Re: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

So last night at Amherst I tried a new dance, 2 Rorys, 1 circulate and a
circulate where the gents, instead of crossing, allemande 1x and go back to
their partners to gypsy+swing. It got good feedback.

Going to play with things a bit more before publishing, but the
Rory-to-Circ seems to work well, as did the turnaround.

Ron
On Mar 30, 2015 3:44 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> One reply so far:
>
> "Groovemonger's Contra" by Don Flaherty
>
> 2 Rorys, 1 circulate, hey and ladies alle. Not in that order. Lines have
> gents facing in. Looks like a nice dance, too, from the video.
>
> Ron
> On Mar 30, 2015 1:44 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:
>
>> Long wave Rory O'Moore balance and slides/spins and box circulates ... in
>> the same dance, adjacent to one another?
>>
>> I've not yet seen or danced any. Anyone have?
>>
>> I have a few dances; trying one or two this week.
>>
>> In dance,
>> Ron Blechner
>>
>
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] We tried Ports & Starboards

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It's important that dances trying different terms compare notes. It's not a
bad idea to try different terms on different nights, too.

We can afford to be picky, but I feel that some consensus should be
reached. Consensus will:
- make it easier for traveling dancers and callers
- give more weight behind genderfree terms on contra, aiding it to spread
more easily

Genderfree organizers who agree about the consensus ought to agree on a
time frame for a general consensus.

In dance,
Ron Blechner
On Apr 1, 2015 11:21 AM, "JoLaine Jones-Pokorney via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Luke, thanks for this update!  Our dance had an "Advanced Dance" on Sunday
> that was called using "Larks" and "Ravens."  Almost everything you said
> about your dance applied to ours as well.  I did encounter several people
> who tried dancing the other role who hadn't tried it before.  I think the
> idea of having a gender-free dance invites people to consider it when they
> wouldn't normally.  One of the reasons I wanted to promote a gender-free
> dance in our area is to help people overcome the idea that "you only dance
> with someone of your own gender if there aren't enough of the other." When
> looking for a dance partner, why rule out half the population!
> JoLaine
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Last week, at our regular monthly dance for the Mad Robin Callers
>> Collective, we tried Ports and Starboards instead of Gents and Ladies (the
>> usual language for our dance). The MRCC dance is called by a collection of
>> callers who work together ahead of time on a program for the evening. MRCC
>> callers are interested in developing and honing their craft as dance
>> facilitators.
>>
>> We had over a hundred dancers, a slightly bigger than average turn-out
>> for us. A majority (60~70%) of whom knew the evening was going to be called
>> gender free (we'd announced it at prior dances, on our flyer, and via our
>> e-mail list).
>>
>> We had a handful of dancers who explicitly came to our dance because we
>> were using gender free language. We had one caller explicitly come out
>> because we were using gender free language.
>>
>> We did not have anyone say they were avoiding our dance because of gender
>> free language, but I acknowledge they might not have let us know.
>>
>> All six of our callers were able to make the transition to Ports and
>> Starboards, and didn't have any prompting slips on mic. The callers were
>> able to keep clear in their head which word went with which roll (ports on
>> the left after a swing, starboards on the right).
>>
>> Starboards was not an easy word to say, but it did not seem to create
>> confusion with stars; possibly because stars are prompted as left hand
>> star, right hands across star, etc; whereas starboards was used with star
>> coming first in the call, starboards chain, etc.
>>
>> At least one dancer had an initial confusion about port/starboard being
>> in reference to direction currently facing, as opposed to a property of the
>> room (which would be more in line with how it's used on boats).
>>
>> A few dancers who have danced to armbands/barearms terminology did say
>> that they preferred ports/startboards. I did not hear anyone advocate a
>> preference for armbands/barearms.
>>
>> Using different terminology for the roles did cause some added difficulty
>> on the floor. Not everyone was immediately able to identify themselves and
>> where they needed to be/what they should be doing. It also meant that our
>> experienced dancers were not as able to help guide new dancers on the
>> floor, both because they themselves were less confident, and they were less
>> certain of their assumptions of the role of the neighbor coming at them.
>> (We did not use any sort of marker for the different roles. Not out of
>> deliberately eschewing them, but didn't get that part put together.) I
>> think the average skill level of our dance as ports/starboards dancers was
>> below the average skill level of our dance as gents/ladies dancers; but it
>> would not be an insurmountable barrier to fully swap over.
>>
>> The use of gender free language did not cause a large amount of folks
>> dancing a role different than their apparent traditional role. We had folks
>> swap (even mid-dance), but that happens at our dance anyway. It may have
>> upped it slightly, but it may have depressed it slightly as folks lost the
>> comfort of thinking 'I'm a man dancing the women's role' (or such) and had
>> to translate 'I'm usually a port currently dancing as a starboard'. That
>> effect would go away with long term familiarity, but we're certainly not
>> there yet.
>>
>> We are not planning on fully swapping over our terms permanently. Next
>> month, we'll return to using gents & ladies as our terms. However, we (the
>> callers and the dancers) are entertaining thoughts of having a dance in the
>> e

Re: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

One reply so far:

"Groovemonger's Contra" by Don Flaherty

2 Rorys, 1 circulate, hey and ladies alle. Not in that order. Lines have
gents facing in. Looks like a nice dance, too, from the video.

Ron
On Mar 30, 2015 1:44 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Long wave Rory O'Moore balance and slides/spins and box circulates ... in
> the same dance, adjacent to one another?
>
> I've not yet seen or danced any. Anyone have?
>
> I have a few dances; trying one or two this week.
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
>
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Long wave Rory O'Moore balance and slides/spins and box circulates ... in
the same dance, adjacent to one another?

I've not yet seen or danced any. Anyone have?

I have a few dances; trying one or two this week.

In dance,
Ron Blechner
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] New vs. Variation

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

This question boils down, to me, to the question of "How much different
does a dance need to be to be considered a new dance rather than a
variation of an existing dance?"

I've heard the 25% guideline. (So 8 measures for a 32 measure dance.) But
it's obviously not that simple. If I flip the A and B of many dances,
they're danceable but clearly not new dances, just variations.

What are your thoughts on what makes a dance "new" vs "variation"?

-Ron T Blechner

(As for the database, having a way to tag that other callers have
successfully called it would add legitimacy.)

On Jul 30, 2014 3:40 AM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Who will decide what dances merit placement in the database?
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Projecting That "It's All OK"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Yes!

Re: [Callers] dance request

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Heh.

Does this still count as a no-circle Becket if it's a single-file
march /promenade in a circle? ;)

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Laur via Callers
 wrote:
> yes, thanks!
>
> ~
> When I dance, I cannot judge, I cannot hate, I cannot separate myself from
> life. I can only be joyful and whole, that is why I dance. ~Hans Bos~
> ~
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 20, 2015 10:36 PM, frannie via Callers
>  wrote:
>
>
>
> Definitely Frannie not Fannie.  :-)
> ~Frannie Marr.
> Southern California
> On Apr 20, 2015 7:31 PM, "Maia McCormick via Callers"
>  wrote:
>
> Hmm, I have it written as "Frannie's Alarm Clock"... Is this the dance
> you're looking for?
> Frannie's Alarm Clock by Luke Donforth (becket, counterclockwise; mod+)
> A1: gents alle. L 1 1/2; N swing
> A2: long lines, ladies roll next N; ladies chain
> B1: half hey; single file circle R in hands-4 (ladies face across, gents
> face partner)
> B2: (ladies turn over R shoulder to) gypsy P, swing P
> Cheers,
> Maia
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Laur via Callers
>  wrote:
>
> Does anyone have "Fannie's Alarm Clock" to share?
>
> Thanks -
>
> Laurie P
> West MI
>
> ~
> When I dance, I cannot judge, I cannot hate, I cannot separate myself from
> life. I can only be joyful and whole, that is why I dance. ~Hans Bos~
> ~
>
> ___
> 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 mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Difficulty rankings?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Indeed.

My original reply was merely speaking about relative difficulty of dances.
All of the subsequent posts have made good related points.
On Apr 20, 2015 6:13 PM, "Dugan Murphy via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Maia,
>
> I used to organize my dance cards by difficulty, but currently, I use
> categories in my box that are largely based on dance-defining figures
> (Petronella, star promenade) and types of progression (slide left,
> circle-pass-through).  I find that system of organization to be more useful
> when writing out a program for an evening.
>
> Dugan Murphy
> du...@duganmurphy.com
>
>
> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:53:01 -0400
>> From: Maia McCormick via Callers 
>> To: "callers@lists.sharedweight.net" 
>> Subject: [Callers] Difficulty rankings?
>> Message-ID:
>> > vlyv8g43fy...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> As I overhaul my contra deck and realize that my difficulty ranking system
>> is super incoherent, and most of my dance rankings are from way before I
>> had any idea what actually makes a dance easy or hard, I've been thinking
>> of scrapping this difficulty ranking system and just starting over. So I
>> was wondering: if you rank your dances by difficulty, what is your system,
>> what are your benchmarks for various difficulty levels, what sorts of
>> things do you consider when determining the difficulty of a dance? If you
>> DON'T
>> rank your dances, why not?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Maia
>>
>> ***
>>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] When the dancers aren't paying attention

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

This topic has been on my mind in recent months. It's been very helpful for
organizers to communicate the local culture for callers doing a gig for the
first time, for the reason Martha noted.
"We're chatty, but the dancers pay attention. Don't take it as rude." was
recent advice, as an example.

I find a few things I can do as a caller:
- Shorter dances. I aim for 5 dances per hour as a target. Many callers do
4. When dancers have shorter dances, they are hungrier for the next dance,
and they don't physically need as much of a break, so they line up faster.
- Remind them of hands 4 early. I like "As you line up make sure you pass
hands 4 down..." I repeat myself, but I've found this works for me.
- Becket dance? Have them swing partner on the side.
- Non - Becket? Do a zero move like a circle all the way or long lines. The
movement of many people in the room is a really nice way to get attention
without bossing people.
- In general, earn trust. When I teach and call well, I garner attention
easier. When my program fits the crowd well with varied moves at the right
skill level, people are more attentive.
- Develop a teacher voice. Some callers just don't sound confident and
assertive. - Worse, I've seen a few callers get openly frustrated. No
matter what, stay cool.

Ron Blechner
On Apr 23, 2015 11:26 AM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Good point Erik. Also, if you travel, different groups can have vastly
> different cultures. Some years ago I was asked to call a zesty contra in
> another state. I assumed they would want to do a lot of zesty dances and
> planned accordingly. The food was placed outside the dance floor in a long
> hall from the start. After the first dance, which seemed to go well,
> everyone disappeared outside to eat and talk just as I was saying "take
> partners for the next dance". After a five minutes while I worried that
> they hadn't liked the dance I'd called, people drifted back and lined up
> again and about 10 minutes later I did the next dance. Same thing. I
> finally realized that it was their custom to break after each dance, and
> relaxed and stopped trying so hard to get them back and lined up. I got
> through about four dances in the first half and four in the second, where I
> had expected to do more like 11 or 12 total for the time. At the end of the
> night, people came up and said, Wow, you really got us through a lot of
> dances!
>
> Martha
>
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Erik Hoffman via Callers wrote:
>
>  On the question of paying attention:
>
> A while back, in one of these e-groups, someone pointed out that we contra
> dancers keep talking about "community." This post pointed out that we
> contra dancers go to a dance, and, often forsaking applause (yet another
> topic...), run off to find our next partner and line up for a dance. This
> posting compared that to country-western dance, or swing dance, where they
> would sit around a table and talk, get to know others through chatting, and
> not dance every dance, but have other social things happen. It got me to
> thinking:
>
> Often, after people have lined up, they talk with each other, their
> partner, their minor set, or other people around them. Often callers strive
> to get everyone to shut-up so they can start the dance. I've come to
> believe this time of conversation is the main time we get to know a little
> about each other and is thus a "community building time."
>
> My practice now is to say into the mic in a regular talking voice, "Are
> you ready?" If the general banter keeps going on, I wait a couple beats,
> and say, again, "Are you ready?" After two to four times of asking the
> question, someone will say, "Yes!" Then another might do a loud, "S!"
> When people finally quiet down, I teach the dance.
>
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
>
> On 8/4/2014 10:26 AM, barb kirchner via Callers wrote:
>
> sometimes when dancers aren't paying attention, it's because there are too
> many other things going on in the hall.
>
>  sometimes it's the band warming up or sound checking, but i've seen all
> kinds of things going on - bake sales, people on their mobile devices, a
> group of beginners coming in who don't yet know dance etiquette, or maybe
> the dancers are having trouble hearing you.  sometimes musicians talk
> loudly behind the caller (i'm a musician and a caller) and it's hard to
> understand the caller because the chatter can be heard through mics or
> pick-ups.
>
>  you can't fix some of those things, but you can address retail events in
> the hall, cell phones, sound system, etc
>
>  are your experienced dancers modelling good dance etiquette?  are you
> teaching efficiently, or are you spending so much time talking that people
> lose interest?
>
>  sometimes, i just start the walkthru anyway.  as soon as people realize
> that most people are starting to swing, they get a little more interested
> :-)
>
> cheers,
> barb
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:0

Re: [Callers] Dance length/dances per evening

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

As a dancer, I have found a lot of callers aim for 4 per hour, and this
feels way too long for several reasons:
- Especially in warm weather, dancers get tired
- Musicians get tired, too.
- People involuntarily sitting out have to suffer through a longer out time.
With dances more like the 8-9 minute range, I've find dancers are more
likely to dance more, less likely to leave at the break, and are generally
giving better energy to the band

That said, I'd caution against any method that places consistency above
feeling out the audience. Factors that might affect dance length:
- temperature
- timing to end of a break / evening considering any unexpected changes
(long walkthrough, slow hands 4, etc)
- dance difficulty was mis-gauged, thus a desire to move to a new dance
rather than watch dancers struggle too long
- band and dancers are in a groove that you may just want to hang onto a
bit more (when my dancers are starting to hoot, perhaps it's not the best
time to signal 3 more...)

Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thought I'd share the fruits of my thinking.

Wrote a few dances. Have 2 keepers:

Astral Navigation
Becket Contra
Ron T Blechner
Called 4/15/15 Baltimore

A1. Circle L 3/4 (6)
  NS (10)
A2. Star L 1x (8) to Long Waves *
  Bal Wave, Box Circulate ** (4, 4)
B1. Bal R, Slide R past P (4, 4) ***
  Bal L, Slide L past P (4, 4)
B2. P B+S (4, 12)

* Gents face out, Ladies face in, Prev N in LH, New N in RH
** Ladies Cross, Gents Loop R. This is the progression!
*** As in Rory O'Moore

One of several dances I wrote mixing Rory O'Moore spins and box
circulates. This one has a strong partner focus, but still manages a
neighbor swing. The title refers both to using the star to enter the
long ocean waves, as well as one's partner being a guiding star to
keep in the right place.


Playground Stomp
Duple Improper Contra
Ron T Blechner
Called 4/1/15 Amherst, refined, called 4/16/15 Mt. Airy, Philadelphia
Thursday dance

Start: Long waves with Gents facing out, Ladies facing In, N in RH

A1. Bal, Slide R past N (4, 4) *
  Bal, Slide L past N (4, 4)
A2. Bal, Box Circulate (4, 4) **
  Bal, Gents Alle L 1x (4, 4) ***
B1. P Gypsy + Swing (16)
B2. Ladies Alle R 1.5x (8) to wave of 4 
  Bal Wave, N Alle L 3/4 (4, 4) to long waves. *

* as in Rory O'Moore
** Ladies cross, gents loop R
*** Ladies loop R as if it's a box circulate. This flows nicely into the gypsy.
 N in LH
* New N in RH

Difficulty: Intermediate - the individual moves aren't bad, but
there's a lot going on. This is a very stompy dance, hence the title.
"Playground" refers to slides and boxes one might play on/in.

I'm going to play with this more... Maybe turn the gents allemande to
a gypsy left.

This dance I wrote to mix up 2 Rory spins and 2 Box Circulates. The
gents allemande was an innovation born out of necessity. There's no
neighbor swing, but you get a lot of interaction with them.



On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Perry Shafran via Callers
 wrote:
> This is a category where there is a lot of dances, those that have both
> Petronella and Rory O'More figures.  I know of Bob Isaacs "Flaherty Will Get
> you Everywhere", plus my own "Cheat Lake Twirl", and there are a few others
> that I know of but forget the authors/names of dances.
>
> Perry
>
> 
> From: Dugan Murphy via Callers 
> To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I don't know of any dances with a Rory O'More figure and a box circulate in
> the same dance, but if you're looking for a Petronella figure and a Rory
> O'More figure in the same dance, check "Wave-Particle Duality" by Ryan
> Smith: http://www.twirlyshirts.com/dances/by-ryan/wave-particle-duality/.
>
> Dugan Murphy
> du...@duganmurphy.com
>
>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:18 -0400
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers 
> To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Long wave Rory O'Moore balance and slides/spins and box circulates ... in
> the same dance, adjacent to one another?
>
> I've not yet seen or danced any. Anyone have?
>
> I have a few dances; trying one or two this week.
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20150330/1f1bbd95/attachment.htm>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Rory slides and Box circulates

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For Playground Stomp, next time I'll try the B2 as:
Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
Star L to long waves (8)

It's slightly harder, but reduces balances from 5 to 4, and reduces the
raised arms in the dance, which may mean less fatigue.

Ron
 On Apr 30, 2015 8:06 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Thought I'd share the fruits of my thinking.
>
> Wrote a few dances. Have 2 keepers:
>
> Astral Navigation
> Becket Contra
> Ron T Blechner
> Called 4/15/15 Baltimore
>
> A1. Circle L 3/4 (6)
>   NS (10)
> A2. Star L 1x (8) to Long Waves *
>   Bal Wave, Box Circulate ** (4, 4)
> B1. Bal R, Slide R past P (4, 4) ***
>   Bal L, Slide L past P (4, 4)
> B2. P B+S (4, 12)
>
> * Gents face out, Ladies face in, Prev N in LH, New N in RH
> ** Ladies Cross, Gents Loop R. This is the progression!
> *** As in Rory O'Moore
>
> One of several dances I wrote mixing Rory O'Moore spins and box
> circulates. This one has a strong partner focus, but still manages a
> neighbor swing. The title refers both to using the star to enter the
> long ocean waves, as well as one's partner being a guiding star to
> keep in the right place.
>
>
> Playground Stomp
> Duple Improper Contra
> Ron T Blechner
> Called 4/1/15 Amherst, refined, called 4/16/15 Mt. Airy, Philadelphia
> Thursday dance
>
> Start: Long waves with Gents facing out, Ladies facing In, N in RH
>
> A1. Bal, Slide R past N (4, 4) *
>   Bal, Slide L past N (4, 4)
> A2. Bal, Box Circulate (4, 4) **
>   Bal, Gents Alle L 1x (4, 4) ***
> B1. P Gypsy + Swing (16)
> B2. Ladies Alle R 1.5x (8) to wave of 4 
>   Bal Wave, N Alle L 3/4 (4, 4) to long waves. *
>
> * as in Rory O'Moore
> ** Ladies cross, gents loop R
> *** Ladies loop R as if it's a box circulate. This flows nicely into the
> gypsy.
>  N in LH
> * New N in RH
>
> Difficulty: Intermediate - the individual moves aren't bad, but
> there's a lot going on. This is a very stompy dance, hence the title.
> "Playground" refers to slides and boxes one might play on/in.
>
> I'm going to play with this more... Maybe turn the gents allemande to
> a gypsy left.
>
> This dance I wrote to mix up 2 Rory spins and 2 Box Circulates. The
> gents allemande was an innovation born out of necessity. There's no
> neighbor swing, but you get a lot of interaction with them.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Perry Shafran via Callers
>  wrote:
> > This is a category where there is a lot of dances, those that have both
> > Petronella and Rory O'More figures.  I know of Bob Isaacs "Flaherty Will
> Get
> > you Everywhere", plus my own "Cheat Lake Twirl", and there are a few
> others
> > that I know of but forget the authors/names of dances.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > 
> > From: Dugan Murphy via Callers 
> > To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > I don't know of any dances with a Rory O'More figure and a box circulate
> in
> > the same dance, but if you're looking for a Petronella figure and a Rory
> > O'More figure in the same dance, check "Wave-Particle Duality" by Ryan
> > Smith: http://www.twirlyshirts.com/dances/by-ryan/wave-particle-duality/
> .
> >
> > Dugan Murphy
> > du...@duganmurphy.com
> >
> >
> > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:18 -0400
> > From: Ron Blechner via Callers 
> > To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > Subject: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> calf+g+5b02yzkizdh1e-ymojx-n1v9sgjsr4rqxdjuwoy3j...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Long wave Rory O'Moore balance and slides/spins and box circulates ... in
> > the same dance, adjacent to one another?
> >
> > I've not yet seen or danced any. Anyone have?
> >
> > I have a few dances; trying one or two this week.
> >
> > In dance,
> > Ron Blechner
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> > <
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20150330/1f1bbd95/attachment.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Rory slides and Box circulates

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

And tried. Like it better like that.

Playground Stomp
Duple Improper Contra
Ron T Blechner

Start: Long waves with Gents facing out, Ladies facing In, N in RH

A1. Bal, Slide R past N (4, 4)
  Bal, Slide L past N (4, 4)
A2. Bal, Box Circulate (4, 4)
  Bal, Gents Alle L 1x (4, 4)
B1. P Gypsy + Swing (16)
B2. Ladies Chain (8)
  Star L 1x (8) (to long wavy lines)


On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
> For Playground Stomp, next time I'll try the B2 as:
> Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
> Star L to long waves (8)
>
> It's slightly harder, but reduces balances from 5 to 4, and reduces the
> raised arms in the dance, which may mean less fatigue.
>
> Ron
>
> On Apr 30, 2015 8:06 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:
>>
>> Thought I'd share the fruits of my thinking.
>>
>> Wrote a few dances. Have 2 keepers:
>>
>> Astral Navigation
>> Becket Contra
>> Ron T Blechner
>> Called 4/15/15 Baltimore
>>
>> A1. Circle L 3/4 (6)
>>   NS (10)
>> A2. Star L 1x (8) to Long Waves *
>>   Bal Wave, Box Circulate ** (4, 4)
>> B1. Bal R, Slide R past P (4, 4) ***
>>   Bal L, Slide L past P (4, 4)
>> B2. P B+S (4, 12)
>>
>> * Gents face out, Ladies face in, Prev N in LH, New N in RH
>> ** Ladies Cross, Gents Loop R. This is the progression!
>> *** As in Rory O'Moore
>>
>> One of several dances I wrote mixing Rory O'Moore spins and box
>> circulates. This one has a strong partner focus, but still manages a
>> neighbor swing. The title refers both to using the star to enter the
>> long ocean waves, as well as one's partner being a guiding star to
>> keep in the right place.
>>
>>
>> Playground Stomp
>> Duple Improper Contra
>> Ron T Blechner
>> Called 4/1/15 Amherst, refined, called 4/16/15 Mt. Airy, Philadelphia
>> Thursday dance
>>
>> Start: Long waves with Gents facing out, Ladies facing In, N in RH
>>
>> A1. Bal, Slide R past N (4, 4) *
>>   Bal, Slide L past N (4, 4)
>> A2. Bal, Box Circulate (4, 4) **
>>   Bal, Gents Alle L 1x (4, 4) ***
>> B1. P Gypsy + Swing (16)
>> B2. Ladies Alle R 1.5x (8) to wave of 4 
>>   Bal Wave, N Alle L 3/4 (4, 4) to long waves. *
>>
>> * as in Rory O'Moore
>> ** Ladies cross, gents loop R
>> *** Ladies loop R as if it's a box circulate. This flows nicely into the
>> gypsy.
>>  N in LH
>> * New N in RH
>>
>> Difficulty: Intermediate - the individual moves aren't bad, but
>> there's a lot going on. This is a very stompy dance, hence the title.
>> "Playground" refers to slides and boxes one might play on/in.
>>
>> I'm going to play with this more... Maybe turn the gents allemande to
>> a gypsy left.
>>
>> This dance I wrote to mix up 2 Rory spins and 2 Box Circulates. The
>> gents allemande was an innovation born out of necessity. There's no
>> neighbor swing, but you get a lot of interaction with them.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Perry Shafran via Callers
>>  wrote:
>> > This is a category where there is a lot of dances, those that have both
>> > Petronella and Rory O'More figures.  I know of Bob Isaacs "Flaherty Will
>> > Get
>> > you Everywhere", plus my own "Cheat Lake Twirl", and there are a few
>> > others
>> > that I know of but forget the authors/names of dances.
>> >
>> > Perry
>> >
>> > 
>> > From: Dugan Murphy via Callers 
>> > To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:22 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates
>> >
>> > Hi Ron,
>> >
>> > I don't know of any dances with a Rory O'More figure and a box circulate
>> > in
>> > the same dance, but if you're looking for a Petronella figure and a Rory
>> > O'More figure in the same dance, check "Wave-Particle Duality" by Ryan
>> > Smith:
>> > http://www.twirlyshirts.com/dances/by-ryan/wave-particle-duality/.
>> >
>> > Dugan Murphy
>> > du...@duganmurphy.com
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:18 -0400
>> > From: Ron Blechner via Callers 
>> > To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> > Subject: [Callers] Rory slides and Box circulates
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> > 
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

[Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:

1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
2. How would gems / rubies compare?

In dance,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I have had to explain that "a jet is a gem, not the airplane or a West Side
Story gang" to a ton of people. So I feel this is more confusing than a
ruby being a gem.
On May 28, 2015 4:25 PM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
> > On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
> >>
> >>For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
> >>
> >>1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
> >
> > Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some
> > objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
> >
> >>2. How would gems / rubies compare?
> >
> > Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear. Also,
> > rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
>
> Ditto all this.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Yes, that's pretty much it, Maia.

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Maia McCormick via Callers
 wrote:
> At a guess, I would say that it's to distinguish it from the more masculine
> connotations of "jet" as either a plane or a color, and so to avoid having
> gender-y valances to what are supposed to be gender neutral terms. Ron, is
> that right? Or am I missing the mark here?
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Eric Black via Callers
>  wrote:
>>
>> Why have to explain that a “jet” is a gem?  Just say that it’s very
>> different from “ruby” so they are not easily confused in a noisy room.
>> -Eric
>>
>> On May 28, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I have had to explain that "a jet is a gem, not the airplane or a West
>> Side Story gang" to a ton of people. So I feel this is more confusing than a
>> ruby being a gem.
>>
>> On May 28, 2015 4:25 PM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers"
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
>>> > On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
>>> >>
>>> >>1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
>>> >
>>> > Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some
>>> > objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
>>> >
>>> >>2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>>> >
>>> > Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear. Also,
>>> > rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
>>>
>>> Ditto all this.
>>> --
>>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>>> http://rule6.info/
>>>   <*>   <*>   <*>
>>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Erik, neat cheat.

For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about gender
free terms:
http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-term-faq

I have not updated it with gems / rubies.

I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better:

1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet.
Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in
"gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh.
Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue.

2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think
airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this.  Given
that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as
callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice.

3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems.

4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's
either phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side
Story fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not
merely us.

5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet.

I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby.

Ron Blechner
On May 29, 2015 11:32 AM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> We are still using larks and ravens at the Berkeley dance. And, though I
> don't seem to have too much trouble using different words for different
> dances -- so far I've used men/women, ladies/gents, bands/bares,
> trees/squirrels, and larks/ravens without changing my mess of dance notes
> -- I understand that others can't switch so easily. On this note, at the
> Berkeley dance a caller recently did the following:
>
> 1) asked if anyone had some post-its. When found some
> 2) wrote "lark" and "raven" on the sticky end
> 3) cut out these little cheat-sheets
> 4) covered the words "gents" and "ladies" with the post-it cheats
> 5) move cheats to next card as needed
>
> Thereby changing their cards to the current words on the fly. I was
> impressed.
>
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
>
> On 5/28/2015 8:01 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some
>>>> objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
>>>>
>>>>  2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear. Also,
>>>> rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
>>>>
>>>
>> Me too.  I haven't yet tried calling with the jets and rubies
>> terminology, though I've used bands/bares and larks/ravens.  I can't say
>> I'm eager to add yet another set of translated cards to my files.
>> Kalia Kliban
>> ___
>> 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] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hampshire College and Village Contra in NYC are two gender free dances
who've done these studies over the course of several evenings. The same
night seems excessively difficult for both caller and dancers, though.
On May 29, 2015 12:17 PM, "John W Gintell"  wrote:

> It would be interesting to get some dancers' reactions to these various
> terminologies.
>
> Has anyone thought of using two different pairings in a dance evening and
> then asking the dancers which they thought was clearer to their ears and
> which they preferred? Of course this is even a bigger burden on the caller.
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>
> Erik, neat cheat.
>
> For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about
> gender free terms:
>
> http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-term-faq
>
> I have not updated it with gems / rubies.
>
> I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better:
>
> 1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet.
> Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in
> "gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh.
> Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue.
>
> 2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think
> airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this.  Given
> that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as
> callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice.
>
> 3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems.
>
> 4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's
> either phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side
> Story fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not
> merely us.
>
> 5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet.
>
> I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby.
>
> Ron Blechner
> On May 29, 2015 11:32 AM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> We are still using larks and ravens at the Berkeley dance. And, though I
>> don't seem to have too much trouble using different words for different
>> dances -- so far I've used men/women, ladies/gents, bands/bares,
>> trees/squirrels, and larks/ravens without changing my mess of dance notes
>> -- I understand that others can't switch so easily. On this note, at the
>> Berkeley dance a caller recently did the following:
>>
>> 1) asked if anyone had some post-its. When found some
>> 2) wrote "lark" and "raven" on the sticky end
>> 3) cut out these little cheat-sheets
>> 4) covered the words "gents" and "ladies" with the post-it cheats
>> 5) move cheats to next card as needed
>>
>> Thereby changing their cards to the current words on the fly. I was
>> impressed.
>>
>> ~erik hoffman
>> oakland, ca
>>
>> On 5/28/2015 8:01 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some
>>>>> objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
>>>>>
>>>>>  2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear. Also,
>>>>> rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Me too.  I haven't yet tried calling with the jets and rubies
>>> terminology, though I've used bands/bares and larks/ravens.  I can't say
>>> I'm eager to add yet another set of translated cards to my files.
>>> Kalia Kliban
>>> ___
>>> 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] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please?
On May 29, 2015 2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives,
> for the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance,
> by Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon
> Dance. A precedence, perhaps?
>
> -Amy
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have
> one syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy
> for the dancers to remember.  I have never had any issue arise about gender
> bias from them.  The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit
> too overthought to me.
>
> Susan Elberger
> Lowell, Massachusetts
>
>   --
>  *From:* Delia Clark via Callers 
> *To:* "" 
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>
> Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance
> Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons
> and stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with
> families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y
> to be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith
> committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m
> calling for a wedding of two women. Will report back.
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons.
> (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion).
>
> In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no
> trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and,
> (apologies to those who might be offended), because it fits the same
> syllables for me as "gents & ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or
> "men & women".
>
> For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea
> of why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands &
> bares.
>
> For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is
> which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more
> masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to
> link them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried
> apples & oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I
> couldn't remember which was which side - I have to have some frame of
> reference).
>
> I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because
> of having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I
> want to make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the
> syllable structure doesn't work for me.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Patricia
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>
> For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
> 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
>
>
> Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some
> objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
>
>  2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>
>
> Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear.  Also,
> rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
>
> -- Alan
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
>
> <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
>
> Delia Clark
> PO Box 45
> Taftsville, VT 05073
> 802-457-2075
> deliacla...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

" I haven't enjoyed the "gender neutral" dance events"

With utmost respect, then discussing gender neutral terms is probably not
so relevant to your interests.
On May 29, 2015 7:00 PM, "Neal Schlein via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Okay, this is from a square dance/contra caller: I'd go crazy if I was
> stuck with a single set of terms, no matter what they were.  The rhyming
> potential for the calls is lost.
>
> Anyway, I still think it is more than just a matter of terminology.
>
> All we are doing is swapping words; everyone knows they are stand-ins and
> what they are stand-ins for.  In essence, we are just obscuring the
> original choreographic intent of gendered figures and dances, not calling
> gender neutral dances.  (Plus, anything written within the last 30 years is
> a copyrighted work and technically we require permission to make changes,
> perform it publicly, OR make derivative works.  Not that anyone really
> cares.)
>
> Personally, I haven't enjoyed the "gender neutral" dance events I've been
> to--not because I think it's a bad idea or dislike dancing with men, but
> because the callers were taking historical dances with built-in and
> intentional gender differences and simply ignoring them.  Particularly in
> older ECD, it is one thing to intentionally dance the lady's role and
> another to ignore that there WAS a role.  It impoverishes the dance as a
> whole.
>
> Some older dances happen to work well as gendered or ungendered dances,
> but to me a truly gender-neutral dance is constructed to intentionally be
> that way.  For example, the following:
>
> Gender-Swapped
> By Neal Schlein, 5/29/15
> Duple gender-less contra
> Music: Probably something highly phrased, like Irish
> A1: 1's step into center and handy hand turn neighbor 2 times
> A1: End with everyone facing down the hall, 4 in line, and go down the hall
> A2: Face the center of the line, pass thru, leads u-Turn and swing, any
> type (end in same spot where started swing, 1's on outside, facing up the
> hall)
> B1: Come up the hall
> B1: Bend the line and circle full
> B2: 1's gypsy full and slow cast down while the 2's gypsy or swing 1 and
> 1/2 to end in starting line; 1s come into the center.
>
> It's not the best timing in the B2, but if I did that right
>
>- With improper and gendered lines, it dances normally the first time
>through--standard swings, everything.  The second time, the 1's will be on
>the opposite side of the set, meaning half of the dance is same-gender and
>half is opposite.
>- With PROPER gendered lines, that is exactly reversed.
>- With gender-neutral lines--it is completely random, but it doesn't
>matter because...
>
> The dance itself is gender-neutral: it doesn't need gender or
> gender-substitute terms for teaching any of the figures or the sequence in
> any formation.  The choreography was selected to force interaction of
> identical sorts with all participating genders and positions.
>
> .
>
> Neal Schlein
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It's more than just Hampshire.

And again, I'm kind of disappointed that I asked a pretty dang simple
question that only a few of you took to answering directly.
On May 31, 2015 10:34 AM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I agree.
> Personally I'd like to see this rest for awhile.  We just discussed this
> at length 6 months ago.  It's my understanding that the folks who started
> it all (Hampshire College) have not yet decided on which terms to use.
>
> I think that talking about terms to use is a bit "cart before the horse".
> I don't think there's any consensus (nationally) that it should be changed
> it at all.  Yes, another can of worms.
>
> Keep in mind that in the 70's and 80's (with the feminist movement) many
> callers were using "Men and Women".  Now many callers are back to "Gents
> and Ladies" and explaining that these are "roles" not gender defining.
>
> Donna Hunt
>
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: susanelberger via Callers 
> To: Ron Blechner ; Amy Wimmer 
> Cc: callers 
> Sent: Sat, May 30, 2015 2:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>
>   I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death.  I doubt that
> there will be agreement, and that's fine.  The topic has been on the list
> several times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems
> to be more than enough.
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Andrea, how would you handle the following:

1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip to
Lambertville, et all?

2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star?

3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers,
Jurassic Redheads, etc.

4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey.

5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate?

6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't
mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways?

None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated.

Ron
On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at
> Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of
> global terminology for gender free contra.  I would contend that if used,
> everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances.  Only the most
> unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called.  The addition of
> first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it possible for same
> role dancers to also be called upon to dance together without reference to
> gender.  Second corners chain, or first corners allemande L 1 1/2 for
> example.  It would have to be agreed that this refers to those standing in
> those positions at that moment.  In ECD we use first and second corners to
> refer to the people, first and second diagonals for the positions.  But
> since we use diagonal to refer to those across and over one set, this seems
> unhelpful.  Simply corner positions works better.  I'm glad some folks are
> trying it out at last.  I had hoped for an opportunity myself before now.
> Cheers,
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> The recent discussions on this topic inspired me to try an experiment in
> gender free calling.  Last night I called the contra dance in St. Louis
> using gender free calling without telling anyone.The experiment was a
> great success.  I received lots of  positive feedback on the evenings
> dance.  At the break and after the dance I made a point to ask several
> dancers, some were callers as well, if they noticed anything different or
> unusual about the dances or how I taught them.   One person noticed that
> there were more dances that included a swing in the center for couple 2
> than usual.  No one I talked to noticed that the calls and teaching were
> gender free.
>
> It took some extra time to construct a fun, diverse 3 hour program, but it
> is certainly possible.  Re-labeling the dancers is not the only way to call
> gender free.
>
> If you are interested in the program I used or the larger collection of
> gender free dances I chose the program from, send me an email,
> arcadia...@gmail.com.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Hemphill
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

The corners option is intriguing, but it's definitely more difficult,
even after dancers adjust.
Some more thoughts:

1. Anything in long lines is tricky, because corners are relative to
the group of 4, not the individual dancer. For example, I don't think
the box circulate solution is easy at all.

2. Any terms that are used ought to stand up to calling during a
medley. If we can't universalize the terms, or nearly so, then they're
putting an upper limit on the skill level of dances we can use. I
don't think

3. I like the idea of removing the gender from "chain" entirely. The
concept of a "Lady's Chain" is antequated. It's a chain. Either
position can do it. It also means that the current "Gent's Chain" is
incorrect - and should be a "Left-hand-chain".

4. Isn't corners used a lot in ECD simply because of necessity with
proper formation?

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers
 wrote:
> On 6/1/2015 10:23 AM, Dave Casserly via Callers wrote:
>>
>> Also with regard to Ron's questions, numbers 2 and 3 (who-leads-whom and
>> who-walks-forward) can be handled by using the terms "clockwise" and
>> "counterclockwise."  As to 4 (who passes whom for a hey), I agree with
>> Bob that if the dance is good, it should be obvious, but even if not,
>> "pass left shoulders in the middle for a hey for four" can only be
>> interpreted one way, so that fixes the issue of referring to roles.
>
>
> Mostly, yes, but with oddball dances like Earth and Sky (Rick Mohr) that
> have an unusual entry into the hey you do need to give some more specific
> instruction.
> A1: Gypsy with neighbor (8)
> Swing neighbor (8)
> A2: Circle left 3/4 (8)
> Allemande right with partner 1 1/2 (8)
> B1: Allemande left with shadow (6)
> Swing partner (10)
> B2: 5/8 hey (men pass right shoulders to start) (8)
> Gypsy (left shoulder) with neighbor (8)
>
> Just as a brain exercise, how would you tackle this one with global
> terminology?  There's usually a way to make it work, but sometimes it can be
> pretty clunky to avoid the role terms.
>
>> I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it is actually quite doable to
>> call a dance without referring to roles at all, even without resorting
>> to first or second corners.
>>
>> Perry asked for an example of a dance with global terminology used.
>> Here's one (just picking a common, typical dance):
>>
>> Square Affair, by Becky Hill
>>
>> A1 Long Lines, 1st corners chain (or just say "chain" if you're dealing
>> with experienced dancers and don't want to use the corners terminology)
>
>
> That would need to be 2nd corners.
>
>> A2 Balance and pull by partner, pull by neighbor, balance and pull by
>> partner, pull by neighbor
>> B1 New neighbors balance and swing
>> B2 Circle 3/4, partner swing
>
>
> Kalia Kliban
> Sebastopol, CA
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

RE: Dave:

Clockwise / counterclockwise - too wordy, and some people have trouble
with this regardless.

Hey: What about on the left diagonal? Along the set?

I also really don't like the blaming of the dance if it's not 100%
intuitive. Plenty of dances flow great but have a counter-intuitive
element. Restricting dances to those without counter-intuitive moves
is basically saying, "Sorry, if we want to be genderfree, we need to
put a cap on how difficult a dance is. Sorry genderfree dancers, you
aren't allowed to dance too advanced."  That's a big problem.

Rollaways can *not* be handled from left to right - who does the
rolling is not indicated at all!

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dave Casserly
 wrote:
> Also with regard to Ron's questions, numbers 2 and 3 (who-leads-whom and
> who-walks-forward) can be handled by using the terms "clockwise" and
> "counterclockwise."  As to 4 (who passes whom for a hey), I agree with Bob
> that if the dance is good, it should be obvious, but even if not, "pass left
> shoulders in the middle for a hey for four" can only be interpreted one way,
> so that fixes the issue of referring to roles.  Roll-aways can be handled
> with "roll away from the left to the right" or "roll away from the right to
> the left."
>
> I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it is actually quite doable to call a
> dance without referring to roles at all, even without resorting to first or
> second corners.
>
> Perry asked for an example of a dance with global terminology used.  Here's
> one (just picking a common, typical dance):
>
> Square Affair, by Becky Hill
>
> A1 Long Lines, 1st corners chain (or just say "chain" if you're dealing with
> experienced dancers and don't want to use the corners terminology)
> A2 Balance and pull by partner, pull by neighbor, balance and pull by
> partner, pull by neighbor
> B1 New neighbors balance and swing
> B2 Circle 3/4, partner swing
>
> Perry, you also mentioned that you are trying to figure out how global
> terminology would work for proper dances.  I have always called proper
> dances using global terminology without even thinking about it.  For Chorus
> Jig, for instance, why would you ever need to use the term "gent" or "lady"?
> Down the outside, back, down the middle, back and neighbor around-the-waist
> turn, 1s turn contra corners, 1s balance and swing.  Nothing that any
> particular role does that the other role isn't doing at the same time.
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Bob Morgan via Callers
>  wrote:
>>
>> With regard to Ron's questions
>>
>> 1. Would be easily covered by 1st or 2nd corners walk forward to a wave
>>
>> 2. Again can be done with reference to corners
>>
>> 3. Not so familiar with these.
>>
>> 4. You usually only need an obvious first pass person so not an issue I
>> think
>>
>> 5.  If you're facing out you turn, if you're facing across you walk is how
>> I call it anyway
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrea, how would you handle the following:
>>>
>>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip to
>>> Lambertville, et all?
>>>
>>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star?
>>>
>>> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers,
>>> Jurassic Redheads, etc.
>>>
>>> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey.
>>>
>>> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate?
>>>
>>> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't
>>> mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways?
>>>
>>> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers"
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at
>>>> Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of
>>>> global terminology for gender free contra.  I would contend that if used,
>>>> everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances.  Only the most
>>>> unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called.  The addition of
>>>> first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it possible for same
>>>> role dancers to also be 

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Jim,

I think this approach is great for adding more dances with choice. ...
but at some point, people want advanced dances and/or medleys, and
limiting the move-set I don't find an acceptable compromise.

-Ron

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Jim Hemphill  wrote:
> Proper Dance, gender free yet not too simple
> A1 Neighbor allemande left 1 1/2
>  1st corners allemande right 1 1/2
> A2 Scoop your partner as you go by, star promenade then butterfly
>  2nd corners swing in the center, then separate
> B1 Partner balance and swing
> B2 Take hands in a ring, balance and petranella
>  Couple 2 swing in the center, end facing up
>
> Dances can have variety and challenges without gender reference.  In this
> dance, as long as you make clear in the teaching that after the neighbor
> allemande left 1 1/2 if you are facing in, you are a 1st corner so you
> allemande right, if facing out you are a 2nd corner, get ready to be scooped
> you can end the swings any way you want.
>
> Ron, you are certainly right that not all dances can be easily taught in
> this manner, but in no way are all of these type of dances simple.  I
> struggled with translating a "choose your noun" for ladies or gents because
> that is how I learned and think about the dance roles. The translation
> process adds a layer of complexity  for me.  I am just offering a different
> approach that works for me.
>
> Thanks
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
>  wrote:
>>
>> RE: Dave:
>>
>> Clockwise / counterclockwise - too wordy, and some people have trouble
>> with this regardless.
>>
>> Hey: What about on the left diagonal? Along the set?
>>
>> I also really don't like the blaming of the dance if it's not 100%
>> intuitive. Plenty of dances flow great but have a counter-intuitive
>> element. Restricting dances to those without counter-intuitive moves
>> is basically saying, "Sorry, if we want to be genderfree, we need to
>> put a cap on how difficult a dance is. Sorry genderfree dancers, you
>> aren't allowed to dance too advanced."  That's a big problem.
>>
>> Rollaways can *not* be handled from left to right - who does the
>> rolling is not indicated at all!
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dave Casserly
>>  wrote:
>> > Also with regard to Ron's questions, numbers 2 and 3 (who-leads-whom and
>> > who-walks-forward) can be handled by using the terms "clockwise" and
>> > "counterclockwise."  As to 4 (who passes whom for a hey), I agree with
>> > Bob
>> > that if the dance is good, it should be obvious, but even if not, "pass
>> > left
>> > shoulders in the middle for a hey for four" can only be interpreted one
>> > way,
>> > so that fixes the issue of referring to roles.  Roll-aways can be
>> > handled
>> > with "roll away from the left to the right" or "roll away from the right
>> > to
>> > the left."
>> >
>> > I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it is actually quite doable to
>> > call a
>> > dance without referring to roles at all, even without resorting to first
>> > or
>> > second corners.
>> >
>> > Perry asked for an example of a dance with global terminology used.
>> > Here's
>> > one (just picking a common, typical dance):
>> >
>> > Square Affair, by Becky Hill
>> >
>> > A1 Long Lines, 1st corners chain (or just say "chain" if you're dealing
>> > with
>> > experienced dancers and don't want to use the corners terminology)
>> > A2 Balance and pull by partner, pull by neighbor, balance and pull by
>> > partner, pull by neighbor
>> > B1 New neighbors balance and swing
>> > B2 Circle 3/4, partner swing
>> >
>> > Perry, you also mentioned that you are trying to figure out how global
>> > terminology would work for proper dances.  I have always called proper
>> > dances using global terminology without even thinking about it.  For
>> > Chorus
>> > Jig, for instance, why would you ever need to use the term "gent" or
>> > "lady"?
>> > Down the outside, back, down the middle, back and neighbor
>> > around-the-waist
>> > turn, 1s turn contra corners, 1s balance and swing.  Nothing that any
>> > particular role does that the other role isn't doing at the same time.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Bob Morgan via Callers

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

While I still see the appeal of corners in principle, this is a ton of
explanation for those of us who already are well versed in dance. For the
objections stated, I don't see using corners is feasible replacement terms.
And I don't see restricting dances to ones not requiring role/position
terms as viable outside one night stands.

And with that, I don't think I have more to add that wouldn't be repeating
myself.

Best regards,
Ron
On Jun 2, 2015 9:25 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015, Bob Stein via Callers wrote:
> >
> > This discussion of ECD just made me realize that the one move that is
> > usually specifically gender related -- Ladies Chain -- is actually 2nd
> > corners chain.  If the idea of first and second corners is introduced
> > to contra dancers than there would be no problem with most of the
> > moves: chains, allemandes, heys.  It all becomes position oriented.
>
> Maybe so.  But this discussion is making me realize part of the reason I
> dislike ECD: this positional notation.  It's not that position is
> difficult for me in general terms, because that's a lot of MWSD, but
> something about the "corners" notation I find difficult (I also have
> difficulty with contra corners).
>
> I wonder how many other people have similar difficulty and to what
> extent this accounts for the ECD/contra divide.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket
> almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people so
> they stick.  I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris use
> diagonal.  In contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, meaning
> the next pair along across the set to the right or left.  The corner
> reference we have is actually close to right, probably having grown out of
> triple minor dances.  Right diagonal is first corner, Left diagonal is
> second.  Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of corners along
> opposite angles.  It's a place not a person.  Then I can write a dance
> beginning with a second corner chain, and it will be those formerly
> identified as gents, but will work totally fine.  If the dance were proper,
> you could still have a second diagonals chain and it would be one of each
> 'role'.  A direct transfer of the system to contra is not as useful as
> adapting, IMHO.
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. 
> wrote:
>
> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global
> calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller
> self improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in
> not gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can
> answer.
>
>  The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published
> the most in) is designed for proper longways.  Men's line is left file,
> ladies line is right file.   In a square or Becket formation gents place
> are first diagonals, ladies are second diagonals.  Corner is reserved for
> contra corners and the immediate neighbor in a square.
>
>  However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set,
> first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second
> gent).  If you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was
> suggesting, the ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second
> corners.
>
>  The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we
> now do with gender is to substitute a corner reference.  First corners make
> a wave in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in.
>
>
>  You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to
> becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply
> before you becketize, which would be my preference.
>
>  Does that clear it up ?
>
>  Alan
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>   Andrea, how would you handle the following:
> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip to
> Lambertville, et all?
> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star?
> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers,
> Jurassic Redheads, etc.
> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey.
> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate?
> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't
> mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways?
> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated.
> Ron
> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>  In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at
> Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of
> global terminology for gender free contra.  I would contend that if used,
> everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances.  Only the most
> unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called.  The addition of
> first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it possible for same
> role dancers to also be called upon to dance together without reference to
> gender.  Second corners chain, or first corners allemande L 1 1/2 for
> example.  It would have to be agreed that this refers to those standing in
> those positions at that moment.  In ECD we use first and second corners to
> refer to the people, first and second diagonals for the positions.  But
> since we use diagonal to refer to those across and over one set, this seems
> unhelpful.  Simply corner positions works better.  I'm glad some folks are
> trying it out at last.  I had hoped for an opportunity myself before now.
> Cheers,
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers <
> callers@lists.sh

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

t;
>> This makes the dance obscure to beginning and intermediate dancers.  Seems 
>> best to have  names corresponding to the men's and women's roles, rather 
>> than to have dancer's determine which corners they are at any point in the 
>> dance.
>>
>>
>> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:26 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket
>> almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people so
>> they stick.  I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris use
>> diagonal.  In contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, meaning
>> the next pair along across the set to the right or left.  The corner
>> reference we have is actually close to right, probably having grown out of
>> triple minor dances.  Right diagonal is first corner, Left diagonal is
>> second.  Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of corners along
>> opposite angles.  It's a place not a person.  Then I can write a dance
>> beginning with a second corner chain, and it will be those formerly
>> identified as gents, but will work totally fine.  If the dance were proper,
>> you could still have a second diagonals chain and it would be one of each
>> 'role'.  A direct transfer of the system to contra is not as useful as
>> adapting, IMHO.
>> Andrea
>>
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global
>> calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller
>> self improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in
>> not gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can
>> answer.
>>
>>  The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published
>> the most in) is designed for proper longways.  Men's line is left file,
>> ladies line is right file.   In a square or Becket formation gents place
>> are first diagonals, ladies are second diagonals.  Corner is reserved for
>> contra corners and the immediate neighbor in a square.
>>
>>  However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set,
>> first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second
>> gent).  If you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was
>> suggesting, the ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second
>> corners.
>>
>>  The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we
>> now do with gender is to substitute a corner reference.  First corners make
>> a wave in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in.
>>
>>
>>  You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to
>> becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply
>> before you becketize, which would be my preference.
>>
>>  Does that clear it up ?
>>
>>  Alan
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>   Andrea, how would you handle the following:
>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in Trip to
>> Lambertville, et all?
>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star?
>> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal Pushers,
>> Jurassic Redheads, etc.
>> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey.
>> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate?
>> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I haven't
>> mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways?
>> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you stated.
>> Ron
>> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>  In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at
>> Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of
>> global terminology for gender free contra.  I would contend that if used,
>> everyone would become more aware of the structure of dances.  Only the most
>> unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be called.  The addition of
>

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

eight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Consider this dance
>>
>> E.J.M.J.F. in CincinnatiDuple Improper   Michael Fuerst  
>>  March, 1991
>>
>> A1  Balance and swing neighbor.
>>
>> A2  Men allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner.
>>
>> B1  Long lines forward and back.  Women chain to neighbor.
>>
>> B2  Women allemande right (4).
>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until
>>neighbors on the side they started the dance (8).
>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left  along set to 
>> meet new
>>neighbors (4).
>>
>> Using this thread's suggestions, I think this becomes (as long as dancers 
>> understand that those starting as *second corners* always end the swing on 
>> the right)
>>
>> E.J.M.J.F. in CincinnatiDuple Improper   Michael Fuerst  
>>  March, 1991
>>
>> A1  Balance and swing neighbor.
>>
>> A2  *First corners* allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner.
>>
>> B1  Long lines forward and back.  *Second corners* chain to neighbor.
>>
>> B2  *Second corners* allemande right (4).
>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until
>>neighbors on the side they started the dance (8).
>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left  along set to 
>> meet new
>>neighbors (4)
>>
>> This makes the dance obscure to beginning and intermediate dancers.  Seems 
>> best to have  names corresponding to the men's and women's roles, rather 
>> than to have dancer's determine which corners they are at any point in the 
>> dance.
>>
>>
>> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:26 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket
>> almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people so
>> they stick.  I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris use
>> diagonal.  In contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, meaning
>> the next pair along across the set to the right or left.  The corner
>> reference we have is actually close to right, probably having grown out of
>> triple minor dances.  Right diagonal is first corner, Left diagonal is
>> second.  Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of corners along
>> opposite angles.  It's a place not a person.  Then I can write a dance
>> beginning with a second corner chain, and it will be those formerly
>> identified as gents, but will work totally fine.  If the dance were proper,
>> you could still have a second diagonals chain and it would be one of each
>> 'role'.  A direct transfer of the system to contra is not as useful as
>> adapting, IMHO.
>> Andrea
>>
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global
>> calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller
>> self improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in
>> not gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can
>> answer.
>>
>>  The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published
>> the most in) is designed for proper longways.  Men's line is left file,
>> ladies line is right file.   In a square or Becket formation gents place
>> are first diagonals, ladies are second diagonals.  Corner is reserved for
>> contra corners and the immediate neighbor in a square.
>>
>>  However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set,
>> first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second
>> gent).  If you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was
>> suggesting, the ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second
>> corners.
>>
>>  The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we
>> now do with gender is to substitute a corner reference.  First corners make
>> a wave in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in.
>>
>>
>>  You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to
>> becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corn

Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

gt;> B2  Women allemande right (4).
>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until
>>neighbors on the side they started the dance (8).
>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left  along set to 
>> meet new
>>neighbors (4).
>>
>> Using this thread's suggestions, I think this becomes (as long as dancers 
>> understand that those starting as *second corners* always end the swing on 
>> the right)
>>
>> E.J.M.J.F. in CincinnatiDuple Improper   Michael Fuerst  
>>  March, 1991
>>
>> A1  Balance and swing neighbor.
>>
>> A2  *First corners* allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner.
>>
>> B1  Long lines forward and back.  *Second corners* chain to neighbor.
>>
>> B2  *Second corners* allemande right (4).
>> 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until
>>neighbors on the side they started the dance (8).
>> Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left  along set to 
>> meet new
>>neighbors (4)
>>
>> This makes the dance obscure to beginning and intermediate dancers.  Seems 
>> best to have  names corresponding to the men's and women's roles, rather 
>> than to have dancer's determine which corners they are at any point in the 
>> dance.
>>
>>
>> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:26 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket
>> almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people so
>> they stick.  I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris use
>> diagonal.  In contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, meaning
>> the next pair along across the set to the right or left.  The corner
>> reference we have is actually close to right, probably having grown out of
>> triple minor dances.  Right diagonal is first corner, Left diagonal is
>> second.  Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of corners along
>> opposite angles.  It's a place not a person.  Then I can write a dance
>> beginning with a second corner chain, and it will be those formerly
>> identified as gents, but will work totally fine.  If the dance were proper,
>> you could still have a second diagonals chain and it would be one of each
>> 'role'.  A direct transfer of the system to contra is not as useful as
>> adapting, IMHO.
>> Andrea
>>
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P. 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of global
>> calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller
>> self improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in
>> not gender free English as well as for gender free English I think I can
>> answer.
>>
>>  The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have published
>> the most in) is designed for proper longways.  Men's line is left file,
>> ladies line is right file.   In a square or Becket formation gents place
>> are first diagonals, ladies are second diagonals.  Corner is reserved for
>> contra corners and the immediate neighbor in a square.
>>
>>  However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set,
>> first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second
>> gent).  If you apply that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was
>> suggesting, the ladies are on the first corners, the gents on the second
>> corners.
>>
>>  The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we
>> now do with gender is to substitute a corner reference.  First corners make
>> a wave in the middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in.
>>
>>
>>  You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to
>> becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply
>> before you becketize, which would be my preference.
>>
>>  Does that clear it up ?
>>
>>  Alan
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>   Andrea, how would you handle the following:
>> 1. Lines of o

Re: [Callers] Buzz Step Swing

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Not everyone is physically able to do the buzzstep swing. While I include
the buzz step as part of my beginner lesson, it gets axed if I'm short on
time. Other dancers will teach them that.

What's way more important is teaching giving weight. A good-weight walking
swing is vastly more pleasurable than a bad-weight buzz-step swing.

Ron Blechner
On Jun 20, 2015 10:28 AM, "Lindsay Morris via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> John, respectfully, I have to disagree with your disagreement. A simple
> walking swing works just fine  even when the other person is doing a buzz
> step.
>
> The HUGE problem that I see with beginner lessons is that people stand
> around bored while the teacher talks and talks. All the air goes out of the
> room. Keeping the beginners moving is job number one.
>
> So, I have them do a right elbow swing, to get the body dynamics right.
> Then maybe 30 seconds of talking about ballroom position, have them do a
> walking swing, a moment on how to  balance, and they are good for the
> night. Especially if they get to practice that with three or four different
> people during the lesson.
>
> I can move a competent newcomer from walking-swing to buzz-step swing
> during the dance, just with "look at my feet."
>
> Always appreciate the perspectives on this list though.
>
> > On Jun 20, 2015, at 5:16 AM, John Sweeney via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Dale said, "Don't teach advanced techniques to new dancers.  Forget the
> buzz
> > step."
> >
> > Sorry, but I must disagree most strongly.
> >
> > In an average evening of contra dancing you will spend nearly thirty
> minutes
> > swinging (if the dances are in the Modern Urban Contra Dance style rather
> > than the older styles).
> >
> > I think it is incredibly unfair to a newcomer to make them suffer for
> thirty
> > minutes rather than teach them how to swing.  They can also cause a lot
> of
> > suffering to whomever they are swinging with if they have lousy
> technique.
> >
> > I would not agree that it is advanced either. I strongly believe that a
> > couple of minutes teaching the basics of a buzz step swing will give
> > everyone a much more enjoyable evening.  Some of them won't get it, but
> for
> > those that do it can completely change their experience of the evening.
> >
> > Happy dancing,
> > John
> >
> > John Sweeney, Dancer, England j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362
> > http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Buzz Step Swing

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Okay, so what about my first comment?:

Some people are not physically capable of a buzz step.

It can be too fast for any variety of physical limitations. If it could be
that some dancers simply can't get it easily. (Some dancers never "get" the
buzz step, and that's okay.)

The single most important thing to teach a dancer is "it's okay to make
mistakes". If we want to make our dances spaces where brand new dancers
feel comfortable, stating that all dancers need to learn the buzz step adds
an unwelcoming environmental factor.

I agree that a buzz step doesn't need to take long to teach, but I do it in
the context of teaching for beginners. I teach that the dosido works
spinning or not. That almost all moves can be done walking. That people
dancing lady role can refuse a flourish. (God forbid we teach lady role
dancers that they can initiate flourishes, but that's a different
discussion.) So teaching an optional swing method is contrary to these
other lessons. And I be sure, when I teach buzz step, to demonstrate that
one can buzz while the other walks.

Ron
On Jun 21, 2015 6:44 AM, "John Sweeney via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Yes, of course I always tell dancers that they can walk instead of buzz,
> but
> the buzz-step is so much more fun that it seems crazy not to teach it when
> every dance is going to have a swing and usually two.
>
>  Yes, I love swinging, and have been loving it for fifty years
> now, but why does every new dance have to have two swings?  Oh no, not
> Neighbour Balance & Swing, Circle Left 3/4, Partner Swing again - that's
> half the dance gone with nothing new or interesting in it! (And changing
> the
> Circle Left 3/4 to Men/Ladies Allemande 1 & 1/2 does not make it more
> interesting!)  I write lots of dances with one or zero swings - a
> zero-swing
> dance can have so much good stuff in it that the dancers don't even notice
> there is no swing; they are having too much fun. It always puzzles me when
> people take a great one-swing dance and re-choreograph it to add a second
> swing, losing part of what made it a great dance just for the sake of even
> more swinging. 
>
> I found it interesting that Ron said, "the buzz-step swing gets axed if I'm
> short on time".  If I only had time to teach one thing then the only thing
> I
> would teach would be the buzz-step swing, and how to finish it so you end
> up
> in the right place.  I can't think of anything else that newcomers can't
> learn during the walk-throughs.
>
> Question: If you were calling for a group with a dozen newcomers in the
> hall
> out of 100 people, and the organizers said you could have two minutes
> teaching before you started the first walk-through, what would you teach?
> For me the answer is obvious, every dance has a buzz-step swing; teach a
> buzz-step swing.
>
> Another reason for teaching swinging is that there are a significant number
> of "experienced" dancers who have bad swinging habits.  I dance all over
> the
> USA and the UK and wherever I go there are always some people who:
> - grip, clamp, squeeze, hang, press
> - hold their partner in the wrong place so it is uncomfortable
> - use too much strength and try to do silly things like making their
> partners feet leave the floor
> - lean sideways or backwards
> - start twirls too late and when they are facing the wrong way so that they
> end up in the wrong place
> - etc.
>
> If just a couple of those dancers pick up on any of these points and
> improve
> their swinging then you have done good work!
>
> Yes, I hate it when callers talk too much and take time out of dancing
> time.
> But this can be really short:
>
> Sample teach:
> = = = = = = = =
> Hi, I'm John.  We have some new people here today and they are going to
> spend half an hour swinging tonight, so please let's spend a minute or two
> on showing them how it's done.  And all you great dancers out there why not
> see if you can't make your swing even better for you and your partners.
>
> This is called a buzz-step swing.
>
> First, let go of you partner completely. Put your left toe just behind your
> right foot like this. Now walk fast on the spot. Now push with your left
> foor as though you were on a skateboard and turn clockwise by yourself on
> the spot. Relax your knees so you don't bounce up and down.  See how
> smoothly.you can turn with the minimum of effort.
>
> Now take your partner in a ballroom hold - the man's hand on the lady's
> shoulderblade - it is far more comfotable for the lady if you hold them up
> high.  Now relax - make sure you are not pressing on any part of your
> partner.
>
> And swing - it should be a gentle embrace where, as a single
> counterbalanced
> unit, you glide smoothly and effortlessly around. Smile at your partner and
> you won't get dizzy.
>
> Now think of your joined hands as an arrowhead and finish pointing at the
> other couple.
>
> If you are having trouble with the buzz-step then you can always just walk.
> = = = = = =

Re: [Callers] Giving Weight

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

This! I explain weight similarly
On Jun 24, 2015 3:34 PM, "Kalia Kliban via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On 6/24/2015 11:29 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you descibe giving weight, and how do you teach it for circles,
>> allemandes, and, swings?
>> Rich
>> Stafford, CT
>>
>
> In my beginner sessions, I have them form a ring and then circle left and
> right a couple of times.  Then I ask them to bend their elbows and feel
> "that springy tension between you and the dancers next to you.  If you can
> keep that elasticity while you're connected to other dancers, then you're
> all supporting each other as you circle and turn, and it makes everything
> easier."  And then we circle again, with the extra bit of sproing, and then
> do the same with allemandes.  Just for fun, sometimes I'll have them go
> back to the floppy arms, just to feel the difference.  I also let them know
> that with a little bit of tension in the connection, it's easier for the
> person they're dancing with to give them physical cues.
>
> And I know there's a better word than tension, and I'm pretty sure I've
> used it in the past, but right now I can't think of it.
>
> Kalia
> Sebastopol, CA
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Giving Weight

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I do 2 hand turn first.
On Jun 24, 2015 4:22 PM, "Rich Sbardella via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My main concern is how to acquire that tension/counterweight in a swing,
> if you do not lean back.
> Rich
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2015 11:29 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How do you descibe giving weight, and how do you teach it for circles,
>>> allemandes, and, swings?
>>> Rich
>>> Stafford, CT
>>>
>>
>> In my beginner sessions, I have them form a ring and then circle left and
>> right a couple of times.  Then I ask them to bend their elbows and feel
>> "that springy tension between you and the dancers next to you.  If you can
>> keep that elasticity while you're connected to other dancers, then you're
>> all supporting each other as you circle and turn, and it makes everything
>> easier."  And then we circle again, with the extra bit of sproing, and then
>> do the same with allemandes.  Just for fun, sometimes I'll have them go
>> back to the floppy arms, just to feel the difference.  I also let them know
>> that with a little bit of tension in the connection, it's easier for the
>> person they're dancing with to give them physical cues.
>>
>> And I know there's a better word than tension, and I'm pretty sure I've
>> used it in the past, but right now I can't think of it.
>>
>> Kalia
>> Sebastopol, 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] Giving Weight

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

You don't find "nose-to-nose" makes some uncomfortable?
On Jun 25, 2015 10:48 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
> >
> > My main concern is how to acquire that tension/counterweight in a swing,
> if
> > you do not lean back.
>
> Let momentum do the work.  The way I teach swinging, I tell people to
> stand nose-to-nose.  Then I tell each of them to take a small half-step
> to the left.  If they twist, I tell them to go back to the nose-to-nose
> and explain that it is critical that they stay facing the same direction
> when they move left.  Then I have them go into ballroom hold and start
> walking forward, telling them to notice how the pressure of holding each
> other just naturally forces them into a circle.
>
> Particularly when I do this with people who've been twisting their
> bodies, they go, "Wow, it's a lot easier this way."
>
> When they start swinging a bit faster, that's when I talk about the
> giving weight aspect of swinging.  It's a matter of holding the swing
> together, and you just don't need the tension until they're moving fast.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] More on Programming

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I didn't read Cary's comments about squares as an "objection", just
that Cary was rebutting the comment by George: "squares are just like
contras, only you have to listen."

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers
 wrote:
> Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory.  Let me
> re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly.
>
> Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to
> connect your movement to the music.
> Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually
> danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the
> dancing time.
> Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your
> original partner than in a contra.
> Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only make
> movements in place during some of the music.
> In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with the
> relationship you would like to have with the music.
>
> Have I understood your points correctly?  Or  have I not quite understood
> your meaning?
>
> Jacob Bloom
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Some things that people to not like about squares -
>>
>>   less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing
>>   having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection
>>   teaching time
>>   mixer squares breaks the partner connection
>>   visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods.
>>
>> I find squares and contras completely different.
>>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Favorite Techno-Suitable Contras?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Don,

In my experience with technos, the biggest factors are:

- people can't see as well, and dances are often more crowded, so stuff
with higher collision potential are out. Orbits, pousettes, star promenadrs
... Caution!
- you draw a slightly different demographic, often newer dancers, so the
overall difficulty is lower and you're calling longer
- people get lost easier with less lighting, louder music, music whose
phrasing may not be as clear, and the trancey nature of it. Again, calling
longer.
- Matching balances can be a lot easier or harder, greatly varying on the
songs.

Good luck and have fun!

Ron Blechner
On Jun 29, 2015 11:11 AM, "Don Veino via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Have my first gig for a Techno contra coming up next week. Spoke with the
> band about dances selection and am culling through my cards for suitable
> dances now.
>
> Do you have any favorite easy-to-remember (not necessarily easy to call)
> dances that are interesting yet support dropping out on calls quickly?
>
> Thanks,
> Don
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

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

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Instead of an odd progression, I'd just start the dance at the A2 and make
it duple improper.

N B+S (4,12)
Hey (GL, PR, LL, NR) (16)
Gents cross L (2)
PS (14)
Circle L 3/4 (8, forgiving)
Bal Ring, Cali Twirl (4,4)

It's a nice simple Hey dance with two swings. Why complicate it with
unnecessary CCW Becket progression in the A1 when you can do a duple Imp
with a B2 progression?

Buy I suspect this one has to have been written already, no?

Ron Blechner
On Jul 11, 2015 2:32 PM, "Don Veino via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Also it appears to progress backwards as noted - shouldn't it be
> Becket-CCW/Right instead?
>
> -Don
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 2:04 PM, James Saxe via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

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

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks, this will probably go into my box for an easy Hey dance.
On Jul 11, 2015 3:09 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Duple Improper version:
> A Piece O' Cake by Carol Kopp
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>
> Instead of an odd progression, I'd just start the dance at the A2 and make
> it duple improper.
>
> N B+S (4,12)
> Hey (GL, PR, LL, NR) (16)
> Gents cross L (2)
> PS (14)
> Circle L 3/4 (8, forgiving)
> Bal Ring, Cali Twirl (4,4)
>
> It's a nice simple Hey dance with two swings. Why complicate it with
> unnecessary CCW Becket progression in the A1 when you can do a duple Imp
> with a B2 progression?
>
> Buy I suspect this one has to have been written already, no?
>
> Ron Blechner
> On Jul 11, 2015 2:32 PM, "Don Veino via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Also it appears to progress backwards as noted - shouldn't it be
>> Becket-CCW/Right instead?
>>
>> -Don
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 2:04 PM, James Saxe via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> 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] Contra- roll differences?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

" Roll  across/along" is specific, while "roll away with a half
sashay" is vague. They refer to the same basic thing.

It's vague because it doesn't indicate who rolls who. In the context of a
dance, words I use calling it may vary depending on context. When teaching
a rollaway, this is one of the moves I spend a little extra time to
emphasize shared weight between dancers.
On Aug 22, 2015 11:39 AM, "Tom Hinds via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I don't think there is a difference.
>
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Claire Takemori via Callers wrote:
>
> In Contra dancing, what is the difference between "Roll your ___
>> Across/along"  and "Roll away with a half sashay"?
>>
>> What are your favorite words to teach this move?
>>
>> thanks!!
>> claire takemori (Bay Area, 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] Contra- roll differences?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Okay, technically the half sashay is different, but it's almost always
assumed. There are dances where one person stands still while the other
rolls away. In this case, the standing still person isn't half sashaying.
On Aug 22, 2015 12:25 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> " Roll  across/along" is specific, while "roll away with a half
> sashay" is vague. They refer to the same basic thing.
>
> It's vague because it doesn't indicate who rolls who. In the context of a
> dance, words I use calling it may vary depending on context. When teaching
> a rollaway, this is one of the moves I spend a little extra time to
> emphasize shared weight between dancers.
> On Aug 22, 2015 11:39 AM, "Tom Hinds via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is a difference.
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Claire Takemori via Callers wrote:
>>
>> In Contra dancing, what is the difference between "Roll your ___
>>> Across/along"  and "Roll away with a half sashay"?
>>>
>>> What are your favorite words to teach this move?
>>>
>>> thanks!!
>>> claire takemori (Bay Area, 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] Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

You could change it to a different shadow move, and the clever dancers will
figure out that they can swing. Or you might casually mention that you can
substitute a swing for the whatever.

Ron Blechner
On Sep 8, 2015 11:06 AM, "Maia McCormick via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 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] Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Luke,

The "tripletesque" suggest is a neat one... I had been pondering how a
Shadow Swing dance is similar to many four-face-fours or squares. In those
cases dancers more carefully choose who is in their formation. Your idea to
just have shorter lines that are chosen both gives the dancers the
opportunity to choose neighbors (and thus, shadow) while also putting a
little boundary around the dance as "special", so a caller doesn't lose
confidence of some bristled dancers.

Ron
On Sep 8, 2015 1:30 PM, "Luke Donforth via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Maia,
>
> Let me see if I'm correctly reading your goals:
> You want to call dances with shadow swings
> You want to minimize discomfort
>
> To do both of those, I think an announcement after folks have lined up is
> worse than an announcement earlier. If someone is uncomfortable with the
> idea of swinging a shadow, how comfortable would they be leaving a line
> after you've made the announcement and highlighting for everyone in the
> room that there's a problematic interaction? There's no way to
> surreptitiously drop out; folks have to take new hands four and identify
> new shadows. I think making the announcement after folks have lined up just
> puts public pressure on your dancers.
>
> You can announce it ahead of time, either at the end of the previous
> dance; or even during the walkthrough of the previous dance. I know some
> callers do this for mixers: "Alright, thanks everyone for lining up and
> taking hands four. Just so you know, the dance after this will be a mixer.
> You'll keep your partner for this dance, but the one after don't expect to
> stay with your sweetheart." etc. Andrea raises a good point that it's hard
> to know where the shadow would be when you line up (or if someone lines up
> after you).
>
> Other options that come to mind:
>
>- Call these dances that are dear to you only in instances where it's
>unlikely to be an issue. I.e. small dance communities where you know
>everyone and know it'll be fine; or very large events (dance weekends, etc)
>where it's much less likely for you to run into someone you have a bad
>interaction with. If you had a festival session called "Shadow Dances";
>then anybody showing up is probably going to expect that they'll swing the
>occasional shadow.
>- As Ron suggested, you can modify the dance and say "and this move
>can be a swing". Might defeat why you're trying to call the dance though.
>- Make it triplet-esque; in that rather than full long lines, you
>break folks into small groups (10 dancers, etc) and run the dance for a
>short time. If there's a shadow, partner, and neighbor swing, chances are
>you don't want to run the dance super long anyway. You announce "find a
>partner and about 4 other couples for a special dance" and folks can self
>select a little more. Smaller groups also let more experienced dancers
>goof/chaos/play more with repetitive dances without throwing off large
>portions of the hall (I consider a dance with shadow & partner swing, with
>or without a neighbor swing; to have a high possibility of repetitiveness).
>
> Hope that helps get you thinking about other options too. Have fun, and
> remember we're there for the dancers to have a good time.
> Luke
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Luke Donforth
> luke.donfo...@gmail.com 
>
> ___

[Callers] Creating a safe dance space (was Shadow Swing Disclaimers)

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Erik,

I'm alarmed at reading your reply in the shadow swing thread.

I have seen, as a dancer, caller, and organizer, at a variety of dances,
far too many incidents of inappropriate behavior. I refuse to simply wash
my hands and say "oh, it's not the caller's place to worry about this." A
caller is the MC, the coordinator, and often from the stage we can see
everything happening in the room. It absolutely is our paid job to help
create a safe dance space.

I want to focus on what seems to be the crux of your statement from the
shadow swing email:

" that interpersonal conflicts will happen, and yet social interactions are
required. They understand how to make everyone work together. Family
schisms are inevitable."

How many "conflicts" does it take before we take responsibility and address
inappropriate behavior at a dance? I have seen many occasions where *one*
conflict means a dancer who is new never returns, or an experienced dancer
never returns, or they wind up having to spend every night avoiding *that
creepy dude*. I know first hand what having a *single* bad experience can
mean for a dancer.

So if we leave these as "inevitable", then the people we lose aren't the
people doing the inappropriate behavior - no, those jerks stay, stubbornly
- we lose the nicer people who were victimized, harassed, made
uncomfortable.

Is that the kind of dance environment you want to promote?

I don't believe so.

Instead, asking questions, as Maia did, about things a caller can do to
create a safe dance space, is essential to long term community building.
This doesn't mean we are "dance police" or do anything extraordinary. But
it does mean that we should be considerate to dancers and not write off
their bad experiences as things that they need to merely tolerate and "be
an adult" as you put it.

Sincerely,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Problem dancers / Crying Wolf

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Lindsay,

I realize this is a tricky topic, so apologies in advance if my brevity
comes off as bruskness.

These two suggestions work for Amherst Contra.

As a proxy complaint comes in, a board member would seek out the source.
Anonymous complaints are permitted, and a high level of ensuring that we
ask open-ended questions, and not leading questions.

We also wear board member buttons at dances and make regular announcements
about us being available for any reason. Usually 4-7 members of our board
attend any dance.

You might speak privately to Will Loving, our lead organizer, if you're
interested in more specifics.

I would also caution about making such definitive statements as "just an
accusation". In my experience, where there's smoke, there's fire. For every
accusation, there's five people who are too uncomfortable to speak up.

That said, I have seen the success of proactive addressing of issues. The
biggest benefit is simple:

Address it early when it's small, and not a huge deal. Maybe it's a simple
misunderstanding. Maybe the person needed a clear boundary drawn. But wait
until there's a pile of complaints, and you've already lost dancers and the
resolution will need to be more severe for the offender.

Best regards,
Ron Blechner
On Sep 9, 2015 10:08 AM, "Lindsay Morris via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Chris Weiler's Positive Solutions
> 
> on dealing with problem dancers, and the CDU Policy
> 
> are thoughtful and useful documents.
>
> We have a different problem here.
>
> One woman often complains to board members about men she sees as creepers
> or sexual predators. She reports their misbehavior on behalf of their
> victims. The victims don't initiate these reports.*
>
> Many others *don't* see these men as creepy or inappropriate.  Recently
> one of the "victims" clarified that her discomfort with the man was a year
> ago and she'd long ago dealt with it to her satisfaction.  The man in
> question had heard only rumors that some nameless woman was unhappy about
> some nameless thing he'd done.
>
> This woman also publicly asked that young women who feel harassed should
> talk to her about it.  We feel that's the Board's job, not hers.
>
> It seems that this woman is fishing for - or even inventing -
> "naughty-dancer" problems.
>
> When a married man gets accused of being a sexual predator, his wife has
> to wonder if it's true. This adds to any marital tensions they may already
> have.  So, while this woman is not actually punching anybody in the face,
> it seems to me that she's committing violence.
>
> How should we handle this?
>
>- I think we need a "No proxy complaints" policy - i.e., the victim
>has to speak up (and then our process will usually fix simple
>miscommunication issues).
>- We need to clearly identify board members, so genuine victims know
>who to talk to.
>
> But does anybody have other ideas about preventing one person's issues
> from  poisoning the atmosphere of a mostly friendly dance?
>
> 
> * I know, victims often have a hard time stepping up and complaining, so
> advocacy may be a good thing.  But that's a different discussion.  In these
> situations, there's no victim; there's no predator; there's just an
> accusation with little to back it up.
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Creating a safe dance space (was Shadow Swing Disclaimers)

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Perry,

" The problem is, if you are going to say "if you are uncomfortable with
your shadow, feel free to move","

That wasn't my suggestion in the shadow swing thread. Thus this really
belongs on the other thread, not here.

Can we keep to topic, please? I specifically created a new thread to avoid
rehashing.

Thanks,
Ron
On Sep 9, 2015 10:28 AM, "Perry Shafran via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I think the real crux of the issue is this.  How far are we willing to go
> to create a safe dance space?  The problem is, if you are going to say "if
> you are uncomfortable with your shadow, feel free to move", that could
> cause a whole new realm of problems for dancers.  How would you feel if,
> after someone identified you as their shadow, they moved to another line?
> If given this option, I foresee people moving for all sorts of reasons that
> I identified in my previous email (too fat, too old, too new, etc), and
> none of them were related to creepers.
>
> The caller is there to help build community.  How is it building community
> of you suggest "if you don't want to dance with someone, then move"?  You
> are basically inviting people to refuse to interact with people for ANY
> reason - creeper or otherwise.  I have never, in 15 years of dancing, heard
> a caller suggest avoiding dancing with any person.
>
> Building community means that everyone is welcome and treated like they
> are welcome.  Even society's outcasts.  Of course we should ALL be on alert
> for people who behave inappropriately, but I think we are beginning to move
> away from a shared sense of community to promoting dancing with only people
> you are the most comfortable with.  Which basically means cliques.
>
> It is a risk to dance with brand new people who come to your dance.  You
> know NOTHING about a person who comes to your dance.  Suggesting that you
> may wish to avoid this person because that person might be creepy - or
> might not be - really seems harmful to community building.
>
> Please note that I am not saying ignore creepers.  If there is a problem
> dancer, the community needs to deal with that person and get that person
> out of the community if necessary.  But if interactions with people might
> somehow become harmful and we wish to ward off all potential problems, then
> don't call dances with shadow swings, and maybe we ought not to call dances
> with neighbor swings.  Then you could never have to swing any person not of
> your choosing.
>
> Perry
>
> --
> *From:* Ron Blechner via Callers 
> *To:* Eric Black 
> *Cc:* callers 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:01 AM
> *Subject:* [Callers] Creating a safe dance space (was Shadow Swing
> Disclaimers)
>
> Erik,
> I'm alarmed at reading your reply in the shadow swing thread.
> I have seen, as a dancer, caller, and organizer, at a variety of dances,
> far too many incidents of inappropriate behavior. I refuse to simply wash
> my hands and say "oh, it's not the caller's place to worry about this." A
> caller is the MC, the coordinator, and often from the stage we can see
> everything happening in the room. It absolutely is our paid job to help
> create a safe dance space.
> I want to focus on what seems to be the crux of your statement from the
> shadow swing email:
> " that interpersonal conflicts will happen, and yet social interactions
> are required. They understand how to make everyone work together. Family
> schisms are inevitable."
> How many "conflicts" does it take before we take responsibility and
> address inappropriate behavior at a dance? I have seen many occasions where
> *one* conflict means a dancer who is new never returns, or an experienced
> dancer never returns, or they wind up having to spend every night avoiding
> *that creepy dude*. I know first hand what having a *single* bad experience
> can mean for a dancer.
> So if we leave these as "inevitable", then the people we lose aren't the
> people doing the inappropriate behavior - no, those jerks stay, stubbornly
> - we lose the nicer people who were victimized, harassed, made
> uncomfortable.
> Is that the kind of dance environment you want to promote?
> I don't believe so.
> Instead, asking questions, as Maia did, about things a caller can do to
> create a safe dance space, is essential to long term community building.
> This doesn't mean we are "dance police" or do anything extraordinary. But
> it does mean that we should be considerate to dancers and not write off
> their bad experiences as things that they need to merely tolerate and "be
> an adult&

Re: [Callers] Problem dancers / Crying Wolf

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Maybe. Maybe not. My point was that we should be very, very careful about
making a definitive statement about something being "just an accusation",
especially when in your example, there was a second problem - even if it
was a year earlier.
On Sep 9, 2015 10:39 AM, "Lindsay Morris via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Appreciate that.  Don't think the "where there's smoke there's fire" issue
> applies here, though.  It would if there were several *different* women
> complaining about one man...
>
> 
> Lindsay Morris
> CEO, TSMworks
> Tel. 1-859-539-9900
> lind...@tsmworks.com
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
>
>> Hi Lindsay,
>>
>> I realize this is a tricky topic, so apologies in advance if my brevity
>> comes off as bruskness.
>>
>> These two suggestions work for Amherst Contra.
>>
>> As a proxy complaint comes in, a board member would seek out the source.
>> Anonymous complaints are permitted, and a high level of ensuring that we
>> ask open-ended questions, and not leading questions.
>>
>> We also wear board member buttons at dances and make regular
>> announcements about us being available for any reason. Usually 4-7 members
>> of our board attend any dance.
>>
>> You might speak privately to Will Loving, our lead organizer, if you're
>> interested in more specifics.
>>
>> I would also caution about making such definitive statements as "just an
>> accusation". In my experience, where there's smoke, there's fire. For every
>> accusation, there's five people who are too uncomfortable to speak up.
>>
>> That said, I have seen the success of proactive addressing of issues. The
>> biggest benefit is simple:
>>
>> Address it early when it's small, and not a huge deal. Maybe it's a
>> simple misunderstanding. Maybe the person needed a clear boundary drawn.
>> But wait until there's a pile of complaints, and you've already lost
>> dancers and the resolution will need to be more severe for the offender.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ron Blechner
>> On Sep 9, 2015 10:08 AM, "Lindsay Morris via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Weiler's Positive Solutions
>>> 
>>> on dealing with problem dancers, and the CDU Policy
>>> 
>>> are thoughtful and useful documents.
>>>
>>> We have a different problem here.
>>>
>>> One woman often complains to board members about men she sees as
>>> creepers or sexual predators. She reports their misbehavior on behalf of
>>> their victims. The victims don't initiate these reports.*
>>>
>>> Many others *don't* see these men as creepy or inappropriate.  Recently
>>> one of the "victims" clarified that her discomfort with the man was a year
>>> ago and she'd long ago dealt with it to her satisfaction.  The man in
>>> question had heard only rumors that some nameless woman was unhappy about
>>> some nameless thing he'd done.
>>>
>>> This woman also publicly asked that young women who feel harassed should
>>> talk to her about it.  We feel that's the Board's job, not hers.
>>>
>>> It seems that this woman is fishing for - or even inventing -
>>> "naughty-dancer" problems.
>>>
>>> When a married man gets accused of being a sexual predator, his wife has
>>> to wonder if it's true. This adds to any marital tensions they may already
>>> have.  So, while this woman is not actually punching anybody in the face,
>>> it seems to me that she's committing violence.
>>>
>>> How should we handle this?
>>>
>>>- I think we need a "No proxy complaints" policy - i.e., the victim
>>>has to speak up (and then our process will usually fix simple
>>>miscommunication issues).
>>>- We need to clearly identify board members, so genuine victims know
>>>who to talk to.
>>>
>>> But does anybody have other ideas about preventing one person's issues
>>> from  poisoning the atmosphere of a mostly friendly dance?
>>>
>>> 
>>> * I know, victims often have a hard time stepping up and complaining, so
>>> advocacy may be a good thing.  But that's a different discussion.  In these
>>> situations, there's no victim; there's no predator; there's just an
>>> accusation with little to back it up.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I've had the experience where my shadow was a creeper. And another time
they were an awful swing. They were both awful experiences.

But Maia asked specifically this thread not be about the merits of shadow
swings or not, but instead about disclaimers.
On Sep 9, 2015 11:54 AM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hear, hear, Eric! My sentiments exactly.
>
> And for a slightly different perspective:  I danced a shadow dance at Glen
> Echo some years back, and after swinging my shadow a few times, we both
> suddenly realized we knew each other from way back (my how we change)!
> Every swing was an opportunity to catch up a bit more and a bit more as we
> continued the dance - it was wonderful! So good things can happen, too.
>
> Martha
>
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 6:39 AM, Eric Black via Callers wrote:
>
> Wow.  ISTM [It Seems To Me] that this is far more responsibility for
> controlling social interpersonal interactions than the programmer and/or
> caller at the mic should have to worry about, even though we do worry about
> such things.
>
> Sorry I don’t have opportunity to participate on this email list more
> often.  That Pesky Day Job [PDJ] and all…
>
> Short response: Don’t point out shadow partner interaction; the dancers
> need to be adult about it, no one listens to the Caller anyway, let alone
> anything said while they’re still lining up.
>
> Longer response:
>
> I really REALLY don’t think that there should be any announcement calling
> attention to the fact that the next dance has interaction with someone
> other than your chosen partner.   What, are we supposed to say “This is a
> duple improper single progression with a shadow who is the same active or
> inactive role one place below [or above] where you line up”?
>
> Or should we say “Thank this partner, and ask another partner for the next
> dance. As you line up, if there is someone at the dance here tonight with
> whom you don’t want to dance, please make sure that they are in a different
> longways set than you, or that if they are in the same long set as you that
> they are not in an adjacent hands-four from you either up or down as you
> line up for the dance.”
>
> Are we dance choreographers supposed to create dance sequences that don’t
> have any “serious” interaction with the shadow partner, just in case the
> dancers happen to line up such that someone on the floor has an “Ex” as a
> shadow partner?  Or someone who hasn’t showered recently enough?
>
> We already have the problem of MUC rejection of any dance that doesn’t
> include both partner swing and neighbor swing; this seems to be an
> injection of a problem of a potential swing with a neighbor some dancers
> might not want to swing with, yet such swings are still required.
>
> I’m confused…
>
> 
>
> Yes, I understand the many reasons for not having serious shadow
> interactions, but I am proud that every local dance community where I’ve
> been a member, from NH/Boston to CA/SF, has understood that interpersonal
> conflicts will happen, and yet social interactions are required. They
> understand how to make everyone work together. Family schisms are
> inevitable.  Personal hygiene issues may arise.
>
> I hope that everyone eventually can live the philosophy on Jeremiah’s
> T-shirt: “Dance With Who’s Comin’ Atcha!"
>
> Even long-time couples break up.  It’s painful to the people involved and
> also to everyone surrounding.   We’re all Community here.  Our Community is
> larger and more long-lived than the simple “nuclear family” of two parents
> and 2.3 children.  That means we get to “enjoy” many various kinds of
> family ties, both genetic and non-genetic.  The Community connection
> carries us all through this specific break-up episode. The Dance entertains
> us and it heals us and it strengthens The Community.
>
> I say this with a VERY PERSONAL involvement in this community support.
>
> Yes, we DO see what’s going on. Yes, we DO love both of you, even if
> you’ve split apart, and even if there is a court restraining order about
> you both showing up at our dance on the same night (that’s a different
> discussion, and yes, it does happen).
>
> If there’s a personal hygiene problem, sometimes it simply can not be
> helped.  I myself could change shirts whenever the band changes tunes and
> it still would not be often enough. In such a case, please enjoy fresh
> pheromones; fresh sweat can be enjoyable sweat.  If it’s stale sweat, then
> by all means tell the person that a shower with soap would make him/her a
> more enjoyable dance partner. That’s a quiet face-to-face conversation.
>
> BUT please dance for several seconds, smile, and move on.
>
> All that aside, any swing can be changed to an allemande right once or
> twice (to taste), or an elbow swing, or a do-si-do, or a gypsy (with
> varying amounts of eye contact, again to taste).  Experienced dancers,
> especially a split dancer couple who encounter each other in line, will do
> whatever they 

Re: [Callers] Problem dancers / Crying Wolf

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Harassment is real. It's widespread, and pretending it isn't hurts people
and keeps people away from our dances.

Things I have personally witnessed, and when subsequently asked the dancer
whether anything was unusual, they confirmed:

One dancer has a habit of grabbing hip *just* at the butt-line. One of the
young women was 15.

Another dancer intentionally threw a quarter on the ground in front of a
young 20-something lady. I watched in horror as she bent over and picked it
up as he leered.

One dancer did a frontways dip to a 20-something lady which included
torso-torso frontal contact. No permission was asked.

Another dancer came in drunk / high and was dancing wild.

Another dancer has a habit of intentionally shoulder-checked men who have
called him out on his creepiness.

Another dancer was swinging way too close. Turns out he was following a
minor around and asking completely inappropriate questions.

And I have more of these stories. Seriously, the list goes on and on.

I've been dancing far fewer years than many on this list, and danced at
many different dances - this isn't limited to one dance community. And
these are just the stories I've verified.
So are all of your eyes closed?

So... Yeah. I absolutely think that we should keep our eyes open. I think
we should calmly and privately inquire when we think we see inappropriate
behavior. We should be absolutely receptive that sometimes behavior is seen
and a victim is too afraid to step forward on their own.

And we should stop with such flippant and potentially dangerous phrases
like "crying wolf" or that people need to just grow up and "act like an
adult" because bad stuff happens.
On Sep 9, 2015 4:04 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Yeah, we had a guy at one dance complain bitterly that other men were
> being creepy with his girlfriend. But when I spoke with her, she said there
> was no problem, they'd done no more than gypsy and swing her and
> occasionally speak to her with advice on the dance. The more I spoke with
> the two of them the more I wanted to yell at the woman - run fast, very
> fast, as far away from this control freak as you can But I suppose it
> was not my place to warn her right in front of him. No surprise they never
> returned.
>
> Martha
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Lindsay Morris via Callers wrote:
>
> Appreciate that.  Don't think the "where there's smoke there's fire" issue
> applies here, though.  It would if there were several *different* women
> complaining about one man...
>
> 
> Lindsay Morris
> CEO, TSMworks
> Tel. 1-859-539-9900
> lind...@tsmworks.com
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
>
>> Hi Lindsay,
>>
>> I realize this is a tricky topic, so apologies in advance if my brevity
>> comes off as bruskness.
>>
>> These two suggestions work for Amherst Contra.
>>
>> As a proxy complaint comes in, a board member would seek out the source.
>> Anonymous complaints are permitted, and a high level of ensuring that we
>> ask open-ended questions, and not leading questions.
>>
>> We also wear board member buttons at dances and make regular
>> announcements about us being available for any reason. Usually 4-7 members
>> of our board attend any dance.
>>
>> You might speak privately to Will Loving, our lead organizer, if you're
>> interested in more specifics.
>>
>> I would also caution about making such definitive statements as "just an
>> accusation". In my experience, where there's smoke, there's fire. For every
>> accusation, there's five people who are too uncomfortable to speak up.
>>
>> That said, I have seen the success of proactive addressing of issues. The
>> biggest benefit is simple:
>>
>> Address it early when it's small, and not a huge deal. Maybe it's a
>> simple misunderstanding. Maybe the person needed a clear boundary drawn.
>> But wait until there's a pile of complaints, and you've already lost
>> dancers and the resolution will need to be more severe for the offender.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ron Blechner
>> On Sep 9, 2015 10:08 AM, "Lindsay Morris via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Weiler's Positive Solutions
>>> 
>>> on dealing with problem dancers, and the CDU Policy
>>> 
>>> are thoughtful and useful documents.
>>>
>>> We have a different problem here.
>>>
>>> One woman often complains to board members about men she sees as
>>> creepers or sexual predators. She reports their misbehavior on behalf of
>>> their victims. The victims don't initiate these reports.*
>>>
>>> Many others *don't* see these men as creepy or inappropriate.  Recently
>>> one of the "victims" clarified that her discomfort with the man was a year
>>> ago and she'd long ago dealt with it to her satisfaction.  Th

Re: [Callers] Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

You've never substituted a pass through dosido instead of a dosido pass
through? Or a gypsy/allemande/dosido change if you had too many of one in a
night?

Is it that you think dances written are sacrosanct, or that the shadow
swing is too key to a dance - and is different from more common moves as
I've mentioned?
On Sep 9, 2015 5:49 PM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Andrea:   Alternate choreography to replace a shadow swing is  oxymoronic.
>The composer invoked the (morally questionable) shadow swing because it
> fit well into the dance's flow.If one is disposed to substitute for the
> shadow swing, one should just discard  the dance,
>
> 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] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi callers,

I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:

Becket
A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
   1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
   Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
B1: Mad Robin (8)**
   1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
B2: Gents Pass L (2)
   P Gypsy + Swing (14)

* Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I think
either works, but ideas welcome.
** Gents in front, CW

Thanks,
Ron

Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Perry replied privately, and I agree with his assessment of the gypsy for
top of the A2 to make a lot of sense:

"I think "loop right" would be better than a "gypsy".  People who gypsy
tend to linger when your real goal is to get to the next neighbor and
swing."
On Sep 14, 2015 12:05 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Hi callers,
>
> I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:
>
> Becket
> A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
> A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
>Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
> B1: Mad Robin (8)**
>1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
> B2: Gents Pass L (2)
>P Gypsy + Swing (14)
>
> * Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I
> think either works, but ideas welcome.
> ** Gents in front, CW
>
> Thanks,
> Ron
>

Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Timing wise, both gypsy-swings are 14 beats, with the final pass taking up
the first two beats of the phrase. So no balance is really possible there.
The timing worked well last night, and the real confusion was a couple of
perpetual beginners who took more iterations to get it than others. I think
your teaching suggestion, Andrea, to add a pause, may help that.
On Sep 14, 2015 1:59 PM, "Andrea Nettleton" 
wrote:

>
> Hmm.  Perry, I wasn't thinking the loop R was part of the hey at all, nor
> that the timing needed any adjustment.  I do think that the half hey
> doesn't end with the gents in the center. Ron clearly wrote that the gents
> pass R in the center.  That theoretically puts them at the side or nearly
> so, and heading that way.   The ladies will be looping the back at that
> point.  A loop R will feel like turning to a hey the line, especially for
> the ladies.  My point is that it will take several iterations of the dance
> for dancers to remember to flatten it out as they travel toward the next N
> so they can gypsy R with them.  If you told them to balance and swing, it
> would happen more easily, but I can see that Ron is trying to keep it
> glassy smooth.  My experience suggests that whatever we intend, dancers
> will interpret "loop" with varying degrees of curve, many making it  deep
> enough to spoil the transition to the R gypsy, unless the teach
> specifically prevents this.  if you just told the gents to pass L in the
> middle, and continue to the side, then face the N and pass through to gypsy
> the next, the curve would evolve on its own as people danced it, and be
> just right.  My opinion only.
>
> As for timing, no matter what you call it, I'm betting that loop is going
> to cross the phrase for many, and the new N gypsy will be short.  Possibly,
> just looping to a new N Sw would work.  Might be a long swing for some.
> Best,
> Andrea
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Sep 14, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Perry Shafran  wrote:
>
> I would agree with that, although the 1/2 hey is over when the gents pass
> in the center, so it would be more like a 5/8 hey, with 2 beats of that hey
> coming in the A2.  "Loop right" seems to be a way to avoid calling it part
> of the hey, and since it's the start of a new phrase, I can see why one
> would want to differentiate it from the hey.
>
> Perry
>
> --
> *From:* Andrea Nettleton via Callers 
> *To:* Ron Blechner 
> *Cc:* callers 
> *Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2015 1:24 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance
>
> Ron et al,
> In general, I really like this dance.  That loop right will snag people at
> least a few times through though, in that it will make them want to gypsy L
> with the next, continuing the weave, when they need to make it feel like a
> pass through so their body flow can take them into a R gypsy.  It might be
> worth pointing that out, or teaching them to finish the half hey face N,
> pass through R Sh .  Just a thought.
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Hi callers,
> I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:
> Becket
> A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
> A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
>Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
> B1: Mad Robin (8)**
>1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
> B2: Gents Pass L (2)
>P Gypsy + Swing (14)
> * Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I
> think either works, but ideas welcome.
> ** Gents in front, CW
> Thanks,
> Ron
>
> ___
> 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] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Andrea,

I think the pause after teaching that first half hey is a good idea. I did
try "pass Neighbor by the right" when I workshopped it, but it implies
continuing the hey and it was slightly confusing.

The problem is that you're facing your neighbor in and out of the set at
that point, so passing through implies across, and passing by right implies
the wrong direction.

I could say "pass neighbor one more time. Pause. Loop right to your new
neighbor...". It's pretty much what I said last night when I called it, but
the pause may ensure no more crossing the set.

Ron
On Sep 14, 2015 1:24 PM, "Andrea Nettleton" 
wrote:

> Ron et al,
> In general, I really like this dance.  That loop right will snag people at
> least a few times through though, in that it will make them want to gypsy L
> with the next, continuing the weave, when they need to make it feel like a
> pass through so their body flow can take them into a R gypsy.  It might be
> worth pointing that out, or teaching them to finish the half hey face N,
> pass through R Sh .  Just a thought.
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Sep 14, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Hi callers,
>
> I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:
>
> Becket
> A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
> A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
>Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
> B1: Mad Robin (8)**
>1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
> B2: Gents Pass L (2)
>P Gypsy + Swing (14)
>
> * Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I
> think either works, but ideas welcome.
> ** Gents in front, CW
>
> Thanks,
> Ron
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Ye ole Does This Exist - Mad Robin 2 Hey dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For those interested, the closest I've seen it resembles is To Live is To
Dance by Jim Kitch, which is basically:
Ladies Chain
1/2 Hey, loop L to next
Next N B+S
Circle L 3/4, P rollaway
Gents start 1/2 Hey
P gypsy swing

... which is a fun dance, as well.

The dance I listed is similar with 2 heys and 2 swings, but a gents-focused
version but with a mad Robin instead of a circle - rollaway.

I've titled mine Leaf on the Wind, seeing nothing closer.
On Sep 14, 2015 12:05 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Hi callers,
>
> I was hoping this dance, or something very similar, might be identified:
>
> Becket
> A1: Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>1/2 Hey (8) (NR, LL, PR, GL)
> A2: N Gypsy R 1/2 (2)* (to face next N)
>Next N Gypsy + Sw (14)
> B1: Mad Robin (8)**
>1/2 Hey (8) (GL, PR, LL, NR)
> B2: Gents Pass L (2)
>P Gypsy + Swing (14)
>
> * Been debating teaching / calling this as a gypsy or "loop right". I
> think either works, but ideas welcome.
> ** Gents in front, CW
>
> Thanks,
> Ron
>

Re: [Callers] Shadow Swing Disclaimers?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I think maybe if this were my home dance, and I'd discussed it with
organizers beforehand, maybe. There's so many cans of worms that could
spring open, and it's something organizers would be left dealing with.
On Oct 10, 2015 7:31 PM, "James Saxe via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

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

Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

"Spiral".

That said, I've yet to hear a report of a Romani being offended. It's my
understanding that this may be a problem, say, in Europe, where the term
may be used as a slur. But here in America... we have plenty of racial
slurs, and I've yet to hear or hear of gypsy being used in a derogatory
manner.

But hey, prove me wrong. I'm just one person who hears things.

Should Brits stop calling cigarettes "fags" because we Americans have
hurtfully turned that into a slur?
On Oct 24, 2015 2:52 PM, "Richard Hart via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I always describe a gypsy as being just like a dos à dos, but face to
> face, instead of back to back.
>
> As that is the case, why not use French again. As "dos à dos" means
> back to back, why not use "face à face" which means face to face?
> Pronunciation would probably be difficult for those who don't speak
> French, so it would probably become "facey-face" for many.
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Don Veino via Callers
>  wrote:
> > Before I respond directly, I ask that all of us posting what I expect to
> be
> > many replies to trim post quotes to just the pertinent bits (particularly
> > those reading the "digest" version).
> >
> 
> > Curiously enough, I'd raised this naming issue with a group of callers
> (and
> > dancers glommed on) at a house party recently. An area caller had tried
> > rebranding the Gypsy as an Orbit, which this group rejected due to the
> > existing usage & meaning for that term. One participant was of Romani
> > heritage and expressed pride at the existing term and satisfaction at it
> > being used for such a nice dance move and would feel loss were it to be
> > renamed. I don't mention this to make excuses for anything that might
> offend
> > but rather to show that there are many possible perspectives. I'd since
> > thought of other possible names and came up with these:
> >
> > Swirl - gentlest, unfortunately similar to "twirl" in sound
> > Cyclone - too "violent", encouraging abandon?
> > Vortex - distinct in sound, 2 syllables and short when spelled out.
> >
> > Sorry you find yourself in this situation. We know your actual intent
> was to
> > bring happiness, not offend.
> >
> > -Don
> >
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

A lot of people, including newer dancers or dancers who are just plain shy,
have difficulty with eye contact. I have stopped teaching the Gypsy as
locking eyes with a person, and instead stress looking at the person. In
this way the people who want to look at their eyes will naturally think to
do so, and the people who don't are not being forced to do so.

That's including the word eyes in the move itself is a problem. It is the
same problem of telling people that they have to smile. There are a million
reasons why a person may be enjoying themselves and not smile, perhaps if
they're just focusing. Or, god forbid, a person might not have to enjoy
themselves in your presence, and we should never expect somebody and tell
them to smile.
On Oct 25, 2015 12:56 PM, "Joy Greenwolfe via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I once had someone explain the gypsy as not trusting someone enough to
> take their eyes off of them (!), so I agree that the underlying meaning can
> be problematic, to say the least. Other moves have historical meanings too,
> but Gypsy as a term is more pejorative than, say, Allemande, which
> references traditional German folk dance hand holds.
>
> I like Michael's suggestion for *"eyes." *When teaching, it could be
> described as "walk around holding eyes," which is similar to how I already
> describe it (holding eyes instead of hands). Then during the dance, the
> call could be shortened to "eyes" or "hold eyes." Something like "Ladies
> hold eyes" seems to roll off the tongue with a good rhythm.  Or maybe
> "Ladies by the eyes?"
>
> Melting could still be melting. Not sure how I'd fix my gypsy chase move,
> though.
>
> There is also the issue of avoiding similar directions that would confuse
> the dancers, such as in a Mad Robin where you are encouraged to hold eyes
> with the person across from you, but not actually rotate around them. Maybe
> we need an alternate descriptive/evocative term, like the way a Mad Robin
> is sometimes called Sliding Doors.
>
> A single orbit? Eyes single? Star single? Hands off?
>
> I'm also curious about thoughts about to what degree we might explain the
> change to dancers. From most of the dancers' perspective, it may be "if it
> ain't broke, don't change it." We might get push-back from dancers
> exasperated with what seems to them like an arbitrary term change. Maybe if
> the term is more descriptive, they won't notice as much. "Holding Eyes"
> works for me.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Joy Greenwolfe
> Durham, NC
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers wrote:
>
> Flirting - I try not to suggest that
> Name - not worried what we call it
> Suggestion - I sometimes call it 'eyeballs'. It works well.
> --
> Michael Barraclough
> mich...@michaelbarraclough.com
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> *From*: Martha Wild via Callers  >
> Reply-to: Martha Wild 
> *To*: Caller's discussion list  >
> *Subject*: Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"
> *Date*: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 15:36:40 -0700
>
> I can see from this discussion that there is definitely merit in giving
> this move a different name, though I had never thought of it as a
> derogatory term before. I rather like the idea suggested in a previous post
> of "eddy" because it is short and to the point and sounds different from
> other calls. "Walk all around your neighbor/partner" is fine for a
> walkthrough and as a description, but not very good for a quick reminder
> when you'd rather be calling a lot less.
>
> Another move that one would have to rename is the "gypsy star". I have
> personally always called the move "gypsy star" as "star wrong" - mostly
> because if I say "gypsy star" there is always at least one couple in the
> crowd that starts to gypsy and swing (eddy and swing?) instead of doing the
> star. "Star wrong" is also short and to the point and emphasizes the oddity
> of the star - two people backing up and two going forward. It seems to get
> the job done.
>
> Martha
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>
> In square dance, the call "walk all around your left hand lady" is very
> close to a right shoulder gypsy, and "See Saw is a left shoulder walk
> around.  A left shoulder Dosido is no longer called a See Saw, but a Left
> Dosido.
>
> Walk all around your nieghbor or partner, and see saw your neighbor or
> partner, may be able to replace the gypsy without generating any new terms.
>
> Rich
>
> Stafford, CT
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Richard Hart via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I always describe a gypsy as being just like a dos à dos, but face to
> face, instead of back to back.
>
> As that is the case, why not use French again. As "dos à dos" means
> back to back, why not use "face à face" which means face to face?
> Pronunciation would probably be difficult for those who don't speak
> French, so it would probably become "facey-face" for many.
>
> On 

Re: [Callers] Gypsies

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Eddie is also a gender name, thus I would rule that out. Vortex doesn't
exactly come off well on the mic. Swirl sounds way too much like circle
unless you are none ciating very very crisp late, in which case you are
going to get some Pardes sounds hissing on the mic.

Thus, I don't like any of the three. I suggest spiral instead.
On Oct 25, 2015 3:02 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I'm not fond of "eddy," "vortex," or "swirl" because they all imply
> twirling, which is not what the gypsy move wants. That defeats the purpose,
> in my mind. "Facing" seems most appropriate, useful and descriptive of the
> terms suggested.
>
> -Amy
>
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> I don't like the idea that a term we use might be offensive to someone.  I
> think part of its tenacity is that it can be used for a whole family of
> similar eye locking moves.  The term walk around will not serve in what is
> now called a gypsy star, or in a traveling gypsy, gypsy chase, or gypsy
> hey, which all have eye contact as a common element.
> In discussing with dancers, I heard objection to the terms catching eyes,
> grabbing by the eyes etc.  made them think of hands in eyes.  Not that they
> didn't understand, but it was distasteful to them.
> Perhaps we could agree to a term like 'facing' to link the diverse moves
> together.  It is used in squares in cases where instead of the usual facing
> someone's back, you are face to face (as in a facing diamond).  This
> un-knots all the alternative moves (facing star, facing hey, travel
> facing).
> I don't actually think of a plain gypsy as involving a shoulder, but
> rather a side of my face.  Go R face round your N, ladies L face round each
> other?  Facing indicates where we should look more or less without
> demanding eye contact.  I like eye contact, but some are profoundly
> uncomfortable with it.  I dislike when they choose to twirl their bodies
> rather than at least look in my general direction.  Facing helps with that.
> I'm sure we will come up with something better, but I'd like a solution
> that acknowledges this family of moves.
>
> I'm not fond of eddy, for its aural similarity to the name Eddie.  Spiral,
> vortex etc, while all sort of indicative of rotation, also indicate to me
> the funnel effect, which is not the only way we use the move.  Many gypsies
> merely move us smoothly on to another dancer.
> One final thought, offered mostly for grins.  I have occasionally thought
> of a gypsy as two people walking round a maypole.  We could say R maypole
> round your N, Ladies L maypole in the center, go one and a half to your P,
> R maypole and swing your partner. :D
>
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Joy Greenwolfe via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I once had someone explain the gypsy as not trusting someone enough to
> take their eyes off of them (!), so I agree that the underlying meaning can
> be problematic, to say the least. Other moves have historical meanings too,
> but Gypsy as a term is more pejorative than, say, Allemande, which
> references traditional German folk dance hand holds.
>
> I like Michael's suggestion for *"eyes." *When teaching, it could be
> described as "walk around holding eyes," which is similar to how I already
> describe it (holding eyes instead of hands). Then during the dance, the
> call could be shortened to "eyes" or "hold eyes." Something like "Ladies
> hold eyes" seems to roll off the tongue with a good rhythm.  Or maybe
> "Ladies by the eyes?"
>
> Melting could still be melting. Not sure how I'd fix my gypsy chase move,
> though.
>
> There is also the issue of avoiding similar directions that would confuse
> the dancers, such as in a Mad Robin where you are encouraged to hold eyes
> with the person across from you, but not actually rotate around them. Maybe
> we need an alternate descriptive/evocative term, like the way a Mad Robin
> is sometimes called Sliding Doors.
>
> A single orbit? Eyes single? Star single? Hands off?
>
> I'm also curious about thoughts about to what degree we might explain the
> change to dancers. From most of the dancers' perspective, it may be "if it
> ain't broke, don't change it." We might get push-back from dancers
> exasperated with what seems to them like an arbitrary term change. Maybe if
> the term is more descriptive, they won't notice as much. "Holding Eyes"
> works for me.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Joy Greenwolfe
> Durham, NC
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Gypsies

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I use loop in several figures already.
On Oct 25, 2015 9:32 PM, "Don Veino"  wrote:

> I'm concerned spiral and circle are far too similar in sound -
> particularly the rise/fall pattern - for those with any hearing challenges.
> I also accept the criticism of the similar terms (eg: vortex) as implying a
> progressively closer approach (which really only applies in a "meltdown"
> situation) or fostering the idea of twirling/spinning while doing the
> primary move and that likely extends to swirl.
>
> At the risk of offering one more straw dog, there's "loop".
>
> "End that star [left] facing your next neighbor, loop right [around] that
> neighbor and continue into a swing."
>
> "Two ladies loop left once and a half, _insert_call_here_ your partner."
>
> To my knowledge, it's free of call/cue homonyms, sounds short and distinct
> and the other use in contra ("with your partner promenade across and loop
> wide to the left to face a new couple..." is a similar concept. No obvious
> negative meanings in common language (most are positive, e.g.: "in the
> loop").
> On Oct 25, 2015 8:35 PM, "Ron Blechner via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Eddie is also a gender name, thus I would rule that out. Vortex doesn't
>> exactly come off well on the mic. Swirl sounds way too much like circle
>> unless you are none ciating very very crisp late, in which case you are
>> going to get some Pardes sounds hissing on the mic.
>>
>> Thus, I don't like any of the three. I suggest spiral instead.
>>
>>

Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Since "gypsy" as a contra/ECD term almost certainly refers to Romani, it
differs from say, geological terms or whatnot. The swastika is a sad thing,
because the Nazis basically ruined it, even though they use a reverse
direction version.

That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy"
move, just stating that there are some clear differences.
On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> This has been a fascinating and edifying conversation regarding how and
> when to use the term. At the risk of getting too deep in the philosophical
> questions regarding use of the word "gypsy," I have a sincere and seriously
> non-loaded question about what conditions must be met in order to justify
> removing it from our calling vocabulary. Of course I acknowledge that when
> use of a pointed term meant to represent a certain group of people is
> deemed by that group of people to be offensive, then care should be taken
> to eliminate use of such a word (the Washington, D.C. football team comes
> to mind). There is no alternate etymology to that term other than the
> reference to Native Americans (well, unless their helmets had always
> featured red-skinned potatoes, of course). But now, in playing devil's
> advocate I ask: doesn't context and origin matter for "gypsy"? Isn't the
> etymology of the term's use in contra dancing relevant to whether it can
> rightfully be cast aside for being an offensive term?
>
> To those who say it doesn't, then how do we reconcile that with offensive
> terms or displays that have similar outputs that arose completely
> independently? For example:
> - The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a
> swastika.
> - The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK.
> - Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common
> rock formation.
> - Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks."
> - The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains.
>
> If we agree that all of these displays and uses are legitimate and
> appropriate for continued use, then doesn't the history of "gypsy" in
> contra dancing matter? Or does the surficial cause of offense warrant
> elimination? Not trying to weasel out of the situation here, but rather
> genuinely trying to refine the precise reasoning behind decisions in contra
> vocabulary. Curious about any/all perspectives on this -- thanks!
> Sargon
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Winston, Alan P. via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Apologies for putting words in your mouth.  I misunderstood what you were
>> saying.
>>
>> -- Alan
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
>>>
 I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as you
 say on the web page.

>>> Alan -
>>>
>>> I don't believe I say that.  I say that Sharp's handwritten notes use
>>> the word "gipsies", and I give links to prove it.  I agree that morris
>>> dancers use "gyp".
>>>
>>> Colin Hume
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Advice about "gypsy"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

This should be open and shut.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gypsy

The term, whether with a y or i vowel (remember, this is before Webster
invented the dictionary with standard spellings) is ~400 years old.

The burden of proof is thus on those who would say there's some other root
of the word where the Morris dancers got it.
On Oct 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton" 
wrote:

> I've been reading all the historical origins discussion.  It's seems to me
> we are far from concluding that the term 'gypsy' is associated with Romani
> people.  We have that Cecil Sharp probably heard Morris Dancers using whole
> and half gip, and appropriated the movement and term for broader use in
> country dance, apparently without investigating origin.  And we have a
> possible association between an Elizabethan? theater production called the
> Spanish Gypsy, with a dance of similar name with movement that may or may
> not be what we now call gypsy, but was not so named in said dance.  We are
> all assuming that at some point, someone was referring to the Roma, to
> their hands free dance, to their gaze, or something, but we don't know.
> That said, the trouble comes on situations like that Amy Wimmer
> encountered.  People from outside come in, and THEY make the assumption and
> association.  And some feel it is not politically correct, and take
> offense.  We haven't heard of a case of Romani people taking offense,
> presumably because we haven't had any attend a contra? That doesn't make
> using the term ok, it just means we have no usable specific data.  Sargon's
> question therefore remains unanswered.  What are the criteria for removing
> a term from our vocabulary?  What level of provable offense constitutes
> reason for removal?  Even if the answer is none, it's worth asking
> ourselves.
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Since "gypsy" as a contra/ECD term almost certainly refers to Romani, it
> differs from say, geological terms or whatnot. The swastika is a sad thing,
> because the Nazis basically ruined it, even though they use a reverse
> direction version.
>
> That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy"
> move, just stating that there are some clear differences.
> On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> This has been a fascinating and edifying conversation regarding how and
>> when to use the term. At the risk of getting too deep in the philosophical
>> questions regarding use of the word "gypsy," I have a sincere and seriously
>> non-loaded question about what conditions must be met in order to justify
>> removing it from our calling vocabulary. Of course I acknowledge that when
>> use of a pointed term meant to represent a certain group of people is
>> deemed by that group of people to be offensive, then care should be taken
>> to eliminate use of such a word (the Washington, D.C. football team comes
>> to mind). There is no alternate etymology to that term other than the
>> reference to Native Americans (well, unless their helmets had always
>> featured red-skinned potatoes, of course). But now, in playing devil's
>> advocate I ask: doesn't context and origin matter for "gypsy"? Isn't the
>> etymology of the term's use in contra dancing relevant to whether it can
>> rightfully be cast aside for being an offensive term?
>>
>> To those who say it doesn't, then how do we reconcile that with offensive
>> terms or displays that have similar outputs that arose completely
>> independently? For example:
>> - The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a
>> swastika.
>> - The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK.
>> - Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common
>> rock formation.
>> - Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks."
>> - The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains.
>>
>> If we agree that all of these displays and uses are legitimate and
>> appropriate for continued use, then doesn't the history of "gypsy" in
>> contra dancing matter? Or does the surficial cause of offense warrant
>> elimination? Not trying to weasel out of the situation here, but rather
>> genuinely trying to refine the precise reasoning behind decisions in contra
>> vocabulary. Curious about an

Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It is open and shut.

Saying it came from a well established name for wandering people versus
having no alternative, the only scientific thing to do us to accept the
plausible explanation.
On Oct 27, 2015 7:56 PM,  wrote:

> I'm no philologist, but I don't think it's as open and shut as suggested.
> While there is no proof the term derived from something other than in
> reference to the people, there is equally no proof to the affirmative that
> it is named after those people. Although it is indeed probable that it was
> named after the Roma people, mere coexistence (or pre-existence) of the
> term doesn't confirm it's the source.
>
> To keep things in perspective: On more than one occasion, I've heard
> contra dance callers explained that an "allemande" comes from the French "à
> la main" or "by the hand." However, that is apocryphal and the true origin
> is from a reference to a German dance (in French, "Allemande"). Just
> because something sounds logically consistent doesn't mean that's the true
> origin. I think the fact that the term is shortened to "gip" in some
> contexts and spelled as "jeepsies" in another leaves enough reasonable
> doubt that it could come from other derivations. That said, it may need to
> be retired regardless.
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 13:50, Ron Blechner  wrote:
>
> This should be open and shut.
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gypsy
>
> The term, whether with a y or i vowel (remember, this is before Webster
> invented the dictionary with standard spellings) is ~400 years old.
>
> The burden of proof is thus on those who would say there's some other root
> of the word where the Morris dancers got it.
> On Oct 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton" 
> wrote:
>
>> I've been reading all the historical origins discussion.  It's seems to
>> me we are far from concluding that the term 'gypsy' is associated with
>> Romani people.  We have that Cecil Sharp probably heard Morris Dancers
>> using whole and half gip, and appropriated the movement and term for
>> broader use in country dance, apparently without investigating origin.  And
>> we have a possible association between an Elizabethan? theater production
>> called the Spanish Gypsy, with a dance of similar name with movement that
>> may or may not be what we now call gypsy, but was not so named in said
>> dance.  We are all assuming that at some point, someone was referring to
>> the Roma, to their hands free dance, to their gaze, or something, but we
>> don't know.
>> That said, the trouble comes on situations like that Amy Wimmer
>> encountered.  People from outside come in, and THEY make the assumption and
>> association.  And some feel it is not politically correct, and take
>> offense.  We haven't heard of a case of Romani people taking offense,
>> presumably because we haven't had any attend a contra? That doesn't make
>> using the term ok, it just means we have no usable specific data.  Sargon's
>> question therefore remains unanswered.  What are the criteria for removing
>> a term from our vocabulary?  What level of provable offense constitutes
>> reason for removal?  Even if the answer is none, it's worth asking
>> ourselves.
>> Andrea
>>
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Since "gypsy" as a contra/ECD term almost certainly refers to Romani, it
>> differs from say, geological terms or whatnot. The swastika is a sad thing,
>> because the Nazis basically ruined it, even though they use a reverse
>> direction version.
>>
>> That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy"
>> move, just stating that there are some clear differences.
>> On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This has been a fascinating and edifying conversation regarding how and
>>> when to use the term. At the risk of getting too deep in the philosophical
>>> questions regarding use of the word "gypsy," I have a sincere and seriously
>>> non-loaded question about what conditions must be met in order to justify
>>> removing it from our calling vocabulary. Of course I acknowledge that when
>>> use of a pointed term meant to represent a certain group of people is
>>> deemed by that group of people to be offensive, then care should be taken
>>&

Re: [Callers] Progressive politics? Ha, ha

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Can we please not discuss politics on this list?

Seriously.
On Oct 29, 2015 9:51 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015, Michael Fuerst via Callers wrote:
> >
> > I have been contra dancing for 30 years or so and this is the first
> > time I've encountered a question about "gypsy" being controversial.
> > The people who contra dance on average are well left of center
> > politically--people who would never use an ethnically offensive
> > word.(Finding a bumper sticker at a contra dance gathering supporting
> > a Republican candidate is quite impossible.)As you noted, language
> > evolves, and the use of "gypsy" in contra dancing never had any
> > offensive baggage or intent. Given the thousands of left-wing contra
> > dancers who have guiltlessly gypsied over the years, having a single
> > individual (who may not well be a member of the allegedly offended
> > group) come to a dance, and for some reason makes the connection she
> > did, does not seem adequate to drop the word.
>
>   Your suggestion that progressive people promoting
> political correctness always stick to their progressive principles is
> risible.  I suggest that you do some research into the countless number
> of times that "progressive" people have screwed over minorities who
> weren't in their own demographic.
>
> To save you a bit of time, here's one specific example that consumed
> large amounts of time and emotional energy in one of my other social
> groups:
>
> http://fanlore.org/wiki/RaceFail_%2709
>
> > Your examples of "nigger" and "faggot" are not comparable, as they are
> > today often sill used with intended hate.
>
> Please re-read the messages pointing out that in Europe, particularly,
> "gypsy" still definitely gets used as a hateful slur.  And I don't know
> enough about *ALL* of American culture to presume that "gypsy" isn't used
> that way here in significant subcultures.  Certainly "gyp" (as a verb)
> does get used.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Gypsy Synopsis

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Erik, thanks for assembling that list.

What we also need a list of is that of all of the categories to determine
which terms are better than others. For example, I can start us off:

- term should not sound too much like an existing contra dance term
- clear and easy to say and hear on the mic/monitors
- no negative connotations
- descriptive of the move, as possible
On Oct 29, 2015 4:24 AM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On the subject of gypsies and language, I've enjoyed reading the myriad
> comments, and find myself feeling ambiguous (which I define as feeling very
> strongly both ways). And, I know it's been thrashed about and we've a
> request for acknowledging that we are unlikely to change any opinions on
> this. That said:
>
> * I have had this discussion with a number people in the past, about the
> very strong negative connotations of the word "Gypsy." Ambivalent as I am,
> I do think we should look for a replacement word.
>
> * I thought I'd collect all the words that have been suggested so far
> (unless I missed one or two) in one place. Here it is:
> No Hand Turn
> No Hand Allemande (and I do think Allemande comes from "The
> German," a dance)
> Dance Around, or Walk Around
> Face to Face Do Si Do
> Bine (binary stars -- snippet below)
> Nose-to-Nose Do Si Do
> Dance Around - or Dance About
> Orbit Around - or Orbit About
> Loop
> Eddy
> Vortex
> Swirl
> Spiral
> Eyes or "Take Eyes"
> Holding Eyes
> Eyeballs
> Facing
> Maypole
> Hands Off
> Face à Face (facey-face...)
> Right (Left) Shoulder (without the G-word)
> Cyclone (though mentioned with a complaint - too "violent")
>
> * I like "Single File with a Smile" to replace "Indian Style." Many
> Indians don't like the moniker "Native American," and vice versa -- America
> is a name that comes from a European explorer, in some ways more insulting
> than the misconstrued "Indians," from the name given by a murderous
> European explorer... It is good, I think, to stop using words that come
> from stereotyped images of an oppressed or victimized people.
>
> * When thinking of our positive feelings about the word -- "happy,
> colorful," think about people of the slave-holding South remembered with
> great delight how "Nigras" were always happy, and how warm and wonderful it
> was when they were slaves. Of course, they rarely considered that that
> "happiness" stemmed from fear -- the fear of bodily injury, jail, or even
> lynching...
>
> * We are teaching dance in a public forum. Dog breeders use the word
> "bitch" regularly -- no problem. Start calling a woman that word, and the
> connotation is different. A chink in a chain, a dike to hold back water or
> in a rock formation, etc. are all used in specialized situations. I run
> into a similar problem as I love playing the Jews Harp... Our use of the
> word Gypsy in a public forum could be said to have that specialized
> meaning. But it can be construed to have those negative connotations.
>
> * Eric Black says he uses "Gents & Ladies," never, "men & women." Years
> ago I stopped using Ladies & Gents since their roots are steeped in
> classism, and we live in a severely class society -- even though we pretend
> we don't. Be that as it may, I started using Ladies & Gents again when I
> realized most of us don't have those connotations associated with those
> words. Now I've gone gender free, and use ravens & larks. But when I was
> young we used "him," and "he" to mean "everyone. We did notice the affect
> this had on young women as promoting that sense of exclusion that still
> dominates our culture. Most of us now say "he and she," or just "she", and
> it has changed how some of us think about the power of women. Language does
> make a difference. Much of this came about from discussions on how the
> words I choose to use affect some. Most of are "unaffected," by the use of
> certain words. Or at least we don't perceive an affect of the use of
> certain words. It's like those of us who are White often don't know the
> scrutiny Black people are subjected to throughout their everyday lives. Or
> the majority of us men don't live with the fear and degradation women are
> subjected to. It is important to understand how our language affects those
> around us, especially from the podium.
>
> Well, enough for now, as that's more than two-cents worth...
>
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
>
> The Snippet on from Richard Fischer (richardallenfisc...@verizon.net)
> "Bine":
> > I have a suggestion for a new word to replace "gypsy."  My word is
> "bine" and I derive it from
> > "binary stars" which, especially if they are of similar mass, circle
> each other as in our dance
> > move. I consulted with an astrophysicist friend, who told me that under
> certain circumstances
> > binary stars may b

Re: [Callers] Progressive politics? Ha, ha

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

"Controversial" is different from "political".

We can discuss controversial topics without bringing up political
affiliations.

Please stop.
On Oct 29, 2015 11:00 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015, Ron Blechner wrote:
> >
> > Can we please not discuss politics on this list?
>
> Whether "gypsy" is an offensive term and the figure name should be
> changed is an inherently political discussion, so no.  (Ditto similar
> discussions about gender-free dancer terms.)
>
> For that matter, I would argue that discussions about how to handle
> harassment are political as well; at minimum, thirty or forty years ago,
> there would have been people arguing exactly as you are that we should
> avoid discussing them because they are political.
>
> What exactly are you objecting to?
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> "We've just found a line in a perl script that invokes a shell script to
> call
> a lisp program which invokes the very-same perl script."  --anonymous
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Gypsy / "Redneck"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

"who on this list believe that contra dancers have a negative view of the
Romani people because of the word gypsy?"

Over the last few days, as this conversation has spilled out onto a few
forms of social media, I have now heard specific stories about people who
are Roma and/or have Roma heritage who are folk dancers in dance forms that
use "gypsy" as a term, and are offended directly.

As to your question, do you consider "negative" to include "reinforcing
stereotypes"?  Maybe?

What if we had a dance move called "redneck". Sure, there's plenty of find
country folks in America who proudly self-describe as a "redneck". There
are songs written about them. There are people who dress up for Halloween
as them. etc. Does that mean that there aren't also plenty of people who
have been called "redneck" as a slur against the stereotype of "dumb,
rural, ignorant yokels"?  I find the parallels compelling enough where I'm
now seriously leaning off the fence...

-Ron Blechner

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Tom Hinds via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> In my opinion the offended women actually helped spread a stereotype she
> didn't like.  Who on this list knew that Romani women had a reputation for
> being (I can't remember, was it) sexual?  Not me.  Okay, it was the caller
> she complained to who put it out there, but she started it.   Should the
> caller feel defensive or should the caller turn the issue around if it's
> appropriate?
>
> I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WANT TO KNOW, who on this list believe that
> contra dancers have a negative view of the Romani people because of the
> word gypsy?  Anyone?
>
> For me the more important issue is education.  I learned another tidbit
> about the Romani people.  Yes I understand how people can be sensitive, but
> perhaps this woman needs to learn something about us before jumping to
> conclusions.
>
> Tom
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Gypsy / "Redneck"/honky

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Tom,

I find it humorous that we both had the same thought experiment. I read
"honky" as less offensive than "redneck", but that may be subjective and/or
semantic.

To be very plain:

The image we conjure up of a "gypsy" is a stereotype. "Gypsy" for many
invokes images of coin hip scarves and veils and brightly painted caravans.
Mysterious women. Homeless vagrants who are selling snake oil. Fire eaters.
Sellers of junk.

Even if we removed the negative ones, and "gypsy" made us just think of
"sexy mysterious woman", isn't that just objectifying women? Or sexualizing
a race of people? Is that any different than talking about which race has
bigger or smaller penises? Or saying that Asian women are "exotic" and
black men are "savage"?

So yeah, the more I've thought about this over the last few days - and the
last year or so ago, since I first suggested "spiral" - I've been realizing
that "gypsy" is a problem. Maybe it's not, at least in America, the slur
that it is in parts of Europe. But it's still a stereotype loaded word.

...

Why now?

The other objection is "very few are complaining, why not wait til more
people are complaining?"

Well, we can wait until it's a big problem, or we can acknowledge the
direction things are going, and head it off before it becomes less of an
accepted word. Would I rather be too PC, or like my grandma, who I had to
remind that "negro" is not an appropriate word anymore in the 2000s?  I'd
rather error on the side of PC, in this particular case.

For me, the tipping point, as I explained in my previous e-mail, has been
first and second hand accounts of people of actual Romani heritage having
issues. Yes, some do and some don't - but that's precisely the point I was
communicating when I came up with the "redneck" thought experiment. Some
wear "redneck" with honor. But definitely, *definitely* "redneck" is also
used as a slur to disparage people who are seen as inferior.

Best regards,
Ron

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Tom Hinds  wrote:

> When this discussion started I decided to actually use honky instead of
> gypsy the next time I called.   I would of course explain to the dancers
> this extremely important and delicate issue that is now confronting the
> contra dance community.   Why not get a chuckle from the floor?  I
> appreciate the suggestion of red neck but I think honky flows better.  See
> the end of this email for calling examples.
>
> Several people have thanked me off list for what I said because they don't
> want to be seen as insensitive.  Basically we think there's way too much
> mental effort and concern based on 1 person's complaint.  That I'm actually
> taking time at all on this topic is a bad reflection on my judgment.
>
> Ron, I really want to know:   since you started dancing have you thought
> badly of the Romani people because of the use of the word gypsy?  Is there
> any caller or dancer out there who has thought badly about Romani people
> because of this call?
>
> At the time that I wrote my last email, I also wrote the following but
> decided not to send it because I didn't want to be seen as insensitive.
> Here it is.  Maybe you'll get a chuckle.
>
>
>
> As a caller I've often used self-defecating humor to get dancers to
> relax.  It shows that we callers are human and can make mistakes etc.  It
> also takes the focus off of them and on to me.
>
> With that said I was thinking that we, the white majority in the US, might
> consider pointing the finger at ourselves in a joking way.  This  might
> show minorities that we to can take a joke and perhaps communicate that, in
> some situations,  it's important not to take things too seriously.
>
> Let's do away with the call gypsy and replace it with honky.  Here are
> some examples:
>
> "Honky your partner"
>
> or
>
> "Honky 'round your neighbor"
>
> or
>
> "ladies honky once and a half"
>
> If a Romani person ever complains to you tell them this:  naming a move
> after an ethnic group is one of the highest honors of our dance community.
> The only other people to be so honored are the Dosidoes.
>
> Tom
>
>

Re: [Callers] Gypsy perception

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Donald,

I am reading your comments as an attempt solely at shutting up other
people. Is this your intent? It also comes off pretty passive aggressive.
That is *not* appreciated and *not* helpful.

Disagree all you like, but if you don't want to participate in a
discussion, please don't interfere with others who do.

Respectfully,
Ron Blechner
On Nov 3, 2015 9:06 AM, "Donald Perley via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Aahz Maruch via Callers
>
> > I have to admit that technically your argument is correct WRT me, but
> > that's because I haven't been contra dancing at all (except for Queer
> > Contra Dance Camp).  Instead, I've been focusing my time/energy on
> > learning to call MWSD, which leaves this as my only outlet for contra
> > dancing.  ;-)
>
> Like I said, more into the crusade than the dance.
>
> While we're at it, more offensive terms that may need replacing:
>
> Chain - represents slavery
> Cast(e) - discrimination affecting a billion Indians
> Swing - derogatory term for swapping sexual partners.
>
> I notice that in quotes from the original complainant who spurred this
> subject, he never claimed to be Roma himself, and it was a little
> unclear whether he was more offended by just the term gypsy, or the
> implication that same-gender gypsies would be flirting with each
> other.
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] woodrow wilson

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Kind of missing the connection.
On Nov 26, 2015 4:02 PM, "jean francis via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> absolutely excellent article; thanks Michael. I was, in a past life, a
> "Woodrow Wilson fellow" at Princeton and never knew this but I surely agree
> with the articles conclusion (and its relevance to the gypsy discussion)
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Contras with a Hey

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Give the Scout a Hand, Bob Isaacs

I'll second:
Butter
Carousel
Hey the the Barn
Roll in the Hey
On Dec 8, 2015 2:10 PM, "David A Kaynor via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> A longtime lurker leaps in:
>
> Below:  Two fairly easy Becket formation dances which present a full hay
> for four following a full ladies’ chain … a useful sequence from a
> pedagogical standpoint, in my opinion.
>
> First, Peter Stix’s “Purple Hays” (Becket formation)
>
> A1:  Ladies chain (over and back)
>
> A2:  Hay for four (over and back)
>
> B1:  Ladies 1/2 [your politically/socially acceptable term for “gypsy”];
> swing partner
>
> B2:  1/2 right and left; circle left 1/2 to original Becket home; with
> partner, slide left.
>
>
> Here are Peter’s A parts followed by different B parts (Lindsey Dono told
> me that a dancer suggested this dance be called “Busy Bees”)
>
> A1:  Ladies chain (over and back)
>
> A2:  Hay for four (over and back)
>
> B1:  with Partner, balance and swing
>
> B2:  long lines forward & back; circle left (all the way around); with
> partner, shift left to new neighbors.
>
>
> Note:  On paper, there isn’t sufficient time for all of B2.  However, in
> actual practice, the transition from the circle and shift to the ladies’
> chain is forgiving enough for things to flow well.
>
> I believe my B parts to be a little easier for bringing newcomers along.
> To my knowledge, no contra prior to “Purple Hays” used this sequence of A
> parts.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:50 PM, susanelberger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Washington Hay by Ralph Sweet is my go-to dance for teaching a hay to
> relatively new dancers.
> >
> > Susan Elberger
> >
> > From: Rich Sbardella via Callers 
> > To: Caller's discussion list ;
> trad-dance-call...@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 12:48 PM
> > Subject: [Callers] Contras with a Hey
> >
> > Hello Folks,
> >
> > I am relatively new at calling contras and I am looking for some asy to
> intermediate contras to introduce the hey to a group that includes many
> beginners. and/or club square dancers.
> >
> > "Butter" by Gene Hubert is my go to dance, but I am looking for a few
> more.  I like Butter because the flow from ladies chain into a RH hey is
> great, and because all the other calls are introduced earlier in most
> evening.
> >
> > I love simple, but different choreography, so I am open to most
> suggestions.
> >
> > Rich Sbardella
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
> set - making them slightly more complex.  Perhaps they had some bad
> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
>
> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
>
> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they can
> end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
>
> Mac McKeever
>
> --
> *From:* Bill Olson via Callers 
> *To:* Caller's discussion list 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>
> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
>
> bill
>
> --
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> To: call...@sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> Becket formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> they do not like Beckets.
>
> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> Beckets in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> formation among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
>
> Rich
>
> ___ 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] Becket Formation

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Sorry, I meant Rich.
On Dec 10, 2015 3:54 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
> On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
>> set - making them slightly more complex.  Perhaps they had some bad
>> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
>>
>> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
>> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
>>
>> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they
>> can end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
>>
>> Mac McKeever
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Bill Olson via Callers 
>> *To:* Caller's discussion list 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>>
>> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
>>
>> bill
>>
>> --
>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
>> To: call...@sharedweight.net
>> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
>> From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
>> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
>> Becket formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
>> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
>> they do not like Beckets.
>>
>> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
>> Beckets in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
>> formation among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> ___ 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] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Any suggestions for your favorite easy or intermediate Petronella spin
dance with no chain, no allemandes?

Thanks,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] As in Petronella

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Many callers forget that Petronella is spin-then-balance, and most modern
"Petronella dances" are balance-then-spin".

So saying, "as in Petronella, balance and spin/move one place to the right"
is not accurate either.

More accurate: "Balance the ring, and as in Petronella, spin/move one place
to the right."

(And the difference also can explain why people clap. The chestnut
Petronella has the stomping on the last beats, whereas there's a
stompy-sized hole at the end of modern balance-then-spin Petronella dances.)

On Dec 15, 2015 2:09 PM, "Bill Olson via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Erik and all, heh heh, I often chuckle at MYSELF when I find myself
saying that same thing: "as in Petronella", when I realize very few of the
dancers have ever danced Petronella.. BUT, after trying to teach the move
with out saying the "P word", I realized that some of the dancers at least
know what the move is and having a percentage of the dancers "doing the
right thing" helps the others., especially those who learn by seeing as
opposed to having something "explained"... (with rights and lefts in it
ugh).. I've found saying: "balance the ring and move one place to the right
while pivoting over your right shoulder" doesn't always get everyone doing
the same thing (hah!), if it doesn't actually freeze some dancers in their
tracks!!
>
> Now I hear newer callers saying stuff like "balance the ring and
Petronella to the right" or "balance left and Rory to the left". Making new
verbs out of these proper names.. well, whatever works!!!
>
> bill

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

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks for all the suggestions, all.

Heartbeat Contra is a very good one, a favorite of many, and in my box. I
guess I should have specified "no gypsy" as well.

I have Newlywed's Jig - perhaps I don't call that enough.

Petronella’s Pin and Fun With Alex seem like no-brainers to add, and Love
at First Swing as a nice fairly-easy-but-something-unusual dance. (I
personally don't like the petronella-to-swing, sorry Bob!)

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

Best,
Ron


-- Forwarded message --
From: Linda Leslie 
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?
To: Ron Blechner 
Cc: callers 


Here are a couple for you.
Warmly, Linda


*Petronella’s Pin*
by Dave Colestock
Contra/Improper/Easy

A1 ---
Ring Balance, Petronella spin
Ring Balance, Petronell spin
A2 ---
Ring Balance
Neighbor swing
B1 ---
Give & Take to ladies side & swing
B2 ---
Circle left three-quarters
Ring Balance
Pass thru

*Newlywed's Jig*
by Mark Widmer
Contra/Improper/Easy

A1 ---
Long Lines Forward and Back
Neighbor Swing
A2 ---
Circle left three-quarters
Gents do si do*
B1 ---
Partner Balance and Swing
B2 ---
Ring Balance, Pet Twirl
Ring Balance
Ladies roll away with a half sashay with neighbor (to the left)

*Love at First Swing*
by Bob Isaacs
Contra/Improper/Easy

A1 ---
(8) Balance the ring and twirl to the right
(8) Balance the ring and twirl to the right
A2 ---
Balance the Ring
California Twirl
New Neighbor swing
B1 ---
Circle Left 3/4
Partner swing
B2 ---
Down the hall, four in line
Gent #2 Right hand high, left low, gent 1 TA
Return*  (bend the line and restart the dance with these N’s)

*Lanny's Back*
by Erik Weberg
Contra/Improper/Int

A1 ---
Neghbor gypsy  (Or B&S)
(8) Neighbor swing


A2 ---
(8) Circle Left 3/4
(8) Partner swing
B1 ---
Ring Balance
Ladies cross by the right
Ring Balance
Gents cross by the right
B2 ---
Ring Balance
Petronella twirl
Ring Balance
California Twirl

*Fun with Alex*
by Linda Leslie
Contra/Becket-CW/Int

A1 ---
Long lines forward & back
Circle left three-quarters (Flatten to a wave)
A2 ---
Balance the wave
Walk forward
New Neighbor swing (face across)
B1 ---
Ring Balance
Partner roll away across the ring
Ring Balance   Petronella twirl
B2 ---
Partner Balance & Swing

*Cure for the Claps,The*
by Bob Isaacs
Contra/Improper/Easy-Int

A1 ---
Ring Balance, Petronella twirl
Partner Swing
A2 ---
Ring Balance, Petronella twirl
Neighbor Swing
B1 ---
Four in line down the hall, turn alone, return
B2 ---
Circle left once
Ring Balance
California Twirl

On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Any suggestions for your favorite easy or intermediate Petronella spin
dance with no chain, no allemandes?

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

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Sargon,

You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.

In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may
describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
contexts nowadays.

When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide
the proper use of that word is... that group of people.

...

As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.

Ron Blechner
On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM,  wrote:

> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Martha,
>
> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
> people?
>
> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several
>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have
>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in
>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word
>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>
>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>
>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you
>> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
>> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>>
>>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen,"
>>> because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
>>> we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
>&g

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:

"Gay" meaning happy.
"Cock" meaning rooster.
"Pussy" meaning cat.
"Douche" meaning to shower.

This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended,
but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature
here. I hope.

Ron
On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Sargon,
>
> You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
> it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
>
> In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may
> describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
> contexts nowadays.
>
> When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide
> the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
>
> ...
>
> As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
> changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
> for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
> same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
>
> Ron Blechner
> On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM,  wrote:
>
>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Martha,
>>
>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>> people?
>>
>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>
>> Ron
>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>>> Martha
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have
>>> several unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani
>>> have claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be
>>> used, in any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the
>>> word later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>>
>>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>>
>&

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
relevant.

I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
it a double entendre. Etc.

And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
up to that group.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body
> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
> everyone.
> Martha
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Martha,
>
> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
> people?
>
> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several
>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have
>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in
>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word
>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>
>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>
>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you
>> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
>> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

"Dick" is a preferred name of your friend.
"Gypsy" is a slur to the Roma.

Do you get the difference?
On Jan 22, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if they are appropriate
> and in context. My daughter raises chickens. We talk about the cocks and
> the hens. In the lab the carboys have stopcocks on them. I have friends
> called Dick and I use their right name. Context is important, though if I
> were in the presence of an English language learner I might be careful
> assuming my listeners were not as familiar with different words. But that
> is also context.
> Martha
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
>
> It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
>
> "Gay" meaning happy.
> "Cock" meaning rooster.
> "Pussy" meaning cat.
> "Douche" meaning to shower.
>
> This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended,
> but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature
> here. I hope.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:
>
>> Sargon,
>>
>> You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
>> it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
>>
>> In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may
>> describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
>> contexts nowadays.
>>
>> When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to
>> decide the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
>> changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
>> for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
>> same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
>>
>> Ron Blechner
>> On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM,  wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martha,
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>>> people?
>>>
>>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>>>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>>>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>>>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>>>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>>>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>>>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>>>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>>>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>>>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>>>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>>>> Martha
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> w

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

If half of a group of people say it's a slur, and half say it's not, do we
ignore the half that say it's a slur? No.

Regardless, this discussion has been had before. International Roma bodies
view it as a slur.

But also, the two are not mutually exclusive. People might use "redneck" as
a term of pride, but it may be a slur coming from a city dweller. Or the
n-word.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:22 PM, "Janet Bertog"  wrote:

> But even the Roma cannot agree on whether the word is offensive.  There
> are some who do find it offensive and others who proudly embrace it.
>
> Regarding the question yesterday about Flowers of Edinburgh, I cannot find
> the reference again, maybe I was imagining things, or associating the
> Scottish fiddle tune with the dance in Cecil Sharp's books.  But I was
> certain that I read that it was a Scottish handkerchief dance.  Cuckolds
> All Awry is most definitely from the 1500s and has the gipsy move in it,
> though it is uncertain whether it was actually called that at the time.
>  (Cuckold All Awry is called Hey Boys, Up We Go in Cecil Sharp's 1909 book
> for unknown reasons, but possibly because Cuckolds was considered a
> demeaning term, or possibly because he misunderstood and thought the two
> titles were interchangeabble, even though Hey Boys, Up We Go is a very
> different dance in Playford's Dancing Master.  I will keep researching as
> time permits, but I have other things to do (though less today since my
> dance weekend was cancelled due to the blizzard :( ).
>
> I will also summarize what I heard from Carol, though I thought we were
> having a conversation but did not hear back from her.
>
> Someone mentioned that Eden from Notorious is a Roma, has anyone asked her
> opinion?  I don't talk to her, so I haven't asked her.  I suppose I could
> though.
>
>
> Janet
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
>> relevant.
>>
>> I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
>> it a double entendre. Etc.
>>
>> And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
>> up to that group.
>> On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body
>>> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
>>> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
>>> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
>>> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
>>> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
>>> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
>>> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
>>> everyone.
>>> Martha
>>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martha,
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>>> people?
>>>
>>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As mentioned, there are many words we use 

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

When I find topics in shared weight that I don't care to participate in, I
ignore them.

Please don't police what we are allowed to discuss or not discuss.
On Jan 22, 2016 1:01 PM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> During a contra dance, the eighth beat of music indicates to the
> participants when to exit from the circular gypsy figure.  The ongoing
> discussion lacks such luxury
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 11:50 AM, Seth Seeger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dear callers,
>
> Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its
> course?”  Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation?  I imagine
> that at this point, no one’s mind is going to be changed…
>
> Thank you for considering!
> Seth
>
>
> https://xkcd.com/386/
>
> ___
> 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] Best gigs

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

What makes for your "best" calling gigs?

Measure any way you'd like... size, money, people, musicians, friends,
dancers, community, etc. Been thinking about this for a while and
reflecting myself, and wanted to hear what other callers think.

In dance,
Ron Blechner

[Callers] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For a while I've wanted a dance with:
- easy difficulty
- 2 swings
- a courtesy turn (promenade or chain)
- everyone allemandes
- a star
- Ideally ladies doing one move together and gents doing one move together.
- timing that isn't tight (Dayton 1.5 by Perry Shafran came very close, and
I use that, but doesn't leave quite enough wiggle room for too many new
dancers.)


Basically, A Nice Combination / Simplicity Swing / The Baby Rose but with
an everyone-allemandes.

I was stumped. If you have a suggestion, I'm ears!

This is what I've worked together. I called it last Friday at Greenfield,
MA, with maybe 15% new dancers, and it worked well.

Mistakes Happen, Have Fun
Ron T Blechner
Start: Duple Imp.
Difficulty: Easy

A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
   NS (10)
A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
   PS (10)
B1. LLFB (8)
   Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
B2. Star L 1x (8) (to Next N)
   (Next) N Alle R 1.5x (8) (until gents face in)*

* Technically, this dance is a reverse progression indecent dance. But
don't tell the dancers this. It can be lined up improper and taught
normally.

Thanks,

Ron

Re: [Callers] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Aahz,

I wonder at your reasoning. Do you mean for 8-beat musical phrasing? While
that's nice, having dancers do something new every 8 beats can leave little
room for mistakes. And mistakes happen. ;)

Not a fan of Gene Hubert's A Nice Combination, then? 6-beat circle Left 3/4
to swing in that, too (even shorter if you consider it follows returning up
the hall in a line of four, which dancers are likely to get their early
when bending the line).

Also, most new dancers have trouble doing a do-si-do 1.5x in 8 beats, and
while a do-si-do 1x is technically 6 beats in most dances,  dances like
David Kaynor's The Baby Rose use that extra time to make it flexible for
both experienced and newer dancers. (As an aside, it's why I always change
DSD 1.5x to next N progressions to Pass-Thru, DSD 1x with Next N).

Best,
Ron
On Mar 24, 2016 11:10 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
> >
> > A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
> >NS (10)
> > A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
> >PS (10)
>
> Not thrilled.  Make each figure eight beats and I'm happy.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Alternatively,
A1: Gents Alle L 1x.

Or gents gypsy left.

But there's got to be a hundred good dances with a Do-si-do to swing.
On Mar 23, 2016 11:43 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> For a while I've wanted a dance with:
> - easy difficulty
> - 2 swings
> - a courtesy turn (promenade or chain)
> - everyone allemandes
> - a star
> - Ideally ladies doing one move together and gents doing one move together.
> - timing that isn't tight (Dayton 1.5 by Perry Shafran came very close,
> and I use that, but doesn't leave quite enough wiggle room for too many new
> dancers.)
>
>
> Basically, A Nice Combination / Simplicity Swing / The Baby Rose but with
> an everyone-allemandes.
>
> I was stumped. If you have a suggestion, I'm ears!
>
> This is what I've worked together. I called it last Friday at Greenfield,
> MA, with maybe 15% new dancers, and it worked well.
>
> Mistakes Happen, Have Fun
> Ron T Blechner
> Start: Duple Imp.
> Difficulty: Easy
>
> A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
>NS (10)
> A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
>PS (10)
> B1. LLFB (8)
>Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
> B2. Star L 1x (8) (to Next N)
>(Next) N Alle R 1.5x (8) (until gents face in)*
>
> * Technically, this dance is a reverse progression indecent dance. But
> don't tell the dancers this. It can be lined up improper and taught
> normally.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron
>
>

Re: [Callers] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Pointed out by another caller, a close one with a bit tighter timing, and a
promenade rather than a chain:

Dick and Mary's Departure (for Dick and Mary Ashbrook)
Jan Larsen
Duple, improper
A1 Neighbor allemande right 1 ½,
  Men allemande left 1 ½
A2 *Partner balance and swing ( *alt: gypsy and swing)
B1 Ladies allemande right 1 ½
  Swing your neighbor
B2 Half promenade,
  Left hand star

... I'll probably add this one to my easy dances as well.

Ron
On Mar 24, 2016 6:27 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Alternatively,
> A1: Gents Alle L 1x.
>
> Or gents gypsy left.
>
> But there's got to be a hundred good dances with a Do-si-do to swing.
> On Mar 23, 2016 11:43 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:
>
>> For a while I've wanted a dance with:
>> - easy difficulty
>> - 2 swings
>> - a courtesy turn (promenade or chain)
>> - everyone allemandes
>> - a star
>> - Ideally ladies doing one move together and gents doing one move
>> together.
>> - timing that isn't tight (Dayton 1.5 by Perry Shafran came very close,
>> and I use that, but doesn't leave quite enough wiggle room for too many new
>> dancers.)
>>
>>
>> Basically, A Nice Combination / Simplicity Swing / The Baby Rose but with
>> an everyone-allemandes.
>>
>> I was stumped. If you have a suggestion, I'm ears!
>>
>> This is what I've worked together. I called it last Friday at Greenfield,
>> MA, with maybe 15% new dancers, and it worked well.
>>
>> Mistakes Happen, Have Fun
>> Ron T Blechner
>> Start: Duple Imp.
>> Difficulty: Easy
>>
>> A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
>>NS (10)
>> A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
>>PS (10)
>> B1. LLFB (8)
>>Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
>> B2. Star L 1x (8) (to Next N)
>>(Next) N Alle R 1.5x (8) (until gents face in)*
>>
>> * Technically, this dance is a reverse progression indecent dance. But
>> don't tell the dancers this. It can be lined up improper and taught
>> normally.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>

Re: [Callers] New dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I have another question to pose:

Is there precedent for naming a dance after a politician?

While I may have voted for Bernie, I'm careful to not inject my political
view into my calling / choreography. (Though, on the other hand, if Bernie
doesn't win the nomination, in 5 years dancers will just hear "feel the
burn".)

In Dance,
Ron Blechner
On Mar 27, 2016 8:24 AM, "Pat Hoekje via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I am trying to visualize the circle R to star R with new neighbor from the
> women's place and I have to turn around (or drop from the circle right a
> bit early to star right with the next neighbor.  What am I not seeing
> correctly or is that true?
>
> Thanks,
> Pat
>
>
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 4:22 AM, Amy Wimmer via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> Tom and Erik are quite right about that swing. It lasts FOREVER, which
> is a little too long.  I took Michael's suggestion and started at A2.
> I also took Michael's suggestion of turning the allemande into a
> two-eyed turn (an "eye-lemande" as my friend Matthew coined). Thank
> you for the suggestions for changing that bit.
>
> Two callers danced it tonight. One (my husband, Tom) thought the flow
> was good, but the swing was definitely too long. The other caller said
> she really liked that the mad robin wasn't with your partner, which
> she said tends to make a dance seem very partner-only-centric,
> ignoring the neighbors. She agreed with me that I need to figure out a
> better way to teach it. One of the band members noticed the long swing
> and said it needs some other element to break it up.
>
> This particular dance community has lots of beginners and folks who
> just don't dance very well. It took them a while to get the circle
> right-to star right transition. Tom thought that part was simple. He
> noticed that when one is out at the ends one should not cross over,
> but should stand "proper."
>
> I very much appreciate your input, guys. Next time I'll try some more
> of your ideas.
>
> -Amy
>
> > On Mar 26, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Tom Hinds  wrote:
> >
> > Nice dance Amy.  I really like the sequence of moves.
> > I'm trying to imagine this in my head and assume that the allemande
> right is once around which takes less than 8 beats to do.
> >
> > Hope you don't mind suggesting a change.  I would change the allemande
> right to once and a half.  That would give us:
> >
> > B2neighbor allemande right 1 1/2
> >ladies ric.  men pass left
> >
> > T
> >
> ___
> 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] New dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Let me rephrase:

Is there a precedent for naming a dance after a living politician?
On Mar 28, 2016 10:29 AM, "Don Veino"  wrote:

> Jefferson and Liberty.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I have another question to pose:
>>
>> Is there precedent for naming a dance after a politician?
>>
>> While I may have voted for Bernie, I'm careful to not inject my political
>> view into my calling / choreography. (Though, on the other hand, if Bernie
>> doesn't win the nomination, in 5 years dancers will just hear "feel the
>> burn".)
>>
>> In Dance,
>> Ron Blechner
>> On Mar 27, 2016 8:24 AM, "Pat Hoekje via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to visualize the circle R to star R with new neighbor from
>>> the women's place and I have to turn around (or drop from the circle right
>>> a bit early to star right with the next neighbor.  What am I not seeing
>>> correctly or is that true?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 4:22 AM, Amy Wimmer via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom and Erik are quite right about that swing. It lasts FOREVER, which
>>> is a little too long.  I took Michael's suggestion and started at A2.
>>> I also took Michael's suggestion of turning the allemande into a
>>> two-eyed turn (an "eye-lemande" as my friend Matthew coined). Thank
>>> you for the suggestions for changing that bit.
>>>
>>> Two callers danced it tonight. One (my husband, Tom) thought the flow
>>> was good, but the swing was definitely too long. The other caller said
>>> she really liked that the mad robin wasn't with your partner, which
>>> she said tends to make a dance seem very partner-only-centric,
>>> ignoring the neighbors. She agreed with me that I need to figure out a
>>> better way to teach it. One of the band members noticed the long swing
>>> and said it needs some other element to break it up.
>>>
>>> This particular dance community has lots of beginners and folks who
>>> just don't dance very well. It took them a while to get the circle
>>> right-to star right transition. Tom thought that part was simple. He
>>> noticed that when one is out at the ends one should not cross over,
>>> but should stand "proper."
>>>
>>> I very much appreciate your input, guys. Next time I'll try some more
>>> of your ideas.
>>>
>>> -Amy
>>>
>>> > On Mar 26, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Tom Hinds  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Nice dance Amy.  I really like the sequence of moves.
>>> > I'm trying to imagine this in my head and assume that the allemande
>>> right is once around which takes less than 8 beats to do.
>>> >
>>> > Hope you don't mind suggesting a change.  I would change the allemande
>>> right to once and a half.  That would give us:
>>> >
>>> > B2neighbor allemande right 1 1/2
>>> >ladies ric.  men pass left
>>> >
>>> > T
>>> >
>>> ___
>>> 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] here it is - sorry

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

That article had a few interesting *new* points, for me.

1. That Roma are in the US, not just Europe, and face continued
discrimination.
2. That Roma in the US often don't speak up about their identity out of
fear of discrimination.
3. That perhaps the use of "gypsy" as a term isn't as bad as non-Roma
self-identitying as "dance gypsies". Roma wander because they are
persecuted or can't find work. When we talk about "dance gypsies" beig
wandering from place to place, we're comparing our having fun traveling to
various dances to the widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst
being the Holocaust).
On Apr 1, 2016 10:03 AM, "via Callers" 
wrote:

> I was thinking that very thing, but didn't have any experiences.
> Something I read recently pointed out that Romani people in Spain proudly
> refer to themselves as "Gitano" which translates to Gypsy.
>
> This is issue is not as cut and dry as many of us would like it to be.
>
> Thanks for sharing this story.
>
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.com/
>
>
>
> On April 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM Rich Sbardella 
> wrote:
>
> There are still at least two sides to this argument.  Although I am using
> the term less and less, I want to relate a recent experience.
>
> I was dancing in one of MA biggest contra venues as a caller walked the a
> dance with a "two eyed" turn.  A dancer in my line became more than a
> little upset, yelling it "it's a gypsy".  Turns out the dancer is Romani,
> and the term "gypsy" is one he proudly owns.
>
> I do not think the Roma people as a whole have come to a consensus.   (For
> example, The Gypsy Kings proudly use the term as a reference to their
> heritage.)
>
> Rich Stafford
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Ms Carroll:
>
> Quite frankly a fairly useless article for us.
> Ms Raessi is "a Romani/Métis researcher and activist" so it seems logical
> that she dislikes the term gypsy.
> She  lists alleged myths stereotypes about Romani people
> Every ethnic group has an associated set of  myths and stereotypes.
> Every ethnic group tries to purge the negative stereotypes and retain the
> positive aspects of their heritage.
> Ms Raessi writes "many people find that using this term is wrong because
> it perpetuates misinformation about our origins"
> This makes little sense. Anyone person bigoted enough to entertain
> any of her alleged stereotypes has no idea about the origins of Romani
> people.
>
> Ms Raessi writes  "...the term has been used as a racial slur and is
> loaded with stereotypes ..."
> Yes the word gypsy has been used to deprecate Romani people but over the
> years it evolved  to mean a free-spirited or nomadic person.
> Other ethnic slurs (such as kike, chink, jap or nigger) have not similarly
> evolved, and thus their use remains offensive.
> This article discusses some  English words or idioms that evolved from
> ethnic slurs:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/offensive-words-_n_4144472.html
>
> The ongoing discussion during the past year of the word gypsy has included
> claims that some persons of  Romani descent embrace gypsy and its positive
> aspects of current usage,  most don't care, and some hate the word.   And
> of course only those who object will speak out.
> As long the common usage of  gypsy keeps evolving towards a free-spirited
> or nomadic person, keeping it in the contra lexicon seems appropriate
>
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 584
>
>
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:32 PM, via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://bellydanceu.net/culture/520/
> "What's wrong with the Word 'Gypsy'?"
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.com/
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] here it is - sorry

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'm really tired of personal attacks here on Shared Weight, and a high
percentage comes from one person.

I've asked Michael Fuerst to not contact me again. I've already cut down my
usage, but if we can't trade ideas without having them called "bizarre" and
"absurd", then this list isn't working.
On Apr 4, 2016 1:56 AM, "Michael Fuerst"  wrote:

> Ron:
>
> "we're comparing our having fun traveling to various dances to the
> widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst being the Holocaust)."
>
> Maybe you do.   No one else uses such  bizarre logic.
> Conbtradancers as a group are about as left of center  and
> non-discriminatory in their beliefs as any non-political group gets.
> Your suggestion is absurd
>
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>
>
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 8:38 PM, Ron Blechner 
> wrote:
>
>
> That article had a few interesting *new* points, for me.
> 1. That Roma are in the US, not just Europe, and face continued
> discrimination.
> 2. That Roma in the US often don't speak up about their identity out of
> fear of discrimination.
> 3. That perhaps the use of "gypsy" as a term isn't as bad as non-Roma
> self-identitying as "dance gypsies". Roma wander because they are
> persecuted or can't find work. When we talk about "dance gypsies" beig
> wandering from place to place, we're comparing our having fun traveling to
> various dances to the widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst
> being the Holocaust).
> On Apr 1, 2016 10:03 AM, "via Callers" 
> wrote:
>
> I was thinking that very thing, but didn't have any experiences.
> Something I read recently pointed out that Romani people in Spain proudly
> refer to themselves as "Gitano" which translates to Gypsy.
> This is issue is not as cut and dry as many of us would like it to be.
> Thanks for sharing this story.
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.com/
>
>
> On April 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM Rich Sbardella 
> wrote:
>
> There are still at least two sides to this argument.  Although I am using
> the term less and less, I want to relate a recent experience.
>
> I was dancing in one of MA biggest contra venues as a caller walked the a
> dance with a "two eyed" turn.  A dancer in my line became more than a
> little upset, yelling it "it's a gypsy".  Turns out the dancer is Romani,
> and the term "gypsy" is one he proudly owns.
>
> I do not think the Roma people as a whole have come to a consensus.   (For
> example, The Gypsy Kings proudly use the term as a reference to their
> heritage.)
>
> Rich Stafford
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Ms Carroll:
>
> Quite frankly a fairly useless article for us.
> Ms Raessi is "a Romani/Métis researcher and activist" so it seems logical
> that she dislikes the term gypsy.
> She  lists alleged myths stereotypes about Romani people
> Every ethnic group has an associated set of  myths and stereotypes.
> Every ethnic group tries to purge the negative stereotypes and retain the
> positive aspects of their heritage.
> Ms Raessi writes "many people find that using this term is wrong because
> it perpetuates misinformation about our origins"
> This makes little sense. Anyone person bigoted enough to entertain
> any of her alleged stereotypes has no idea about the origins of Romani
> people.
>
> Ms Raessi writes  "...the term has been used as a racial slur and is
> loaded with stereotypes ..."
> Yes the word gypsy has been used to deprecate Romani people but over the
> years it evolved  to mean a free-spirited or nomadic person.
> Other ethnic slurs (such as kike, chink, jap or nigger) have not similarly
> evolved, and thus their use remains offensive.
> This article discusses some  English words or idioms that evolved from
> ethnic slurs:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/offensive-words-_n_4144472.html
>
> The ongoing discussion during the past year of the word gypsy has included
> claims that some persons of  Romani descent embrace gypsy and its positive
> aspects of current usage,  most don't care, and some hate the word.   And
> of course only those who object will speak out.
> As long the common usage of  gypsy keeps evolving towards a free-spirited
> or nomadic person, keeping it in the contra lexicon seems appropriate
>
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 584
>
>
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:32 PM, via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://bellydanceu.net/culture/520/
> "What's wrong with the Word 'Gypsy'?"
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.com/
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Ca

Re: [Callers] here it is - sorry

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I don't want to cause anyone pain, intended or not. That's always been my
goal. While I have not received any complaints from any World War II
survivors or close relatives of them (of which I am, as well) about this, I
feel like discussing this topic on Shared Weight is not going anywhere. So
I won't so so anytime soon.

If you are a World War II survivor, please contact me privately and I will
apologize to you if I've caused you pain.

Sincerely,
Ron
On Apr 4, 2016 10:06 AM, "Bob Isaacs"  wrote:

> Thank you, Michael.  The term for the WWII tragedy still evokes a lot of
> pain for those who survived it and their descendants, and hopefully will
> have no further use in a forum devoted to dancing -
>
> Bob
>
>
> Ron:
> "we're comparing our having fun traveling to various dances to the
> widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst being the Holocaust)."
>
> Maybe you do.   No one else uses such  bizarre logic.
> Conbtradancers as a group are about as left of center  and
> non-discriminatory in their beliefs as any non-political group gets.
> Your suggestion is absurd
>
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Callers] here it is - sorry

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Michael,

The article made these points, not me. I didn't actually introduce any
ideas that weren't in the article. My post said I found 3 points
"interesting", and listed the three points. I didn't even link the article
on Shared Weight in the first place.

Ever hear the phrase, "don't shoot the messenger "?

Should Amy be chastised for linking that article here?

Of all people, are you the one in a position to chastise about bad behavior
on this list?

As an aside, I worked in my previous career on a year-long project with the
US Holocaust Memorial Museum. My former partner was a child of a Jew who
suffered in the Holocaust. I am quite extensively versed in the subject.
When I read an article written by a Roma, who is a Roma scholar, and a
dancer, and on Voice of Roma, I was interested in what she had to say about
the use of the term "gypsy" in dance. So was Amy who posted the link, so
were others.

I don't think that censorship of examining this kind of evaluation of dance
and dance terms ought to be on our agenda.

Ron
On Apr 4, 2016 11:03 AM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hello Ron:
>
> Your statement  "we're comparing our having fun traveling to various
> dances to the widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst being the
> Holocaust)."
> was an intentional, malicious, misguided   personal attack on every
> contradancer who speaks the words "dance gypsy," who uses the word "gypsy"
> when teaching a dance, who has a T-shirt or bumper sticker with those
> innocuous words,  or who converses about "gypsy" figure--no matter how much
> socially consciousness that dancer may be in thought and in deed.
>
> You probably should not participate in any public forum about even a
> mildly controversial topic, if you take personal affront at someone who,
> with an accompanying explanation, refers to an idea you  expressed as
> absurd.
>
> Maybe you need a more specific example.   In the past 6 months I attended
> two dance  weekends which featured a particular well known caller.The
> first weekend this caller used a surrogate for "gypsy."   The next weekend,
> several months later,  this caller used the term "gypsy."   Any suggestion
> that this caller was now "having fun" with "the persecution of an ethnicity
> (the worst being the Holocaust)"  will strike most people as
> absurd--whether you think so or not.
>
> And your associating with  the Holocaust any aspect of contra dancing
> seems six million times more tasteless and inappropriate than someone
>  referring, with explanation, to an idea of yours as absurd.  You owe
> everyone on this list an apology
>
> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] ID This dance? Square thru, shadow DsD

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I believe it's Luke Donforth's "Vallimont's Silver Hammer".
On Jun 2, 2016 6:30 PM, "Jack Mitchell via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Spotted on a video earlier today.
>
> A1 Circle L 3/4, N Sw
> A2 N Promenade, Ladies Chain
> B1 RH to N balace, N pull by R, Partner pull by L; Shadow DsD
> B2 P B&S
>
> --
> Jack Mitchell
> Durham, NC
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Gents doing "ladies" chain

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I was overdue actually publishing my Gents right-hand chain dances. I wrote
a bunch, settled on 5 that I liked, have called 2 of them so far:

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/145541215310/gents-right-hand-chains

[Callers] Rorys + Grand R+L?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Any contra dances out there with a grand right and left around the set and
Rory OMoore spins? (Standard 32bar, nothing too weird)

I thought I've danced one that went something like:

Indecent
A1. N1 Pull by R, N2 Pull by L, N3 Pull by R, N4 Alle L 1x, N3 by R, form
wavy lines with N2, LH to N2, ladies in center.
A2. Bal, Spin L, Bal, Spin R ...

Then something? Maybe ladies spin all the way across on that second spin,
B+S partner, circle, do-si-do?

Or maybe the pull-bys go back to N1, and RH to N1 in waves?

Thanks,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Rorys + Grand R+L?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I like these two at a glance; I'll take a closer look later. Thank you.

At the same time, I was asking for pulling by both ways, not just one way,
so more suggestions still welcome.
On Jun 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Bob Isaacs"  wrote:

Ron and All:

I hope this isn't too weird for you.  It adapted the diagonal Rory spins
first seen in Bill Olson's Eleanor's Reel into a single progression dance:

Let It Flow
Becket-L
Bob Isaacs, 7/26/04


A1.  8  L diagonal circle L ¾
2,2,4N1 pull by R, N2 pull by L, N3 allemande R ¾ to wave/4
(1)

A2.  4,4   Balance R and L, spin R forward to wave/4 w/N2
(2)
4,4   Balance L and R, spin L forward

B1.  4,12 N1 balance, swing

B2.  4  Give and take to gent’s side
12Partner swing


(1) – With gents taking L hands in the center and N3 keeping R hands on the
side.

(2) – With ladies taking R hands in the center and N2 taking L hands on the
side.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMPU6Enh-M*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LecYtmgdLLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ZneH9zwsw

Bob

--
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:34:47 -0400
To: call...@sharedweight.net
Subject: [Callers] Rorys + Grand R+L?
From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net


Any contra dances out there with a grand right and left around the set and
Rory OMoore spins? (Standard 32bar, nothing too weird)

I thought I've danced one that went something like:

Indecent
A1. N1 Pull by R, N2 Pull by L, N3 Pull by R, N4 Alle L 1x, N3 by R, form
wavy lines with N2, LH to N2, ladies in center.
A2. Bal, Spin L, Bal, Spin R ...

Then something? Maybe ladies spin all the way across on that second spin,
B+S partner, circle, do-si-do?

Or maybe the pull-bys go back to N1, and RH to N1 in waves?

Thanks,
Ron Blechner

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

Re: [Callers] Box circulate dances

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

If you feel like mixing Box Circulate with Rory, here are two I've written
and called:

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/117811884210/astral-navigation

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/117812007820/playground-stomp

Bob Isaacs also has a really nice Rory/Box Circulate mix, which I don't
have the notes for.

On Jul 19, 2016 2:10 PM, "James Saxe via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

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

Re: [Callers] Is this a new dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

No, but the timing on the circles will confuse some.

But if you want 2 long lines, DSD and swing with both partner and neighbor,
you could do:

Duple Imp
A1. N DSD (6)
   NS (10)
A2. LLFB (8)
   Circle L 3/4 (8, forgiving)
B1. P DSD (6)
   PS (10)
B2. LLFB (8)
   Circle L 3/4, Pass Thru By R (6,2)

So... has *this* already been written?
Similar to Greetings, by Tori Barrone.

Ron Blechner

On Jul 19, 2016 4:54 PM, "via Callers" 
wrote:

 Not sure if this has already been written, but it fits a particular spot
in an upcoming program:

A1 LL FB
Circle L 1.25 to face P on side

A2 DSD P, Swing P
(or Balance and Swing P)

B1 LL FB
Circle L .75 to face N on side

B2 DSD N, Swing N
(or Balance and Swing N)

 Thanks for any enlightenment!

Ann in hot, humid, Annapolis, MD

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

Re: [Callers] Is this a new dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For reference, Greetings goes:

N B+S
LLFB
Ladies Alle 1.5
P B+S
LLFB
Circle L 3/4, pass thru.

On Jul 19, 2016 5:02 PM, wrote:

> No, but the timing on the circles will confuse some.
>
> But if you want 2 long lines, DSD and swing with both partner and
> neighbor, you could do:
>
> Duple Imp
> A1. N DSD (6)
>NS (10)
> A2. LLFB (8)
>Circle L 3/4 (8, forgiving)
> B1. P DSD (6)
>PS (10)
> B2. LLFB (8)
>Circle L 3/4, Pass Thru By R (6,2)
>
> So... has *this* already been written?
> Similar to Greetings, by Tori Barrone.
>
> Ron Blechner
>
> On Jul 19, 2016 4:54 PM, "via Callers" 
> wrote:
>
>  Not sure if this has already been written, but it fits a particular spot
> in an upcoming program:
>
> A1 LL FB
> Circle L 1.25 to face P on side
>
> A2 DSD P, Swing P
> (or Balance and Swing P)
>
> B1 LL FB
> Circle L .75 to face N on side
>
> B2 DSD N, Swing N
> (or Balance and Swing N)
>
>  Thanks for any enlightenment!
>
> Ann in hot, humid, Annapolis, MD
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>