contra lines?
Echo 01
Why are contra lines always formed up with the men in one line facing
another line of women facing them?
I learned that this stemmed from the church practice of the men sat
on one side and the woman and children on the other.
I am more inclined to believe that it is easier to form the line by
using gender specific instructions. i.e. 'Men line up on my right,
Ladies line up on my left, facing your partner'. By the way, if you
study the above directions, the ladies have a chance to change their
dance partner if they are so inclined.
Ted Swift
wrote:
> Ok here's another question.
> Why are contra lines always formed up with the men in one line facing
> another line of women facing them?
> I learned that this stemmed from the church practice of the men sat
> on one side and the woman and children on the other.
Wherever it came from, it's been so for a long time. English country
dances line up the same way, but unlike contras, in English dances the
couples *usually* remain "proper"- gent (or man) to the caller's right,
lady (or woman) to the caller's left. I think contras got it from English
(and other?) country dances.
This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect it has little to do
with church practice. In English country dancing there's the concept of The
Presence- the king or other high honorable muckety-muck somewhere up at the
top of the hall, perhaps hovering behind the caller's shoulder :-). If
(from another thread) it's given that the man is on the left and the woman
is on the right in a couple , if you start the dance by "honoring the
Presence" with a bow and curtsy, the men are on the Presence's right and
the women to It's left.
--
Ted_...@qm.sri.com
"Bring me into the company of those who seek the truth,
and deliver me from those who have found it."
David Pritchard
In article <ted_swift-2...@aeol6.sri.com>, ted_...@qm.sri.com (Ted Swift) writes:
: This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect it has little to do
:with church practice. In English country dancing there's the concept of The
:Presence- the king or other high honorable muckety-muck somewhere up at the
:top of the hall, perhaps hovering behind the caller's shoulder :-).
There would probably NOT have been a caller. This is a disgusting modern
invention. You went to the dancing master and learnt the dances. There
was probably an MC, but the Presence would probably be nowhere near -
most likely at the side or other end of the hall.
--
Dr David J. Pritchard
Electronics and Computer Science tel (+44 703) 592722
University of Southampton fax (+44 703) 593045
Southampton SO17 1BJ <= Note Change
Ted Swift
Pritchard) wrote:
>
> ted_...@qm.sri.com (Ted Swift) wrote:
> : ....In English country dancing there's the concept of The
> :Presence- the king or other high honorable muckety-muck somewhere up at the
> :top of the hall, perhaps hovering behind the caller's shoulder :-).
>
> There would probably NOT have been a caller. This is a disgusting modern
> invention. You went to the dancing master and learnt the dances. There
> was probably an MC, but the Presence would probably be nowhere near -
> most likely at the side or other end of the hall.
I apologise: I new better than to use the term "caller" in connection with
English dancing. I can only offer the excuse that I dance contras as well
as English, and my fingers must have slipped as I meant to write "teacher"
or "dancing master" :-).
But aside from terminology, do you think my explanation holds water, that
men and women form "proper" sets the way they do because as couples they're
facing the "top" of the hall (the dancing master, The Presence, etc)?
-Ted
B. Parkes
as one of my pet peeves. (The wording "Men line up on my right, Ladies
line up on my left, facing your partner") The couples line up not
facing each other but facing the caller. The Lady is on the right
(as she always is) and the Gent is on the left! to say that the
lady is on the left and the gent on the right is pure caller
self-centeredness (and I guess all callers are a little egotistical
or we wouldn't be callers ;-) )
By the way, just to point out another little pet peeve. IMO one shoulld
either use Lady and Gent or Woman and Man but not Lady and Man. I believe
Lady and Gent are dance roles which can be danced by people of either
sex and therefore prefer them myself. The modern western square dance
network has adapted Boys and Girs, also parallel terms.
Oh yes, one more point about the lining up thing. Of course, after
lining up by facing the music, the couples do usually turn and face
one another. But then again more often they turn and face their
neighbor (after the ones cross over).
Beth
Denys Proteau
B. Par...@delphi.com
> as one of my pet peeves. (The wording "Men line up on my right, Ladies
> line up on my left, facing your partner") The couples line up not
> facing each other but facing the caller. The Lady is on the right
> (as she always is) and the Gent is on the left! to say that the
> lady is on the left and the gent on the right is pure caller
> self-centeredness (and I guess all callers are a little egotistical
> or we wouldn't be callers ;-) )
I let this particular peeve go by when I read it a few weeks ago, but
now that you've said it again I'm going to say I disagree with a part of
it. My experience here in Pittsburgh is that the couples do face each
other and not the caller when they join the lines. Most people face the
caller when they are walking up to the lines just because the caller and
band happen to be in that direction, but once the couple is in the line,
they mostly face each other or their neighboors for chit chat. I could
just as reasonably say that as the couples walk up to the line, they
face the piano! :)
Once the caller begins to give instructions, about half the people
square up and the other half are still chit chatting. When the second
instruction is given most people are trying to follow the caller's
instructions and no one is usually deliberatly facing the caller.
Sometimes when I've joined the line near the head of the line, I look
at the band or the caller, but even then I sense that I'm ignoring the
attention of the dancers nearer me. When I've joined further from the
head of the line, there is usually no point looking in the direction of
the caller; couldn't see him/her anyways and I'd be turning my back on
other dancers.
In Pittsburgh, to say that couples _do_ line up facing the caller
would be to pretend that there is much more strict order than there
actually is here. To say that we _should_ face the caller would be to
ask for more discipline than we're willing to have.
Excerpts from netnews.rec.folk-dancing: 22-Jun-94 Re: contra lines? by
B. Par...@delphi.com
> Oh yes, one more point about the lining up thing. Of course, after
> lining up by facing the music, the couples do usually turn and face
> one another. But then again more often they turn and face their
> neighbor (after the ones cross over).
>
But maybe this is just a Pittsburgh thing. We don't usually cross
over until the caller tells us to, or if a caller asks us to do so
without being told. Lots of times when we have callers from out of
town, we have say something like :"hey! we should be crossed over for
this figure to work right!"
Denys
David Pritchard
: But aside from terminology, do you think my explanation holds water, that
:men and women form "proper" sets the way they do because as couples they're
:facing the "top" of the hall (the dancing master, The Presence, etc)?
If it were not for those dances which start improper, but all facing up
then I might agree. These are probably later perversions though - I'll
check my "sources" and try to find some examples. With my luck lately
it will turn out that although I have danced a few, I don't have them
in my files :-)
B. Parkes
>it. My experience here in Pittsburgh is that the couples do face each
>other and not the caller when they join the lines. Most people face the
>caller when they are walking up to the lines just because the caller and
>band happen to be in that direction, but once the couple is in the line,
>they mostly face each other or their neighboors for chit chat. I could
>just as reasonably say that as the couples walk up to the line, they
>face the piano! :)
of course they just "happen to be" in that direction. But the point
I was making is that the lady is on the right as people line up. Asy
you walk toward the line the lady is on the right, etc.
> In Pittsburgh, to say that couples _do_ line up facing the caller
>would be to pretend that there is much more strict order than there
>actually is here. To say that we _should_ face the caller would be to
>ask for more discipline than we're willing to have.
formed the way they are, and the point is the "face the presence"
idea of the top of the set, the band, the caller or whatever with
the lady on the right. This is not intended either as a consious
act the dancers are doing or (heaven forbid) a should but a note
on the historical development.
> But maybe this is just a Pittsburgh thing. We don't usually cross
>over until the caller tells us to, or if a caller asks us to do so
>without being told. Lots of times when we have callers from out of
>town, we have say something like :"hey! we should be crossed over for
>this figure to work right!"
>
> Denys
seen the dancers line up improper within the modern western movement
where the callers were purposely trying to get away from tradition.
but that's another string....
Beth (just talkin' theory here) Parkes
James Langdell
>ted_...@qm.sri.com (Ted Swift) writes:
>>: This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect it has little to do
>:with church practice. In English country dancing there's the concept of The
>:Presence- the king or other high honorable muckety-muck somewhere up at the
>:top of the hall, perhaps hovering behind the caller's shoulder :-).
>
>There would probably NOT have been a caller. This is a disgusting modern
>invention. You went to the dancing master and learnt the dances. There
>was probably an MC, but the Presence would probably be nowhere near -
>most likely at the side or other end of the hall.
That's *one* way it might have been done, without a caller, but not
the *only* way used in the past. In one of Thomas Wilson's books on country
dancing, written around 1810, he writes a long list of how just about
any aspect of a dance might be one way or its opposite (called/uncalled,
only top dancing/all dancing, public/private etc.). I should transcribe
that for rec.folk-dancing to take some of the steam out of dogmatism on
*any* side.
Another way country dances happened in the past was that the lady
in the top couple would decide what figures to use for this dance,
announce it, and do so on the spot. One of Wilson's books includes
extensive tables and guidelines for coming up with sequences of figures
that came out right. Many of the alternative ways of dancing he provides
for each tune are straightforward enough to be models for sequences
that a top lady might think up on the spot.
By the way, Patri Pugliese has inexpensive photocopies of these
Thomas Wilson books available through his Time Travelers Dance Books
service (39 Capen St., Medford, MA 02155).
--James Langdell jam...@eng.sun.com
Sun Microsystems Mountain View, Calif.
James Langdell
Country Dancing" (from around 1810) that I mentioned the other
day, which gives examples of the vastly varied ways English Country
Dances were done at even that one time in history:
An English Country Dance may be composed either of three couples
or one hundred, and have its parts equally complete in both.
A Dance may be set with either two, or twenty Figures.
A Dance may be selected so as to afford Dancing only to the
leading couples to the same music.
A Dance may be set so as to actively employ the company.
A Dance may be rendered either very easy or very difficult, though
performed to the same music.
A Dance may be selected, that requires a variety of different
Steps; and
One may be chosen, that may be danced with the greatest propriety
with only one Step and require no more.
A Dance may be chosen, that will keep the whole company in motion,
or
One that renders two thirds of the couples inactive.
A Dance may be composed wholly of short Figures; or,
Wholly of long Figures.
A Dance may be chosen, where all the Figures except one finish
on the wrong side.
A Dance may be chosen, where good Dancers may shew their Dancing
off to the greatest advantage; and another
Dance may be set to the same tune, and danced in the same company,
where they will be unable to perform one Figure correctly.
One Dance may contain but one progressive Figure, or set with
four, and both equally correct.
A Dance may be formed in the same room in four different ways.
A Dance may be formed wholly of Gentlemen, or wholly of Ladies; or
Of an equal number or certain portion of each.
A Dance may be set actively to employ either one, two, or three
couples.
A Dance may be formed, that will require an hour for its performance;
and
One may be formed to the same music, that may be completed in five
minutes.
A Dance may be formed to contain ten neutral couples; and to the
same tune,
One may be composed so as not to contain one neutral couple.
A Dance may be composed wholly of swinging motions, or wholly
without them.
A Dance may be composed wholly of Figures that require setting, or of
Figures where no setting is required.
A Dance may be formed so as to make the third (which is the last couple
of the minor set) or the couple below it, a neutral couple.
A Dance may contain either one or two minor sets.
A Dance may have at one and the same time either one leading
couple or twenty.
To one tune may be performed an almost innumerable quantity of
different Figures, and yet
Two Figures will suit, and form a Dance to an almost innumerable
portion of tunes.
A particular Figure may with propriety be applied to a hundred
tunes; and
A hundred tunes may be danced to with appropriate Figures, and yet
that particular Figure never used.
A Dance may be set so very easy, that its Figures may be performed
by a person never having before attempted; or
Set so difficult and complex, as to require all the skill of
a good Dancer.
A Dance may be so composed as to consist of one humdred top couples;
and one equally correct requiring but three.
A Dance may be set to a tune of eight bars, or to one of forty.
A Dance may properly finish with the first strain of a tune,
instead of the last.
Scotch Steps may be used to an Irish tune.
Irish Steps may be applied to Scotch tunes.
A Dance may contain either three auxiliary couples, or two hundred.
A Dance may be wholly composed of circular movements, or of
straight lines.
The Figure of a Dance may consiste of twenty Figures.
A Figure in a Dance is only one part of the Figure of a Dance.
Finishing a Figure is not finishing a Dance.
A Dance may be composed, in which twenty Figures may be performed
from one and the same place, or so as only to require one.
Two Dances may be so formed, and to the same music, that the
couples forming one of them shall each go down twenty times,
before the couples forming the other Dance shall have gone
down once.
A Dance may have fifty couples in motion at the same time, or only
one, and both be equally correct.
A Dance may be chosen, in which the hands of the partners may not
be disjoined; and another set, in which the partners never join
hands.
A Dance may have thirty bottom couples at the same time, and to
the same music.
A Dance may be set with only three couples.
A great variety might be given in addition; but the foregoing is
deemed quite sufficient ...
BARRY M. SCHLESINGER
> ...
>Indeed, dancers don't usually cross until told to do so....
>
>Beth (just talkin' theory here) Parkes
That may be the theory, but I've seen lots of lines at Glen Echo that
started crossing over before being told to do so. Sometimes the
caller has to emphasize, *do not* cross over if the dance is going to
be proper.
-BMS
Linda Golder
bschle...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (BARRY M. SCHLESINGER) wrote:
> B. Parkes <bpa...@delphi.com> writes...
> >Indeed, dancers don't usually cross until told to do so....
> >
> >Beth (just talkin' theory here) Parkes
>
> That may be the theory, but I've seen lots of lines at Glen Echo that
> started crossing over before being told to do so. Sometimes the
> caller has to emphasize, *do not* cross over if the dance is going to
> be proper.
And, of course, the rush to line up presumes that the next dance *will* be
a *contra*. Often enough, it's a square dance or a circle (mixer or
Sicilian), or "four facing four"... or some other arrangement of couples.
These variations keep dance evenings interesting. We undercut the caller
when we always assume a certain kind of dance.
Perhaps the caller could indicate early on what the next dance will be.
"The next dance will be a square," or some such.
- Linda <lgo...@mbl.edu> Woods Hole, MA, USA
B. Parkes
>And, of course, the rush to line up presumes that the next dance *will* be
>a *contra*. Often enough, it's a square dance or a circle (mixer or
>Sicilian), or "four facing four"... or some other arrangement of couples.
>These variations keep dance evenings interesting. We undercut the caller
>when we always assume a certain kind of dance.
>
>Perhaps the caller could indicate early on what the next dance will be.
do is to allow dancers some space/time to thank their partner, socialize
and NOT rush up to the top of the line for the next dance. I am (personally)
annoyed by this rush. One of the tactics I have taken to is not immediately
telling the dancers what the next dance will be. doing so is tantamount
to instructing them to line up. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy for
a handful of too gung-ho contra snobs having to break up a line into
squares or whatever I am going to call.
The recent very hot weather gave me a chance to encourage dancers to
"get a drink, take a minute to cool off, and then the next dance will
be..." I may try more of this in future dances. Every word a caller
says carries weight of some sort and we all try to us e the words
carefully.
Beth
Brent Chivers
>
> > Perhaps the caller could indicate early on what the next dance will be.
In article <hK0zAzw...@delphi.com>, B. Parkes <bpa...@delphi.com> wrote:
>
> One of the tactics I have taken to is not immediately telling
> the dancers what the next dance will be. I guess I don't have a
> lot of sympathy for a handful of too gung-ho contra snobs having
> to break up a line into squares or whatever I am going to call.
Do you have any sympathy for people who would prefer not to waltz
(I chose to go to a contra dance, not a ballroom dance), but who
also feel it's extremely rude to find a partner and then say "Oh,
I'm sorry, I'd rather not do this dance"? (And then you sometimes
get couples, both of whom would rather not be waltzing, but are too
polite to "disappoint" the other.)
--
______________________________________________________________________
Brent Chivers McLean, VA bchi...@mitre.org
Kiran Wagle
>>Perhaps the caller could indicate early on what the next dance will be.
Beth Parkes <bpa...@delphi.com> writes:
>annoyed by this rush. One of the tactics I have taken to is not immediately
>telling the dancers what the next dance will be. doing so is tantamount
>to instructing them to line up.
You could try telling them at the beginning of the PREVIOUS dance what
the next dance was going to be. That way, when we scramble to line
up our next partner (during that dance, of course <grin>) we'll be
able to choose more carefully. I for one HATE to ask a new dancer to
dance only to end up in a circle mixer, and I might ENJOY dancing
Petronella with soemone I liked but didn't swing well with. (You can
disapprove of this partner-grabbing behavior ALL YOU LIKE, but if it
happens, it happens. <grin>)
(One reason to book dances in advance is so you can avoid the rush....)
Callers can try to discover what dancers are actually _doing_ and use
that knowledge to try to achieve their own ends, or they can ignore us,
and we'll gladly ignore THEM in turn. I'm perfectly capable of talking
through a walk-thru and STILL catching every word of instruction, and
I am willing to do so if I think a caller's ignoring the dancers.
You (the rhetorical you, not you personally) can try to change the
dancers, or you can change the way you interact with them. <grin>
If they're gonna do SOMETHING in that dance, why not teach them the gypsy
hey, so they won't run into each other trying to do something ELSE?
>Every word a caller says carries weight of some sort
>and we all try to use the words carefully.
<chuckle> Words only carry weight if people listen to them.
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com> (Or, i suppose, if they are attached to bricks.)
cerb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
(James Langdell) writes:
>Here's the excerpt from Thomas Wilson's "Complete System of English
>Country Dancing" (from around 1810) that I mentioned the other
>day, which gives examples of the vastly varied ways English Country
>Dances were done at even that one time in history:
[And then the long, and very interesting extract describing multiple styles of
dance.]
It is my guess that this extract is taken from the very beginning of this work.
It is my experience (from reading musical theory from this time and earlier)
that many of the claims made early on for the flexibility, use and purpose of
the book, and in this case dancing itself, are rhetorical and exaggerated.
Wilson's aim would be to sell his book to the prospective reader. Of course (I
haven't read it!) Wilson might equally be claiming to sort out the confusion
all these styles cause, but then it would still be in his interest to
exaggerate contemporary confusion.
Unless the rest of the book lives up to/specifically contradicts
these styles, I would be inclined to take the whole thing with a large pinch of
salt.
Moray McConnachie
dancing to the music of time.
>
cerb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> Here's the excerpt from Thomas Wilson's "Complete System of English
> Country Dancing" (from around 1810) that I mentioned the other
> day, which gives examples of the vastly varied ways English Country
> Dances were done at even that one time in history:
[ and then follows the long and interesting description]
Linda Golder
(Brent Chivers) wrote:
> In article <hK0zAzw...@delphi.com>, B. Parkes <bpa...@delphi.com> wrote:
> > One of the tactics I have taken to is not immediately telling
> > the dancers what the next dance will be. I guess I don't have a
> > lot of sympathy for a handful of too gung-ho contra snobs having
> > to break up a line into squares or whatever I am going to call.
>
> Do you have any sympathy for people who would prefer not to
> waltz [snip]...?
While I understand Beth's lack of sympathy for "too gung-ho snobs", I think
the lack of information to the dancers is unhelpful. As Brent points out,
we really need to know if there's a change of dance format coming! This is
a *courtesy* to the dancers, who, after all, have come to relax & have fun.
Confusion is not fun. Ending up in a style of dancing (Brent's example of
the waltz) which one doesn't enjoy is not fun.
So, I'd suggest finding another way of slowing down the snobs. Perhaps the
summer heat & humidity will play a useful role!
Kiran Wagle
>we really need to know if there's a change of dance format coming! This is
>a *courtesy* to the dancers, who, after all, have come to relax & have fun.
And, let me remind all of you, the dancers who pay the bills, too.
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
Joel L Breazeale
I have trouble when I feel there is a vocal minority out there making
demands on the dance organizer/caller. Sometimes the *responsible*
leader must make a choice which does not necessarily please everyone.
I strongly feel a dance series can be packed with people and be making
oodles of money and still be a failure. If you can figure out why then
you have a hope of being a responsible dance organizer.
In summary: You can't please everyone and you shouldn't try. Listen to
vocal minority but exercise extreme caution when and if you
respond (you may make a choice you cannot easily reverse).
---
Here's are options to consider which may be a compromise (just more theories):
Announce the next dance at the start of the walkthru of the current dance.
Those who have lined up for the current dance should know what it is from
the previous announcement. Just let them make their sets and chat -- if
they line up quickly then let them stand there and chat.
Another might be to obtain an easel and put up the style of the next dance
just before the walkthru of current dance.
Take care!
Joel
Kiran Wagle
>Kiran Wagle <gr...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>And, let me remind all of you, the dancers who pay the bills, too.
>I can't resist... 8-)
And well you shouldn't. This is, after all, USENET. <grin>
>I strongly feel a dance series can be packed with people and be making
>oodles of money and still be a failure. If you can figure out why then
>you have a hope of being a responsible dance organizer.
I can't even begin to figure out why you might strongly feel this
until you define "failure."
A dance that is packed with people and making oodles of money would
likely be a success by any definition *I* consider reasonable--unless
you've got the people in a cage or something and only let them out to
dance. After all, if people aren't having fun, why is the dance
packed? If they don't want to be there, why are they paying oodles of
money?
And "responsible" by whose standards? Callers', musicians', or dancers'?
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
Susan and Bill
>
>I can't even begin to figure out why you might strongly feel this
>until you define "failure."
Failure is in the ey of the beholder. I think I can see Joel's point
without necessarily knowing or agreeing with what his definition might
be.
>A dance that is packed with people and making oodles of money would
>likely be a success by any definition *I* consider reasonable--unless
>you've got the people in a cage or something and only let them out to
>dance. After all, if people aren't having fun, why is the dance
>packed? If they don't want to be there, why are they paying oodles of
>money?
At the height of the big-band era, the most succesful "dances" were
too packed for dancing. Promoters discovered they could get more
people in a "dance" hall than if they had to provide seats. So people
came out to "dance" and stood around packed shoulder to shoulder. To
quote Artie Shaw in his old age - "We weren't playing dance music. Our
music was for listening primarily. Within the so-called dance-music
format we were playing concerts." (from _The_Big_Bands_ by George T
Simon). So, I guess, the big-band dances were a success. But were
they successful _dances_? This book is chock full of pictures of these
"dances" that demonstrate the problem nicely. I suspect much of the
really good dancing happened at smaller less "successful" venues.
People like to be entertained. I question whether the entertainment
value at many contemporary contra dances comes primarily from being in
a social/communal environment focused on dancing.
Bill T
B. Parkes
>Callers can try to discover what dancers are actually _doing_ and use
>that knowledge to try to achieve their own ends, or they can ignore us,
>and we'll gladly ignore THEM in turn. I'm perfectly capable of talking
>through a walk-thru and STILL catching every word of instruction, and
>I am willing to do so if I think a caller's ignoring the dancers.
talk through the whole walk-through, instruction, etc. for many
dances. While this is OK for them it does not help the less experienced
in the group. An experienced dancer can dance most dances withougt
a walk through at all. Does this mean that we should do away with
the walk through alltogether (since the dancers obviously feel it
not necessary) I think if we "discover what the dancers are actually
_doing_ in this case we could close our dances to all but experienced
dancers.
I personaly feel that the walk-through, the teaching of beginners
on the fly withouth the need for lessons is one of our most important
traditions. the modern western square dance movement of the 60s
listened to what the dancers wanted: harder and trickier material
no teaching at open dances, etc. and the movement is having serious
trouble getting new people willing to invest the time to learn all
that stuff.
Yes, we try to listen to the dancers but we also have some
investment in the artistic success of an evening and when
what the dancers appear to want contradicts ouir own beliefs
about what is good for the dance it can be a tough call.
Beth
Bo Bradham
>
> I personaly feel that the walk-through, the teaching of beginners
> on the fly withouth the need for lessons is one of our most important
>
What a coincidence! I was just going to start a thread
about this. I played for a dance Sunday night and we did three
or maybe even 4 contra sets with no walkthrough. At the end of the
evening the caller found that his original program was short by
about 1/2 hour. We had time for 2 extra waltzes and 2 contra
sets.
This got me thinking about the role of the walk through.
In a three hour dance we added 2 complete sets (I think some of
the extra time resulted from a couple of singing squares in the
program. They tend to be shorter than your regular square set).
So for those dances that have time constraints placed upon
them, foregoing a couple of walk throughs could mean a lot more
dancing.
Now there are many variables in this deal. The most obvious
two are the ability of the crowd and the nature of the dances.
The crowd I saw the other night was obviously up for no-walkthru
contras. As a matter of fact, the 1st dance of the evening had
no walkthru. And all the walk-thru-less dances were very
straightforward.
I agree with Beth's point about the need for walk throughs
as a device for welcoming new dancers. But would it compromise
that learning experience to do more sets in a night, giving the
new dancers more actual dancing time? And how much potential
for learning is there in walking through a dance which contains
only familiar figures? It seems like the sooner you start the
music the sooner the real learning would begin.
There is a middle ground between "walk-through" and "no
walk-through." A caller friend of mine was trying to streamline
the walk through process a few years ago. For figures that
leave the dancers where they started (circles, stars, ladies'
chain over & back) he would announce the figure and the dancers
would acknowledge by saying "done." It seemed like a good idea
but with only one caller championing it I'm not surprised it
didn't catch on.
I'm not advocating abolition of the walk-thru. I do wonder
of the conventional wisdom as to its necessity should be
re-thought, especially in the case of dances where you have
severe time constraints.
Bo Bradham
Charlottesville VA
Kathleen Ann Sindt
dancing is a community building event. Beginners do not feel
welcome if they are overwhelmed and there are always new people
trying out contra dancing. Also, because of the socializing
that does occur during the formation of contra lines, I think
it give the dancers time to settle into the next dance. Too
many times, dancers don't pay attention to - hands four - if
you do a walk through, everyone eventually ends up ready.
Die hard contra dancers may like to skip the walk through so
they get more dances in during the evening. But, is that the
only purpose of contra dancing? Isn't it also a way to meet
people, share ideas, and establish a feeling of community in
the area? I think a walk-through gives the pros more time to
chat and the beginners time to feel comfortable.
--
Kathie Sindt
ka...@virginia.edu
Meyer A. Billmers
>of the conventional wisdom as to its necessity should be
>re-thought, especially in the case of dances where you have
>severe time constraints.
Severe time constraints? Perhaps your group should reassess its
priorities. C'mon guys, gotta make that 10 p.m. deadline of 16 dances :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer A. Billmers Digital Equipment Corporation
bill...@mko.dec.com Multivendor Customer Service
(603) 884-0350 Applied Research Group
Raymond Cheng
>> I'm not advocating abolition of the walk-thru. I do wonder
>>of the conventional wisdom as to its necessity should be
>>re-thought, especially in the case of dances where you have
>>severe time constraints.
>
>Severe time constraints? Perhaps your group should reassess its
>priorities. C'mon guys, gotta make that 10 p.m. deadline of 16 dances :-)
>
---------------------------------------------
For your information, contra dances are held at GLEN ECHO on Friday
and Sunday, in which Friday is for beginners and Sunday is for advanced
dancers.
I feel that it is very appropriate to have no walk-thru on Sunday except
for the difficult dances. However, on Friday, walk-thru is a must.
Washington DC is fortunate to have two major contra dances a week.
Moreover, there are contra dances in Reston, Frederick, & Baltimore.
If only one contra dance was available each week, then walk-thru is a must.
R. David Murray
>I personally prefer a quick, once through walk-through. Contra
>dancing is a community building event. Beginners do not feel
>welcome if they are overwhelmed and there are always new people
I very definately agree about the value of walk-throughs. I think Beth's
comments about the path Western Square Dance took are very apropos.
I used to think it was odd for a contra-dance flyer to say "No experience
necessary. Every dance taught," because, well, walk-throughs were just
part of contra-dancing <grin>. It is a very valuable draw for
beginners, and the dances I enjoy most are those where there are new
faces every week (as well as the old familiar faces!).
Besides, (and somebody is going to get on my case for this <grin>) when
the band is hot, I *need* that walkthrough time to get my pulse
rate back to normal!
An occasional no-walk-through is fun, though. It seems especially
appropriate when you've only got a few minutes left before the last
waltz.
--David
Nancy Parr (Hitchcock Center)
DISCLAIMER: What follows reflects neither the views nor the
"netiquette" of my host at whose keyboard I effectively sit. Now
then:
Should EVERY set dance be walked through in its entirety? Does
the lack of a walkthrough automatically and without exception
exclude beginners? Or, for that matter, please the hotshots?
Is a long walkthrough automatically boring? Is a short
walkthrough automatically NOT boring?
Does increased detail discussion in walkthroughs actually achieve
increased understanding and enjoyment of said details?
Is a higher proportion of dancing to walking-through or standing
around socializing ALWAYS preferable?
Should EVERY caller ALWAYS accede to the majority? Does the
majority in fact benefit from or even want unswerving accession?
Given that some of the beginners may never come back regardless
of how resolutely you try to address their needs, should you
cater to said transients at the expense of the longstanding
faithful?
Does the addressing of said needs automatically preclude
addressing the needs of the longstanding faithful?
Does noisy inattention during walkthroughs automatically mean
something is wrong (or about to go wrong)?
Is packing more dances into a given timeframe always desirable?
Is a longer timeframe automatically better than a shorter one?
I could go on and on about these questions and more, but it would
consume a lot of net space.
Bo: Along with all the music you have given me much food for
thought over the years (not to mention the occasional much needed
swift kick in the butt). Thanks for another provocative posting.
David Kaynor
Kiran Wagle
>For your information, contra dances are held at GLEN ECHO on Friday
>and Sunday, in which Friday is for beginners and Sunday is for advanced
>dancers.
This is a load of hooey--though there are indeed more beginners at the
Friday dances, the actual overall energy and level of dancing are about
the same. If anything, Fridays are MORE fun, because it's the
beginners (the better ones) who bring new energy to an old hobby.
I shall NOT use this as an excuse to rant about the foolishness of
"beginners' classes." Really, I promise.
>I feel that it is very appropriate to have no walk-thru on Sunday except
>for the difficult dances. However, on Friday, walk-thru is a must.
I think perhaps another approach might be feasible--have walk-thrus
during the first half of the dance, and no walkthroughs during the
second half of the dance. (Of course, having walkthroughs only for
the complicated dances might work if the beginners have actually
learned the simple moves in their foolish beginners' classes....)
>Washington DC is fortunate to have two major contra dances a week.
Yes, we are lucky. And we're particularly lucky to have to GREAT dances,
thanks to the efforts of certain dedicated people. Thanks, guys.
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
Robert Reed
|I played for a dance Sunday night and we did three
|or maybe even 4 contra sets with no walkthrough. At the end of the
|evening the caller found that his original program was short by
|about 1/2 hour. We had time for 2 extra waltzes and 2 contra
|sets.
I am reminded of Letterman's line, "Remember, this is a demonstration, not a
competition." If the measure of success is the number of dances performed in an
evening, just chop each dance shorter by 5 minutes and you can probably fit one
more.
| This got me thinking about the role of the walk through.
|In a three hour dance we added 2 complete sets (I think some of
|the extra time resulted from a couple of singing squares in the
|program. They tend to be shorter than your regular square set).
|So for those dances that have time constraints placed upon
|them, foregoing a couple of walk throughs could mean a lot more
|dancing.
I don't understand this "dances that have time constraints..." line. All dances
have time constraints. Typically in Portland, a beginner session starts at
7:30pm, the dance at 8, and we have to be out of the hall by 11:30. That's a
time constraint into which we must fit all our dancing, socializing, water
breaks, and other typical activities. Foregoing MOST of the walkthroughs might
mean a LOT more dancing. Foregoing a COUPLE would amount to much less. Now
there are situations where when the dance might be running a little long,
skipping a walkthrough late in the evening might make the difference between a 5
minute dance and a 10 minute dance, but other than than, fitting in extra dances
doesn't seem to me to be a justification for skipping walkthroughs.
| Now there are many variables in this deal. The most obvious
|two are the ability of the crowd and the nature of the dances.
|The crowd I saw the other night was obviously up for no-walkthru
|contras. As a matter of fact, the 1st dance of the evening had
|no walkthru. And all the walk-thru-less dances were very
|straightforward.
| I agree with Beth's point about the need for walk throughs
|as a device for welcoming new dancers. But would it compromise
|that learning experience to do more sets in a night, giving the
|new dancers more actual dancing time? And how much potential
|for learning is there in walking through a dance which contains
|only familiar figures? It seems like the sooner you start the
|music the sooner the real learning would begin.
The one factor in this equation which I think is missed here is something
analogous to Sannella's "unforgiving figures." A walkthrough is just as the
name implies, a chance to go through the motions of a dance at a more leisurely
pace, giving time for the brains of beginners to react. All the extra practise
will do no good for a beginner who doesn't know what the basic movements are.
"Familiar figures" they may be to most, but not necessarily to all. So, there's
clearly a choice here. You can cater to the impatient, self-centered,
quantity-over-quality seeker, or you can maintain a vigilance of the back of the
hall, ensuring that your pacing creates no schism between the novel dancers
attending your evening and those comprising the regular crowd.
| There is a middle ground between "walk-through" and "no
|walk-through." A caller friend of mine was trying to streamline
|the walk through process a few years ago. For figures that
|leave the dancers where they started (circles, stars, ladies'
|chain over & back) he would announce the figure and the dancers
|would acknowledge by saying "done." It seemed like a good idea
|but with only one caller championing it I'm not surprised it
|didn't catch on.
I saw this technique first performed by Fred Park, and he introduced it--only
for simple complete cycle figures which he had already taught and which would
have been repeated often through the walkthrough. Thus it was a vehicle under
his control for getting feedback from the audience while streamlining the
walkthrough. Under these conditions I have no problem with it. I would feel
concerned, though, about a caller who would give in to the vocal reports of a
few bored dancers when leading a walkthrough, especially in front of an
unfamiliar crowd, and especially if the time comsuming figure was something like
a hey for four.
Callers' skills are measured by their ability to discriminate in exactly such
cases. Given the regular influx of newcomers to the dances with which I am
familiar, and given the category of these dances (FOLK dances), I think it is
imperative that we err on the side of overinstruction (though even that must be
moderated in the cause of good pacing), and walkthroughs are a core feature of
an inviting contra or square dance. I can find no way of rethinking the process
which excludes walkthroughs, with minor exceptions as noted above, and of
course, the OCCASIONAL meddly.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed Home Animation Limited 503-656-8414
home: rob...@slipknot.rain.com West Linn, OR 97068
work: rob...@metheus.com 503-690-1550 x7284
I was in Vegas last week. I was at the roulette table, having a lengthy
argument about what I considered an Odd number.
--Steve Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
Dean Clamons
> I am guessing that the original post concerns GLEN ECHO Sunday's dances.
> For your information, contra dances are held at GLEN ECHO on Friday
> and Sunday, in which Friday is for beginners and Sunday is for advanced
> dancers.
>
dance is run by the Folklore Society of Greater Washington, and the Friday
dance is run by the Dance Committee (I think). Having served on the board
of FSGW for many years, I can assure you that it is NOT FSGW policy that
the Sunday dance is "for advanced dancers." Everyone is welcome. Having
said that, I would recommend that beginners go to the Friday dances first,
but feel free to attend the Sunday dances any time.
> I feel that it is very appropriate to have no walk-thru on Sunday except
> for the difficult dances. However, on Friday, walk-thru is a must.
>
I have not been to a Sunday dance for quite a while (too long), but every
time I've been to one there have been walk-throughs. If they are not doing
walk-throughs now I am both surprised and dismayed.
--
Dean Clamons
Naval Research Lab
Code 5110
Washington, DC 20375
(202) 767-2384
de...@n5170a.nrl.navy.mil
Bo Bradham
>
> [ a whole lot of questions! See the original article]
You sure ask a lot of questions for somebody who has been in
the business so long. But that's exactly what I was getting at.
Putting together an evening of music and dancing is a
complicated equation. There are at least as many variables as
David's list of questions implies. And there are some he left
out: how's the weather? On a hot night you would pace things
differently than in the dead of winter... You cannot answer
many of these questions in advance, either. What if a bunch of
foreign exchange students, who know about 10 words of English,
show up? (I've seen it happen and a good time was had by all).
And my point was that walk-through/no walk-through can be
another effective tool in creating an evening. But to do that
you have to challenge the conventional wisdom that sez a walk
through is always necessary. I was saying that I have
experience that indicates that the conventional wisdom needs to
be challenged. It places an even greater burden on the caller
who must evaluate the needs of the crowd to an even finer
level of detail. And you must do this "on the fly" because on a
given evening you never know who is going to show up. I played
for a dance a few months ago and when we got there we found the
attendance was about twice the normal amount. Someone had
invited a local church group, so half or more of the crowd had
never danced at all. We did a lot of long walk throughs that
evening, and had a great time (the caller is still recuperating).
I should also point out that in the dance to which I
referred originally the caller programmed the evening in
advance so that I knew when the no-walk-through dances were
coming and could prepare accordingly. This was a major factor
in the success of the evening.
One last thought: as far as incorporating new dancers, I
think if someone started dancing and found that walk throughs
were not always part of the deal, they would simply learn to
dance that way. I have stressed all along that the choreography
of the dance in question should help dicate whether a walk
through is needed. How much harder is it to go through an easy
dance the first time with music versus without?
Bo Bradham
PS I'll bet David could give you a detailed answer to every one
of those questions he asked.
David #6
: For your information, contra dances are held at GLEN ECHO on Friday
: and Sunday, in which Friday is for beginners and Sunday is for advanced
: dancers.
I'm going to join Kiran (imagine my surprise :) in strongly disagreeing
with this. The difference between Friday and Sunday dances at Glen Echo
is NOT beginners v. advanced dancers, IMHO. The Sunday dances operate
under the assumption that most of the dancers know all of the basic
figures. It is quite possible to have learned these figures and not yet
be a strong dancer. This is especially true if one dances Friday nights
at Glen Echo, since the majority of strong dancers clump in the
center line, dance with people they know, and book ahead. (I will point
out that there is a dedicated minority of strong dancers who do their
best to counteract this trend.)
I often bring newer dancers to Sundays, after doing a little personalized
instruction and warning them that it's a bit on the "sink or swim" side.
I make sure I leave aside two or three dances with them myself (though
not all of the men I bring take me up on this :-) and that i introduce
them to several people I know to be good dancers who enjoy dancing with
new people.
My opinion is certainly not the only one in the DC area, and I was
recently excoriated by a reasonably well-known local caller whose point
of view was that Sundays offered a forum for experienced dancers to dance
more complex dances, and that bringing beginners ruins this forum.
: I feel that it is very appropriate to have no walk-thru on Sunday except
: for the difficult dances. However, on Friday, walk-thru is a must.
I think no-walkthrough dances should be used sparingly, based on one's
calling experience and the feel of the hall. You cannot simply say that
it's appropriate to have no-walkthrough dances on Sundays, but not Fridays
-- it depends entirely on who shows up, the ability of the caller and
band, and the actual dance in question. Bo neglected to mention that the
caller in question was Tom Hinds, a very talented caller who has the
ability to accurately judge the capability of most halls.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Lisa Sieverts
: David Kaynor, masquerading as np...@k12.ucs.umass.edu writes:
: >
: > [ a whole lot of questions! See the original article]
Hi David! Glad to see you made it to the list.
And I feel strongly that the no-walk through dance is a great
monotony breaker that should be used more widely, especially in
situations where the majority of dancers are relatively experienced.
For example, I just had a great week at Lady of the Lake out here
in Idaho. At least 80% of the contra dancers were beyond skilled and
reaching for genius. After 3 or 4 days of dancing, the walkthrus
got really boring, as in "can't we just dance!" Whenever a no-walkthru
dance came around, we all got extra excited (I tell ya, the fever pitch
of dancing at this camp was out of this world).
I suspect this is one of the reasons why contra medleys are so fun,
it's the extra challenge of no walkthru plus changing calls.
BUT, you have to have an excellent sound system to make this work.
During one contra medley during our camper dance, the caller was
almost inaudible. Couple this with a complicated dance with
non-standard call order, and the entire hall broke down into chaos.
Anyway, I love the challenge of a no walkthrough contra. I try to simulate
this by being the second couple in a set whenever I could have been the
first. At least then I get to walkthrough the inactive part, but
dance the active part.
Happy feet, happy me.
Lisa Sieverts
lsie...@boi.hp.com
Lisa Sieverts
I guess I'll try the questions as well.
And HI NANCY, too!!
: Should EVERY set dance be walked through in its entirety? Does
: the lack of a walkthrough automatically and without exception
: exclude beginners? Or, for that matter, please the hotshots?
I suspect that if beginners were 5 minutes out of the pre-dance
class, and the dance consisted only of simple calls that they
had been introduced to, then a no walk-through dance at a slow tempo
would be a good way to illustrate that we dance at contra dances.
: Is a long walkthrough automatically boring? Is a short
: walkthrough automatically NOT boring?
Not boring long walkthru -- e.g. Wild Asparagus' rockin' swing
background to George's walkthrough. In this case, I often
feel the longer the better, it's anti-climatic when the music
moves around to reel time!
Boring short walkthru -- a dance that every one knows (Chorus Jig
after all our jokes at Lady of the Lake) that has simple figures
and strong active/inactive differential.
: Does increased detail discussion in walkthroughs actually achieve
: increased understanding and enjoyment of said details?
Depends. If you find yourself in a situation where people are
interested in history and detail (perhaps a dance camp) then go
ahead. If it's obvious that folks are there to DANCE, then skip it.
: Is a higher proportion of dancing to walking-through or standing
: around socializing ALWAYS preferable?
For me, I'd say yes, 95% of the time. But I don't get a ton of
dancing these days, so that probably explains my bias.
: Should EVERY caller ALWAYS accede to the majority? Does the
: majority in fact benefit from or even want unswerving accession?
I'm of the Lani Guinier persuasion, that in a democracy, the
minority vote gets to have some representation, too.
: Given that some of the beginners may never come back regardless
: of how resolutely you try to address their needs, should you
: cater to said transients at the expense of the longstanding
: faithful?
I think people move from beginner to regular because they like the
people at a dance. Loving the dancing for its own sake seems to
come later. So give folks time to talk during a longish break,
but keep the walkthroughs short and sweet (or nonexistent).
: Does noisy inattention during walkthroughs automatically mean
: something is wrong (or about to go wrong)?
Nope. Many times it does mean we know what we're doing!
: Is packing more dances into a given timeframe always desirable?
Sometimes a few long dances is great. Sometimes a long break in the
middle is lovely. But I don't like long pauses between dances. Cuts
up the rhythm and I tend to get cold.
Wow, this is more than I've posted to Usenet in a year! You'se guys
hit a nerve.
Happy feet, happy me.
Jim Fownes
fl...@virginia.edu (Bo Bradham) writes:
>differently than in the dead of winter... You cannot answer
>many of these questions in advance, either. What if a bunch of
>foreign exchange students, who know about 10 words of English,
>show up? (I've seen it happen and a good time was had by all).
>
Yes, or the time a busload (at least 30) of Japanese teenage
girls showed up at the very small (ca. 20) contradance series
on Maui... Well it was an experience to have lived through...
Jim
Kiran Wagle
>If the measure of success is the number of dances performed in an evening,
>just chop each dance shorter by 5 minutes and you can probably fit one more.
Not even I would call this a measure of success. <grin>
Kathy Anderson made another suggestion at Glen Echo a couple weeks
ago. If dancers would make shorter lines, she could call more dances,
while still giving everyone a chance to move thru the line and become
active.
This seems like an important consideration--last Sunday, we danced
that most loathed of all chestnuts (well, okay, it was NOT Petronella)
namely Chorus Jig. We had an unusually short line and we got to
go thru the line TWICE in the course of the dance. It was a long
dance--had we been in a long line, and only danced partway thru
the line, it would have been MUCH too long, but Chorus Jig is actually
FUN when it goes on forever in a short line! So make shorter lines.
Kathy's not right about everything, but she comes pretty close.
~ Kiran
Greg McKenzie
Reed) wrote:
> The one factor in this equation which I think is missed here is something
> analogous to Sannella's "unforgiving figures." A walkthrough is just as the
> name implies, a chance to go through the motions of a dance at a more leisurely
> pace, giving time for the brains of beginners to react. All the extra practise
> will do no good for a beginner who doesn't know what the basic movements are.
The walk-through is where most of the actual teaching of the basic
movements occurs. Beginners are NOT taught by the caller. Actually they
learn the meaning of the prompts from the leads and nudges of their
experienced partner and the examples of other dancers in the immediate
vicinity.
The teaching that occurs during the walk-through is much more efficient,
and fun, than verbal instruction from the caller or any "off-line"
instruction, (such as a separate beginner's orientation class). This time
allows all of the dancers to participate in teaching each other the dance.
I think this emphasis on community teaching is rather unique to contradance
and, when done well, makes separate classes unnecessary.
Under the appropriate circumstances having one or occasionally two dances
without walk-throughs is fine. Keep in mind, however, that they will
exclude beginners who might not have participated fully in earlier dances
that evening. I find the growing popularity of meddlys at regular
community dances, (as opposed to dance camps and festivals), to be
discouraging. This practice sets aside a portion of the evening when
newcomers are not welcome to participate. I would prefer that open
community dances remain accessible to newcomers throughout the evening.
Greg McKenzie
Monterey, CA
Brent Chivers
Greg McKenzie <gre...@pdsc.com> wrote:
>
> The teaching that occurs during the walk-through is much more
> efficient, and fun, than verbal instruction from the caller
> or any "off-line" instruction, (such as a separate beginner's
> orientation class). This time allows all of the dancers to
> participate in teaching each other the dance. I think this
> emphasis on community teaching is rather unique to contradance
> and, when done well, makes separate classes unnecessary.
Please keep in mind that for _any_ activity there will be some
subset of newcomers who will want to learn with other newcomers,
"off-line" in beginners' classes. Whether _we_ feel this is an
efficient or effective technique doesn't matter, because these
people simply will not get out on the floor without some sort
of prior instruction. If we ever want to meet these people at
our dances, separate classes will still be necessary.
People don't all learn the same way, and some people
probably will learn better or faster in the context of a
class. And going through a walk-through in total confusion
(which I've seen happen) is _not_ fun for new dancers.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Brent Chivers McLean, VA bchi...@mitre.org
Denys Proteau
you by Greg McKe...@pdsc.com
> and fun, than verbal instruction from the caller or any "off-line"
> instruction, (such as a separate beginner's orientation class). This time
> allows all of the dancers to participate in teaching each other the dance.
> I think this emphasis on community teaching is rather unique to contradance
> and, when done well, makes separate classes unnecessary.
>
I'll try to keep this short so forgive me for not giving examples like
I usually do.
This "community" teaching is a type of teaching/learning by doing
rather than in a setting socially labled as "a teaching session". I
think that learning by doing is how most people learn most of the things
that they know, and in this sense contradance is not unique. However in
this country we've somehow come to beleive that certain things must be
learned in a special teaching session, and unfortunatly people beleive
that dancing any type of dance, except free style rock dancing, must be
learned in such a setting. It is just as valid to learn any kind of
dance by just trying it and getting pointers from friends as by having
an instructer teach you. Contradancing is nearly unique amoung dance
types in the U.S. because contra dancers haven't yet given up the idea
that you can learn as you dance.
Denys
Toby Koosman
>Under the appropriate circumstances having one or occasionally two dances
>without walk-throughs is fine. Keep in mind, however, that they will
>exclude beginners who might not have participated fully in earlier dances
>that evening. I find the growing popularity of meddlys at regular
>community dances, (as opposed to dance camps and festivals), to be
>discouraging. This practice sets aside a portion of the evening when
>newcomers are not welcome to participate. I would prefer that open
>community dances remain accessible to newcomers throughout the evening.
Well said. At a given moment taking the fast track may come off without a
hitch, but in the long run it raises the ante. On the rare occasion that
someone calls a medley at the local dance, I invariably find myself having
just persuaded some uncertain new face to stop watching and just get in and
try it. This person is in for the ride of their life, huh? I feel betrayed
by the caller when this happens!
Toby Koosman tako...@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Kiran Wagle
>someone calls a medley at the local dance, I invariably find myself having
>just persuaded some uncertain new face to stop watching and just get in and
>try it. This person is in for the ride of their life, huh? I feel betrayed
>by the caller when this happens!
Heh heh. Another problem that could be solved if callers would tell
dancers in advance what the next dance would be. <grin>
I shant use this as a chance to bitch about dances run by callers and
bands, rather than by dancers. i'll write that one up elsewhere.
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
Linda Golder
wrote:
> ... though there are indeed more beginners at the
> Friday dances, the actual overall energy and level of dancing are about
> the same. If anything, Fridays are MORE fun, because it's the
> beginners (the better ones) who bring new energy to an old hobby.
I've seen this, too. The beginners *do* seem to bring a new enthusiasm to
the dances. And in teaching, & in walking thru the moves, the
"experienced" people often learn something new to polish their skills (if
they're paying attention). We can't assume that someone who's come to a
number of dances is a skilled dancer... some will *always* need the
teaching. So, I'm *not* in favor of separate "open" & "experienced only"
dances.
Bruce Smith
>
>This seems like an important consideration--last Sunday, we danced
>that most loathed of all chestnuts (well, okay, it was NOT Petronella)
>namely Chorus Jig. We had an unusually short line and we got to
>go thru the line TWICE in the course of the dance. It was a long
>dance--had we been in a long line, and only danced partway thru
>the line, it would have been MUCH too long, but Chorus Jig is actually
>FUN when it goes on forever in a short line! So make shorter lines.
>
The first was at a Brattleboro Dawn Dance, where the line stretched almost the
entire length of a very long hall. Down and up and down the line we went.
The music was hot, the dancers were smokin'. Most of the inactives swung
in the middle as the actives marched up and down the outside of the set.
The dance went on and on and on...much to our delight!
The other example was at my own wedding party, where a mix of dancers
and non-dancers all managed to dance. (Guess I'll give some credit to
L. Greenleaf's calling for that!) Lisa called Chorus Jig. The two or three
lines weren't really long or short, but by this time in my dancing life I'd
become somewhat weary of doing CJ. A wild and enthusiastic version of CJ
followed. Even the beginners got into it! Of course, by then I'd had enough
beer and wine to make even old CJ moderately challenging. I can't remember
how many times I went up and down that line, but I do remember the
uninhibited cheering that occurred afterwards.
Bruce Smith
Greg McKenzie
(Brent Chivers) wrote:
> Please keep in mind that for _any_ activity there will be some
> subset of newcomers who will want to learn with other newcomers,
> "off-line" in beginners' classes. Whether _we_ feel this is an
> efficient or effective technique doesn't matter, because these
> people simply will not get out on the floor without some sort
> of prior instruction. If we ever want to meet these people at
> our dances, separate classes will still be necessary.
>
> People don't all learn the same way, and some people
> probably will learn better or faster in the context of a
> class. And going through a walk-through in total confusion
> (which I've seen happen) is _not_ fun for new dancers.
With regard to reticent beginners I think we're talking about a different
situation if the person knows that there is no beginner's orientation
available; if they know that everyone else learned without a beginner's
orientation; if they know that this is a tradition in contradance; and if
someone takes the time to graciously invite them to dance. In that context
I think that even those who "want to learn with other newcomers" will feel
comfortable with joining the dance. Unfortunately, this situation will
never exist as long as a beginner's orientation is available. The very
presence of a beginner's orientation sends the wrong message to newcomers.
If the experienced dancers also know that there is no separate orientation
availiable they will be more likely to take responsibility for welcoming
new dancers and helping them during the walk-through. Consequently
beginner's will not be as likely to experience "total confusion" in the
walk-through. (Your post assumes that a separate orientation will reduce
the amount of confusion in the walk-through. I would argue that it
generally increases the amount of confusion compared to a dance series
without one.)
Greg McKenzie
Monterey, CA
Kiran Wagle
>I think that even those who "want to learn with other newcomers" will feel
>comfortable with joining the dance. Unfortunately, this situation will
>never exist as long as a beginner's orientation is available. The very
>presence of a beginner's orientation sends the wrong message to newcomers.
I never expected to agree with Greg on anything,
but I do happen to agree with this. Well said.
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
Brent Chivers
> bchi...@smiley.mitre.org (Brent Chivers) wrote:
>
> > Please keep in mind that for _any_ activity there will be some
> > subset of newcomers who will want to learn with other newcomers,
> > "off-line" in beginners' classes. Whether _we_ feel this is an
> > efficient or effective technique doesn't matter, because these
> > people simply will not get out on the floor without some sort
> > of prior instruction. If we ever want to meet these people at
> > our dances, separate classes will still be necessary.
> >
> > People don't all learn the same way, and some people
> > probably will learn better or faster in the context of a
> > class. And going through a walk-through in total confusion
> > (which I've seen happen) is _not_ fun for new dancers.
In article <gregmc-11...@162.49.74.64>,
Greg McKenzie <gre...@pdsc.com> wrote:
> With regard to reticent beginners I think we're talking about a different
> situation if the person knows that there is no beginner's orientation
> available; if they know that everyone else learned without a beginner's
> orientation; if they know that this is a tradition in contradance; and if
> someone takes the time to graciously invite them to dance. In that context
> I think that even those who "want to learn with other newcomers" will feel
> comfortable with joining the dance. Unfortunately, this situation will
> never exist as long as a beginner's orientation is available. The very
> presence of a beginner's orientation sends the wrong message to newcomers.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think there's a
segment of the population who will refuse to explore any activity
unessential to their survival if the only entry entry path allows
them to be highly confused while they're exposed to the full view
of those who know what they're doing. They will cling to the wall
and watch a dance or three, and then slip quietly out the door.
Some of those who finally work up the courage to try will have sat
through the easier dances that start most evenings, so their first
experience is still more of a challenge than it needed to be; and
they may leave embarrassed and discouraged (and perhaps wondering
whether they could take lessons somewhere, because the people who
know what they're doing sure seem to be having a great time).
Maybe I should try more forcefully (gently forcefully ;-) to get
new faces onto the floor with that first dance.
The existence of separate lessons does imply to some newcomers
that there's a need for lessons before entering contra dancing,
and does discourage many from just jumping in. On the other
hand, I think the lessons (where available) get many people off
to a more confident start. I took lessons, and I'm glad I did.
There were many details that make the dance more enjoyable that
I would not have picked up on my own for many months.
> If the experienced dancers also know that there is no separate
> orientation availiable they will be more likely to take responsibility
> for welcoming new dancers and helping them during the walk-through.
People don't all pick things up equally quickly, and often walk-
throughs don't leave enough time to teach the things that some
beginners are having trouble with. Some people may need to
practice a courtesy turn (or any other arbitrary, basic figure)
several times. Most beginners will have one or more figures
that fluster them (or perhaps there's something they learned
wrong in a subtle way*), and falling behind in the walkthrough
can leave them confused through the rest of the dance.
*After a year of dancing, I learned just days ago that my mental
concept of a fairly-common figure was not entirely correct, but
my notion of how it should go worked just fine with the figures
that _usually_ followed it. Didn't work right _that_ night!
So we need to be diligent at breaking up couples and clumps
of new people, both so they can learn faster and so everyone
else can enjoy the dance more. A confused new person won't get
many helpful cues from an equally-confused new-dancer partner.
Perhaps it's my relative lack of experience, but I often can't
explain things well enough while in motion to clear up other
people's confusion once I've diagnosed a problem.
I was at a dance this Saturday that seemed to be 2/3 new dancers.
The caller took lots of time to explain things, but even so, there
were still those having far more difficulty than most. We didn't
always take the time these few individuals needed, perhaps because
this was a dance and not class. Or perhaps because they faked
their way through the walk throughs and we didn't notice some of
the problems until the dances were under way. Or maybe they didn't
get flustered until they tried doing things up to speed, or reversed
at the ends of the sets. Some people will pick up these concepts
(flow of figures, active/inactive transitions, skipping late
figures, etc) better in a more-relaxed setting, without the
stress of worrying about screwing up the dance for everyone else.
> Consequently beginner's will not be as likely to experience "total
> confusion" in the walk-through. (Your post assumes that a separate
> orientation will reduce the amount of confusion in the walk-through.
> I would argue that it generally increases the amount of confusion
> compared to a dance series without one.)
Perhaps it's a reflection on the dance community here, with its
existence of beginners classes (confirming your viewpoint), but as
a beginner I have been part of that "total confusion". Sometimes
I was dancing with other beginners, because like attracts like and
none of us knew any better (and no one rescued us from ourselves).
When we heard calls we didn't understand, we'd look around and try
to figure them out, but we didn't always get them right. Sometimes
we were with experienced dancers, but the walkthroughs didn't leave
them enough time to teach us the moves. Sometimes we bailed out of
active dances because we were clueless about where and when we were
supposed to be. (Sometimes we even managed to do this "smoothly"
at the bottom of the set.) But with our clueless buddies, we were
determined to beat this thing, and we kept coming back.
There are many sources for confusion, but beginners fall prey to
more of them. Much of understanding is based on context, which
beginners lack simply because they don't have the experience. When
the hall's acoustics leave something to be desired, different dancers
can hear different things. At Sunday's dance, when the caller said
"left", it sounded to me like "left". Unfortunately, when he said
"right", 80% of the time that also sounded like "left" to _me_. Once
when his call was "partner" and I heard "other" -- leaving me totally
confused. (Fortunately my clueful partner heard that one correctly
and rescued me.) Hearing the wrong thing is far more confusing than
not hearing the right thing. There was a nifty figure in a square
that our head couples (including me) never got, and we weren't
beginners. Lots of squares got it, and lots didn't. Was the problem
us or the call? (The hall?) Did the ones who got it already know it?
Separate lessons will give some people a context base that
can mean the difference between understanding enough of what's
going on to enjoy themselves and being confused, flustered,
and frustrated to the point of not coming back next week.
These problems _can_ be countered with a patient walkthrough,
but I don't always see an _evening_ of walkthroughs like that.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Perhaps this is the summary -- separate classes are _not_
necessary to teach people how to dance contras, but they
_are_ necessary to encourage _some_ people to try to learn.
And I think some people will learn faster and/or more comfortably
in separate classes, but they can learn in real dances too.
Toby Koosman
>>someone calls a medley at the local dance, I invariably find myself having
>>just persuaded some uncertain new face to stop watching and just get in and
>>try it. This person is in for the ride of their life, huh? I feel betrayed
>>by the caller when this happens!
gr...@netcom.com (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>Heh heh. Another problem that could be solved if callers would tell
>dancers in advance what the next dance would be. <grin>
This wouldn't have solved my problem. I don't think it makes people feel
welcome to announce that a dance will be over their heads, although I don't
mind if the caller recommends to the new folks that they get with an
experienced partner for a particular dance.
>I shant use this as a chance to bitch about dances run by callers and
>bands, rather than by dancers.
In my experience dances are run (and called) by those dancers
most willing to take responsibility for running them. It only stands to
reason that their views on what makes a successful dance will carry
more weight than those of others. You might also consider that the
perspective is different from behind the mikes--we see things that you don't,
and fail to see things that you do. Most callers (and musicians) value
feedback; but it has to be balanced with other considerations--judgement,
experience, underlying philosophy. There are a lot of things to think about
at once, and decisions to be made on the fly: perhaps alerting certain people
to the approaching danger of finding themselves in a square set is not the
foremost thing on a caller's mind. There are long term considerations at odds
with immediate ones: maintaining a desired accessibility, as we've discussed,
despite the temptation to give the pros some new kicks.
I've only worked in small dance communities, where callers and organizers are
strictly amateurs and for the most part would be only too happy to let more
people share the burdens of managing our activities. Admittedly there are
times when someone comes along with a badly conceived or self-serving agenda
and tries to "take over", in the event of which calls for democratic reform
are surely in order. At the same time I don't credit the Gallup poll method
of governing. Give leadership its due.
David #6
: Perhaps it's a reflection on the dance community here, with its
: existence of beginners classes (confirming your viewpoint), but as
: a beginner I have been part of that "total confusion". Sometimes
: I was dancing with other beginners, because like attracts like and
: none of us knew any better (and no one rescued us from ourselves).
: When we heard calls we didn't understand, we'd look around and try
: to figure them out, but we didn't always get them right. Sometimes
: we were with experienced dancers, but the walkthroughs didn't leave
: them enough time to teach us the moves. Sometimes we bailed out of
: active dances because we were clueless about where and when we were
: supposed to be. (Sometimes we even managed to do this "smoothly"
: at the bottom of the set.) But with our clueless buddies, we were
: determined to beat this thing, and we kept coming back.
Brent, thank you for a thoughtful and insightful posting. More power to
you and your "clueless buddies" for continuing to come back to dances.
If I can respond to one piece of this, I think that Glen Echo (which you
seem to be talking about here) in the DC area is one of the hardest
places I have seen to learn contra dancing. Though most of the
difficulties you mention are not unique to Glen Echo, many of them are
exacerbated by the size of the hall and the lack of a cohesive dance
community.
The sheer size of the dance makes it very difficult for a caller to make
sure all dancers understand all of the figures. In a smaller hall, I can
keep my eye on the three or four couples that are clearly less
experienced and adjust the language I am using to meet their
difficulties. At Glen Echo, one cannot always see everyone who is having
problems, or more frequently, one cannot always figure out what the
problems are, just that they exist. Furthermore, once two hundred people
know the dance from having walked it through twice, they stop paying
attention to the caller and begin to converse among themselves, making it
that much harder for the caller to communicate with the thirty dancers
still confused by the figure.
Also, Washington lacks a cohesive dance community that is attuned to the
importance of ensuring a steady influx of new dancers. When I danced in
Knoxville (by way of example) new dancers were usually noticed as they
came in the door. Members of the local dance community would be sure to
walk over, introduce themselves, find out if the newcomers had danced
before, give a quickie workshop if time allowed, and invite them to
dance. While I see this at Glen Echo too, it does not happen nearly as
often as in Knoxville, despite the vastly larger number of new dancers.
While part of this is size again, I think a lot of it is simply lack of
interest. Baltimore (a much smaller dance) routinely draws more
experienced dancers to help out in its beginner's workshops than
Washington does.
I think Brent may be right about the importance of regular beginner's
workshops at Glen Echo. However, I never felt the same need for them in
Knoxville (in fact they might have been tried and failed -- Toby would
know :)
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Bo Bradham
>
> gr...@netcom.com (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>
> >I shant use this as a chance to bitch about dances run by callers and
> >bands, rather than by dancers.
>
> In my experience dances are run (and called) by those dancers
> most willing to take responsibility for running them. It only stands to
> reason that their views on what makes a successful dance will carry
> more weight than those of others. You might also consider that the
> perspective is different from behind the mikes--we see things that you don't,
> and fail to see things that you do. Most callers (and musicians) value
> feedback; but it has to be balanced with other considerations--judgement,
> experience, underlying philosophy. There are a lot of things to think about
Well said, Toby. I don't think Kiran has fully presented
his views on the subject, but I agree with Toby's implicit assertion
that just because the dancers know what they want doesn't mean
they know how to achieve it. And I strongly disagree with
Kiran's assumption that the goals of callers and
musicians are different from and possibly at odds with the
goals of dancers.
Did I misread those implications or is that what y'all were
saying?
Bo Bradham
R. David Murray
>The walk-through is where most of the actual teaching of the basic
>movements occurs. Beginners are NOT taught by the caller. Actually they
>learn the meaning of the prompts from the leads and nudges of their
>experienced partner and the examples of other dancers in the immediate
>vicinity.
This is a good point I hadn't encountered before.
I like the way Steve Zakon works with beginners. At his monthly dance
there is a half hour beginners session before the dance proper.
Usually, about as many experienced dancers as beginners arrive early.
When there are enough people (so the session is very rarely really half
a hour long) he first does some talking introduction, often including
swing basics. Then he lines people up and teaches a few figures. As
above, the experienced ringers help the newcommers learn the figures.
The figures he teaches comprise a simple dance, and at the end he says:
what you just learned is the first dance I'm going to call after the
sound check. So I need all of you to come up and dance; you are going
to be my experts for the first dance.
This is somewhat the reverse of the sentiment others have expressed: that
having a beginners session at all makes people think they have to come to
it. But Steve's beginner's session is really very like the normal
teaching at the beginning of every dance, so I would imagine a lot of
beginners get the right idea: that they should keep jumping right in.
That final "you are going to be my experts" implies the other dancers
normally learn the dance from the walkthrough, which is the message
we want, I think. Also, having the session just before the dance, with
Steve's encouragement that that is all they needed to learn to
participate fully, should help to both attract those who simply *won't*
jump right in, and encourage them to do so after just that one, minimal
"training session".
It seems to work well for his dance, anyway, which is a dance I would
put near the top of my list of dances that have a "community feeling".
--David
R. David Murray
>This seems like an important consideration--last Sunday, we danced
>that most loathed of all chestnuts (well, okay, it was NOT Petronella)
>namely Chorus Jig. We had an unusually short line and we got to
Hey, Chorus Jig is my *favorite* old chestnut. Not only is the music
great, but if you have enough room and/or few enough inexperienced
dancers, you can swing while inactive and have almost as much fun as
the actives <grin>.
--David
Greg McKenzie
(Brent Chivers) wrote:
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think there's a
> segment of the population who will refuse to explore any activity
> unessential to their survival if the only entry entry path allows
> them to be highly confused while they're exposed to the full view
> of those who know what they're doing. They will cling to the wall
> and watch a dance or three, and then slip quietly out the door.
By the same token there is also a segment of the population who will never
put out the extra effort of attending a separate class and will,
consequently, never attend a contradance because they will assume that, for
them, the class is necessary for successful participation. I, for one,
attended my first contradance only after my partner assured me that, by
tradition, no separate lessons were available. The fact that no separate
orientation was required convinced me that, perhaps, even _I_ could learn
it.
In an attempt to draw in reticent beginners with separate orientations we
create an extra hoop that newcomers must jump through before being welcomed
on the dance floor. I can't tell you how many times I have cringed when I
hear "experienced" dancers ask confused beginners if they attended the
orientation or remind them that there is a separate beginners class before
each dance. The subliminal message is clear: "You're not yet ready to
dance with us." You can sometimes actually see the beginner's enthusiasm
dampened.
By ending the well-intentioned but misguided practice of offering separate
beginner's classes we could make this wonderful community dance more
accessable and more fun for everyone. I think that the dance community is
ready and willing to put more effort into welcoming and helping beginners.
By offering separate orientations we compartmentalize this welcoming
function and, in so doing, remove it from the attention of the larger
community of people who can implement it with a heartfelt genuiness and a
personal touch which is impossible in a class setting.
But, again, this is only one way of looking at it.
Regards,
Greg McKenzie
Monterey, CA
Toby Koosman
>I think Brent may be right about the importance of regular beginner's
>workshops at Glen Echo. However, I never felt the same need for them in
>Knoxville (in fact they might have been tried and failed -- Toby would
>know :)
Indeed we have tried them, and as a formal thing it was a flop, although we
sometimes hold impromptu ones when enough newcomers arrive early
(meaning at the official starting time)...if only to keep them from leaving
out of impatience for something to happen.
Last time we discussed this I conceded that the special characteristics of the
Glen Echo dances justify a separate beginners' orientation, where a cozier
dance like ours has no particular need for it. I went to a new dance series
in Chattanooga a few months back that ran a successful teaching session--with
substantial participation from experienced dancers; in addition the dances
were not difficult all night. So that in effect it was a regular dance geared
to a lightly experienced group with the first hour called a beginners'
session, to give people encouragement and confidence, and to preclude
any complaints about so much teaching at the start. But I think that holding
sessions which are _only_ attended by beginners is in general a great way for
people to spend three times as long as necessary learning a figure, because no
one around them knows it either. I don't know what to say about this
psychological demand for formal teaching I keep hearing about. Our publicity
(such as it is) always says "all dances taught." Isn't that enough?
Eric Conrad
In the right crowd, you can swing more as as inactive! During A1 with
your partner while the actives are walking outside the set and during B2
with a consenting someone in the adjacent line while the actives
are swinging. Also, as an active, I can get a few twirls in the transition
from A1 to A2. Great dance! Great tune!
Eric
B. Parkes
>In an attempt to draw in reticent beginners with separate orientations we
>create an extra hoop that newcomers must jump through before being welcomed
>on the dance floor. I can't tell you how many times I have cringed when I
>hear "experienced" dancers ask confused beginners if they attended the
>orientation or remind them that there is a separate beginners class before
>each dance. The subliminal message is clear: "You're not yet ready to
>dance with us." You can sometimes actually see the beginner's enthusiasm
>dampened.
session _during the break_ for beginners or "anyone else who
might have a few questions." My experience was that by tht point
in the eveing the newcomers know what they do not know, know what
is important (like teach me to swing, or I'm mixed up aobut right
and left through, etc.)
I tought the session rather than Tony because that way he got the
break he needed at that point...
Beth
R. David Murray
>With regard to reticent beginners I think we're talking about a different
>situation if the person knows that there is no beginner's orientation
>available; if they know that everyone else learned without a beginner's
>orientation; if they know that this is a tradition in contradance; and if
>someone takes the time to graciously invite them to dance. In that context
>I think that even those who "want to learn with other newcomers" will feel
>comfortable with joining the dance. Unfortunately, this situation will
>never exist as long as a beginner's orientation is available. The very
>presence of a beginner's orientation sends the wrong message to newcomers.
Unfortunately, this situation will never exist for potential new dancers who
find out about the dance other than through word of mouth from experienced
dancers. *These* folks might never *come* to a dance if (sometimes) the
advertisements don't say "beginner's workshop before the dance". The
advertisement could, of course, say "no experience necessary", but for
the folks we are talking about, that might not be enough. That said,
I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of beginner's workshops that
are separate from the actual dance. (But I'm also a voluntarist, so by
all means do what works for your community!)
--David
David #6
: For a while at Monday Nights in Concord I was leading an informal
: session _during the break_ for beginners or "anyone else who
: in the eveing the newcomers know what they do not know <snip>
This sounds like a really good idea! Has anyone else tried this?
Beth, you did this "for a while." Why did you decide to stop? Was there
generally good turnout? Did this lead to fewer new dancers leaving at the
break? I'd like to hear more, if you're willing.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Linda Golder
McKenzie) wrote:
> [snip]... I think that the dance community is
> ready and willing to put more effort into welcoming and helping beginners.
> By offering separate orientations we compartmentalize this welcoming
> function and, in so doing, remove it from the attention of the larger
> community of people who can implement it with a heartfelt genuiness and a
> personal touch which is impossible in a class setting.
This sense of a welcoming community is one of the *major* appeals of
contradance. Assuming we can get someone into the hall in the first place
(admittedly a knotty problem), we have the opportunity of drawing this
newcomer into our community... if we put "proficiency barriers" in the way,
we start to lose the sense of community. (As in, "You're only welcome if
you meet our minimum standards... go back to the beginner class & try
again!")
If we each take responsibility for helping new people enjoy the dance, this
will not be burdensome to any one individual. And we don't have to deal
with another layer of beaurocracy for dance classes.
Last saturday, 8 new beginners showed up as a group at our Marsons Mills
dance (which is small/intimate... about 30 regulars maximum). Linda Leslie
was calling, & she immediately began to change her program for the evening,
to be able to teach & incorporate this high percentage of beginners into
the dance. I was also really pleased to se the very welcoming response of
the regulars. We each danced with the new folks, modelling our style of
dancing for them & helping them through. By the second half, these new
people were dancing reasonably well. They obviously enjoyed the experience
& are likely to come back. I think it's worth the effort, even with the
loss of some fun, experienced dance time.
- Linda <lgo...@mbl.edu> Woods Hole, MA, USA
Joel L Breazeale
>j...@world.std.com (Joel L Breazeale) writes:
>
>>Kiran Wagle <gr...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>And, let me remind all of you, the dancers who pay the bills, too.
>
>>I can't resist... 8-)
>
>And well you shouldn't. This is, after all, USENET. <grin>
Thanks!
>>I strongly feel a dance series can be packed with people and be making
>>oodles of money and still be a failure. If you can figure out why then
>>you have a hope of being a responsible dance organizer.
>
>I can't even begin to figure out why you might strongly feel this
>until you define "failure."
Fair enough... The dance series is not assuring its long-term survival
nor maximizing its potential for serving/educating the general public.
>A dance that is packed with people and making oodles of money would
>likely be a success by any definition *I* consider reasonable--unless
>you've got the people in a cage or something and only let them out to
>dance. After all, if people aren't having fun, why is the dance
>packed? If they don't want to be there, why are they paying oodles of
>money?
>
>And "responsible" by whose standards? Callers', musicians', or dancers'?
I would use the standards of the locality, the smallest geographical unit
which could support that dance series (block, neighborhood, town, city,
region).
Just to make it interesting... The regular dancers are having a wonderful,
fun time!
---
I just got back from vacation and will browse the thread to see if anyone
has hit upon ways to make my statement true (I have thought of five). You
just got a hint above... 8-)
--Joel
Joel L Breazeale
>Kiran Wagle <gr...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>>Callers can try to discover what dancers are actually _doing_ and use
>>that knowledge to try to achieve their own ends, or they can ignore us,
>>and we'll gladly ignore THEM in turn. I'm perfectly capable of talking
>>through a walk-thru and STILL catching every word of instruction, and
>>I am willing to do so if I think a caller's ignoring the dancers.
>
>Truth be told, most experienced (or heavily experienced) dancers can
>talk through the whole walk-through, instruction, etc. for many
>dances. While this is OK for them it does not help the less experienced
>in the group. An experienced dancer can dance most dances withougt
>a walk through at all. Does this mean that we should do away with
>the walk through alltogether (since the dancers obviously feel it
>not necessary) I think if we "discover what the dancers are actually
>_doing_ in this case we could close our dances to all but experienced
>dancers.
>
>I personaly feel that the walk-through, the teaching of beginners
>on the fly withouth the need for lessons is one of our most important
>traditions. the modern western square dance movement of the 60s
>listened to what the dancers wanted: harder and trickier material
>no teaching at open dances, etc. and the movement is having serious
>trouble getting new people willing to invest the time to learn all
>that stuff.
>
>Yes, we try to listen to the dancers but we also have some
>investment in the artistic success of an evening and when
>what the dancers appear to want contradicts ouir own beliefs
>about what is good for the dance it can be a tough call.
>
Beth has hit upon the most important difference between the modern
western square dance and contemporary traditional contra dance move-
ments, the walk-thru. For the most part, the contemporary contra
dance can be visited by a first-time dancer at every meeting whereas
a MWSD can only be approached during the few weeks when lessons are
starting (and then first-timer cannot discontinue dancing without
completing the lessons lest he/she is left behind and will be unable
to find a place to dance). Lessons typically start only once or twice
a year, so the efficiency of a weekly dance series with two classes
a year is somewhere around 4/52 versus 52/52 for contra dance.
The stratification of the dance community is the natural result of
the need for prior knowledge. There will be those who "know" and those
who do not "know." Those who "know" then feel they are better dancers
by knowing and then knowing more is better. New levels are invented as
a result of the need to be a better dancer... Get the picture?!
Now, is this paragraph describing MWSD or contra dance?
If the dance culture is built upon the simplest, most open format the
hard-core dancers will be greatly outnumbered and they'll never affect
the overall dance culture to the point where the dance culture becomes
unapproachable. The hard-core dancers can congregate too (I never said
they couldn't), so everyone can have their cake and eat it too! Just be
sure your vision is "open" and there will not be a problem!
Keep the walk-thru! Keep the dance simple and approachable!
--Joel
Susan and Bill
Well gosh - Susan's been doing this at our dance(1st/3rd Fridays in
Greenfield, MA) for the last two years. I think (and I think Susan
thinks, since she's still doing it) it works out really well for the
reasons Beth pointed out. It eliminates the problem of beginners
needing to know that they have to arrive on time.
Experienced dancers bring their friends and get involved and it gives
Susan a chance to address social/community issues in a less noticable
way (she loves to talk about how you should feel all three others in a
circle, for example). I believe it has helped with some 'friendliness'
issues at the dance and has helped maintain a better social
atmosphere.
BTW - we also run the dance for four hours (following David Kaynor's
lead) which adds to the relaxed effect and has some other interesting
effects.
Bill Tomczak
Kiran Wagle
>Unfortunately, this situation will never exist for potential new dancers who
>find out about the dance other than through word of mouth from experienced
I'm curious. How many of these do we keep, as compared to
the ones who are brought by their dancing friends?
>dancers. *These* folks might never *come* to a dance if (sometimes) the
>advertisements don't say "beginner's workshop before the dance". The
I'm not at all opposed to beginner's sessions, and in fact I routinely
wake up before noon to do Marlon Whitaker's [sp?] "Improve your
contra" workshops at dance weekends.
What I'm opposed to is the notion of _classes_, as opposed to places
where beginners can get a few useful tips before they learn just like
the rest of us did--and DO, since the best dancers are the ones who're
always learning. I think that the notion of classes makes the whole
thing seem a LOT more difficult than it is. What we do is EASY,
folks, if *I* could learn it!
A Glen Echo regular I've mentioned here before <grin> once asked me,
after listening to me rant about classes while driving home from a
dance at Gettysburg a few months ago, "So what would YOU teach in a
begginers' session?" Good question. I would teach style points and
basic techniques and terminology. I would NOT teach a collection of
moves and call it a class. Nor would i suggest one needs more than
half an hour or so to get started. (Glen Echo classes run _four weeks_!)
For instance, one of the biggest problems in dancing is properly
giving weight. This is not a MOVE, so it isn't often taught while
dancing (except by Charlie Fenton, who tries to teach something at
each of his regular dances.) It's a style point, but by teaching it,
one can also teach an allemande, or (Marlon's favorite and mine) a
two-handed turn. ("How many women at Glen Echo can give weight when
swinging with other women?" a woman friend recently asked.)
I'd also teach them basic terminology, and point out, for instance,
that actives move down the hall and inactives move up the hall. (How
many times have I turned to a partner in a Becket formation and asked
which side of the line is active, only to be told it doesn't matter?
(In fact, it often does NOT, but in many dances, the progression is
along the line, and knowing which way you should be moving IS useful
at those times.)) I might mention that the progression does NOT
always happen at the end of the tune--something that I didn't realise
for YEARS, and that messed a few of us up at Glen Echo last month.
I'd also teach a basic balance and a walking swing, and demonstrate
how the two are related. I'd point out that one does not HAVE to be
twirled in courtesy turns. And I'd discuss phrasing of moves to music,
probably with some simple but illustative example, such as contra
corners. (How many times has contra corners NOT been rushed at Glen
Echo? Answer: Once since I've been dancing there.) And if I teach
them about timing with contra corners, i can say they have now learned
one of the more difficult moves in contradance.
>advertisement could, of course, say "no experience necessary", but for
EXPERIENCE should not be necessary. But there IS more to dancing than
simply learning the moves--there are style points, and etiquette,
and... and those things, all of which can be a problem for new and old
dancers alike, might best be taught off the floor. Come early, dance
for free (would be MY policy) and learn something new each time.
And there's always more to learn. If you know it all, why keep on going?
~ Kiran, dance geek and dance gypsy. Where's my skirt? I'll shut up now.
Gregory E. Frock
>
> [Long article about what Kiran would teach & other opinions on classes
in general deleted - please read the original post]
Alright Kiran, I have to respond on this subject:
Before you get down to specifics on what you would teach, there are a lot of
general questions to address, such as the environment, ability of the
instructor and motivation of students to learn.
In practice, it's never quite as simple as teaching the same thing over and
over again. In fact, a custom workshop for every situation would best, but
equally impractical.
Let's begin with a few assumptions I suppose you based your comments on.
First, I would guess (correct me if I'm wrong) you were presuming a
new dancer class at the beginning of a regular dance where a number of
experienced dancers regularly attend. After all, this is a completely
different situation from a one night stand for a group of ALL new dancers.
This constitutes a specific environment, and has advantages and
disadvantages (e.g experienced dancers may be able to help newcomers). Other
factors can also be taken into account, such as the sense of community or
whether the caller is a "regular" or the caller changes regularly. Any
element such as these can improve the quality of "class" (more on terminology
below) is used to best advantage.
Student motivation is also important. Somebody may really want to learn,
while another may only be attending the class as a favor to a friend.
Experienced dancer may attend classes to be helpful, hit on the new dancers,
or learn teaching techniques. Even in the same environment, motivations
will be different each time. Newcomers of low motivation will require more
"selling" to get them into the dance.
The instructor's motivation will also shape the classes. For instance, my
own motive is rather evangelical. I want to get as many newcomers to enjoy
contra dancing as quickly as possible to increase the amount of available
dancing. Because of this I agree that the classes should be simple and short.
If running publicity, I would also call my "class" an orientation, as class
sounds like a prerequisite (this point has been made several times in this
group recently), and "workshop" makes it sound like work, an attitude that
conflicts with my teaching agenda. "Orientation" sounds to me like something
optional that would make a newcomer feel more comforatable in the environment
if s/he attended.
Based on these criteria, Larry Edelman, Sherri Anderson & I developed a
methodology that I think fits these criteria well. I posted it about six
months ago, so I will not go into detail here, except to say that the program
runs 20-30 minutes, and works well IN SITUATION GIVEN ALONG WITH THE
DESCRIPTION. It presupposes certain resources which may or may not be
available (for instance, a willing musician). In my original post, I pointed
this out, and recommended modifying the program to suit conditions.
I should also point out that my motivation is by no means the best. For
example, an instructor may wish to improve the QUALITY of dancers, in which
case extensive instruction and drills would probably be more appropriate. It
all depends on your viewpoint.
One last related comment. In your post, you say that giving weight is a
common problem. If the problem pervades the dance community, perhaps it
would be more appropriately taught by the caller...
Greg Frock
B.E. Swetman
either of these off. One of these gentlemen is my favorite partner. In
discussing partners with a friend she said she dislikes him because he
does things like swinging in the middle during Chorus Jig and throws the
beginners in the group off. She is very adamant in her opinion, as I am
that I love to dance with him because he does things like swing in the
middle during Chorus Jig. I have not really noticed the set breaking
down, which she says happens -- but then, I've been busy swinging ;-)
me...@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
chestnuts. In my experience the dance comes off better at a brisk tempo --
probably my only disagreement with Ted Sannella, who insists that the dance be
played relatively slowly. If the music is peppy enough you can have plenty of
fun even if you don't cheat. Which of course I do. In fact I had one of my
all-time peak dancing experiences, an experience that was largely responsible
for luring me into the contra fold, while doing Chorus Jig. It was at a BACDS
Fall Weekend several years ago; after that dance my partner and I swore a blood
oath that if possible we would dance that dance together at any dance camp
where it was called. We've never been disappointed.
As far as confusing beginners, I haven't noticed that beginners are confused by
the twirls during, say, contra corners, but once or twice I've seen beginners
not know when to stop swinging when they're cheating as inactives. This is
something that the caller can address during the walkthrough. Words to the
effect of "Have as much fun as you can if you're inactive, but be back in place
on time!" seem to work.
You might want to take these words with a grain of salt, of course, because I
also like Petronella.
Vanessa
>
David #6
: I would teach style points and
: basic techniques and terminology. I would NOT teach a collection of
: moves and call it a class. Nor would i suggest one needs more than
: half an hour or so to get started. (Glen Echo classes run _four weeks_!)
: giving weight. This is not a MOVE, so it isn't often taught while
<snip>
: I'd also teach them basic terminology, and point out, for instance,
: that actives move down the hall and inactives move up the hall. (How
: always happen at the end of the tune--something that I didn't realise
: for YEARS, and that messed a few of us up at Glen Echo last month.
: I'd also teach a basic balance and a walking swing, and demonstrate
: how the two are related. I'd point out that one does not HAVE to be
: twirled in courtesy turns. And I'd discuss phrasing of moves to music,
: probably with some simple but illustative example, such as contra
: corners. (How many times has contra corners NOT been rushed at Glen
: Echo? Answer: Once since I've been dancing there.) And if I teach
: them about timing with contra corners, i can say they have now learned
: one of the more difficult moves in contradance.
Kiran, there are some good suggestions here, but this is easily _much_
more than a half-hour workshop. Keep in mind that it can take up to 10
minutes (though as a rule it shouldn't) to teach some groups a ladies'
chain, depending on the proportion of people present who have danced
before.
One of the major constraints on teaching everything one wants to teach is
the time available; because people trickle in for 10-15 minutes after the
official starting time, it often takes a while to get underway. And at
the other end, you may have musicians anxious to do a sound check before
the dance starts who will pressure you to cut off your workshop 5-10
minutes before the dance.
Your suggestions, IMHO, are best suited to people who have already come
to a couple of dances and are one step beyond raw beginners. The most
important ideas to convey to beginners are simple enthusiasm for dancing:
We're glad you're here. Welcome to our community. Please feel free to ask
anyone to dance. This is social dance -- be sure to introduce yourself to
new people and to make friends. Dancing is fun; if you have fun this
evening then you're doing all of the important things right -- you'll
always make mistakes, so don't get flustered or embarrassed by them.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Joel L Breazeale
Susan and Bill <ske...@twain.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>In article <david6Cs...@netcom.com>, David #6 <dav...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>B. Parkes (bpa...@delphi.com) wrote:
>>: For a while at Monday Nights in Concord I was leading an informal
>>: session _during the break_ for beginners or "anyone else who
>>: might have a few questions." My experience was that by that point
>>: in the eveing the newcomers know what they do not know <snip>
>>
>>This sounds like a really good idea! Has anyone else tried this?
>>
>>Beth, you did this "for a while." Why did you decide to stop? Was there
>>generally good turnout? Did this lead to fewer new dancers leaving at the
>>break? I'd like to hear more, if you're willing.
>
>Greenfield, MA) for the last two years. I think (and I think Susan
>thinks, since she's still doing it) it works out really well for the
>reasons Beth pointed out. It eliminates the problem of beginners
>needing to know that they have to arrive on time.
I'm inclined to wish it weren't necessary for a caller to help out
first-timers. It is likely true (callers or not) that the dancers
help first-timers muddle through. My preference is to make sure
this tradition continues to accept the role played by dancers in
helping to instruct first-ttimers. Now that I've said that, I'm
also for not standardizing contra dance but I am for trying to
keep the dance form approachable (let's not have a first-timer
spin on a do-si-do until he/she is competent at doing it straight).
>Experienced dancers bring their friends and get involved and it gives
>Susan a chance to address social/community issues in a less noticable
>way (she loves to talk about how you should feel all three others in a
>circle, for example). I believe it has helped with some 'friendliness'
>issues at the dance and has helped maintain a better social
>atmosphere.
Again, I wish it weren't necessary for someone to correct or reinforce
issues related to fellowship. Wouldn't it be nice if we were just a
bunch of friendly folks getting together for an evening of fun, in a
unique manner (tell me of similar ways of socializing and I'll go
check them out).
>BTW - we also run the dance for four hours (following David Kaynor's
>lead) which adds to the relaxed effect and has some other interesting
>effects.
This is one of the most remarkable effects of such a dance and I wish
more dances would emulate this: The dance is four hours long with
(so I remember) a long break (by Boston standards) in the middle of
the evening and fairly long breaks between the individual dances.
I mentioned to DK my observations regarding his style (length of a
dance and break between them) and mentioned it allowed people to talk
to their partner and socialize. He didn't appear to acknowledge this
format as intentional, but let's all hope he doesn't work out his
programming for an evening in advance and stop discussing the next
dance with the band (causing the time to socialize)!
I found it curious that when I added a fourth hour to the 2nd Tuesday
dance there were actually complaints! One was, "we can't dance for
four hours... we'd be exhausted!" My response was, 'You can sit out;
you don't have to dance the whole four hours, sit out a few dances!'
Some of the best times I have at contra dances are when I dance with
someone by sitting out. I have gone to people and asked them if I
could have this dance by sitting it out and talking. I also enjoy
the 12 hour dance format -- I once sat out three dances with someone
(I was quite thrilled with the conversation as you might guess).
Finally, a Tuesday night semi-regular hurt her foot and said it would
be silly if she came over to the dance since she could not dance. I
said, 'heck, no! Come anyway!' I regret she didn't, but I'm still
working on her -- the point is some people fail to see the social
aspect of folks getting together for a contra dance.
--Joel
Joel L Breazeale
versus having a "beginner's workshop before the dance," I'd take word of
mouth and no experience necessary. Even if there is a percentage of the
population who'd respond to a workshop before the dance, the cost of that
workshop is the potential stratification of the community. It's just not
worth it unless you don't mind having a bunch of people who think it is
more important to dance than welcome newcomers.
[OK, two responses in one session -- this must be a good thread!
While I'm at it, those who'd like to listen to David Kaynor's feelings
about helping beginners to feel welcome at a contra dance might show
up at the VFW Hall/Cambridge, on Thursday, August 4, at 6:30pm!]
--Joel
Susan and Bill
Joel L Breazeale <j...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Given the choice of "word of mouth" advertising and "no experience necessary"
>versus having a "beginner's workshop before the dance," I'd take word of
>mouth and no experience necessary. Even if there is a percentage of the
>population who'd respond to a workshop before the dance, the cost of that
>workshop is the potential stratification of the community.
The idea that a beginner's session causes stratification has been
brought up a number of times. In my experience of the current contra
dance scene, stratification exists. Beginners sessions are one effort
to address the problem, they do not create it.
One of my favorite dances of all time was the Brimmer & May dance that
is the ancestor of the current Tuesday night dance that you now take
care of, Joel. It always started with a beginners' session. There was
no stratification going on at that dance that I could see. It's where
I did most of my first contra dancing and it's largely my warm, fuzzy
memories of that dance (where I also started playing for contras by
sitting in with the hired musicians) that has kept me interested to
this day. It was an incredible mix of experienced and beginner. People
seemed to just enjoy dancing WITH each other.
I enjoy the Peterborough dance so much because it seems to have
captured a good part of that very atmosphere. And Steve does a
beginners session before the dance starts.
BTW - I would be interested in hearing Dan Pearl's thoughts on the
evolution of the B&M dance to its current state, since he was very
closely associated with that dance during a large part of my formative
dance years. So Dan - whither Brimmer & May? (IYHO)
Bill T
Jonathan Sivier
>Given the choice of "word of mouth" advertising and "no experience necessary"
>versus having a "beginner's workshop before the dance," I'd take word of
>mouth and no experience necessary. Even if there is a percentage of the
>population who'd respond to a workshop before the dance, the cost of that
>workshop is the potential stratification of the community. It's just not
>worth it unless you don't mind having a bunch of people who think it is
>more important to dance than welcome newcomers.
I haven't responded to this thread before, but for some reason I now
feel like putting in my 2 cents worth.
In a perfect world you would be correct, people would come for the first
time and just join in. However in the real world there are meny people who
come and no matter how much you tell them that it's easy, no experience is
needed and that they'll learn as they go, and that most of the people there
dancing learned just that same way, they still sit and watch and after awhile
leave. Other than physically dragging them onto the dance floor (it's how
I got started, but is generally frowned upon except between very close
friends, I was literally carried onto the dance floor by 3 or 4 other guys)
there isn't much you can do. However some of these people will come to a
beginner's class and thus gain some confidence and then become regulars at the
dance. I feel that there are as many different ways of coming to the dance
as there are dancers. To exclude someone because they are unwilling to jump
in feet first seems to me to be just as elitist as to require someone to
attend classes. Introductory seesions shouldn't be required, but should be
available for those who feel they need them. I've taught a beginning contra
dance class at the local park district for the past year. It's just 4 sessions
once a week for a month, so we only cover the basics, but my students have all
become regulars at our weekly dances. My initial intent was to have this be
an additional way of getting the word about contra dance out, but putting it
in the park district calendar thousands of people would see it who would never
have done so otherwise and some of them might be curious enough to give it a
try. However I found that some of the people who took the class had been
coming to the dances for a while, but felt they would benefit from some sort
of structured instruction. Also there were some who had come before, but
were too shy to try, but now are regulars at the dance. I know there are some
very basic things that I didn't discover until I had been dancing for quite
a while, which might have made it easier to learn. For example that the
dance and the tune is 64 beats long and that the tune is phrased to go with
the dance. This was a revalation to me after a couple of years of dancing
and I would have like to have been told this when I first started.
In closing I'd just like to repeat that being shy and unwilling to try
something new and strange without any instruction doesn't make someone a bad
person and is no reason to exclude them from the possibility of joining in
the dance. I'm glad my friends dragged me out on the dance floor that first
time, but if they hadn't and there had been a class available, I'd have been
one of the people who would have needed to go to a class first and then try
goin to an actuall dance. I do encourage the people in my class to go to the
weekly dance from the very first week. Telling them that after the first
seesion they have been exposed to 90% of the things they will encounter at
a dance.
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier | Ballo ergo sum. |
| jsi...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | (I dance therefore I am.) |
| Flight Simulation Lab | - des Cartwright |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Pearl
|BTW - I would be interested in hearing Dan Pearl's thoughts on the
|evolution of the B&M dance to its current state, since he was very
|closely associated with that dance during a large part of my formative
|dance years. So Dan - whither Brimmer & May? (IYHO)
Ahhh.. The Brimmer and May dance. It was the site of my first dance
experience in -- what was it? -- 1978. A pile of people from work carpooled
down Route 9 from Boston's western suburbs into the Brookline/Newton
community called Chestnut Hill. From the outside, the school gym didn't
look like much -- sort of a wooden eggshell. When I got inside, it
was just cavernous!
We arrived early enough to participate in the early teaching session.
It was superbly led by Al Olson (the prolific dance composer, now
living in Chicago). I took readily enough to the material.
The caller was Ted Sannella, who was welcoming and energetic. I had
a blast! I didn't mind sitting out the two "For Experienced Dancers Only"
sets (one a contra, the other a set of squares). They played a few
recordings during the break for folk dances (Hambo, Road to the Isles or
Gei Gordons, and a simple line dance, like Kendime).
Afterwards, I was so excited, I could hardly fall asleep. My mind was
buzzing with the tunes and experiences of the evening.
That year, and for a few years afterwards, the dance attracted over 200
people a week. It was really fabulous. After dance organizers S.J. and
Dale Thomas moved away, I took over as chair of the committee running
the dance. I had already taken over the early teaching responsibilities
from Al Olson who had moved away.
In 1979, when I started, Ted Sannella and a new caller named Tony Saletan
took alternate weeks. The previous year, Ted and Tony Parkes, who left to
run his own Monday night series in Concord were in rotation. At this time,
Tod Whittemore was moving his series from the Cambridge YWCA to the VFW
hall on Huron Avenue. As these other area dances grew in popularity, the B&M
dance attendance slowly dwindled. I perceive that at that time, the VFW dance
attracted the in-group experienced dancers, and the Concord dance attracted
its own mix. (For a while during the early years, the Concord dance organizers
were thinking of shutting it down due to low attendance. A public appeal
resulted in an immediate increase in attendance. That dance has slipped
a little in attendance in the past year or two, but they still attract
enormous crowds.)
The B&M dance, perhaps because of the personality of the callers, perhaps
because of the early teaching session (unique in the Boston area) started
to get the reputation of a "beginner's dance". This reputation has
existed for over a decade even though the dance today is unrecognizable
from the dance back then.
Over the years, certain changes were made in the format: Folk dances
during the break (with the exception of a Hambo, played live) were
eliminated [to give people time to socialize without music blaring]. I
think that some of the other "couples" dances were moved into the middle
of the sets.
For several reasons, the sets of dances for "experienced dancers only" were
eliminated (community building issues were foremost in our minds).
The early teaching was opened up to a rotating set of volunteers.
The rotation of callers was expanded to include at various times
Susan Elberger, myself (Dan Pearl), Sarah Gregory-Smith, and Tony Parkes.
During this time, it became obvious that even 120 people in an echoey hall the
size of Brimmer and May feels like a very small crowd. We began thinking
about moving the dance. The Brimmer and May management also began making
discontented rumblings (they banned dancing from their hall a few years
after we moved). The dance wound up at the First Church Congregational
in Harvard Square. Although public transit was excellent there, parking
was poor. The next season, we moved back to the YWCA in Central Square.
This was, in fact, the site of the dance before it went to Brimmer & May.
We enjoyed crowds of 80 to 100 people; more than enough to fill the hall.
We had four good-sized sets (aligned under the conveniently placed rows
of ceiling lights). The economics of the series were such that we made
a little money every week; this series income served to offset the
traditional losses incurred by the Wednesday English series, also
sponsored by CDS Boston Centre).
At this time, my personal involvement in the series and in CDS (the
sponsoring organization) diminished. Due to a lengthy
hall refurbishment, the series relocated to St. John's Church in
Watertown. It seemed that every time the series moved, it lost more
of the regulars. At the time of the move to St. John's, they eliminated
the early teaching session; I don't know why, but perhaps it was an
attempt to shed the "Beginner Dance" reputation that seemed to be bringing
the dance down.
The numbers dwindled to very low numbers (30-50). The series was losing CDS
thousands per season. The dance was low on energy, and the committee
was obviously exhausted.
A few seasons ago, the series moved back into the YWCA. The regular
rotation of callers was supplemented by something which seems to have
put some interest in the series: a monthly open-mic format. The committee,
to their credit, is trying new things.
About four years ago, the Thursday series at the VFW was reflecting
the exhaustion of Tod Whittemore, the producer and half-time caller.
A committee (alas chaired by me) took it over as Tod moved away.
That dance has grown from 115 weekly attendance to an average of 180.
The Tuesday dance now gets about 30-40 people. My guess is that
the inertia of non-profit organizations keeps the Tuesday dance going.
People feel as though the dance fits into a niche in the Boston dance
scene. The dance is less hectic than the Monday or Thursday dances, it
serves great refreshments, and is a good place to introduce someone to
dancing who avoids crowds. The dance has it's fans.
The dance is still in transition, though. It's looking for an identity
that can pay the bills. Maybe they should embrace the "beginner
dance" format instead of fighting it. If so, they will need better
callers than beginners at an open mic can provide. The committee running
the dance is hot on the community building aspects of the dance. They
have formalized the pre-dance potluck dinners, ice cream trips, etc.
I have to imagine that the organizers are disappointed that the
community-building stuff has not resulted in an enormously popular dance,
but these things change slowly (and it's hard for the community-building-
tail to wag to dance-dog).
Who knows where the Tuesday dance will be a few years from now. Will it
still exists? Probably (because CDS has effectively made a long-term
rental for the hall). But it will be interesting to see what the
dance will look like.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Pearl ** Stratus Computer, Inc. ** pe...@spectacle.sw.stratus.com
Joel L Breazeale
Dan Pearl <pe...@spectacle.sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>In article <311u6k...@twain.ucs.umass.edu> ske...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Susan and Bill) writes:
>|BTW - I would be interested in hearing Dan Pearl's thoughts on the
>|evolution of the B&M dance to its current state, since he was very
>|closely associated with that dance during a large part of my formative
>|dance years. So Dan - whither Brimmer & May? (IYHO)
>
>Ahhh.. The Brimmer and May dance. It was the site of my first dance
>experience in -- what was it? -- 1978. A pile of people from work carpooled
>down Route 9 from Boston's western suburbs into the Brookline/Newton
>community called Chestnut Hill. From the outside, the school gym didn't
>look like much -- sort of a wooden eggshell. When I got inside, it
>was just cavernous!
>
>
>A few seasons ago, the series moved back into the YWCA. The regular
>rotation of callers was supplemented by something which seems to have
>put some interest in the series: a monthly open-mic format. The committee,
>to their credit, is trying new things.
>
the same market as the Thursday and Monday night dances. While the
talent on the stage was excellent the crowds were down.
>The Tuesday dance now gets about 30-40 people. My guess is that
>the inertia of non-profit organizations keeps the Tuesday dance going.
>People feel as though the dance fits into a niche in the Boston dance
>scene. The dance is less hectic than the Monday or Thursday dances, it
>serves great refreshments, and is a good place to introduce someone to
>dancing who avoids crowds. The dance has it's fans.
I like the idea that it is not like the other big dances, for sure. The
people are more welcoming and (honestly) that is what I'd like to encourage
in all cases.
The average attendance is up and the figures Dan cites do not quite tell
the whole story. On 2nd Tuesdays there are around a dozen musicians on
the stage and now that there's a 6pm family-oriented dance there are
around twenty people who show up and don't stay for the regular start
time. Given an attendance of 43 + 12 + 20, well that's 73! I admit those
are not all high revenue admissions, but the last 2nd Tuesday lost $1
compared to $90-140 on the other nights. I believe the concepts which
have been implemented on the 2nd Tuesdays and the before-/after-dance
support the potential for a different "formula for success" which will
be expanded this coming year. This is what the series needed and didn't
have when it was failing.
The real story (after being on the committee for well over a year) is
just a loss of a sense of community, a loss of the glue which would help
keep people coming. Add to that a lack of emphasis toward connecting
the series to the neighborhood and you have some large losses. The
organization has had to make up those losses and I saw those losses as
unacceptable and have been pushing to eliminate them (and have made
acknowledged strides toward breakeven). I ran a family dance at a local
school for the period of September to May and have continued that series
through the summer at the YWCA and hope to continue that connection in
September and keep up the connection.
Mareen Carey, the new committee chair is from the neighborhood, so I can
expect more people from the area to be attending the dance. I hope the
sheer convenience of the location to the neighborhood will end the
losses.
>The dance is still in transition, though. It's looking for an identity
>that can pay the bills. Maybe they should embrace the "beginner
>dance" format instead of fighting it. If so, they will need better
>callers than beginners at an open mic can provide. The committee running
>the dance is hot on the community building aspects of the dance. They
>have formalized the pre-dance potluck dinners, ice cream trips, etc.
>I have to imagine that the organizers are disappointed that the
>community-building stuff has not resulted in an enormously popular dance,
>but these things change slowly (and it's hard for the community-building-
>tail to wag to dance-dog).
I don't feel there is a sense of disappointment. Indeed, the CDS Boston
Board seems to be quite congratulatory. Having just returned from the
4th Tuesday Potluck (now over a year old), we find the people who do come
(anywhere from 8 to 18) have a great time.
I believe dance organizers who are away from the Boston dance scene may
find the concept of potlucks and ice cream afterwards to be familiar
concepts. I believe an "enormously popular dance" is not the point!
I believe a low-key dance which satisfies the participants is the safest
track to success. I would rather not run a series which depended on
popularity and fickle dancers only to find they don't show up because
they decided they want to do something else on the dance night.
>Who knows where the Tuesday dance will be a few years from now. Will it
>still exists? Probably (because CDS has effectively made a long-term
>rental for the hall). But it will be interesting to see what the
>dance will look like.
I could stick my neck out and predict the series will reach breakeven
within the next 2 years. There is no talk of the cancellation of the
series. I hope to continue doing outreach to the neighborhood (I prac-
tice what I preach -- I now live two blocks from the hall) and get local
patronage up. I think if we just keep being what we are the series
will enjoy the larger attendance it had in the heyday! The contract
for the hall may not be as significant a factor in staying at the lo-
cation, though I think CDS does have the option of bailing out rather
soon; I personally would recommend against bailing out given the recent
positive trend.
The attendance on 4/5th Tuesdays seems to be more around 50-60 and 1st/3rd
Tuesdays are 35-45. The refreshments are remarkably good, "we are the
best-fed contra dancers around Boston!" I have also heard Roaring Jelly,
the well-established open band, is changing its rehearsal night from 2nd/4th
Tuesdays in order to elminate a conflict with Tuesdays, so we must be doing
something right!
I must congratulate these guys for putting in all the hard work (and putting
up with me)! 8-)
---
>Bill T.
I don't consider the current state of the contra dance culture is an excuse
for establishing a tradition which helps to stratify the sense of fellowship
gained by being welcoming to newcomers. I believe the dance organizers
should just offer dances which are welcoming to newcomers and instruct the
existing dancers that they are expected to be welcoming. What to do once
Pandora's Box is open is different from what should be done in general. I
hope organizers will go for a long-term solution and keep things simple and
be willing to lose the hot-shot, vocal minority in order to maintain the
approachablity of the dance series. The alternative is experienced-dancer
dances, no-walkthru dances, lessons, ... the future will be right around the
corner if we do not take care!
We seem to teach callers a lot of technical knowledge and make contra dance
into a science. What I believe we need is to teach a little folklore and
try to understand the social aspects of what makes or breaks a dance com-
munity. Being anti-social and putting up barriers for the first-timers is
one way to assure a difficult existence.
---
See you on a Tuesday (we are dancing on 2nd Tuesdays during the summer)!
--Joel
David #6
: be silly if she came over to the dance since she could not dance. I
: said, 'heck, no! Come anyway!' I regret she didn't, but I'm still
: --Joel
Absolutely! When I was living in Tennessee I broke my left leg just above
the ankle. As I recall, I didn't miss a single dance. I came, talked with
folks during and between dances, worked on my calling by doing a couple
of dances each evening, co-founded a spur-of-the-moment band one evening
in an emergency, and went out socializing as per usual with everyone
after the dance. I would have preferred to dance too, but I had a great
time regardless :-)
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Nancy Parr (Hitchcock Center)
In a previous article, j...@world.std.com (Joel L Breazeale) says:
>We seem to teach callers a lot of technical knowledge and make contra dance
>into a science. What I believe we need is to teach a little folklore and
>try to understand the social aspects of what makes or breaks a dance com-
>munity. Being anti-social and putting up barriers for the first-timers is
>one way to assure a difficult existence.
This is an excerpt from a note I sent to David Kaynor:
I've enjoyed thinking about your observations on beginners and
Greg's responses.
Recently I came across a flier from an early Montague dance which
you were playing with George Reynolds and Sue Sternberg. The flier
got stuffed into a folder of music because it had put your waltz
"High Clouds" on it. Admission was $1 or free to anyone who would
play along on that tune. Do you remember those times?
Back then it seemed that there were some snobby people, but
musicians and callers seemed more on a level socially with the
dancers . I actually remember seeing many of them dancing! Cammy
taught me to balance. Tim Van Egmond taught me to use some
muscle on the pull by and allemande.
You mentioned it being nice for a local caller to go dance at a local
dance occasionally, and you and Greg were discussing stratification.
From my just-a-dancer perspective there is increased stratification
between musicans and callers on the one hand and dancers on the
other. When musicians dance they tend to dance a bit with the
people they are most friendly with and then go sit on the stage with
the band.
We are lucky here to have so many excellent musicians, and such a
high level of dancing. Lucky in many ways. But I think there is a
price. Sometimes the musicians seem to be enjoying their playing at
the expense of the dancers, sort of a music party with people
dancing outside. Music seemed somewhat more accessible when it
was a bit less professional.
Maybe you won't think this a compliment but it is: I used to
contemplate showing up at one of those "free if you play on this
tune" dances with a recorder and doing just that. I can't imagine
even thinking about doing that with Bill and Susan or Pleasures of the
Town, etc. You made playing traditional music seem like something
folk could do.
It is a bit the same with calling. You and Susan Kevra and George
Marshall each have what I think of as a caller persona. I see that and
think: I'm not a performer, that's not something I could do. (And
most English callers just plain irritate me to death.) But at the
Bowdoinham dance it became simple again, as if mostly anyone
could get up and tell people the moves of a dance. It even looked
like fun.
I can see the other side of things. People are older and more have
more responsibilities. You go to dances for work and when you
aren't working sometimes you prefer to stay home and flop in front
of the tv, just as sometimes others of us stay home from a dance.
And when callers and musicians do get to a dance socially, they
naturally want to dance with the friends they so rarely get to dance
with. And of course with great professional or semi-professional
musicians available why would people want less. Maybe this is partly
a trickle down of the whole of electronic advances in recorded
music.
This all is not to argue against the stratification among dancers. The
quality issues are there too. Is better dancing really the greatest
good? And here I do feel mixed because part of me loves to have the
dancing itself all come together. But another part of me remembers
that the most exciting and playfully happy times are often if not
usually when things are kind of shabby here and there.
Nancy Parr
Susan and Bill
Jonathan Sivier <jsi...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> In a perfect world you would be correct, people would come for the first
>time and just join in. However in the real world there are meny people who
>come and no matter how much you tell them that it's easy, no experience is
>needed and that they'll learn as they go, and that most of the people there
>dancing learned just that same way, they still sit and watch and after awhile
>leave. Other than physically dragging them onto the dance floor (it's how
>I got started, but is generally frowned upon except between very close
>friends, I was literally carried onto the dance floor by 3 or 4 other guys)
>there isn't much you can do. However some of these people will come to a
>beginner's class and thus gain some confidence and then become regulars at the
>dance. I feel that there are as many different ways of coming to the dance
>as there are dancers. To exclude someone because they are unwilling to jump
>in feet first seems to me to be just as elitist as to require someone to
>attend classes. Introductory seesions shouldn't be required, but should be
>available for those who feel they need them. I've taught a beginning contra
>dance class at the local park district for the past year. It's just 4 sessions
>
> In closing I'd just like to repeat that being shy and unwilling to try
>something new and strange without any instruction doesn't make someone a bad
>person and is no reason to exclude them from the possibility of joining in
>the dance. I'm glad my friends dragged me out on the dance floor that first
>time, but if they hadn't and there had been a class available, I'd have been
>one of the people who would have needed to go to a class first and then try
>goin to an actuall dance. I do encourage the people in my class to go to the
>weekly dance from the very first week. Telling them that after the first
>seesion they have been exposed to 90% of the things they will encounter at
>a dance.
>
Well said! Efforts to be "community-minded" often turn out to be
nothing more than unconscious attempts to exclude the people who don't
fit in, the people left get along great mainly because they are so
much alike. So how do we get a wider variety of people involved?
If it matters, that is.
Bill T
Linda Golder
(Susan and Bill) wrote:
> One of my favorite dances of all time was the Brimmer & May dance...
> ... an incredible mix of experienced and beginner. People
> seemed to just enjoy dancing WITH each other.
And there you have it... people enjoying people! Accept no substitutes.
This, ultimately, is the glue which holds dances together. Aerobic, high
energy dancing can be fun, but without the enjoyment of other dancers, the
experience is seriously lacking. Even more stately traditional dances need
the appreciation of one another to be fun. (When was the last time you saw
the 2s *really* enjoying & appreciating the 1s "strutting their stuff" in
an older, unequal traditional dance like Chorus Jig?)
Linda Golder
np...@k12.ucs.umass.edu (Nancy Parr (Hitchcock Center)) wrote:
[...lots of good comments snipped...]
> This all is not to argue against the stratification among dancers. The
> quality issues are there too. Is better dancing really the greatest
> good?...
What constitutes "better" dancing? Better technique? Smoother dancing?
Better social relating in dance form? More aerobic? More
"traditional"?...
There's lots of room for individual variance here. What makes better dance
for me may not satisfy you (the collective "you" out there in netland).
Just my $.02.
Bryan Walls
wrote:
> In article <313c6a$6...@transfer.stratus.com>,
> Dan Pearl <pe...@spectacle.sw.stratus.com> wrote:
> >In article <311u6k...@twain.ucs.umass.edu>
ske...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Susan and Bill) writes:
> >|BTW - I would be interested in hearing Dan Pearl's thoughts on the
> >|evolution of the B&M dance to its current state, since he was very
> >|closely associated with that dance during a large part of my formative
> >|dance years. So Dan - whither Brimmer & May? (IYHO)
Much deleted.
Boy, I hope this stuff is being archived. In 15 years, no one will
remember if itąs not.
--
Bryan Walls My words are not NASA policy.
Bryan...@msfc.nasa.gov
Ted Swift
> > first-timers.
> > It is likely true (callers or not) that the dancers help first-timers
> > muddle through. My preference is to make sure this tradition
> > continues to accept the role played by dancers in helping to instruct
In article <grooCts...@netcom.com>, gr...@netcom.com (Kiran Wagle)
replies:
> Problem is, not all of us are equally qualified to teach all the
> moves, OR all the style points we might want new dancers to learn.
> One hopes (or at least i do) that if one has chosen to be a caller,
I don't for a moment think a newcomer's session and the other dancers
teaching newcomers is mutually exclusive; I think the two processes
complement each other. On the dance floor, most of the "instruction" is
non-verbal- there's rarely time for anything *but* nonverbal communication,
but of course a whole lot of knowledge is exchanged. When I lead the
newcomer's sessions, I don't even bother with details like whether the
gent's hand is "supporting" the lady's when they take hands- I trust that
the floor will teach that. Similarly, body language and pointing over the
shoulder help newcomers though a Hey for Four. And people will take months
developing their own style of swinging.
But I think a newcomer's session jump-starts the process of helping
newcomers feel welcome: Someone who's obviously a regular simply saying
"Welcome; we're here to have fun; this is a social dance form, so please
don't be offended when you're partner thanks you and disappears; flirting
is part of the dance, so it's considered safe and if you want to make
something of it off the floor, that's your own business". On the floor it
might take a newcomer a long time to get these messages, because the usual
process is to grab someone, line up, do the walkthrough, dance, applaude
the band and thank that partner, and repeat. If a newcomer's session also
gets across some of the jargon (lady's chain) and technique (giving weight,
avoid grasping thumbs in an allemande), so much the better- They'll feel as
though they have a handle on this weird new activity and can step out with
(more) confidence.
Actually, that last isn't just optional: I think it's very important to
teach good allemande technique right away, along with looking at one's
partner.
When I ask a newcomer to dance, usually the first thing s/he says is
"I've never done this before". I usually reply with something like "Don't
worry; we were all new at this once". A newcomer's session just takes some
of the edge off of that fear of trying something new.
-Ted
--
Ted_...@qm.sri.com
"Bring me into the company of those who seek the truth,
and deliver me from those who have found it."
steve boylan
and said he'd be happy to talk about the subject at length. Knowing
David, I believe him! :-) Well, here's your chance to join the
conversation, if you can make it to the Boston area tommorrow.
David Kaynor will be fiddling for the Thursday contra dance at the
VFW Hall, 688 Huron Ave., Cambridge, Mass., and is coming by at 6:30
for dinner and to talk about teaching and dealing with beginners.
If you'd like to bring your dinner and join in, please feel free to
join us! Dinner will have to end by 7:30, since David needs to
grab his bow and start fiddling for the Hambo workshop, but I'm sure
he'll be willing to talk more later.
- - Steve