Thinking Contrarily About Center Set
Gary Shapiro
lately. In the past I've had precious little sympathy for those who
rush madly to the top of the "center" set as it instantly coalesces
into a squished mob.
But now, well, come to think of it, I still lack in said sympathy. I'm
not proud of that, but there it is.
The difference is that now I see a sort of mob mentality has taken
hold. A self-fulfilling prophecy. The center setescenti donšt want to
be in a set that has few members of the center setescenti in it, nor in
a shorter set. An individual could wish that the two sets be
homogenized, but that wonšt make it happen, and therešs little chance
that a critical mass will make that decision all at once.
I've noticed that no one objects when, due to low attendance or a dance
in Sicilian circle formation, we have everyone in the same set.
So I propose that callers somehow make every dance just like one of
those one-set dances where no one objects to dancing with the whole
hall. Except the dancers will be dancing with one-half or one-third of
the whole hall, divided randomly. The trick is how to engineer this
quickly.
"Engineer" is an interesting choice of words, because I could be
accused of attempting social engineering. But I believe that most of
the dancers would prefer a homogenous dance, but are unable to
effectively make it happen themselves, because of the mob mentality. So
it's up to the caller.
I use one trick at the first dance of the evening when everyone lines
up in one set. Using floor instructions, I just have the ones make one
set and the twos make another. No one has complained--in fact, just the
opposite.
Any other ideas? Or am I crazy to even think along these lines?
--
Gary Shapiro <sir_dance...@yahoo.com>, a "throwaway" address
that goes away shortly after the spam starts.
susanwieder
Gary Shapiro <sir_dance...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:171120000132081190%sir_dance...@yahoo.com...
... "But I believe that most of the dancers would prefer a homogenous dance,
but are unable to effectively make it happen themselves, because of the mob
think along these lines?..."
>
Hi Gary,
I am fairly new to contra dancing (< 1 yr) and recently found this
newsgroup. It seems to me that callers have some role in preventing
problems (clear instructions adequately heard), and that callers feel some
responsibility for the overall level of "fun" folks have. But where is the
line on caller control and manipulation of the dancers? What makes a caller
want to eliminate the dancer's free choice in choosing a particular line (be
it for the similarity of dancers in that line or be it for a favorite dancer
they want to be in line with, or avoid for that matter)?
My first reaction as I was reading your assertions was, "What a control
freak," while my second reaction was, "Oh, he is a caller who doesn't think
his dances are fun enough?" Finally I decided to ask you: WHY do you
believe that most dancers prefer a homogenous dance???? If that was true,
wouldn't lines fill up evenly more often than not? Seems to me that at the
dances I have been to the caller occasionally requests the lines to even out
and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, so what? Or are you trying
to engineer some other level of homogeneity that I don't understand? Please
define "a homogenous dance" for me so we are clearly on the same track.
Susanne
Victoria Burwell
be doing it (or can it?): I've been known to pull an unsuspecting partner to
the next line when we reached the bottom of the first line and on to the
next, when we reach the top of the second line.
Victor in Maine
<sir_dance...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:171120000132081190%sir_dance...@yahoo.com...
> I've been thinking differently (I think) about the center set issue
> lately. In the past I've had precious little sympathy for those who
> rush madly to the top of the "center" set as it instantly coalesces
> into a squished mob.
>
> But now, well, come to think of it, I still lack in said sympathy. I'm
> not proud of that, but there it is.
>
> The difference is that now I see a sort of mob mentality has taken
> hold. A self-fulfilling prophecy. The center setescenti donšt want to
> be in a set that has few members of the center setescenti in it, nor in
> a shorter set. An individual could wish that the two sets be
> homogenized, but that wonšt make it happen, and therešs little chance
> that a critical mass will make that decision all at once.
>
> I've noticed that no one objects when, due to low attendance or a dance
> in Sicilian circle formation, we have everyone in the same set.
>
> So I propose that callers somehow make every dance just like one of
> those one-set dances where no one objects to dancing with the whole
> hall. Except the dancers will be dancing with one-half or one-third of
> the whole hall, divided randomly. The trick is how to engineer this
> quickly.
>
> "Engineer" is an interesting choice of words, because I could be
> accused of attempting social engineering. But I believe that most of
> the dancers would prefer a homogenous dance, but are unable to
> effectively make it happen themselves, because of the mob mentality. So
> it's up to the caller.
>
Gary Shapiro
"susanwieder" <susan...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>My first reaction as I was reading your assertions was, "What a control
>freak," while my second reaction was, "Oh, he is a caller who doesn't think
>his dances are fun enough?" Finally I decided to ask you: WHY do you
>believe that most dancers prefer a homogenous dance????
Because when I set up the first dance that way (by having the ones make
one set and the twos another) people like it. Since a different flavor
of dancer tends to be near the top, and a different flaovr near the
bottom, I get two similar sets if I split them ones-twos rather than
divide the set in the middle.
I get lots of compliments regarding my selection of dances.
>If that was true,
>wouldn't lines fill up evenly more often than not?
No, because of the mob dynamics. (I don't mean "mob" in any negative
sense.) The choice is not between two homogenous sets. It's between the
"center" set and the side set(s).
>Seems to me that at the
>dances I have been to the caller occasionally requests the lines to even out
>and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, so what? Or are you trying
>to engineer some other level of homogeneity that I don't understand? Please
>define "a homogenous dance" for me so we are clearly on the same track.
Homogenous sets would have equal ratios of the different flavor of
dancers. By flavor I mean dancers with different experience levels,
skill levels, degrees of community consciousness, degrees of
agressiveness, and reasons for dancing.
The top of the center set contains people who book ahead or book while
dancing. The next part of the center set contains people who book
quickly. These all tend to be people who have been at the dance a while
and are quick about getting a partner. Most are happy to have a few new
dancers in the set, one or two perpetual beginners, and some non
agressive bookers. But if they choose the other set, there will be a
higher percentage of new dancers, perpetual beginners, and the laid
back bookers. And then the stakeholders like me who think they have a
positive influence by dancing with the less experienced dancers.
This caller, and I suspect others, prefer a homogenous floor, because
when the experienced dancers are evenly spread around, it's easier to
teach, and I feel I have a larger selection of dances to choose from.
Noemi Ybarra
the mixer. It's fun, and as long as I don't jump in with a raw beginner, so far
has cause no problem.
Noemi
David Smukler
> up in one set. Using floor instructions, I just have the ones make one
> set and the twos make another. No one has complained--in fact, just the
> opposite.
>
> Any other ideas? Or am I crazy to even think along these lines?
>
> Gary Shapiro <sir_dance...@yahoo.com>, a "throwaway" address
> that goes away shortly after the spam starts.
Hi Gary,
Thanks for starting this thread. It's been a while.
A favorite cartoon of mine shows a man sternly shaking his finger at his
cat. A litter box stands next to them. The man is saying, "Never, ever,
think out of the box!"
Depending on numbers, size of hall, etc., I sometimes like to use a
4-facing-4 dance. I set it up by asking for "an even number of shortish
sets of even length." So in a hall where 3 contras form fairly naturally
I'd encourage 4 sets. Then I ask for hands 4 and 1's cross over. Then I
ask each pair of sets to merge, and then just fix at the bottom as
needed. This sets up the 4-facing-4 (or "Mescolanza" or "Portland
Fancy") formation fairly efficiently. The dances in this formation often
require extra room up and down the hall, so you'll want to add a set to
come out even, rather than subtract one.
There are lots of great dances in this formation. Some my favorites are
"Bloom Five (Al Olson)," "Ted's Portland Fancy (Ted Sannella)," "Etna
Star (Fred Breunig)," "Fast Living (David Kirchner)," "Fox Hollow Fancy
(Jacob Bloom)," and "Devil's Backbone (William Watson)."
4-facing-4 dances are intriguing enough that the center-set-type folks
get drawn in, but of course the formation process does a nice job of
somewhat mixing levels of dancers across the hall. As in a circle mixer,
because the requirements of the dance create the need to mix the dancers
up (rather than being "because I said so") it's easier for those
sometimes "resistant" dancers to go along with my agenda. Using a
4-facing-4 early in the evening helps deal with integrating new dancers
in, and also adds some nice variety to a program. Some of these dances
go temporarily into square formations, and so using them allows me to
insidiously inject a bit of square dance "flavor" into an evening
without alienating those silly folks you find at contra dances who think
they don't like squares. So, try some of them out! I'd be happy to post
calls if anyone is interested. I'm also interested if any of you have
other favorites I haven't mentioned. I'm always looking for more.
David Smukler
Gary Shapiro
suggests using four-face-four dances.
Other suggestions:
My trick to have the ones make one set and the twos another
Sicilian Circles
Mixers
If I use each of these four ideas once per evening, and have 11 dances
in an evening, I could use up to seven more ideas. How about it, r.f-d?
David Smukler
No, it's not necessary to deal with the issue with every contra dance.
As the evening progresses, your strategies early on (we trust) have
helped integrate people and the issue is not as big a deal as your warm
and enjoyable evening of dance progresses. Besides 3 out of 4 strategies
above involve different formations. It is true that if you don't use
contras there won't be a center set syndrome, but....
Much of this depends on the situation. Some of the set reorganization
strategies will only work if the numbers are right.
I also think that you can't spend the whole evening fighting a trend,
even if its a trend you don't like. There's too much else to do as a
caller. Your biggest role is to project joy and engage people, not to
improve them. Some subtle and positive encouragement toward what you see
as a healthy direction is certainly fine, but don't get caught up in
planning programs to extinguish undesirable behavior.
David Smukler
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <3A1688...@dreamscape.com>, David Smukler
>
>suggests using four-face-four dances.
>
>Other suggestions:
>
>My trick to have the ones make one set and the twos another
>Sicilian Circles
>Mixers
>
>If I use each of these four ideas once per evening, and have 11 dances
>in an evening, I could use up to seven more ideas. How about it, r.f-d?
Grand March.
One of those amazing squares where couples travel from square to square,
eventually going all the way around the floor. (I don't know what these
are called, but I danced to Kathy Anderson calling one once.)
Some of Ted's Triplets. (All sets are three couple longways, so all your
sets are the same length.)
Mixer that ends with "keep this partner and make longways sets" will have
experienced people semi-randomly distributed across the sets, although it'll
be generally unpopular.
There, only three more ideas needed.
-- 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
===============================================================================
Gary Shapiro
* divide one set into two by having the ones make one set and the twos
another
* four-face-four longways dances
* Sicilian circles
* mixers
* Grand March
* Those squares where couples progress to different squares
* Triplets
* "Keep this partner" after a mixer (Alan predicts "generally
unpopular")
A couple of ideas for that last one: trisect (or n-sect) the circle,
have each segment make a "temporary" longways set. Then tell the men to
stay in place, and the women to find a new partner, or the one you
booked ahead with.
Another idea: cross-formation dances. Two sets arranged at right angles
to each other that cross in the center of the hall. Where they cross,
the dance is done as a square dance, and couples in the square progress
into the spoke at their left (or right, but consistently). If that's
too crowded, there could be three sets that cross like the letter H
except the horizontal line of the H extends past the vertical lines in
both directions. In this case there'd be two places where there's a
square dance going on.
(Choreographers: for best results, pick or write a double-progression
contra dance that can also be interpreted as a square dance, much like
foursomes out at the end of many four-face-four dances can do the dance
as two-face-two. Then blame Dan Pearl for spreading this idea.)
I think if I did one of each of these in a single evening I'd be lucky
to escape with only an over-the-head wedgie.
Jonathan Sivier
>In article <181120001249283250%sir_dance...@yahoo.com>, Gary Shapiro <sir_dance...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>In article <3A1688...@dreamscape.com>, David Smukler
>>
>>suggests using four-face-four dances.
>>
>>Other suggestions:
>>
>>My trick to have the ones make one set and the twos another
>>Sicilian Circles
>>Mixers
>>
>>If I use each of these four ideas once per evening, and have 11 dances
>>in an evening, I could use up to seven more ideas. How about it, r.f-d?
>Grand March.
>One of those amazing squares where couples travel from square to square,
>eventually going all the way around the floor. (I don't know what these
>are called, but I danced to Kathy Anderson calling one once.)
Those are great. I remember one very memorable evening with Kathy
Anderson and the Volo Bogtrotters here in Urbana. We had 9 squares in
a 3*3 square formation. She moved us all over the room as the dance
progressed.
It may be that any square with a "cheat or swing" figure might serve
a similar purpose, of getting the dancers to think outside of their own
set.
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.uiuc.edu/ph/www/j-sivier |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Millstone
occurred in our dance community many years ago. A dozen or so avid dancers
and callers went out for pizza one night to discuss how the local dancing
might be improved, and we discussed that particular problem. Rather than
finding language to cajole or harrangue other dancers into doing what we
thought was right, we opted to set an example of what we'd like to see. We
all agreed that we'd make a concerted effort to line up in side sets, to
join sets near the bottom of the line rather than rush for the top, and to
invite newcomers as our partners for at least several dances in an
evening. Thereafter, these established figures in the dance community
could be found scattered throughout the hall, and sure enough, other
dancers followed that lead.
David Millstone
Dave Goldman
mill...@valley.net (David Millstone) wrote:
> The most effective strategy I've seen in dealing with center set syndrome
> occurred in our dance community many years ago. A dozen or so avid dancers
> and callers went out for pizza one night to discuss how the local dancing
> might be improved...
I thought that David was going to report on a strategy similar to the only
one I've ever seen work here in Portland in getting the most experienced
dancers out of the center set.
We used to hold our biggest regular dance at a neighborhood community
center. One evening we arrived to discover that the afternoon's users had
neglected to fully mop the hall after their lunch. Nobody had a chance to
deal with this until the break, so for the first half of the dance, about
2/3 of the way down the center set there was a _very_ sticky bit of floor.
No center set syndrome at all that night, after the first dance...
Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
Paul Kosowsky
It is true that if you don't use
> contras there won't be a center set syndrome, but....
go to a big party/workshop/session with more people than would fit
easily in one circle, the "best" dancers or the "A list" types always
find their way into the center circle. This can be useful when they're
the ones who know what they're doing, but that is not always the case.
I don't think it's always a bad trend, but I maintain that in such a
large group, putting yourself where people will follow you when you
don't know what you're doing is a bad idea. There is a certain appeal
to dancing in the center, thus getting attention, however you ahve to be
able to moderate your own interests with others' best interests as
well. I suppose it's a different sort of phenomenon from what you were
discussing, but I do see similarities.
> I also think that you can't spend the whole evening fighting a trend,
> even if its a trend you don't like. There's too much else to do as a
> caller.
dance... Regardless, some trends are just too hard to break. And in
some cases they do have a use. While I'm all for inclusion, sometimes
it can all just be too much when you just want to have a good time. So
maybe compromise? Try to maneuver people out of their separation some
dances and other time let them fragment?
Maya
Christopher Booth
the caller as to why some sets have a couple out at the top and others
don't, but I've always wanted to figure out some way of making contra
lines that include all 400 people in the hall, so that you get to dance
with everyone, and not just the people in your set.
Sometimes people in a scissilian (badly misspelled) circle will trade
rolls with another couple after going all the way around, but there are
usually more than one pair that does that, so you still don't dance with
everyone.
In article <8v4aca$2ha$1...@ruby.mint.net>, "Victoria Burwell"
<fili...@mint.net> wrote:
>I know this won't be a popular option and, obviously, the whole hall can't
>be doing it (or can it?): I've been known to pull an unsuspecting partner to
>the next line when we reached the bottom of the first line and on to the
>next, when we reach the top of the second line.
>Victor in Maine
>
>
>> I use one trick at the first dance of the evening when everyone lines
>> up in one set. Using floor instructions, I just have the ones make one
>> set and the twos make another. No one has complained--in fact, just the
>> opposite.
>>
>> Any other ideas? Or am I crazy to even think along these lines?
>>
>> --
>> Gary Shapiro <sir_dance...@yahoo.com>, a "throwaway" address
>> that goes away shortly after the spam starts.
>
>
--
Help - we will help you register your domain name for you by e-mail.
Internic won't accept e-mail registration forms, but we will.
Simply e-mail your registration form to regi...@wwwcentral.com or
use the form on our website at http://www.wwwcentral.com/register.html
Donna Richoux
> It can confuse the other couple waiting out at the top of the set, and
> the caller as to why some sets have a couple out at the top and others
> don't, but I've always wanted to figure out some way of making contra
> lines that include all 400 people in the hall, so that you get to dance
> with everyone, and not just the people in your set.
>
> Sometimes people in a scissilian (badly misspelled) circle will trade
> rolls with another couple after going all the way around, but there are
> usually more than one pair that does that, so you still don't dance with
> everyone.
Wouldn't a C-shaped set do that? A cross between a straight contra set
and a Sicilian Circle. Think of it as a single contra set that was so
long that the ends had to bend around. Or think of it as a Sicilian
circle that has been split at one point. Something would probably have
to mark where the ends were (chair? Caller?). When you reached an end,
you would trade places with your partner and go back the other way, just
as in a contra. The head would just happen to be near the foot, that's
all, because of the curve.
If you kept the music going long enough, everyone would dance with
everyone. Then the problem would be in designing the progression to be
quick enough so that everyone did really get completely around the room
in a realistic amount of time. There'd be a significant difference
between, say, a crowd of 100 and a crowd of 400.
I worked on this a year or two ago, trying to design a "Fare Well"
waltz-type dance where everyone would have one last chance to interact
with everyone else (including same sex), even if was just a single hand
turn. I've got some notes somewhere.
Has anyone ever done a C-shaped set? It doesn't sound so revolutionary
to me, but I've never known of one.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
David Kaynor
> Has anyone ever done a C-shaped set? It doesn't sound so revolutionary
> to me, but I've never known of one
Years ago, at the end of a Greenfield dance which had amounted to four hours
of goofiness, I made the two long sets into a big "C" which was really a
nearly-closed circle. The gap was up by the stage.
Because I had a feeling people would forget and close the gap, i.e. not turn
around, face back the way they came, cross over, and wait out one
repetition, I set out pairs of chairs facing each way. I announced that
when couples got to the chairs, they had to have a seat and watch for 30
seconds.
A lot of people pantomimed sitting in a nightclub drinking. One couple
lampooned making out in a parked car. Others acted out things like reading
a newspaper on a train or a dental exam.
David Kaynor