Boston contras Nov 3-5?
EdmundR
happening and where?
PETER B. OLSZOWKA
>From: edm...@aol.com (EdmundR)
>Subject: Boston contras Nov 3-5?
>Date: 23 Oct 1994 16:09:02 -0400
>I'll be in Boston Thurs Nov 3 Through Sat Nov 5. What contras are
>happening and where?
There's even more than I remember, but here goes.
Thursday 11/3 at 8:00 in the VFW Hall on Huron Ave. in Cambridge.
Saturday 11/5 at 8:00 at the Episcoal Church on Common St. in
Belmot--Experienced Dancers Only
There's often a dance at the Scouthouse in Concord, but sometimes not on the
1st Saturdays. I think there's one in Newton as well.
Call 617-491-6084 to hear a recording listing all folk dance events in the
Boston area.
Kiran Wagle
> Saturday 11/5 at 8:00 at the Episcoal Church on Common St. in
> Belmot--Experienced Dancers Only
I feel like the bowl of petunias.
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
--
"I have mever yet written anything, long or short, that did not
suprise me. That is, for me at least, the greatest worth of writing,
which is only incidentaly 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 thathapens only in language.
................................RIchard Mitchell, _The Gift of Fire_
PETER B. OLSZOWKA
>> Saturday 11/5 at 8:00 at the Episcoal Church on Common St. in
>> Belmot--Experienced Dancers Only
>I feel like the bowl of petunias.
>~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
I don't know the story of the bowl of petunias, but I assume that Kiran is
complaining about the experienced-only dance in Belmont. I firmly believe
that such dances are a lot of fun and are not a burden on the dancing
community when there are plenty of dances for people who choose not to go to
them. That dance occurs only once/month and there are two other dances that
occur that very same night that encourage beginners to attend. Not to mention
the other dozen contra dances/month that occur in the Boston area which
encourage beginners to attend.
--Peter
Bill Ralston
olszo...@tuck.dartmouth.edu (PETER B. OLSZOWKA) wrote:
> In article <groo-26109...@192.0.2.1> gr...@netcom.com (Kiran Wagle) writes:
> >> Saturday 11/5 at 8:00 at the Episcoal Church on Common St. in
> >> Belmot--Experienced Dancers Only
>
> >I feel like the bowl of petunias.
> I don't know the story of the bowl of petunias, but I assume that Kiran is
> complaining about the experienced-only dance in Belmont. I firmly believe
> that such dances are a lot of fun and are not a burden on the dancing
> community when there are plenty of dances for people who choose not to go to
> them. That dance occurs only once/month and there are two other dances that
> occur that very same night that encourage beginners to attend. Not to mention
> the other dozen contra dances/month that occur in the Boston area which
> encourage beginners to attend.
I agree. What bothers me is a particular dance which advertises as
"beginners welcome" which draws a crowd that is generally not particularly
accepting of beginners. This dance tends to draw large crowds of
relatively inexperienced dancers on Monday holidays, and I am reminded of a
recent Monday holiday where the caller called a large number of
particularly tricky dances which pretty much left the bottom half of the
lines in total confusion for half of every dance. I fear that very few of
the frustrated beginners I saw that night will give it a second try.
--
Bill w...@mitre.org
* I babble too incoherently to speak for my employer *
Kiran Wagle
>>> Belmot--Experienced Dancers Only
>> I feel like the bowl of petunias again.
> I don't know the story of the bowl of petunias, but I assume that Kiran is
> complaining about the experienced-only dance in Belmont. I firmly believe
> that such dances are a lot of fun and are not a burden on the dancing
And I firmly believe that the whole idea is a load of di--oops <grin>.
If you want to call this a dance for "skilled" or "good" dancers, that's
fine--tho in my experience most dance _series_ that so bill themselves
suffer from a lack of the excitement and energy newcomers bring to the
floor. It was Fridays at Glen Echo that inspired me to move to the area,
not Sundays--and I know a LOT of damn fine area dancers who dance only on
Fridays.
But I don't think that skill and experience are correlated in a way that
allows one to generalise about dance abilty based on experience. I know
beginners who can do a Gypsy hey on their first night, and dancers with
years of experience who can't even follow a walk-through.
There's a BIG difference in saying "This dance is difficult," and saying
"This dance includes 'contra corners.'" Saying "The dances at this dance
may include medleys, no-walk-thru dances, and unusual figures" on the
flyer will inform people perfectly well. Saying they are "for experienced
dancers" will only serve to chase away perfectly competent dancers who
don't have the arrogance or self-confidence to realise that they ARE in
fact competent.
Experience and skill are not the same thing. And ideas do have consequences.
~ Kiran "It would be twice in one thread!" <gr...@netcom.com>
john sayre
When I started dancing I was EXTREMELY shy about doing it . I know that,had
I gone to any group that had an 'attitude',it would have chased me away from dancing
forever. Fortunately, the very excellent and experienced Scottish group I went
to was quite happy to sling me around like >what is that log they toss at Scottish
games?< a boulder.
This is ,to me, outside of performing groups, social dance. I am glad that there are
groups which will accept anybody. If there aren't, we will be the last generation of
dancers!
Where I live there seems to be a drop in the number of young people showing
at dances. Sometimes I think we need to worry more about that than whether each
dance is 'professionally' hard or 'professionally' done.
PETER B. OLSZOWKA
dancers. Everybody can feel that they may one day be an experienced dancer.
Though some of us might prefer to exclude experienced, but
slow-to-learn-a-dance dancers, that is much harder to do without hurting
feelings. Saying "Contra Medleys, No-walk-through contras, and Hash" would
have little meaning for beginners.
Several people said that a group of dancers who excludes beginners couldn't
last long--and I couldn't agree more. The point is that group doesn't exclude
beginners--that one particular event does. None of the dancers is satisfied
to dance only once a month. We all go to many other dances which actively
encourage beginners.
Linda Golder
sayre) wrote:
> Where I live there seems to be a drop in the number of young people
> showing at dances. Sometimes I think we need to worry more about that
> than whether each dance is 'professionally' hard or 'professionally'
> done.
Welcoming new dancers pays big dividends to a dance series, & it's not that
hard or painful to do. One of the liveliest & most enjoyable contra dance
series I know (Rehoboth, MA, USA) always has many newcomers. Recently,
many of the new faces have been very young (teens & 20's)... most of these
have been encouraged to come by *one* enthusiastic young lady, herself a
relatively new dancer!
- Linda <lgo...@mbl.edu> Woods Hole, MA, USA
leda shapiro
>beginners--that one particular event does. None of the dancers is satisfied
>to dance only once a month. We all go to many other dances which actively
>encourage beginners.
>
If the "skilled" dancers go to the "experienced" dance, what happenes to
other dancers scheduled that night, or that week..? Does it effect the
numbers of skilled dancers at other events where beginners are welcomed?
My experience is that it does.. if it is a material difference than if
there were no "special" dance scheduled, then the "beginners" lose out
and in some instances, the whole community can be damaged..
in other words.. elitist events do not contribute to the sense of
"community" that we all value so much
Leda Shapiro
--
Charles L Rapport
>>~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
I agree, Peter. I have always been a proponent of dances for different
capabilities, to encourage new people, to keep old people, and to
encourage the latter to dance with the former at beginner dances, because
they know they can enjoy fast-paced dances with superb partners another time.
How are you doing with your squeezebox, big guy?
Charlie
PETER B. OLSZOWKA
>If the "skilled" dancers go to the "experienced" dance, what happenes to
>other dancers scheduled that night, or that week..? Does it effect the
>numbers of skilled dancers at other events where beginners are welcomed?
>My experience is that it does.. if it is a material difference than if
>there were no "special" dance scheduled, then the "beginners" lose out
>and in some instances, the whole community can be damaged..
There are enough dancers in Boston, that one small dance once a month which
attracts experienced dancers won't cause every other dance in the area to fall
apart.
>in other words.. elitist events do not contribute to the sense of
>"community" that we all value so much
Part of community is finding a way to accommodate the needs and desires of all
members--not just the ones who appear needy, i.e. beginners. I've seen folk
dance communities fall apart because the experienced dancers got bored and
stopped coming altogether. They only went to dance camps.
>And for those who really must do "challenge level" dancing, why not attend
>a dance camp specializing in your specific interests? Or for a *real*
>challenge, try imparting your dance skills to a new dancer...
I go to as many dance camps as my schedule permits. Furthermore, at three of
the four dances I go to a month, I spend a grate deal of time teaching
beginners. Why is it so terrible to enjoy one dance a month where we can do
exciting things like no-walk-through contras.
--Peter
Linda Golder
wrote:
> in other words.. elitist events do not contribute to the sense of
> "community" that we all value so much
Hi Leda! If "we all" valued community, there wouldn't be a problem, right?
I know some of us *do* value it, & have made a commitment to support local
open dances. And I don't think it's either/or (that is, either high-tone
exclusive dance experience or low-quality beginners dance)... if all of us
skilled dancers helped the beginners at each dance, the quality of dance
life would go up, not down. Worth a try, I think.
And for those who really must do "challenge level" dancing, why not attend
a dance camp specializing in your specific interests? Or for a *real*
challenge, try imparting your dance skills to a new dancer...
- Linda "feeling a tad cranky today" Golder
Kiran Wagle
> I've seen folk dance communities fall apart because the experienced dancers
> got bored and stopped coming altogether. They only went to dance camps.
I have too. Why do they stop dancing?
In my experience, because dances--REGULAR dances--weren't exciting enough.
(Some of us claim that new dancers are what BRING excitement to a dance.)
If REGULAR dances aren't exciting enough, I claim many dancers will find
other things to do on (in my case) a Sunday night, on a REGULAR basis.
The Sunday night movie is usually tolerable on at least one channel. <grin>
In other words, one exciting dance a month doesn't seem to me to be enough
to sustain a dance community. I know more than a few very good dancers,
who are always willing to bring new dancers into the community in many
ways, who don't bother to dance at Glen Echo on Sundays. Some of them
drive to Baltimore to dance on occasion, tho. What's up here?
In another case, the Bay area had really exciting dances just about once a
month. And really exciting (and good) dancers came out just about that
often.
What did this do to the other regular dances? <grin>
After dancing regularly in several cities, I find that if ALL dances
aren't made both exciting AND acessible, experienced dancers WILL stay
home--every week. And NEW experienced dancers won't be created. I've
never danced in Boston, so I don't know if it's true there--Boston does
seem to be isolated from teh rest of the world. It's been true everywhere
else, tho.
> Why is it so terrible to enjoy one dance a month where we can
> do exciting things like no-walk-through contras.
Why do you feel you can only do "exciting things" like "no-walk-thru
contras" only once a month? I do them all the time. And I dance with new
dancers all the time. Connection? I think so.
~ Kiran "Charlottesville's got a Sunday dance" <gr...@netcom.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_
Toby Koosman
aren't we being a little disingenuous? Yes we want new blood and enjoy the
enthusiasm of new converts, but are we actually supposed to feel guilty about
taking pleasure in the responsiveness, the flow, the good style and timing of
experienced and skilled partners? Is there something wrong with the
expectation that people must make some investment, pay a little dues, to be
fully members of the community?
My sense is that the desire for experienced-only dances arises in communities
where there is a high ratio of new to experienced dancers all the time, so
that people become frustrated because they can never do a challenging dance or
relax their efforts to help others struggle through. At dances where there is
a stable core of competent dancers and new people are easily absorbed, it
isn't an issue. In fact, where the number of beginners is typically low,
motivation to cultivate them is high, normal attrition being a conspicuous
threat.
So maybe their are two kinds of dances: those struggling to succeed, and those
struggling with their success...
Toby Koosman tako...@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Kiran Wagle
> capabilities, to encourage new people, to keep old people, and to
> encourage the latter to dance with the former at beginner dances, because
> they know they can enjoy fast-paced dances with superb partners another time.
You don't enjoy fast-paced dances with superb partners while dancing with
new dancers?
Perhaps this says more about YOUR skills than theirs.
~ Kiran, who is feeling even mroe cranky than Linda today
--
"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_
Charles L Rapport
>> encourage the latter to dance with the former at beginner dances, because
>> they know they can enjoy fast-paced dances with superb partners another time.
>You don't enjoy fast-paced dances with superb partners while dancing with
>new dancers?
Yes I do, and I might add that by "fast-paced" I was not referring to
either energy level or tempo, but rather to the fact there is just more
dancing without teaching and walk-throughs.
I was attempting to be brief in replying to an issue that seems to come
down the pike at least as often as a car with one headlight.
Again, I am a proponent of variety and differing facets. A particular
dance, a folk dance, a contra dance, whatever, that has grown old and less
interesting to do, can take on new vitality when done to live music, done
to different instrumentation or arrangement, done with a dynamic group of
good friends and dancers, shared with a beginner or any other new person,
become part of one's teaching repertoire, learned on a musical instrument,
or played with others.
Villages have become extinct because they failed to provide variety for
everyone.
As for you comment on my dancing ability, I seem to hold my own and
elicit few complaints from beginners.
I am tempted to add, "but what do they know", but that touch of humor
might precipitate a torrent.
>~ Kiran, who is feeling even mroe cranky than Linda today
So it would seem.
Charlie
Echo 01
dancers developed their ' dance Levels'. The 'Level' names are there to
help the dancers know what the degree of difficulty is going to be used at
the dance. Unfortunatly, people being people, with it came a type of snob
effect, 'I dance at this level and you only dance at that level'. A good
dance can be had at the lowest level if the caller knows his stuff and the
dancers know theirs. And everyone want to have a pleasent dance.
So watch out.
GregMcK
>I go to as many dance camps as my schedule permits. Furthermore, at
three of
>the four dances I go to a month, I spend a grate deal of time teaching
>beginners. Why is it so terrible to enjoy one dance a month where we can
do
>exciting things like no-walk-through contras.
Peter,
It's not terrible. But it's also not a New England style contra dance.
If you call it a "contra dance" it could hurt the actual tradition by
confusing the community about the nature of this wonderful activity. For
most of us a contra dance MEANS that beginners are welcome and that there
is a walk-through before each dance. That is an essential component of
the dance form. The contra formation and tradition has the distinctive
quality of being able to accomodate a diverse community with a wide range
of dance skill levels. I would argue that it has evolved for that
purpose.
You might also be interested in organizing a dance series using recorded
music to lower the cost. I would object to this being called a "contra
dance" as well because live music is also an important part of the
tradition. If I attended something advertised as a "contra dance" without
live music or without walk-throughs I would be quite upset and would
certainly demand my money back. I would also try to impress upon others
in the area that the series was not a "real" contra dance.
If you find "no-walk-through" dances exciting please feel free to organize
them. But please also be creative enough to come up with a distinctive
new name which will not confuse the uninitiated. That way people can make
a clear choice and there will no territorial conflicts.
There will always be pressure upon the contradance community to accomodate
those dancers who do not enjoy the challenge of dancing with a high
percentage of beginners. It is my experience that as these dancers
improve their skills they will naturally migrate into other dance forms
which will always accomodate their needs better than the contra dance
tradition. While they often enjoy the social aspect of contras, now and
then, the focus of their dancing will eventually shift to dance forms with
some skill requirements for participation. The contradance form will
never fully address all of the needs of these people. Attempts to do so
would only dilute the tradition and destroy the unique strengths that the
contra dance form offers.
Of course this is only one person's opinion.
Regards,
Greg McKenzie
Monterey, CA
Phil Katz
> But it's (exciting things like no-walk-through contras)
> If you call it a "contra dance" it could hurt the actual tradition by
> confusing the community about the nature of this wonderful activity.
> For most of us a contra dance MEANS that beginners are welcome and that
there
> is a walk-through before each dance. That is an essential component of
> the dance form. The contra formation and tradition has the distinctive
> quality of being able to accomodate a diverse community with a wide
range
> of dance skill levels. I would argue that it has evolved for that
> purpose.
Imho it is self-serving of MacKenzie's view of contradance
to argue this "purpose"
..snip...
> There will always be pressure upon the contradance community to
accomodate
> those dancers who do not enjoy the challenge of dancing with a high
> percentage of beginners. It is my experience that as these dancers
> improve their skills they will naturally migrate into other dance forms
> which will always accomodate their needs better than the contra dance
> tradition. While they often enjoy the social aspect of contras, now and
> then, the focus of their dancing will eventually shift to dance forms
with
> some skill requirements for participation. The contradance form will
> never fully address all of the needs of these people. Attempts to do so
> would only dilute the tradition and destroy the unique strengths that
the
> contra dance form offers.
Again I think this is self-serving to McK's view
of the world, and not as general as he makes it out to be.
I have indeed seen the outward migration of "challenge junkies" to dance
forms perceived as requiring more tricky skills and practice than does
contra dancing. But imho, many experienced contra dancers burn out,
temporarily one hopes, on the particular challenge of "dancing with a high
percentage of beginners", or find that as an enforced steady diet, it may
interfere with responding to other challenges. One may develop a taste for
the exhileration that comes from adapting to the varied styles of each and
every partner and opposite encountered in a line; or for dancing not only
close to the phrase of the music, but ornamenting close to every turn of
the tune. One may experience the "died and gone to heaven" experience of
floating through a dance in a set of exquisite dancers who happen also to
be long time friends and dancing buddies. It is imho erroneous to say
these experiences are not in the contradance mainstream tradition; they
often happen at very mainstream places such as NEFFA, Ashokan, Lady of the
Lake, and the better in-town dances, and mainstream dancers savour them.
I see no reason good traditional contradancers ought not to arrange things
to have a bit more of what they savour. It only runs against tradition,
imho, if folks become so snobbish or picky that they no longer deign to
attend ordinary contra dances, over the long haul. But in my observation,
in my "village" at least, that is not a big problem. There are folks who
populate the dance weekends and dancecamps, who did populate the
"challenging" monthly dance we had for a while, and who come to
"extra-special" dances with hotshot band and caller combinations, looking
for their exquisite dance thrills. We are fortunate; we often find such
thrills. But you will find those same folks showing up at the ordinary
dances w/ a good number of beginners, and doing their share of building
community. Indeed it is a matter of pride here - the ability to "pick up"
a crowd heavy with beginners and turn it into a dance by force of example.
For over a dozen years I had the privelege of playing at such a dance; it
came to be the largest in Seattle, usually good, but only rarely the most
exquisite. We could invariably look out on the floor and see many hotshot
dancers out there being community, sorting out beginners, and making it
all "go". Imho one oughtn't to grumble about loss of tradition if such
hotshots desire a chance to go off by themselves and dance great contras
once in a while, as long as the dance community is large enough to support
a diversity of dances.
David A. Kaynor (Amherst RSD)
Some of you seem to be saying that dances designated "for
experienced dancers only" are harmful to your dance communities.
Indeed?
Are your dance communities so fragile? If so, in what shape are
the resources needed to strengthen them?
How often will you attend a struggling dance? Will you be ready
and eager to dance the first contra? With a newcomer?
How often will you commit such quality to your dancing that it
salutes and celebrates and inspires the people you meet?
Regardless of winsomeness, fleetness of head and foot, and other
manifestations of Coolness?
How often will you dance (or play or call, for that matter) at
fire department fundraisers or grange hall repair benefits?
How heartily will you support a developing band? A developing
caller?
How many flyers will you put up or hand out?
How often will you show up early to help set up? Stay late to
help break down? Bring cookies for the band? Offer kind words
after a tough night?
Do you see any relationship between your answers to these
questions and the degree to which events "for experienced dancers
only" impact your dance community?
--
Jim Saxe
(Greg McKenzie) writes:
>... If I attended something advertised as a "contra dance" without
>live music or without walk-throughs I would be quite upset and would
>certainly demand my money back. I would also try to impress upon others
>in the area that the series was not a "real" contra dance.
The very first contra I ever called was to recorded music, as a guest
spot at a dance series that was (through some disagreeable
circumstances involving folk dance politics and personality clashes)
temporarily without a band. While I much prefer dancing--and
calling--to live music, I think that what the dancers were doing was
still contradancing.
I believe there are groups around (though I have no direct experience
with them (but would be interested in hearing from anyone who has))
that dance contras to recorded music on a regular basis. I know that
the Lloyd Shaw Foundation issues 45 rpm contradance "flip" (called on
one side, instrumental on the other) records evidently intended for
use with actual dancers and not just for callers to practice to. I
also know that there is a group called ContraLab that is somehow
connected with the WSD community. I wouldn't consider telling any of
these folks that what they do is not "real" contradancing, though I
might venture the opinion that the kind of contradancing I usually do
is quite different (for example, we do hardly any dances written
before 1970 :-)), and I might caution anyone against forming their
impression of contradancing solely on the basis of experience at
groups that use recorded music and/or are closely associated with WSD
organizations.
For several years, I've been co-programmer and sometime caller at a
square dance series where we have walk-throughs and live music, and
where "square dance attire" is not required (indeed anyone wearing
"square dance attire" would be conspicuous). The dancers use the
"pigeon wing" (as in arm wrestling, but not, I hope, actually arm
wrestling) hold rather than a forearm hold when allemanding, and form
"wrist-grip" rather than "hands-in" stars. The set of calls I use
bears no particular relation to any CallerLab list, including the
Community Dance Program list. I would be very upset if anyone tried
to tell me that what we do is not "real" square dancing.
--Jim Saxe
P.S., Concerning the original topic of this thread: I agree with those
who have said that much of the appeal of contradancing as we know it
is its accessibility. While I occasionally call medleys and
no-walk-through dances, I do so sparingly, and stick to figures and
concepts used earlier in the evening. If someone proposed that our
local dance organization start a regular series dedicated to
"challenging" contras, I would probably vote against it. --Jim
Brian Rost
> There are enough dancers in Boston, that one small dance once a month which
> attracts experienced dancers won't cause every other dance in the area to fall
> apart.
Boston is practically an aberration. There is a contra almost every
night of the week all month long. Compare that to Worcester, only 40
miles away and a whopping nine dances a year (partly because many
folks just drive into the metro Boston area instead). That's why
Boston has a few dances for experienced-only.
--
Brian Rost
Ascom Timeplex APBU
rost_...@timeplex.com
********************************************************
"Sometimes I wish I could walk up to my music for the first
time, as if I had never heard it before. Being so inescapably
a part of it, I'll never know what the listener gets, what
the listener feels, and that's too bad."
-John Coltrane
********************************************************
B Stickney
wrote:
> PETER B. OLSZOWKA wrote:
> It's not terrible. But it's also not a New England style contra dance.
dancers how experienced they are at these things?
> If you call it a "contra dance" it could hurt the actual tradition by
> confusing the community about the nature of this wonderful activity. For
> most of us a contra dance MEANS that beginners are welcome and that there
> is a walk-through before each dance.
That is not what it "MEANS" to me. In fact, that is irrelevant, because
the
characteristic is shared by so many kinds of dance. It is not unique to
contra dancing in my experience.
> That is an essential component of
> the dance form.
I don't think it's essential. It seems you think so because you value the
community more than the dance itself, and some of us have the reverse
priorities.
> If you find "no-walk-through" dances exciting please feel free to
organize
> them.
Gee, thanks.
> But please also be creative enough to come up with a distinctive
> new name which will not confuse the uninitiated.
Calling it "experienced" seems to be qualifier enough.
I don't see what the big deal is. So someone else likes a different
kind of contra dance, and only yours is the "real" kind of contra? G'wan.
> There will always be pressure upon the contradance community to accomodate
> those dancers who do not enjoy the challenge of dancing with a high
> percentage of beginners. It is my experience that as these dancers
> improve their skills they will naturally migrate into other dance forms
> which will always accomodate their needs better than the contra dance
> tradition. While they often enjoy the social aspect of contras, now and
> then, the focus of their dancing will eventually shift to dance forms with
> some skill requirements for participation.
But if they don't, they should stay away from your "real" contra dancing,
right?
> The contradance form will
> never fully address all of the needs of these people. Attempts to do so
> would only dilute the tradition and destroy the unique strengths that the
> contra dance form offers.
Some traditions deserve to be diluted and destroyed.
"Experienced" dances sound like a good idea to me (as well, apparantly, as
to more than a few people at Glen Echo on Sundays, if memory serves).
I just think you're being a little unaccepting and condescending, Greg.
I think it would do more for a sense of community for you to welcome
experienced dancers, rather than say they aren't doing "real" contra dance
when they dance with each other. Your point of view does not seem
especially egalitarian.
B
Joshua Goldman
original Belmont MA experienced contra dance (1st Sat except this month,
2nd). There are lots of dances in the Boston area (probably at least 4
per week). Of these almost all are open to all dance levels. Having 1 or
2 experienced dances in a month will not damage the community.
As far as I can tell, almost everyone who goes to the experienced-only
dance in Belmont also goes to at least one of the regulary scheduled
dances each week. If there's another dance scheduled that night and it
gets less experienced dancers, it's not going to do much damage. All they
have to do is go to any other dance that month and the experienced dancers
will be back.
For a smaller community that only has one or two dances per week (or 2 or
4 dances per month!!), this might be a serious issue. Or, if the dancers
that were going to the experienced dance were not going to the other
dances ...
We're lucky in Boston in that there's a variety of contra dancing, you can
get lots of squares (and the seasonal Jingle Bell Rock) with Ted Sannella,
lots of singing squares with Walter Lent and Sarah Gregory-Smith, a
variety of callers and bands at the Thurs Night VFW dance, the same caller
at Tony Parkes' Monday night dance (which I've never made because my wife
has Morris practice then), and the occasional experienced dance. [For
those of you who are not near Boston, either get more dancers in your
community or come for a visit.]
Joshua Goldman
Open Media Framework (OMF) Interchange group at Avid Technology
Kiran Wagle
> "Experienced" dances sound like a good idea to me (as well, apparantly, as
> to more than a few people at Glen Echo on Sundays, if memory serves).
That is correct. The rest of us just stay home on Sundays. :-)
(Actually, several very good dancers DO stay home on Sundays.)
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
David #6
: "Experienced" dances sound like a good idea to me (as well, apparantly, as
(My turn, Nancy) No, no, no! Sunday Glen Echo dances (in the Wash DC area)
are no longer designed for experienced dancers and _everyone_ is welcome.
My major disagreement with "experienced" dances is not that they exist,
but that there can be an inherent disinvitation to some members of our
community. This is particularly a problem in areas, like DC, where
dancers tend to be cliquish anyway.
Different places have different problems. In some places, "experienced"
dances may serve to build the dance community, not divide it. If so, more
power to them. How to tell? I think Dave Kaynor's questions are a great
place to start.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Joel L Breazeale
Linda Golder <lgo...@mbl.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Oct31.2...@lafn.org>, ac...@lafn.org (leda shapiro)
>wrote:
>
>> in other words.. elitist events do not contribute to the sense of
>> "community" that we all value so much
It's probably time to repost this. This is over 10 years old, but it is
as true today as it was then.
Also, consider joining the Neighborhood Dance and Community Mailing List
(neighborh...@world.std.com) if you'd like to talk about local/
neighborhood dances and the social topics related to people gathering
to dance. Also, community dance is a part of this list. People con-
necting via dance, gaining community via dancing itself, is not a goal
of the list (this is a tough one to explain).
--Joel
----------------------------------- snip -----------------------------------
[Background: Chris Kermiet is a contra and traditional western square
dance caller living in Denver, Colorado and has been dancing all
his life. He's been calling professionally for the last 10 years
and many, many years before that. I'm sure Chris is interested in
your feelings on this topic. His address is included below. --Joel]
Building a Dance Community
by Chris Kermiet
(distributed on USENET with permission)
In our era of mass communication, mass mobility, and
mass differentiation of personal attitudes, beliefs,
interests, and philiosophies, communities are no longer
geographically bounded entities. They are communities of
shared experiences, shared beliefs, shared activities, and
shared ideas.
Communities grow up quite naturally. You naturally
gravitiate toward people who share your outlook on the
world. Who like the things you like. Who want the things you
want. You share ideas, thoughts, and feelings with them, and
they become your friends. Through them you meet other
like-minded people, and soon a community is formed -- a
community of friends.
We all need these communities as part of our lives. We
need them for companionship, for support, to bounce ideas
off of, to validate feelings, to share hardships, to share
our joys, for warmth, for discipline, and for a feeling of
connectedness to the rest of the world. You probably belong
to several. And they're important to you. Without them we
would each be alone and adrift in a fragmented and
tumultuous world.
Therefore, building communities seems important to me.
Understanding communities is important. Communities have
subtle dynamics.
In a large community, smaller groups tend to form,
usually groups with an intense common interest, such as
computer programmers, or old-time musicians, or cloggers, or
vegetarians, or chiropractors. This is natural. These
sub-groups are beneficial to their members, who form
stronger friendships with people with whom they share an
intense common interest, and beneficial to the larger group,
which gains in vitality and love because of the strengthened
friendships which have developed.
Unless the sub-group becomes a clique. Cliques are
inward-turned groups. They are self-aware groups --
interested in their own us-ness, in their own uniqueness.
They are not much intersted in admitting outsiders --
non-members. They become more interested in intensifying the
interactions between their own members, to the detriment of
the larger group. They become like the self-centered
individual, who become so self-involved that he looses
awareness of the needs and feelings of others. Cliques sap
the vitality of the larger group.
In any large group, leaders will emerge. This is
natural. And beneficial to the group. These leaders who
emerge are usually the members who are most interested in
sustaining and enhancing the vitality of the group. They are
the ones with the time, energy and desire to organize,
energize, harmonize, and strengthen the group. In this way
the group and all the members benefit.
Unless the leadership becomes an elite. This is very
detrimental to the group. When the leaders become an elite,
they begin using the group for their own purposes. To give
themselves a sense of self-worth, or self-importance. To
exercise control. To gain respect or admiration. To become a
"big cheese." This sucks the life out of the group. The
members begin to feel more distant from the leaders. Warmth
is lost. Members who wish to lead a new activity or
contribute to an ongoing activity are stifled or-
scorned. Energy is lost. Soon vitality is lost and members
begin to drift away.
The formation of cliques or elites weakens a community.
What strengthens it?
Activities where all members feel a sense of sharing,
participating, and belonging. Dances, of course, come
immediately to mind. They are great shared activities. They
give everyone a sense of involvement, and they're just plain
fun. They're flirtatious. They're human, touching
activities. They're aerobic. They're expressive. They can be
both relaxing and energizing at the same time. Ideally. Hard
to think of a better activity. To quote my friend, Peter
Gott: "Dancing is the most fun you can have with-
your clothes on!"
Sometimes our dances are not ideal. I always worry when
I see a newcomer sitting out. Maybe hesitant to try it,
maybe without a partner. I always try to get them involved,
mostly because I think it would be so good for them. We all
have some favorite partner (or several favorites) we'd like
to dance with. And we all enjoy dancing with someone who's
an experienced dancer. But how will our community grow if we
don't involve these new people? A community that doesn't
grow eventually withers, sort of like-
a tomato plant without water.
On my wish list, my plan for strengthening a dance
community, I would put this: I wish that every member, just
once during the evening, would make a special effort to
dance with someone they've never danced with before.
When I think of other ways to make a newcomer feel like
part of a group, one other thing comes forcefully to mind.
It will sound old-fashioned and corny to some of you.
Introductions. Maybe it's just me, but I always feel a
little shy and hesitant to go up to someone I've never seen
before and say: "Hi, I'm Chris. What's your name?" It's such
a nice feeling to be introduced to people. It's genteel and
gentle -- civilized. Think about the last time you were a
stranger in a new group, and your friend in-troduced you to
two or three others. Didn't that feel good? Didn't you fell
welcomed and at ease? I think introductions are great,
whether you're the new person being introduced, or the
person who's meeting someone new to the group or activity. I
have one reservation, though. I dislike meeting everyone at
once in a whirlwind of introductions. I forget all the
names. And then I feel awkward. I think two or three at a
time is about right.
On my wish list, I'd put this: Try to introduce every
new person you meet to two of your friends. They'll soon
know everyone.
In spite of the fact that dancing is such a wonderful
group activity, I do have some reservations about it. In
spite of all the good things it is -- exciting, fun,
flirtatious, a good way to meet people, etc. (see more
extensive list above) -- it is not a good way to really get
to know people. For that, you need to sit down and really
talk with someone -- socialize, visit, find out the things
they're interested in, find out what shared interests you
have (besides dancing). A sharing of ideas/feelings -must
occur for a friendship to develop. Otherwise, you will have
a dance group of acquaintances.
Too many of our dances end in a great diaspora -- a
scattering of energy in a hundred different directions. Then
what could become a community of friends becomes a
loose-knit community of acquaintances, or a loosely-linked
group of sub-groups. That's why I often feel that the social
part of a dance event is more important that the dancing
itself. Often, to me, the opportunity to go and have a coke
or beer afterward and just socialize, is more important than
the dancing.
I think a truely successful dance community needs to
promote more social events. Dance or music weekends or
retreats are great. Or hiking or cross-country skiing trips.
Pot-luck dinners or hot tubbing.
I suspect there are other types of activities that the
dance community, or a significant chunk of it, could
participate in. And these would increase the feeling of
community, and the vitality of interpersonal relations
within the community. I suspect we have a great deal more in
common than we often think, due mainly to the natural way in
which communities are formed, that is, people inviting their
friends, and those friends inviting others, etc. A community
of similar values tends to result.
In fact, we could probably make the following
generalities about our own community:
Generally liberal bias. Peace, anti-nuclear,
love-oriented attitudes prevail. Probably against building
more nuclear weapons, star wars defenses, reinstating the
draft, etc.
Outdoorsy, environmentally conscious group. Lots of
hikers, bicyclists, cross-country skiiers. Generally
supportive of environmental causes and efforts.
A certain level of new-age consciousness. A general
interest in alternative health strategies, holistic healing,
well-ness. An awareness that changing minds and attitudes
promotes better health in individuals and in societies.
A high level of interest in music, singing, and,
obviously, in dance. Perhaps also a higher-than-average
interest in art and theater, folkcraft and folklore.
General belief in a knowledge-based society. Open,
knowledge-seeking attitudes, with interests in computers,
information-sharing, and networking.
And, of course, exceptions to the above generalizations.
But this general nexus of interests and attitudes give
rise to the thought that the dance community, or at least a
significant proportion of it, might want to work together in
other activities. Such as anti-nuclear or anti-war efforts,
environmental causes, aid to Central American refugees.
Perhaps we could institute a computer bulletin board for the
exchange of ideas and news, or stage a theatrical dance
event (I've always wanted to do a spoof of those old glitzy
Broadway musicals, where all the men -danced with spats and
canes, and the women danced with-fruit-on-their-heads). Or a
health and well-ness weekend. We could stage a dance
marathon to raise money for some important cause. We could
form networking groups. Maybe all the chiropractors or
computer programmers or massage therapists would like to
organize a social evening to talk shop, exchange ideas,
techniques, etc. Or we could all give each other foot rubs.
Or none of the above. This article is meant to be food
for thought, not a plan. Any plan must evolve from within
the community. But I would like to see more social events --
big and little. Opportunities to get to know people and
exchange ideas. Get-togethers after the dance, or before the
dance. These things would strengthen our friendships, and
strengthen our sense of community, which I obviously think
is important, for the reasons cited above. I think we all
need the warmth and support of loving co-mmunities of
friends.
What do you want our dance community to be? You are the
dance community, so your ideas are important. I see a lot of
potential for the evolution of a much-more-vital community.
There are limitations, too. Limitations of time, distance,
communication, and desire. There are limitations of harmony,
and limitations of coherence.
These few random thoughts I've stirred up into this
food-for-thought dish. Please chew carefully.
Chris Kermiet
2267 Hudson Street
Denver, Colorado 80207
USA
+1 303 722 5391
Gordon F. Ross
: Building a Dance Community
: by Chris Kermiet
: (distributed on USENET with permission)
[cookie monster chomp]
: Too many of our dances end in a great diaspora -- a
: scattering of energy in a hundred different directions. Then
: what could become a community of friends becomes a
: loose-knit community of acquaintances, or a loosely-linked
: group of sub-groups. That's why I often feel that the social
: part of a dance event is more important that the dancing
: itself. Often, to me, the opportunity to go and have a coke
: or beer afterward and just socialize, is more important than
: the dancing.
: I think a truely successful dance community needs to
: promote more social events. Dance or music weekends or
: retreats are great. Or hiking or cross-country skiing trips.
: Pot-luck dinners or hot tubbing.
Just wanted to put in my two cents' worth. :)
Although I enjoy talking with people in a dance community and getting to
know them there, I have found that I really prefer to leave it at that.
I enjoy going and dancing with them, and talking with them and getting
acquainted with new people during breaks, etc. But that's it. I'm
really there to dance. Dancing is primary; socializing, secondary.
It's the excitement of the music and the dancing that I enjoy! Dancing
is a great emotional outlet for me, and I enjoy it thoroughly! I'd
prefer to remain on the level of "friendly acquaintances," though --
there for a good time and laughter - - but not to carry over into my
"private" life.
But, then, that's just me. :)
[cookie monster chomp]
All the best --
Gordon (in San Francisco)
gfr...@netcom.com
--
Gordon Ross (in San Francisco)
gfr...@netcom.com
Joel L Breazeale
Toby Koosman <tako...@utkvx.utk.edu> wrote:
>
>[..snip..]
>
>So maybe their are two kinds of dances: those struggling to succeed, and those
>struggling with their success...
Here is another way of looking at dances: There are "social" dances and there
are "dancer" dances. The social dances are friendly and welcoming to beginners;
the dancer dances are unfriendly and unwelcoming to beginners. The unwelcoming
aspect of the dancer dances are very subtle, so see if you can see how many of
these attributes pertain to a struggling dance series near you (please pardon
repetitions):
* The programming for the evening goes directly to difficult figures;
the programming toward the end of the evening is difficult.
* First-timers are left sitting on the sidelines and are not welcomed
and integrated into the dance.
* Opportunities to attract large groups of first-timers are avoided.
* If a large group of first-timers arrive unannounced sometime after the
beginning of the dance evening, the programming is not adjusted to
accomodate them.
* There are introductory classes before the real dance. Introductory
classes are necessary as a crutch to cause the real dance to be
approachable.
* Dance complexity is valued more than approachability.
* People do not smile when they dance; they cannot talk while they dance.
* There are no-walkthru dances during the evening.
* There is a regular "experienced dancer dance" done in the area which
is seen as the best dance in the area, one which everyone would like
to clone and emulate.
* Callers and musicians are primarily driven by monetary gain or ego
gratification.
* The dance organization is very political or is disorganized.
* The caller does not do demonstrations of basic figures regularly.
* There is no finite set of callers who represent current repertoire of
dances done at the series, there is no connective tissue holding the
dance community together [even a newsletter].
* People insist on twirling (nobody knows a do-si-do is done without
twirling). First-time dancers are twirled and disoriented.
* Children are not welcome.
* People do not socialize outside the dance (go out afterwards or do
non-dance events together).
* Callers and musicians are not promoted from within -- the locals are
not cherished above non-local hotshot bands and callers.
* Dances are operated by "remote control," by organizers who do not live
near the dance location.
* Name tags become a substitute for an old-fashioned introduction.
Get the idea?
Once Pandora's Box is opened it is difficult to close it. My strong feeling
is the best dance series will be built on a small repertoire of dances and
be centered around socializing. The publicity will be primarily by word of
mouth and the dancers will come from a small geographic region. The callers
and musicians will come from the local area and will be promoted from within.
If there are any hotshot events, they will be limited to special events such
as festivals and dance camps. Inexperienced dancers are welcomed and
integrated into the dance event and the dances which are chosen for the
dance program do not put inexperienced dancers at a disadvantage. There is
at least one caller who defines the core, approachable repertoire for the
series and maintains it by calling regularly. The local community (neibor-
hood or town) will see the dance as their dance and will integrate it into
the social/civic fabric of that area. The organizers do not try to please
the hotshot dancers.
Good luck. This is not a simple topic!
*** Please send me e-mail if you want to get my attention! I'm very
busy these days.
--Joel
j...@world.std.com
Kiran Wagle
> It's the excitement of the music and the dancing that I enjoy! Dancing
> is a great emotional outlet for me, and I enjoy it thoroughly! I'd
> prefer to remain on the level of "friendly acquaintances," though --
Why do you feel this way?
> there for a good time and laughter - - but not to carry over into my
> "private" life.
Do you separate all parts of your life this thoroughly?
Do people from the dance turn up in unexpectedly in other parts of your life,
or do people from other parts of your life turn up unexpectedly at dances?
What happens when/if they do?
> But, then, that's just me. :)
> Gordon (in San Francisco)
Hmm.
~ Kiran
Christopher C Stacy
before I will take off my clothes and jump in hot water with them.
Seriously, many people feel the same way that Gordon Ross feels:
he likes dancing, but likes to keep the social involvement at the
"friendly acquaintances" level. I can't imagine why anyone would
challenge him to defend such a position. Perhaps substituting
some other phrase that didn't have the same emotional charge,
such as "work", or "going to watch a ball game", or "bridge",
would let the point make more sense to such folks.
Gordon F. Ross
: gfr...@netcom.com (Gordon F. Ross) wrote:
: > It's the excitement of the music and the dancing that I enjoy! Dancing
: > is a great emotional outlet for me, and I enjoy it thoroughly! I'd
: > prefer to remain on the level of "friendly acquaintances," though --
: Why do you feel this way?
In my 57 years of life on this good earth, I have learned that the people
I call my friends come primarily from the religious or spiritual areas of
my life. They are those with whom I truly see eye-to-eye about the
"deep" things of life, those things that really matter to me. Folk
dancing is great fun; I enjoy it thoroughly when I do it, but I can take
it or leave it. My friends simply don't come from that area of my life.
(I'm defining "friends" here as people with whom I get together
regularly outside of a particular activity, be it job or dancing or
choral singing, etc.) I'm not saying that everybody should do that, of
course. [chuckle] To each his own. :)
: > there for a good time and laughter - - but not to carry over into my
: > "private" life.
: Do you separate all parts of your life this thoroughly?
Most of the people I know are "acquaintances." I don't follow the custom
often observed in California of automatically calling a "friend" everybody I
meet and like. I call "friends" people I relate to deeply, those with
whom I share the same spiritual values. Throughout my life, I have found
them primarily in the various religious or spiritual groups to which I have
belonged. It is possible, of course, for such people to be found in
dance groups, but that hasn't been my experience. (I'm not a Christian,
Jew, or Muslim, by the way.)
: Do people from the dance turn up in unexpectedly in other parts of your life,
: or do people from other parts of your life turn up unexpectedly at dances?
No.
: What happens when/if they do?
They never have.
All the best --
Bill Tomczak
> Here is another way of looking at dances: There are "social" dances and there
> are "dancer" dances.
As I get older, I find myself less and less interested in creating categories or placing
people/events/things into categories. I'm finding it far more enjoyable and much less contentious to
observe the range of possibilities and notice how various people/events/things shift their position
within a continuum.
So Joel - rather than view everything through this social/dancer division, why not recognize that many
dances are a shifting mixture of both these elements and more? The people who play/call/organize dances
are all in it for their own reasons. And I feel the rest of us should respect those reasons. Whether we
happen to like or agree with them or not. I find myself getting defensive when I have to justify my own
motives in the kind of black and white world it seems to me you are describing.
Bill Tomczak
nort...@interserv.com
Jon Leech
> In fact, we could probably make the following
>generalities about our own community:
>
> Outdoorsy, environmentally conscious group. [...]
> A certain level of new-age consciousness. [...]
This seems descriptive of many of the local contra dancers as well. As a
libertarian agnostic technophile, very skeptical of "new age" anything, I
don't have much to talk about with these people that won't lead to
disagreements or mutual incomprehension. I most certainly don't want to
"work together" on their pet causes, as Kermiet suggests later in his
article. I'm happy to dance with them - and to leave the connection at that.
Jon
__@/
Gary Stevenson
Michael Edward Chastain
> This seems descriptive of many of the local contra dancers as well. As a
> libertarian agnostic technophile, very skeptical of "new age" anything, I
> don't have much to talk about with these people that won't lead to
> disagreements or mutual incomprehension. I most certainly don't want to
> "work together" on their pet causes, as Kermiet suggests later in his
> article. I'm happy to dance with them - and to leave the connection at that.
As a libertarian atheist technophile, I second everything Mr. Leech says!
Maybe during the next political season, when people start wearing
liberal buttons, I'll come in an NRA tee-shirt. Although with the
number of net.dancers here, I suppose I'm out of the closet, right
now.
Michael Chastain
m...@shell.portal.com
Kevin S. Liske
: In article <3aavik$6...@watt.cs.unc.edu>, Jon Leech <le...@cs.unc.edu> wrote:
: > This seems descriptive of many of the local contra dancers as well. As a
: > libertarian agnostic technophile, very skeptical of "new age" anything, I
: As a libertarian atheist technophile, I second everything Mr. Leech says!
: Maybe during the next political season, when people start wearing
: liberal buttons, I'll come in an NRA tee-shirt. Although with the
: number of net.dancers here, I suppose I'm out of the closet, right
: now.
Gee, as a motorcycle-riding, cynical agnostic, Deadhead, does that
mean I can wear tie-dyed biker shirts to dance now? :-)
Kevin
Brian Rost
> The unwelcoming
> aspect of the dancer dances are very subtle, so see if you can see how many of
> these attributes pertain to a struggling dance series near you (please pardon
> repetitions):
> * There are introductory classes before the real dance. Introductory
> classes are necessary as a crutch to cause the real dance to be
> approachable.
I don't think I can agree here. I feel that introductory classes are
important so that first-timers can feel more confident when the dance
actually starts. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that
introductory classes are a sign of friendliness towards first-timers.
> * The dance organization is very political or is disorganized.
I'm not sure how disorganization ties in with unfriendliness.
Most of the rest of Joel's points are well taken IMHO.
Bill Ralston
Tomczak) wrote:
> > j...@world.std.com (Joel L Breazeale) writes:
> > Here is another way of looking at dances: There are "social" dances and there
> > are "dancer" dances.
> As I get older, I find myself less and less interested in creating categories or placing
> people/events/things into categories. I'm finding it far more enjoyable and much less contentious to
> observe the range of possibilities and notice how various people/events/things shift their position
> within a continuum.
Which is very much the case in our local dance scene. There seems to be a
flow of people around between the dances. For long stretches of time I
seem to prefer one dance or another.
Of course it's probably a little easier for Bill to observe the eb and flow
from the stage than on the floor where the rest of us are. :-)
--
Bill w...@mitre.org
* I babble too incoherently to speak for my employer *
Jon Leech
You mean you don't already? I've never noticed any sort of dress code at
contras, aside from people preferring clothes that are cool and loose
fitting.
Jon
__@/
Kevin S. Liske
: >Gee, as a motorcycle-riding, cynical agnostic, Deadhead, does that
: >mean I can wear tie-dyed biker shirts to dance now? :-)
: You mean you don't already? I've never noticed any sort of dress code at
: contras, aside from people preferring clothes that are cool and loose
: fitting.
Well, I already do wear biker shirts and tie-dyes...just haven't one
and the same yet...guess I'll just have to do it myself :-)
Kevin
Joel L Breazeale
Bill Tomczak <nort...@interserv.com> wrote:
>> j...@world.std.com (Joel L Breazeale) writes:
>> Here is another way of looking at dances: There are "social" dances and there
>> are "dancer" dances.
>
>As I get older, I find myself less and less interested in creating categories or placing
>people/events/things into categories. I'm finding it far more enjoyable and much less contentious to
>observe the range of possibilities and notice how various people/events/things shift their position
>within a continuum.
>So Joel - rather than view everything through this social/dancer division, why not recognize that many
>dances are a shifting mixture of both these elements and more? The people who play/call/organize dances
>are all in it for their own reasons. And I feel the rest of us should respect those reasons. Whether we
>happen to like or agree with them or not. I find myself getting defensive when I have to justify my own
>motives in the kind of black and white world it seems to me you are describing.
I'm sorry to see you are feeling defensive; I was not pointing a finger at any
particular series. My observation is that a dance series does have an impact
upon the folk who attend, so given my background in doing publicity I realize
the chances of creating a lasting impression upon a first-timer are great.
While an organizer may feel they are presenting a contra dance, I feel there
is a difference between a "social contra dance" and a "dancer contra dance".
So, if a first-timer, not knowing the difference between the two dance cultures
encounters a "social contra dance" they may find they will be doing contra dance
for a lifetime. If a first-timer is encountering a "dancer contra dance," the
risk of creating a bad impression may be considerably increased; the first-
timer may be confused by all the unnecessary twirling and complexity.
Given that the "dancer contra dances" affect one another I feel there is some
need to realize there is a larger responsibility, so if you want to go off
into your own sandbox and create a dance culture and still call it "contra
dance" then realize when your patrons visit other dances which operate
differently than yours, they should respect the difference and not try to
bring their habits to this distant dance. If you are educating your dancers
to these differences in dance culture so they are "sensitive dancers," then
I suppose I cannot find fault with your desire to be left alone to do your
own thing. Otherwise, while you are having a great time doing your own thing,
you are pumping out dancers which reflect badly on your leadership.
I recently went to a Canadian-American club and tried out Cape Bretton square
dance. I talked to the caller to ask him about the various movements; he
told me what I needed to know to make sure I didn't make a fool of myself
right off the bat! When I got up there, I tried my darndest to blend into
their culture and succeeded nicely. I also went to a Ozark square and round
dance and did pretty much the same. Finally, I also went to a square and
contra dance in New Hampshire run by Dudley Laufmann and had a delightful
time, all because I was sensitive to the dance culture. In these cases
there is a large difference between the average contra dance and these
dance cultures, so someone who conforms to the local culture would likely
have a better time.
Now, take your average hotshot dancer and plunk them down at the various
contra dances. One dance series may be friendly to first-timers and another
may not. One may be a "social contra dance" and the other a "dancer contra
dance". How can you tell the difference? How can the organizer make sure
the wanted/unwanted folk do/don't patronize their series? Those who do want
to organize dances which are approachable and friendly (social), have their
work cut out for them when the folks who hear about their dance from the
flyer table of a "dancer contra dance". If the "dancer contra dancer" is
insensitive to the needs of first-timers and do not respect (through
omission or explicit action) dance cultures, then the dominant attitude
will prevail over time as dance culture is affected and modified.
I have intentionally discouraged publicizing within the "dance community"
at least one contra dance I help to organize because I did not feel the
attracted dancers would not fit into what I wanted to present. In this
case I thought it was easier to start from scratch than to try to work
with existing dancers. There are benefits from starting from scratch,
though it is a bit harder. One benefit is that you can do the impossible
as nobody knows it is "not done".
Someone mentioned coming up with ways of describing contra dance so the
prevailing attitude could be made known, just like the term "contra dance"
had to be used when "square dance" became ambiguous due to the rise of
modern western square dance. In this case, this someone promoted the
term "community contra dance" [for the approachable version of the dance
form]. Do you think it is necessary to come up with such a differentiation
in the nomenclature?
My feeling is an approachable, social contra dance may want to disappear
from the view of the "dance community" and do its publicity only to the
general public. Why? Because they don't need dancers, just people.
I say there is a lot more to contra dancing than dancing. If folks want
to think otherwise, then they are missing out, but that's their choice.
--Joel
Jonathan Weinberg
>My feeling is an approachable, social contra dance may want to disappear
>from the view of the "dance community" and do its publicity only to the
>general public. Why? Because they don't need dancers, just people.
>I say there is a lot more to contra dancing than dancing. If folks want
>to think otherwise, then they are missing out, but that's their choice.
Well, thank you Joel! You know, people don't want or need someone else
controlling their environment to have a good time...
Jon Weinberg
PALevitt
stic...@miranda.cc.vanderbilt.edu (B Stickney) writes:
["Experienced" dances sound like a good idea to me (as well, apparantly,
as
to more than a few people at Glen Echo on Sundays, if memory serves).]
Interesting point, but you should know that we stopped calling the Sunday
Night FSGW dance an "experienced dance" over a year ago. Although I share
some of the frustrations expressed here about evenings with a large number
of beginners, we found that it had become meaningless to label our weekly
dance as "experienced". Ted Sanella ( I believe) provided a fairly good
definition of an experienced dancer in CDSS news a while ago which dealt
primarily with how someone danced (smoothly, with the music and
anticipating the figures) and how one treated your fellow dancers in the
set. At Glen Echo I see dancers who have been dancing for a few months
who match this definition, as well as dancers who have been coming to GE
for years who still "don't get it".
Unfortunately, it's the dancers in the latter group who feel that they're
too good to dance with beginners, or in the side set, and literally run to
squeeze themselves into the top of the center set.
Admittedly, our situation is somewhat unusual, since the GE dances are the
10K pound gorillas of contradancing. We try to address the concerns of
the experienced dancers by occasionally running the second half of the
dance with no walkthroughs. We also have to deal with the occasional
article in The Washington Post or Washingtonian magazine, which can send
100 people to a 200 person dance who have never seen contras before, and
read that it's the new hot singles scene.
While I agree that in our "regular" dances we often miss the pleasure of a
dance where everyone is on time, gives appropriate weight, etc., I think
that the best way to gain that pleasure is through building a community
that values contradancing as a shared experience and that welcomes new
dancers by showing them how to join in the fun.
Any ideas on actually making this happen are welcome !
Paul "Opinionated- who, me ????" Levitt
Dance Chair, FSGW
Bill Tomczak
> I'm sorry to see you are feeling defensive; I was not pointing a finger at
> any particular series.
I understand that you aren't pointing your finger. My problem is with a more
fundamental aspect of your viewpoint. Your presentation of your views seems to
require some sort of morally imperative decision on the part of others. There
seems to be an underlying need for us all to make some kind of morally
important decision about whether what we are doing is "good" or "bad" for
contra dancing. Again: Each of us is in this for our own reasons - dancers,
musicians, callers, organizers. *I* can't control that. *You* can't control
that. *No one* can control that. You have every right to create your dance
series in your image as do I and every one else. If you don't like a lot of
what you see going on out there, that's your right. You can even judge the
scene as a whole. You can advocate for your viewpoints. But if you come at
people with a bunch of shoulds and better-than-thou attitudes, don't expect to
make a whole lot of friends amongst people with viewpoints slightly different
from yours.
> My observation is that a dance series does have an
> impact upon the folk who attend, so given my background in doing publicity
> I realize the chances of creating a lasting impression upon a first-timer
> are great.
> While an organizer may feel they are presenting a contra dance, I feel there
> is a difference between a "social contra dance" and a "dancer contra dance".
> So, if a first-timer, not knowing the difference between the two dance
> cultures encounters a "social contra dance" they may find they will be doing
> contra dance for a lifetime. If a first-timer is encountering a "dancer
> contra dance," the risk of creating a bad impression may be considerably
> increased; the first-timer may be confused by all the unnecessary twirling
> and complexity.
The first-timer may bored with all the sensitive-new-age post-hippie sweetness
and never come back. First-timers aren't all like you or I Joel. One of the
things I've been having a hard time accomodating myself to for several years
now has been the changing aesthetic that I've *personally* seen in the the
dance scene. I feel much more out of touch than ever with what seems to be the
popular taste going on out there. One of the good things I've found in reading
this newsgroup has been that there is far more variety out there than I could
have hoped. There's quite a bit that I don't like or at least don't understand.
But there's also a lot that I like. People, first-timers or otherwise, will
gravitate to what they like best.
>
> Given that the "dancer contra dances" affect one another I feel there is
> some need to realize there is a larger responsibility, so if you want to go
> off into your own sandbox and create a dance culture and still call it
> "contra dance" then realize when your patrons visit other dances which
> operate differently than yours, they should respect the difference and not
> try to bring their habits to this distant dance.
You're using the "should" word. I'm going to repeat myself here: You and I have
no control over what a "contra dance" *is*. I danced fairly regularly to Ted
Sannella and Tony Saletan at the Brimmer & May School in the early to mid
eighties. Contras were danced but there were several (more than two) sets of
two squares as well as Ted's famous triplets and circle mixers. These events
were known to many people as "square" dances. Whether true or not, I've been
told that people started calling them contra dances to differentiate from the
"square" dances (meaning club dances). Perhaps, if you are so worried about the
effect all these dances are having, you should propose yet another name
augmentation?
By the way - Nowadays callers have been booed for suggesting a circle mixer and
Susan has had to convince the dancers who come to our dance that squares can be
fun. Susan and I run our own dance and we are continually working out our own
vision of a contra dance event. Our dance will evolve as will the scene as a
whole (regardless of what we do). As long as we can find enough people who
happen enjoy our particular vision and show up to make it financially not a
disaster - we will continue.
Sometimes when I see all this discussion about what "should" be happening or
not happening I get dismayed enough to think it may be time for "contra"
dancing (or whatever you want to call it) to go back to an almost-dead activity
to be rediscovered by a new generation. As Susan would say - "It's just a
dance!"
> If you are educating your dancers
> to these differences in dance culture so they are "sensitive dancers," then
> I suppose I cannot find fault with your desire to be left alone to do your
> own thing. Otherwise, while you are having a great time doing your own
> thing, you are pumping out dancers which reflect badly on your leadership.
Says who, white man? (And I won't listen to any complaints about my political
incorrectness)
>
> I recently went to a Canadian-American club and tried out Cape Bretton
> square dance. I talked to the caller to ask him about the various
> movements; he told me what I needed to know to make sure I didn't make a
> fool of myself
> right off the bat! When I got up there, I tried my darndest to blend into
> their culture and succeeded nicely. I also went to a Ozark square and round
> dance and did pretty much the same. Finally, I also went to a square and
> contra dance in New Hampshire run by Dudley Laufmann and had a delightful
> time, all because I was sensitive to the dance culture. In these cases
> there is a large difference between the average contra dance and these
> dance cultures, so someone who conforms to the local culture would likely
> have a better time.
These "dance cultures" are more valuable because they are obscure? You make the
effort to "blend in" there but here you want us all to follow your rules for
"responsible" dance leaders. Joel, I'm not trying to trash you. The point I'm
trying to make is that you have some very valuable things to say about this
stuff we're all involved in. Don't make the mistake of thinking we're all like
you. We aren't a mono culure. There's a lot happening out there.
> Now, take your average hotshot dancer and plunk them down at the various
> contra dances. One dance series may be friendly to first-timers and another
> may not. One may be a "social contra dance" and the other a "dancer contra
> dance". How can you tell the difference? How ca, you should propose yet another name
augmentation?
By the way - Nowadays callers have been booed for suggesting a circle mixer and
Susan has had to convince the dancers who come to our dance that squares can be
fun. Susan and I run our own dance and we are continually working out our own
vision of a contra dance event. Our dance will evolve as will the scene as a
whole (regardless of what we do). As long as we can find enough people who
happen enjoy our particular vision and show up to make it financially not a
disaster - we will continue.
Sometimes when I see all this discussion about what "should" be happening or
not happening I get dismayed enough to think it may be time for "contra"
dancing (or whatever you want to call it) to go back to an almost-dead activity
to be rediscovered by a new generation. As Susan would say - "It's just a
dance!"
> If you are educating your dancers
> to these differences in dance culture so they are "sensitive dancers," then
> I suppose I cannot find fault with your desire to be left alone to do your
> own thing. Otherwise, while you are having a great time doing your own
> thing, youo the impossible
> as nobody knows it is "not done".
And that's great. That's probably the best way to do the things you want given
the current state of the world.
> someone promoted the
> term "community contra dance" [for the approachable version of the dance
> form]. Do you think it is necessary to come up with such a differentiation
> in the nomenclature?
If you insist on trying to mold the rest of the world to your vision - perhaps.
See above.
> My feeling is an approachable, social contra dance may want to disappear
> from the view of the "dance community" and do its publicity only to the
> general public. Why? Because they don't need dancers, just people.
Yup - Much of what's going on in the contra dance world is now a commercial
activity. And that's the way it works. You need to do whatever is neccessary to
persue your vision.
> I say there is a lot more to contra dancing than dancing. If folks want
> to think otherwise, then they are missing out, but that's their choice.
This smacks of a superiority complex. I will confess that I have on too many
occasions shared it. But that's my problem, not the rest of the world's. Ergo
my defensiveness.
Bill Tomczak
nort...@interserv.com
BTW - I'm 38
Bill Tomczak
of my last post.
And it was already long and incoherent at was!
Sorry about that....
R. David Murray
>As a libertarian atheist technophile, I second everything Mr. Leech says!
As an extropian libertarian (which is kind of like an extreem version of a
libertarian atheist technophile with some extra stuff added <grin>) I
think there are more libertarians in the dance community than we
think. We just tend not to speak up, for many of the reasons Mr. Leech
mentions.
I, on the other hand, draw many of my non-extropian friends from within
my dance community. We just don't talk politics very often <grin>.
I wonder if it makes a difference that I'm also a musician and sound
person and tend to get involved in helping run dances? In other words,
I start out with more investment in the dance community, so I have more
opportunities to form friendships with others involved? (NB: while I'm
not refering to "aquaintences" only, the degree of friendship I'm
talking about is probably not nearly as deep as the kind the person who
triggered this subthread was refering to.)
--David
Jon Leech
R. David Murray <rdmu...@keene.edu> wrote:
>As an extropian libertarian (which is kind of like an extreem version of a
>libertarian atheist technophile with some extra stuff added <grin>) I
>think there are more libertarians in the dance community than we
>think. We just tend not to speak up, for many of the reasons Mr. Leech
>mentions.
>
>I, on the other hand, draw many of my non-extropian friends from within
>my dance community. We just don't talk politics very often <grin>.
As do I. I don't know just where one would categorize a bisexual
socialist drug-using feminist libertarian, for example, except that it's
very far away from me. I like her a lot, though.
The point I had in mind was that Kermiet seemed to suggest building a
dance "community" around people's political beliefs and interests. That's
fine if what you want is a group of people with uniform views, but not so
good if you don't want to [PC alert] exclude people with differing beliefs.
Jon
__@/
Joel L Breazeale
I never said there weren't ramifications!
I don't know how you feel about TV and automobiles, but each of those has
had a serious impact on our society. If we could have forseen the impact
of each on our society would we have done things differently?
Certainly, what you say is true about the typical American, that they don't
want or need someone else controlling their environment to have a good time,
However, in this throwaway, immediate gratification society I find what I
want is the wisdom to make the *right* choice.
Asking dancers to be gracious, thoughtful, and courteous may be enough, but
perhaps that's already asking too much? Perhaps the dance leaders of today
were not taught the importance of social grace? I went to plenty of callers'
workshops and never heard a lot about social grace.
Are you sure you aren't having a good time at someone elses' expense?
A lot of mistakes have already been made in other dance cultures, so it
appears contemporary contra dance is setting itself up nicely to relive
the experiences of others. Those who are of the "give the dancers what
they want" mindset are on one side and those who are in it for the "long
haul" are on the other. It may take decades to sort this out... when the
average age of a contra dancer is going up one year every year the warning
bell should be going off, but by then it may be too late.
Dance organizers/leaders are deciding on their course, whether they make
that decision implicitly or explicitly.
--Joel
Toby Koosman
Those at our dance who work together to make the dance series and the annual
festival happen, those who work together in smaller performance groups, like
the morris dancers, or who have made investments in assorted other ambient
activities feel a sense of community. Those bonds are formed by working
together, not by dancing together. The Knoxville dancers are closer than
most: we refer to ourselves collectively as 'the dance group'; we publish a
phone and address directory; many of us are not reluctant to invite the whole
group to our house, to our wedding, or such. I personally reckon time by the
Knoxville Dance Weekend (so for example, I know how long my partner and I have
been together because we met right after the first year I organized the
festival, which was the Fred Park and Capital Quicksteps year, and we moved in
together during festival the following year, which was Tony Parkes and Yankee
Ingenuity, etc...). Still, I would wager that the majority of regular
dancers feel no special bond, and many of our efforts at self-conscious
community building have met with failure. It's no use trying to manipulate
people. Those who want community, and who feel attracted to the particular
community, will get involved, and those who want to unwind for a few hours
and leave it at that will do so. (And those on the prowl for a mate will do
their thing as well.)
I've seen any number of people emerge from their shells because of dancing,
it's a very gratifying thing to watch. It provides a way to break ice with
strangers for those like myself who don't excel at conversational openers; it
can teach you to look people in the eye and smile with confidence. The social
value of dancing is not to be discounted, and it's a shame some dance series'
develop a culture of cutthroat partner-catching and marginalizing the new and
awkward. I think these phenomena are the result of the normal pressures on a
large urban dance: as you can read from the articles defending 'advance
booking', people are just doing what maximizes their pleasure, that's what
they came for, to have fun. At a small dance like ours with a manageable
number of beginners people aren't worried about having enough time to dance
with all their favorite partners; we have ample time to dance with both
friends and strangers, and we're motivated to treat the newcomers well because
we want to grow. Even so, there are people who are cliquish, thoughtless, and
short-sighted. Imagine being a huge dance like Glen Echo! The need to
recruit is not evident, and a lot of strange faces can separate you from the
people you came to enjoy. I know at our dance weekend I never manage to dance
with all my favorite partners and that's with three days of dancing; how many
would I get around to in a couple hours? Big dances are like big cities, and
even more so if they're _in_ big cities: in order not to be overwhelmed, you
learn to make most strangers invisible. Maybe I sound overly deterministic:
the dance at that church in Baltimore seems very congenial and suffers little
from overtly exclusive behaviors. The efforts of conscientious individuals
make plenty of difference--a few helpful and knowledgeable dancers can
facilitate the kind of positive first experience that makes people come back.
But let's not get our blood pressure up with unproductive lecturing. Set a
good example, point out the ill effects of certain practices that people may
not have given any thought to. If you're a caller, an organizer, or a
musician, your job is to do your job well, not to change the world. Dancing's
not politics or church, it's recreation. And if you want a real, organic
community, you'll have to step out the way and let it grow up some time.
Toby Koosman tako...@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee USA