Jeff Kaufman wrote:
> Chrissy Fowler wrote:
> >
> > I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this
> > sentence. I've never danced at, or called, or even heard about a
> > dance where the caller could "just wait for people to get into
> > position."
>
> Sorry, you're right. I was
If by partner interaction you mean touching then I'd agree with you. If by
visual connection then there's a lot of it. But not just partner - in this
area the R&Ls for MM are done the old style (or what I'm told is the old
style): pull by with hands and then do a parallel/tandem CT shoulder to
shou
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Don Veino
>
wrote:
> My wife was originally not fond of
> Money Musk, until she got a chance to dance it with a great partner at
> Ralph Page/UNH and "got it".
Interesting... I like Money Musk, but of all the dances I know it is among
the least for partner interact
I feel lucky that in our area these dances are occasionally part of a
standard "social dance" program (from whence they originally came). While I
can no longer claim to be a new dancer, when I was one I got exposed to
these dances and it opened my dance horizons, enough so that I wanted to
seek out
Dave wrote:
> Sure, there are times at festivals where callers might program a
> particular theme and
>
discuss dance history, or experienced dances where callers might teach
> complex dance figures, but these are not the open, public dances that
> you're talking about.
>
I'm glad we are in agre
Greg,
Your comments seem to be a bit of a non sequitur-- I'm not sure that
I've ever heard a caller give "lectures" or talk about what a person
who wrote a dance said once when calling dances. Sure, there are
times at festivals where callers might program a particular theme and
discuss dance hist
Very well put, Greg. Thank you!
Brian Hamshar
Virginia
Greg McKenzie wrote:
>David wrote:
>
>> As as a long-time New England caller, I admit to a special fondness for
>> the so-called chestnuts, most of which are in proper formation; I think
>> that dancers can appreciate having these in their
David wrote:
> As as a long-time New England caller, I admit to a special fondness for
> the so-called chestnuts, most of which are in proper formation; I think
> that dancers can appreciate having these in their repertoire as a
> connection to the long traditions of music and dance we inherit, an
t: Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
>
> --- Martha wrote:
> This is probably a regional or specific community thing. In our village, St
> Louis,
> Missouri, we just line up improper
> --- end of quote ---
>
> I'd agree that what
--- Martha wrote:
This is probably a regional or specific community thing. In our village, St Louis,
Missouri, we just line up improper
--- end of quote ---
I'd agree that what Martha describes is increasingly the norm, especially in relatively
new series and outside of New England. There ar
for
> > people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> > the ladies in one line and the gents in another, to take hands for
> > from the top, and that this was proper formation. Then they introduced
> > 1s and 2s and had all the ones cross over.
Chrissy Fowler wrote:
>
> > I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> > many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> > people to get into position.
>
> I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this
> sentence. I've never danced
t teach proper formation unless you need it
> (95s...@comcast.net)
>5. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Jeff Kaufman)
>6. Re: Don't teach proper formation unless you need it (Linda Leslie)
>
>
> ------------------
ay 04, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Caller's discussion list
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
gents
in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history,
howeve
net
[mailto:callers-boun...@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kaufman
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Caller's discussion list
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with gents
in
on list"
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32:09 PM
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history, however, that w
Charles Hannum wrote:
>
> If nobody teaches it, then when someone does call one, half the
> people in the hall will be starting at the stage like deer in
> headlights.
>
I would say that if a caller wants to do something uncommon they
should be prepared to teach it to the people who haven't seen
2012 2:32:09 PM
Subject: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history, however, that was the standard formation and
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman wrote:
> I was at a dance recently where the caller noticed that there were
> many new dancers and that it probably wouldn't work to just wait for
> people to get into position. They told all the couples to stand with
> the ladies in one line and the ge
Good point. I agree. Thanks, George
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Kaufman wrote:
> Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
> gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
> history, however, that was the standard formation and many peo
Contra dancing has almost entirely lost the 'proper' formation, with
gents in one line and ladies in another. For most of contra dancing's
history, however, that was the standard formation and many people,
especially callers, still think of it that way.
I was at a dance recently where the caller n
21 matches
Mail list logo
