#1 from Dudley Laufman
Phil Katz
The following article was written to mollify some dancers who sometimes
travel to "contra" dances, and bug me to do Chorus Jig at our dances,
somehow not being aware of the 20 or so teen age kids from Camp Yahoo
who just walked in clapping and stomping.
WHY I DON'T TEACH CHORUS JIG AT PUBLIC DANCES
Two Hundred and fifty years ago, people with means sent their children to
dancing school. The dancing master played the fiddle and taught the
dances. there were no callers in those days. The dance would start with
the top couple doing the figure and after they had progressed two or three
places down the set, they would continue and the new top couple would start
following the example of the first couple. The longways dances were all
duple or triple proper. No cross over...no "hands four". Some of the
dances were Black Joak, Hunt The Squirrel, Barrel of Sugar. Outside of the
dancing school, these dances were done at private assemblies.
People who did not attend dancing school, or those without means, danced in
their homes or at the tavern. They did 3 hand, 4 hand, 6 hand and Virginia
reels, jigs and Scotch reels. There was no calling or teaching.
Calling was invented sometime in the 1800's. Chorus Jig, Money Must,
Hull's Victory were now in vogue. Still taught in dancing schools, they
became more readily available to everyone because of the calling. Dances
were still not taught or "walked through" at public or private gatherings.
If Chorus Jig were announced, only those who knew it got up to dance.
Those who didn't, sat it out. the prompter didn't say, "This is only for
those who know it". (Back in the '70's that was done at some dances. I
was asked to do that but I refused. At public dances, everyone has paid to
get in, therefore they have a right to dance any of the dances they
choose.)
With the advent of the microphone, the "walk through" came into use and the
public dance became the dancing school and/or vice-versa. Ed Larkin of
Chelsea, Vt. formed a troupe of dancers who demonstrated the contras and
then got the public up to dance with them. In the '30's and '40's, Ralph
Page of Keene, NH, held dancing classes on week nights and Saturday
afternoons throughout the Mondanock Region, so that by the time Saturday
night rolled around, he had a healthy core of folks who knew the squares
and contras being done then with little or no teaching or walk through.
This is when I got into it. Everything was in place....a good warm hall
with a wooden floor, good food and drink, atmosphere of courtship, great
music, and dancing. No teaching. This is my memory and my vision of how a
dance should be.
It is difficult at most of the public dances I play for in rural New
Hampshire, to conduct the learning part, what with noisy late comers,
equally noisy experienced dancers, and confused newcomers.. I hate having
to shush people up. Sounds too much like school. I usually can do
Jefferson & Liberty, Pop Goes the Weasel by starting them the old way.
But, Chorus Jig? Fawgeddabowdit. If some of the hotshot dancers took off
their blinders and observed the progression in Jefferson being too
difficult for the crowd, they might think twice about asking for Chorus
Jig. It is very painful for me to watch newcomers struggle unsuccessfully
with contry corners....to watch experienced dancers not help....to watch
hotshot dancers go at it poorly. My rule of thumb for most dances in
northern rural New Hampshire, if it is Saturday night, and/or if there is
beer being served, don't teach. If experienced dancers find their way to
one of these dances, they will have to take it as it is sans Chorus Jig. I
might CALL Chorus Jig near the end of the evening if all else is equal.
But, I won't teach it, or any dance of that ilk. If I think a dance will
take more than two or three minutes to explain, I'll pass on it and do
something else. There are plenty of dances that do not require lots of
teaching tie...The Tempest, Speed the Plow, Lady of the Lake, etc. The
important thing is to maintain the social atmosphere of the dance.
So, you might well ask, how are the old or even new dances to be learned?
Mostly, I would say, by the way it is being done by most callers...talk
through/teaching, walk through/teaching, followed by actual dancing,
starting the process again for the next dance. Learn as you dance. Some
try a teaching time 1/2 hour before the dance begins. (In most parts of
semi-rural New Hampshire I find this method to be useless as the folks who
really should be there are still at their dinner party, arriving after the
dance begins fortified with a little wine under their bests to bolster
their courage). Things get out of kilter if the callers lean too heavily
on the learn part, and/or choose dances that are too complex, or, as in
many cases, choose only to do contemporary duple improper dances. Rarely
Money Musk.
If asked to, I would conduct a class or workshop on these old dances.* I
could do an evening for just those who know how.
Or, I could do what dancing masters did in Keene and England in the late
1900's, early 1900's. Instead of the 1/2 hour instruction period prior to
the dance (mostly useless), the instruction part would run from 8:00 until
10:00. Have refreshments and then proceed with the dance, doing the ones
that were taught at the class time. Not sure how this would work, but I'm
willing to give it a go.**
Learn as you dance is probably the way to go for most people. Actually
this is the way we do it, except with no emphasis on the teaching part and
lots on the social aspect. Being true to my vision.
* In the '70's I got a grant from the Arts Council to conduct a series of
dance classes in Concord, Canterbury, and Franklin, six classes in each
town. They were well attended. Dances taught were Lady of the Lake,
Chorus Jig, Hull's Victory, Money Must and Petronella. None of those folks
are dancing now...they all had kids, moved away, got divorced, etc.
** In the early 1900's there was a teacher of dancing in Workington, a Mr.
Brydon. He was fifty years old at the time and was a full-time Teacher,
holding his classes over his wife's dress-making shop in Oxford Street. He
held regular classes from 5:00 to 7:30 PM for children and young adults.
Then, from 7:30 to 10"00 PM he held dances, usually attended by thirty or
forty people who paid admission. There was little formal tuition at these
dances, but Mr. Brydon would make use of former pupils by asking them to
take up beginners. Like all the other teachers, he played the fiddle for
his dances. He would play, dance, and call out the instructions all at the
same time. "Gaan in amoung them, playing away, telling them what to do.
"Ladies in the center, Ladies chain'...'" He did the social dances,
Quadrilles, Caledonians, Spanish Waltz, Circles, Sir Roger de Coverly,
Triumph, Varsouvienne, Valetta, waltz, and the traditional Square Eight,
Long Eight, and Six Reel. Although he did not teach stepping at these
dances, his former pupils would use the "Shuffle off" in the square dances,
and those who could not step would stamp their feet to the music and beat
out the rhythm, "If you're an angel, where's your wings?, the same rhythm
as the Shuffle off.
From Traditional Dancing in Lakeland , J. Flett
Dudley Laufman
Anthony Argyriou
phil...@halcyon.com (Phil Katz) posted for Dudley Laufman:
>Or, I could do what dancing masters did in Keene and England in the late
>1900's, early 1900's. Instead of the 1/2 hour instruction period prior to
>the dance (mostly useless), the instruction part would run from 8:00 until
>10:00. Have refreshments and then proceed with the dance, doing the ones
>that were taught at the class time. Not sure how this would work, but I'm
>willing to give it a go.**
At the Starry Plough in Berkeley (CA), where there is Irish ceili
dancing every week, there is a 2-hour class before the floor is opened
to dancing. During the ceili, some _simple_ dances are walked-through
for beginners (and advanced dancers who've forgotten them), in between
the dances "for those who know". "For those who know" merely means
that there will be no calling from the stage, and you're on your own
to remember the dance.
If there was no instruction other than calling from the stage,
I wouldn't have stayed, and neither would many of the other regulars.
Also in the East Bay (Oakland, CA), Ye Gaskell Occasional Dance
Society, which does Victorian Ballroom dancing, has a 2+hour class
4-6pm before their 8:30 dance on Saturdays nights. You can't learn to
waltz correctly in one class if you've never done it, but you can get
a clue, and learn enough to keep yourself out of harm's way. And
there's enough time to get dinner in-between.
From all that I have read about contra-dancing not being _taught_,
I'm not inclined to try it. Ever. If time, etc. allows, and there is
a local group which does have reasonable lessons, I may take it up,
but the general attitude against lessons is very off-putting.
>Learn as you dance is probably the way to go for most people. Actually
>this is the way we do it, except with no emphasis on the teaching part and
>lots on the social aspect. Being true to my vision.
This is as ineffective as putting a book in front of a 4-year-old and
expecting him to learn to read. There are some basics which MUST be
taught (for 95%+ of people) before they have the background
necessary to "learn as they do". Some people may have this background
from dance classes in their youth, or the community may be very
helpful and friendly, and do a lot of teaching of basics without a
formal setup to do so, but where these don't exist, "Learn as you
dance" will generally fail.
Anthony Argyriou
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
In article <34909a8a...@news.dnai.com>, ant...@alphageo.com (Anthony
Argyriou) writes:
> phil...@halcyon.com (Phil Katz) posted for Dudley Laufman:
[explains that ceili dancing at the Starry Plough and Victorian Ballroom at the
Gaskell are preceded by optional 2 hour classes and goes on to say]
>
>From all that I have read about contra-dancing not being _taught_,
>I'm not inclined to try it. Ever. If time, etc. allows, and there is
>a local group which does have reasonable lessons, I may take it up,
>but the general attitude against lessons is very off-putting.
Even in the Bay Area, where there are sometimes complaints about not enough
time being spent on style, you would probably find adequate teaching in the
course of an evening of contra dancing to enable you to enjoy it. However, the
standard thing around here is to have a half-hour newcomer's session of basic
instruction in the half hour before the dance.
What you may not realize about contra dancing, compared to these other types,
is that there's very little footwork required. It's a lot easier than learning
waltzes, polkas, mazurkas, etc, if you have any head for floor patterns. (My
girlfriend picks up couple dances with incredible speed, and has problems with
floor patterns. But lessons won't help you there, really.)
I note that, even at the Gaskell, Sir Roger de Coverley is generally a "learn
as you dance" dance, sometimes with hurried brief instruction.
I won't guarantee that you'll enjoy contra dancing, but don't be put off by
there not being extensive lessons beforehand.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 415/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
David Elek Kirchner
Anthony Argyriou (ant...@alphageo.com) wrote:
: This is as ineffective as putting a book in front of a 4-year-old and
: expecting him to learn to read. There are some basics which MUST be
: taught (for 95%+ of people) before they have the background
: necessary to "learn as they do".
Consider a different analogy -- not teaching a child to read, but
teaching her to play soccer (or football to those of you outside the
US). A minute's worth of explanation would convey the basic points that
there are two teams, the idea is to get the ball into the other team's
net, that you can't touch the ball with your hands, and that hurting
others is against the rules. That's enough information to start her
playing and to start her having fun. Sure, there's lots more to it,
but she can pick that up with time.
Of course, an important point would be the sort of people she will be
playing with. If they are glad to have newcomers there and are patient
and good-natured about misunderstandings and mistakes, then little
preparation is required before she starts to play. But if they tend
more toward impatience and intolerance, it might be wise to offer her
a few more pointers and a chance to practice separately from the group
first.
--
David
dav...@artsci.wustl.edu
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~david6
Nancy K. Martin
: and contras being done then with little or no teaching or walk through.
: This is when I got into it. Everything was in place....a good warm hall
: with a wooden floor, good food and drink, atmosphere of courtship, great
: music, and dancing. No teaching. This is my memory and my vision of how a
: dance should be.
: Learn as you dance is probably the way to go for most people. Actually
: this is the way we do it, except with no emphasis on the teaching part and
: lots on the social aspect. Being true to my vision.
Dudley, you're gonna piss off a lot of people who correspond in this
newsgroup, people who have made a golden calf out of teaching pesky
beginners. You've "been in the country too long". You should know that the
goal of the urban contra dance is promote a program of predominantly
challenging, everybody-active, improper contra dances. Period. The good
old friendly dance parties that I love are getting hard to find. As for
me, the rural New Hampshire dances you describe sound grand.
And what is this (delightful!) noise about putting lots of emphasis on the
social aspect of dancing? I can't wait to read the responses from those
regulars who insist that dances are for dancing and not for socializing.
Come on, boys, tell Dudley Laufman how contra dancing is a deadly serious
avocation and not just an enjoyable way to socialize. I want to hear it!
- Bill Martin
Charles H. Roth
Anthony Argyriou <ant...@alphageo.com> wrote:
> phil...@halcyon.com (Phil Katz) posted for Dudley Laufman:
>
>>this is the way we do it, except with no emphasis on the teaching part and
>>lots on the social aspect. Being true to my vision.
>
>expecting him to learn to read. There are some basics which MUST be
>taught (for 95%+ of people) before they have the background
>from dance classes in their youth, or the community may be very
>helpful and friendly, and do a lot of teaching of basics without a
>formal setup to do so, but where these don't exist, "Learn as you
>dance" will generally fail.
>
(a) Throw the non-swimmer into water over his/her head and let him/her
figure out how to swim real fast or drown.
(b) Give the non-swimmer a few pointers on how to stay afloat, then gently
lead him/her into shallow water and help him/her learn the basics.
Gradually move to deeper water, but always keep friendly folks handy
to provide support if needed.
(c) Have a formal swimming class with lectures on water safety, buoyancy,
different types of strokes, etc. Provide a chance to practice the strokes
lying on a bench before going near the water.
Which way would you rather learn to swim?
-- Chuck Roth, contra caller from Austin, TX
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
In article <66rvs5$b...@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
>Here's a better analogy. Three ways to teach swimming are:
>
>(a) Throw the non-swimmer into water over his/her head and let him/her
> figure out how to swim real fast or drown.
>(b) Give the non-swimmer a few pointers on how to stay afloat, then gently
> lead him/her into shallow water and help him/her learn the basics.
> Gradually move to deeper water, but always keep friendly folks handy
> to provide support if needed.
>(c) Have a formal swimming class with lectures on water safety, buoyancy,
> different types of strokes, etc. Provide a chance to practice the strokes
> lying on a bench before going near the water.
>
>Which way would you rather learn to swim?
>
>-- Chuck Roth, contra caller from Austin, TX
>
What I think wasn't clear to Anthony, to whom you're replying, was that contra
dancing isn't brain surgery. The analogy you give is fine if you think contra
dancing is more like swimming in a pool than like, say, race-car driving.
(Reread your own analogy as though it were brain surgery rather than swimming.
In that case I think option (c) becomes preferable.)
I think a good case could be made that high-speed turning couple dances, which
are what you mostly get at the Gaskell Ball (which was one of the examples
Anthony gave), are more like race-car driving than like swimming in a pool.
The way they dance at the Gaskell, you could actually get hurt fairly easily,
and there is little the rest of the community, however friendly, can do about a
problem in progress. Sure, even though with high-speed turning couple dances
you'll acquire your real fluency out on the dance floor, not in class, you
still want to practice a lot of sutures on a pig's foot before you start sewing
up living people -- if you know what I mean.
What he needs to know isn't that his analogy is wrong, it's that contra dancing
is qualitatively different from the kind's he's used to, and that's why his
analogy wasn't applicable, and yours is.
Lee Thompson-Herbert
In article <66rvs5$b...@curly.cc.utexas.edu>,
Charles H. Roth <chr...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Anthony Argyriou <ant...@alphageo.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is as ineffective as putting a book in front of a 4-year-old and
>>expecting him to learn to read. There are some basics which MUST be
>>taught (for 95%+ of people) before they have the background
>>necessary to "learn as they do". Some people may have this background
>>from dance classes in their youth, or the community may be very
>>helpful and friendly, and do a lot of teaching of basics without a
>>formal setup to do so, but where these don't exist, "Learn as you
>>dance" will generally fail.
>>
>
>(a) Throw the non-swimmer into water over his/her head and let him/her
> figure out how to swim real fast or drown.
>(b) Give the non-swimmer a few pointers on how to stay afloat, then gently
> lead him/her into shallow water and help him/her learn the basics.
> Gradually move to deeper water, but always keep friendly folks handy
> to provide support if needed.
>(c) Have a formal swimming class with lectures on water safety, buoyancy,
> different types of strokes, etc. Provide a chance to practice the strokes
> lying on a bench before going near the water.
Except that many dance classes _aren't_ like your last description.
There's no crime in breaking things down into manageable-sized chunks
and going slowly. And there are some very basic things like how to
swing, how to _not_ hold someone's elbow, how to tell if you're even
vaguely in sync with the music that people often need to learn _first_,
before they try getting up to speed. Trying to deal with all those
new things as well as learn a dance is often too much for new people.
They often end up never learning the basic skills. Remember all the
bitching and whining about the poor standard of dancing at everyone's
local contra?
The classes that Anthony is talking about often _do_ end up more like
your second example. Poor teaching techinique is no reason to decide
that _all_ classes are a bad idea.
--
Lee M.Thompson-Herbert KD6WUR l...@crl.com
Member, Knights of Xenu (1995). Chaos Monger and Jill of All Trades.
"There are some people who will argue whether the flames are blue
or green, when the real question is that their arse is on fire."
Phil Katz
David Elek Kirchner wrote:
>
> Anthony Argyriou (ant...@alphageo.com) wrote:
>
> : This is as ineffective as putting a book in front of a 4-year-old and
> : expecting him to learn to read. There are some basics which MUST be
> : taught (for 95%+ of people) before they have the background
> : necessary to "learn as they do".
>
> teaching her to play soccer (or football to those of you outside the
> US). A minute's worth of explanation would convey the basic points that
> there are two teams, the idea is to get the ball into the other team's
> net, that you can't touch the ball with your hands, and that hurting
> others is against the rules. That's enough information to start her
> playing and to start her having fun. Sure, there's lots more to it,
> but she can pick that up with time.
>
> Of course, an important point would be the sort of people she will be
> playing with. If they are glad to have newcomers there and are patient
> and good-natured about misunderstandings and mistakes, then little
> preparation is required before she starts to play. But if they tend
> more toward impatience and intolerance, it might be wise to offer her
> a few more pointers and a chance to practice separately from the group
> first.
>
> --
> David
> dav...@artsci.wustl.edu
> http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~david6
I think there is another point here - the inherent preferences of the
caller
and the dancer. Some callers like to teach a lot and and some don't.
Some
dancers want to be "prepared"; some (perhaps with a bit of
self-knowledge) believe
they will take a bit of teaching before they "get it"; some will feel
fine
just "getting into the pool" (which isn't very deep in the case of
contra
dancing) even if they "thrash around" (figuratively) a bit. Some dancers
_like_
the intensity of all learning together and "getting it" in a teaching
session,
and some just cannot abide all the extra talking.
Dancers _and_callers_ have to do what they are comfortable doing. Dudley
absolutely
does not believe in any more than absolute min of teaching in "public
dances" (and by
this he means literally public dances, where anyone and everyone can
walk in). And that's
the methodology he's honed over the decades, whenever he does such
dances. I saw
him do a folk-festival evening dance, where easily 2/3 of the dancers
had come to the
festival to sit and watch folk "acts" and wandered over to the dance
floor out of
curiousity. He had 'em dancing - real dances - with a minimum of
talking. They loved it.
So did the regulars. The feeling of having everything coalesce in a
crowd like that
is unsurpassed. Those folks would _never_ have shown up for a teaching
session.
Otoh, Dudley and Jacqueline do a rather _nice_ amount of teaching, in a
small roomful
of "volunteers" ie folks who have shown up to be taught. At 3 in the
afternoon the next
day, there was a crowd of 30 folks who new/cared enough about Quebecois
whole-set
dances to show up for a session on just that. D and J, from the floor,
dancing with the others,
gave quite a substantial amount of teaching as they went. It was
leadership - in effect,
"here watch us; do what we do." And it worked. And it worked; w/
Jacqueline beating out
the steps from her hard-soled dancing shoes, and a good friend playing
the fiddle, I
got my Quebec steps together with actual set dancing for the first time.
I'd never
experienced the dignity and grace of those "simple" dances, til I
stepped
them through, at the speed of body (as distinct from feet) motion
implied by the Quebec
stepping.
Other callers _like_ to teach. My good friend and colleague Laura Me'
Smith, for example.
Friendly, encouraging, non-pedantic, humorous. You've probably seen my
posts here, for
the recent Seattle Sat-after-Thankgiving dance . . ."bring all your
friends and holiday
guests". Well folks did; My guess is 50-70 newcomers in a crowd of 225,
two weeks ago.
Laura Me' taught a _lovely_ half-hour intro session; came off the stage
several times in
the dance to demo something during the teaching of a dance. She believes
in all this so
she develops the skills to do it well. But we did have an advantage that
Dudley
dint have in the folk-festival crowd; the newcomers were outnumbered
about 2/1, and
a fair number were brought by friends and relations (not all, we did
public advertising
as well, and were written up in the local paper before the dance.) In
any case the
from the stage, one could barely tell the rookie from the hotshots by
about dance 3 of
the evening
Imo, dancers who like to be "taught" classes/workshops, can find
some callers who like to work that way. Dancers who are ready to go into
the pool, (or have worked up some confidence in workshops) can find
callers who
follow that approach as well.
Phil Katz
Jonathan Sivier
l...@crl3.crl.com (Lee Thompson-Herbert) writes:
>Except that many dance classes _aren't_ like your last description.
>There's no crime in breaking things down into manageable-sized chunks
>and going slowly. And there are some very basic things like how to
>swing, how to _not_ hold someone's elbow, how to tell if you're even
>vaguely in sync with the music that people often need to learn _first_,
>before they try getting up to speed. Trying to deal with all those
>new things as well as learn a dance is often too much for new people.
>They often end up never learning the basic skills. Remember all the
>bitching and whining about the poor standard of dancing at everyone's
>local contra?
>The classes that Anthony is talking about often _do_ end up more like
>your second example. Poor teaching techinique is no reason to decide
>that _all_ classes are a bad idea.
I think an important thing to remember is that different people learn
things in different ways. You and I know that contra dance is so simple
that it can be learned "as you go" during the dance, but some people have
trouble picking things up in this sort of context, no matter how friendly
the other dancers are. Some people feel that they have to have a class to
learn anything, no matter how simple, and perhaps they do need to learn in
that manner. At the least it gives them the security of having had a class
before trying the dance. I'm all in favor of having class-like events
available for those who feel they need them, whether they really do or not.
However anyone who has mastered a variety of other dances should have no
trouble picking up contra dance in the course of a dance evening. On the
other hand someone who has never done any sort of dancing will probably
benefit from some sort of introductory session, even if only a quick intro
during the half-hour prior to the dance.
Then there are the people who seem unable to learn the simplest dance
figures, no matter how they are taught or how many times they are gone
over, but don't get me started on that subject... ;-)
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier |Q: How many angels can dance on the |
| j-si...@uiuc.edu | head of a pin? |
| Flight Simulation Lab |A: It depends on what dance you call. |
| 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. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Home page URL: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~j-sivier |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Argyriou
<mar...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>And what is this (delightful!) noise about putting lots of emphasis on the
>social aspect of dancing? I can't wait to read the responses from those
>regulars who insist that dances are for dancing and not for socializing.
>Come on, boys, tell Dudley Laufman how contra dancing is a deadly serious
>avocation and not just an enjoyable way to socialize. I want to hear it!
>
>- Bill Martin
I was one of those who bitched about "learn as you go". However, I
agree that the point of dancing is social. I won't get into it
further except to note that it's much easier to flirt when you have
a reasonably good command of the dance - which took me several
months of weekly lessons. You also get more response if you're a
good dancer.
Anthony Argyriou
Jonathan Sivier
ant...@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) writes:
><mar...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
What could you possibly have filled up "several months of weekly lessons"
on contra dance with? After the first 2 or 3 weeks you would have gone over
everything there is, twice. If you go to 2 or 3 regular dances in your
area you'll be exposed to all the figures there are and become fairly
adept with most of the basics. While it is true that continued practice will
improve your style and make it easier to socialize while dancing, this isn't
something you can learn in a class. You have to do it at a dance and
"learn as you go". Now if we were talking about a more difficult dance form
such as swing or other ballroom dances, this might be reasonable. However we
are discussing contra dance and it just isn't that complex. Which makes it
a great social dance, because it's easy to learn and then you can just enjoy
the music and dancing (and socializing) with the other dancers.
While I'm in favor of offering classes for people who want them, they
should be short run classes with a focus of getting the students to a
regularly scheduled dance as soon as possible. I've taught a class on
contra dance at the local park district and it is 4 two-hour sessions. In
the first 3 we cover all the main contra dance figures, including heys and
contra corners and the 4th session is a mini-dance. On the very first
evening I tell the people in the class to come to that week's dance, because
they now know enough to be able to join in with no problem.
Chicoqueen
Having taught gawd only knows how many beginner basics for contra over the past
eleven years, I'll weigh in on this one. Here in Chico (rural North
California) THE big deal is club squares - the matching couple costume and
crinoline tutu kind. I hear it takes two years on average before one is
allowed to get into the "mainstream" level dances. Half an hour doesn't seem
like much by comparison.
Since moving (back) to Chico seven years ago (lucky for me the caller was
hitting burnout and wanting to go back to playing in the band) I have taught
almost all the workshops as well as calling the dance. Half an hour gives
newcomers plenty of time to get dialed in to the sound of my voice. Much of my
emphasis is on putting newcomers at ease: My biggest headache as a caller is
the newcomer with deer-in-the-headlights paralysis because s/he is terrified of
making a mistake. "The most important thing in contra dancing is to HAVE FUN!"
Half an hour gives me numerous opportunities to repeat this and other key
points, and it makes a huge difference.
I spend a few minutes on contra's origin and this also cuts latecomers a little
slack. I have them walk to my contra-scat singing while holding hands in a
circle so I can show how reversing direction at the start of each phrase feels
with and without giving weight, then I repeat the exercise with the allemande.
I put much of the time into teaching key points of the swing, and practicing it
with several different people arranged in a circle. The swing is NOT something
they are going to pick up very easily by osmosis. In theory I could cover much
of the Basic Geography and the Basic Jargon as part of the first dance and I DO
do a quick review (partly because there are always those who skip the lesson)
but at that point the regulars are present and they prefer to not have to
listen to the long version of the same old same old along with all my stock
beginner lesson humor.
In general, the half hour allows me to make use of the value of simple
repetition of key points that would bore the experinced folks to tears if they
had to hear it more than once in the evening.
Aside from that, I make a BIG point of getting the more experienced folks to
dance with newcomers, paying especial attention to separating beginner couples
who don't realize there is nowhere in a contra line where they can be "out of
the way". While the experienced dancers would probably prefer to dance with
each other all evening, they've learned that dancing with the newcomers early
on makes it possible for me to get beyond the super-simple dances and into
relatively complex stuff quite quickly.
One more thing: I finally made good my longstanding oath to get myself a
wireless headset mic, and now wish I'd sprung for the cost many years ago.
Wonderful! I can't count the number of hairs I've pulled out watching some
hapless newcomers threaten to crash an otherwise functioning set, utterly
frustrated by my being tethered to the mic stand. Now I rarely stand on the
stage at all, prefering to walk around where I can dive in to troubleshoot on
the fly, hug my friends, and avoid standing in place for hours. It's much
easier to communicate with the band, and I can even dance while I'm calling!
Reine Wonite
<chico...@aol.com>
Sharp/Smukler
In article <19971215215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) wrote:
>
> One more thing: I finally made good my longstanding oath to get myself a
> wireless headset mic, and now wish I'd sprung for the cost many years ago.
> Wonderful! I can't count the number of hairs I've pulled out watching some
> hapless newcomers threaten to crash an otherwise functioning set, utterly
> frustrated by my being tethered to the mic stand. Now I rarely stand on the
> stage at all, prefering to walk around where I can dive in to troubleshoot on
> the fly, hug my friends, and avoid standing in place for hours. It's much
> easier to communicate with the band, and I can even dance while I'm calling!
>
> Reine Wonite
> <chico...@aol.com>
I use a wireless hand-held mic (cheaper than the headset, and less panting
in the sound system, although it does require more hand shuffling when
dancing in). I strongly agree that the freedom offered by the wireless
helps the caller include beginners. I think the newcomers bunch up in the
back of the hall in an unconscious effort to be invisible to the
caller/teacher. All I have to do sometimes is to spend a little time
calling from the back of the hall. Fleeing me, they end up mixed in nicely
with more accomplished folks, where of course they are absorbed into the
dance and learn more quickly.
I still love the story about a well-known caller (I'd better not name him
publicly) who was calling on his cordless mic. He continued to call as he
walked out of the hall and into the men's room, did his business there,
and returned to the hall, never once dropping the call.
One caveat I have about the cordless. As a dancer, I have sometimes felt
disoriented by hearing a caller's disembodied voice, but not being able to
see him or her (or having the voice's owner suddenly spring out at me from
an unanticipated direction). Perhaps I'll adjust (although maybe not --
cordless phones still throw me). So, as a caller, I try to use the
advantages of the cordless when I need to, but still try to spend the bulk
of my time near the front.
David Smukler
To email me use my aol address: davidssm at you-know-what
--
Good judgment comes from experience which comes from bad judgment.
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> I still love the story about a well-known caller (I'd better not name him
> publicly) who was calling on his cordless mic. He continued to call as he
> walked out of the hall and into the men's room, did his business there,
> and returned to the hall, never once dropping the call.
> One caveat I have about the cordless. As a dancer, I have sometimes felt
> disoriented by hearing a caller's disembodied voice, but not being able to
> see him or her (or having the voice's owner suddenly spring out at me from
> an unanticipated direction). Perhaps I'll adjust (although maybe not --
> cordless phones still throw me). So, as a caller, I try to use the
> advantages of the cordless when I need to, but still try to spend the bulk
> of my time near the front.
> David Smukler
ME TOO! ME TOO!
I want to highlight David's excellent thoughts about the use of a cordless.
I, too, find that being unable to "find" the caller to be a disconcerting
experience.
I think the more "clever" the caller tries to be with the cordless, the more
obnoxious it gets. (IMHO, only, of course ;-).
In his example of the freedom a caller has, and how one man has used it, I
first found myself saying, "how cool!" and then thinking about how it would
feel to the dancers if a full flushing sound came through the PA - not an
experience condusive to community building, in my estimation.
It *IS* real fun technology as well as being useful, but getting caught up
in that kind of fun doesn't contribute dmuch to the dance.
In general, callers are in a position to play lots of cute tricks on dancers,
but the really good callers refrain.
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
KMsSavage
Cordless mics are wonderful. I have a lavalier set-up with a headband and
facial boom that I hardwared. It's really great for a group of kids or all-ages
dance. Or leading a grand march where there's no reliable experienced couple
who'll know what to do. Or helping someone learn a hey (drive from behind,
hands on shoulders).
I've noticed that the callers who remain on stage, glued to a mic (esp a
corded hand-held that they never put down) seem to be more aloof and distant
than those of us who get down and demonstrate things, and mingle.
As for "tricks," my dances presently suffer a dearth of volunteers, so I've
found myself pulling pitchers out of the fridge and putting 'em on the serving
counter, while calling.
--Karen M.
Ann Arbor
Oh Melo Velo
On 15 Dec 1997 21:56:07 GMT, chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) wrote:
> ... wireless headset mic ... I can dive in to troubleshoot on the fly, ...
Horrors! I can't think of any technology that would impede the
enhancement of your calling skills more than a wireless mic if it
results in such hands-on activity. Find the words to prompt your
dancers. Eschew manual manipulation!
__________________________________________________________
Regards, Ed Downing <OhMel...@DELETETHIS.mindspring.com>
©1997 Oh Melo Velo Technology, Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina
Kiran Wagle
ohmel...@mindspring.com (Oh Melo Velo) wrote:
> Find the words to prompt your dancers. Eschew manual manipulation!
Well, pushing people around is not so good, IMO. But *pointing* can be
very effective. Remember, these are people whose verbal skills might not
be good enough for them to process {left, right, up, down} on the fly.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
--
"There is no reason for an individual to have a computer in their home."
--Ken Olson (president of DEC--Digital Equipment Corporation) 1977
Chicoqueen
Gee, I say something over the internet for the first time (email doesn't count)
and look what happens...
ohmel...@mindspring.com (Oh Melo Velo) wrote:
> Find the words to prompt your dancers. Eschew manual manipulation!
and Kiran wrote back:
>Well, pushing people around is not so good, IMO. But *pointing* can be
>very effective. Remember, these are people whose verbal skills might not
>be good enough for them to process {left, right, up, down} on the fly.
I find pointing and/or "hands on" direction is most helpful for those folks who
either are not verbally-oriented to begin with or are so nervous ("deer in the
headlights") they get that way. I'm sure there are ways to do it that could be
quite obnoxious. Every (knock wood) time I've done it (like this past Sunday
I did it for a beginner couple during Beckett's Reel) the people have come up
and thanked me afterward.
My sense is no dance series or evening is quite alike, and what may be awful in
one place is perfect in another. Living in the sticks 1.5 hours from any major
city, the turnout at the Chico, CA dance is quite variable in attendance and
composition of experience levels. Having the freedom to deal with confusion in
person allows me to call the more intricate stuff the experienced dancers
prefer and keep the newcomers from being overwhelmed.
Most people are scarcely aware I'm not on the stage.
Reine Wonite (pronounced "RAY-nah Juanita")
<chico...@aol.com>
Nancy K. Martin
Oh Melo Velo <ohmel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Horrors! I can't think of any technology that would impede the
: enhancement of your calling skills more than a wireless mic if it
: results in such hands-on activity. Find the words to prompt your
: dancers. Eschew manual manipulation!
Oh, but there are those occasional times when you need to stay on top of
the call for awhile but there is that couple way down the hall who just
need a little extra pointing or physical help and they would get it now
instead of never.
But then there is the story of the caller who forgot to turn off his
headset mic when hitting on one of the female dancers. I've heard more
people say they know someone who was there to hear it in its glory. I can
only hope the story is true. I can just hear it reverberating around the
dance hall: "Hey, babe, you come around here much?" Or, "Wanna feel my
bicep?"
- Bill Martin
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
In article <19971216140...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kmss...@aol.com (KMsSavage) writes:
> Cordless mics are wonderful. I have a lavalier set-up with a headband and
> facial boom that I hardwared. It's really great for a group of kids or all-ages
> dance. Or leading a grand march where there's no reliable experienced couple
> who'll know what to do. Or helping someone learn a hey (drive from behind,
> hands on shoulders).
I think this shows the great things that can be done with a cordless mic. It
can be a wonderful tool for teaching and reaching the crowd. It sounds like
you use the mic very well.
> As for "tricks," my dances presently suffer a dearth of volunteers, so I've
> found myself pulling pitchers out of the fridge and putting 'em on the serving
> counter, while calling.
I know each community is different and perhaps the 'fridge is placed in way
that this would make sense in your hall. My impression is that the caller
shouldn't do this: If the dancers are thirsty enough, they will volunteer,
eagerly. ;) If they aren't that thirsty, why bother?
If it takes the caller's attention away from the floor, maybe it shouldn't be
done. (Although I must say that you sound like a caller that pays close
attention to your floor.)
The "clever tricks" I object to aren't in any way limited to cordless mics,
it's just that cordless technology is so novel that the temptation to play
is there. When I have noticed them happening with a cordless mic, they are
usually done by a novice at that technology.
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
> --Karen M.
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
In article <67ap2a$t0r$1...@news1.teleport.com>, "Nancy K. Martin" <mar...@user2.teleport.com> writes:
> Oh Melo Velo <ohmel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : Horrors! I can't think of any technology that would impede the
> : enhancement of your calling skills more than a wireless mic if it
> : results in such hands-on activity. Find the words to prompt your
> : dancers. Eschew manual manipulation!
>
> Oh, but there are those occasional times when you need to stay on top of
> the call for awhile but there is that couple way down the hall who just
> need a little extra pointing or physical help and they would get it now
> instead of never.
I think cordless mics can make demonstrations smooth, understandable and more
continuous with the rest of the calling.
A problem can happen when the caller does something like go down onto
the floor unnoticed and then, when he is trying to help some lost souls,
switches into demonstration mode ("watch this !" ) with most of the dancers
looking at the front of the hall trying to find the caller.
>
> But then there is the story of the caller who forgot to turn off his
> headset mic when hitting on one of the female dancers. I've heard more
> people say they know someone who was there to hear it in its glory. I can
> only hope the story is true. I can just hear it reverberating around the
> dance hall: "Hey, babe, you come around here much?" Or, "Wanna feel my
> bicep?"
The reality is that in our environment "hitting on" would largely be
innocuous:
"Uh... Nice night, isn't it?"
"It's a good crowd here tonight, very welcoming";
"Are you going out after the dance?";
"You have a wonderful swing!", "Great skirt!",
"Is my calling OK? I was afraid I lost some of the new people.";
or maybe even:
"I would love to waltz with you! Would you [intense batting
of eyelashes] save the waltz for me ? ?"
The "hitting" part comes from things like the number of interactions and
non-verbal cues like quality of eye contact, facial expression and body
language.
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
.
.
.
.
>
>
>
>
> - Bill Martin
>
Dale Rempert
Good going, Chuck
sharon
Phil and Carol Good-Elliott
A bit of drift:
If Scandinavian dancing is done during the break at a contra-dance, a
hand held wireless mic can be placed in a mic stand in the middle of
the musician's circle to augment their output. This allows for the
muscians to have audio reinforcement while playing in the middle of
the dance floor without a mic cable in the way of hambo-ing dancers
flying around the room. For that matter, a two or three mics might
work even better than just one. Any thoughts?
Ed Downing
On 18 Dec 1997 06:55:55 GMT, chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) wrote:
>... I'm sure there are ways to do it that could be quite obnoxious.
I hope 'tis not me you describe but, read on ...
> Every (knock wood) time I've done it (like this past Sunday I did it for a
> beginner couple during Beckett's Reel) the people have come up
> and thanked me afterward.
I took to the floor to "help" a set buster on the change that,
unbeknownst to me, he had decyphered the figure and planned to show
his partner he was NOT dance impared. In response to my "help", he
spit "F*ck you!" in my face, definitely the strongest words I've heard
on the dance floor. I called him to apologize personally the
following morning and he titularly accepted but our relationship has
been strained ever since.
I'm adamant: eschew manual manipulation! With the sole exception of
demos, call from the stage!
Ed Downing
On 18 Dec 1997 09:06:18 GMT, "Nancy K. Martin"
<mar...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
> ... that couple way down the hall who just need a little extra pointing ...
See my reply in the "wireless mics: good or evil?" thread.
This really isn't a DL#1 topic.
Bill Mutch
> regulars who insist that dances are for dancing and not for socializing.
> Come on, boys, tell Dudley Laufman how contra dancing is a deadly serious
> avocation and not just an enjoyable way to socialize. I want to hear it!
>
> - Bill Martin
If you're going to tell Dudley Laufman anthing your might need to be
aware that his classic recordings may have become out of print before you
were born.
Chicoqueen
I'm new to this online stuff and haven't figured out how to yield the
official-looking
"on such-and-such, so-and-so wrote:" but I'm replying to Ed Downing of
12/19/97:
Got your thread about the (former?) friend dancer who did foully profane in
your face after you tried to lend a hands-on help. Maybe I've been lucky;
maybe I do it differently; maybe the dancers in NC have a different sense of
pride; who knows. Generally speaking, I've only laid hands on those who
looked confused and bewildered and perhaps genuinely frightened by the
possibility of royally screwing the whole set up.
I really do feel, though, that some newcomers are not fully capable of hearing
any words, no matter how well-chosen, when they are befuddled by a dance that
is over their heads. Some dances are more condusive to allowing the other
dancers in the set to help out, some really put each person on their own
abilities. In the case of beginners who come as couples, who (thanks to my
willing experienced folks) get a few dances apart under the wing of an
experienced dancer in the earlier part of the evening, but then cling to each
other as the evening goes on (after all, many newcomer couples arrive expecting
to spend the evening doing something *together*) when I start pulling out the
more complex dances, I have found diving to the rescue really works.
Reine Wonite (pronounced "RAY-na Juanita")
<chico...@aol.com>
KHoff98107
I don't really care whether callers use them or not, but I wish they would they
would spell it "mike" (the final e makes the i long, remember?) rather than
"mic," which has no reason to rhyme with anything other than "tic." Does this
bother anyone else? Anyone want to get off on this tangent?
Nancy Mamlin
KHoff98107 <khoff...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971221154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Who me? Off on a tangent?
"Mike" is short for "Michael".
"Mic" is short for "Microphone".
The English language, of which I am quite fond, is not consistent enough to
say that the final e has to be there to make the i long.
Perhaps I'm just fond of inconsistent things.
Nancy "tying together all her loose threads" Mamlin
Jonathan Sivier
khoff...@aol.com (KHoff98107) writes:
>I don't really care whether callers use them or not, but I wish they would they
>would spell it "mike" (the final e makes the i long, remember?) rather than
>"mic," which has no reason to rhyme with anything other than "tic." Does this
>bother anyone else? Anyone want to get off on this tangent?
I don't really want to get off on this tangent, but "mic" seems to me
to be a more proper abbreviation for "MICrophone" than "mike".
Back on topic. I haven't had much opportunity to use wireless mics
and so I can't comment on them directly, though it does seem to me that
they could be very useful and I have seen other callers use them very
effectively. However on the topic of "laying on of hands" to help lost
dancers. When I'm calling I've never actually touched any dancers to help
them, but I do go down onto the floor and, hopefully, point them in the
right direction. Last night I was calling a dance and some of the dancers
in one of the lines looked a bit lost. leaving the mic in it's stand I
went down onto the floor to where the dancers having trouble were. I then
called the dance specifically for them. This way the rest of the dancers
can't hear me and don't become confused by these calls which may not apply
to them and by speaking directly to the couple who are lost (in a friendly
way I hope), I'm able to get their attention and help them through. Also at
close range like this gestures can be used to help direct them.
Bob Stein
In article <01bd0e37$5c7e1980$0b12...@mamlin.appstate.edu>, "Nancy
Mamlin" <maml...@appstate.edu> wrote:
}"Mike" is short for "Michael".
}
}"Mic" is short for "Microphone".
}
}The English language, of which I am quite fond, is not consistent enough to
}say that the final e has to be there to make the i long.
Agreed....though I must admit that "mic" has always driven me a bit
nuts...I really do want to say "mick" when I see it written...no offense,
Mr. Jagger!
-Bob S
--
============================================================
Bob Stein, squeeze at voicenet dot com
(To REPLY to this by e-mail, remove the address in the header and type in the address from above in appropriate format)
"A conference is a meeting to decide where the next meeting will be."
--Anonymous
Bob Stein
In article <01bd0e37$5c7e1980$0b12...@mamlin.appstate.edu>, "Nancy
Mamlin" <maml...@appstate.edu> wrote:
}"Mike" is short for "Michael".
}
}"Mic" is short for "Microphone".
}
}The English language, of which I am quite fond, is not consistent enough to
}say that the final e has to be there to make the i long.
Agreed....though I must admit that "mic" has always driven me a bit
nuts...I really do want to say "mick" when I see it written...no offense,
Mr. Jagger!
this in the light of the fact that just recently on NPR I heard a
reporter (who definitely should have known better) describe Boris
Yeltsin's condition as having "ammonia". I swear...that and our local NPR
reporter saying a local felon had been convicted "in abstentia" as opposed
to "absentia"
<sigh>
It's the end of Western Civilization, I'll tell ya!
Kiran Wagle
chico...@aol.com (Reine Wonite) wrote:
> I'm new to this online stuff and haven't figured out how to yield the
> official-looking "on such-and-such, so-and-so wrote:"
It's hard to do from AOL. Most stand-alone USENET news-reading software
does it automatically.
(IIRC, an acquaintance of mine on the net once wrote a long flame about
AOL's horrible software, only to realise later that HE had written the
original code on which AOL software is based. Live and lean.)
> (after all, many newcomer couples arrive expecting
> to spend the evening doing something *together*)
Indeed. I think this misconception is something that our publicity should
work hard to fight. It seems to me, based simply on truth in advertising,
that beginner couples should be informed that this is an activity where
they'll be expected by the other participants to dance with (barring the
usual caveats) anyone who asks, and will be expected NOT to dance
exclusively with each other.
(Whether they choose to pursue any particular course of action based on
this information is, of course, entirely up to them. But I believe we
should provide them the tools to make informed choices. <g>)
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
Phil Katz
in cheek?!
Alan Gedance
On 21 Dec 1997 20:36:29 GMT, "Nancy Mamlin" <maml...@appstate.edu>
wrote:
> KHoff98107 <khoff...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19971221154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >I don't really care whether callers use them or not, but I wish they
> >would spell it "mike" (the final e makes the i long,
> >remember?) rather than mic," which has no reason to rhyme with
> >anything other than "tic."
> >Does this bother anyone else? Anyone want to get off on this tangent?
> Who me? Off on a tangent?
>
> "Mike" is short for "Michael".
>
> "Mic" is short for "Microphone".
>
> The English language, of which I am quite fond, is not consistent enough to
> say that the final e has to be there to make the i long.
>
> Perhaps I'm just fond of inconsistent things.
>
> Nancy "tying together all her loose threads" Mamlin
Well, it offends my ear and sense of order too. In no language with
which I'm familiar would "mic" be pronounced like "mike", other than
in "audioese". But, unfortunately, in the ranks of audio
professionals spelling it "mic" is not only the accepted way, it seems
to be the _only_ way. So, if one insists on spelling it "mike" it
might mark him as an outsider to the audio field, a non-professional,
likely to know nothing about audio (however unfair and unwarranted
this is).* So, take your choice. Please your sensitivities and turn
off any professional readers, or wince and keep your audience.
*See, for instance, rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.marketplace.
Alan
(To reply, remove the r in my username, argedance.)
Lisa Inman
I think it is true that many audio folks use "mic"; for the record, my
Webster's dictionary from the 1960's says "mike"...guess we can have it
either way.--Lisa
Lisa Inman
Nancy K. Martin
KHoff98107 <khoff...@aol.com> wrote:
: I don't really care whether callers use them or not, but I wish they would they
: would spell it "mike" (the final e makes the i long, remember?) rather than
: "mic," which has no reason to rhyme with anything other than "tic." Does this
: bother anyone else? Anyone want to get off on this tangent?
I prefer the more formal "Michael", as in: "The caller dropped his
Blastomatic SS409 Hypercardiac Condenser michael on the floor which caused
a very loud bang, just as though he had dropped a mic."
Bill Martin
KMsSavage
"Nancy" (Bill) said:
>I prefer the more formal "Michael", as in: "The caller dropped his
>Blastomatic SS409 Hypercardiac Condenser michael on the floor which caused
>a very loud bang, just as though he had dropped a mic."
Headsets never fall on the floor (at least not at MY dances ;) ).
--Karen M.
Ann Arbor
KHoff98107
>
"Mike" is short for "Michael".
"Mic" is short for "Microphone".
Not in my dictionary! in Random House, "mike," definition 1, is: (Informal) a
microphone. "Mic" is not in the dictionary, except with a capital M and a
period, in which case it is the abbreviation for Micah. American Heritage
Dictionary concurs on both. -- Jackie Hoffman
Bob Stein
In article <67ocd6$m4e$2...@news1.teleport.com>, "Nancy K. Martin"
<mar...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
}I prefer the more formal "Michael", as in: "The caller dropped his
}Blastomatic SS409 Hypercardiac Condenser michael on the floor which caused
}a very loud bang, just as though he had dropped a mic."
HA! Does that make a "stand" as in a music or mic stand short for "Stanley"???
-Bob S
--
============================================================
Bob Stein, squeeze at voicenet dot com
(To REPLY to this by e-mail, remove the address in the header and type in the address from above in appropriate format)
It is not true that life is one damn thing after another -- it's one damn thing over and over.
-- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Gary D. Shapiro
[severe topic drift, continued]
Some people spell it "mic" and some people spell it "mike." That is a
description of current reality. Newer and better dictionaries will reflect
that reality. (Random House 2nd Edition Unabridged shows both spellings.)
Any "prescriptive grammarian" will have as much luck convincing people to
spell it one particular way as any "prescriptive caller" (or dancer) will
have convincing the self-appointed elite to dance in the side sets and/or
with non-self-appointed elites. But it doesn't stop us from trying!
--
Gary D. Shapiro <gar...@iname.com> (pronounced "Gary Yes!")
Consume like there's no tomorrow 'cause as we do there ain't.
Peter Y
Nancy Mamlin said:
>"Mike" is short for "Michael".
>
>"Mic" is short for "Microphone".
Well, staying off the topic some more, when I was young, (and I don't think I'm
particularly older than others here) "mike" was short for microphone, and I
never saw the rather stupid-looking "mic" abbreviation until fairly recently.
On the other hand, most modern abbreviations and official jargon seems to show
a preference for stupidity and obscurity (e.g. "persons" for "people"), so why
should microphones be any different?
Peter Yarensky
Anthony Argyriou
I wrote:
>>I was one of those who bitched about "learn as you go". However, I
>>agree that the point of dancing is social. I won't get into it
>>further except to note that it's much easier to flirt when you have
>>a reasonably good command of the dance - which took me several
>>months of weekly lessons. You also get more response if you're a
>>good dancer.
j-si...@staff.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Sivier ) wrote:
> What could you possibly have filled up "several months of weekly lessons"
>on contra dance with?
Short answer - PRACTICE. Long answer below
>After the first 2 or 3 weeks you would have gone over
>everything there is, twice. If you go to 2 or 3 regular dances in your
>area you'll be exposed to all the figures there are and become fairly
>adept with most of the basics. While it is true that continued practice will
>improve your style and make it easier to socialize while dancing, this isn't
>something you can learn in a class. You have to do it at a dance and
>"learn as you go". Now if we were talking about a more difficult dance form
>such as swing or other ballroom dances, this might be reasonable. However we
>are discussing contra dance and it just isn't that complex. Which makes it
>a great social dance, because it's easy to learn and then you can just enjoy
>the music and dancing (and socializing) with the other dancers.
Oops - I don't contradance. I was talking about Irish ceili dancing.
Which has more moves than can be taught in 4 weeks of 2-hour classes.
I suspect contradancing does too - I don't believe that as many
seemingly intelligent people (ie posters here) would be as satisfied
as they are with contradancing if all there was could be learned in 8
hours including minimal practice.
> While I'm in favor of offering classes for people who want them, they
>should be short run classes with a focus of getting the students to a
>regularly scheduled dance as soon as possible. I've taught a class on
>contra dance at the local park district and it is 4 two-hour sessions. In
>the first 3 we cover all the main contra dance figures, including heys and
>contra corners and the 4th session is a mini-dance. On the very first
>evening I tell the people in the class to come to that week's dance, because
>they now know enough to be able to join in with no problem.
The classes at the Starry Plough are organized into 3 levels (two on
slow days). Beginning class goes over basic reel footwork, and
figures used in the 4-hand reel. The teacher goes over each figure in
turn, then has the class dance the dance to the point they've learned
it already. By the end of the class, they go through the entire
dance. If there is still time, the teacher will go over other for the
class - perhaps jig footwork, perhaps how to do a proper elbow
hold and a proper ceili swing (both for Haymaker's Jig), maybe a
different dance using some of the same figures, etc. There is dancing
_every_week_ after the classes. The intermediate and advanced classes
cover perfecting footwork, and learning other dances, some of which
have figures not done in the beginning class.
I continue to go to the advanced (or int/adv) class because it is
mostly dancing - if it were invariably two hours of footwork drill,
I'd stop going regularly. There is also the opportunity to do dances
which won't be done on the floor during the open dancing (Laura's jig,
Glenbeigh Jig, the 12/16-hand reel, etc.)
I think what really makes the Starry Plough scene work is the class
and dancing _EVERY_WEEK_. This gives a strong continuity, and
makes it easy to schedule. Monday night is Irish Dancing night.
Period. Not every fourth, or second & fourth, or some other
combination which asks to be interfered with, but every week.
Anthony Argyriou
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
In article <34a8ee42...@news.dnai.com>, ant...@alphageo.com (Anthony
Argyriou) writes:
[snippage of Anthony's and Jonathan Sivier's ideas about classes]
>
>Oops - I don't contradance. I was talking about Irish ceili dancing.
>Which has more moves than can be taught in 4 weeks of 2-hour classes.
>I suspect contradancing does too - I don't believe that as many
>seemingly intelligent people (ie posters here) would be as satisfied
>as they are with contradancing if all there was could be learned in 8
>hours including minimal practice.
You don't seem to understand that different people look for different
things from dancing, and there is no obvious correlation with level of
intelligence or degree of articulateness. Maybe I'm reading too much into
this, but it sounds as though you're saying that it can't interest any
intelligent people unless it's difficult or challenging. That's just not
true.
Some various reasons people come to contras: They love the music; they love
the feeling of community; they like to be able to turn off their brains at
the end of a hard week and move to music without having to work too much at
it. In fact, the tendency over the last, say, twenty years, has been for
the more complicated forms - triple minor contras, contra corners figures -
to get rarer and rarer, making contradancing less and less intellectually
challenging.
And yet plenty of smart people continue to flock to it. It's not, usually,
for the challenge.
How simple is it?
1) No footwork. No "reel step" and "jig step"; it's all a walking step,
with the exception of balances and swings (and you can do a fine walking
swing).
2) A typical contra dance uses up 32 bars worth of figures,
which get walked through at least once before the music starts, and then
repeated with new people as you travel up and down the set. You don't,
unless you're doing a medley, have to have the whole figure vocabulary in
your head at one time.
3) Frequently used figures, off the top of my head:
Swing (generally modified ballroom position, not elbow)
Balance
Ladies Chain
Dosido
Forward and back in long lines
Right and Left Through
Circle (L or R)
Star (Right or Left Hand)
Hey for Four (hardest thing here, and you already know it from 4 hand
reel)
Gypsy
Pass Through
Assisted Cast
Half figure 8
Allemande (L or R)
Box the Gnat/California Twirl
Down the middle and back
Less Frequently Used
Contra Corners
Star Through (Circular Hey)
a variety of others that turn up rarely
This doesn't take 8 hours of classes; if you have any aptitude for figures
and some kind of sense of geography, you can easily pick it up as you go.
(What takes longer is learning to swing _properly_ and how much weight to
give when, but some people never learn this.)
As I've said before, you may not like contradancing, but don't keep away
from it because you can't get extensive classes. It may not be challenging
enough for you, but it is a capital error to assume that it must be
challenging if intelligent people like it.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
KMsSavage
One more point about the difficulty level of contra dancing:
many cities host "First Night" celebrations, and often a contra dance is
included as part of the entertainment. The crowd leans towards families (young
kids included) and they don't stay in one venue for longer than an hour or so.
Last year the dance I was calling in Ypsilanti ranged from 10 people to 100,
all within an hour. And everybody could do the dances, after 5 minutes of
instruction.
--Karen M.
Ann Arbor
Jonathan Sivier
kmss...@aol.com (KMsSavage) writes:
As Karen says contradance is indeed something you can learn in very little
time and "as-you-go". The fact that there is no footwork and very few
figures to learn helps. I realize this may seem boring to some people, but
I like it because there isn't much mental challenge. That makes it a great
way to relax (mentally) at the end of the work week. It doesn't take long
to learn so in very lttle time you can just be enjoying the music and the
other dancers. When I call at a regular dance I like to put in a few more
challenging dances (with contra corners, etc.) for variety, but I try to
steer clear of really complex dances as a rule. My feeling is that most of
the people are here to dance, not to spend the evening with lessons. This
doesn't mean you can't slip in a little teaching, and really good callers
can do this as part of the walk-throughs.
I've called before at a "First Night" and I've found the hardest part to
be getting the people on their feet and on the dance floor. They aren't
used to being active, but instead are expecting to be entertained. Once
they are on the floor getting them dancing is pretty straight-forward and
doesn't take much time at all. I stick with dances that have only figures
that doen't require any teaching, such as stars, circles, allemandes,
do-si-dos, lines forward and back and down the hall, pass-through, etc.
If doing contras I like dances where the progression is achieved by passing
the current neighbors and meeting new neighbors. This way they don't have
to worry about the progression, it happens automatically.
Nancy K. Martin
Bob Stein <squ...@nospam.com> wrote:
: In article <67ocd6$m4e$2...@news1.teleport.com>, "Nancy K. Martin"
: <mar...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
: }I prefer the more formal "Michael", as in: "The caller dropped his
: }Blastomatic SS409 Hypercardiac Condenser michael on the floor which caused
: }a very loud bang, just as though he had dropped a mic."
: HA! Does that make a "stand" as in a music or mic stand short for
"Stanley"???
Close. "Stand" is the vulgar form of "Standford". I have several michael
standfords with booms in my kit.
I propose a compromise solution to this complex controversy swirling
around the lowly microphone. Lets us call the microphone "mick".
"Mick" is a nick for "Mike",
And the spelling is close to "mic".
It's a compromise I could like,
If only I could kick "mic"!
Bill Martin
Bob M
> I propose a compromise solution to this complex controversy swirling
> around the lowly microphone. Lets us call the microphone "mick".
We "Micks" don't appreciate being dropped on the floor. Plus, "Mick"
is already a nickname for a micrometer.
Bob McKimm
Christopher Booth
gar...@iname.com (Gary D. Shapiro) wrote:
>[severe topic drift, continued]
>
>Some people spell it "mic" and some people spell it "mike." That is a
>description of current reality. Newer and better dictionaries will reflect
>that reality. (Random House 2nd Edition Unabridged shows both spellings.)
ah yes, geek speek, wherein one spells wd the fewest possible keystrokes,
brazenly avoiding grammar and correct spelling, trusting that if they do it
often enough it will get put into sm dict.
--