in your browser (or
downloaded and displayed in a PDF viewer), the PDF is full-text
searchable.  The OCR seems generally to be pretty good, though
some text in unusual fonts or white-on-black (as in some of the
headings and some of the ads) hasn't been scanned.

--Jim

[Callers] Some history of Cross Trail Thru (was Re: Square through vs Cross-trail)

[James Saxe]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013, Andrea Nettleton wrote:

... My club squares caller would have a cow if anyone danced a cross  
trail

as anything but a pass thru and half sashay.



and on Dec 31, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Aahz Maruch replied:


Finally!  I was wondering if all the talk about turning meant that my
brane was b0rken, that's certainly the definition I remember.


In my earlier message (Dec 29, 2013, at 10:58 PM), I (Jim Saxe)
had written about Cross Trail Thru historically having involved
a curving action.  I also emphasized that I was omitting details.
Here are some of the omitted details.

 * * * * * * * * * *

The current CALLERLAB definition of "Cross Trail Thru" says:

From facing couples: As one smooth motion, Pass Thru and Half
Sashay. Ends in couples back-to-back.

Note: When one hears "Cross Trail Thru To Your Corner;
Allemande Left", the Cross Trail Thru is danced, as one
smooth motion, Pass Thru and left-shoulder Partner Tag.

[For those unfamiliar with the term "Partner Tag", the definition
is

From a couple or mini-wave, dancers turn to face each other
and pass thru.

(where a "couple" means a pair of dancers side by side facing the
same direction, regardless of whether they are original partners,
and even regardless of their gender roles).  I'm only mentioning
this to explain the note in the definition above.  I can't think
of any reason for a contra caller or a traditional square caller
to utter the phrase "partner tag" to dancers, and I think there's
ample reason to avoid it in favor of more descriptive terminology.]

The main part of the definition above (excluding the special case
"Cross Trail Thru To Your Corner; Allemande Left") is what Andrea
and Aahz are referring to.  However, the term "Cross Trail Thru"
(or "Through") entered the square dance lexicon over sixty years
ago (I've seen sources that date it to 1940 and others suggesting
it's from a few years later), in an era when definitions were much
less codified than they are in Modern Western Square Dancing (MWSD)
today.  It is also a term about which there has been a good deal of
controversy over the years, with some callers insisting it should
be defined to end with facing in original directions (as in the
current CALLERLAB definition) and others saying that it involves
a curving action or that the ending position depends on the next
call.  Additionally, some historic definitions also say that if
dancers are already facing out, they can do the call without the
initial "Pass Thru".  There's also a version with an "active" and
an "inactive" couple, where the actives cross diagonally through
the inactives and the inactives essentially stay put.  I think
this last version may be what Jean Francis had in mind when writing
(in a message posted Dec 29, 2013, at 7:18 PM):

 A cross trail forms an "x" pattern similar to the
 beginning of a 1/2 figure 8

One source I've found says that if the call is started from
couples with ladies on the left of the gents, then it is still
the ladies who cross in front.  Most sources, if they mention
varied gender arrangements at all, say that it is always the
dancer originally on the right in each couple who crosses in
front of the dancer originally on the left, regardless of gender.

 * * * * * * * * * *

I could quote descriptions of Cross Trail Thru (and variant call
names) as published in a variety of sources over the years, but
to keep this message from becoming a good deal longer that it's
already getting to be, I'll simply suggest that readers who want
to get some sense of the controversy over the definition take a
look at the following pages in old issues of _Sets In Order_
magazine:

 * Vol. IX, No. 5, May 1957, p. 11
   [Note: "Pattison" is misspelled as "Patterson".]

 * Vol. XXIII, No. 5, May 1971, p. 15

 * Vol. XXV, No. 6, June 1973, pp. 16-17

 * Vol. XXIX, No. 10, October 1977. p. 15

The complete run of the magazine is available online at

 http://digitaldu.coalliance.org/fedora/repository/codu:59239

 * * * * * * * * * *

Based on the current CALLERLAB definitions document, it's clear
which faction in this controversy won out in the MWSD world.  My
impression is that a significant number of the dissenters were
not whole-heartedly won over to the prevailing view, but merely
outvoted, and that discord over the call was a big part of what
led to it being dropped from the Basic list 20 years ago and
moved to Advanced.

Given the nature of MWSD, I can see why many callers would prefer
call definitions that leave dancers facing definitely parallel or
definitely at right angles to original directions over definitions
that involve smoothly curving turns and vague dependencies on
subsequent calls.

But "Cross Trail Through" dates from a time before the divide
between MWSD and "traditional" SD was nearly as great as 

Re: [Callers] Square through vs Cross-trail

[James Saxe]

On Dec 29, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Ron Blechner wrote:


I thought "square through" did not specifically include the balances.


Ron is correct.  A "square through" (also spelled "square thru") does
*not* implicitly include balancing.  Uses of "square through" without
a balance in contemporary contras include the square through three
hands in the "Rocks and Dirt", by Erik Weberg, and the square through
five hands in "The Wizard's Walk" by Ruthie Ungar.

The sequence

 Balance , square through two hands

(taking 8 beats altogether, or 16 beats if repeated) does seem to
be the most common usage of the "square through" in contemporary
contra choreography, and just within the past few years I've begun
noticing some callers using language that could be taken to imply
that the balance in such sequences is part of the square through.
For example, a caller might prompt the sequence with words like

"Face your neighbor [or partner], square through
 Balance, pull by right ..."

as if "square through" were the overall call and the words "Balance,
pull by ..." were extra words added as a reminder of what "square
through" means. I think it would be more correct to call it something
like this:

"With your neighbor, balance now
 and square through, pull by right, partner left, ...:

with the (optional) words "pull by right, ..." being extra reminders
of what "square through" means, but with the balance being clearly
a separate action.

I haven't yet seen a caller take a square dance with "square thru"
in it and clutter it up with balances that the original author
never intended (and that might not fit the intended timing), but I
wouldn't be surprised.

Ron also wrote:

As I understand, cross trails is without hands, and square through  
is with

hands. Am I mistaken?



What Ron has said is again correct as far as it goes, but it isn't
the whole story.  It's true that "square though" (or "thru") uses
hans and that "cross trial thr[o]u[gh]" does not, but I think there's
more to the difference than that.

Without going into all the details, I'll just say that "square thru"
has historically been done with dancers making (at least in theory)
sharp right-angle turns, while in "cross-trail thru" the turning is
historically a much more gently curving action.

Consider the following actions, starting with dancers squared up in
home places:

Head couples pass thru [now facing out]
and separate around one person to lines at the sides.

The side dancers would step apart from their partners to let the
head dancers in, and the resulting lines would be M4-M1-W3-W4
facing M2-M3-W1-W2.

Starting again with dancers squared up at home, the sequence

Head couples cross trail thru
and separate around one person to lines at the sides.

would have a very similar feel, except that after the heads had
passed their opposites, the head men would arc to the right and
head women would arc to the left, the women passing in front of
their partners, and the resulting lines would be M4-W1-M3-W4
facing M2-W3-M1-W2.

By contrast, again starting with everyone squared up in home
places, the call

Head couples square thru two hands

would leave the heads close together in the middle of the set,
squarely facing the sides (M1 facing W2, W1 facing M4, etc.).

In contemporary contras that use "cross trail through", an
interpretation with sharp turns

Pass facing dancer across the set by right shoulders.
Turn 90 degrees to face adjacent dancer along the set.
Pass by left shoulders.

gets you to the same person and pretty much the same place that
you'd get to by taking a more gently curving track.  A gentle
curve might leave you a little farther apart from the dancers
across the set, but that's a pretty minor matter and dancers can
always make little adjustments.  Contra callers have discovered
that it's easier to teach the figure with right angle turns (as
if it were like a square though two places but without hands) than
to teach it with the smoother curving motion (as would be needed
for uses like "Head couples cross trail thru and separate ..."),
and so some have begun teaching it that way.

[For those who've noticed that I've gone on for several paragraphs
after writing "Without going into all the details ...", let me
assure you that there are indeed details that I've omitted.]

--Jim

Re: [Callers] The Wheel

[James Saxe]

Tom Hinds wrote


Tonight
I'm planning to call The Wheel with one minor change:

A1  Promenade the wrong way (why not?)

This will put the women on the inside.



And Bill Olson replied with possible reasons why not, including:

... dancers don't normally promenade that way so it might be "un- 
natural" at first ...


My inclination would be to trust Bill (and Gene) about the dance
working as written, provided there are enough dancers.  However,
if I *were* going to change it to put the men on the outside, I
think I'd use

A1 Prom ccw, wheel around as couples, prom cw

and ask the band to play a tune that clearly lets dancers know
where the middle of the A1 part is (which would also be good for
the A2 part anyway, especially early in the evening and/or if
many beginners are present).

This may be one of the variations that Bill has already tried and
found to turn out "clunky".  But my guess, admittedly without
having tried it, is that promenading the "wrong way" right off the
bat would feel even more clunky, at least for experienced dancers.
Also, the wrong way promenade, not preceded by a promenade in the
usual direction, could provide at least a little negative training
for new dancers, especially if you think--as I know Tom does and
Gene did--that squares can have any place at a "contra" dance.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Scheduling/programmer Question

[James Saxe]

Kalia Kliban wrote:


The way we book here [in the greater SF Bay area] is on a
quarterly basis.  The programmers (each venue has their own)
request the available dates from callers and musicians partway
through the previous quarter, and then assemble the next
quarter's program from who's available. ...


and Linda Leslie asked:


I am very curious about how the programmers have decided to
schedule in this way, Kalia. Did they get together and decide
to do it this way, or did this just naturally happen? ...


I'm not Kalia, but I'm one of the dance programmers* in her
area and I think I can shed some light the topic.

[*To be specific, the BACDS Palo Alto contra series is
programmed by a committee of which I am a member, along with
SW callers' list members Alan Winston and Eric Black, and
others.  Many other local dance series have single individuals
in charge of programming (for example list member Erik Hoffman
for the BACDS Berkeley contra series), though there may be lots
of other people involved with setting up the hall, publicity,
etc. etc.]

First, I should say that not all local programmers work in the
manner Kalia describes--sending out a big mailing to request
availability dates, accumulating responses, and then sending
out the quarterly schedule.  And even those who do use that
method often do some of their scheduling with more lead time
and more one-at-a-time inquiries to specific bands or callers,
particularly when booking out-of-area performers or when booking
performers for special events (e.g., New Year's Eve).

That said, there is a strong tendency to work on a quarterly
cycle, and the reason--at least for BACDS dances--is that we
have for many years published a quarterly printed calendar.
The calendars are mailed out (to those members and other
mailing list subscribers who have elected to receive paper
mailings rather than electronic publicity only), along with
other publicity flyers, near the start of the month preceding
a calendar quarter.  For example our October-December 2013
calendars went out a few days ago.

In order for calendars (and other flyers) to be printed in
time for the mailing, the bookings need to be done during the
previous month or so--in August (or maybe late July) for Oct-Dec,
in November (or late October) for Jan-Mar, etc.  The later in
this window the bookings get done, the more you can end up with
last-minute scrambling for one reason or another.  On the other
hand, the earlier you try to do it (especially if you try to
do it many months earlier), the more you're asking performers
to commit far in advance, which some may be reluctant to do--
especially if they're the kind of people who sometimes get
bookings for weddings or corporate parties that pay better than
even the larger local contras.

Concerning the choice of sending out a general solicitation for
availability dates vs. contacting bands and callers individually
and filling in the calendar piecemeal, I know of pros and cons
on both sides.  An advantage of the one-at-a-time approach is
that performers may feel more appreciated if they're contacted
individually and in circumstances where they know that an offer
of availability will result (and fairly promptly) in a booking.
An advantage of the batch method is that you know what more of
the puzzle pieces look like before you have to put them together.
So, for example, you don't make a commitment for date X with band
Y only to discover later that some other band has date X as their
only available date and/or that you have really slim pickings
for date Z, which band Y might have filled if you hadn't already
booked them for dace Z.

Other advantages and disadvantages might be cited for either
of these approaches to booking or for mixed approaches, but
I'll stop here.  I'd be interested in knowing what other dance
programmers do about all this and why.

Linda, I hope that answers your question.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Code's Compiling

[James Saxe]

Sam Whited described a dance ("Code's Compiling") that starts with
the sequence [from Becket formation]


A1. Neighbor dosido (8); Partner see saw (8)


and later added the explanation


Really it should just be one sort of move in which you walk around
the person across from you (the dosido) then walk around the person
beside you (what I called a see saw) without necessarily looking at
anyone in particular. Maybe I should just combine them (the Dosido
and see saw) into a single `new' move and explain it each time; ...


Erik Hoffman commented


Hmm, kind of a hey for three on a bias...


to which Sam replied


Ooh, I like that; thanks. That (might) be a great way to explain it to
people. I like the sound of it too `hey for three on a bias'... or  
`bent

hey for three' maybe?



Jeff Kaufman then cautioned:


In addition to contra dancers not knowing what a "hey for three" is,
you have the problem that this is lots of interlocking heys.  I
suspect "hey for three on the bias" would hurt more than help in
teaching the dance.


I agree with Jeff.  I think the loose analogy to a hey for three
would make sense only to people who already fully understand the
desired action (and who also understand heys for three), and not
to those most in need of instruction.

By the way, contra choreographer Al Olson coined the term "line
heys for threes" to describe actions such as [starting with 1's
already below 2's]

 Gypsy R with Neighbor
 Gypsy L with next neighbor

For more about such sequences, see the comments on "The Experimental
Section" in _Zesty Contras_.

I've also seen actions similarly analogous to heys for four--e.g.,
from duple improper starting formation, pass N by R sh to meet
future N and gypsy L, then pass orig N by R sh again to meet N
from previous round and gypsy L.

In both these cases, the hey-like paths of the individual dancers
are not "bent", so the analogy to a hey is, I think, a little
easier to see than it is for the A1 of "Code's Compiling".  But I
still think the analogy will likely be lost on dancers who don't
already understand the intended actions.

--Jim

[Callers] See Saw (was Re: Code's Compiling)

[James Saxe]

On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Sam Whited wrote:


On 09/10/2013 11:38 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote:

Left shoulder dosido or left shoulder gypsy?  I'm not sure I've heard
"see saw" at a contra dance (with my hearing I usually pay little
attention to the verbal instructions, so that doesn't mean much), but
it's definitely a left shoulder gypsy in MWSD.


It's certainly not one of the more common moves, but not uncommon
either. See saw (as far as I'm aware) _always_ means left shoulder
Dosido in Contra.


Current CALLERLAB definitions documents for various MWSD programs
are linked from


http://www.callerlab.org/DancePrograms/AllProgramDocuments/tabid/610/Default.aspx

The current Basic/Mainstream Definitions document (last revised
August 7, 2012) defines the dance action of See Saw as follows:

Dance action: Facing dancers walk forward and around each other
keeping left shoulders adjacent. They return to their original
position, facing away from each other.

and includes (among other things) the following comment:

Formerly See Saw, when not used after All Around the Corner,
had the dance action of a Left Dosado. Today callers should
say Left Dosado.

The definition of "Dosado" includes a similar comment:

Formerly the phrase See Saw was occasionally used to
accomplish a Left Dosado. In 2003 the Mainstream Committee
voted to drop that application of See Saw and requests that
callers use Left Dosado.

The change log at the beginning of the document includes these
references to "See Saw":

9/11/03
Changed Definition of "SEE SAW" and Changed name of "ALL
AROUND LEFT HAND LADY" to "ALL AROUND THE CORNER and Changed
reference for ARM TURNS from the addendum to call #7 (b) and
#7 (c).

10/10/03
Corrected styling statement for SEE SAW.

10/7/2011
New definition for Ladies Chain Family and See Saw

[I have no idea what those last two entries are about.]

So it appears from the above that CALLERLAB has officially
deprecated use of "See Saw" to mean a left shoulder Dosado for
ten years (as of tomorrow).  I don't have a copy of the CALLERLAB
Basic/Mainstream definitions from just before that time, but it
seems clear that the prescribed for "See Saw" would have been
(left) gypsy-like in some cases and (left) dosado-like in others.

Ten years may seem like a long time to younger members of this
list, and to people who first took MWSD lessons within the last
ten years, it may seem like the definitions they learned describe
the way things were from time immemorial.  But by 2003 MWSD had
already substantially diverged from "traditional" SD for forty
years or so.

The definition of "Grand Sashay" found here

http://www.ceder.net/oldcalls/view.php4

clearly uses "See Saw" to mean a left-shoulder dosado.

This 1951 film by Bob Osgood

http://squaredancehistory.org/items/show/654

includes the sequence

Around your left hand lady
(Oh, boy! What a baby!)
See saw your pretty little taw
(The cutest girl you ever saw)

starting at about 0:30.  The styling the dancers us in the film
is neither gypsy-like nor dosado-like.  Instead, they all face the
center of the square the whole time.

In the book _American Square Dances of the West and Southwest"
by Lee Owens (Pacific Books, Palo Alto, 1949), the calls "All
around your Left Hand Lady" and "See-saw your pretty little Taw"
are explained on pages 58-59.  Owens says that in each of these
figures the women face the center of the square the whole time,
stepping forward, then pausing, then stepping back (note that
he says nothing about the women stepping sideways) while the men
dance around them.  And what do you suppose he says that the men
should do? dance as in a dosado around corner (Left Hand Lady)
and as left dosado around partner ("Taw")? dance as in a gypsy
(right shoulder around corner, left around partner)? face the
center of the square the whole time. like the gents in the Bob
Osgood film?  Wrong!  The gentlemen, Owens says, "keep their
backs to the ladies [whichever one they're dancing around at the
time --js] throughout."

In a booklet entitled "Square Dance Figures and definitions"
compiled and edited by Neil Barden (apparently published by the
editor, Lebanon, NH, 1958), the definition of "See Saw Your
Pretty Little Taw" has women facing the center the whole time
and men keeping left shoulder to their partners.  The booklet,
however, also has a definition of "Grand Sashay" in which it
mentions that a left shoulder do-si-do is sometimes called a
"see-saw".

Well that's enough ("Too much!" I imagine some of you saying,
if you've even read this far) with the history lesson.  I think
I've amply illustrated that when you start digging into these
things, the story can can get more complicated than you might
have guessed.

Having said all that, I'll agre with Sam that whenever I've
seen or heard the term "see-saw" used in contra dancing, it has
meant a left shoulder do-si-do, though 

Re: [Callers] Fwd: List of contra dance figures

[James Saxe]

I wrote:


  * What would you call that move (kind of a mix of give-and-take
and shift right) that achieves the progression in the B2 of
Rick Mohr's "Sunset Limited"?


and Sam Whited responded:


I've always heard this called a `yearn' (on the diagonal). No idea who
calls it that though.


It's definitely not a "yearn".  You can see what I'm talking about
in this video:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4KB-uSWkKc

Watch the action at 0:24, 0:57, or 1:30 where gents retrieve their
partners from the opposite side of the set before shifting right.

In this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzm-AvUm3Vw

Adina Gordon calls a variant that adds a roll-away so the women are
on the right of their partners during the progression.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Fwd: List of contra dance figures

[James Saxe]

Sam Whited asked for "any move that's ever been used in a contra dance
(even if only once)" and that isn't listed in the Wikipedia article at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_dance_choreography

or in Sam's lists at

https://github.com/SamWhited/contra-card/issues/2
https://github.com/SamWhited/contra-card/issues/17

I think that the number of such moves will turn out to be quite large,
and also that there will be many cases in which it no clear whether to
count things as distinct moves or as variants of the same move.  The
pages listed above are all moving targets, but here are some moves I
didn't see listed when I looked a little while ago.

   * "Up the Hall Four in Line" -- The Wikipedia article (as of when I
 looked at it just a little while ago) lists "Down the Hall Four in
 Line" but doesn't explicitly list "Up the Hall Four in Line".  As
 we know from a recent thread here on the SharedWeight callers'
 forum, there are lots of things you can do in between going down
 the hall and coming back up.  And is it a different move if you're
 going backwards instead of forwards (as, for example, in those
 sequences inspired, but not exactly copied, from "Dublin Bay")?

   * Down/Up the Hall as Couples -- Active couples only going down
 the center was one of the most common figures in traditional
 contras (Petronella, Hull's Victory, Lady of the Lake, ...).
 Dan Pearl's "Brimmer And May Reel" has dancers going down the
 hall four in line and later coming back up two-by-two.  Dillon
 Bustin's "Anne's a Bride Tonight" has actives go up the center
 then come back down.

   * Down/Up the Outside -- as if Chorus Jig,  And then there's
 "Devil's Dream", where some dancers go down/up the outside
 while others go up/down the center.

   * Cast off -- This could be an assisted cast with adjacent dancers
 putting arms around each others' backs (common in traditional
 contras after atives come up the center), a hand cast (after
 up the center four in line) or an unassisted cast.

   * Cross the set -- as in the opening sequences of "Rory O'More",
 "French Four", and Ted Sannella's  "Fiddleheads".  And then
 there's the diagonal version in "Road to Californy" and
 "Lamplighter's Hornpipe": Actives cross diagonally down between
 the two's to form long waves with actives facing out holding
 current neighbor in one hand and next neighbor in the other
 hand.  Is that a separate move or a mere variant?  (From the
 standpoint of what it's like to teach it to dancers unfamiliar
 with it, I'd say it's a different move.)  Speaking of "Rory O'
 More", is the second half of A1 a variant of half figure eight,
 a combination of crossing the set and casting off, or a unique
 move unto itself.  And what about the thing the actives do just
 after they cross the set in "Fiddleheads" (turn individually
 left to dance around one person--M1 going down outside and W1
 going up outside--and step into the center of the set to form
 "diamonds")?

   * Arch and duck to progress -- One of Sam's lists includes "Duck
 and Dive".  I'm not sure whether that's meant to include a
 simple "2's arch; 1's dive to meet new neighbors" or whether
 he intends something more complex.  (I think of "Duck and Dive"
 as involving a sequence of at least two arch-and-duck moves
 where the who make the first arch duck under the second.
 The action could be entirely forward or could include backing
 up as in Kirston Koths's "Nantucket Sleigh Ride".)  From a
 line of four, center can arch and ends duck as in (at least some
 versions of) "Jefferson's Reel"/"Jefferson And Liberty".  Yet
 another arching and ducking move (not necessarily to progress)
 occurs in, for example, "Pop Goes the Weasel", where one couple
 circles with a member of the other couple, then "pops" that
 person through an arch.

   * Does circling (or "ovaling") around the entire set count as a
 mere variant of "Circle" (usually meaning circle four) or a
 separate figure?

   * What about promenading around the entire set vs. across the
 set?  And when women turn back from the oval promenade in Paul
 Balliet's "Fairport Harbor" to swing a new neighbor, is that
 a mere variant of "turn alone"?

   * Are the gypsy in pairs in Ted Sannella's "Yours for the Asking"
 and the action in Devin Nordberg's "Fantasy Contra" where both
 ladies gypsy with the same gent at once mere variants of "Gypsy"
 or separate figures?  By the way, "Fantasy Contra" also includes
 "Ladies choice swing (partner or neighbor)" and then some has
 some conditional moves in the B parts to achieve correct
 progression regardless of the choice.

   * And how about that "hey for three" in Tom Hinds's "Bale the Hay"
 and "Bale the Hay II" where actives dance as one person and
 inactives 

Re: [Callers] dances with down-the-halls

[James Saxe]

JoLaine Jones-Pokorney asked for dances with unusual twists
on down-the-hall and come back up.


Kalia Kliban mentioned Al Olson's "Leaving Home", which adapts
an action from the English dance "Dublin Bay".

A2 Line of 4 lead down for 4, turn toward N to face up but keep  
backing down the hall for another 4, then lead up for 4, turn toward  
N to face down and keep backing up the hall,



Another contra using this action is Sue Rosen's "Handsome Young
Maids".  See, for example

 http://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus2004.pdf


Cynthia Phinney mentioned "Hickman's Hey", in which dancers go
down the hall and dance half a hey before coming back up.  While
searching for information about it (see my previous message), I
found a variant called "Fiddling Frog Contra" by Leonard Ellis.
See

http://www.artkitchen.com/DanceContra/FiddlingFrog.html


One of my favorite dances with an unusual transition between going
down the hall and coming back up is "Brimmer and May Reel" by Dan
Pearl:

Duple improper
A1. Neighbors balance and swing.
A2. Right and left through (across only)
1's swing and face down
B1. Down the hall four in line (1's between the 2's) (4 steps)
1's California twirl (4)
Neighbors allemande with handy hand twice around (M1 & W2
by left, W1 & M2 by right) (8)
B2. Up the hall two-by-two, 1's leading the 2's (4)
1's cast unassisted to 2nd place while 2's continue up into
1st place and turn alone (towards each other) (4)
Circle left 1/2 (4)
Pass through along the line to meet new neighbors (4)

Dan's original version had the A1 and A2 as

A1. Neighbors swing (8)
Right and left through (8)
A2. 1's balance and swing

but I believe he now prefers (as I do) to start with a long neighbor
swing, ending at the end of the phrase instead of in the middle.

I'm not sure what Dan's current preference is about the balance in
A1.  Some callers omit it out of deference to dancers who are late
finishing the B2.  I think that including it rewards good timing.
I also think it shouldn't be a scramble (for dancers in decent
physical condition) to finish the B2 in time.  However, timely
calls can be crucial, especially in the first few rounds of the
dance.  If you allow the dancers to go down the hall four steps
before you begin calling the California twirl, then they'll get a
late start and may not be able to catch up during the entire rest
of the B part.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] dances with down-the-halls

[James Saxe]

On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:39 AM, Cynthia Phinney wrote:


Here's a fun twist.
"Hickman's Hey"
There is half a hey when you get the bottom of the hall, then you  
finish the

hey when you get back home.

Hickman's Hey

A1  Down the Hall, four in line (Ones in middle)
½ Hey (Start facing in, ones pass right, End where partner was)
A2  Up the Hall
Finish the Hey
B1  One’s Allemande Left 1 1/2
Neighbor Swing
B2  One’s Balance & Swing

From what I can find out, Steve Hickman was the name of the person  
who
collected the dance and he did not know the actual name, nor the  
author.
Also, it seems that the B1 and B2 parts vary (the A1 and A2, being  
what
makes the dance distinctive, do not), but this is how I learned it  
and how I

call it.


William Watson's snapshot of the The American Country Dances On Line
site (originally compiled by Russell Owen) offers a version of
Hickman's Hey

http://www.quiteapair.us/calling/acdol/dance/acd_69.html

as follows:

A1 (8) Down the hall four in line (1's between the 2's)
   (8) Half hey, 1's pass right shoulders to start
A2 (8) Return up the hall four in line
   (8) Half hey (again), 1's pass right shoulders to start
B1 (4) 1's allemande right
   (12) Neighbors swing
B2 (8) Long lines go forward and back
   (8) 1's swing

Note that 1's allemande right 1x (not 1 1/2) in B1.  As Perry Shafran
pointed out, this correctly brings 1's to their neighbors.  Note also
that ACDOL's version of the mutable B2 is a little different from
Cynthia's.

Dan Pearl asked about the dance on rec.folk-dancing in 1992.  See

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.folk-dancing/ 
g4vWUSQRNT4


for Dan's query and a reply by Marlin Prowell which confirms what
Cynthia says about the history (or mystery) of the dances' origin:


*I*

[that would be Marlin --js]

posted a query about this dance perhaps nine months ago.  Or ...
almost this dance... In the version I posted, B2 is Actives Bal &  
swing.

[Dan's version had "B2. Long lines: forward & back; actives swing" --js]


In the Seattle area, this dance is known as Hickman's Hey, because
(according to Luther Black) Steve Hickman has called it in the area
several times, but Steve does not know who wrote it.  So the dance has
been named (for lack of any alternative) after the person who called
it.  Steve collected it at Pinewoods in 1987 at an after hours dance,
but did not get the name or author.

I did some research before posting my query.  Luther says that Steve
Hickman did not call this dance the same way each time, and that  
*this*

version was adapted from one of Steve Hickman's versions.  The
distinctive A1 - A2 parts have always been the same, but apparently  
the
B parts mutate. (BTW, Luther Black is a local good fellow; he is on  
the
board of directors of *both* CDSS and Folklife).  I asked Larry  
Edelman

if he knew the dance, and he did not.  I asked Steve Hickman, and he
admitted to collecting the dance, and did not know the author.   
Also, I
got no response to my query about this dance from the net.  (Other  
than

seeing another permutation show up on the net nine months later).

So, who did write this?

[Nobody seems to know. --js]

The June 2009 issue of the Lloyd Shaw Foundations's newsletter,
_The American Dance Circle_

http://lloydshaw.org/Resources/adc/200906i.pdf

includes a version with Steve Hickman incorrectly listed as author and
with B2 as circle left and actives swing.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Help Identifying dances

[James Saxe]

On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Neal Schlein asked about:


Unknown  ???
(Pinewoods, 2000)
A1:Partner balance and box the gnat, right and left thru** (Not with  
neighbor)()

A2: Courtesy turn to long waves and balance, allemande right
B1: Opposite Swing, circle 3/4
B2: Ladies chain; long lines forward and back
(***This is how the dance is written in my notes.  However, as far  
as I can tell, it doesn't work in Beckett or Duple improper.   
Looking at it, I think it must be right and left thru with new  
neighbor and allemande right outside of the minor set with prior  
neighbor, but then the dance doesn't progress without at least one  
more change.  Making B2 a partner swing and ladies chain does work.)


Chris Page correctly identified the dance as "No See Ums" by
Beth Molaro, but Neal's version is somewhat garbled.  I see that
Chris Page and Michael Dyck have both taken a shot at ungarbling it.
Here's mine.

First, here's a video:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JibA8BLUSzk

(Does anyone know of a longer video or a published description of the
dance?)

The dance improper and starts with partners doing a balance and
box-the-gnat across the set.  This leaves them facing partner with
right hands joined and side-by-side with neighbors, exactly where
they need to be to start a Right And Left Through across the set.

After the right and left through, they do a move that's a modified
version of "roll away with a half sashay", women ending to the left
of their neighbors, but facing out of the set and retaining a
left-hand-in-left hold with their neighbors (the same hands they
were holding during the courtesy turn in the right and left through).
All this fits into the A1.

The middle part of the dance is then

A2. Balance in long waves (W facing out, M facing in, all holding
L hand with current N and R hand with previous N) (4)
Almd R prev N (4-6)
Swing current N (6-8)
B1. Cir L 3/4
Swing partner

At the end of B2, the #1 couple will be below the #2 couple, and in
the next round of the dance, the dancers will be in position to dance
the Right and Left Through courtesy turning new neighbors.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Help Identifying dances

[James Saxe]

On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Neal Schlein asked about


Unknown Duple Improper
(called by Larry Edelman, Pinewoods 2000)
A1: Balance and swing below
A2: Circle once around; Ladies chain across
B1: Ladies dosado; Partner swing
B2: Circle 3/4, Pass thru and dosado


That's "Small Potatoes", by Jim Kitch.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Help Identifying dances

[James Saxe]

On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Neal Schlein asked about various
dances, including


Unknown
(from my notes: Called by Larry Edelman at Pinewoods 2000)
A1: Dosado below to an ocean wave (8) and balance (4).  Turn 1/2  
right and 1/2 left (4)

A2: Balance (4), 1/2 hey (8), Balance again (4)
B1: 1/2 hey again (8), Partner Swing (8)
B2: Right and left thru and ladies chain (16)
***Timing seems strange in A2


That's "Take All the Credit and None of the Blame" by Larry
Edelman and Nancy Donahue.  The dance appears in Larry Jennings's
book _Give-and-Take_ with a slightly different description of
the actions after the balance in A1:

pull pass N by R hd; M pass by L sh

The balance a the start of B2 is then done just with
partner (right hand in right), not in a wave of four.

Most contra callers these days would describe the initial
do-si-do as being done by "neighbors" (a description that
applies for everyone) rather than with "the one below" (which
speaks preferentially to the #1 dancers and requires the #2
dancers to infer that they do-si-do with the one above them).

The strange-seeming timing in A2 is correct.  If I have the
story right, Nancy came up with the idea of punctuating a hey
with balances according to this timing, so that the second
half of the hey crosses the middle of A2, but no figure
crosses the major phrase boundaries.  Then Larry helped her
work out the rest of the dance and joked that if it went
over well, he'd take the credit, but if it was a dud, he'd
blame her.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Calling as Conducting

[James Saxe]

Aahz,

There's a transcript here:


http://dotsub.com/view/45e94d82-932c-459f-96d2-afc6691a7128/viewTranscript/eng?timed=true

The times in the transcript seem to be about 15 seconds
earlier than the times given by the YouTube time counter.

YouTube lets you turn on closed captioning, but the captions
are automatically generated and often inaccurate.  The
transcript isn't 100% perfect either, but it's far better
than the automatic captioning.

While I have no difficulty with the speaker's accent, I can
well imagine that it would be problematic for someone with a
hearing impairment.

--Jim

On Aug 20, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013, Greg McKenzie wrote:


Calling has sometimes been compared with conducting an orchestra.   
The
metaphor certainly does have resonance.  This link is to a 23  
minute TED
talk by conductor Itay Talgam about the leadership of some of the  
greatest

conductors.  It's the best talk I've seen on leadership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9g3Q-qvtss

Comments?


Without bothering to look: are captions or transcript available?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
 <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Crowd noise during walk through

[James Saxe]

Jacqui,

I notice that in your original message about dealing with crowd
noise, you identify two somewhat separate, though related, issues:

(1)

Can you give me some tips on how to balance socializing (i.e. how to  
judge when to start)

and


(2)

ways to regain their attention mid-walk through without sounding  
like a schoolmarm or raising my voice?



 * * * * * * * * * *

Re (1), I heartily agree with Greg and others who have advised
allowing dancers some time to socialize and waiting for the
conversational buzz to start tapering off before you start
the walk-through.  Greg has described a ritual of transitioning
from socializing to the walk-through:


... I start by saying something like "Ladies and gentlemen,"
to signal that essential information is about to be given.  I then
immediately give the dancers an instruction to physically move.   
(Usually
"Please take hands in groups of four from the top of the line.")   
Then I
wait about 10-15 seconds or so and give another instruction to  
physically
move: "Ones please cross over."  Then I wait another 10-15 seconds  
or so
and begin the walk-through proper, something like: "Ones face down.   
Twos

face up.  With the one you're facing balance and swing."


Regardless of whether you do something like that, whether you use
some other way of instructing dancers to take hands four and (if
appropriate) to get into improper formation, or whether you're
calling in a community where almost all dances are improper (or
Becket) and dancers tend to line up in improper formation on
their own, you may sometimes find yourself looking at floor where
most dancers are waiting for the walk-through to start, but some
haven't gotten into position.  Typically there are some dancers
partway down a set who, with no intention of malice or willful
disobedience, haven't taken the initiative to get "hands four" to
propagate beyond themselves.  Perhaps there are new dancers
dancing together, despite whatever attempts the caller and the
experienced dancers have made to encourage mingling.  Perhaps two
people of the same sex are dancing as partners and haven't
thought to do something to help the dancers below figure out
which one is dancing in which role.  Perhaps an unpartnered
person is standing in or near the set and the dancers below can't
tell whether that person is waiting for a partner to come back
from the water fountain or whether the person has just come over
to chat with someone and is about to go away.  Perhaps someone
is busy showing a partner or neighbor how to swing and is
oblivious to the propagation of "hands four".  Perhaps several of
these things are going on at once.

So what do you do?

You could repeat the request for taking "hands four" (and/or the
request for crossing over)--preferably not in an impatient voice--
and hope who has been wool gathering finally takes note of it and
gets things moving.

You could ask people to take hands four and to hold it until they
see that the foursomes below them are starting to take hands
four.  Perhaps someone just above the blockage will take heed
and help their neighbors get organized.

You could pretend to start the walk-through, knowing that it will
cause people in the bottom part of the hall to start clamoring
for "hands four".

You could request action in a way that doesn't pretend to start
the walk-through.  For example, "In your groups of four, circle
once around to be sure you have space." (Larry Jrnning mentions
this ploy in one of the _Contra COnnection_ columns.)

You could ask the couples at the bottom of the set to raise their
hands when the "hands four" has reached them.

You could actually give the first move of the walk-through--
particularly if it's something that doesn't rearrange the dancers
(e.g., long lines go forward and back), so that you don't have to
deal with a situation where some dancer have moved to positions
while other haven't yet taken "hands four".

The last few of these options can all have the effect of
getting dancers near the bottom of the set to insist that the
dancers above them take hands four, so that the caller doesn't
have to take on the role of whip-cracking cat-herder.  Perhaps
someone will even walk up the set to wherever the "hands four"
got stalled and then walk back down the set counting off which
dancers are 1s and which are 2s.

By the way, having dancers do an action that involves joining
hands (e.g., in long lines, go forward and back, or "circle once
around to be sure you have space) can be a good way to get the
to notice if two people of the same sex (or same gender role) are
unexpectedly adjacent to each other.

 * * * * * * * * * *

Re topic (2)--regaining the dancers' attention in the middle of
the walk-through--I think the best thing is not to lose their
attention in the first place.  I'll post some ideas about that
in a later message.  I'm quite aware, though, that despite best

Re: [Callers] New contra dancers and similar figures

[James Saxe]

On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Kalia Kliban wrote:


On 6/21/2013 4:08 PM, James Saxe wrote:

As callers we can aim both to keep the amount of confusion
low and to set a gracious tone towards whatever confusion
may still arise.  (Doing the opposite of both these things
is unfortunately easy:  Just pick inappropriate dances,
teach and call them poorly, and then bark at the dancers
when the inevitable confusion arises.)

--Jim


Well said.  My challenge at the moment is to deal with my own  
exasperation with certain dancers.  It's not the problem of the  
dancers.  It's mine.  But sometimes, hoo boy...


Kalia


I, too, am well aware that I don't always live up to the
ideal I suggest above.  It's sure worth working toward,
though.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] New contra dancers and similar figures

[James Saxe]

On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Alan Winston wrote:

..., a phenomenon I've noticed several times over the years is that  
some fraction of people who were in a beginner workshop and who in  
the walkthrough of the dance were able to do something like "women  
chain to partner, women allemande 1x, partner balance and swing" are  
no longer able to do it, instead pretty reliably doing "women pull  
by, partner swing" and confusion.  ...


My hypothesis is that these are people who are still drinking from  
the firehose.  ...  They're not ignoring the caller, per se, but  
they don't have CPU left over to process the prompts and in any case  
the words aren't really meaning anything to them yet; ...


[Also happy to hear alternative views of what's going on inside  
these people.)


Alan, I think your drinking-from-the-firehose hypothesis has a lot
of merit.  Sometimes people have very specific misunderstandings
of how specific figures work or of the callers' words, but other
time they may just have a a general sense of being overwhelmed and
may not even be aware of what the caller is saying.

In the specific case "women chain ..." vs. "women pull by, partner
swing ...", there may be a specific misunderstanding contributing
to the confusion:  The dancers involved may be treating "turn" or
"courtesy turn" and "swing" as synonyms.  You and I understand
that a courtesy turn is done with dancers side bu side, facing the
same direction as they turn ccw [as seen from above] and that a
swing involves dancers being pretty much face-to-face and rotating
cw.  But a new dancer may hear both terms as meaning "take hold of
each other and turn around somehow."  I've also occasionally
seen new dancers do a swing in place of an allemande--for example
in response to a call like "turn the on the right with a right hand
round" after a balance in long waves.  (Saying "right **HAND**!!"
doesn't help.)

In programming a dance evening, I try to make sure the first dance
with a ladies chain has the courtesy turn be with a neighbor (or
that it's a chain over and back, so you do at least one of the
courtesy turns with a neighbor).

Perry Shafran suggested:

My view is to just not sweat it.  I realize at the very start that  
many new dancers don't have the CPU to process too much stuff -  
especially if you are burdening them not only new dance moves but  
also terminology that they have never heard before as well.  If such  
moves are not breaking down the line (if you do a swing rather than  
a courtesy turn you'll still wind up in the right spot at the very  
end), it's nothing that I sweat at.  I know that some folks might  
complain that they won't get any better unless you get them doing it  
right - but they really didn't come dancing to learn so much  
confusing stuff.  They came to move to music with other people.  Let  
them.  Let them muddle through.  Dancers are generally friendly  
people and the experienced dancers will guide them.



I think we can keep two things in mind at the same time:

  (1) Dancing with the feeling that you know what you're
  doing is usually more fun that milling around with
  a feeling of confusion.  Things like choosing
  dances appropriate to the crowd, teaching clearly,
  and building dancer's skill can be good because
  they add to the fun.

  (2) What's even less fun than milling around in confusion
  is milling around in confusion and feeling that the
  caller and/or the other dancers are upset about it.
  Stuff about dance skills and "doing it right"
  shouldn't take precedence over fun.

As callers we can aim both to keep the amount of confusion
low and to set a gracious tone towards whatever confusion
may still arise.  (Doing the opposite of both these things
is unfortunately easy:  Just pick inappropriate dances,
teach and call them poorly, and then bark at the dancers
when the inevitable confusion arises.)

--Jim

[Callers] "Loop Di Doo" (was Re: Tampering with a classis aagain 3-33-33)

[James Saxe]

Ron,

I think your "Loop Di Doo" figure is a lot like something that
occurs in some versions of the traditional (not modern western)
square dance "Forward Six" (a/k/a "Right Hand High, Left Hand Low"
or "Right Lady Over, Left Lady Under" ...).  See for example these
videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaDbKuJNqkM
(watch the action as 2:45)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltQg0o_p0SU
(watch at 1:12)

It's not exactly the same, since in the square dance figure it's
the left hand lady (already holding he partner's hand) who ducks
under the arch, while the right hand lady arches (rather than
diving) to get to her lonesome gent.

--Jim

On Jun 20, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Ron T Blechner wrote:


I wrote a dance that, when I finished it, I realized the A was the
same as 3-33,33:
http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/10510984149/ants-marching

It's gone over well, and has an easier finish. There's one move to
teach very carefully. (I uh ... sorta created a variation of a
left-hand-high-right-hand-low that goes into a swing ... called a Loop
Di Doo). It's been picked up by a few other callers, so, I know it's
not totally awful.

in dance,
Ron T Blechner


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Bree Kalb   
wrote:

I agree with Michael. Especially in the case of a classic.


-Original Message-

From: Michael Barraclough 
Sent: Jun 20, 2013 5:25 PM
To: call...@sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Tampering with a classis aagain 3-33-33

There are thousands of contras.  If one doesn't work, why not try
another one instead of altering that one?

Michael Barraclough



On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 13:16 -0700, Dave C wrote:

Instead of the Ladies Dosido 1.5 at the end to progress, just  
have the Ladies AL 1 1/2 in the center, with RH ready for the  
next neighbor.  Some in the caller community have dubbed this  
version of the dance 3-33-34.


Dave Colestock
New Cumberland, PA


--- On Thu, 6/20/13, Kalia Kliban  wrote:

From: Kalia Kliban 
Subject: Re: [Callers] Tampering with a classis aagain 3-33-33
To: "Caller's discussion list" 
Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013, 2:10 PM

I've had pretty good luck with it, possibly because I have the  
women ID the next neighbor early on.  They know which face to  
look for.  After that, they get a better feel for the area to aim  
for to find the new neighbor.  A couple of seriously disoriented  
dancers can really play havoc with this dance though.  It's  
brittle.


Kalia

On 6/20/2013 11:02 AM, Rickey Holt wrote:
3-33-33 lovers and callers - I have been calling this great  
dance recently
and noticed that dancers of various experience levels in several  
venues have
had trouble with the transition in the B2 from the Ladies Do-si- 
do 1 1/2 to
the balance with the next neighbor that starts the dance.  They  
have trouble
finding that next neighbor, even after several times through,  
and with
translating the momentum of crossing the set to that of up and  
down the line
of the first part of the dance. I tried substituting an  
allemande right 1
1/2 for the do-si-do 1 1/2 of the original with little effect.   
What about a
ladies allemande right about 1 1/2 to a next neighbor allemande  
left and
then starting the dance again with a balance by the right with  
that
neighbor?  Other solutions?  Have you or your dancers noticed  
the problem

that I have seen.  As always, thanks for your thoughts.

Rickey Holt


___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers



___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers



Bree Kalb, LCSW
301 W. Weaver St.
Carrboro, NC 27510
919-932-6262 ext 216
http://www.thewellnessalliance.com/BreeKalb.html

Regarding the Use of Email -- Please Note: Although I use a  
firewall and my
computer is password protected, my emails are not encrypted.  
Therefore, I
cannot guarantee confidentiality of email communication. If you  
choose to
communicate confidential information with me via email, I will  
assume that
you have made an informed decision and I will view it as your  
agreement to
take the risk that email may be intercepted. Please be aware that  
email is

never an appropriate vehicle for emergency communication.  If you are
canceling an appointment less than 48 hours in advance, please
also leave me a voice mail message at my office.


___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

___
Callers mailing list
call...@sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Circle left 3/4

[James Saxe]

On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Greg McKenzie wrote:

I remember once being in a caller's workshop with Ted Sannella and  
he asked
us how many beats a circle took.  We answered "eight," and he said  
"No.  A

circle really takes 10 beats."

- Greg McKenzie


Greg,

I find this story surprising.  Are you sure you're remembering
correctly and, if so, are you sure you're not omitting some
important context or qualification of Ted's remark?

I'm reminded, by the way, of being in a caller's workshop with
Larry Edelman where he asked us about how many beats it took to
do some figure.  (I don't remember for sure whether it was circle
four once around or some other nominally 8-beat figure.)  When we
answered "eight", he corrected us, saying that eight beats was
the time for dancers to do the figure *and be ready to do the
next thing*.

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Circle left 3/4

[James Saxe]

On Jun 6, 2013, at 3:03 PM, I (Jim Saxe) quoted a 1996 posting
to rec.folk-dancing by Caroline Fahrney about choreography that
encourages good timing, and I then remarked


..., I agree with the person (Caroline guesses it may have
been Dan Pearl, but for all I know it could have been myself)
who suggested encouraging dancers to complete "circle L 3/4 and
pass through" in eight beats by having the next action be a
balance.I think there's little to be gained by pressing
dancers to circle briskly if the sequence is something like

Circle left 3/4 and pass through
New neighbors gypsy and swing
...


The part about "little to be gained" seemed vaguely familiar
as I was writing it.

I now find that in article 5 of _The Contra Connection_, "Zesty
Circles" (originally published in _CDSS News_, Issue 88, May/June
1988), Dan Pearl indeed mentions the sequence "circle left 3/4,
pass through along, balance and swing."  And in the same article,
Larry Jennings writes:

... little is gained by taking a stand on the sequence
"Circle left (8); left hand star (8)."  Everything is
gained by insisting on *either* "circle left 3/4 in a
compact group (6); pass through (2); start the next figure
on the strong beat" *or* "circle left 3/4 relatively
spaciously (8); give a satisfying tug to start a pass
through on the strong beat and continue the next figure."
However, all is lost if the caller fails to be very clear
about which interpretation prevails.

[The words "either" and "or", which I've emphasized using
asterisks, are underlining in the original. --js]

--Jim

Re: [Callers] Circle left 3/4

[James Saxe]

On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Chris Lahey wrote, on the subject
of getting dancers to complete the sequence "circle left 3/4,
pass through" in 8 beats:


Could you prompt the pass through with more emphasis?  Maybe

5 - 6 - circle - left - 1 - 2 - three - quarters - pass - through -  
7 - 8?


Or perhaps even "pass through now" with the now being on the 6 beat?
Or emphasize the balance beat so people realize they're late.


I think that this sequence is one for whihc it can be useful to
prompt a figure--namely "pass through"--with the last beat of the
call falling earlier than the beat just before the first beat of
the action.  Specifically, I often time the words "pass through"
so the word "through" falls on beat 4 of the circle, not beat 6.
You can hear some examples of other callers doing the same in
these videos:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_-uD_-nV6g
 (Steve Zakon-Anderson calls a contra medley at the Concord
 Scout House.  Notice his timing on the third sequence in
 the medley, Lisa Greenlef's "After the Solstice", wich
 starts around 5:40.)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMInHQo4mJY
 (Maggie Cowan calls "Black Bird in the Night" by Don
 Flaherty.)

The idea is that if you say the word "through" by beat 4, it will
implicitly encourage slow circlers to pick up the pace.  If you
say "pass through" on beats 5 and 6, it's already too late to help
any dancers who haven't already gotten their circles turned 3/4 of
the way around by the time you say "through".

You could also try to explain the timing during the walk-through,
either by using numbers of beats (six to circle left 3/4; two to
pass through), or just by remarking that the time dancers have to
circle left 3/4 and pass through is the same time that some dances
allow for the circle 3/4 alone, so they (dancers) had better
make the circle a little brisker than they might expect.  Beware
that when you speak in declarative sentences or ask dancers to
picture a move that they're not doing right now (e.g., talking
about the timing of the circle while dancers are lined up after
the walk-through and waiting for the music to start), there are
likely to be some who won't be paying attention or who won't be
able to visualize whatever part of the dance you're blabbing
about.  On the other hand, a few dancers who already the basics of
timing might pick up on your words and be a little more attentive
about politely (I hope) helping their less experienced neighbors
to be on time.

It can also be helpful to have music that clearly telegraphs
when it's coming around to the first beat of the figure after
'Pass Through".

--Jim