Beginner's workshops
David Cottle
I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but I couldn't find any articles
on the various web pages. Anybody willing to type out what they do with
beginners? A friend who is beginning to call asked me about it and I typed a
long letter so I figure I just as well paste it here and ask for other's
suggestions.
The beginner's workshop. There are a lot of different ways of doing this, I
usually start them in a circle.
-Have them circle left and right and point out that dancing is walking to
the music. Also point out that you can "pull" the person behind you. That is
giving weight. You can suggest that the less you bounce the less energy you
will use.
-Then have them alm right with their partner one time. Also point out that
in this move you can also give weight. Point out that weight is negotiated
and there is such a thing as too much and too little. Have them alm left
their neighbor. (The person who is not your partner.) Have them do the alm
without any weight. (This is a great teaching technique I picked up from a
choir director; having people do it wrong and exaggerated. It really works.)
-Have them do si do their partner (by this time they get who their partner
and neighbor are, and and that mostly dancing is just being in the right
place at the right time, hopefully they have discovered that if you go too
far or not far enough you're in the wrong place).
-Have them face their neighbor and teach a swing. (Or teach a balance and
swing at once. I've done it several ways, maybe teaching the balance during
the second walk through.)
-Here is a pet peeve: callers who teach the buzz step to beginners. It
encourages them to bounce. Teach the walk. It's a better step anyway and I
do it more and more. Tell them you will notice a number of variations with
the balance and swing, and twirls after moves, but you don't have to do
them. Tell them some people do a buzz step, but wait until the second half
to learn it from an experienced dancer.
-Have them end the swing facing in the circle with ladies on the right. Make
them swing again and correctly for practice. Lots of callers point out that
you have a strong connection (woman's left, man's right) and a weak
connection (the other two), you break the weak connection in the direction
you are supposed to face.
-Point out that this person is their new partner. You can say this is a
mixer so everyone can get acquainted.
Now you have a really basic dance you can start with: Into the center and
back out, repeat. Circle Left and Right. Alm Right partner, Left Neighbor,
Do si Do Partner, Balance and swing neighbor. You can use this as a short
practice or a real dance.
You can leave off the swing and use an arm swing for real beginners. It's
very forgiving but teaches most of the basics.
-If they are picking it up replace one of the circle moves with a promenade.
This will teach them promenade position which they will use for a chain and
right and left through. (Teach the version you use for a chain.)
You can do that dance if it looks like they need to practice. But if they
are picking it up then as they are promenading pick a couple, break the
circle and lead them to the top of a line, other's following. This is a
quick way to get in a contra line.
At some point you can talk about mixing around. This is a good time. You can
say you probably lost your partner, but don't worry, it is customary for
contra dancers to dance with different people each dance. I also like what
our local caller says "we realize you may have come with someone, and we
certainly won't force you to split up, but even though my [boyfriend,
girlfriend, s o, whatever] is my favorite dance partner, I also enjoy
dancing with everyone else on the floor. This is what makes contra dancing a
community activity."
-Explain active and inactive couples.
-Have them bow to their partner and then swing their neighbor. (little joke)
End facing across with ladies on right. This is good practice plus sets you
up for a lot of the other moves you need to teach. I see this common mistake
with new callers: they want to teach a move but are not in the correct
orientation for it. Like teaching a chain straight from a hands four.
-Teach progression. You can do it later, sometimes I wonder if it's
confusing to do it here. Have them take new hands four. Note what the
couples at the ends do. I find it better to teach them which way to face
(actives away from the band, in actives toward) rather than switching places
or moving to the next couple. Even if they are all mixed up, if they face
the correct direction they can get back on track.
-Teach right and left through. (Don't use hands. It's easier to teach. Call
it a pass through. I find teaching R&L before ladies chain is easier. The
courtesy turn is easier to learn and then you can use it for the chain.)
Practice it a few times. After practicing tell them that if they are not
where they started learning this figure (where they ended the swing) have
them do one more. Teach and practice the chain a few times. Tell them if
they are not across from their partner to do one more ladies chain.
-At this point I teach whatever seems logical next. Stars, box the nat,
heys, square throughs, depending on how they are picking it up.
But please note that this is only if the band isn't ready and I have time.
Most of the moves you can teach as the evening progresses and I never want
to teach more than maybe two or three moves without dancing in between. They
won't remember the moves anyway. Teach a little, dance, teach a little,
dance.
You can teach and do a dance at this point, or have them gather in a circle.
Or you could teach a short dance then have them gather in a circle. I find
this final little lecture is a good excuse for them to bail out, or go back
to their original partner if they want.
In the circle:
-Tell them that is basically all contra dancing is.
-We teach each dance, then prompt for part of the dance.
-If you want to clap, please do it softly. It makes it harder to hear the
band. (Musicians hate it, but you don't have to say that.)
-The caller last night made this point which I really liked: "You may have
noticed that people who have been dancing a while find partners and line up
quickly. This usually means that they are all bunched together in one line.
So for you experienced people, be sure to mix your lines up, and you
inexperienced, line up quickly so you can split up these hot shots."
-It is customary to switch partners, and, BTW, that's a good way to learn.
So if this is your first time, dance the first half with others, then the
second half with your partner. (I find the single most difficult thing with
beginners are the "double dates." Couples who come an hour late as a double
date, wait until the lines are almost formed and the dance half taught, then
line up as a group of four. I want to just shoot them. The more you can
encourage them to split up the better.)
-One way to conserve energy is not to bounce so much. (The real reason is
it's irritating, but saving energy is good too.)
-Remember to give weight.
-Don't be intimidated if people look you in the eye. They aren't flirting.
Well, maybe they are, but it doesn't mean anything. They are just trying to
keep from getting dizzy.
-Thank this partner, you can keep him/her for the first dance or mix around.
We'll begin dancing in about four minutes. (This gives the cowards a way out
of that partner, but I've found most heads up experienced people, if they
are in on the walk through, will do the first dance with this person. Also
helps split up beginners.)
For the first dances: of course you want to build slowly. Introduce just one
new move each dance. Keep in mind that what makes a dance hard is not always
the moves, but _orientation_. R&L through, Ladies chain, R&L, chain, alm
your corner (in becket) is _deadly_. None of those moves are hard, but they
will never work with a beginning crowd. Try to do dances that have forgiving
moves (lines, 1s swing) and assisted motion all the time. It's good to begin
with unequal dances. This gives beginners a chance to rest and also they can
watch the actives swing and pick up pointers. Here is a good one, it
reinforces neighbors, partners, 1s and 2s, has simple moves, is very
forgiving:
Broken Sixpence
A1 N dsd, W dsd
A2 M dsd, 1s swing
B1 Down hall, turn alone
B2 Circle left, star left
The Martins
actual dance. Personally, I think beginner's workshops are
counter-productive, but that's for another discussion. Since organizers
always want them, here is my standard equipment:
1. If there are enough dancers present, we do the serpentine part of the
grand march, no introduction, no instruction, no finding of partners, the
band starts up and away we go. Finish in a big circle, applaud the band, get
the sermon on what to expect during the evening, how to get a partner, where
to spit tobacco juice, etc.
2. Next we reassemble for a twisted version of a folk dance mixer called Le
Set a Crochet. Couples promenade randomly around the floor. Then gent's hook
left elbows, the two couples stretch out into a line and the line of four
sweeps around once. The couples then face, ladies chain over and back,
couples right and left through (over and back), swing partner and promenade.
To finish, the ladies chain three times and, leaving out the right and left
through, promenade with the new partner. I lead the promenade out of the
circle and up the hall into a contra line, and we proceed with the first
contra dance.
Thus are thwarted the forces of darkness - the beginner's session becomes
the early part of the dance instead of a separate little class divorced from
the rest of the evening. The beginner's session becomes a rocket launcher
that sets the tone for the rest of the dance.
Bill Martin
David Kaynor
Hi Everyone,
I like a lot of what David and Bill have said.
I'll go a little further with what Bill wrote about beginners' workshops
being counter-productive. I submit that labeling a session a "beginners'
workshop" gives a public suggestion that the activity is not expected to
involve experienced dancers. Thus, (a) few or no experienced dancers take
part and function as "teacher aides" on the dance floor, thus compromising
the teaching/learning goals; (b) matriculation of the new folks into the
dance on a _social_ level is put off; and (c) a lot of experienced dancers
get the message that involvement with new folks is not their concern, which
I feel is a really bad message.
Bill's point about turning the workshop into a real energetic start of the
actual dance is really important. In my opinion, a really fun and
informative workshop involves a lot of actual dancing and LIVE MUSIC.
Basically, it's a dance!
If anyone wants to look at some of what I've written on this matter (which
some of you would rather not see rehashed here), check out my web page
(www.davidkaynor.com) (which is still in a partially developed stage, by the
way...it's a little rough).
David Kaynor
David Cottle
da...@davidkaynor.com wrote on 8/27/01 3:40 AM:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I like a lot of what David and Bill have said.
I didn't see Bill's post. I've suspected for some time that my server is
dropping messages. How many responses have there been to this?
Les Francey
"David Kaynor" <da...@davidkaynor.com> wrote in message
news:B7AFC61C.2E34%da...@davidkaynor.com...
>I submit that labeling a session a "beginners'
> workshop" gives a public suggestion that the activity is not expected to
> involve experienced dancers.
We labelled our session "Contra Basics" and we tell all the dancers
that the session is designed for everyone.
> Thus, (a) few or no experienced dancers take part and function as
"teacher aides" on the dance floor, thus compromising the teaching/learning
goals;
Stangely enough in our sessions there areoften more experienced
dancers than new comers .
(b) matriculation of the new folks into the dance on a _social_ level is
put off;
We have found that the new folks have been more easily accepted on a
social level since we started doing the contra basics workshops.
(c) a lot of experienced dancers get the message that involvement with new
folks is not their >concern, which
> I feel is a really bad message.
Yes, it is a bad message but I don't think that by not having a seperate
session you are going to avoid this. I think you can have experienced
dancers taking responsiblity to get the new folks involved if you have
community leaders who are willing to show by example how to do it and if
your encouraging that sort of thing all the time by talking to experienced
dancers, by having the caller mention it. Once the ball starts rolling
then the new folks who become experience dancers will assume that it is the
natural thing to do to become involved with new folks. But you will never
get everyong doing this and not all the time.
I think the problems that David mentioned ( and which are real
possibilities ) are not so much the result of a beginners session as much
as they are a result of the attitudes and values of a particular dance
organization or community and how *everything* in that community is
approached. At the same time, I don't think there is any one way or
perfect way to approach organizing how you deal with new comers. In my
area , I can attend 3 different local dances and experience a different
flavour of community at each dance and like each local dance for different
reasons.
Les Francey
Jonathan Sivier
>approached. At the same time, I don't think there is any one way or
>perfect way to approach organizing how you deal with new comers. In my
>area , I can attend 3 different local dances and experience a different
>flavour of community at each dance and like each local dance for different
>reasons.
I think this is a very important point. There is no one way of reaching
new people which will work in all cases. While there is some merit to the
argument that an official beginners workshop will make some people think they
can't participate without attending the workshop and thus will in a sense
exclude them if they can't make the workshop, the opposite is true as well.
There are just as many people who won't try something new if there is NOT
an officially (or at least officially labeled) teaching session. Thus by
having a policy against beginner sessions you are excluding those people.
It's probably a no-win situation and the only thing you can do is have a
variety of options and not get locked into one particular pattern.
My tendency when doing a beginner session is much like the one outlined
by Dave. I use a simple circle mixer very similar to his and then cover a
few of the high points of the longways formation. I usually try to teach
the first dance I will be calling that evening so that when the dance
officially starts the newcomers will already be experienced with that
first dance.
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier |Q: How many angels can dance on the |
| j-si...@uiuc.edu | head of a pin? |
| Flight Simulation Lab |A: It depends on what dance you call. |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Home page URL: http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/j-sivier |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saxe
David Cottle <cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org> wrote:
>-Teach right and left through. (Don't use hands. It's easier to teach. Call
>it a pass through. ...
Aaaarrrrrrggghhhh!!!!! For (what seems like) the millionth time:
"Pass Through" does NOT include a turn. It ends with dancers facing
in their original directions, e.g.,
start like this:
M1> <W2
W1> <M2
end like this:
<W2 M1>
<M2 W1>
"Right And Left Through", regardless of whether started with or
without hands, includes turning as a couple (nominally a courtesy
turn, but often done using a twirl), e.g.,
start like this:
M1> <W2
W1> <M2
end like this:
M2> <W1
W2> <M1
This may seem like a trivial thing to be making such a fuss over, but
I wish I had a nickel for every time that a basically easy square has
dissolved into chaos because of "experienced" contradancers not being
able to distinguish these two moves reliably. While I've gotten used
to the idea that there will always be some dancers who treat these
terms interchangeably, I think it's a bit much for a caller to be
encouraging other callers to sow this confusion among beginning
dancers.
--Jim Saxe
Palo Alto, California
P.S.,
Yes, I know that *some* older books (e.g., Lee Owens' _American Square
Dances of the West & Southwest_, published in 1949) and recordings
*sometimes* (but far from always) use "Right And Left Through" where
we would now say "Pass Through". Certainly callers collecting dances
from such sources should be aware of this possibility, but I think
they will best serve their dancers by sticking to current terminology
when they teach and call. I am also aware that a few long-time
New-England-style callers (Hi, Dudley) still insist that the call
"Right And Left [Through]" (or "Rights and Lefts") properly means a
round trip--over and return--unless modified by the adjective "Half".
Again, I don't think this circumstance detracts from the main point of
my message.
--Jim
Donna Richoux
So far, I've seen:
The Martins (Bill Martin)
David Kaynor
Jim Saxe
Les Francey
Jonathan Sivier
--
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
David Cottle
sa...@pa.dec.com wrote on 8/27/01 1:55 PM:
> In article <B7AEDFE5.11B6F%cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org>,
> David Cottle <cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org> wrote:
>
>> -Teach right and left through. (Don't use hands. It's easier to teach. Call
>> it a pass through. ...
>
> Aaaarrrrrrggghhhh!!!!! For (what seems like) the millionth time:
>
> "Pass Through" does NOT include a turn. It ends with dancers facing
> in their original directions, e.g.,
Noted.
Jim Saxe
beginner's workshops quite interesting (my recent terminology gripe
about "Right and Left Through" vs. "Pass Through" notwithstanding),
and I have a query for scattered multitudes.
I am now planning a one-hour Newcomers' Session--along the lines of
those sometimes conducted by David Kaynor and occasionally described
in the past on this newsgroup--in connection with a dance series that
strongly emphasizes "traditional" squares as well as contras (about a
50/50 mix). I'd be interested in hearing anyone's ideas of points
that might be particularly worthy of addressing either during the
official "Newcomers' Hour" or during the remainder of the evening. To
get your thinking started, here are just a few examples of topics that
might be worth covering in this setting, but that might be omitted in
a setting where the emphasis was almost exclusively on contras:
* Identifying couples #1, #2, #3, #4, head couples (1&3), and
side couples (2&4)
* How to do a grand right and left
* How partner progression works in squares ("partner" and "corner"
as positions, not fixed individuals)
I'm looking for ideas about
* the most worthwhile square-related topics to cover (either for
the actual beginners or for "experienced" contradancer helpers
who may have limited square savvy) [conversely, what topics
should not make the cut?]
* good teaching techniques for presenting these topics (including
ideas about order of presentation)
* specific dance routines (not necessarily all in square formation)
that are useful for building specific square dance skills and that
are also fun to dance and appropriate for a group including many
beginners mixed in with experienced dancers
* how to keep the beginners (or the experienced dancers) from
clumping together in the same squares, without being heavy-handed
or singling people out
as well as any other advice that may be useful in connection with a
Newcomers' Hour (and the remaining portion of the evening) at a mixed
square/contra dance series.
Thanks.
Regards,
David Smukler
How about starting out in a circle of couples? From there teach
partner/corner (places, not faces) and gr R&L. Of course, you can also
address moving to music, and - if you choose - teach DSD, allemandes and
swing. The circle keeps the group all together with you at the start, and
probably addresses the "clumping by experience level" issue. If squares
are then formed from couples contiguous in the circle, with any luck
they'll be mixed in ability.
Good luck!
David Smukler
arge...@bcpl.net
wrote:
>On a related topic, I wish that R&L through *with hands* would
>go away, for two reasons. First, as David Cottle (I think)
>said, it IS more difficult for beginners, 'cause they don't
>let go soon enough and as a result they get turned in the
>wrong direction. Second, even when done right, I find it an
>unpleasant move, as someone grabs your hand and immediately
>has to let go. Sometimes, they forget. Now, I like
>"connectedness" in dancing, but here the connection serves no
>purpose, can be counterproductive, and it's hard on the hands.
>A much prettier move without hands, IMO, and one can still
>connect with the opposite using the eyes.
These arguments don't hold up very well. They would apply just as
well to grand right and lefts and to square throughs, but I've never
heard anyone complain about the use of hands in these figures. How
come we can teach beginners these figures without undue trouble?
Alan
(To reply by email delete the "r" from my user name,
changing it to agedance)
Nancy Mamlin
space. In a GR&L you do NOT want anyone to turn around-- they keep going in
the same direction. In a R&L thru, they just pull by one person (if with
hands) and then immediately have to do a courtesy turn.
I'm with Jim on not preferring hands on R&L thrus, but we both used to dance
in Pittsburgh in the good old days and that was the preference there then.
In my travels, I realize that it's a regional taste thing, and I think what
makes teaching one way more difficult is if it's in contrast with the local
style.
So, to tie the thread together once again-- that's why (one reason) I hate
to teach "beginning" workshops when I travel to call (which is 99.9% of my
calling)-- I don't know the local customs.
Nancy
<arge...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:n27notcgdkkoe95t9...@4ax.com...
David Cottle
arge...@bcpl.net wrote on 8/28/01 7:19 AM:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:42:52 GMT, Mike Prager <mpr...@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> On a related topic, I wish that R&L through *with hands* would
>> go away, for two reasons. First, as David Cottle (I think)
[...]
>> A much prettier move without hands, IMO, and one can still
>> connect with the opposite using the eyes.
>
> These arguments don't hold up very well. They would apply just as
> well to grand right and lefts and to square throughs, but I've never
> heard anyone complain about the use of hands in these figures. How
> come we can teach beginners these figures without undue trouble?
The move is more awkward in the R&L through. With grand right and left you
have the continued motion of exchanging hands. Same with a square through;
r, l, r, l. And the exchange of hands is what defines those moves. But with
R&L I think the move is defined by a connection to the person next to you,
then break that connection to pass through, then connect with them again. It
really is more of a pass through than an exchange of hands. Not taking hands
doesn't really compromise that motion, in fact not taking hands I think
enhances the momentary break with the person next to you.
And taking hands is more awkward. With square through and grand r&l you
exchange r&l all the way. It makes sense. With R&L I usually have my right
hand in contact with the person next to me (partner or neighbor), then I
have to give right to the person across, then right again to the person next
to me (most do left, but I usually lead a twirl and prefer leading with my
right hand). I know there are a lot of variations for fixing this, but not
taking hands is a good fix.
As for teaching, square through poses similar problems of turning the wrong
direction, but there are other solutions to this (focusing on the small
square, connecting with neighbor then partner). And a square through is not
a beginner's move. Grand R&L doesn't pose the same problem because you are
still moving in the same direction and the logic is clear; move ccw or cw
around the circle exchanging hands.
With a R&L with hands it is awkward for the lead, and confusing for the
follow because they tend to want to turn to their right after taking right
hands. The move isn't compromised by not taking hands, and it is much easier
for beginners if they don't.
So I guess I'm saying that not taking hands in a Grand R&L and square
through fundamentally changes that move and doesn't really make it easier
(makes it harder). While not taking hands with a R&L through doesn't really
change the nature of the move but does make it easier.
Maybe it's because so many people won't give weight with the R&L, making the
motion seem pointless; I let go of my partner, then touch this other persons
hand--why?--then take my partners hand again. Maybe if more people actually
gave a little weight it would be worth it.
Donna Richoux
> > Teach right and left through. (Don't use hands. It's easier to teach. Call
> > it a pass through. ...
>
> I agree with Jim Saxe that teachers must be VERY CLEAR about
> the difference between pass through (no change of direction)
> and R&L through (which ends with a courtesy turn). Confusion
> about this really screws up some beginning dancers.
>
> On a related topic, I wish that R&L through *with hands* would
> go away, for two reasons. First, as David Cottle (I think)
> said, it IS more difficult for beginners, 'cause they don't
> let go soon enough and as a result they get turned in the
> wrong direction. Second, even when done right, I find it an
> unpleasant move, as someone grabs your hand and immediately
> has to let go. Sometimes, they forget. Now, I like
> "connectedness" in dancing, but here the connection serves no
> purpose, can be counterproductive, and it's hard on the hands.
> A much prettier move without hands, IMO, and one can still
> connect with the opposite using the eyes.
My take on it is different. I've danced in places where hands are taken
and places where they were not taken so I'm never surprised to be
offered hands.
First of all, doing it with hands is nearly the same movement for the
lady as doing a lady's chain, which we do dozens of times every night.
Because of placement, you don't have to go around somebody so much as to
go straight past them, but that's about the only difference.
Second, try thinking of it as Right to your opposite (pull by) and Left
to your partner (do a courtesy turn, with the now free right hands
joining at the lady's right hip). This Right -- Left hands movement is
every bit as satisfying as the English "rights and lefts," the little
chains or circular heys done by four people in many English dances.
Right to your opposite, left to your partner (and assist the turn) is
indeed the same maneuver.
Was the courtesy hold a flourish added on to a straight hand-turn,
historically speaking?
There are a few dances where that signal of a right hand stretched out
to a beginner is a real useful clue of which way he should jump. Without
it, my right hand pointing to my right shoulder is the next best signal.
Jim Saxe
Nancy Mamlin <maml...@appstate.edu> wrote:
>...
>I'm with Jim on not preferring hands on R&L thrus, but we both used to dance
>in Pittsburgh in the good old days and that was the preference there then.
>...
Actually, it was Michael Prager, not I (Jim Saxe), who wrote:
>On a related topic, I wish that R&L through *with hands* would
>go away, for two reasons. ...
My earlier message was neutral on the subject of using hands
>"Right And Left Through", regardless of whether started with or
>without hands, includes turning as a couple ...
Since I learned in a community ("Pittsburgh in the good old days" as
Nancy says) where the hands-free version was the norm, and since I
now dance mainly in a community (San Francisco Bay area) where
hands-free is also the norm, it is true that I generally don't use
hands on a R&L through unless the approaching dancer offers a hand
or the move starts from a position where we already have hands.
(An example of the latter would be the opening sequence from the
dance "Tic Tac Toe" recently discussed in this group:
heads roll away with a half sashay, heads forward and back,
heads box-the-gnat, heads right and left through, ...
Here the dancers are holding right hands at the end of the
box-the-gnat and it's natural to use them to pull by as the start
of the right and left through.)
However, while I am accustomed to dancing R&L through without hands, I
have no particular dislike for the "with hands" version. As to the
claim that dancing it with hands is more confusing for beginners, I'm
not entirely convinced. It's true that action of touching right hands
may mislead some women into turning to the right. However, the action
of the opposite dancer offering a right hand is at least a strong cue
for the uncertain beginner start moving in the first place, as well as
to pass by the correct shoulder. Note also that the tendency to turn
the wrong way can occur even without hands being taken. Consider the
opening moves Ted Sannella's dance "Fiddleheads":
Actives cross the set passing right shoulders, and go to the
*left* behind and around one inactive dancer ...
The mere fact of passing by the right shoulders seems to create in
some dancers an irresistible urge to turn to the right--as if snared
by their partner's gravitational field--instead of to the left.
The Martins
about using a circle to introduce the concept of "corners" and "grand R &
L". With one big circle nobody's view is blocked when the caller steps into
the middle to pantomime the hand over hand movement. Some of the old square
dance books recommend introducing square figures in the big circle
formation. Its a whole lot easier to demonstrate a do-si-do and teach a
swing when people are in a circle instead of scattered in squares. And if
you make the circle a mixer they'll learn that much faster.
Bill Martin
Dan Damouth
[...]
> -One way to conserve energy is not to bounce so much. (The real
> reason is it's irritating, but saving energy is good too.)
What do you mean by bouncing? Is this specific to the swing?
Dan Damouth
David Cottle
dam...@san.rr.com wrote on 8/29/01 7:41 PM:
I learned to contra in Illinois, where the style was very smooth; level
shoulders during all moves. During a swing with an Illinois dancer you both
feel like you're on castors.
With beginners, especially teens, they tend to want to skip and bounce like
little kids. I know there is a little bounce in a lot of people's contra
styles, and I like this, but I'm trying to discourage the out of control
bouncing. So I tell them it conserves energy. That's also why I avoid
teaching the buzz step first. I want to stress the even style first, which
is easier to do with a walking swing (and as I said earlier, the more I
dance the more I do it in favor of the buzz step). I figure they'll learn
the the buzz step if they keep coming (which I think should also be done
smooth).
I've just encountered so many beginners who clamp down on my right arm, lean
to their left, and bounce up and down as they try to buzz step (or worse,
try to buzz step sideways while bouncing as in a sashay). It's like dancing
with a horse.
Dan Damouth
> in article Xns910CBE6429C6...@24.25.193.27, Dan Damouth
> at dam...@san.rr.com wrote on 8/29/01 7:41 PM:
>
>> David Cottle <cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org> wrote in
>> news:B7AEDFE5.11B6F%cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org:
>> [...]
>> What do you mean by bouncing? Is this specific to the swing?
>
> I learned to contra in Illinois, where the style was very smooth;
> level shoulders during all moves. During a swing with an Illinois
> dancer you both feel like you're on castors.
>
> With beginners, especially teens, they tend to want to skip and
> bounce like little kids. I know there is a little bounce in a lot of
> people's contra styles, and I like this, but I'm trying to discourage
> the out of control bouncing. So I tell them it conserves energy.
I like a smooth swing too, but conserving enery is usually at the bottom
of my considerations. In fact, I dance to use energy, and I enjoy tiring
myself out.
Sometimes I hop while spinning the do-si-do. But always under control.
> That's also why I avoid teaching the buzz step first. I want to
> stress the even style first, which is easier to do with a walking
> swing (and as I said earlier, the more I dance the more I do it in
> favor of the buzz step). I figure they'll learn the the buzz step if
> they keep coming (which I think should also be done smooth).
I think it's a great idea to teach a walking swing first and let them
pick up the buzz step on their own. The swing can be the biggest
impediment to a beginner's enjoyment, I think, and as you say, the
walking swing is easier and more pleasant than a bad buzz step.
> I've just encountered so many beginners who clamp down on my right
> arm, lean to their left, and bounce up and down as they try to buzz
> step (or worse, try to buzz step sideways while bouncing as in a
> sashay). It's like dancing with a horse.
Yeah, I've encountered some jumpers and some clampers (and they're not
all beginners either). There's one woman who occasionally puts so much
weight on my arm that my back hurts.
Dan Damouth
David Cottle
dam...@san.rr.com wrote on 8/30/01 1:13 AM:
> David Cottle <cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org> wrote in
> news:B7B31B21.6AA%cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org:
>
>> in article Xns910CBE6429C6...@24.25.193.27, Dan Damouth
>> at dam...@san.rr.com wrote on 8/29/01 7:41 PM:
>>
>>> David Cottle <cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org> wrote in
>>> news:B7AEDFE5.11B6F%cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org:
>>> [...]
>
>>> What do you mean by bouncing? Is this specific to the swing?
>>
>> I learned to contra in Illinois, where the style was very smooth;
>> level shoulders during all moves. During a swing with an Illinois
>> dancer you both feel like you're on castors.
>>
>> With beginners, especially teens, they tend to want to skip and
>> bounce like little kids. I know there is a little bounce in a lot of
>> people's contra styles, and I like this, but I'm trying to discourage
>> the out of control bouncing. So I tell them it conserves energy.
>
> I like a smooth swing too, but conserving enery is usually at the bottom
> of my considerations. In fact, I dance to use energy, and I enjoy tiring
> myself out.
Well, and I am being a little oblique about the real reason I don't want
newbies to bounce. But for them I think energy is an issue. They are often
out of shape, and contra can be aerobic. I also x-country ski and I feel the
same about new people as I do contra. They are not in shape, and their style
is harder. I wish I could either give them some of my strength or style to
help. It seems so unfair that they should deal with both.
> Sometimes I hop while spinning the do-si-do. But always under control.
And you are not connecting with anyone else.
> I think it's a great idea to teach a walking swing first and let them
> pick up the buzz step on their own. The swing can be the biggest
I'm really happy to hear this. I cringe when a caller teaches new people to
buzz because I know I'll meet them in line.
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>
> as well as any other advice that may be useful in connection with a
> Newcomers' Hour (and the remaining portion of the evening) at a mixed
> square/contra dance series.
I teach "Beginner's Workshops" on a regular basis.
The most important thing I teach is to be a beginner as long as possible.
What do I mean by that?
What I have noticed is some people stop improving their dancing and,
particularly, stop improving their swings.
When this happens they generally stop responding to other dancers. They become
stale dancers.
Sometimes this happens after many years of dancing and that is a shame.
It also can happen very soon after starting to dance. I have seen too many
people come and seem like they will be great dancers... and then they never
again dance as well as do they did their very first night. They are usually
people with good people skills and end up quitting dancing after a month or two.
I have "beginner's workshops" so I can try to get people to stay "beginners" as
long as they dance.
A different meaning for "perpetual beginner".
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
Dan Damouth
> in article Xns910D28392EAB...@24.25.195.27, Dan Damouth
> at dam...@san.rr.com wrote on 8/30/01 1:13 AM:
>
>> David Cottle <cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org> wrote in
>> news:B7B31B21.6AA%cot...@cerlsoundgroup.org:
>>
>>> in article Xns910CBE6429C6...@24.25.193.27, Dan
>>> Damouth at dam...@san.rr.com wrote on 8/29/01 7:41 PM:
>> Sometimes I hop while spinning the do-si-do. But always under
>> control.
>
> And you are not connecting with anyone else.
I think that dancing is about separating and connecting. Besides, what
would you recommend, given that one can't maintain physical contact or
even eye contact? I enjoy being able to do my own thing for a few beats.
>> I think it's a great idea to teach a walking swing first and let
>> them pick up the buzz step on their own. The swing can be the
>> biggest
>
> I'm really happy to hear this. I cringe when a caller teaches new
> people to buzz because I know I'll meet them in line.
Some new people pick it up quickly, and it's a joy to help them
and observe them getting better with each dance.
Dan Damouth
Jonathan Sivier
>I have "beginner's workshops" so I can try to get people to stay "beginners" as
>long as they dance.
>A different meaning for "perpetual beginner".
I'm scheduled to lead a pre-dance workshop here in October and I was
trying to figure out a topic/title that would be applicable to both genuine
new dancers as well as more experienced dancers because you never know what
sort of a crowd you will get. This sounds like a great idea. Hopefully
I can phrase it such as way as to hook in dancers of all experience levels.
Pete and Debbie LaBerge
Dudley Laufman theory that a little teaching is more than
enough.
Pete LaBerge
David Smukler
> [snip]
>
> Here is a good one, it
> reinforces neighbors, partners, 1s and 2s, has simple moves, is very
> forgiving:
>
> Broken Sixpence
> A1 N dsd, W dsd
> A2 M dsd, 1s swing
>
> B1 Down hall, turn alone
> B2 Circle left, star left
By the way (and certainly off topic), Don Armstrong, who wrote Broken 6d, had
the men DSD first (in A1) and then the women in A2, although I often find
myself reversing them as well.
David Smukler
David Cottle
dsmu...@dreamscape.com wrote on 9/1/01 9:36 AM:
You're right! I've been doing it wrong. And men's dsd first is better, you
can catch your partner as she spins. Thanks for correcting this.
David Smukler
>
> >> Broken Sixpence
> >> A1 N dsd, W dsd
> >> A2 M dsd, 1s swing
> >>
> >> B1 Down hall, turn alone
> >> B2 Circle left, star left
> >
> > By the way (and certainly off topic), Don Armstrong, who wrote Broken 6d, had
> > the men DSD first (in A1) and then the women in A2, although I often find
> > myself reversing them as well.
>
> You're right! I've been doing it wrong. And men's dsd first is better, you
> can catch your partner as she spins. Thanks for correcting this.
You're welcome. However, I don't know if I'd agree that one way is better than the
other. It's 6 of 1 to me. Either person could spin or catch.
Of course you brought up the dance in the context of thinking how best to support
beginners. I think that for beginners the issues are a bit different. We probably
shouldn't encourage spinning on the dsd at all, for example. Also, I think
beginner men tend to freeze a bit more than beginner women. So having the women
dsd 1st may be better because the men see a model of the diagonal motion before
they have to do it themselves. However, it may be that getting into the swing will
go more smoothly if the beginner men don't have to start it out while already
moving. As I said, 6 of 1, 1/2 doz of the other.
David S.