Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[Aahz via Callers]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016, Maia McCormick via Callers wrote:
>
> Though Tavi, I wonder, would your proposal here be equally as effective if
> we called more gents' right-hand chains? Even as an experienced dancer I
> find the left-hand chain counterintuitive, and yes it would be second
> nature if we did it a lot, but as far as points about having too much to
> teach beginners already, I would expect it to be easier for everyone to
> learn the other part of a move and a flow they already know than a
> different move entirely (i.e. I would rather endeavor to teach beginners a
> gents' right-hand chain than a gents' left-hand chain).

This gets my support much more than trying to teach left-handed chains.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[Maia McCormick via Callers]

Andrea said:
> but address gender issues where they originate, in the expectation that
men dance left, women right.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be unraveling "the expectation that
men dance left, women right"--but many of the callers on this list have
been trying to do just this for a very long time and are only seeing
limited success, because ultimately the choice of which role to dance comes
down to every individual dancer, informed as they are by their own
experience, opinions, context, etc.

To me, this seems the whole point of Tavi's proposal: that if we want
people to know how to flourish respectfully, then we might go about this by
putting everyone in a position to flourish (or decline flourishes--but
still, to at least be on the receiving end of flourish requests, so they
have a better sense of how flourishes that they themselves initiate will
feel to the person they're dancing with). You point out, and rightly so,
that the best solution to this problem, and the one that gets straight to
the heart of the issue, is to do away with gendered expectations of the
roles entirely, but there's only so much a caller can do to this end--we
can't force individual dancers' role choices, and there are some folks who
are not willing to dance a different role than the one they
learned/regularly dance. Tavi's suggestion is something that callers CAN do
to spread flourishing experience around without forcing the choices of
individual dancers, and that's why I'm so intrigued by it.

Though Tavi, I wonder, would your proposal here be equally as effective if
we called more gents' right-hand chains? Even as an experienced dancer I
find the left-hand chain counterintuitive, and yes it would be second
nature if we did it a lot, but as far as points about having too much to
teach beginners already, I would expect it to be easier for everyone to
learn the other part of a move and a flow they already know than a
different move entirely (i.e. I would rather endeavor to teach beginners a
gents' right-hand chain than a gents' left-hand chain).

Andrea said:
>  I'll look again at the left hand chain choreo, but as I remember it,
none of it is particularly exceptional and worthy outside of the left
chain, which right now seems novel, but if we did it all the time, would
not seem special at all.

By the same token, there's nothing particularly novel about right-hand
chains except the way in which they fit into the moves around them. Unless
you're suggesting that we NOT call left-hand chains in order to preserve
the novelty value when we DO call them, I don't understand how this is an
argument against Tavi's point.

My contributions to the gents' chain pile:
PB&J by Bill Olson , as close as
I've seen to a "glossary dance" for a gents' chain
Too Many Joshes ,
one of mine, which includes both a left-hand chain and a right-hand chain
for the gents.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Tavi et al,
>  I have to challenge you on your history.  As a lover of chestnuts, in
> which the vast majority of courtesy turns are same gender as the dances are
> proper, and a one time historical dancer, I find your conception of the
> history of courtesy turn flawed.  In the 18th and 19th century, there was
> no right hand touching any part of the lady during the historical versions
> of these moves.  A Chaine Anglaise (English chain) is the precursor to a
> right and left through, and was done with a right hand half turn across or
> pull by, and then an open left hand turn, with the gent swiveling to face
> in at the last moment.  The courtesy being that the lady did not have to
> alter her body position.  Chaine des dames, ladies chain, entailed the
> gents casting out over their left shoulder to loop into a position to left
> hand turn the ladies who had turned half by the right.  No leading.  Just
> everyone attending to their place in the dance.  Eventually, gents began
> doing what looked more like an escorting of the lady, holding their right
> arm in a non touching curve behind the ladies backs.  I promise you, in the
> contredanses and quadrilles, there was no more active role for the gents
> than the ladies.  The dances were often complex and every dancers had to
> know all the details if the set were to succeed.
>
>  So this whole courtesy turn as we know it is a 20th century thing, and
> the hyper flourishing a phenomenon of the last decade or two, which seemed
> to me to have come in about the time swing had a renaissance in the late
> eighties.  Till then, if any flourish occurred, it was a single twirl to
> the right hand dancer.  And I have a theory for its existence.  In many old
> halls, space is at a premium, and lines were crowded.  Doing the twirl
> allows couples to slot through a narrow gap one at a time, no elbow
> jostling in the attempt to 

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hi Tavi et al,
 I have to challenge you on your history.  As a lover of chestnuts, in 
which the vast majority of courtesy turns are same gender as the dances are 
proper, and a one time historical dancer, I find your conception of the history 
of courtesy turn flawed.  In the 18th and 19th century, there was no right hand 
touching any part of the lady during the historical versions of these moves.  A 
Chaine Anglaise (English chain) is the precursor to a right and left through, 
and was done with a right hand half turn across or pull by, and then an open 
left hand turn, with the gent swiveling to face in at the last moment.  The 
courtesy being that the lady did not have to alter her body position.  Chaine 
des dames, ladies chain, entailed the gents casting out over their left 
shoulder to loop into a position to left hand turn the ladies who had turned 
half by the right.  No leading.  Just everyone attending to their place in the 
dance.  Eventually, gents began doing what looked more like an escorting of the 
lady, holding their right arm in a non touching curve behind the ladies backs.  
I promise you, in the contredanses and quadrilles, there was no more active 
role for the gents than the ladies.  The dances were often complex and every 
dancers had to know all the details if the set were to succeed.  

 So this whole courtesy turn as we know it is a 20th century thing, and the 
hyper flourishing a phenomenon of the last decade or two, which seemed to me to 
have come in about the time swing had a renaissance in the late eighties.  Till 
then, if any flourish occurred, it was a single twirl to the right hand dancer. 
 And I have a theory for its existence.  In many old halls, space is at a 
premium, and lines were crowded.  Doing the twirl allows couples to slot 
through a narrow gap one at a time, no elbow jostling in the attempt to turn as 
a joined couple.  Fundamentally, historically, chains and R&L thru, are 
symmetrical, move as a unit, with the CT action in the joined left hand.  There 
is no scooping or leading in that right hand, and in fact attempting to do so 
tends to unbalance the couple, allowing neither to retain a nice upright 
posture.

Let's not conflate squares and contras either.  I'd have to agree that squares 
have frequently been taught and called, by men, as if the men were leading.  
Which if you dance them, is utter nonsense.  If the ladies aren't fully in 
chArge of where they have to go, the square will break down.  In a singer, 
language like put her on the right is just filler, not an indication of what's 
actually happening.  For sure perpetuated by what was once, and may still be, a 
male dominated calling culture, I still think we ought to discuss squares 
separately from contras.

I'm all down with you that the dance has become very /lead left, follow right/ 
in recent times.  But let's not blame the dance form itself.

Do I think that habitual gent/left dancers would be more courteous about 
flourishes if they were flourished more often themselves?  Sure!  We could 
easily write dances that put them on the right and do courtesy turn moves from 
there.  Or just dance chestnuts, with same gender rights and lefts.  But do 
them in a modern flourishy style.  

Beyond that, the aspect of the culture which is most to blame is the idea that 
it matters which sex person stands on the right.  If we all danced both sides, 
and no one thought a thing about it, everyone would learn to flourish and be 
flourished, and it wouldn't be seen as the province of men to twirl women, or 
even of left to twirl right dancers.  I'll look again at the left hand chain 
choreo, but as I remember it, none of it is particularly exceptional and worthy 
outside of the left chain, which right now seems novel, but if we did it all 
the time, would not seem special at all.  You have not persuaded me, Tavi, that 
there's a compelling reason to add left chains to the repertoire, especially 
considering many people have trouble with R vs L already, and new dancers 
doubly so as they are busy absorbing so many new concepts.  Talk to me about 
flow and moving people around or something, but address gender issues where 
they originate, in the expectation that men dance left, women right.  

Cheers,
Andrea


Sent from my external brain

> On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:45 PM, tavi merrill via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Per Richard's excellent point about separating the courtesy turn from the 
> chain, an approach i too use, i want to address the related questions of 
> - lack of attention to chains beyond the beginner level, resulting in
> - bad/injurious flourishing, partly due to
> - gendered dynamics in the standard (New England-style) promenade turn
> - the rarity of gents' LH chains
> - a call for choreographers to help address all the above
> 
> We callers spend plenty of time dissecting how to teach the ladies' chain... 
> and almost never address a corollary issue dancers repeatedly bring up in 
> onlin

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Tavi,

Thanks for opening discussion on this topic.

I'd like to propose that we call the move what it is: "chain", and we stop
calling left-hand chains as "gents chains" and right-hand chains as "ladies
chains" for two important reasons:

1. No other common move in contra has the role in the move. It's "chain",
being prompted to "ladies", the same way there's no difference between a
"gents allemande left" and a "ladies allemande left". In genderfree
contras, callers certainly don't prompt, "Rubies, ladies chain" - they swap
the role, because that's the role *prompt*, not actually part of the move
name.
2. For moves that have a left and right version, there are two conventions,
none of which "gents/ladies chain" follows. The conventions are:

A. Having two totally different move names. This is often ignored and
prompted like "left shoulder dosido" instead of see-saw, leading me to
think that having mirrored moves with different names is less useful than
the other convention...
B. The move name is the base, and the direction is a modifying prefix or
suffix to a prompt* Star, allemande, balance, etc. (Technically, the "hey"
as well, since you indicate who-passes-which-shoulder-first). Often, any of
these moves, once walked through, are prompted vanilla-flavored, without
the direction modifier, because the hand/direction is obvious. (Gents,
allemande left, pass your partner, hey for four...)

It seems intuitive then that "chain" falls into the latter category, and
should be treated as such.
The move is "chain", and there's a left and right handed version, and the
handedness is usually unnecessary because the role of the people doing it
will make the hand used to pull-by obvious. But for calling card notation,
the handedness is useful to notate.

...

As someone who's been writing and calling gents right-hand chain dances, I
see the pros and cons of the gents left-hand chain as follow:

Pros:
1. An extra move that can flow into a gents-pass-L / gents alle R / etc
next move - so there are new combinations to find.
2. More variation in general. More moves to play with.

Cons:
1. Another Clockwise-rotation move that is less usable than a
counter-clockwise move. A left-hand chain is simply not as useful as a
right-hand chain for this reason.
2. As Aahz pointed out, we're accustomed to twirling with right-hands, and
so left-hand twirling is new and unusual.
3. A right-hand chain is just ... a chain. And in dances where you get
role-swapping, you need to do zero-to-little teaching of a gents right-hand
chain.

So rather than promote the left-hand chain, I would broaden any support to
be for doing *all* chains.

Best,
Ron

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:38 PM, tavi merrill via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's
> back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join
> left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk
> forward and gents back up"? It's not, but
>
> A numerical argument:
> Say in a typical evening of 13 dances, 6 dances include a ladies' chain,
> R&L through, or promenade across (wherein turning to face back in counts as
> a courtesy turn) and 2 more dances contain either two of one or one each of
> two. (I consider that a conservative estimate given the ubiquity of ladies'
> chains!) That makes 10 iterations of standard courtesy turn; if each
> sequence is run for an average of 8 minutes (16 iterations of the dance)
> that's 160 iterations of standard courtesy turn in a typical evening of
> dance.
>
> Now, since a small minority of callers ever get off their butt and use a
> gents LH chain (because it's soo difficult), let's say one gents
> chain shows up in every 10 evenings of dance we go to (this time, a very
> liberal estimate). Same assumptions of average dance run time, so that's 16
> iterations to practice the reverse courtesy turn.
>
> But since we danced ten evenings to get that one gents LH chain in, we had
> a whopping *1,600 iterations of practice for the standard courtesy turn
> to our 16 iterations of practice for the reverse*.
>
> The only real reason* the standard turn *seems* "easier" is because we
> get s---loads more practice at it! That will never change unless the
> reverse turn gets more use. It's hard because we so rarely do it, and we
> don't do it because it's hard. Great work everybody. Look at us exceeding
> our programming.
>
> Aahz, I would say the same for myself - a regular role-swapper, heavy-duty
> twirler in both roles, and "usually good about paying attention" - but I
> don't really care how often other callers dance both roles. The fact
> remains that many dancers don't, and of the dancers that don't, many lack
> the enhanced sensitivity to whether others want to be twirled that comes
> with being ambidancetrous. How aware we are is not an argument against the
> necessity of raising dancers' awareness. Let's elevate the le

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[tavi merrill via Callers]

Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's
back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join
left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk
forward and gents back up"? It's not, but

A numerical argument:
Say in a typical evening of 13 dances, 6 dances include a ladies' chain,
R&L through, or promenade across (wherein turning to face back in counts as
a courtesy turn) and 2 more dances contain either two of one or one each of
two. (I consider that a conservative estimate given the ubiquity of ladies'
chains!) That makes 10 iterations of standard courtesy turn; if each
sequence is run for an average of 8 minutes (16 iterations of the dance)
that's 160 iterations of standard courtesy turn in a typical evening of
dance.

Now, since a small minority of callers ever get off their butt and use a
gents LH chain (because it's soo difficult), let's say one gents
chain shows up in every 10 evenings of dance we go to (this time, a very
liberal estimate). Same assumptions of average dance run time, so that's 16
iterations to practice the reverse courtesy turn.

But since we danced ten evenings to get that one gents LH chain in, we had
a whopping *1,600 iterations of practice for the standard courtesy turn to
our 16 iterations of practice for the reverse*.

The only real reason* the standard turn *seems* "easier" is because we get
s---loads more practice at it! That will never change unless the reverse
turn gets more use. It's hard because we so rarely do it, and we don't do
it because it's hard. Great work everybody. Look at us exceeding our
programming.

Aahz, I would say the same for myself - a regular role-swapper, heavy-duty
twirler in both roles, and "usually good about paying attention" - but I
don't really care how often other callers dance both roles. The fact
remains that many dancers don't, and of the dancers that don't, many lack
the enhanced sensitivity to whether others want to be twirled that comes
with being ambidancetrous. How aware we are is not an argument against the
necessity of raising dancers' awareness. Let's elevate the level of dance
in our communities.

*The other possible reason: resistance to any actual built-in choreographic
challenge to gender-normativity. When we're voluntarily swapping roles, we
are queering the dance, and the dance's built-in gender inequity is
secondary to our experience - but when the choreography itself challenges
the form's built-in gender assumptions, it feels somehow wrong. I use
traditional, gendered calling language in posts about choreography and
gender inequality in the dance for a reason. How many dances involve the
ladies doing a move - do-si-do, gypsy, et cetera - while the gents stand
around and watch? How many dances involve ladies' chains? How few
iterations of the reverse are there? No matter how much the ambidancetrous
among us queer it on the floor, no matter how much we gloss over it by
using alternative term sets, the prominence of gender in the roles is
pretty hard to miss. Alternative term sets and role swapping have their
place. I'm interested in the fact that neither of these things makes a
perfectly good figure easier to use.

Meh.  I think you've got part of a point, but as someone who gender-swaps
> regularly (often within a single set), I find doing the reverse courtesy
> turn way more difficult than doing a regular courtesy turn dancing raven.
> And I'm also a heavy-duty twirler, both lark and raven.  And I'm usually
> good about paying attention to whether someone wants to be twirled.
>
> Probably I could learn the reverse courtesy turn, but I think you're
> underestimating the difficulty.

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[Aahz via Callers]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2016, tavi merrill via Callers wrote:
>
> Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend
> virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed)
> chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl;
> understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as
> opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances*
> rarely get called. 

Meh.  I think you've got part of a point, but as someone who gender-swaps
regularly (often within a single set), I find doing the reverse courtesy
turn way more difficult than doing a regular courtesy turn dancing raven.
And I'm also a heavy-duty twirler, both lark and raven.  And I'm usually
good about paying attention to whether someone wants to be twirled.

Probably I could learn the reverse courtesy turn, but I think you're
underestimating the difficulty.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[John Sweeney via Callers]

Hi Tavi,
I do teach the twirls in a Ladies' Chain, occasionally at a regular
dance, but more often in style and technique workshops at festivals.

If anyone wants some pointers on how to teach good twirl technique
then please see my article at http://modernjive.com/history/tension.html

Although this is written for a different dance style, when you get
to a point where there is (albeit briefly) some lead and follow, as in a
twirl, then most of this article is directly applicable to the twirls and
flourishes that we do in contra dancing.

Because the dance style that this article was written for has a male
lead, it uses the words "man" and "lady", but you can substitute anything
you like to indicate who is the twirler and who is the twirlee.

I hope you find it useful.

Happy dancing,
John

John Sweeney, Dancer, England j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent

[Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[tavi merrill via Callers]

Per Richard's excellent point about separating the courtesy turn from the
chain, an approach i too use, i want to address the related questions of
- lack of attention to chains beyond the beginner level, resulting in
- bad/injurious flourishing, partly due to
- gendered dynamics in the standard (New England-style) promenade turn
- the rarity of gents' LH chains
- a call for choreographers to help address all the above

We callers spend plenty of time dissecting how to teach the ladies'
chain... and almost never address a corollary issue dancers repeatedly
bring up in online forums, largely leaving flourishing as a foregone
conclusion. We spend precious little stage time delivering the sort of
style points that can help dancers flourish safely, courteously, and with
consent.

I would argue one reason we don't address that enough is that we are either
approaching the courtesy turn from a bare-bones beginner angle, or as a
foregone conclusion wherein advanced dancers require no additional
teaching. A few callers do teach how to signal and interpret signals
indicating a desire for or granting consent for flourishes, and i tip my
hat to them. But to the issue many (female) dancers raise: too many male
dancers don't ask, and either fail to recognize or fail to respect cues
around flourishing.

Why? Probably because many male dancers much less regularly end up on the
twirling (as opposed to facilitating) side of flourishes. Dancers are going
to flourish whether or not we teach them how to do it well. But we can help
alleviate rampant bad and/or injurious flourishing if we choose. How? By
more frequently adding style points in intermediate settings, and by giving
dancers an opportunity to experience the other side of the equation.

[Now, many of us agree that contra is not a lead/follow dance form, and
some go so far as to suggest that in the traditional promenade and courtesy
turn, dancers move as a unit that lacks any lead/follow dynamic. I disagree
there: placement of the gent's hand behind the lady's back puts the gent in
a position to propel the lady. No interpretation of this dynamic is
accurate without considering the historical context our dance form emerges
from, in which a gendered imbalance is unmistakably present. Consider the
gendered language of singing squares recorded by Ralph Sweet. I say this
not to criticize Sweet, or any caller who uses such language (eg "put her
on the right" or "chain the ladies," the latter an expression i once
unquestioningly used in my own calling), merely to point out that
traditionally, the gents' role has been considered the more "active" one,
and that this gendered sense of agency is reinforced by the  ubiquitous
and overwhelmingly lopsided promenade and courtesy turn. Contra dance has
historically been a gendered form; to deny this is to perpetuate male
privilege - the source of bad/injurious flourishing - by denying its
presence in the form. In that many contemporary dancers choose to play both
roles on the floor, and in that there is a broad consensus among callers
that lead/follow terminology is not appropriate to describe an ideal
expression of our dance's contemporary practice, a shift is occurring.
Nonetheless this is an active shift. To pretend that contra has always
lacked a lead/follow dynamic is ignorant of even recent history.]

Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend
virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed)
chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl;
understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as
opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances*
rarely get called. As with right-handed chains, getting to a flourish
requires first mastering the directional flow of the reversed courtesy turn
(right with right in front, left hands behind, lady backs up and the gent
goes forward). But whether it's boiling the reversed courtesy turn down to
an allemande right or writing gents' RH chain dances, it seems precious few
callers care enough to bother with teaching and using the LH chain. We have
it, for frell's sake, let's USE it. Dancers CAN and WILL gain familiarity
if we do, but such progress can occur only if a critical mass of callers
are on the same page.

Why does this matter? Because if indeed we believe our tradition to be one
in which both roles are equally active, we shouldn't have ladies being
twirled against their wishes. Addressing that would be simpler if we agree
to stop shortchanging the one move in our choreography that truly
challenges the historical gender dynamic.

Want to innovate in choreography? What about featuring promenades in
reversed hold, or left-and-right through?! Though they exist, rarity
renders them the province of advanced dance sessions. Yet every second we
spend teaching standard promenade hold turns is something dancers could
easily generalize to isomers, if the isomers were on a more equa