Beginner's Workshop Be Damned!
David A. Kaynor (Amherst RSD)
Hi Everybody,
This discussion has been interesting.
"I have just about given up in my attempts to
illustrate why separate contradance classes are so
disruptive to the contradance tradition."
...Greg McKenzie, in article #15104.
I believe I have read or heard or been told of evidence that
separate dancing classes were in fact regular and frequent
elements of "the contradance tradition" in New England in the
19th century.
Although I concur with Dave Goldman that Greg's "separate
classes" discussion is off-topic, I would still respond that I
have both observed and participated in the leading of "separate
classes" which presented contra dancing to children, their
families, and the elderly in public and private school
residencies and continuing education programs.
Some participants went on to become absorbed into the Greenfield
dance crowd. Others did not, but still reported that the classes
comprised entertaining and edifying experiences, complete unto
themselves and fully worth doing.
Anyway:
Many of you have already waded and plowed through several of my
discussions of the "Beginners' Hours" which precede two or three
Greenfield dances each year. It has been my pleasure to be
involved in similar events prior to dances in New Haven,
Connecticut and Seattle as well.
If one occurs near you, consider attending. If I am leading it,
it will hopefully be enjoyable, possibly be informative on some
matter or another, and in any case cost you nothing.
Investigate it. Conclude from your own findings how it, and its
results, relate to what some among us might like you to expect.
David Kaynor
--
GregMcK
Just to clarify my position on separate instruction for beginners at
contradances: I am referring to any instruction apart from the regular
dance evening which is intended for those without prior contradance
experience.
Whether it be a four-hour series or a 15 minute orientation these will all
be perceived by most people as a necessary prerequisite to successful
participation in the dance evening. (I always cringe when I hear someone
in the dance line address a clueless newcomer with comments like: "Did you
attend the beginner's class?" The implication is that they are not yet
qualified to dance in the regular evening's activities. Should we be
surprised if they stop dancing at that point?)
I have taught such sessions for years. As someone trained in
instructional design I have analysed the intended purpose of these
sessions and come to the conclusion that we would be much better off
without them. Beginners would feel more welcomed. We would see more
newcomers at dances. Beginners would learn faster and find the dancing
much easier on their first night. Experienced dancers would be more
willing to dance with newcomers. Consequently the level of dancing in the
entire hall would improve and the entire community could do more
challenging dances. Experienced dancers would have more fun.
What, precisely, is the "problem" that the beginner's orientation is
supposed to be addressing? Please think about it. Make a list of the
"problem" behavious that you would like to change with the beginners
workshop. I challenge all of you who support these workshops to list
those observable behaviors that you think these workshops should address.
What about attitudes? What are the "problem" attitudes that you intend to
change in your 30 minutes of instruction?
If you actually start posting some of these "problem" behaviors or
attitudes then this thread might become a useful tool for discussing this
issue. I don't see much value in personal anecdotal gushings about how
"helpful" the workshops have been. We all got here because we did have
good experiences. I can present lots of sentimental statements about how
wonderful it was to be swept in without any separate classes.
Again, what is the "problem" that these workshops are supposed to be
addressing?
Just a thought,
Greg McKenzie
Somewhere near Santa Cruz, CA
Jon Leech
In article <4q4v5r$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, GregMcK <gre...@aol.com> wrote:
>If you actually start posting some of these "problem" behaviors or
>attitudes then this thread might become a useful tool for discussing this
>issue. I don't see much value in personal anecdotal gushings about how
>"helpful" the workshops have been.
So you think you're better able to speak to the value of workshops to
other people than they are to speak for themselves?
Jon
__@/
Dave Goldman
> Again, what is the "problem" that these workshops are supposed to be
> addressing?
Okay, here's a start. Two specific explicit "problems," each followed by
suggestions of various secondary problems.
(1) Newcomers have no idea what they are supposed to do when the caller
says "allemande left your corner."
Workshop goals: Teach basic terminology ("allemande", "corner").
Demonstrate "giving weight" on turns.
Alternative to workshop: Experienced dancer quickly perceives clueless
newcomer. Grabs newcomer's left hand, forces newcomer to exchange places
twice.
Results of alternative method: After a couple of repetitions, newcomer has
basic idea of "allemande." After several times through the dance and
repeated exposure to terms "partner" and "corner", develops some
definition of "corner." Eventually learns to do the allemande in time to
not be late for the next figure (after screwing this up for everyone else,
including other newcomers, for the past several minutes). Probably doesn't
learn to give weight during this first dance.
(2) Newcomers don't know what they are supposed to do when the caller says
"swing."
Workshop goals: Teach basic buzz-step or walking swing. Demonstrate
"giving weight." Describe eye-contact as socially acceptable, as not
equivalent to aggressive flirting, and as a method to avoid nausea.
Alternative to workshop: Experienced dancer perceives clueless newcomer.
Grabs newcomer in ballroom position. Forces newcomer to rotate a few
times.
Results of alternative method: Newcomer learns that "swing" means clutch
at partner in some variant of ballroom position, often involving highly
uncomfortable grips and surprising arm positions. Newcomer causes physical
discomfort to other dancers (including other newcomers), and continues to
do so for months to come, until an unusually helpful experienced dancer
takes newcomer aside for a private 3-minute lesson. Newcomer spends first
half of evening hopping and skipping through all swings, then leaves dance
at the break, exhausted. Newcomer is offended by partners "staring" at
him/her. Newcomer is offended by partners "staring" at his/her date.
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
GregMcK
Dave Goldman has cited two examples of undesirable beginner behaviors that
a beginner's workshop might address. I am re-phrasing them here in terms
of observable behaviors. There are actually more than two:
1. Not giving weight during allemands.
2. Swinging incorrectly or in a way that is uncomfortable or possibly
dangerous for their partners.
3. Not reacting to caller's instruction immediately, without examples.
This is a good start. We might be on to something here! Does anyone else
have examples of specific, observable behaviors that you wish beginner's
would not do?
Bill Tomczak
GregMcK wrote:
Actually, the other side of these behaviors involves how the
experienced dancers are treating these newcomers. In particular, as
Dave describes the uncomfortable "power clutch" swing, my first
thought was "why would that newcomer ever want to come back?"
Part of the genius of David K's beginner sessions is that he gets the
experienced dancers to come as well. This, hopefully, at the very
least gets them thinking about their own dancing skills, even if only
unconsciously.
I'm far less concerned about beginners than the welcome they receive
from the oldcomers. Either socially or in their presentation of
themselves as "experienced". As Mr Kaynor constructs his workshops,
this issue gets addressed as well (and quite nicely, I think).
Let's not forget, as has been said in various ways in this newsgroup,
experienced only means you've been doing it for a while, not that
you're any good at it. Or, especially, that you know anything about
making a newcomer comfortable enough to think about coming back.
Bill
_________________________________________________________________________
)Bill Tomczak )"90% of everything is crud" )
)btom...@sover.net ) )
)http://www.sover.net/~btomczak/ ) - Theodore Sturgeon )
ventu...@delphi.com
GregMcK <gre...@aol.com> writes:
>What, precisely, is the "problem" that the beginner's orientation is
>supposed to be addressing? Please think about it. Make a list of the
>"problem" behavious that you would like to change with the beginners
>workshop. I challenge all of you who support these workshops to list
>those observable behaviors that you think these workshops should address.
>What about attitudes? What are the "problem" attitudes that you intend to
>change in your 30 minutes of instruction?
As a beginner, I founds it most helpful to be at the dance
early for "beginners" instruction many times when I first
learned about the contra dancing evenings. It was really
good to know that I was not the only beginner. It was good
also to realize there were "experienced" dancers in the beginners
class to help. I'm still a newcomer, and try to pay attention
during the evening to those who come in as newcomers.
What is the "problem", indeed? Do we [beginners] have a "problem"
because we *are* beginners? Because we have just discoveredc the
delights of contra dancing? Because we'd like to learn about it,
because we feel that learning the language and some of the "steps"
is helpful?
Dave Goldman
If I may re-rephrase your abstract of the behaviors suggested in my
previous post...
1. Not giving weight, in general.
2. Swinging in a way that is uncomfortable or possibly dangerous for their
partners.
3. Not having a clue of how to carry out a caller's instructions.
4. Skipping and hopping, in general.
5. Misinterpreting typical contra eye-contact.
6. Getting nauseated.
-- Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <4q743h$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) wrote:
> Dave Goldman has cited two examples of undesirable beginner behaviors that
> a beginner's workshop might address. I am re-phrasing them here in terms
> of observable behaviors. There are actually more than two:
>
> 1. Not giving weight during allemands.
>
> 2. Swinging incorrectly or in a way that is uncomfortable or possibly
> dangerous for their partners.
>
> 3. Not reacting to caller's instruction immediately, without examples.
>
> This is a good start. We might be on to something here! Does anyone else
> have examples of specific, observable behaviors that you wish beginner's
> would not do?
>
Richard Maurer
ventu...@delphi.com wrote:
> As a beginner, I founds it most helpful to be at the dance
> early for "beginners" instruction many times when I first
> learned about the contra dancing evenings.
This is a sign of a successful dance and instructor. Notice the "many
times" part. There are some items, (balance and swing, allamande,
giving weight ) that should be covered each session, and others covered
in more depth on a rotating schedule. Even the items mentioned above
can have brief versions and in depth versions.
Its a good time for questions that we don't want to ask when 150
people want to dance. A successful program has people coming back 4 or
6 times.
, Richard
Paul J. Stamler
GregMcK (gre...@aol.com) wrote:
: Does anyone else
: have examples of specific, observable behaviors that you wish beginner's
: would not do?
Quiver with terror at making a mistake and being laughed at; sit out the
first several dances because they're working up their courage; leave
persuaded that they can never do this terribly difficult and confusing stuff.
Peace.
Paul
Laura Leibensperger
> GregMcK <gre...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >What, precisely, is the "problem" that the beginner's orientation is
> >supposed to be addressing? Please think about it. Make a list of the
> >"problem" behavious that you would like to change with the beginners
> >workshop.
> What is this about a "problem" that beginners may have?
> As a beginner, I founds it most helpful to be at the dance
> early for "beginners" instruction many times when I first
> learned about the contra dancing evenings. It was really
> good to know that I was not the only beginner. It was good
> also to realize there were "experienced" dancers in the beginners
> class to help. I'm still a newcomer, and try to pay attention
> during the evening to those who come in as newcomers.
I think we (experienced dancers) tend to look at the question of beginners
workshops from the inside (how can we improve dancing skills and create a
better dance climate), rather than from the point of view of the proverbial
beginner (what is a "safe" way to check out this new activity). In the
"old days" everybody danced - you didn't need to recruit or treat beginners
differently, because dancing was just part of community life. It has been
suggested off and on that beginner's sessions are anti-community in spirit.
I think we have to accept the fact that we don't live in the old community
dance days, and work with the reality that dance is seen as a specialized
activity and people may need a little extra invitation. To me, a beginner's
session is a good recruitment tool - if people learn some helpful tips,
that's good too.
Laura in Boston
GregMcK
I have collated below all of the submissions, to date, of problem
behaviors exhibited by beginners. I have excluded or changed some
descriptions which did not describe observable behaviors. "Not having a
clue," for example, is not an observable behavior. Some of these comments
were culled from a parallel thread on beginners.
Describing the problem in measurable terms is the first step in designing
an approach to addressing the problem. This is the best way to approach
an alleged training problem. Here are the current descriptions of
counterproductive behaviors:
- Not giving weight, in general
- Swinging in a way that is uncomfortable or dangerous
- Acting confused when the caller gives instructions
- Skipping and hopping, in general
- Misinterpreting typical contra eye-contact
- Getting nauseated
- Arriving late for figures
- Arriving early for figures
- Attempting twirls or other embellishments and failing miserably
- Finding partners and lining up too slowly
- Not finding partners at all
- Not even asking people to dance
- Dancing with children
- Waiting out and "just watching" for the first few dances
- Being too rough with partners and others in the line
To these I would add some of my own submissions:
- Talking during the walk-through
- Talking while the caller is calling
- Not paying attention to the caller
- Sweating too much.
- Neglecting personal hygiene
- Avoiding eye contact
- Clutching or gripping much too strongly
- Arriving after the first few dances are already over
- Leaving the dance early
- Wearing shoes which could damage the floor or hurt others
- Wearing clothing which is hot, restrictive or otherwise unsuitable
- Drinking alcohol before arriving at the dance
In addition to the above behaviors there is at least one very common
behavior that beginners exhibit which is probably more counterproductive
than any of the above-mentioned behaviors. It is the primary behavior I
try to address in the beginner's orientations that I teach because it is
also a difficult behavior to change. This behavior is, unfortunately,
often under-emphasized or neglected altogether in beginner's workshops. I
am surprised that it has not yet been mentioned in this discussion.
Does anyone know what behavior I am speaking of?
me...@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
In article <4q4v5r$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) writes:
>
> Just to clarify my position on separate instruction for beginners at
> contradances: I am referring to any instruction apart from the regular
> dance evening which is intended for those without prior contradance
> experience.
>
>
> I have taught such sessions for years. As someone trained in
> instructional design I have analysed the intended purpose of these
> sessions and come to the conclusion that we would be much better off
> without them. Beginners would feel more welcomed. We would see more
> newcomers at dances. Beginners would learn faster and find the dancing
> much easier on their first night. Experienced dancers would be more
> willing to dance with newcomers. Consequently the level of dancing in the
> entire hall would improve and the entire community could do more
> challenging dances. Experienced dancers would have more fun.
>
> supposed to be addressing? Please think about it. Make a list of the
> "problem" behavious that you would like to change with the beginners
> those observable behaviors that you think these workshops should address.
> What about attitudes? What are the "problem" attitudes that you intend to
> change in your 30 minutes of instruction?
> If you actually start posting some of these "problem" behaviors or
> attitudes then this thread might become a useful tool for discussing this
> issue. I don't see much value in personal anecdotal gushings about how
> "helpful" the workshops have been. We all got here because we did have
> good experiences. I can present lots of sentimental statements about how
> wonderful it was to be swept in without any separate classes.
>
Hmn, well, I'm not sure how to discuss my thoughts on the matter without
resorting to the anecdotal, since I have no awareness of or access to the
results of double-blind studies done on the helpfulness of beginner's
workshops. But if you'll excuse my offering a personal viewpoint...
(My background: I've been English country and contradancing for more than 10
years; I've watched and sometimes participated in beginner's workshops for
contras, and I have watched, participated in, and helped manage dance
workshops for English country, as well as helping to run English country dance
evenings specifically geared to be welcoming to utter beginners.)
What beginners' workshops address best, from what I've seen, is the
beginning dancer's fear of seeming/being ignorant. Someone who may never have
danced before in their lives, except for nubbins of rock dancing and those
elementary-school square dances, is often afraid to set foot on a dance floor
for fear of looking foolish. If they *have* seen contradancing before but
haven't done it, they also fear that it goes so fast that they will not only
look silly but that they will screw up the dance for others. In a good
beginners' workshop, participants will learn the basic moves, hear about
timing, and be reassured that they WILL screw up at first but that they will
learn if they keep at it for just a short while.
I'm counting "fear" both as a problem and an attitude here. Fear hobbles the
feet, and it also keeps someone from standing up to dance in the first place.
For a beginners' workshop to work, the beginners a) have to feel free to show
up, b) have to think it's worth their while to attend (i.e., it shouldn't take
up bunches of extra time before they can dance), and c) have to feel welcome.
So as far as I can tell there are two winning approaches that encompass all
three of these points. One is the short beginners' workshop immediately
preceding the dance -- and I agree with you completely, Greg, that such
workshops should be kept very short, for all three reasons above. And the
second is the Kaynor-style dance where the majority of the dance is marked as
beginner-friendly. Beginners know in advance that everything will be taught
until they get it, and they aren't singled out.
I think both styles work, and have watched them do so for years. I find neither
style offputting to the newcomer. The first puts the onus on the beginner,
which works for some. The second attempts to draw in the rest of the
community, calling as it does for people who consider themselves experienced to
join in and help teach at the beginning. This works for others. Me, I lean
toward the latter style personally, but I'm just a bleeding-heart communitarian
who wants everyone to want to join in in just the same manner I do.
***Federal Dance Administration-Mandated Note of Equivalence: These points hold
true for both English country dance and for contradance, which are pretty darn
similar in their requirements of beginners. You can get the same religious
experience, feeling of community, and etc. from both.***
Vanessa Schnatmeier
Ken McKinney
GregMcK wrote:
> In addition to the above behaviors there is at least one very common
> behavior that beginners exhibit which is probably more counterproductive
> than any of the above-mentioned behaviors. It is the primary behavior I
> try to address in the beginner's orientations that I teach because it is
> also a difficult behavior to change. This behavior is, unfortunately,
> often under-emphasized or neglected altogether in beginner's workshops. I
> am surprised that it has not yet been mentioned in this discussion.
>
> Does anyone know what behavior I am speaking of?
Could it be never showing up again ;-)
[chop - snip -rearrainge -mangle]
Hmmmm... This is a list of problem dance behaviors. These are cetrianly not limited
to newcommers.
Ken McKinney
k...@actech.com
David Trop
Greg McK wrote:
To these [undesirable behaviors] I would add some of my own submissions:
- Sweating too much.
- Arriving after the first few dances are already over
- Leaving the dance early
I read this submission, but I am still confused. I don't see how
anyone will be taught how not to sweat (as disagreeable as it is).
As far as when people arrive and leave... I get up for work at 5:30.
I have never made it to the end of a dance in 8 years. Arriving
late... well, my baby doesn't go to sleep till 8:00...
My point is, if I have one, is why should a beginner or anyone else
be required to stay to the end of the whole evening?
Looking forward to clarification- thanks!
Dave
The Black Hat
GregMcK wrote:
>
Here are the current descriptions of
> counterproductive behaviors:
>
> - Not giving weight, in general
> - Swinging in a way that is uncomfortable or dangerous
> - Acting confused when the caller gives instructions
> - Skipping and hopping, in general
> - Misinterpreting typical contra eye-contact
> - Getting nauseated
> - Arriving late for figures
> - Arriving early for figures
> - Attempting twirls or other embellishments and failing miserably
> - Finding partners and lining up too slowly
> - Not finding partners at all
> - Not even asking people to dance
> - Dancing with children
> - Waiting out and "just watching" for the first few dances
> - Being too rough with partners and others in the line
>
> To these I would add some of my own submissions:
>
> - Talking during the walk-through
> - Talking while the caller is calling
> - Not paying attention to the caller
> - Sweating too much.
> - Neglecting personal hygiene
> - Avoiding eye contact
> - Clutching or gripping much too strongly
> - Arriving after the first few dances are already over
> - Leaving the dance early
> - Wearing shoes which could damage the floor or hurt others
> - Wearing clothing which is hot, restrictive or otherwise unsuitable
> - Drinking alcohol before arriving at the dance
>
> In addition to the above behaviors there is at least one very common
> behavior that beginners exhibit which is probably more counterproductive
> than any of the above-mentioned behaviors. It is the primary behavior I
> try to address in the beginner's orientations that I teach because it is
> also a difficult behavior to change. This behavior is, unfortunately,
> often under-emphasized or neglected altogether in beginner's workshops. I
> am surprised that it has not yet been mentioned in this discussion.
>
> Does anyone know what behavior I am speaking of?
I think I know. It's having a snotty, nit-picking and condecending
attitude toward your fellow dancers, especially beginners. It may be
seen by those who always run to the "A" line with familiar partners and
avoiding newcomers. You'll never have a good time at dancing or anything
if you are constantly p---ed off at the minor errors of those among us.
Bob in Morris County, NJ
GregMcK
Folks,
The idea here is to describe your goals very clearly so that your
"beginner's orientaion" will actually make your audience, the beginners,
behave differently than they would if you had *not* offered a class. If
that's not happening then there's really no point, right? So you start by
describing, in precise terms, the behaviors you want to change. That's
all.
As Ken McKinney points out these behaviors are not, necessarily,
restricted to beginners. (More on that later.) And as Dave points out,
these behaviors may not be practical to change. Our purpose is to simply
list those behaviors, common to beginners, which are counterproductive to
the enjoyment of the beginners and/or others.
Bob in Morris County also makes an important point. Please stick with us
on this Bob. We have to assume that there is a need to be addressed.
That's why so many communities spend so much time and energy holding these
workshops. If we're going to be successful we should clearly define the
problem. You may be a little ahead of us Bob. As we define the problem
we may want to revisit your assertion.
Bob is homing in on the behavior, by beginners, that I have alluded to. I
have received two guesses privately but they were not correct.
Here is a hint: It's a behavior that is particularly annoying to callers.
I have seen callers talk to beginner's about this behavior personally on
the floor. I have also seen callers interrupt their walk-through and go
out onto the floor to stop this behavior by beginners. I have done so
myself when calling. I think that it is really interesting that no one
here has yet mentioned this common problem behavior by beginners.
I also want to add some additional behaviors to the list. The following
behaviors were generated by working backwards from actual beginner's
orientations that I have seen taught and asking, "What is the problem
behavior that the leader is addressing with that particular instruction?"
So this list adds some behaviors derived from what we are actually
*teaching* in our beginner's workshops.
- Not crossing over at the top, or bottom, of the set.
- Not "turning as a couple" properly
- Not doing a hey correctly
- Not executing a lady's chain correctly
- Balancing incorrectly
- Not doing contra corners correctly
- Ending a swing with the gent on the right
- Not circling correctly
- Not doing a dosido correctly
- Not forming a set correctly
- Cutting into line near the top of the set
- Leaving the set in the middle of a dance
- Not progressing to the next couple
Any others?
GregMcK
Dan Pearl sent me the following private message. It is posted here with
permission:
"Oh, I know! Beginners dancing with each other for "support". If I am
leading a beginners session I implore them to get experienced dancers as
partners for at least the first half of the evening."
Bingo! This is, in my opinion, the most counterproductive behavior by
beginners. Most of them *love* to do it. It fits in with all of their
beliefs and attitudes about dance. It is also consistent with the common,
preferred practice in almost all other dance forms. In other forms of
dance it is easy to "hide" in a corner and practice with someone of your
own level.
As Dan's word "implore" indicates, this is not an easy behavior to change.
This behavior is also unique in other respects from the existing list of
behaviors. I will come back to this behavior soon.
I will post the entire list shortly. Additional behaviors may still be
posted however.
GregMcK
Dan Pearl sent me the following private message. It is posted here with
permission:
"Oh, I know! Beginners dancing with each other for "support". If I am
leading a beginners session I implore them to get experienced dancers as
partners for at least the first half of the evening."
Bingo! This is, in my opinion, the most counterproductive behavior by
beginners. Most of them *love* to do it. It fits in with all of their
beliefs and attitudes about dance. It is also consistent with the common,
preferred practice in almost all other dance forms. In other forms of
dance it is easy to "hide" in a corner and practice with someone of your
own level.
I will post the entire list shortly.
Greg McKenzie
Jim Saxe
In article <4qnqrs$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) writes:
>
>Dan Pearl sent me the following private message. It is posted here with
>permission:
>
>"Oh, I know! Beginners dancing with each other for "support". If I am
>leading a beginners session I implore them to get experienced dancers as
>partners for at least the first half of the evening."
>
>Bingo! This is, in my opinion, the most counterproductive behavior by
I agree. I get the impression that some beginners, when advised to
change partners frequently and to dance with experienced dancers, flat
out don't believe that the advice is actually meant seriously. I
think this is the strongest point in favor of a beginners' session (if
there is one) being led by somebody other than the caller for the
evening. First the beginners' session leader spouts some crazy,
obviously pro forma, stuff about dancing with experienced dancers and
changing partners. Then, amazingly, the caller says the same thing.
Then, lo and behold, some perfect stranger who seems to have been here
before comes up and asks for a dance. Wow, three different people,
including two in official capacities, with the same incredible idea!
Maybe it isn't unthinkable after all...
--Jim Saxe
GregMcK
I know that this is taking some time but please stay with me on this
folks. Thinking this through will take some time, initially, but you
could save lots of time in the long run by becoming more effective...and
your dance community will show it. I've tried to explain this quickly --
it doesn't work. I think one needs to go through the process.
Below is the full list of typical beginner behaviors, reported here, which
may be counterproductive at a contradance. The idea is to define the
problem in specific terms before we design an approach to solving the
problem. The current model for changing these behaviors is sometimes
called a "beginner's orientation." It was developed, for the most part,
without any such analysis. A tremendous amount of time and energy, of
both the beginners and the workshop leaders, is currently being devoted to
this model. My thesis is that a careful instructional design approach
would be a much more effective way to address this "problem." The first
step is brainstorming a list of problem behaviors.
- Not giving weight, in general
- Swinging in a way that is uncomfortable or dangerous
- Acting confused when the caller gives instructions
- Skipping and hopping, in general
- Misinterpreting typical contra eye-contact
- Avoiding eye contact
- Getting nauseated
- Arriving late for figures
- Arriving early for figures
- Attempting twirls or other embellishments and failing miserably
- Finding partners and lining up too slowly
- Not finding partners at all
- Not even asking people to dance
- Dancing with children
- Waiting out and "just watching" for the first few dances
- Being too rough with partners and others in the line
- Talking during the walk-through
- Talking while the caller is calling
- Not paying attention to the caller
- Sweating too much.
- Neglecting personal hygiene
- Clutching or gripping much too strongly
- Arriving after the first few dances are already over
- Leaving the dance early
- Wearing shoes which could damage the floor or hurt others
- Wearing clothing which is hot, restrictive or otherwise unsuitable
- Drinking alcohol before arriving at the dance
- Not crossing over at the top, or bottom, of the set.
- Not "turning as a couple" properly
- Not doing a hey correctly
- Not executing a lady's chain correctly
- Balancing incorrectly
- Not doing contra corners correctly
- Ending a swing with the gent on the right
- Not circling correctly
- Not doing a dosido correctly
- Not forming a set correctly
- Cutting into line near the top of the set
- Leaving the set in the middle of a dance
- Not progressing to the next couple
- Dancing with other beginners as partners
This is not a comprehensive list, but I think we have covered the major
problem behaviors. The list also includes many behaviors which might not
be appropriately covered in a beginner's orientation. The important thing
is not to *assume* any particular solution at this point.
Before we start to narrow down the list we should make another list. This
list includes items in the "cognitive domain," such as beliefs, attitudes
and values which might be counterproductive. In this stage we are moving
closer to the source of many of these behaviors.
Attitudes and values can really be looked at as kinds of beliefs so I'll
just talk about beliefs. Beliefs are very often associated with a set of
behaviors. To change behaviors we must often change the underlying
beliefs by providing information. Some examples of beliefs that might
affect beginners negatively in contra dancing would be:
- I am rhythm-impaired.
- This kind of dance is complicated and difficult to learn.
- Experienced dancers don't have fun when dancing with newcomers.
- I can learn a lot by just watching.
- It will be easier in the side sets where the dancing is less confusing.
What are some other beliefs that are counterproductive for beginning
contra dancers?
Paul J. Stamler
Greg, your laundry list of "problem behaviours" is impressive, but for me
it's in a dubious direction. I get the feeling you think that the purpose
of a beginner's workshop is to inculcate a long list of "Thou shalt
nots"; that it's there for the purpose of what could be called
"preventive behavior modification". That's pretty heavy stuff.
I've always felt that the purpose of workshops was not to tell people
what we all frown on. It is double: (1) To introduce people to what we
do, in an engaging and non-threatening manner; (2) To bring people into
the group in a welcoming way, so they can join us on the dance floor with
only mild trepidation. The message I've always felt workshops should
convey is, "Here's what we're doing, and you certainly can do it too!"
Not, "DON'T DO THIS, THIS OR THAT!!!"
Peace.
Paul
Dave Goldman
Greg --
I've finally put my finger on what's bothering me about this list of
"problem behaviors" you're making.
You seem to be defining problem behaviors in terms of "What behaviors do
beginners exhibit that experienced dancers find problematic?" (You have
also now extended your list beyond specifically beginner dancer behaviors,
and now seem to be asking "What behaviors do _dancers_ exhibit that
experienced dancers find problematic?")
I'm reasonably sure that most of the rest of us see 15 minute beginner
workshops primarily as an attempt to provide solutions to the _beginners'_
initial problems. The beginner is thinking(*) "What the hell are these
people doing?" and "Am I coordinated enough to do this?" and "How am I
supposed to know what to do here?" and "How do you do this 'swing' thing?"
and "What is the etiquette here for asking people to dance?" and "Why are
these people staring into my eyes?" etc etc.
The primary problem of _experienced_ dancers that we have been trying to
solve with beginner workshops is simply "How can we make this a fun event
for beginners so that they will return next week/month?"
A secondary problem of experienced dancers is "How can we make everyone
better dancers?", but that's outside the realm of this thread on 15 minute
beginner workshops.
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
(*) If my description of beginner thought doesn't fit your behaviorist
approach, then you might want to simply interview some beginners. For an
objective measure of the effectiveness of a particular beginner workshop,
you could interview them both before and after the workshop.
GregMcK
In a private message Gary Shapiro adds the following suggestions of
beliefs which are counterproductive at contradances:
- I am inherently clumsy/uncoordinated.
- This is a singles function.
- Good dancing means lots of fancy embellishments.
- Good dancers don't pay attention to the caller.
- The Dosido requires spinning around.
Any others?
Kiran Wagle
> The idea here is to describe your goals very clearly so that your
> "beginner's orientaion" will actually make your audience, the beginners,
> behave differently than they would if you had *not* offered a class. If
> that's not happening then there's really no point, right? So you start by
> describing, in precise terms, the behaviors you want to change. That's all.
No, that's not all.
I reject your premise. I don't start by describing the behaviors I want
to *change*, I start by describing the behaviors and concepts I want to
*promote*.
The beginners' workshop, if it's not hacked to pieces by people who don't
believe in its effectiveness in the first place, can be a place to reach
people *before* they've developed any habits, bad or good. It's also a
place to teach things they may not otherwise learn, or may not learn
particularly quickly or well when distracted by learning a dance.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
--
"I have never yet written anything, long or short, that did not
surprise me. That is, for me at least, the greatest worth of writing,
which is only incidentally a way of telling others what you think.
Its first use is for the _making_ of what you think, for the
discovery of understanding, an act that happens only in language.
................................Richard Mitchell, _The Gift of Fire_
Kiran Wagle
> If I may I'm going to restate your "purposes" in terms of problem
> definition. The fact that so many people support these workshops
> indicates the belief that the workshops will cause a change in behavior.
Do you see any difference between *changing* behavior and *creating* it?
> These problem statements are very helpful and thought-provoking.
No, they are really troublesome.
They suggest there's a "problem" that needs "fixing." This is not always true.
Even a *good* dancer could be a better dancer, right?
If this were true, a good dancer might benefit from a good dancers'
workshop and become a great dancer. Likewise a mediocre dancer might
become a good dancer, and a non-dancer might become a dancer. A
"beginners' workshop" is precisely a workshop for people of minimal skill
or knowledge.
> For now let's just try to define the problem we want to solve.
The problem *I* want to solve is that of people who don't understand that
there's a place for theory and a place for application, and who want
callers to talk even MORE during the walkthroughs nobody listens to
anyway. Blah, blah, blah.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
--
>> Ain't that the truth! I think of the announcments as that
>> "noise" in the background while I flirt some more! ....maybe
>> we should appoint a designated listener each week, on rotation.
GregMcK
Eric Conrad wrote the following in a private email to me. It is quoted
here with permission:
******
I was trying to offer some gentle criticism. Generally I try to take the
view that beginners are not capable of making mistakes because they don't
know how. Only experienced dancers are capable of actually making
mistakes in this view. What surprised me was that, in taking this view, I
have often identified "beginner errors" which really were the fault of
experienced dancers, myself included.
Now I don't think one needs to go so far as I did. If you want to take
the view that beginners do in fact err, I won't argue the point. I would
only ask that experienced dancers be more sensitive to situations where
they lead beginners astray.
In computer science, there s an old adage: "For every computer error,
there are usually two human errors. One of those is blaming the error
on the computer."
For dancing, I suggest the following: "For every beginning dancer error,
there are usually two experienced dancer errors. One of those is
blaming the error on the beginner."
******
I concur. It has already become clear that we are talking about behaviors
and beliefs in general -- not simply those of beginners. In the spirit of
Eric's adage I offer the following list of additional problem beliefs:
- Beginners cause most of the problems in our dance lines.
- The dancing would be more fun without beginners.
- Dancing in the center set is easier and more fun.
- The best position for beginners is at the bottom of the side sets where
the dancing is less confusing.
- I can help beginners by talking to them while the caller is teaching or
calling.
- I can help beginners by criticizing their dancing skills.
- It is my "duty" to dance one dance with a beginner, then I'm FREE!
- I should dance with beginners even though it's not fun.
- I can help beginners who are not my partner by yelling instructions at
them across the dance line.
- I should dance with beginners but at least I don't have to talk to them
during the break.
- Since we have a class for them I don't need to help beginners.
- There are too many crummy dancers at this series already.
- I have the right to dance with anyone I want to.
- I have the right to refuse to dance with anyone I don't want to.
- I am an advanced dancer and don't need instruction in the basics.
- The walk-throughs are too long because beginners lack dance skills.
Now, I'm not saying that all of these beliefs are incorrect or that they
all should be changed. I am merely listing beliefs that I feel are
counterproductive to beginners having fun on their first night.
Any others?
I'll try to post the full list of behaviors and beliefs later today.
GregMcK
beginner's workshops. I derived the following problem statements from
that post:
- Beginners are not having as much fun as they could be.
- Beginners not returning to the dances.
I repeat these statements here because I think that they summarize the
underlying reason that many people organize and lead beginner's workshops.
If this is, indeed, a problem you are trying to solve then I think we
should examine the beliefs that beginners have which might affect the
amount of "fun" that they have at their first contra dance. "Fun" is,
after all, the first priority of any good caller. Keep in mind that we
are not assuming any particular solution. (Frankly, I don't think that
knowing how to balance or do a hey is going to contribute to the fun a
beginner has on their first night nearly as much as lots of other things
that could be changed...but I'm getting ahead of myself.) Let's keep our
options open. I offer the following list of counterproductive
beliefs...primarily by beginners:
- Some people at this dance are not very friendly.
- Some people here are downright rude at times.
- Lots of these dancers don't like dancing with beginners.
- Lots of these dancers don't like having beginners in the line.
- This crowd is very cliquish and exclusive.
- To dance with the really good dancers here a woman has to be either a
great dancer or very attractive.
- I don't really fit in with this crowd.
- Good dance skills are necessary to be accepted here.
- My lack of dance skills makes the caller's job more difficult.
- If I screw up lots of people might get mad at me.
- Everyone is watching me and knows that I'm a klutz.
GregMcK
******
> These problem statements are very helpful and thought-provoking.
No, they are really troublesome.
They suggest there's a "problem" that needs "fixing." This is not always
true.
******
I agree. Semantics aside, I am assuming that you are conducting these
workshops because you feel that it makes a difference. Is that fair? If
it didn't make a difference then why spend the time and energy? What is
that difference? What can I observe that will be different with the
presence of a beginner's class at a dance series as opposed to the series
without one? What will the new behaviors be that you are "creating" and
why do you feel that these behaviors should be promoted? I challenge you
to explain these basic assumptions in terms that are observable.
Greg McKenzie,
Dale Rempert
To beat a dead horse....
Are you not able to observe nervous people becoming comfortable?
Are you not able to observe enjoyment and the satisfied feeling
that comes from confidence? These "workshops" do just that. If you
are to make it as a caller you MUST realize that you are dealing
with people. People with feelings and emotions. Your job as a caller
is to create feelings of joy. And folks that are uncomfortable will
not fully experience the joy we seek to bring. Your list disturbes
me very much. It implies that YOU must get something out of these sessions.
They are not for you. It also implies that you are trying to minipulate
your dancers. They will see through you. This is not a behavioral science.
It is a group of people coming together to have fun.
Now to the point....
I did the "beginers session" at a dance last week. We had about 25 dancer
in the hall at the time. Just to see what would happen I simply asked
the dancers to line up for a contra. None of the newbies joined the line.
Some of our regulars could not draw them in untill I stated that this
was the beginers session. Then they all jumped up to join in. A VERY
OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR. I introduced the basic figures, progression, the
swing, and giving weight in no more then 5 to 6 min. Then we learned
the first dance. After about 4 times through the dance things began
to smooth out. ANOTHER OBSERABLE BAHAVIOR. By the way they all stayed
till the end of the evening.
GregMcK
counterproductive:
- Not giving weight, in general
- Swinging in a way that is uncomfortable or dangerous
- Acting confused when the caller gives instructions
- Skipping and hopping, in general
- Misinterpreting typical contra eye-contact
- Avoiding eye contact
- Getting nauseated
- Arriving late for figures
- Arriving early for figures
- Attempting twirls or other embellishments and failing miserably
- Finding partners and lining up too slowly
- Not finding partners at all
- Not even asking people to dance
- Beginners dancing with children
- Beginners dancing with beginners as partners
- Experienced dancers not dancing with beginners
- Beginners not returning to the dances.
- Dancers don't smile enough at dances.
The list of beliefs will be in the following post.
GregMcK
*****
Are you not able to observe nervous people becoming comfortable? Are you
not able to observe enjoyment and the satisfied feeling that comes from
confidence?
*****
Well...no. I can't observe "enjoyment and the satisfied feeling that
comes from confidence." Neither can you! You may conclude this from your
observations of actual behaviors, such as smiling, but you do not observe
feelings. I'm sorry that some object to the "behaviorist" approach. The
reason for this approach is to clarify what it is we are trying to
accomplish in terms that we can all agree upon. Just saying that you
"want the beginners to feel more welcomed," for example, is fine and a
worthy goal, but it provides no way to tell if you have accomplished your
goal. Saying that "beginners will join in the first dance," is more
useful, from a design perspective because we can observe this behavior.
Greg McKenzie
GregMcK
bit. There are a number of possible ways to group or classify these
behaviors and beliefs. Here are some ideas:
- Those characteristic of beginners, experienced dancers, etc..
- Those which are practical to change.
- Those which lend themselves to different training approaches.
- Those which affect safety on the dance floor
- Those which are more or less important.
There may be other ways and please feel free to classify or comment upon
the list in whatever way you feel is important. I only ask that you not
assume a particular solution. For example, don't classify them according
to their suitability for a 15 minute orientation workshop.
I suggest that we might start by each of us picking our top four items in
this list. (Or choose your top five or ten...I'm easy.) If you could not
address any other "problem" behaviors or beliefs, which four would you
choose to change? Rank them in order of importance with the most
important one listed first. Feel free to comment on your reasons for
picking your top four.
Looking over the list of "problems" we can begin to narrow our focus a
bit. There are a number of possible ways to group or classify these
behaviors and beliefs. Here are some ideas:
- Those characteristic of beginners, experienced dancers, etc..
- Those which are practical to change.
- Those which lend themselves to different training approaches.
- Those which affect safety on the dance floor
- Those which are more or less important.
There may be other ways and please feel free to classify or comment upon
the list in whatever way you feel is important. I only ask that you not
assume a particular solution. For example, don't classify them according
to their suitability for a 15 minute orientation workshop.
I suggest that we might start by each of us picking our top four items in
this list. (Or choose your top five or ten...I'm easy.) If you could not
address any other "problem" behaviors or beliefs, which four would you
choose to change? Rank them in order of importance with the most
important one listed first. Feel free to comment on your reasons for
picking your top four.
GregMcK
- I am rhythm-impaired.``
- This kind of dance is complicated and difficult to learn.
- Experienced dancers don't have fun when dancing with newcomers.
- I can learn a lot by just watching.
- It will be easier in the side sets where the dancing is less confusing.
- I am inherently clumsy/uncoordinated.
- This is a singles function.
- Good dancing means lots of fancy embellishments.
- Good dancers don't pay attention to the caller.
- The Dosido requires spinning around.
- Some people at this dance are not very friendly.
- Some people here are downright rude at times.
- Lots of these dancers don't like dancing with beginners.
- Lots of these dancers don't like having beginners in the line.
- This crowd is very cliquish and exclusive.
- To dance with the really good dancers here a woman has to be either a
great dancer or very attractive.
- I don't really fit in with this crowd.
- Good dance skills are necessary to be accepted here.
- My lack of dance skills makes the caller's job more difficult.
- If I screw up lots of people might get mad at me.
- Everyone is watching me and knows that I'm a klutz.
- Beginners cause most of the problems in our dance lines.
- The dancing would be more fun without beginners.
- Dancing in the center set is easier and more fun.
- The best position for beginners is at the bottom of the side sets where
the dancing is less confusing.
- I can help beginners by talking to them while the caller is teaching or
calling.
- I can help beginners by criticizing their dancing skills.
- It is my "duty" to dance one dance with a beginner, then I'm FREE!
- I should dance with beginners even though it's not fun.
- I can help beginners who are not my partner by yelling instructions at
them across the dance line.
- I should dance with beginners but at least I don't have to talk to them
during the break.
- Since we have a class for them I don't need to help beginners.
- There are too many crummy dancers at this series already.
- I have the right to dance with anyone I want to.
- I have the right to refuse to dance with anyone I don't want to.
- I am an advanced dancer and don't need instruction in the basics.
- The walk-throughs are too long because beginners lack dance skills.
The following beliefs are not "problems" themselves but are problem
statements.
- The level of dance skill in our communities could be much higher.
- People are not being introduced to what we do in an engaging and
non-threatening manner.
- People are not being brought into the group in a welcoming way, so they
can join us on the dance floor with only mild trepidation.
- Beginners are not having as much fun as they could be.
- All of us are not having as much fun as we could be.
- We never see new faces at the dances.
- With higher attendance we could have better income.
Comments to follow...
Dave Goldman
Greg --
I wish you luck in this project of yours. If you end up with something
useful, that could be nice for all of us.
Please don't continue to mention my name in this thread. I don't want
people to associate me with this process.
me...@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
> Somewhere near Santa Cruz, CA
I appreciate what Greg has done here in compiling a list of generally
undesirable behavior on the dance floor, and also a list of beliefs that might
hinder full enjoyment of dancing for beginners and experienced dancers. I'm
keeping these on hand for future use as tips for myself and for (very
judicious and sparing) asides when dancing with partners.
But I must point out that there are common, obvious ways to observe exactly
what Dale is talking about -- we can make a list of actions that taken as a
group are extremely likely to predict that a dancer is experiencing
enjoyment and increasing comfort. For instance:
- decreased facial and body tension, permitting someone to move their arms
less stiffly, or to smile more often and naturally
- increased ability within one evening to understand instructions and
act on them (more easily visible for new dancers, but applicable
at all levels)
- verbal behavior, such as statements along the line of "I really liked
that last dance"
- willingness to engage in conversation before, after, and sometimes during
a dance
- growing ability to make light of mistakes made during a dance
I'm reasonably sure that Greg observes this behavior on the dance floor and
draws from it much the same conclusions that I would. Or I would hope so.
As for the behaviorist approach as Greg seems to be practicing it here, I think
it's drawn out some interesting points, but without recognition of how we can
use non-behavioral clues to reach accurate conclusions, such a design approach
is inherently flawed. Not everything is quantifiable or reducible to physical
behaviors, though it may be observable as I and perhaps Dale define that term.
In fact, in my experience it's exactly the BEST parts that aren't quantifiable.
Why not use all appropriate and useful methodologies to improve our dancing?
Vanessa
Amber Wilkinson
Dale Rempert wrote:
> I did the "beginers session" at a dance last week. We had about 25 dancer
I just made it to my first dancing event, and had a few thoughts to share.
It was at a Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA) party, so all the dances
were medieval or Renaissance styles. Although they hold local weekly dance
practices around here, I had never made it to one, so I felt very nervous
about dancing. But they had a good solution: at the beginning of the dance
when the line or circle formed, there would be a slow walkthrough until
everyone thought they knew what was going on. Since these were country
dances, it didn't take more than a minute. But that short intro to each
dance made all the difference in the world. I wouldn't have tried to join
without it. But, I did join the dancing, and I had a great time. (Despite
tangles and slips and such. (The floor was polished concrete.)) And the
major tangle was during a dance called the "Tangle Brawl" (sp?), so it was
supposed to get weird. <g>
--
Amber/Heather
confused pagan, bard, Amtgardian, and SCAdian
Plano, TX
fr...@airmail.net
Julie Mangin
Thinking too hard about dancing instead of relating to the people around
one can also be detrimental to good dance.
Julie Mangin
jma...@access.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~jmangin/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I prefer the phrase old-time music to old-timey music which sounds
perilously close to old-tiny music." --Mark Graham
GregMcK
Gary Miller wrote:
*****
We'd like our beginners' workshops to "create" these behaviors:
--new dancers arriving and dancing earlier in the evening, having fun
[or more observably, acting like they're having fun], maybe staying later,
hence
--more new dancers returning next dance, hence
--a higher percentage of new dancers, hence
--higher attendance, better income, new faces, more fun and energy.
*****
Harold Cheyney wrote the following in a private message. It is quoted
here with permission:
*****
This discussion has brought up a lot of good points on the usefulness of
beginner's workshops. The question that keeps popping up is "what is the
problem that the workshops are trying to solve?". The problem is that
many new dancers show up at any dance, do reasonably well, seem to have
some fun, and then never return. The dance fails to get any larger and
struggles financially as a few people drift away for various reasons.
I really think that how welcome a new dancer feels in this new social
situation is more important than how well he or she learns the dances. In
my own personal situation a couple of great partners, realizing that I
was new, went out of their way to help me adapt to the dance and dance
customs at the first dance. They seemed to be saying "we are glad you
are here". At my second dance they seemed to be saying "we are glad you
are back".
*****
What I hear some folks saying is that their *primary* purpose is not to
teach dance skills at all. The primary purpose is to increase the
attendance and retention of beginners (stated in observable or
"quantifiable" terms.)
Our goal then is really to make sure that beginners have a great time on
their first night so that they will return and enrich our dance
communities. Is that a fair statement?
Robert N. Baden
GregMcK wrote:
>
> In a recent post Dave Goldman posted comments about the purpose of
> beginner's workshops. I derived the following problem statements from
> that post:
>
>
> underlying reason that many people organize and lead beginner's workshops.
> If this is, indeed, a problem you are trying to solve then I think we
> should examine the beliefs that beginners have which might affect the
> amount of "fun" that they have at their first contra dance. "Fun" is,
> after all, the first priority of any good caller. Keep in mind that we
> are not assuming any particular solution. (Frankly, I don't think that
> knowing how to balance or do a hey is going to contribute to the fun a
> beginner has on their first night nearly as much as lots of other things
> that could be changed...but I'm getting ahead of myself.) Let's keep our
> options open. I offer the following list of counterproductive
> beliefs...primarily by beginners:
>
> - Some people here are downright rude at times.
> - Lots of these dancers don't like dancing with beginners.
> - Lots of these dancers don't like having beginners in the line.
> - This crowd is very cliquish and exclusive.
> - To dance with the really good dancers here a woman has to be either a
> great dancer or very attractive.
> - I don't really fit in with this crowd.
> - Good dance skills are necessary to be accepted here.
> - My lack of dance skills makes the caller's job more difficult.
> - If I screw up lots of people might get mad at me.
> - Everyone is watching me and knows that I'm a klutz.
A friend of mine, Paul Hemingway, who is an experienced Scottish country
dancer, and also does international folk and contra dancing, and has been
acting as the teacher of the scd group in San Antonio until he recently
moved, recently attended a Scandinavian dance workshop. He stated to
several of us that they made him feel like a beginner, which he has not
felt like for a long time, and he did not like it at all. If he had
truly been a beginning dancer, he might of been lost to the wider dance
community, which would have been a great loss.
Rob Baden
me...@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
Well, no, I don't think it is an accurate statement ("fair", of course, not
being an observable behavior ;-) ). It ignores half the message that the
people you quote are offering.
Not only:
> We'd like our beginners' workshops to "create" these behaviors:
> --new dancers arriving and dancing earlier in the evening, having fun
----------
> [or more observably, acting like they're having fun], maybe staying later,
That is, it's how the new dancers feel or seem to be feeling about the dance
that's important. (Emphasis added.)
But also:
> I really think that how welcome a new dancer feels in this new social
> situation is more important than how well he or she learns the dances. In
> my own personal situation a couple of great partners, realizing that I
> was new, went out of their way to help me adapt to the dance and dance
---------------------------------------------------------------
> customs at the first dance.
-------
That is, the new dancers need to feel not only that they're welcome to learn,
but that they can learn and have learned. A good time AND enough dance skills
to get by.
I suspect the only reason that the two seem separable in terms of what we hope
dancers want/get is the artificial constraints regarding "observable"
"behaviors". Why use only one approach in studying something so
multidimensional as beginning to dance?
You'd probably get more of the dialogue and intellectual ferment you seek on
this question if you unshackled the discussion a bit.
For instance, what interests me most about what you quote above is that both
writers felt that giving new dancers a chance to feel part of that evening's
"community" was extremely important. So what current or experienced dancers
might be best off doing is to keep community-building skills in mind as they
dance with brand-new dancers.
Vanessa Schnatmeier
David A. Kaynor (Amherst RSD)
Hi Folks,
Dale Rempert, in article #15412, regarding Greg McKenzie's
contributions to this discussion:
"Your list disturbes [sic] me very much. It implies
that YOU must get something out of these sessions.
They are not for you."
Prepare for even more disturbance, Dale.
The leader; the leader's helper; the series organizer; the
stakeholder in the series; the newcomer...ALL who contribute time
and effort...deserve to "get something out of these sessions."
My sessions at my Greenfield dance, which I have run up to 4
times a year for 10 years, are first and foremost for me. I try
to make that clear each time. I mean, granted, each one happens
because of things all participants want. But still, it's my time
and effort which creates big flyers and literally wallpapers the
Connecticut River Valley with them and generates unusual
visibility in other media as well. It's my time and effort which
gets the hall and sound gear ready in time for the start of what
amounts to a very focused five-hour programme, the first hour of
which I lead as both teacher/caller and solo musician. That I
manage to make this seem sufficiently easy and natural that my
co-participants feel at ease and natural and take me for granted
took some time and effort, too.
Consider: I put MY beliefs into action with regard to beauty,
excitement, and the powerfully constructive and reconstructive
joys and rewards of shared discovery, learning, achievement, and
fun. I am put MY notion of hard work into MY struggle toward MY
ideals regarding what a functional dance crowd can bring to each
member.
And never forget: More dancers, more fun dancing, a good overall
character of and reputation for dancing in Greenfield, positive
first (and hopefully subsequent) impressions of my playing and
calling, and the growth of my teaching skills are all essential
to the self-aggrandizement of which...make no mistake about
this...I am overtly and energetically in relentless pursuit.
Some thoughts on Dale's additional assertions:
"It also implies that you are trying to minipulate
[sic] your dancers. They will see through you."
Some of them will, anyway. But:
WILL THEY COME BACK ANYWAY? For more manipulation?
Some of them will. They will if they liked it. ("I'm back.
Manipulate me some more...") When I dance, feeling manipulated
by some callers is great. Feeling manipulated by others is not
so great. It feels better when it does not feel completely like
what we know it really is, if you get my drift. When, why, and
how this is so seems a potentially productive direction for
discussion, by the way.
The notion that "if it draws (or keeps) a crowd, it must be all
right" is a potentially interesting discussion topic, too.
"This is not a behavioral science."
Agreed.
However, behavioral science applies. Intentionally or knowingly
or not, callers and dancers and musicians deal with each other in
ways which can be understood and productively worked on in terms
of behaviorist principles.
"It is a group of people coming together to have fun."
Nicely said.
Sure, presenting concerns and viewpoints can get detailed and
wordy and repetitive, but what the heck! Skim it or skip it, if
you're short on time or interest or patience.
When in disagreement, we all have the option to CONTEST it rather
than dismiss or flame it.
David Kaynor
--
C. Clark
In article <31D82A...@airmail.net>, fr...@airmail.net says...
>It was at a Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA) party, so all the
The usual categories of dancing at SCA events are Renaissance, early
English country dance, middle eastern/"belly" dance, and misc. The
"misc." dances are very misc. I would say that the SCA is perhaps about
as accurate in doing period dancing as international folk dancers are in
doing dances of other countries--both groups vary a lot. One can't just
assume that it's accurate because they're doing it.
Alex Clark (known in the SCA as Henry of Maldon)
Bob Dalsemer
It's been interesting reading all these articles about the pros and cons
of beginners' workshops. Workshops can be a great way to make newcomers
feel at home, especially if that feeling continues during the dance
itself. I often wonder, though, if the structure into which many contra
dance events has evolved isn't by its nature daunting to beginners?
Consider that there is no time to socialize between dances, so you never
really get to talk to your partner (unless you don't pay attention to the
walk thru). Dances often last 10-15 minutes with intensive swinging, which
is physically exhausting for folks who don't know how to relax and swing
correctly (heck I find long contras with 2 long swings exhausting myself,
especially if the music is too fast or doesn't have much of a groove). I
also think that evenings of only contras are not only tiring but rather
boring for beginners. Also, most dance series nowadays have a different
caller and different band every time - so beginners have little sense of
familiarity or consistency when they return.
Gene Hubert
In <dalsemer-030...@dialup1.grove.net>, dals...@grove.net (Bob Dalsemer) writes:
-- Bob posed this question, along with several points supporting his position --
> if the structure into which many contra dance events has evolved
> isn't by its nature daunting to beginners?
-- apologies Bob if this is too much out of context --
I think this is an important question. As I look at how Club Square
Dancing has evolved since the 60's and how "Traditional" Dancing
has evolved since the 80's, I see some frightening parallels.
We smugly note that we are an open community, the figures are
limited and simple, and it is not necessary to take lessons. In
spite of this, our dances are becoming more and more intimidating
to newcomers. The problem is most apparent at the larger,
"successful" dance series. Beginners sessions at dances can help,
but the fact that we find need of them at all is worrisome to me.
I see enough momentum in the "Traditional" Dance scene to
sustain it at more or less current levels for about 10 years. At
some point though, we're going to run into the same problems
that Club Square Dancing is grappling with right now. We're
going to be primarily a bunch of aging baby boomers and find
our numbers dropping rapidly.
Is it possible/desirable/necessary to overcome the current
evolutionary trends in the activity and change our direction?
It seems to me that most human activities run in cycles and dance
trends can be expected to be cyclic. I do not worry for an instant
that contra and square dancing will die out completely -- they
have too much inherent vitality. A lot of callers, musicians and
dancers are finding excellent experiences in the current dance
scene. If a time comes when this wonderful activity is withering
around me though, I'm going to be more than a little bit sad.
I don't propose to answer my own question. It is probably not
answerable, but I did want to provoke your thoughts.
We are having our heyday right now -- enjoy it while it lasts!
Gene Hubert
GregMcK
Vanessa asked:
"Why not use all appropriate and useful methodologies to improve our
dancing?"
Well, what is appropriate? Some of them might not be as much fun as
others. Some may not be as effective as others. Some may require lots
more work than people are willing to put in.
The goals of workshop leaders vary, that's pretty clear. We've listed a
number of "problem" behaviors and stated some overall goals that I think
give us a good start at defining our goals. The important thing is to
think about your goals and make them as clear as you can. Then you can
develop a plan to achieve them. The "problem statement" approach used in
instructional design is a good one.
Early in this thread I challenged people to define their goals in
observable terms. "What is the problem you are trying to solve with the
beginner's sessions?" As the discussion evolved it became clear that
beginning dancers are not really the problem. So why do we insist on
using a "beginner's" orientation to address these problems?
As I said previously the primary goal for some is to make sure that
beginners have a great time on their first night so that they will return
and enrich our dance communities. This doesn't cover all of the goals but
I think it is an interesting one, partly because it does not necessarily,
if you think about it, imply any sort of separate class for beginners. In
fact I would argue that there are other approaches to solving this
particular problem which are much more effective.
Now -- thinking independently of any pre-defined solution -- let's look at
all of the communication events which might be brought to bear upon
solving this problem, (excuse me, accomplishing this goal).
Our dance communities have a wide range of ways to influence the
behaviors, beliefs, and enjoyment of participants. The list below covers
some that I have seen used. I do not advocate all of them, and, in fact,
oppose some of them. The list contains most of the activities I have seen
used by our communities to transfer the traditions, skills and joy of
contradance. You may know of others:
- A printed hand-out at the door.
- A displayed placard in the room.
- Passing comments by the caller.
- "Mini lectures" by the caller.
- Encouraging remarks by the caller.
- Examples by experienced dancers during the walk-through.
- Examples by experienced dancers during the dance.
- Leads from experienced partners.
- Leads from other experienced dancers in the dance line.
- Comments by dancers in line before the walk-through.
- Comments by dancers between dances or at the break.
- Teaching by experienced dancers in line before the walk-through.
- Teaching by experienced dancers during the break.
- Teaching by experienced dancers before arriving at the dance.
- Comments by the person receiving money at the door.
- Comments by someone assigned to greet newcomers.
- Articles in the local dance community newsletter.
- Encouraging remarks from experienced partners.
- Encouraging remarks from others in the dance line.
- People who remember your name.
- People who make a point of helping you learn.
- People who introduce you to other dancers.
- Advanced workshops, separate from the regular dance series.
- Beginner's workshops, separate from the regular dance series.
- Short beginner's orientations before each dance evening.
- Experienced dancers who really enjoy dancing with you.
- Dancers who flirt, appropriately, with newcomers while dancing.
- People who flirt, appropriately, when not dancing.
- True Love.
- Weekend dance camps.
- Week-long dance camps.
- Social events before the dance
- Social events after the dance
I am open to additions to, or deletions from, this list. The important
thing is to keep your actual goal in mind and match it to the most
effective medium. If your goal is really for the beginners to have fun
then which of the above are most effective at accomplishing your goal?
Any other ideas?
me...@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
I wrote my response to this post for an hour or so, and came to the conclusion
that Greg McKenzie and I just plain may not think about dancing in the same way.
Hey, Greg! How about doffing the "moderator's" robes that you've wrapped
yourself in and talking with me directly in this forum? You know I'm focused
on the question you're discussing, even if I don't agree with your approach.
I'd like to make sure we know which assumptions we share and which we don't.
What follows is my going through Greg's post in much more detail to end up
saying what I said above...
---------
In article <4rf47t$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) writes:
> Vanessa asked:
>
> "Why not use all appropriate and useful methodologies to improve our
> dancing?"
>
> Well, what is appropriate? Some of them might not be as much fun as
> others. Some may not be as effective as others. Some may require lots
> more work than people are willing to put in.
At that particular juncture I was speaking more of your insistence on
speaking only of "observable behaviors" (and only a certain subset of those
at that) when discussing the utility of beginners' workshops.
However, speaking directly of dancing, when I say "appropriate and useful," to
me that eliminates methods of improving dancing that aren't effective. As to
how much work people are willing to put in, that varies with the person and the
community. As to fun...well, how much "fun" is a walkthrough or a talkthrough?
Yet I doubt you would argue against their utility for new dancers.
> The goals of workshop leaders vary, that's pretty clear. We've listed a
> number of "problem" behaviors and stated some overall goals that I think
> give us a good start at defining our goals. The important thing is to
> think about your goals and make them as clear as you can. Then you can
> develop a plan to achieve them. The "problem statement" approach used in
> instructional design is a good one.
But is it a good approach for THIS question? You may have a hammer, which works
best on nails, when the "problem" also needs to be approached with a
Philip's head screwdriver and carpenter's glue.
> Early in this thread I challenged people to define their goals in
> observable terms. "What is the problem you are trying to solve with the
> beginner's sessions?" As the discussion evolved it became clear that
> beginning dancers are not really the problem. So why do we insist on
> using a "beginner's" orientation to address these problems?
I wonder if I have ever gone to the same beginners' workshops that you have
(and what the workshops you teach are like).
It's not been shown to my satisfaction, at least, that "beginning dancers are
not really the problem." ...That is, not if the question is "What is the
problem you are trying to solve with the beginner's sessions?"
The beginners' sessions I have seen are informational, designed to
give people a bare-bones idea of the most common moves. They are also, if run
by someone who knows what he or she is doing, designed to ease the fears of new
dancers that they will make utter fools out of themselves, and to let them know
that the newcomer stage is inevitable but that newcomers are still part of the
dance community.
What exactly is your argument with using a '"beginner's" orientation' to
address these problems? I'd really like to know.
>
> As I said previously the primary goal for some is to make sure that
> beginners have a great time on their first night so that they will return
> and enrich our dance communities. This doesn't cover all of the goals but
> I think it is an interesting one, partly because it does not necessarily,
> if you think about it, imply any sort of separate class for beginners. In
> fact I would argue that there are other approaches to solving this
> particular problem which are much more effective.
"The primary goal for some." It's not the only goal, nor the most
--------
important goal necessarily. It depends on the situation. There may be several
components to "having fun," too.
And the same is true for beginners' workshops. For some people they are
necessary and helpful. For others the immersion method works best.
....
I had to torpedo one set of comments just now, when I looked more
closely at the list you have below.
There's a terminology problem here.
For instance, I'm not sure whether you regard the BACDS "free beginner's
session" before some contras as "teaching by experienced dancers before
arriving at the dance," "short beginner's orientations before each dance
evening," or "beginner's workshops, separate from the dance series."
And I'm not sure at all what you think of the ...don't know what to call these
exactly..."community-oriented beginners' dances" led by the likes of David
Kaynor and Jim Saxe. Could you clarify what you're talking about, and which of
the above you disapprove of?
>
> Now -- thinking independently of any pre-defined solution -- let's look at
> all of the communication events which might be brought to bear upon
> solving this problem, (excuse me, accomplishing this goal).
>
> Our dance communities have a wide range of ways to influence the
> behaviors, beliefs, and enjoyment of participants. The list below covers
> some that I have seen used. I do not advocate all of them, and, in fact,
> oppose some of them. The list contains most of the activities I have seen
> used by our communities to transfer the traditions, skills and joy of
> contradance. You may know of others:
>
Just want to point out that these activities work just as well for English
country dance, not that that's a surprise, since they're kissin' cousins.
(long and interesting list snipped for space)
> I am open to additions to, or deletions from, this list. The important
> thing is to keep your actual goal in mind and match it to the most
> effective medium. If your goal is really for the beginners to have fun
> then which of the above are most effective at accomplishing your goal?
> Any other ideas?
>
And the answer is...IT DEPENDS!!!! Any or all of them (except for the articles
in the dance community newsletter, which the beginners aren't likely to see, at
least not right off) can and may work depending on the people involved.
I have seen all of them work in practice.
What works best in the long run is to have as many as possible of these
options available so that a new dancer is likely to run into what works best
for him or her.
I honestly don't understand why you are trying to reduce this multifaceted
question to a single solution. It's not, from what I've seen, a question
suited to a single solution, any more than we are all a single type of dancer
or were/are a single type of beginner.
I'd be much obliged if you'd post your response to this specific post, rather
than in email.
Lengthily yours,
Vanessa
Bill Tomczak
Gene Hubert wrote:
>Is it possible/desirable/necessary to overcome the current
>evolutionary trends in the activity and change our direction?
I am coming to the conclusion that there is no need. As you say later,
these things run in cycles. I'm starting to see the current contra
dance fad as part of a larger cycle that includes the so-called MWSD
crowd. Even as some of us fret over the character of the larger
so-called successful dance series and the contra dance scene as a
whole, I see a vitality in dance events of a very different kind. But
these are the dances that don't grab a lot of attention by their very
nature.
Two examples in my own back yard: Dudley Laufman, once the bad-boy of
'modern' contra dancing, brought all these barefoot hippies into the
activity. Ralph Page may have kept things going and preserved much of
value in his way, but Dudley did a lot to really popularize it. Now he
is seen as a conservative codger who you'll find almost entirely doing
small house dances. On rare occasions you'll see him call at something
like NEFFA or the Ralph Page weekend.
Fred Breunig does a monthly dance here in East Putney. You'll not see,
for the most part, much of what I now call 'mainstream' contra dancers
at it. You will see high school kids, local folks, oldsters and
youngsters. Fred can do a program with interest and variety (circles,
squares, other odd formations I've never seen anywhere else) because
he doesn't worry about those folks who need a night of all contras
with a partner and corner swing in every dance. I suppose the
'mainstreamers' would consider his dance boring for this reason. Those
who come have a ball. The last time I played for that dance was pure,
unadulterated fun. No, the music and the dancing weren't as
spectacular or awe inspiring as you might find at the average
Greenfield dance, but people had a really good time. Including the
band.
I know these kinds of activities are happening all over the country
side by side with the well-known popular (mainstream) dances. Whether
we like it or not, there already is a split in the dance scene. I no
longer see a point in trying to change the mainstream dance scene. It
is what it is and is an inevitable part of the cycles Gene refers to.
I remain involved in it because, as a musician, there are things I can
do in it that I don't feel are appropriate at a non-commercial,
non-mainstream dance. The goals are very different.
>A lot of callers, musicians and
>dancers are finding excellent experiences in the current dance
>scene. If a time comes when this wonderful activity is withering
>around me though, I'm going to be more than a little bit sad.
I believe people will always want to get together and enjoy each
other's company. Some kind of folk dance will probably always provide
a haven for people who are a bit of a distance from popular culture. I
have become convinced that the mainstream dance crowd has lost sight
of this as a primary goal. Something will come to fill the gap as
contra dance did when MWSD started down this path. It's my
understanding that contra dancing has yet to achieve the kind of
maintream popularity that square dancing did in the 50s-60s (not sure
of the exact era). Perhaps we have further to go yet.
>I don't propose to answer my own question. It is probably not
>answerable, but I did want to provoke your thoughts.
And so you did!
>
>We are having our heyday right now -- enjoy it while it lasts!
Want to take bets on when we hit the peak? Though we probably wouldn't
be able to collect on the bet until we're in our 80s or so.
Bill
_________________________________________________________________________
)Bill Tomczak )"90% of everything is crud" )
)btom...@sover.net ) )
)http://www.sover.net/~btomczak/ ) - Theodore Sturgeon )
GregMcK
Interesting posts by David, Bob, and Vanessa. I will try to address most
of the questions raised in my next two or three postings. I do have a
couple of points to make first, however. Please read on for two or three
more days.
I would like to first draw attention to the one "problem" behavior which I
mentioned as being different:
- Beginners dancing with beginners as partners
As I mentioned before, this behavior is different from most of the other
behaviors on the list in two important ways. The first difference is that
this is what I would call a "key" behavior in that a change in this
behavior will address a number of other "problem" behaviors.
Our list includes 81 behaviors and beliefs which we have mentioned that
might be counterproductive. Now, just for a moment, assume that *all* of
the beginners were dancing with experienced partners for the first three
or four dances. Maybe there is not even a separate class. Which of the
listed behaviors would no longer be a problem?
Looking over that list I would consider 61 of these behaviors and beliefs
as being addressed -- either entirely or to a significant degree -- if the
newcomers are all dancing with experienced partners. This would include
almost all of the psychomotor or "dance" skills. That's 61 out of a total
of 81 behaviors and beliefs or about 75% of the "problems" that those
participating in this thread have identified as their reasons for doing
beginner's orientations! These would no longer be significant problems if
this one key behavior were addressed successfully.
This suggests to me that a significant part of any beginner's workshop or
orientation should be devoted to addressing this one key behavior.
Now, some of you may wish to quibble about these numbers and would
classify these behaviors differently. Please do. (I will make my own
classified list available to anyone who emails me.) Even if you change
the numbers somewhat my point still stands: This single behavior is a very
significant one which deserves special consideration as you design your
beginner's orientation -- or as you consider any other approach to
addressing these problems.
The significance of this behavior becomes even more clear as we examine
the remaining behaviors and beliefs.
Of the remaining 20 problem behaviors and beliefs I would eliminate seven
as being out of our power to address. This would include behaviors such
as "sweating too much," or "drinking alcohol before arriving at the
dance." Another 11 in the "belief" category I would classify as being
significant problems in the entire dance community and not primarily
associated with beginners. These 11 beliefs will never be addressed
adequately in any forum exclusive to beginners.
The remaining few behaviors would include behaviors such as
"Misinterpreting typical contra eye-contact" and "Being too rough with
partners and others in the line." These are typical of beginners and
could, conceivably, be addressed in a separate workshop. Even without a
workshop, however, a savvy and conscientious partner would, eventually,
clue in the beginner. The point is that there are only a few remaining
behaviors to address if you have dealt with this one key behavior.
In my next post I will explain the second distinguishing characteristic of
this key behavior.
Jonathan Sivier
gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) writes:
>I would like to first draw attention to the one "problem" behavior which I
>mentioned as being different:
>- Beginners dancing with beginners as partners
I can't recall if it is listed in your big list, but I think there is
another "problem" behavior which is also different (or perhaps it's a belief)
and which is the most important reason I see for having a short intro session
(15 minutes or so) for beginners prior to the main dance. That is the feeling
that many people have that they can't do some new activity without being
taught in some formal fashion. When new dancers come early we can easily get
them on the floor for the beginner intro, since they are told they'll be
learning how the dance goes, and they do learn, whether with other experienced
dancers who are also there or the other beginners. However if they come after
the dance starts and sit and watch they will become convinced that they could
never do this activity, no matter how many dancers come up to them, tell them
it's easy to learn as they go and ask them to dance. After watching for a
while they go home. Granted there are some people who are willing to try
something new, but for each one of those types I imagine there are many who
would enjoy contra dance, but won't try it without some form of formal
introduction. For these people you MUST have some form of beginner's
workshop. What exactly should be taught during that time can be debated, but
it is such a short time that you really can't teach much more than the very
basic and most common figures. At that you really can't TEACH them, but
you can walk through them so the new dancers will have some familiarity
with them when the dance starts. I'm always sure to mention that they should
dance with experienced dancers at the beginning and try to pair them up that
way to start. However I see the most important thing to be to let them
think they've had an introductory lesson, so they aren't total beginners
anymore and to get them on the floor before the dance begins so they can't
be wallflowers for the rest of the evening. I try to put new dancers
at the head of the set when possible so they'll be seen by all the other
dancers. That way the experienced dancers will know there are new people there
and can then ask them to dance later in the evening.
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier | Ballo ergo sum. |
| j-si...@uiuc.edu | (I dance therefore I am.) |
| Flight Simulation Lab | - des Cartwright |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
me...@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
In article <4rsd4v$5...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, j-si...@staff.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Sivier ) writes:
>
I left your post here in its entirety because it expresses in exquisite detail
the utility of beginners' workshops for a certain set of people. Besides, I
wanted this post to be more than "Yeah. What he said." ;-)
This is what several people (among them myself) have been pointing out -- the
fear factor, which, as you also note, often keeps people from dancing at all.
I've seen this factor come into play often, especially when a more
regular or more interested dancer's date is inveigled into attending a
dance for his or her first time. True Love (tm) (which was on one of Greg's
lists) may not be enough to keep someone coming to their sweetheart's
favorite pastime if he or she is nervous enough.
Some people, not all, but a sufficiently large group, need or desire this kind
of push over the wall that separates them from enjoying themselves on the dance
floor.
neilson
In my contra-dance experience, having beginners dance with experienced
dancers is the key. It does not solve all the problems, because some
of them cannot be "solved". But when done well, it's better than
formal lessons.
There are three parts to implementing the method for contras and
squares. By the way, it's done from the floor, by dancers, and not by
the caller.
1. You must be a good dancer AND a good teacher, and you must enjoy
dancing with beginners.
2. You must arrive early, and greet newcomers, making informal
lessons available as required. It is important to be politely
insistent, especially for beginners who want to "sit and watch"
instead of participating.
3. You must encourage other good dancers to dance with beginners,
even to the point that they snatch them all up and you are left
having to dance with a "perpetual" beginner instead.
What to teach? I always teach the swing first, because I can usually
do it in about thirty seconds, and I don't want to leave it for last
and then have to omit it. It's the hardest part, so once they've got
it, everything else is easy. I think of certain figures and concepts
as key, and others as unimportant. Here's a possible division (but it
depends on the individuals):
Key
---
balance in its simplest form
giving weight in balance and turns
walk, don't skip
swing
position on floor
leave things out
"make plenty of mistakes"
dance with people you don't know
Not key
-------
ladies' chain
R&L thru
progression
grand R&L
hey
contra corners
all that other stuff
"Now just a minute," I can hear some folks saying, "how can he leave
out teaching LC and R&L thru?" Easily. The beginners will pick up
those things on the floor, and teaching them takes precious time. You
get only one chance to instill confidence in the frightened, to
encourage the timid, and to Get Them Out On The Floor Dancing.
"How can he teach the swing in 30 seconds?" It's a technique I
learned from Al Olson, and it works with individuals or tiny groups.
Take two hands across (with one person), or form a small circle. Tell
your dancers to RUN while holding hands, just like little kids. "Run,
run, run. Now change it like this: Put your right foot ahead of your
left foot." You do the buzz step, and your dancers mimic you. They
can SEE what you are doing, because you do not have them in ballroom
position yet.
Conversion to ballroom (or other appropriate swing position) is now
simple. You didn't tell them about the scooter (many of them never
used one), you didn't tell them to keep one foot planted (that's not
how it works!), and you never let them get the habit of leaning
forwards for "stability" (or whatever reason it is that beginners lean
forwards).
--
= = = nei...@imonics.com +1-919-775-3822
Peter Neilson I'm about to abandon nando.net
7950 Lower River Road (which is about to vanish
Sanford NC 27330 anyway). See new address above.
Jonathan Sivier
nei...@bessel.nando.net (neilson) writes:
>In my contra-dance experience, having beginners dance with experienced
>dancers is the key. It does not solve all the problems, because some
>of them cannot be "solved". But when done well, it's better than
>formal lessons.
[many good points snipped]
Here is a list of tips to experienced dancers when dancing with beginners
I compiled a while back.
Tips For Experienced Dancers Dancing With Beginners
Dancing well with beginners is a skill separate from being able to dance
well with other experienced dancers. Revealing the joy of contra dance to a
new person is, for me, one of the rewards of being an experienced dancer. The
only way to learn, of course, is to practice, so try to dance with at least one
new person at each dance. Many of these tips are also good advice when dancing
with experienced dancers, but they are particularily important when dancing
with beginners.
1. Smile
2. Make eye contact.
3. Show the other people you enjoy dancing with them.
4. Help the beginners have fun. Remember that's what we're here for.
5. Don't push, pull or shout, that's rude.
6. Lead the new dancers through dance figures with eye contact, body language
and hand gestures as appropriate.
7. Make your leads part of the dance (i.e. use a sweeping motion of your arm
and perhaps a small bow to indicate a person should precede you in a given
direction).
8. Lead your partners gently by the hand.
9. Hold your hand out clearly for them to take (as on allemandes and right
and left across).
10. Men, gently place the womans hand where it needs to be for stars and chains.
11. Women, help your partners end swings in the correct direction.
12. Tap your shoulder (the one to be passed by) on heys, etc.
13. Don't do extra twirls and spins. The beginners look to you for example,
you may know where you need to be next and which way to be facing, but
they don't. Let them get the basics before trying to add flourishes.
14. Swing gently, many beginners are affected by dizziness at first.
15. Dance smoothly, show them how it's done.
16. Don't get upset at them when mistakes are made. Everyone makes mistakes
from time to time, even you!
17. Encourage and acknowledge the real efforts the beginners are making.
18. Communicate acceptance and affirmation as much as possible.
19. Communicate willingness to answer questions about the routine or any
aspect of the dance.
20. If the new person has obvious difficulty with something in particular,
simply ask, "Do you mind if I show you?"
21. Refrain from forcing any issue.
These are just a few which have been suggested to me and which I have
added to from my own experiences. Please let me know of any additions you
may have and I will add them to the list. Hopefully, if we can incorporate
some of these skills into our dancing, then the beginner's first contra dance
experience will be that much more enjoyable. Remember, the true mark of an
advanced dancer is being able to dance with anyone, no matter what their skill
level may be, and have them all enjoy the experience equally.
Gene Hubert
In <31e176d6...@news.sover.net>,
Bill Tomczak <btom...@sover.net> writes:
>Two examples in my own back yard: Dudley Laufman, once the bad-boy of
>'modern' contra dancing, brought all these barefoot hippies into the
>activity. ... Now he
>is seen as a conservative codger...
Some of us who thought of ourselves as real gunslingers in
our early dance years are finding ourselves feeling more
codger-like with every passing year. Personally, I have a
strong preference for modern contra choreography, but
some of the social customs that have come with it I would
gladly discard.
Gene Hubert
GregMcK
Jonathan Sivier wrote:
" I can't recall if it is listed in your big list, but I think there is
another "problem" behavior which is also different (or perhaps it's a
belief) and which is the most important reason I see for having a short
intro session (15 minutes or so) for beginners prior to the main dance.
That is the feeling that many people have that they can't do some new
activity without being taught in some formal fashion."
Excellent point, and I agree that this is an important reason to hold an
introductory session. It is also, however, the best reason *NOT* to hold
an introductory session. If I may restate your problem belief as follows:
- Beginners need some kind of formal introduction to be successful at this
activity.
Jonathan also wrote that, "...I see the most important thing to be to let
them think they've had an introductory lesson...."
This is very interesting. What is being said is that it is more important
for the beginners to *feel prepared* than to actually teach dance skills.
I agree and place "building confidence" as a high priority in the
orientation sessions that I lead.
I want to point out, however, that you are really sending two
contradictory messages when you offer a formal introduction. You are, in
effect, holding a formal introduction to assure the beginners that this
form of dance is so easy that no formal instruction is necessary. Thus
there is a spoken, verbal message and an implied message in the very
presence of the workshop on your flyer. Now I must ask:
Which of these two messages does the beginner receive first?
And which of these two messages will have the strongest impact?
Both Jonathan and Peter Neilson offered some good suggestions for
experienced dancers who wish to dance with beginners. These are very
useful and offer the kind of instruction that I feel would do much more in
addressing the problem behaviors and beliefs that this group has listed
than any orientations session. Both Jonathan and Peter have realized the
second characteristic of the key problem behavior:
- Beginners dancing with beginners as partners
The other important distinction of this behavior is that it is not a
beginner behavior at all. In fact, beginners are the ones who have the
least control over this problem behavior. You may tell them to dance with
experienced partners during your workshop but, as Jim Saxe pointed out,
more will be required. Jim mentioned two other sources which should be
employed: Encouragement by the caller, and actual experienced dancers who
actually ask beginners to dance with them.
Now, of these three sources, which do you think will be the most effective
at convincing beginners to dance with experienced partners?
The fact is that it is the experienced dancers who can distinguish the
newcomers from the experienced dancers. They are the ones with the social
contacts and the understanding of contradance etiquette which will allow
them to find beginners quickly and mix in effectively with the rest of the
crowd.
The point is that if you want to address this key behavior -- which will
virtually eliminate more than 75% of the problems that you say are the
reasons for doing a beginners orientation -- you need to address the
experienced dancers, not the beginners. The most effective way to address
the bulk of the "problems" we have listed here is *Not* in a formal
beginner's orientation.
More later,
Jonathan Sivier
gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) writes:
>Jonathan Sivier wrote:
>" I can't recall if it is listed in your big list, but I think there is
>another "problem" behavior which is also different (or perhaps it's a
>belief) and which is the most important reason I see for having a short
>intro session (15 minutes or so) for beginners prior to the main dance.
>That is the feeling that many people have that they can't do some new
>activity without being taught in some formal fashion."
>Excellent point, and I agree that this is an important reason to hold an
>introductory session. It is also, however, the best reason *NOT* to hold
>an introductory session. If I may restate your problem belief as follows:
>- Beginners need some kind of formal introduction to be successful at this
>activity.
You seem to have missed my point, which was that there are a significant
number of people these days who WILL NOT try a new activity without some
form of formal introduction, no matter how many people tell them how easy it
is. In a perfect world everyone would be willing to try a new activity like
contra dance with no prior knowledge of it and all experienced dancers would
also be excellent teachers. Neither of these are the case. Many first time
dancers feel the need for an introductory lesson and will not try dancing
without it, so if we want to have a chance at recruiting these people we
MUST offer a beginners introductory session. It would be wonderful if we
could change the world such that this wasn't necessary, but that is beyond
the reach of most dance groups. :-) As long as we are doing a beginners
session, we might as well try to teach them a few of the very basics.
Especially since, it not being a perfect world, many of the dancers they
will encounter during the dance (experienced and otherwise) will not be
particularily good teachers. Also the midst of an ongoing dance is not
always the best location to be trying to teach someone. Another attitude
that may be beyond our ability to change is that of dancers who once they
have some experience, assume they know everything. While it would be nice
to address these people with a workshop on dancing well with beginners (and
teaching), since they know everything (or so they think), they are not going
to come to that workshop. We still try and sometimes get through to them, or
catch someone who doesn't yet know everything, but this still leaves us with
a continuing need for some form of beginner's introduction session.
I teach a contra dance class at the local park district. Those who attend
are approximately evenly divided between total beginners who saw it listed in
the park district schedule, who would never even consider trying to just go
to a dance, but are willing to give a class a try, and recent beginners who
have been coming to the dances for a while and want some more formal (though
not very) training, at a slower pace, closer to one-on-one. These later always
remark on things I teach which no one had mentioned before, which would be
inappropriate to mention while calling a dance (just too basic), but which
which they hadn't picked up while dancing either. The percentage of these
people who go on to become regular dancers at our local dance is around 25%.
At a rough guess this is significantly higher rate of return than the
percentage of those who come once and give contra dancing a try. Granted
these are different situations and populations, but it implies that many
people do get something from beginners classes, which they don't get from
just going to the dance.
Alan Gedance
Gene:
You're much too young to turn creaky and start going conservative on us!
Please don't stop generating your wonderful and challenging but smooth
dances.
As to the undesirable social customs that you think have come along with
the modern dances, I believe that you are wrong. They seem to me to
predominate in our large metropolitan centers where a lot of people have
been dancing for a long time. I think that the situation would be
alleviated by providing an outlet of the experienced dancers in the form
of occasional evenings of challenging dances, and by providing more
advanced instruction as part of the regular dance series. There is
endless discussion of how to teach beginners, as perhaps there should be,
but no discussion at all of how to encourage constant improvement. I
tried to start one a few days ago, but so far all the response that has
occurred is about 3 posts saying that Rory O'More is a good dance, and one
telling me that the writer recently actually danced a triple-minors dance,
Sackett's harbor.
There were also two responses which restating the already well-expressed
worry that challenging dance evenings would exacerbate the situation,
causing experienced dancers to desert the regular dances in droves. First,
I think that the percentage who would do that would be small, and that
second, those who do are probably not assets to the regular dance series.
I don't mean that they are mean, nasty people, but if they have so little
interest in helping the beginners, why would anyone want them to come to a
dance at which many beginners are present?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GregMcK
Jonathan Sivier wrote:
"You seem to have missed my point, which was that there are a significant
number of people these days who WILL NOT try a new activity without some
form of formal introduction, no matter how many people tell them how easy
it is."
Well, perhaps I've missed your point. I'm not sure. Are you saying that
your problem statement would be better stated as:
- I need some kind of formal introduction before I can be successful at
any new activity?
Are you saying that you also subscribe to this belief? Or are you saying
that, for some people, this belief, while incorrect, is so basic and so
deeply held that it cannot be changed and that therefore we should not
attempt to change it -- even if it makes it more difficult for them to
learn the dancing?
If the latter is the case then, I would have to disagree. No one requires
a formal introduction to *every* activity. The reason that people feel a
formal introduction is necessary in contradance is because it is the
common means of entry into other forms of dancing. By holding a formal
beginner's orientation we reinforce this belief -- both for the newcomers
and for experienced dancers. I would not, in any case, institute an
unnecessary formal introduction based upon a theory that there are some
people who cannot change this belief. This is not, after all, a deeply
held religious conviction. I have found that people are usually quite
relieved when I tell them that no instruction is necessary. This message
also makes it clear that this form of dance is something a bit different
than other dance forms that they may have experienced.
Even if a small number of such people exist I would have to balance their
needs against those who will stay away because a formal workshop or
orientation provides clear evidence that the dancing is difficult. I know
that these people do exist. A half-hour introductory session listed on
the flyer will turn many people off to even attending a dance,
particularly if they must arrive early.
This is one of the many problems which result directly from the existence
of a formal workshop or orientation. Some others have also been
mentioned. These workshops create an impression among some experienced
dancers that the needs of beginners have already been addressed. They
create the same impression for many callers. When they include many
figures and other unnecessary information they can actually make the
dancing seem more difficult than it really is.
I am afraid that for many experienced dancers the orientation serves to
keep the beginners at a distance, rather than to welcome them. I know of
one workshop leader who even stated as much publicly. His purpose in
teaching the workshops was to "eliminate the beginners" by converting them
into dancers before they entered the dance line. Most will not admit it
but I suspect that this is the real function of these workshops. They
make the beginners less of a "problem" for the regulars. In my mind this
attitude is contrary to the basic form of contradance as a fun, inclusive,
community-building activity.
My most serious criticism of the orientation workshops is that they simply
do not work. I think that this design effort has demonstrated that these
workshops are one of the least effective ways to address the problems that
people list as their reasons for holding them. There are better ways to
build our dance communities and I think that we need to address this task
in ways that actually work. In my next post I will try to begin
discussing some of them.
me...@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
In article <4rv6on$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) writes:
>
> Jonathan Sivier wrote:
>
> "You seem to have missed my point, which was that there are a significant
> number of people these days who WILL NOT try a new activity without some
> form of formal introduction, no matter how many people tell them how easy
> it is."
>
> your problem statement would be better stated as:
>
> - I need some kind of formal introduction before I can be successful at
> any new activity?
>
> Are you saying that you also subscribe to this belief? Or are you saying
> that, for some people, this belief, while incorrect, is so basic and so
> deeply held that it cannot be changed and that therefore we should not
> attempt to change it -- even if it makes it more difficult for them to
> learn the dancing?
-----------------
The emphasized areas are your additions, and not what he was saying.
> I have found that people are usually quite
> relieved when I tell them that no instruction is necessary.
Is this what you tell them DURING the beginner's orientations you teach, as you
explain the basic moves, and so on? Just checking.
(short snippage and placing of paragraphs near each other)
> If the latter is the case then, I would have to disagree. No one requires
> a formal introduction to *every* activity. The reason that people feel a
> formal introduction is necessary in contradance is because it is the
> common means of entry into other forms of dancing. By holding a formal
> beginner's orientation we reinforce this belief -- both for the newcomers
> and for experienced dancers. I would not, in any case, institute an
> unnecessary formal introduction based upon a theory that there are some
> people who cannot change this belief.
>
> Even if a small number of such people exist I would have to balance their
> needs against those who will stay away because a formal workshop or
> orientation provides clear evidence that the dancing is difficult. I know
> that these people do exist. A half-hour introductory session listed on
> the flyer will turn many people off to even attending a dance,
> particularly if they must arrive early.
>
> My most serious criticism of the orientation workshops is that they simply
> do not work. I think that this design effort has demonstrated that these
> workshops are one of the least effective ways to address the problems that
> people list as their reasons for holding them. There are better ways to
> build our dance communities and I think that we need to address this task
> in ways that actually work. In my next post I will try to begin
> discussing some of them.
>
> Greg McKenzie
*sigh* Well, this is like that old (Charles Addams? Gahan Wilson?) cartoon
where the mechanic says to the car owner, "I believe we've discovered the
source of the problem."
It's not much of a design effort if you throw out the data that doesn't agree
with your thesis. Especially if you decide that you don't believe that such
data exists, but even if it does, it doesn't matter when weighed against the
importance of preserving your thesis.
For the record, I'll say that I haven't seen your comments demonstrate your
thesis, unless you count argument by assertion. I hadn't realized that this was
such a religious issue for you. Suddenly I feel so...so Unitarian.
Before I bow out of this thread I want to thank you again for compiling the
lists of things dancers ought to learn to do correctly, beliefs that might stop
someone from dancing, and the many ways in which information on dancing well
can be shared among dancers. I think it's unfortunate that you're sidestepping
the usefulness of these lists, but what the heck. They're great jumping-off
points for improving the traditional dance communities, especially when
combined with such techniques as Jonathan Sivier listed. I look forward to
thinking and writing more about how to use all these methods to strengthen
English and contra dance in our area.
Vanessa
Pwmaine
Re: the "belief" that one needs "formal instruction" - a different way of
framing this is that different people learn differently. Learning theory
based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, for example, suggests that some
people may learn most easily by hearing the key concepts involved in
contra dancing before dancing, practicing specific steps, or whatever,
rather than by joining right in a dance with experienced dancers. There
is no value judgement (according to learning theory nor IMHO) that people
who learn best by joining right in are somehow superior to those who
prefer more verbal explanation, walk-through, etc.
David A. Kaynor (Amherst RSD)
Greg McKenzie writes:
"My most serious criticism of the orientation
workshops is that they simply do not work. I think
that this design effort has demonstrated that these
workshops are one of the least effective ways to
address the problems that people list as their
reasons for holding them."
It has?
One thing this design effort HAS persuasively demonstrated is
that "orientation workshops" simply do not work for Greg.
What, how, and why I teach will all evolve as a result of this
discussion, and I am grateful to everyone whose contribution has
sustained it. All of your efforts...yes, Greg and Bill: Yours
too!...have fueled my eagerness for my next "Beginners' Hour."
I really do have to come up with a new name for it, though.
This is not the first discussion of our relationship to
beginners, nor will it be the last. As long as we have public
contra dances and concerns about our experiences at them, and
this newsgroup, it will resurface again and again.
My own future brightens each time, and I believe that others' do
as well. The last word on the subject will probably be written
neither by any of us nor for many years to come.
David Kaynor
--
Nancy K. Martin
Bill Tomczak (btom...@sover.net) wrote:
: I know these kinds of activities are happening all over the country
: side by side with the well-known popular (mainstream) dances. Whether
: we like it or not, there already is a split in the dance scene. I no
: longer see a point in trying to change the mainstream dance scene. It
: is what it is and is an inevitable part of the cycles Gene refers to.
: I remain involved in it because, as a musician, there are things I can
: do in it that I don't feel are appropriate at a non-commercial,
: non-mainstream dance. The goals are very different.
This labelling of urban high-power contra dancing as "mainstream"
really makes me sad because it bares the pretense that we can fix the
often unfriendly atmosphere on the dance floor. That term, mainstream,
tells us where we are and where we are going; the metamorphosis
(mutation?) is inexorable. It seems impossible to stop the best little
dance parties from eventually "growing" into
kid-graybeard-beginner-unfriendly contra juggernauts.
Family dances and beginner's workshops are heroic efforts to fix
what's broke. These patches affirm, by their very existence, that
the urban contra dance scene has evolved from the easy-going
friendly social scene of yesteryear to the contemporary intensely
figure-fixated, overtly physical, "mainstream". What's next,
recorded music?
Gene is probably right that these dance fads go through cycles, but
that means contra will experience a depression just like square dance
in the 1950's and international folk dance in the 70's, and for
similar reasons.
Maybe its true, the best strategy is to acknowledge that a split
has taken place, that the urban contra dances are going to stay on
their trajectory, careening into a future of their own making,
legitimate, if sometimes ridiculous. There are still some nice little
dances around, mostly out in the sticks. These parties I call "backwater"
dances, off the main line and relatively unaffected by the contra
express. The small town and grange hall dances here in the Pacific
Northwest usually attract lots of kids and a few elders. The dance
program is more likely than the big city dances to include mixers,
squares, circles, couple dances (how often do you get to dance a
schottische at an urban dance?) and other formations. The break is
often an important social time for these people; sometimes it seems
almost sacrilegious to ask them to put down their coffee cups and
quit all the chatting and clear all the playing kids off the floor
so the dance can start up again.
It might be a good thing for both groups of people to make a clean
break between mainstream and backwater dancing. If we can recognize
the unique character of the urban dances while cherishing the
values embodied in the backwater dances; if we would respect
backwater dances as a different kind of dance, not an inferior
boring event that needs to be improved; if we could say that, yes,
there are two types of contra/oldtime square dancing,
neither inferior nor superior to the other but different in
personality and goal; then maybe dividing into "mainstream" and
"backwater" would be a healthy move. Maybe there would be less push
to challengize the backwater dances if we respected them as a
distinct form of dance rather than as inferior contra dance.
I like Ralph Sweet's idea, laid out in his book, "Let's Create Old-Tyme
Square Dancing". As a response to the rise, and fall, of square dancing in
the 50's, derailed by the same problems we contra dancers are headed for,
Sweet sought to establish Old-Tyme Square Dances. The Old-Tyme clubs
would recapture the fun and welcoming spirit of some of the traditional
local dances and earlier club square dances in the Northeast that were
wiped out by the challenging dance club craze.
He felt the two dance styles could co-exist, that creating two
different types of the same dance, rather than trying to fix the
challenging clubs, would actually be beneficial for the oldtime
dances. One dance would be for the hotshots and the other for the
fun people (my interpretation!) Each would exist in its own right,
justifying itself only to itself, not in contrast to each other.
The Old-Tyme dance would not be a nursery for the challenging club
dance; that would imply "graduating" to the challenging dance.
Dancers could freely visit the different clubs and enjoy the
difference in style without having to judge.
The Old-Tyme dances would be organized around a set of guidelines
that would keep things open and friendly (with luck). The Old-Tyme
dance would be for those who love the dancing, the people and the
music but shy away from the competitiveness and elitism of the
challenging dances. The challenging dances would provide an outlet
for the Old-Tyme dancers who get bored (good riddance, I say!),
thus defanging their push to introduce more challenge into the Old-
Tyme dance. I've never met Ralph Sweet but I sure love that rascal.
I am positive we will move in this direction in the future. While
I still, and always will, attend urban dances, and play music and
call for them, I can see that the trend toward mainstreaming is
truly unstoppable. And maybe its a little arrogant to try to stop
it, I don't know. Better to surrender and start afresh, eh?
Bill Martin
gitf...@teleport.com
Kiran Wagle
nei...@bessel.nando.net (neilson) wrote:
> In my contra-dance experience, having beginners dance with experienced
> dancers is the key. It does not solve all the problems, because some
> of them cannot be "solved".
Beginners' workshops are not just there to "solve problems," despite what
certain people on this newsgroup would like us to believe. They are also
there to explain, and enlighten, and communicate--communicate things that
may not be *directly* related to dancing contra dances.
Here's an example. You don't *have* to make eye contact to do this (or
any) dance form. As somebody (who?) once said that contra dancing is an
"eye contact sport"--we *like* eye contact, whatever other benefits it
might have. But how many times have new dancers heard the tired litany of
"Look at your partner's face to keep from getting dizzy" from their
experienced partners?
Many of the beginners I dance with say this is simply untrue; they get
dizzy no matter what they do, and do not find they get notably less dizzy
from looking at their partner's face (or any fixed point on their
partner.) And newish dancers report that they found all this eye contact
quite uncomfortable at first.
Beginners' workshops provide a place to say "Contra dancers like eye
contact, and many dancers make eye contact with everyone, male or female.
We know this may make you uncomfortable at first, but most people get used
to it." It seems to me that saying this might be a bit more honest than
experienced dancers claiming it has uniform physiological effects that new
dancers claim not to notice.
Of course, a talky caller can decide to talk about *anything* from the
stage, and thus the claim could be made that no topic *must* be addressed
in a workshop setting. However, it seems to me that workshops are a
*better* place to cover certain topics than a noisy, crowded dance hall.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
--
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair.
Then I thought wouldn't it be much worse if life -were- fair and
all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually
deserve them? So now I take great comfort in the general hostility
and unfairness of the universe."--Babylon 5
Alan Gedance
I don't understand the agonizing and the "us versus them" discussion going
on about the state of contradancing. As an analogy, consider bridge
players. There are folks who like to play bridge while they chatter,
there are folks who like to chatter while they play bridge, and there are
those who just want to play bridge and can the chatter. Are any of them
better than the others? At least in my opinion, no! They're just
different. And here's all our discussion going on about the "split" in
contradancing. Is it terrible that some dancers go to a dance principally
for the purpose of dancing? Does that make them worse people than those
who go for the purpose of socializing? And who can say that these serious
dancers are not socializing in their own way?
On 11 Jul 1996, Nancy K. Martin wrote:
$ Bill Tomczak (btom...@sover.net) wrote:
$ : I know these kinds of activities are happening all over the country
$ : side by side with the well-known popular (mainstream) dances. Whether
$ : we like it or not, there already is a split in the dance scene. I no
$ : longer see a point in trying to change the mainstream dance scene. It
$ : is what it is and is an inevitable part of the cycles Gene refers to.
$ : I remain involved in it because, as a musician, there are things I can
$ : do in it that I don't feel are appropriate at a non-commercial,
$ : non-mainstream dance. The goals are very different.
$ This labelling of urban high-power contra dancing as "mainstream"
$ really makes me sad because it bares the pretense that we can fix the
$ often unfriendly atmosphere on the dance floor. That term, mainstream,
$ tells us where we are and where we are going; the metamorphosis
$ (mutation?) is inexorable. It seems impossible to stop the best little
$ dance parties from eventually "growing" into
$ kid-graybeard-beginner-unfriendly contra juggernauts.
It probably is impossible. Many people, through effort or talent or love
of the dance continue to improve. And to them, sloppy dancing has the
same effect that I'm certain that sloppy playing must have on a good
musician like Bill. And I firmly believe it's a big error to try to force
all dances to accommodate to a large influx of beginners and an equally
large group of folks that the more serious dancers view as permanent
beginners. This is a recipe guaranteed to promote an atmosphere viewed as
unfriendly by many. Just consider the center-set and book-ahead syndromes
so prevalent at many large dances.
$ Family dances and beginner's workshops are heroic efforts to fix
$ what's broke. These patches affirm, by their very existence, that
$ the urban contra dance scene has evolved from the easy-going
$ friendly social scene of yesteryear to the contemporary intensely
$ figure-fixated, overtly physical, "mainstream". What's next,
$ recorded music?
It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it! Recognize that some folks just
want to dance well, and no longer view the dance evening as just a big
party without alcohol. Just don't try the social engineering effort of
forcing the two ends of the spectrum *always* to dance together. Give the
serious dancers at least *some* opportunity to satisfy their desires, and
you'll probably find that many, if not most, will continue to support your
regular dances.
$ Gene is probably right that these dance fads go through cycles, but
$ that means contra will experience a depression just like square dance
$ in the 1950's and international folk dance in the 70's, and for
$ similar reasons.
$ Maybe its true, the best strategy is to acknowledge that a split
$ has taken place, that the urban contra dances are going to stay on
$ their trajectory, careening into a future of their own making,
$ legitimate, if sometimes ridiculous.
Yes, that is best, even though I don't like your pejorative description of
them.
$ There are still some nice little
$ dances around, mostly out in the sticks. These parties I call
$ "backwater"
$ dances, off the main line and relatively unaffected by the contra
$ express. The small town and grange hall dances here in the Pacific
$ Northwest usually attract lots of kids and a few elders. The dance
$ program is more likely than the big city dances to include mixers,
$ squares, circles, couple dances (how often do you get to dance a
$ schottische at an urban dance?) and other formations. The break is
$ often an important social time for these people; sometimes it seems
$ almost sacrilegious to ask them to put down their coffee cups and
$ quit all the chatting and clear all the playing kids off the floor
$ so the dance can start up again.
$ It might be a good thing for both groups of people to make a clean
$ break between mainstream and backwater dancing. If we can recognize
$ the unique character of the urban dances while cherishing the
$ values embodied in the backwater dances; if we would respect
$ backwater dances as a different kind of dance, not an inferior
$ boring event that needs to be improved; if we could say that, yes,
$ there are two types of contra/oldtime square dancing,
$ neither inferior nor superior to the other but different in
$ personality and goal; then maybe dividing into "mainstream" and
$ "backwater" would be a healthy move. Maybe there would be less push
$ to challengize the backwater dances if we respected them as a
$ distinct form of dance rather than as inferior contra dance.
Fine, now you're talking. And you can probably get cooperation from
many of the serious dancers in you efforts if you can get away from
describing them in terms like "intensely figure-fixated", and "overtly
physical"
$ I like Ralph Sweet's idea, laid out in his book, "Let's Create Old-Tyme
$ Square Dancing".
<..snip..>
$ He felt the two dance styles could co-exist, that creating two
$ different types of the same dance, rather than trying to fix the
$ challenging clubs, would actually be beneficial for the oldtime
$ dances. One dance would be for the hotshots and the other for the
$ fun people (my interpretation!)
Indeed!
$ Each would exist in its own right,
$ justifying itself only to itself, not in contrast to each other.
$ The Old-Tyme dance would not be a nursery for the challenging club
$ dance; that would imply "graduating" to the challenging dance.
$ Dancers could freely visit the different clubs and enjoy the
$ difference in style without having to judge.
$ The Old-Tyme dances would be organized around a set of guidelines
$ that would keep things open and friendly (with luck). The Old-Tyme
$ dance would be for those who love the dancing, the people and the
$ music but shy away from the competitiveness and elitism of the
$ challenging dances. The challenging dances would provide an outlet
$ for the Old-Tyme dancers who get bored (good riddance, I say!),
Is this an example of the warm, friendly spirit of contra dancing?
$ thus defanging their push to introduce more challenge into the Old-
$ Tyme dance. I've never met Ralph Sweet but I sure love that rascal.
$
$ I am positive we will move in this direction in the future. While
$ I still, and always will, attend urban dances, and play music and
$ call for them, I can see that the trend toward mainstreaming is
$ truly unstoppable. And maybe its a little arrogant
Maybe!
$ to try to stop
$ it, I don't know. Better to surrender and start afresh, eh?
$
$ Bill Martin
$ gitf...@teleport.com
No fresh start is needed. Just provide outlets for both types of dancing.
Encourage everyone to continue to improve, but don't attempt to force the
socializers to become Nureyevs nor the serious dancers always to do dance
in circumstances where many can't manage to dance to the music. The two
groups can continue to mix provided that the serious dancers can get
reasonable opportunity to dance in sets of largely like-minded people.
Alan
SamiFidler
Bill-
InMessage-ID: <31e176d6...@news.sover.net> you wrote
<Fred Breunig does a monthly dance here in East Putney. You'll not see,
<for the most part, much of what I now call 'mainstream' contra dancers
<at it. You will see high school kids, local folks, oldsters and
<youngsters. Fred can do a program with interest and variety (circles,
<squares, other odd formations I've never seen anywhere else) because
<he doesn't worry about those folks who need a night of all contras
<with a partner and corner swing in every dance. I suppose the
<'mainstreamers' would consider his dance boring for this reason. Those
<who come have a ball. The last time I played for that dance was pure,
<unadulterated fun. No, the music and the dancing weren't as
<spectacular or awe inspiring as you might find at the average
<Greenfield dance, but people had a really good time. Including the
<band.
Well, I guess I'm what you call a "mainstream" dancer, I travel up and
down the east coast to dances, I've danced at Greenfield ( and enjoyed it
immensely)- but I also attend local dances like and including Fred's, when
I can find them and really enjoy them too- I particularly enjoyed the
children's dance which preceded the adult dance the evening I attended, I
love dancing with kids, and am always happy to see them at dances - that's
where the future is. I've mentioned starting a kids series to my local
dance committee, we'll see what happens. I also loved the fact that Fred
called a few chesnuts (Chorus Jig - an alltime favorite of mine, and
Petronella, and we almost got to do Lamplighters), something practically
no one does here in Jersey. I'm glad the dance community is large and
varied enough to produce both kinds of series, and I'm glad I'm dancing
now when there is so much avaliable to someone if theyre willing to take
the time to look and ask. By the way, please thank Susan for me again for
letting me know about Fred's dance.
What was that quote "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times (
my apologies if I got it wrong.
Sami
GregMcK
David Kaynor writes:
"What, how, and why I teach will all evolve as a result of this
discussion, and I am grateful to everyone whose contribution has
sustained it."
Thank you David. And I certainly appreciate your contributions as well.
The discussion has also been helpful to me. I am glad that you see a need
for a new name. I hope that the name you choose will reflect the actual
purpose of your efforts. (What was that purpose again?)
Kiran Wagle writes:
"Beginners' workshops are not just there to "solve problems," despite what
certain people on this newsgroup would like us to believe. They are also
there to explain, and enlighten, and communicate--communicate things that
may not be *directly* related to dancing contra dances."
This is an excellent point! Many assume that the primary purpose of the
"beginner's orientation" is to teach dance skills. That is, after all,
what most of them attempt to do. The discussion here has revealed that,
for many people, teaching dance skills is not the primary goal. Just
getting this point across makes this thread worthwhile. Perhaps, as a
result, these "workshops" will begin to focus more on the goals we profess
rather than a mere rundown of "dance figures."
The "problem" analysis is simply a device to force people to focus on
their actual goals. If you think that your efforts are making a
difference then what, precisely, is that difference? How will you know if
your efforts are bearing any fruit?
I hope that this discussion induces people to think about these questions.
I am glad to see that one spin-off of this discussion is a thread on what
the future holds. The question is really about where we want this folk
tradition to evolve. Offering separate, formalized, instruction for
newcomers could have a significant influence on how the contradance
tradition changes. My passion for this issue stems from my concern about
some of the directions I see it evolving now.
If you are also concerned about how accessible our dance series are and
are leading such instruction I would like to make three suggestions:
1. As David suggests, change the name. Specifically, avoid words such as
"workshop" or "class." "Orientation" is better. (Or, how about something
like "party," or "social." Just a thought, mind you.)
2. Unless it really *is* a party, try limiting the time to 15 minutes.
Most of the "half-hour orientations" seldom last much longer than 15
minutes anyway. Be sure to note the 15 minute time in your dance flyers.
"Optional Orientation at 7:45" also seems more precise and may inspire
some to actually arrive on time. The shorter time slot will be a sign
that "this dancing is easy to learn."
3. Always include the word "optional" or some equivalent when listing the
"session." This will make the dance seem much more inviting and
accessible.
Instead of increasing the role these "workshops" play I would rather see
efforts at engaging the entire community of experienced dancers into the
process of welcoming newcomers and orienting them to our traditions. This
would, clearly, be a more convincing and effective way to make newcomers
have a great time on their first night and give them a sense of what the
joy of contradance is all about. There is clearly a need for a way to
pass on the traditions and excitement of contradance. Let's look for
effective ways to do that which engage more of our community in the
process.
Glick5
I have read with great interest all af the contributions to this thread.
It clearly is a topic that generates strong opinions - both pro and con.
Although I realize that many feel they have heard all they wish to hear on
this topic at this time <grin>, I would like to throw my $0.02 in.
Somewhere in this discussion, it is assumed that beginners actually show
up in significant numbers for this orientation session or workshop! My
experience is quite the opposite. I find mainly experienced dancers who
don't want to miss a single dance (or have to leave at the break to get
their babysitter home) to be the ones who are there early. No matter what
the flyer says, I find the beginners arriving primarily about half way
through te first half of the dance!
To those who have significant numbers of beginners who do arrive early for
the orientation session, you are doing something right, and have something
to build on. When that happens, the caller can plan a program which
introduces things in a logical way and which reinforces what the new
dancers have learned. We do have to remeber that it is in our interest as
dancers to have new people join our ranks, to provide new blood and new
enthusiasm to our group. Whatever is successful in bringing in new
dancers, and getting them enthused, is fine in my mind.
David Glick
Somewhere near Detroit
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Bill Tomczak
Bill Martin wrote:
>This labelling of urban high-power contra dancing as "mainstream"
>really makes me sad because it bares the pretense that we can fix the
>often unfriendly atmosphere on the dance floor.
The main reason I personally prefer terms like "mainstream" or
"commercial" is because I don't see this as something specific to
urban areas. Perhaps it is, but there is sufficient vagueness in my
mind about what exactly any of these terms mean for me to feel
comfortable saying "city-folk prefer 'A' and rural-folk prefer 'B'."
Also, I don't accept the idea that there is something to be 'fixed'. I
don't see the events themselves as broken. What *was* broken, to me,
was my own attitude. I've always thought of contra dancing as a
monolithic thing with a single character. In the last few years I have
come to discard what I now consider an erroneous belief. I intend (and
don't feel) any judgement about which is 'better'. They are merely
different and have different goals. I have my own personal preferences
as does everyone else, that's all.
>Family dances and beginner's workshops are heroic efforts to fix
>what's broke.
I see these only as people filling a need and creating something that
they really want to see created. Why do they have to be opposed to
what I call mainstream dances? It isn't like one has to 'win over' the
other. We're supposed to be a pluarlistic, democratic society. Can we
not even find acceptance of our differences in something so trivial as
a contra dance event?
>Gene is probably right that these dance fads go through cycles, but
>that means contra will experience a depression just like square dance
>in the 1950's and international folk dance in the 70's, and for
>similar reasons.
And yet there are still what you call 'backwater' dances. What makes
you think these will go away with the mainstream dances? Especially if
they are so different? For that matter, what makes you think the
mainstream dances are going away. I've heard people talk about the
'failure' of MWSD. Well here it is the 90s and they're still around.
Quite a nice failure, I think. If square dancing had it's heyday in
the 50s and we think of contra dancing having its peak in the 90s
(which isn't clear, perhaps it'll have it's peak in the early 21st
century) that means it'll still be around in the 2030s. I'll be 80
years old. Who knows maybe I'll join a MWSD club by then?
>It might be a good thing for both groups of people to make a clean
>break between mainstream and backwater dancing.
And what would this really mean? If we acknowledge my view of the
world and there really are a variety of things going on out there (I
see it more as a spectrum with a lot of possibilities rather than a
'split'), what more needs to be done? Part of the legacy of
contradancing is it's anarchy. The square dance movement got totally
into centralized organzation. Contra dancers seem to have a genetic
repulsion at the idea of a central authority detailing all the
accepted figures and training programs. There are strengths in both
these approaches.
I've heard stories of various callers getting fed up with the
direction of square dancing and 'dropping out' or 'quitting' in
disgust. For contra dance callers there is no organization as such to
'quit' or react against. They can only make different decisions about
what kinds of dances they call or where they choose to be hired.
>Maybe there would be less push
>to challengize the backwater dances if we respected them as a
>distinct form of dance rather than as inferior contra dance.
But this is the problem. Many people do seem to see them as boring and
in need of fixing. But the problem works in reverse, there are some
folks out there burning with the "community" ideology who seem to
think that the mainstream dances need to be "fixed". I say let
everyone be. Popular doesn't equal superior. The hard thing for some
of us not quite at the leading edge of contra dance technology is how
easy it is to feel insecure and threatened by that popularity. It's
human but we have to get over it.
>I like Ralph Sweet's idea, laid out in his book, "Let's Create Old-Tyme
>Square Dancing". As a response to the rise, and fall, of square dancing in
>the 50's, derailed by the same problems we contra dancers are headed for,
>Sweet sought to establish Old-Tyme Square Dances. The Old-Tyme clubs
>would recapture the fun and welcoming spirit of some of the traditional
>local dances and earlier club square dances in the Northeast that were
>wiped out by the challenging dance club craze.
But what go wiped out? Ralph Page and others were calling all through
this. Various kinds of local dances continued to happen. Contra
dancing arose out of a need that wasn't being met anymore. It has been
my contention for a long while now that people have a basic need to be
with each other in a friendly and social atmosphere. I really believe
that something like contra dancing, square dancing, MWSD clubs, or
whatever else there might be will always be around in some form.
The ironic thing about Ralph as an example is that I see him as firmly
settled in the mainstream camp these days.
>Each would exist in its own right,
>justifying itself only to itself, not in contrast to each other.
>The Old-Tyme dance would not be a nursery for the challenging club
>dance; that would imply "graduating" to the challenging dance.
>Dancers could freely visit the different clubs and enjoy the
>difference in style without having to judge.
Yeah. Sounds great. Due to its anarchic nature there might even be the
possibility that contra dancing might acheive something like this.
Unfortunately, I think the human race has a long way to go before we
learn to not judge each other on our own terms.
>I can see that the trend toward mainstreaming is
>truly unstoppable. And maybe its a little arrogant to try to stop
>it, I don't know. Better to surrender and start afresh, eh?
I would agree. People want what they want and it's unfair (and yes,
maybe arrogant) to say their taste is incorrect or inferior. Until we
give up our need for value judgements, Ralph's old tyme dance ideal
will be difficult to achieve.
Kiran Wagle
Bill Tomczak <btom...@sover.net> wrote:
> It has been my contention for a long while now that people have
> a basic need to be with each other in a friendly and social atmosphere.
I (strongly) agree.
What I don't understand is why some people want to mix this up with dancing.
[Some people just mix it up with dancing; others want to mix it up.]
Why not just go hang out at Curtis' after work on Tuesdays?
Isabel certainly enjoys the attention (and the potatoes.)
(For those of you who don't know, Curtis' All-American Ninth Wonder of the
World Bar-B-Q is a barbecue joint in Putney, Vermont, which Bill and I
frequent (as much as I can frequent someplace 500 miles away) but never at
the same time. <g> Isabel, a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig, works there--in
public relations, not in the kitchen--and likes to be fed potatoes by
visitors.)
Seriously, though. Another group of friends (net-people in the Boston
area, some of whom are dancers <wave>) do exactly this--they plan *purely*
social events at public places, and invite everyone. It seems that
something like this might be a better way of providing a social space (for
lots of people, not just dancers) without cluttering it up with dances and
music and sweat and stuff.
I don't understand why some people perceive the *goal* of (at least this
form of) dancing to be providing a venue for people to "be with each other
in a friendly and social atmosphere" rather than perceiving the "being
with each other..." as a (common) byproduct of a(ny) gathering of
like-minded people.
Claiming that the social aspect is *the reason* we get together may be
putting the cart before the horse.
~ Kiran
Nancy K. Martin
Following this "Damned" thread has been exhausting. Glad to see it
winding down. I have to say that, though my own attitude has not
changed much (I think it's genetic!), it has been absolutely
fascinating to witness the variety of viewpoints. So many ways of
approaching the topic. And so much passion! Like David Kaynor, it is
exhiliarating to realize that what I have learned from this thread can
only make me a better teacher. Now take a valium, everyone, and go
to bed.
I even picked up some great tips for the times when I just have to
conduct a beginner's session. Yessir, Mr. Kaynor. For instance,
from Peter Neilson, who teaches the buzz-step swing in a circle
before introducing ballroom position. Danny Hathaway, a great
teacher in Wales, uses that technique. Thanks for the reminder, Peter.
I guess, to keep things honest, I should say how I run a workshop.
My attitude is that the dance starts 15 minutes early, if a
workshop is in the works. The very first dance is a simplified
grand march. I just get everyone up while the band is doing the
sound check and have them follow the leader, little ol' me, single
file. We do some patterns, including lines crossing lines,
finishing up with joined hands in a big spiral in and reverse out
so we end up in a circle. At this point the energy is high and the
party is rolling - WITHOUT ANY TEACHING!
While in the circle, we do Hathaway's old trick: Join hands, take
a step back, elbows down, hands shoulder high, tense that bicep,
everybody start leaning back, slowly, hold your body a little
rigid, tilt back from your ankles, visualize yourself holding up
someone across the circle. We can usually lean quite far back,
farther than most thought possible, before crashing down. That's
a little lesson in giving weight, a big lesson in instant community,
and its a hell of a lot of fun - the first time!
Remaining in the circle, we now take partners and learn a simple
mixer such as AEIOU. This is where they learn to give weight one
on one while allemanding. It's worth spending a little time here because
even some of the experienced dancers present don't yet have it down. This
is also the place I teach the swing.
After they have danced this circle for awhile, the couples
follow me during the promenade and I lead them up the hall into
contra lines, keeping their new partner. This first contra dance,
usually the first official dance of the evening (the newly arrived
experienced dancers must hook onto the bottom of the already formed
line instead of hogging the top end), is often one without a courtesy
turn, such as Ralph Page's "Fiddle Hill Jig" or Tony Parke's "Orono
Special".
If the courtesy turn has not been introduced yet, the second dance
is usually a variation of "Le Set a Crochet", a quebecois scatter
mixer for couples which features ladies chain and/or right and left
through or whatever.
So, by the end of the second official dance of the evening, the
early arrivals have actually done four or five dances, none of
which are throw away sops for the untutored. There is very little
left to teach and the entire time to that point, rather than having
the ambience of a dance class, has been a party that the late arriving
dancers have missed out on.
The mix of dances is not quite what the experienced dancers expected,
which peaks their interest and distracts them. The mixers have emphasized
to the newcomers that you can dance with a variety of partners,
experienced or not, and that this evening of dance is essentially a social
party. If the newcomers don't have that attitude by the end of the second
dance, I'm not doing my job.
Le Set a Crochet
Where did I find it? I have pawed through my library but I just
can't find the book, an old out of print volume from Canada. Sorry.
I highly recommend this dance, its a blast, and odd enough that the
experienced people forget it's simplicity in their laughter. Timing
with the musical phrase really does not matter.
With nearest arm around partner's waist, couples roam the floor
in a mooing herd, no dominate direction discernible. (16 beats)
Find another couple, gents hook left elbows, keep arm around
partner's waist, turn all four like a big propeller. (16)
Gents break elbow hold, couples face, ladies chain 3X, or right
and left through 2X followed by ladies chain, to get new
partners. (24)
Swing that new partner. (8)
Bill Martin
gitf...@teleport.com
Bill Tomczak
Kiran Wagle wrote:
>Bill Tomczak <btom...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been my contention for a long while now that people have
>> a basic need to be with each other in a friendly and social atmosphere.
>
>I (strongly) agree.
>
>What I don't understand is why some people want to mix this up with dancing.
Dancing, when I started doing it, was a great way to be social. I
understand your point and agree about other venues. But it's really
nice to go out and actually *do* something with others in addition to
sitting around at Curtis' (whatever happened to you, by the way?) and
eat and/or drink. They all go together. Some people are really into
chess or card games or (gag) board games. These are fun things that
people can *do* together. It's why I think some kind of social dancing
will always be around.
I met people dancing and we'd go out afterward. Then we'd meet more
people we missed at the dance and at the next dance, we danced with
them. Or maybe went to a movie together, or played music together,
etc. I don't see any of this as either/or. I see it as all part of a
larger whole.
I assume some amount of this is part of any dance scene/event. But
what I see happening is the mainstream crowd making more of a focus on
the pure dance element. In my experience this tends to close the group
off to new blood for many of the reasons that have been discussed in
this newsgroup. I don't see this as a bad thing, just the way it looks
to me and something which makes 'mainstreaming' less interesting to
me.
>
>Why not just go hang out at Curtis' after work on Tuesdays?
>Isabel certainly enjoys the attention (and the potatoes.)
Do you actually go up to total strangers and strike up a conversation?
Sometimes I do, but normally I'm too shy to do that. The potential
inherent any group dance form (like contra dancing) is that it brings
people physically together in a way that can break through that kind
of reserve and shyness in a way that no other activity can.
>they plan *purely*
>social events at public places, and invite everyone. It seems that
>something like this might be a better way of providing a social space (for
>lots of people, not just dancers) without cluttering it up with dances and
>music and sweat and stuff.
So what does that hve to do with dancing? I agree that this is a great
thing. But I don't see why that should take away from the welcome and
openness that used to be a standard feature at contra dances. As the
dances become more aerobic and complex, the more difficult it is for
someone off the street to join in the fun.
The line used to be "If you can walk you can contra dance". I'm not so
sure we can say that as readily.
>
>I don't understand why some people perceive the *goal* of (at least this
>form of) dancing to be providing a venue for people to "be with each other
>in a friendly and social atmosphere" rather than perceiving the "being
>with each other..." as a (common) byproduct of a(ny) gathering of
>like-minded people.
I don't know, I've always thought that dancing with someone was
qualitatively different from sitting around in a restaurant. Am I
incorrect?
>
>Claiming that the social aspect is *the reason* we get together may be
>putting the cart before the horse.
Nowadays that may be perhaps true. I think that's partly my point.
When "the reason" contra dancers get together is to have an aerobic
personal dance high, it becomes less interesting to me. Becomes more
"mainstream". That's all. It isn't always like that and doesn't have
to be. Just as "the reason" doesn't have to be social. It's just that
those events are more interesting to me and seem to be less popular.
Kiran Wagle
(Hmm, maybe we should take this one to email.)
> Dancing, when I started doing it, was a great way to be social. I
> understand your point and agree about other venues. But it's really
> nice to go out and actually *do* something with others in addition to
I agree, of course. But I think the *doing* and the particular thing one
does is as important as the social aspect. Social interaction can and
usually happen at *any* event, even
> chess or card games or (gag) board games. These are fun things that
> people can *do* together.
Exactly--but what makes people choose one or the other activity? The
claim I question is that the purpose of dancing is *primarily* social,
that a party without alcohol (as some people put it) is the goal of the
gathering. I think the purpose of dancing is primarily dancing. :-)
> sitting around at Curtis' (whatever happened to you, by the way?) and
I got lost in a used bookstore in CT, and then got stuck in traffic in
*both* Hartford and Springfield and didn't get to Brattleboro till almost
time for the Dawn Dance. But I might try again on my way to a
Peterborough dance in the fall. <g> I like barbecue.
> I met people dancing and we'd go out afterward. Then we'd meet more
> people we missed at the dance and at the next dance, we danced with
> them. Or maybe went to a movie together, or played music together,
> etc. I don't see any of this as either/or. I see it as all part of a
I don't see enough of this. And I see less of it as time goes on. (And
in a couple of cases, I've *organized* after-dance food trips at venues
very far from my house. Of course, maybe it's just that us strangers from
out of town never get invited to the local gatherings, I donno.)
> I assume some amount of this is part of any dance scene/event. But
> what I see happening is the mainstream crowd making more of a focus on
> the pure dance element.
I think the (so-called) mainstream (I prefer "zesty urban" myself) danceS
are indeed focussing (I haven't been dancing long enough to say "more) on
the pure dance element. But perhaps unlike you, I would (!) see this as a
positive thing. I like dancing, and better dancing keeps me coming back.
But I *don't* think this is a good thing in the absence of other
opportunities for dancers to socialize. It's exactly this that I think
keeps the smaller communities of the Midwest and South so strong.
> In my experience this tends to close the group off to new blood
> for many of the reasons that have been discussed in this newsgroup.
> I don't see this as a bad thing, just the way it looks to me and
> something which makes 'mainstreaming' less interesting to me.
I am not sure I understand how "focusing on dancing" *itself* causes a
group to become closed to new blood. I'd think (subjunctive again) it
would be related to forgetting to provide non-dancing social opportunites
that are open to new dancers. I'd think that as long as we provide the
social opportunites, there would be no problem in focussing on dance while
dancing.
> Do you actually go up to total strangers and strike up a conversation?
> Sometimes I do, but normally I'm too shy to do that.
Everyone I know was a total stranger once. :-) And I am rarely approached
by anyone (in person or over the net) so I have always had to initiate
contact. This makes me quite bad at assessing the overall friendliness of
a group--people say (about a hall we both frequent :-)) "they book four
ahead and won't book with you unless they know you" and I say "Hrm, I
didn't have any trouble finding partners." But I *hear* that often enough
that I guess many people must find even contra dances a difficult social
situation.
> The potential inherent any group dance form (like contra dancing) is that
> it brings people physically together in a way that can break through that
> kind of reserve and shyness in a way that no other activity can.
IF the other people at the dance remember to ask. It still requires
effort on somebody's part. But, once again, I largely agree.
> So what does that hve to do with dancing? I agree that this is a great
> thing. But I don't see why that should take away from the welcome and
> openness that used to be a standard feature at contra dances. As the
I think that non-dance social activities are a good thing *for dances and
dancers.* I don't see a lack of welcome and opennness at the dance venues
I frequent; I see a lack of opportunities to make and maintain
connections. Talking during walkthroughs, for example, doesn't seem to me
to be rudeness, but simply an attempt to make or maintain connections
amongst people who see each other once or twice a week.
I would like to hear some specific examples of the kind of thing that you
think no longer happens at dances because we're all focussed on dance
skills, and how those things make the community less welcoming and open.
I feel as if I'm missing your point.
> As the dances become more aerobic and complex, the more difficult
> it is for someone off the street to join in the fun.
It does make it more difficult for anyone to join in the fun. However, it
may make it *more fun* for the people who like aerobic complexity. And
those people may be more reliable attendees, and pretty soon they will
predominate. I also think that real connection between people involves
more than just having fun. But that is a subject for another post <g>.)
> The line used to be "If you can walk you can contra dance". I'm not so
> sure we can say that as readily.
>>I don't understand why some people perceive the *goal* of (at least this
>>form of) dancing to be providing a venue for people to "be with each other
>>in a friendly and social atmosphere" rather than perceiving the "being
> I don't know, I've always thought that dancing with someone was
> qualitatively different from sitting around in a restaurant. Am I incorrect?
It is, of course, but I don't understand how that suggests the goal of
dancing is providing a social venue, as opposed to the goal being dancing?
>>Claiming that the social aspect is *the reason* we get together may be
>>putting the cart before the horse.
> Nowadays that may be perhaps true. I think that's partly my point.
> When "the reason" contra dancers get together is to have an aerobic
> personal dance high, it becomes less interesting to me. Becomes more
> "mainstream". That's all. It isn't always like that and doesn't have
> to be. Just as "the reason" doesn't have to be social. It's just that
> those events are more interesting to me and seem to be less popular.
Indeed. I think that there is room in the world for both kinds of
dancing, but I tend to prefer dance communities which find room for *both*
dancing and socializing.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
"Hello? is this Sally's Pizza?
I'd like to open a charge account, please."--Garry Trudeau, Doonesbury.
Alan Gedance
Warning- to keep this wieldy, there has been lots of snipping, and I've
generally not marked where the snips have occurred. This is a disclaimer
of any evil intent. Please refer to Kiran's original post if you feel
suspicious. It isn't my intention to bend anyone's meaning.- Alan
On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Kiran Wagle wrote:
> Bill Tomczak <btom...@sover.net> wrote:
> > Kiran Wagle wrote:
Kiran-
> Exactly--but what makes people choose one or the other activity? The
> claim I question is that the purpose of dancing is *primarily* social,
> that a party without alcohol (as some people put it) is the goal of the
> gathering. I think the purpose of dancing is primarily dancing. :-)
Alan-
Amen!
Bill-
> > I assume some amount of this is part of any dance scene/event. But
> > what I see happening is the mainstream crowd making more of a focus on
> > the pure dance element.
Kiran-
> I think the (so-called) mainstream (I prefer "zesty urban" myself) danceS
> are indeed focussing (I haven't been dancing long enough to say "more) on
> the pure dance element. But perhaps unlike you, I would (!) see this as a
> positive thing. I like dancing, and better dancing keeps me coming back.
Alan
It sure does. And poor dancing tends to drive away good dancers, so that
the beginners at such a dance scene have no one to learn from. The
problem is quite regenerative. Once a dance venue is known as a poor
one, the good dancers almost never come to it. There is a local dance
series put on by well-intentioned folks who are trying hard to make a go
of it. They've been doing it for years. I go to it several times a year
with high hopes, but low expectations. Unfortunately, my expectations
have always proven accurate except on very special holiday occasions like
Valentine's day.
Bill-
> > In my experience this tends to close the group off to new blood
> > for many of the reasons that have been discussed in this newsgroup.
> > I don't see this as a bad thing, just the way it looks to me and
> > something which makes 'mainstreaming' less interesting to me.
Kiran-
> I am not sure I understand how "focusing on dancing" *itself* causes a
> group to become closed to new blood.
Alan-
Nor do I. Don't we want to attract people who are interested in dancing,
and not merely putting up with it because it provides a nice social
situation?
Bill-
> > The potential inherent any group dance form (like contra dancing) is that
> > it brings people physically together in a way that can break through that
> > kind of reserve and shyness in a way that no other activity can.
Alan-
Yes, but can't we expect them actually to be interested in the dancing?
Bill-
> > thing. But I don't see why that should take away from the welcome and
> > openness that used to be a standard feature at contra dances. As the
Kiran-
> I think that non-dance social activities are a good thing *for dances and
> dancers.* I don't see a lack of welcome and opennness at the dance venues
> I frequent; I see a lack of opportunities to make and maintain
> connections. Talking during walkthroughs, for example, doesn't seem to me
> to be rudeness, but simply an attempt to make or maintain connections
> amongst people who see each other once or twice a week.
Alan-
Well, it certainly seems rude to me when the couple that you will be
dancing with is engaged in conversation while you're trying to hear the
caller, and when you have to start your dosido, balance, or whatever with
a person who is still quite actively talking.
Kiran-
> I would like to hear some specific examples of the kind of thing that you
> think no longer happens at dances because we're all focussed on dance
> skills, and how those things make the community less welcoming and open.
> I feel as if I'm missing your point.
Bill-
> > As the dances become more aerobic and complex, the more difficult
> > it is for someone off the street to join in the fun.
Alan-
That's quite true. But not all dance evenings or venues need to be
challenging from the first dance on, just as not all venues should
consider contra corners or "Lost in Space" too difficult ever to be danced
there.
Kiran-
> It does make it more difficult for anyone to join in the fun. However, it
> may make it *more fun* for the people who like aerobic complexity. And
> those people may be more reliable attendees, and pretty soon they will
> predominate. I also think that real connection between people involves
> more than just having fun. But that is a subject for another post <g>.)
<..snip..>
> >>I don't understand why some people perceive the *goal* of (at least this
> >>form of) dancing to be providing a venue for people to "be with each other
> >>in a friendly and social atmosphere" rather than perceiving the "being
Bill-
> > I don't know, I've always thought that dancing with someone was
> > qualitatively different from sitting around in a restaurant. Am I incorrect?
Kiran-
> It is, of course, but I don't understand how that suggests the goal of
> dancing is providing a social venue, as opposed to the goal being dancing?
>
> >>Claiming that the social aspect is *the reason* we get together may be
> >>putting the cart before the horse.
Alan-
As I see it, it's a case of different strokes for different folks.
Surely, some dance series should be very welcoming to beginners, but in my
opinion, not at the expense of not expecting the dancers to continue
learning. Not all of the dances should be selected on the basis that "if
you can walk, you can contra dance". There must be some incentive toward
improvement. If there isn't sufficient challenge in our contra dance
community, after some years of dancing those serious dancers who continue
to improve will leave contra dance out of shear boredom.
I suspect that much of the phenomena of booking ahead and of center set
syndrome stem from the desire of the long-time, good dancers to dance with
each other. Call it rude if you like, but the phenomena are there to stay
unless another outlet is given to these dancers. Attempting to force them
into different behavior is simply not going to work, and will not provide
newcomers with a warm welcome. The person who is actively avoiding
beginners is not likely to be a good partner for a beginner if he or she
is pressured into it.
I think that a weekly dance series should welcome beginners with
friendliness, and with good instruction. I think that it should not leave
it at that, but should provide continued instruction in style, and give
everyone the opportunity and incentive for continued improvement. As the
English country dancers do with their Playford Balls, the contra dance
communities should give occasional dances at which everyone is expected to
be able to dance at an experienced level. It's not elitism to encourage,
recognize and reward good dancing in a dance community.
Alan
Jon Leech
In article <entropy-1607...@192.0.2.3>,
Kiran Wagle <ent...@io.com> wrote:
>Exactly--but what makes people choose one or the other activity? The
>claim I question is that the purpose of dancing is *primarily* social,
>that a party without alcohol (as some people put it) is the goal of the
>gathering. I think the purpose of dancing is primarily dancing. :-)
It is stretching a bit to assign a primary "goal" to a diverse group of
people who just happen to be dancing. There are a lot more than two reasons
they might be there. On different nights the same person may come for
different reasons.
Jon
__@/
Kiran Wagle
mar...@teleport.com (Bill Martin) wrote:
> this "Damned" thread has been exhausting. Glad to see it winding down.
<laugh>
> I guess, to keep things honest, I should say how I run a workshop.
> My attitude is that the dance starts 15 minutes early, if a
> workshop is in the works. The very first dance is a simplified [...]
> so we end up in a circle. At this point the energy is
> high and the party is rolling - WITHOUT ANY TEACHING!
Without any *explicitly labelled* teaching. <grin>
This is exactly what seems to elude most opponents of beginners'
workshops. They've seen only badly designed, over-didactic "teaching"
(because most of these workshops are exactly that) and think that's all
there can be.
> someone across the circle. We can usually lean quite far back,
> farther than most thought possible, before crashing down. That's
> a little lesson in giving weight, a big lesson in instant community,
Oops, you're sneaking in some teaching here.
> mixer such as AEIOU. This is where they learn to give weight one
> on one while allemanding. It's worth spending a little time here because
> even some of the experienced dancers present don't yet have it down.
Now you're *really* teaching... gotta watch that.
> The mixers have emphasized to the newcomers that you can dance with
> a variety of partners, experienced or not, and that this evening of
> dance is essentially a social
Eeek, teaching! Run away run away.
Seriously, thanks for a wonderful post about how a beginners' workshop can
and should be taught (and it would take me a lot longer than 15 minutes.)
How you can be an opponent of them if you teach them this way quite eludes
me.
~ Kiran
--
"I like harmonica. It can add quite a nice dimension
to a band sound, especially on old-timey tunes."
"Yeah, but you play the accordion for God's sake."
--Bill Tomczak to Bob Stein on rec.folk-dancing
Dave Goldman
In article <4sjv3a$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gre...@aol.com (GregMcK) wrote:
> I'm not really interested in dancing -- never have been.
> -- Greg McKenzie
Well, _that_ certainly explains quite a bit about these Greg-McKenzie-vs.-
everyone-else discussions!
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
GregMcK
It has been said that dance is like a vessel which each person fills with
their own skills, needs, and interests. We all come with different
agendas. I, for example, am essentially a "non-dancer." I come for
social contact, the wonderful live music, and the sense of community
engendered by this activity. I do contras because I can...without having
to actually learn to dance. Yes Alan. It's true. I'm not really
interested in dancing -- never have been.
Contras, as a dance form, are unique in their ability to bring together
people with widely varying dance skill levels in a joyful, community
event. As such the dance form itself is limited in its ability to
satisfy, fully, the needs of serious dance buffs. If we try to change our
dance series to accommodate the needs of those who seek to be "challenged"
by the dance form we will fail. We will fail because there are so many
other dance forms which can satisfy that need much more effectively.
Contra dances in our area are frequented by some excellent, seasoned
dancers who have gone far beyond the challenges offered at a contra dance.
If you ask them what their "primary" dance form is, however, you will
often find that it is not contras. It is Scandinavian, or swing, or
ballroom or some other form. They come to contras for the live music and
for the social contact, not for the "challenge." These dancers contribute
greatly to our community and those of them who understand the role contras
play would not want to change the contra tradition.
For many people contras are a starting point in the world of dance. They
discover their own love of dance and long for more. There will always be
pressure for our dance organizers to accommodate the needs of these
developing dancers as they look for more challenging and expressive dance
forms. Contras, however, just do not offer the challenges and the
opportunities for self-expression that other dance forms do. To compete
in that arena we would need to change the contra dance form in a way which
would make it less accessible to newcomers and "non-dancers" like myself.
There will always be some "migration" of skilled dancers away from
contras. That is to be expected. Our best strategy is to do what we do
best and offer a fun, social dance evening for all experience levels.
Those who are attracted to that kind of evening should include a healthy
portion of experienced dancers who still enjoy contras for exactly what
the contra dance form does so well.
Just a thought,
Kiran Wagle
gre...@aol.com (Greg McKenzie) wrote:
> Yes Alan. It's true. I'm not really
> interested in dancing--never have been.
I hope that people remember this when reading your future postings.
> Contras, as a dance form, are unique in their ability to bring together
> people with widely varying dance skill levels in a joyful, community
Indeed, they *can*. But *should* they? Should they, if it means watering
down dancing to the lowest common denominator? which is exactly what must
be done to accomodate those of minimal or nonexistent dance skills.
> event. As such the dance form itself is limited in its
> ability to satisfy, fully, the needs of serious dance buffs.
"As such"? How does it follow that because contras *can* reach the lowest
common denominator, they *can't* reach a higher level?
I am a serious dance buff and contradance can and does satisfy me just
fine. And (Ugol's Law) it ain't just me. Lots of people are fully
satisfied by the contra dance form.
> If we try to change our dance series to accommodate the needs of
> those who seek to be "challenged" by the dance form we will fail.
WE will? Fail how? Do you have evidence for this claim?
(It seems pretty clear to me that there's plenty of demand for "advanced"
dance series, though whether the demand should actually be filled is a
different question. It's not so clear to me that there is enough demand
for "community" series to keep them financially viable.)
> We will fail because there are so many other dance forms
> which can satisfy that need much more effectively.
That's an interesting definition of failure.
Furthermore, lots of people are fully satisfied by the contra dance form,
just as lots of people are fully satisfied by the English dance form, the
swing dance form, and any other dance form. Contra dance, and all the
other forms, have unique characteristics. They are not interchangeable.
> For many people contras are a starting point in the world of dance. They
> discover their own love of dance and long for more. There will always be
Long for more what?
You often claim they long for other kinds of dancing, but plenty of us
long for more contras. Perhaps if you asked *why* serious, hard-core
dancers might *prefer* this form, you'd understand why your claims that
people who want more challenge should turn to other dance forms are false.
> Contras, however, just do not offer the challenges and the
> opportunities for self-expression that other dance forms do.
They don't?
One more unsubstantiated claim, to which I offer myself as
counterexample. Contras offer as much challenge and opportunity for
self-expression as any other human activity (dancing or not.) In some
ways, they offer *greater* opportunites for self-expression--after all, in
most other dance forms you dance with a partner *or* a group, but contra
dancers get to do both.
> To compete in that arena we would need to change
> the contra dance form in a way which would make it
> less accessible to newcomers and "non-dancers" like myself.
Indeed. So?
Why *not* change the contra dance form in a way that makes it more
enjoyable to dancers such as myself and Alan? Contra dance is neither a
museum piece nor a social-support program. And if contra dance is
*dance*, why should we care (lierally) if it's less accessible to
non-dancers?
(For the record, I think that changing the dance form in some particular
ways would (and *is*) causing it to *lose* those unique characteristics
that make some of us prefer it to other dance forms. However, I think
that if change is to be resisted, it should be resisted for good reasons,
and I don't think raw accessibility to "non-dancers" is a good reason.)
As for newcomers, *most* newcomers learn to contra dance in an evening or
two, and even faster if the overall level of dancing is high. In fact,
the *best* thing we can do to make the form itself accessible to newcomers
is to limit the number of newcomers at any single event. Perhaps offering
slightly more "challenge" would have this effect. But claims that more
challenge will shut out newcomers are false. The things making contra
dancing less accesible these days are not related to dance skills or
complexity.
> There will always be some "migration" of skilled dancers away from
> contras. That is to be expected. Our best strategy is to do what we do
> best and offer a fun, social dance evening for all experience levels.
But can we at least ask that the people who attend and continue to attend
be interested both in dancing and in improving themselves and their
dancing? Apparently not.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
--
"The sun's exploded, Henry. Who do you suggest we call, the fire department?"
Alan Gedance
Paul, I'm not quite sure whether you are directly addressing the question
of whether providing some challenge in contra dancing is good or bad.
Perhaps you're just musing on the passing scene. I've inserted some
questions and comments in your letter, and hope that I haven't misread
your intent. The general flavor that I get is that you think that
providing challenge is bad. Perhaps I'm wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 18 Jul 1996, Paul Tyler wrote:
<..much snipping..>
> In my experience many of the people who demand challenging dances, or
> who see themselves as high level dance have skipped over or avoided some
> very basic challenges, such as how to be a good dancer. The rudiments
> of being a good dancer are not in being able to do the figures. They
> have to do with how you interact with other dancers on both a physical
> and social level. I would like to make everyone who thinks of
> themselves as a good dancer be required to take a real beginners
> workshop: one that covers manners, bearing, style, grace, and
> consciousness of the whole set and floor.
I have yet to see a beginners' workshop which does that. I think that
extensive job is quite impossible to do with beginners even in an hour.
Its difficult to do even with somewhat experienced dancers, but certainly
worth a try. I'm very much in favor of such workshops.
> When I sit and watch (which I do a lot, now, with my 1 year old on my
> lap) I am appalled at the number of dancers who seem only to do the
> figures--complete with all the twirling flourishes in vogue at the
> moment--one after another with little awareness of how to flow from one
> figure to the next. It doesn't matter good the intrinsic flow of a
> composed dance, "good" dancers can screw it up.
These are the people we have to reach with continuing instruction and
encouragement.
> Somehow we have built up a
> dancing population that knows little or nothing about how country dance
> movements fit together, about how they must constantly orient themselves
> to their fellow dancers. No wonder squares are so hard to do with this
> current crop of contra dancers. Squares require a lot more spatial
> awareness. That's a challenge all the "good" contra dancers have
> avoided.
That's a point that I have been consistently trying to make. There is
almost no thought or effort being given to the encouragement of really
good dancing (not "good" as I believe you mean it), and beyond the
attention given to raw beginners, one is supposed to pick up skills by
observing the other dancers on the floor. But what percentage of them set
a good example?
> In my opinion, the contra dance movement peaked a dozen years ago. That
> doesn't mean it's fading away. I just sometimes wish it would go away
> so we could start over.
It's a pity if true. I've been dancing only about eight years, but I do
think that in some ways the dancing is going downhill. I notice that
fewer of the really good dancers turn up at our regular dances. I miss
the callers we had who provided a continuing thread of style instruction
at our regular dances.
Alan
Andy Wilson
In article <JlJv+94...@delphi.com>, B. Parkes <bpa...@delphi.com> wrote:
>
>I am amazed that this conversation about "dance-centric" versus
>"social-centric" dancing assumes that "social-centric" dancing
>is "bad" dancing (assuming that bad is the opposite of good)
>and that "dance-centric" dances encourage "good" dancing.
Hear, hear!
Good social interactions are INSEPARABLE from good dancing. You can't
have good dancing without the social interactions that facilitate it.
Does anyone really enjoy dancing with a jerk, no matter how well they
give weight, and arrive exactly on time, etc.? They will grumble and
complain about the other dancers (or worse, you) and make your dance
miserable, no matter how well they execute the figures.
>
>I do believe that racing to the top of the next set is
>a part of being a "bad" dancer.
Perhaps, but how many dances are we willing to sit out in the name of
not RUSHING to find our next partner? I do sit out from that cause, and
I'd rather be dancing, everytime.
>As is twirling a beginner too many times [snip]
>
>Other "bad" in my judgement (which is definately up for
>discussion) components of the "Mainstream" (cringe)
>contra dance scene:
>
>Pulling on allemandes (i.e. giving/carrying so much weight
>that it hurts the other person.) If you can do a gypsy 1 1/2
>in 8 steps you can do an allemande without giving any wight
>at all.
No one should be injured by the end of an evening of dancing. We should
all be considerate of our fellow dancers. Many of us adjust our dancing
to match the vigor, experience and enthusiasm of our current partner
(or neighbor...). Twirling a beginner too much (which may be at all)
really shows lack of consideration.
That said, yes, you can gypsy 1-1/2 in 8 steps, but that's not an
allemande! If the dance calls for an allemande, there should be some
weight given and received. I wish other dancers gave more weight,
overall, in circles and allemandes, not less. When they give weight
smoothly, without jerking on my arm, there is a great connection, and
the dancing feels great.
On a related topic, I wish more women (that's who I most often swing
with) would SHARE the weight generated in swings by pulling in with
their left arm on my right shoulder. It's great when I get that, but
that's not as often as I would like. When I don't get that, my right
arm starts to hurt after a while. I wonder if more women don't do
that because they already feel like they're spinning faster than they
want to, and they know that sharing the weight will help us go faster, or
is it just that they were taught that men should carry the weight here?
I guess I better put on my asbestos underwear with that set-up...
Though seriously, I do work pretty hard to be accomodating to my
partner's dancing style. Any takers on that question?
>
[snip]
>
>I guess it just pushed a button
>to hear someone say that social-centric equaled not good
>dancing. This is, after all, SOCIAL dance.
Well said!
Alan Gedance
On 18 Jul 1996, Jonathan Sivier wrote:
<.. for sake of brevity, I snipped Pauls comments..>
> I agree with Paul that merely being able to do all the figures does not
> make one a good dancer. I'd call that an intermediate level, beyond the
> confusion that beginners sometimes experience, but not yet a good dancer.
> Many people make it this far and no further. Here are some suggestion I
> put together with the assistance of other dancers in central Illinois.
>
> The Top Ten (plus) Things That Make a Good (Contra) Dancer.
>
> A good dancer...
<..ten great descriptions snipped..>
A great list of skills and traits! But how do we achieve them as a group?
It seems as if no one wants to discuss that. Instead, any attempt to
focus on an actual interest in good dancing seems to be viewed with
suspicion of dark, selfish, ulterior motives, likely to lead to the
downfall of contra dancing.
Alan
B. Parkes
Alan Gedance <aged...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>Bill-
>> > I assume some amount of this is part of any dance scene/event. But
>> > what I see happening is the mainstream crowd making more of a focus on
>> > the pure dance element.
>
>Kiran-
>> I think the (so-called) mainstream (I prefer "zesty urban" myself) danceS
>> are indeed focussing (I haven't been dancing long enough to say "more) on
>> the pure dance element. But perhaps unlike you, I would (!) see this as a
>> positive thing. I like dancing, and better dancing keeps me coming back.
>Alan
>It sure does. And poor dancing tends to drive away good dancers, so that
"social-centric" dancing assumes that "social-centric" dancing
is "bad" dancing (assuming that bad is the opposite of good)
and that "dance-centric" dances encourage "good" dancing.
too manyu times. (I would say at all, but I bend to the
modern evolution of contra dance. In many communities no
one knows a do-si-do or ladies chain twirl is a variation!)
These behaviors prevail at what I cringe to hear you
calling "mainstream."
Other "bad" in my judgement (which is definately up for
discussion) components of the "Mainstream" (cringe)
contra dance scene:
Pulling on allemandes (i.e. giving/carrying so much weight
that it hurts the other person.) If you can do a gypsy 1 1/2
in 8 steps you can do an allemande without giving any wight
at all.
is a common error of new dancers as well, but it is
prevelent in modern boom contra dances, too.
booking ahead
ignoring the band (i.e. not applauding, cheering, etc.)
wearing work-out clothes. (now I am getting into the
realm of very personal opinion, but to me this change
in atire indicates the basic change from "social event"
to dance-centric. I feel like an old fuddy-duddy saying this,
but I don't like dancing with people in tank tops and shorts.
It says to me that the dancer's own comfort was more
important than the social interaction.
I could go on, but this is already too negative. Sorry
'bout that. There is lots I like OK about the modern
contra dance scene, too. I guess it just pushed a button
to hear someone say that social-centric equaled not good
dance for its own sake, join a performance group.
Beth (off soapbox now) Parkes
Alan Gedance
On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, B. Parkes wrote:
<..snip..>
> I am amazed that this conversation about "dance-centric" versus
> "social-centric" dancing assumes that "social-centric" dancing
> is "bad" dancing (assuming that bad is the opposite of good)
> and that "dance-centric" dances encourage "good" dancing.
Beth, I don't believe that anyone is saying that social-centric dancing is
a bad thing. But it certainly can be, and frequently is, pretty poor
dancing. It still might be a fine evening for many folks there, like the
previous poster who said that he's really not interested in the dancing,
but for many others who have been dancing several nights a week for years
it is not entirely satisfying. I believe that boredom is a major cause of
the phenomena of booking ahead, center line syndrome, and just plain
rudeness deplored so frequently in this newsgroup. Any discussion of
attempts to improve dancing or provide occasional outlets for skilled
dancers now seems to be viewed as subversive.
> I do believe that racing to the top of the next set is
> a part of being a "bad" dancer. As is twirling a beginner
> too manyu times. (I would say at all, but I bend to the
> modern evolution of contra dance. In many communities no
> one knows a do-si-do or ladies chain twirl is a variation!)
> These behaviors prevail at what I cringe to hear you
> calling "mainstream."
>
> Other "bad" in my judgement (which is definately up for
> discussion) components of the "Mainstream" (cringe)
> contra dance scene:
>
> Pulling on allemandes (i.e. giving/carrying so much weight
> that it hurts the other person.) If you can do a gypsy 1 1/2
> in 8 steps you can do an allemande without giving any wight
> at all.
>
> Not keeping your feet underneath you. Granted that this
> is a common error of new dancers as well, but it is
> prevelent in modern boom contra dances, too.
Where is anyone to learn these things if they are almost never taught?
In almost all of the regular dance series that I attend, once a newcomer
manages to survive his or her first evening, almost nothing of any
significance is taught. Everyone is expected to learn everything
necessary only by imitation of the surrounding dancers. And since they
learned the same way, its no wonder that the things you complain of above
happen.
> booking ahead
Put skilled dancers in an environment in which almost everyone is equally
skilled and the sexes are balanced, and booking ahead will most likely
disappear. There's far less of it at dance festivals where almost
everyone attends for the love of dancing.
> ignoring the band (i.e. not applauding, cheering, etc.)
> wearing work-out clothes. (now I am getting into the
> realm of very personal opinion, but to me this change
> in atire indicates the basic change from "social event"
> to dance-centric. I feel like an old fuddy-duddy saying this,
> but I don't like dancing with people in tank tops and shorts.
> It says to me that the dancer's own comfort was more
> important than the social interaction.
No, it says that the dancing is important.
> I could go on, but this is already too negative. Sorry
> 'bout that. There is lots I like OK about the modern
> contra dance scene, too. I guess it just pushed a button
> to hear someone say that social-centric equaled not good
> dancing. This is, after all, SOCIAL dance. If you want
> dance for its own sake, join a performance group.
Or a dance group to which dancing is actually important.
> Beth (off soapbox now) Parkes
Beth, this is in no way to be taken as a criticism of your calling. You
and Tony are amongst the best, and are good teachers as well. But for the
most part very little is being done to promote and encourage skilled
contra dancing, and the very suggestion of it seems to be taken as
downright unfriendly these days.
Alan
Jonathan Sivier
Paul Tyler <pty...@wwa.com> writes:
>In my experience many of the people who demand challenging dances, or who
>see themselves as high level dance have skipped over or avoided some very
>basic challenges, such as how to be a good dancer. The rudiments of being a
>good dancer are not in being able to do the figures. They have to do with
>how you interact with other dancers on both a physical and social level. I
I agree with Paul that merely being able to do all the figures does not
make one a good dancer. I'd call that an intermediate level, beyond the
confusion that beginners sometimes experience, but not yet a good dancer.
Many people make it this far and no further. Here are some suggestion I
put together with the assistance of other dancers in central Illinois.
The Top Ten (plus) Things That Make a Good (Contra) Dancer.
A good dancer...
1. Is always on time for the next figure, and makes sure his/her partner is
as well. Dance with the music, on the beat and with the phrases.
Flourishes can be fun, but should only be done if there is extra time
available. It can be just as satisfying to spend a few seconds holding
hands with your partner as it is to twirl around three extra times.
2. Dances at the level of their partner. Adjust your dancing to match the
skill level and style of whoever you may be dancing with at the moment.
This means making a very quick evaluation as you meet someone in the line
and modifying your dancing to accomadate them. For instance, follow
the signals of the person being chained as to whether to twirl or do a
normal courtesy turn. Don't try fancy embellishments until your partner
is ready for them.
3. Has a smooth swing. All motion should be horizontal, none vertical.
Whether you use a walking swing or a buzz step, make sure it is smooth.
Imagine there's a glass of water on the top of your head. Hold your back
straight with your arms up, your shoulders parallel to your partner's
and your weight over your own feet. Don't hang on your partner, the
support you give one another is just what is needed to keep the
centrifugal force of the swing from throwing you apart.
4. Gives lots of eye contact. On all figures look at the people you are
dancing with. This goes for circles and same-sex allemandes just as
much as for gypsies and swings. Flirt with the people you meet, it's
fun and non-fattening.
5. Dances with the entire set and not just as an individual or a couple. It
is possible to concentrate so much on your own dancing pleasure that you
annoy or disrupt the other people in the set.
6. Can recover if the set gets messed up. If you get lost or your minor
set breaks down you should know where you need to go next. Skip the next
figure or figures, walk to progressed position or to the next partner
swing, and get ready to pick up when the music comes around again.
7. Gives weight on all figures where you contact other dancers. Hold your
arms firm, but springy, so the other person knows they are dancing with
someone. Give them your support.
8. Is gentle with their partner. Never force unnecessary physical stress or
movement on another dancer. Always make sure your partner has stopped
moving before letting go after a swing or a twirl. Don't squeeze or
twist other dancers' hands on allemandes or balances, make your hands
like hooks and hook the other person's hand such that you have a firm
connection, but so that they can be released easily.
9. Always makes sure their partner has a good time. Have fun, it's what
we're there for, but make sure that everyone else does as well.
10. Can dance the opposite part. Men will learn a lot from being chained.
Women will learn a lot from leading a swing.
11. Can dance well with newcomers. Make them feel welcome and help them
learn.
12. Is always courteous to the other dancers. Always listen politely to the
caller during the walk-through, you may know this dance by heart, but the
people around you may not. Always..., but that's another list.
Thanks for the contributions from;
Jane Billman
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Cindy Dodds
Robert Ennis
Elizabeth Gremore
Lyle Hodgson
Manohar Kulkarni
Patricia Ann Moffitt
John D. Noonan
Jonathan Sivier
>In my opinion, the contra dance movement peaked a dozen years ago. That
>doesn't mean it's fading away. I just sometimes wish it would go away so we
>could start over.
Given that I started dancing less than 9 years ago I guess I missed out.
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier | Ballo ergo sum. |
| j-si...@uiuc.edu | (I dance therefore I am.) |
| Flight Simulation Lab | - des Cartwright |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Tyler
Alan Gedance <aged...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>
>Why will you fail if you change your dance series? Why not supplement it
>with occasional evenings of challenging dances? And why not have your
>regular series provide occasional teaching that goes beyond teaching the
>rudiments to raw beginners? If this were done you might find yourself
>actually getting interested in dancing!
>
[snip]
>
>As for changing the contra tradition, in some ways circumstance has
>changed it already. I doubt very much that at the time Chorus Jig or
>Hull's Victory were written that weekly contra dance series were common.
>Today in many metropolitan centers people do contra several times a week.
>In the Baltimore-Washington area there are many people who dance contra
>three times a week, except when they dance four. Is it wrong for them to
>enjoy dancing occasionally at a level impractical to achieve at a regular
>weekly dance?
It's been a while since I've inflicted my irascibility on topics of this
ilk. But today I can't help myself, so here goes.
In my experience many of the people who demand challenging dances, or who
see themselves as high level dance have skipped over or avoided some very
basic challenges, such as how to be a good dancer. The rudiments of being a
good dancer are not in being able to do the figures. They have to do with
how you interact with other dancers on both a physical and social level. I
would like to make everyone who thinks of themselves as a good dancer be
required to take a real beginners workshop: one that covers manners,
bearing, style, grace, and consciousness of the whole set and floor.
When I sit and watch (which I do a lot, now, with my 1 year old on
my lap) I am appalled at the number of dancers who seem only to do the
figures--complete with all the twirling flourishes in vogue at the
moment--one after another with little awareness of how to flow from one
figure to the next. It doesn't matter good the intrinsic flow of a composed
dance, "good" dancers can screw it up. Somehow we have built up a dancing
population that knows little or nothing about how country dance movements
fit together, about how they must constantly orient themselves to their
fellow dancers. No wonder squares are so hard to do with this current crop
of contra dancers. Squares require a lot more spatial awareness. That's a
challenge all the "good" contra dancers have avoided.
In my opinion, the contra dance movement peaked a dozen years ago. That
doesn't mean it's fading away. I just sometimes wish it would go away so we
could start over.
End of rant.
Paul "I'm really not as mean as I sound" Tyler
Alan Gedance
On 17 Jul 1996, GregMcK wrote:
>
> It has been said that dance is like a vessel which each person fills with
> their own skills, needs, and interests. We all come with different
> agendas. I, for example, am essentially a "non-dancer." I come for
> social contact, the wonderful live music, and the sense of community
> engendered by this activity. I do contras because I can...without having
> to actually learn to dance. Yes Alan. It's true. I'm not really
> interested in dancing -- never have been.
I see no problem in that.
> Contras, as a dance form, are unique in their ability to bring together
> people with widely varying dance skill levels in a joyful, community
> event.
Certainly true.
> As such the dance form itself is limited in its ability to
> satisfy, fully, the needs of serious dance buffs. If we try to change our
> dance series to accommodate the needs of those who seek to be "challenged"
> by the dance form we will fail. We will fail because there are so many
> other dance forms which can satisfy that need much more effectively.
Here's where I start to disagree with you strongly. Contra dancing is
uniquely capable of providing challenges in dancing that cut across many
dance and sports forms. Like a ballet or a chorus line, contra has many
people dancing together as one big organism. When everyone in the hall
balances at exactly the same time, or when those long lines manage to go
forward and back as long *straight* lines there is a real feeling of
satisfaction spread through the hall. And yet, in between the critical
moments when the whole hall must move in unison, there is room for
improvisation just as there is in swing or Lindy. And when one twirls out
of a swing with one partner at just the right moment to start a swing or
allemande with the next partner, as yet unseen, one has a lot in common
with a circus aerialist twirling through the air into the arms of the
catcher. This feels excitingly satisfying.
Why will you fail if you change your dance series? Why not supplement it
with occasional evenings of challenging dances? And why not have your
regular series provide occasional teaching that goes beyond teaching the
rudiments to raw beginners? If this were done you might find yourself
actually getting interested in dancing!
> Contra dances in our area are frequented by some excellent, seasoned
> dancers who have gone far beyond the challenges offered at a contra dance.
> If you ask them what their "primary" dance form is, however, you will
> often find that it is not contras. It is Scandinavian, or swing, or
> ballroom or some other form. They come to contras for the live music and
> for the social contact, not for the "challenge." These dancers contribute
> greatly to our community and those of them who understand the role contras
> play would not want to change the contra tradition.
That might well be true for some contra dancers, but certainly not for
all. I do some swing and Scandinavian dancing, but for me they just don't
provide the same thrills that good, crisp contra dancing does. They don't
have the challenge of maintaining one's sense of orientation, or of
instantly accommodating to the transitions from partner to partner.
As for changing the contra tradition, in some ways circumstance has
changed it already. I doubt very much that at the time Chorus Jig or
Hull's Victory were written that weekly contra dance series were common.
Today in many metropolitan centers people do contra several times a week.
In the Baltimore-Washington area there are many people who dance contra
three times a week, except when they dance four. Is it wrong for them to
enjoy dancing occasionally at a level impractical to achieve at a regular
weekly dance?
> For many people contras are a starting point in the world of dance. They
> discover their own love of dance and long for more. There will always be
> pressure for our dance organizers to accommodate the needs of these
> developing dancers as they look for more challenging and expressive dance
> forms. Contras, however, just do not offer the challenges and the
> opportunities for self-expression that other dance forms do.
That is a matter of opinion, and is certainly not mine, nor is it the
opinion of many, many others.
> To compete
> in that arena we would need to change the contra dance form in a way which
> would make it less accessible to newcomers and "non-dancers" like myself.
No, there would only need to be some outlet for those people who want to
dance at a higher skill level. This could be in the form of occasional
special dances, or possibly other dance series which would more actively
encourage and teach better dancing.
> There will always be some "migration" of skilled dancers away from
> contras. That is to be expected.
Yes, but there would be less of it if better opportunities for skilled
contra dancing were available. And many of the skilled dancers would
continue to attend the regular dance series for just the reasons that
you've cited.
> Our best strategy is to do what we do
> best and offer a fun, social dance evening for all experience levels.
> Those who are attracted to that kind of evening should include a healthy
> portion of experienced dancers who still enjoy contras for exactly what
> the contra dance form does so well.
>
> Just a thought,
> Greg McKenzie
> Somewhere near Santa Cruz
Greg, I leave you with this thought. If there were more opportunity for
satisfaction of the desires of the skilled dancers, perhaps we would see
less of the booking ahead, the center set syndrome, and the perceived
rudeness to beginners which frequently are discussed and lamented in this
newsgroup.
Alan
Jon Leech
>realm of very personal opinion, but to me this change
>in atire indicates the basic change from "social event"
>to dance-centric. I feel like an old fuddy-duddy saying this,
>but I don't like dancing with people in tank tops and shorts.
>It says to me that the dancer's own comfort was more
>important than the social interaction.
Given an air-conditioned hall to dance in, I'd dress up a bit more. The
summer months - April through October - here are deadly. Women generally
don't suffer nearly as much from heat, as external signs (pouring sweat,
say) go.
>I could go on, but this is already too negative. Sorry
>'bout that. There is lots I like OK about the modern
>contra dance scene, too. I guess it just pushed a button
>to hear someone say that social-centric equaled not good
>dancing. This is, after all, SOCIAL dance. If you want
>dance for its own sake, join a performance group.
Some think it's SOCIAL dance, some social DANCE.
Everyone has to dance with everyone else, unlike partner dancing. As
long as the complaints are coming about equally from not-social-enough and
not-skilled-enough camps, things may be going as well as can be expected.
Jon
__@/
wesle...@delphi.com
B. Parkes <bpa...@delphi.com> writes:
>Other "bad" in my judgement (which is definately up for
>discussion) components of the "Mainstream" (cringe)
>contra dance scene:
>
>Pulling on allemandes (i.e. giving/carrying so much weight
>that it hurts the other person.) If you can do a gypsy 1 1/2
>in 8 steps you can do an allemande without giving any wight
>at all.
allemande, but when "giving weight" means leaning away from the person
that you're allemanding with, it can hurt! The same goes for those who
lean back during a swing while expecting the other person to hold them up.
>wearing work-out clothes. (now I am getting into the
>realm of very personal opinion, but to me this change
>in atire indicates the basic change from "social event"
>to dance-centric. I feel like an old fuddy-duddy saying this,
>but I don't like dancing with people in tank tops and shorts.
>It says to me that the dancer's own comfort was more
>important than the social interaction.
my shorts? It was 111 degrees outside during our last dance, and
while the hall was air-conditioned, it wasn't THAT air-conditioned.
(The high for the day was 111 at our last dance, but it was still warm).
Kiran Wagle
B. Parkes <bpa...@delphi.com> wrote:
> Alan Gedance <aged...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
BT> what I see happening is the mainstream crowd making more of a focus on
BT> the pure dance element.
AG> And poor dancing tends to drive away good dancers, so that
> I am amazed that this conversation about "dance-centric" versus
> "social-centric" dancing assumes that "social-centric" dancing
> is "bad" dancing (assuming that bad is the opposite of good)
> and that "dance-centric" dances encourage "good" dancing.
Indeed, this seems to be a common misconception, and one I made myself.
I think it would help clarify the current discussion (which I find quite
interesting and would like to see continue) if certain people (in
particular Bill, Paul, Alan and you) were to define (with specific
examples!) both "dance-centric" and "social-centric" (good terms, IMO)
dancing, and perhaps even define good dancing--though Jonathan's post did
that quite well already.
It usually helps, especially in a thread as complex as this one has gotten
(and you all should be thankful Bill and I took part of it to email!) if
we both know and agree upon what we are talking about.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
--
"The Tasmanian Devil is so awful that he is protected by the government."
......................Will Cuppy, _How to get from January to December_
<http://www.io.com/contradance/> 1628 5th St NW Wash DC 20001 (202) 483-3373
Alan Gedance
On 19 Jul 1996, Paul Tyler wrote:
> This started out as response in email, but then I remembered
> that the discussion was ongoing here in the newsgroup. . .
So it did, and here's my temporary reply.- Alan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul:
I've received your long, thoughtful letter, and don't have time to reply
in full just now. I share some, but not all, of your thoughts. The
dilemma lies in how to differentiate in speech between good dancers and
"good" dancers, the quotes used in this case to indicate those who have a
much higher view of their abilities than is the assessment of anyone else
on the dance floor. They are the ones who seem to attempt to offset being
late for most transitions by being early for the rest. Frequent dancing
with these folks could justifiably cause an increase in one's accident
insurance premium.
This being said, I think there is room for challenging dances to be done
by good (without the quotes) dancers. Let me assure you that my
definition of good includes the ability to dance gracefully, gently, and
thoughtfully, but it does not exclude the practice of embellishments and
flourishes which don't intrude on one's neighbors. It also doesn't
exclude sweat. I'll try to get back and write more later.
Alan
Paul Tyler
This started out as response in email, but then I remembered
that the discussion was ongoing here in the newsgroup. . .
I can think of a few exceptions, but I'm convinced that most
people who feel they need even challenging contras are bad
dancers. Yes, I think providing challenge in this sense is bad
for the old time dance scene. The scene has changed
tremendously and it's become unrecognizable from what it used
to be back in my good old days. And yes, I think that's bad.
Part of it is natural evolution over time. A lot of people
quit dancing at certain life stages (it becomes much harder
when you've got a family to raise). I know a lot of people who
have quit and would like to come back but don't because the
dance scene has changed so drastically. Part of the change has
been this accleration of new dancers and new choreographies and
new challenges. It's been an inflationary spiral that didn't
mean to be, but was and is quite detrimental to the dance
scene. I know a lot of dancers who think of themselves as good
dancers because they can execute a complex set of moves within
a 32-bar span and be more or less ready to do it again with the
next couple and make it all the way down the line and back.
And they judge a dance by how much challenge it has in it.
That is not a definition of good dancing. These same dancers
swing and twirl wildly; invade my space; get my "neighbor" or
my partner to me anywhere from a split second to two beats too
late; and have no idea how to dance even the simplest of
squares.
And I don't think this is limited to Chicago.
You know. I have some personal guilt involved in all this. I
got caught up in the writing new contras craze back in the
early '80s. Most of the things I foisted off on dancers were
mind-bending at the time. I wish I had listened to the critics
back then who said, "Whoa, that's too complicated." But the
dancers who couldn't collectively handle complicated figure
combinations were much better at some of the basics such as
dancing to the phrase and understanding the shifting spatial
orientations that are part of the flow of contra and square
choreography.
I jumped out of the inflationary spiral about ten years ago
(but kept calling square dances for beginners). I soured on
the contra scene partially because some people would boo or
complain out loud when I said "square your sets." (Dancers
here in the Midwest used to cheer.) I just reentered the
contra "mainstream" in the last few years. Right now, I have
to quite baldly declare that the scene sucks. Rude dancing is
rampant. I don't think many of the dancers who have come along
in the last ten years ever learned some of the basics,
primarily respect for the people you are dancing with, respect
for the tradition, or respect for the artistic discipline
required to be a good dancer.
A good example is the hey. I first danced a hey in a contra at
Pinewoods English-American Week in 1979 with Ted Sanella
teaching. He clued us in to how exciting it was to have your
partner suddenly materialize for a swing. And so all us
energetic young dancers took up the challenge of how to pass
someone in the center and twirl around before passing on the
outside. It was a heady experience at Pinewoods with that
combination of more stately English country dancers and
exuberant young old time dancers from Bloomington, Washington
and New England. We nailed it.
I took one of two of those dances home with me (Al Olsen's Hey
Day #s 1 and 2) and began using one or the other at every
calling date (ranging from Georgia to Minnesota). Teaching the
hey was a real trip in those days. Most dancers had never done
it and it was a bit hit or miss. I felt like a real hey
pioneer in the Midwest and South. By 1994 at the Knoxville
Winter Weekend, the hey was ubiquitous. Every, and I mean
every, caller at the open stage did their own new composition
that featured a hey. It was pretty boring. The hey dropped
out of my repertoire like a hot potato.
Now when we do a hey at our Monday night dance or at a dance
weekend, the hey is a dreadful experience. Dancers have
devised all sorts of new twirls, including some where you grab
ahold of each other. Artistically I find them counter to the
spirit of the hey; stylistically I find them intrusive in terms
of the flow of the hey (I usually have to step out of some
twirling dervish's way); and practically, I find that no one
ever gets to the next figure on time.
I keep harping about grace and style. To paraphrase Duke
Ellington, if you have to ask what that is . . . Do I mean
you personally? I would like to think not. But more often I
find myself wishing that all the new contra dancers,
particularly those who want greater and greater challenges, to
go off on their own and give us our dance back. I would much
rather dance with those groups that had trouble learning the
hey but knew how do dance to the music and how to treat and
respect their fellow dancers. That's what I mean by good
dancing.
And that's what I mean by social dancing. People come to dance
together because it's something you do intrinsically with other
people. It's not like going to the gym to do your workout. Oh
yea, you may interact with other people when you're there. But
if you are the only person at the gym, you can still do your
workout. Socializing and country dancing are intextricably
intertwined. I would like to see that emphasized once again.
More and more today, I think people treat the weekly contra as
a trip to the gym. They go for their own workout, be it
physical exercise or mental challenge. Take note of the people
who come with gym bags and changes of clothes and sweat bands
and water bottles. If you sweat so much you have to change
shirts, maybe you're not really dancing.
Just a thought. (Actually, quite a few of them.) And I really
am a nice guy, but after 35 years of dancing, I've built up an
opinion or two.
Paul Tyler
Alan Gedance
On 19 Jul 1996, Gene Hubert wrote:
> Alan Gedance wrote:
><..snip..>
> Alan Gedance responding to Beth Parkes comments on booking ahead,
> the whoosh effect and other "bad" dance practices.
> >Where is anyone to learn these things if they are almost never taught?
Gene:
Just a small note to straighten the record, and show that I was not
responding to questions of social behavior, but to questions of dance. The
actual interchange follows:
Beth said-
> I do believe that racing to the top of the next set is
> a part of being a "bad" dancer. As is twirling a beginner
> too manyu times. (I would say at all, but I bend to the
> modern evolution of contra dance. In many communities no
> one knows a do-si-do or ladies chain twirl is a variation!)
> These behaviors prevail at what I cringe to hear you
> calling "mainstream."
>
> Other "bad" in my judgement (which is definately up for
> discussion) components of the "Mainstream" (cringe)
> contra dance scene:
>
> Pulling on allemandes (i.e. giving/carrying so much weight
> that it hurts the other person.) If you can do a gypsy 1 1/2
> in 8 steps you can do an allemande without giving any wight
> at all.
>
> Not keeping your feet underneath you. Granted that this
> is a common error of new dancers as well, but it is
> prevelent in modern boom contra dances, too.
Alan said-
Where is anyone to learn these things if they are almost never taught?
In almost all of the regular dance series that I attend, once a newcomer
manages to survive his or her first evening, almost nothing of any
significance is taught. Everyone is expected to learn everything
necessary only by imitation of the surrounding dancers. And since they
learned the same way, its no wonder that the things you complain of above
happen.
Beth-
> booking ahead
Alan-
Put skilled dancers in an environment in which almost everyone is equally
skilled and the sexes are balanced, and booking ahead will most likely
disappear. There's far less of it at dance festivals where almost
everyone attends for the love of dancing.
End of quoted interchange.
I wanted to make the point that there is little teaching of any dance
technique beyond the elementary things addressed to raw beginners, and
that this lack of teaching is what I lament. The questions of social
conduct on the dance floor is another matter. Perhaps in my original
response to Beth I should have omitted the first of her quoted sentences,
the one about rushing to the top of the set, but I guess that I was lazy
and did not foresee that it's inclusion could cause one to think that I was
decrying the lack of teaching of social behavior.
One more disclaimer- the choice and use of the word "mainstream" is not
mine, and I don't like it either.
Alan
Kiran Wagle
Alan Gedance <aged...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
> I wanted to make the point that there is little teaching of any dance
> technique beyond the elementary things addressed to raw beginners, and
> that this lack of teaching is what I lament. ... I guess that I was lazy
> and did not foresee that it's inclusion could cause one to think that I was
> decrying the lack of teaching of social behavior.
I lament and decry the lack of teaching of *both*. To wit:
> Where is anyone to learn these things if they are almost never taught?
I also think that the teaching of dance skills such as being on time and
giving good weight can be used to teach social norms as well. After all,
giving good weight includes, for example, understanding and adjusting to
the physical limitations of one's partner and minor set. The teaching of
social norms alone is, I think, less likely to enhance dance skills, and
will lead to dancers feeling they're being told how to behave.
Why do people seem to think the teaching of dance skills and social norms
are in opposition?
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
Gene Hubert
Alan Gedance wrote:
>I've been dancing only about eight years, but I do think that in
>of the really good dancers turn up at our regular dances.
I think this is more normal than pathological. Most people will
find other types of dance that beckon or have a need to focus
on other life experiences. We can be glad that they were
"under the influence" for a time. It makes you appreciate the
few gems who are still dancing after a decade or more.
Alan Gedance responding to Beth Parkes comments on booking ahead,
the whoosh effect and other "bad" dance practices.
>Where is anyone to learn these things if they are almost never taught?
I have to ask: Who taught us to start booking ahead? Who taught us to
rush to get a "good spot" in line? How many of us can say we've never
indulged in these practices?
Does it take years of dance experience to see that these are selfish
behaviors?
I think some aspects of contra dancing are amenable to teaching and
others are not.
In my first few years of dancing, I would think how great it was that
here was an activity that was not competetive and that more people
at a dance made for a better dance in all respects.
Like others, I would like to pick and choose which elements of the
current dance scene that I would keep. Fortunately, none of us
are able to do this. Kind of like being able to change the weather
methinks.
Our dance is evolving at many levels -- as individual dancers, as a
local community and on a regional and national level. Some of this
change is clearly positive and some is clearly negative. A lot falls
somewhere in between.
gene hubert
Edith Maverick-folger
Paul Tyler
Alan Gedance <aged...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>[snip]
>but for many others who have been dancing several nights a week for years
>it is not entirely satisfying. I believe that boredom is a major cause of
>the phenomena of booking ahead, center line syndrome, and just plain
And are these the people who are looking for more challenging dance
experiences. It seems to me that most dances are weekly or monthly
affairs (this is how they all started). Except in a few contra-dense
locations like Washington & Boston (there are others) the attendance norm
is for people to come out for a weekly dance, and not necessarily every one
at that. Whether we like to admit it or not, most of our dances are
community dances. Most are open to the public and draw mostly people who
want a dance experience in their own community. Their may or may not be
much of a social network that survives outside of the dance, but there is
always some potential for continuing interaction.
I think in most cases we have to attend primarily to the needs of the dance
as a community dance. Dance fanatics who dance several times a week should
not have their needs to fight boredom come first. That's why I've
suggested, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that it would be better if all those
who need greater challenges would just go off and do their own thing let
those of us who want community dances have our dances back.
If you want to have dance-centric events, set them up with the necessary
exclusivity criteria clearly stated up front. Run them as classes or
subscription dances or as special week-ends for challenge hungry contra
dancers. But please don't mix your expectations up with the community
dances where all of this got started in the first place. I'm sure there
are a few exceptions around this large US of A, but all the dances I'm
familiar with first-hand started out, and still are, truly community
dances. And I don't mean community in the warm & fuzzy sense, but in the
sense people who live in the same location, but with diverse skills and
experience, coming together to dance on a somewhat regular basis. Our
dances are primarily social affairs, no matter how much we like to focus
only on the dancing. We have to figure out how to best maximize everyone's
enjoyment, which means balancing personal needs and goals with the
collective or communal.
I always like the title of that book about East European shtetl culture:
"Life Is With People." My primary point is that "Dance Is With People."
Later,
Paul Tyler
Pwmaine
Hello, Wanted to let you know I appreciated your posting. And it isn't
only in Chicago! In fact, I'm amazed that people think that rude,
overdone contra dancing is an *urban* phenomenon. It was my experience at
Maine contra dances for the past several years - until Ted Sannella
retired up here and re-introduced some civility and grace in the dances he
called. But shoulder-dislocating, twirl-till-you're-late rudeness is
still far too common, IMHO.
Bill Tomczak
Alan Gedance wrote:
>So, we seem to have a dilemma. Chris says, and I believe that he's right,
>that the presence of the good* dancers provides valuable experience for
>the new dancers. Are these the dancers about whom you feel should go off
>and form a community of their own?
You seem to be missing a crucial point here. And it seems to be
running rampant in this thread. A number of us don't define "good"
dancers as the ones who can twirl a zillion times in one bar or have
found ways to "zest" up a hey with gratuitous turns or who can lift
their legs over their heads or whatever else it is that mainstreamers
are doing to keep boredom at bay.
The best and most intelligent comment anyone has made on this is:
EDITH MAVERICK-FOLGER wrote:
>A good dancer is one that makes his partner look good.
These are the dancers who are in such short supply and I do not count
the mainstreamers as among them.
Someone once asked Marianne Taylor how she kept from getting bored
teaching the same old dances for over twenty-five years. Her reply?
"I'm teaching people, not dances"
Bill
_________________________________________________________________________
)Bill Tomczak )"You see what you want to see" )
)btom...@sover.net )"You hear what you want to hear" )
)http://www.sover.net/~btomczak/ ) - The Rock Man )
Alan Gedance
On 20 Jul 1996, Paul Tyler wrote:
Alan Gedance <aged...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>[snip]
>but for many others who have been dancing several nights a week for years
>it is not entirely satisfying. I believe that boredom is a major cause of
>the phenomena of booking ahead, center line syndrome, and just plain
>rudeness deplored so frequently in this newsgroup. . . .
Paul said-
"And are these the people who are looking for more challenging dance
experiences. It seems to me that most dances are weekly or monthly
affairs (this is how they all started). Except in a few contra-dense
locations like Washington & Boston (there are others) the attendance norm
is for people to come out for a weekly dance, and not necessarily every
one at that. Whether we like to admit it or not, most of our dances are
community dances. Most are open to the public and draw mostly people
who want a dance experience in their own community. Their may or may
not be much of a social network that survives outside of the dance, but
there is always some potential for continuing interaction. I think
in most cases we have to attend primarily to the needs of the dance as a
community dance. Dance fanatics who dance several times a week should
not have their needs to fight boredom come first. That's why I've
suggested, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that it would be better if all those
who need greater challenges would just go off and do their own thing let
those of us who want community dances have our dances back."
----------------
Alan-
Here's a quote from an open letter from Chris Kermiet published about a
year and a half ago. I apologize for its length, but it is worth
including without further snipping.--
Kermiet-
"In October of 1994, two members of our dance community took
it upon themselves to organize a "Zesty Contra" night as a
once a month addition to our regular Friday night dance
series. They originally conceived of this as a dance for
experienced dancers -- a dance with a minimum of
instruction, short walk through, and with the assumption
that all the dancers present would know all the standard
figures, so that no teaching of figures would be necessary.
This dance was seen as an attempt to meet the needs and
desires of many dancers to have a dance where more
challenging dances can be tried. As our dance community
matures, and dancers gain more experience, they naturally
want more challenging dances. This is a normal tendency.
It is happening in other dance communities around the
country."
"I have some real problems with this concept, though. Here
are a few of them."
"For one, it tends to split the dance community, with the
more experienced dancers going to the advanced dance, and
skipping the regular weekly dance. In a community such as
ours, where we have a fairly large number of dancers
every week, these new dancers never get to meet many of the
more experienced dancers on a social basis -- and I believe
the dance is still first and foremost a social event, where
the emphasis should be on the sociability of the evening,
rather than on its aerobic or intellectual challenges. And,
in addition, the new dancers don't get the valuable
experience of dancing with the more experienced dancers. It
is here that they should be learning to dance with better
timing, with graceful and flowing movements, etc. The
learning curve of the new dancers is much improved if they
have the opportunity to dance with the more experienced
dancers, and the whole community benefits from these
interactions."
----------------
Alan-
So, we seem to have a dilemma. Chris says, and I believe that he's right,
that the presence of the good* dancers provides valuable experience for
the new dancers. Are these the dancers about whom you feel should go off
and form a community of their own?
*(Actually, Chris uses the term "experienced", which in my opinion is much
overused and inaccurate in this context. I far prefer to use the words
"good" or "skilled".)
Paul says-
>"If you want to have dance-centric events, set them up with the necessary
> exclusivity criteria clearly stated up front. Run them as classes or
> subscription dances or as special week-ends for challenge hungry contra
> dancers. But please don't mix your expectations up with the community
> dances where all of this got started in the first place."
------------------
Alan-
If the existing contra dance communities wish to disassociate themselves
from any efforts to provide encouragement and opportunity for dancing
above the elementary level, then in time the skilled dancers will migrate
away into dance communities of their own. And for those of you who think
that might be salutary for your warm, friendly community affairs, consider
Chris's caution that you need these good dancers in your own midst to
provide the environment in which the beginners can learn. I'm sure that
there are many people around who have had the experience of trying to
start a contra dance series without the benefit of some good dancers to
provide a core. I've seen several strive to do this for years without
much success.
Alan
Alan Gedance
On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, Bill Tomczak wrote:
Alan-
> >"So, we seem to have a dilemma. Chris says, and I believe that he's
right,
> >that the presence of the good* dancers provides valuable experience for
> >the new dancers. Are these the dancers about whom you feel should go off
> >and form a community of their own?"
>
Bill-
> "You seem to be missing a crucial point here. And it seems to be
> running rampant in this thread. A number of us don't define "good"
> dancers as the ones who can twirl a zillion times in one bar or have
> found ways to "zest" up a hey with gratuitous turns or who can lift
> their legs over their heads or whatever else it is that mainstreamers
> are doing to keep boredom at bay."
No, Bill, you seem to be missing something. From the very beginning of
this thread I've made it clear in almost every posting that I want to
separate myself from the notion that wild dancing is necessarily good
dancing, and vice versa. Here are a few quotes of my postings to show
that.
---------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 13:52:06 -0400
To: "Nancy K. Martin" <mar...@teleport.com>
On 3 Jul 1996, Bill Martin wrote:
> If we forget what originally attracted us to contra dancing, we
> will be more sympathetic to those who agitate for an unbalanced
> (weighted toward the hotshots rather than the whole dance
> community) evening of dancing. Our people will gradually become
> one-dimensional dancers, focused on the performance of figures, a mode
> that is more appropriate to a dance camp than a community social event.
Alan-
"Bill, the term "hotshot" suggests something that I certainly don't mean.
Can I substitute the term "good dancer" in the above paragraph? To me, a
hotshot is someone who thinks he (or she) is better than he really is, and
dances with little or no thought for the feelings or safety of the dancers
around him."
__________________________
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:11:30 -0400
To: Paul Tyler <pty...@wwa.com>
On 18 Jul 1996, Paul Tyler wrote:
> When I sit and watch (which I do a lot, now, with my 1 year old on my
> lap) I am appalled at the number of dancers who seem only to do the
> figures--complete with all the twirling flourishes in vogue at the
> moment--one after another with little awareness of how to flow from one
> figure to the next. It doesn't matter good the intrinsic flow of a
> composed dance, "good" dancers can screw it up.
Alan-
"These are the people we have to reach with continuing instruction and
encouragement."
> Somehow we have built up a
> dancing population that knows little or nothing about how country dance
> movements fit together, about how they must constantly orient themselves
> to their fellow dancers. No wonder squares are so hard to do with this
> current crop of contra dancers. Squares require a lot more spatial
> awareness. That's a challenge all the "good" contra dancers have
> avoided.
Alan-
"That's a point that I have been consistently trying to make. There is
almost no thought or effort being given to the encouragement of really
good dancing (not "good" as I believe you mean it), and beyond the
attention given to raw beginners, one is supposed to pick up skills by
observing the other dancers on the floor. But what percentage of them set
a good example?"
----------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 15:19:36 -0400
On 18 Jul 1996, Jonathan Sivier wrote:
<.. for sake of brevity, I snipped Pauls comments..>
> I agree with Paul that merely being able to do all the figures does not
> make one a good dancer. I'd call that an intermediate level, beyond the
> confusion that beginners sometimes experience, but not yet a good dancer.
> Many people make it this far and no further. Here are some suggestion I
> put together with the assistance of other dancers in central Illinois.
>
> The Top Ten (plus) Things That Make a Good (Contra) Dancer.
>
> A good dancer...
<..ten great descriptions snipped..>
Alan-
"A great list of skills and traits! But how do we achieve them as a
group?
It seems as if no one wants to discuss that. Instead, any attempt to
focus on an actual interest in good dancing seems to be viewed with
suspicion of dark, selfish, ulterior motives, likely to lead to the
downfall of contra dancing."
--------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:13:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Beginner's Workshop -- Looking at the Future
On 19 Jul 1996, Paul Tyler wrote:
> This started out as response in email, but then I remembered
> that the discussion was ongoing here in the newsgroup. . .
Alan-
"So it did, and here's my temporary reply."
"Paul:
I've received your long, thoughtful letter, and don't have time to reply
in full just now. I share some, but not all, of your thoughts. The
dilemma lies in how to differentiate in speech between good dancers and
"good" dancers, the quotes used in this case to indicate those who have a
much higher view of their abilities than is the assessment of anyone else
on the dance floor. They are the ones who seem to attempt to offset being
late for most transitions by being early for the rest. Frequent dancing
with these folks could justifiably cause an increase in one's accident
insurance premium."
------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:37:49 -0400
To: Paul Tyler <pty...@wwa.com>
Alan-
"(Actually, Chris uses the term "experienced", which in my opinion is much
overused and inaccurate in this context. I far prefer to use the words
"good" or "skilled".)"
End of quoted posts
--------------------------------------------
Bill-
> The best and most intelligent comment anyone has made on this is:
>
> EDITH MAVERICK-FOLGER wrote:
> >A good dancer is one that makes his partner look good.
I agree. A good dancer always tries to make one's partner of the moment
feel like the center of attention.
>
> These are the dancers who are in such short supply and I do not count
> the mainstreamers as among them.
Why do we have to use vague terms like mainstreamers? They are
underfined, and subject to whatever interpretation one's own personal
biases might put on them. When we mean wild dancers, why can't we say
that? And when we say good dancers or skilled dancers, why do so many
immediately think we mean wild, rough, and inconsiderate dancers? Is that
what good has come to mean?
Alan
P.S. I'm leaving your quote below. It bears
rereading.\
\
\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------