A sad story (choreography and beginners)
Kiran Wagle
nothing new.
A new dancer--clumsy, but not excessively so--and I jumped into a dance
at the end of the line. The caller was from out of town; serviceable,
but not any better than that. He didn't mangle the walkthrough, or
crash the dance, but neither was the walkthrough sufficiently clear that
the dancers learned the dance without problems. That was probably the
fault of the dance; the dance he picked was a circus. (Several people
who were there would probably concur with this assessment.)
When we stumbled our way to the top of the line, my beginner partner
looked at me and said "They're not going to let *me* back in here."
And she probably believes that. You and I might think it's absurd. We
know that the problems were really in the choreography. It didn't flow.
It had parts that were easily mixed up. Other parts didn't seem to fit
the music very well. The choreographer's intentions for the transition
were unclear. There was no good place for lost dancers to get their
foursome back together. And so forth.
She didn't realise or notice that she did about as well as me, Joe, and
most of the other dancers in that line, ALL of whom had trouble with it.
(And why would anyone expect her to notice this? She doesn't know who's
new and who isn't.)
She believed that she didn't do well enough to *deserve* to come back.
(Read that again.)
That's the legacy of poor calling.
Was this the fault of the caller or the choreographer? I don't know.
In general I don't hold choice of repertoire against callers. The
caller didn't do anything glaringly wrong, after choosing the dance.
The dance WAS mostly undanceable even by experienced dancers, so I'd be
more likely to blame the choreographer. Bad choreography is as much a
problem as bad presentation.
But does it really matter? I haven't seen that woman come back.
And that's the kind of thing I think poor callers (and all
choreographers) need to SEE, in order to be motivated to do better. If
they can be so motivated at all--the more I see the more I believe they
just don't care. Perhaps they don't believe they might be hurting
people. Or perhaps they can't believe it, because everyone's been
telling them they did well when they did poorly. Who knows.
We can talk till we're blue in the face about welcoming beginners. As
callers, we can work on various random behaviors we speculate are
welcoming (like cracking jokes) instead of on clear, concise, and
accurate walkthroughs in words everyone can understand. Over and over
and over, I see beginners drop out because *they* think *they* didn't
get it. They're confused by the dance, and stop trying, and sit down
and refuse to get back up, and leave at the break. No matter how many
talking heads drone on about welcoming them, when things fall apart
around them, do *they* feel welcomed?
I have no idea. I usually don't see them again to ask.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
--
<http://www.io.com/contradance/> 1628 5th St NW Wash DC 20001 (202) 483-3373
Paul Kosowsky
> know that the problems were really in the choreography. It didn't flow.
> It had parts that were easily mixed up. Other parts didn't seem to fit
> the music very well. The choreographer's intentions for the transition
> were unclear.
Why do dances with really bad choreography continue to be done? Oh,
I'm sure the answer is that some people liked it. But how can people
really enjoy dances that don't fit with teh music and don't flow? I
know a few dances (a very small number) that I try very hard not to do,
simply because they match the music so badly. I mean, I'm not terribly
picky in what I dance (in fact I try very hard not to be), but some
dances are just ridiculous. I guess everyone has their bad days when it
comes to creation, but why do tehse dances sometiems become so popular?
I wish I knew.
> She believed that she didn't do well enough to *deserve* to come back.
OK, once again, a clear reason to tell beginners when they do a really
good job, or when a dance is a bit mroe difficult that the otehrs
they've been working at. THe benefits of communication are numerous and
wonderful.
Maya
Isiafs5
>talking heads drone on about welcoming them, when things fall apart
>around them, do *they* feel welcomed?
>
>I have no idea. I usually don't see them again to ask.
Been there, done that. I was welcomed and assisted by many people during my
first session. I was also sure that no one less talented and apparently
bordering on retardation had ever stepped up a folk dance session. However, in
my case, I am just danged bull headed and decided that I will eventually get
it. So I set little objectives, like actually hearing the beat. My current
goal is toe recognize a dance from one week to the next. Also, I have a kind
of mentor that I like and admire.
Sling Skate
David Smukler
it. I hate it when beginniners blame themselves for failure when others
of us have sometimes stacked so much against them.
I think it's okay to hold the caller responsible for the choice of
dances. That may be the caller's most important task. If the dances are
chosen well, the evening can survive all sorts of other little walk-thru
or calling anomalies.
Many dances are "bad choreography" on one evening and "good
choreography" on another. Some just don't work with certain kinds of
music or for certain crowds, but may be marvelous in other situations.
Many newer callers make the mistake of trying to impress a crowd with
rare and interesting dances that may not be suitable for that particular
moment. It's a tendency I recognize, having been prone to it myself on
occasion. However, the caller's first task is not to wow the best
dancers in the crowd, but to try to choose wisely. We need to consider
the nature of the music, the nature of the crowd, what point in the
evening sequence the dance falls and other situational factors (is it
hot or cool? crowded or sparse? etc.).
None of us makes ideal choices all the time. After this dance, did your
caller make better choices (i.e., did he notice some of what you
noticed)? When problems occur, it's nice to recover...
David Smukler
Kiran Wagle wrote:
>
> Here's a story from a few weeks ago, at one of the area dances. It's
> nothing new.
>
> A new dancer--clumsy, but not excessively so--and I jumped into a dance
> at the end of the line. The caller was from out of town; serviceable,
> but not any better than that. He didn't mangle the walkthrough, or
> crash the dance, but neither was the walkthrough sufficiently clear that
> the dancers learned the dance without problems. That was probably the
> fault of the dance; the dance he picked was a circus. (Several people
> who were there would probably concur with this assessment.)
>
> When we stumbled our way to the top of the line, my beginner partner
> looked at me and said "They're not going to let *me* back in here."
>
> And she probably believes that. You and I might think it's absurd. We
> know that the problems were really in the choreography. It didn't flow.
> It had parts that were easily mixed up. Other parts didn't seem to fit
> the music very well. The choreographer's intentions for the transition
> were unclear. There was no good place for lost dancers to get their
> foursome back together. And so forth.
>
> She didn't realise or notice that she did about as well as me, Joe, and
> most of the other dancers in that line, ALL of whom had trouble with it.
> (And why would anyone expect her to notice this? She doesn't know who's
> new and who isn't.)
>
> She believed that she didn't do well enough to *deserve* to come back.
>
> (Read that again.)
>
> That's the legacy of poor calling.
>
> Was this the fault of the caller or the choreographer? I don't know.
> In general I don't hold choice of repertoire against callers. The
> caller didn't do anything glaringly wrong, after choosing the dance.
> The dance WAS mostly undanceable even by experienced dancers, so I'd be
> more likely to blame the choreographer. Bad choreography is as much a
> problem as bad presentation.
>
> But does it really matter? I haven't seen that woman come back.
>
> And that's the kind of thing I think poor callers (and all
> choreographers) need to SEE, in order to be motivated to do better. If
> they can be so motivated at all--the more I see the more I believe they
> just don't care. Perhaps they don't believe they might be hurting
> people. Or perhaps they can't believe it, because everyone's been
> telling them they did well when they did poorly. Who knows.
>
> We can talk till we're blue in the face about welcoming beginners. As
> callers, we can work on various random behaviors we speculate are
> welcoming (like cracking jokes) instead of on clear, concise, and
> accurate walkthroughs in words everyone can understand. Over and over
> and over, I see beginners drop out because *they* think *they* didn't
> get it. They're confused by the dance, and stop trying, and sit down
> and refuse to get back up, and leave at the break. No matter how many
> talking heads drone on about welcoming them, when things fall apart
> around them, do *they* feel welcomed?
>
> I have no idea. I usually don't see them again to ask.
>
Jeffrey Spero
But the question of "who is to blame" is an interesting one. Unlike Kiran, I
DO believe that the caller's choice of repertoire is a determining factor. As
a composer, I'm not certain whether dances I compose actually dance as well as
they look on the page. As a caller, it's the same dilemma. Should I only call
dances that have been rigorously tested? No, that promotes stagnation.
The question isn't whether to call questionable dances, but how to handle the
failure, if it occurs. At that point it IS the caller's responsibilty. I've
certainly had my share of calling dances that were either inappropriate for the
situation, or just plain lousy dances. But by apologizing to the dancers
(especially the beginners) following the failure for calling such a rediculous
dance clearly leaves the dancers with a sense of "oh, it's not me... I'll give
it another shot."
By the way, I find it incredibly important to follow up a "miss" with a
guaranteed simple, fun dance to get the confidence level of the dancers (and
the caller!) back up.
Jeff
david
Paul Kosowsky <akos...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> Why do dances with really bad choreography continue to be done?
> hard not to be),
Good for you! A sign of a real dancer as opposed to a dance "snob"
Which brings me to
> some dances are just ridiculous. I guess everyone has their bad days
> when it comes to creation,
Perhaps, but some devisers of dance just try to be too damn clever for
our good... we have this in the uk as well you know!
> but why do tehse dances sometiems become so popular? I wish I knew.
because there is a school of folk dancing which says the more complex a
dance is the better it is...and they are blinded by this prejudice. They
seem to forget that the dance is a social activity and judge it to be a
cerebral activity above all else!
>
> > She believed that she didn't do well enough to *deserve* to come back.
>
> OK, once again, a clear reason to tell beginners when they do a really
> good job, or when a dance is a bit mroe difficult that the otehrs
> they've been working at. THe benefits of communication are numerous and
> wonderful. Maya
>
hear! hear!
David
--
Paul Kosowsky
> choreography" on another. Some just don't work with certain kinds of
> music or for certain crowds, but may be marvelous in other situations.
> None of us makes ideal choices all the time. After this dance, did your
> caller make better choices
Actually, I do Israeli FOllk Dance, so I have no caller- except when
they've just taught something, if you're willing to call teh teacher a
caller for that moment. I was talking about choreography that jsut
doesn't fit the music or beat. I actually do like super-complecated
dances much of the time, although I appreaciate most ones that are
challenging but not impossible. Dances need to be made for all
levels/interests, but this can be done without losing the beat or
utterly mis-matching the dance and the music.
Maya