Flirting in Contras
Mignon L. Bradley
I am responding to comments made on this subject today by
Robert Frederking <re...@cs.cmu.edu>
"be aware of the potential for trouble in order to avoid trouble"
I did miss the beginning of this discussion so I may not understand
what was defined as flirtation. I recall describing contra dancing to
friends just a few months after I began (I've now been dancing about 4
years), as three hours of constant flirtation in a wonderfully safe
environment in which you also get great aerobic exercise. Healthy and
fun all the way.
I've yet to experience any "trouble" and I don't seem to be aware of
any. I can only imagine that what Robert Frederking is referring to is
someone misinterpreting the "flirtation during a contra" as something
other than playful fun and hurt feelings might result from some
expectation beyond the confines of the dance. There is definitely a
bonding which can occur during the playful exchanges during the dance
and in my experience it simply determines whether each party would
prefer to dance again with that partner in the future.
Am I missing something?
Robert Frederking
Please, call me Bob. :-)
> I can only imagine that what Robert Frederking is referring to is
> someone misinterpreting the "flirtation during a contra" as something
> other than playful fun and hurt feelings might result from some
> expectation beyond the confines of the dance.
Yes.
Nancy Mamlin
In article <34F30723...@cs.cmu.edu>, Robert Frederking <re...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Please, call me Bob. :-)
Whew! I've been practicing saying "Dr. Frederking".
Dr. Mamlin
Mignon L. Bradley
Mignon L. Bradley wrote:
> I am responding to comments made on this subject today by
>
> Robert Frederking <re...@cs.cmu.edu>
>
> "be aware of the potential for trouble in order to avoid trouble"
>
> I did miss the beginning of this discussion so I may not understand
> what was defined as flirtation. I recall describing contra dancing to
> friends just a few months after I began (I've now been dancing about 4
> years), as three hours of constant flirtation in a wonderfully safe
> environment in which you also get great aerobic exercise. Healthy and
> fun all the way.
> I've yet to experience any "trouble" and I don't seem to be aware of
> any. I can only imagine that what Robert Frederking is referring to is
> someone misinterpreting the "flirtation during a contra" as something
> other than playful fun and hurt feelings might result from some
Edith J. Henderson
I gather that this thread is about the "dangers" of flirting at contra
dances and whether it should be encouraged/discouraged/allowed to occur
naturally...
I find contra dances a very pleasant and safe place for a bit of
flirting -- all of that exercise, physical intimacy and, of course,
getting all sweaty ;-) tends to lower people's inhibitions and I think
most people have a lot of fun.
However, my impression is that the situation is more tense when you are
not attached and/or are new to the group and not familiar with the other
dancers. If you are hoping to find the spark of a new relationship in
the flirting of a dance, you are likely to be hurt and disappointed. If
you are attending for the first or second time, you may be smitten by
the handsome partner who smiles and twirls you about the floor and be
sad to find out at the end of the evening that he's married to that
woman across the room. This is part of life, IMHO, but makes contra
dancing a less "safe" place for some.
- Edie in Albuquerque -
Mignon L. Bradley
Edie in Albuquerque,
Same thoughts crossed my mind initially when I first encountered this
subject here on the newsgroup. There is a process of learning about what is
going on that most beginners are not privy to at the onset. I do recall a
couple of disappointments as you described in my first few of dances.
Perhaps such should be explained to beginners at the introductory workshop
before the dance. I know I could hear Eric Hoffman pulling this off quite
well, "when you're feeling particularly special by the attentions of your
partner, just remember flirting is a very natural part of contra dancing and
usually has no meaning outside the confines of the dance." Would they
understand?
Mignon
AnneFay
>There is a process of learning about what is
>going on that most beginners are not privy to at the onset. I do recall a
>couple of disappointments as you described in my first few of dances.
>Perhaps such should be explained to beginners at the introductory workshop
>before the dance. I know I could hear Eric Hoffman pulling this off quite
>well, "when you're feeling particularly special by the attentions of your
>partner, just remember flirting is a very natural part of contra dancing and
>usually has no meaning outside the confines of the dance." Would they
>understand?
When I was introduced to contra dancing (by a friend - isn't that the way most
of us got there?), he was very careful to explain about flirting, how much fun
it is, and that if contra dancers are actually interested in each other beyond
the delightful dance floor interaction, it is necessary to be *really* unsubtle
about it... so when I talk about contra to friends, and especially when I bring
them to a dance, I do mention this.... worked for me... seems to work for
them...
My story about flirting is dancing on the east coast and being told not once
but *three* times in a particular set (I think it had a neighbor gypsy) that
"this (intensity or interaction) is only for this dance"... shall we say I
really enjoy my gypsies, especially if the other person (he or she) gets into
it too.... I was a newbie to their dance and from LA where we _flirt_ !! :-)
(well, some of us do)... I guess they didn't conect that I wasn't a novice...
or had they been really bit by someone misunderstanding at some previous
time.... or did they feel threatened? hard to tell... I guess you just smile
and reassure them that you know the rules....
Anne...
"If you ask me what I came into this world to do, I will tell you:
I came to live out loud" - Emile Zola
Robert Frederking
In your case, Nancy, you can call me "Dr. Bob" :-)
So, when are you visiting Pittsburgh again?
Robert Frederking
Or I guess I should have said Dr. Nancy...
Chicoqueen
I introduce flirting when teaching newcomers to swing, such as:
"...you *must* look into the eyes of whoever you're swinging with. If you
don't, you will get sick within two seconds, and *that* is no way to have fun
(which is the most important thing in contra dancing). Contradancing is a
very, very, *very* safe place to flirt. It's part of what makes it so fun,
because it's okay to flirt with anybody and everybody. Many people have
learned to overcome shyness this way, myself included. The problem is, if you
find yourself attracted to someone, it may take *months* of dancing with them
to figure out if they're actually interested in you, or if they're just
flirting."
Reine Wonite
<chico...@aol.com>
Ralph Barthine
On 25 Feb 1998, Chicoqueen wrote:
> I introduce flirting when teaching newcomers to swing, such as:
>
> "...you *must* look into the eyes of whoever you're swinging with. If
> you don't, you will get sick within two seconds, and *that* is no way to
> have fun
Sigh, do I really want to rehash this old thread? Oh well, too late...
For some people, the above statement is physiologically incorrect.
Specifically, spinning around while *tilting your head* to look into the
eyes of a partner who is significantly taller or shorter than yourself
*will* make you dizzy and may induce motion sickness. And *that* is no
way to have fun.
Take care,
rb
Bill Martin
One reason I don't like the gypsy is because it is an awkward movement
with no connection, no balance, no giving of weight. It's a thing to be
endured but it sure as hell is not dancing.
The worst thing about the gypsy is that it tries to force you to at least
pretend you are flirting. (I cancel out the flirting by crossing my eyes,
making spit bubbles, or lurching around like Quasimodo.) Many is the time
that I, a married guy, have felt like a fool, walking around a woman
stranger and staring in her eyes. This is the kind of puerile melodrama
that belongs in a singles' bar. Join with me, fellow Nabobs! Let us shout
together! Say it now and say it loud: "Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off
the gypsy!"
Bill Martin
Nancy Mamlin
In article <6d3bfc$rcm$1...@news1.teleport.com>, "Bill Martin" <mar...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>One reason I don't like the gypsy is because it is an awkward movement
>with no connection, no balance, no giving of weight. It's a thing to be
>endured but it sure as hell is not dancing.
This is the kind of puerile melodrama
>that belongs in a singles' bar. Join with me, fellow Nabobs! Let us shout
>together! Say it now and say it loud: "Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off
>the gypsy!"
>Bill Martin
Bill, I'm with you! I think gypsys are one of the stranger and more
uncomfortable dance figures in contra dance. As I've said before on this
newsgroup, I feel like the choreographer is wanting me to do something that my
mother said I oughtn't.
Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy!
Nancy Mamlin- who always "melts down" immediately
David Guertin
>>>>> " " == Nancy Mamlin <maml...@appstate.edu> writes:
> In article <6d3bfc$rcm$1...@news1.teleport.com>, "Bill Martin"
> <mar...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>> One reason I don't like the gypsy is because it is an awkward
>> movement with no connection, no balance, no giving of weight. It's
>> a thing to be endured but it sure as hell is not dancing.
> Bill, I'm with you! I think gypsys are one of the stranger and
> more uncomfortable dance figures in contra dance. As I've said
> before on this newsgroup, I feel like the choreographer is
> wanting me to do something that my mother said I oughtn't.
> Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy!
It's so refreshing to know that I'm not the only one who hates the
gypsy. How many do we need to get before we can start our own Off the
Gypsy Movement? What was it Arlo Guthrie said constituted a Movement?
50? Count me in.
But how? The thing is, gang, we're in the minority, I think. My
humble sugestion is that we start insidious rumblings that the very
term "gypsy" is Culturally Insensitive to Certain Noble People of
Eastern European ancestry, and let politics take it from there.
On second thought, it would probably just get renamed to something
more ethnically neutral, like "Neck-twisting cow-eyed walking flirt."
Cheers,
--
Dave "flirting where I like, thank you" Guertin
gue...@middlebury.edu
Cornwall, Vermont
Chicoqueen
Ralph Barthine <rbar...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>spinning around while
>*tilting your head* to look into the eyes of a partner who is significantly
>taller or shorter than yourself *will* make you dizzy and may induce motion
>sickness.
Really? It's not unusual for me to get feedback from a few beginners that they
feel dizzy after their first attempt(s) at swinging. Most get over this, but a
few do not, and these folks tend to not last long on the dance floor. I have
always assumed they were not following instructions, but as I think about it,
it occurs to me that a disportionate number of these people have been very
short women.
I'm 5'9" so I am not one to test your assertion, Ralph. I would like to hear
comments from other teachers/dancers about this.
Reine Wonite
<chico...@aol.com>
Alan Gedance
On 26 Feb 1998 21:47:53 GMT, chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) wrote:
Ralph Barthine <rbar...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>
>>spinning around while
>>*tilting your head* to look into the eyes of a partner who is significantly
>>taller or shorter than yourself *will* make you dizzy and may induce motion
>>sickness.
Reine Wonita <chico...@aol.com> (Chicoqueen) responded:
>
>Really? It's not unusual for me to get feedback from a few beginners that they
>feel dizzy after their first attempt(s) at swinging. Most get over this, but a
>few do not, and these folks tend to not last long on the dance floor. I have
>always assumed they were not following instructions, but as I think about it,
>it occurs to me that a disportionate number of these people have been very
>short women.
Staring into your partner's eyes during a swing can be fun, but
there's a real downside to it. It tends to make the starer face
his/her partner directly, destroying the good position needed for a
comfortable, smooth fast swing. The position yielding the best swing
is for the partners to be aimed _past_ each other, at least from the
waist down. Their shoulders should be parallel. They should attempt
to walk or buzz-step _past_ their partner instead of moving sideward
like crabs. If the partners are in the proper position for a good
swing then the only way that they can gaze directly into each other's
eyes is by turning their heads uncomfortably far to the right.
If the man maintains his position aimed directly past his partner but
his partner faces him directly, then the result is a relatively open
position with the shoulders of the woman not parallel to those of the
man. This makes it harder for the man to support her with his right
arm. The situation is made even worse if the woman is relatively
short and so has to lean back and throw her head back in order to keep
her eyes locked on those of her partner.
_Somebody_ has to keep track of the couple's position relative to the
set. If they are both staring full-time into each other's eyes the
chances are strong that they'll end the swing in a bad orientation. I
solve my end of the problem by stealing glances at my partner, but
always keeping close track of our orientation relative to the set.
A good swing is a real pleasure, and a bad one can be a real drag.
After you tell a beginner to look into her/his partner's eyes, make
sure that she/he doesn't do it to the detriment of the swing. When
you're swinging, the _swing's_ the thing. You and your partner can
meet later for the purpose of gazing.
As for keeping your lunch or dinner down where it belongs, you can
fight the dizzyness factor by staying focused on any appropriately
positioned fixed point on your partner's body. Short women can look
at some point on the man's chest or neck. True, some very short men
have to be discreet about where they stare, but they should be
occupied with keeping track of the couple's orientation, and shouldn't
have that much time on their hands to stare, anyway. %^)
Remember, it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!
Alan
(To reply by email, remove the r in my username, argedance.)
Anthony Argyriou
chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) wrote:
>I introduce flirting when teaching newcomers to swing, such as:
>
>"...you *must* look into the eyes of whoever you're swinging with. If you
>don't, you will get sick within two seconds, and *that* is no way to have fun
>(which is the most important thing in contra dancing). Contradancing is a
>very, very, *very* safe place to flirt. It's part of what makes it so fun,
>because it's okay to flirt with anybody and everybody. Many people have
>learned to overcome shyness this way, myself included. The problem is, if you
>find yourself attracted to someone, it may take *months* of dancing with them
>to figure out if they're actually interested in you, or if they're just
>flirting."
THANK YOU (yes, I'm shouting!).
Despite the followup complaining about looking into partner's eyes if
very different heights, this is very omportant to _social_ dancing.
There is very little which actually happens that is more obnoxious
than dancing with someone who refuses to acknowledge your presence by
making eye contact. There are a few skilled dancers on my list of
"don't bother asking them" because of this.
btw - it's not me (except possibly in one case), it's them. They
don't make eye contact with _anyone_.
Anthony Argyriou
Nancy Mamlin
David Guertin <gue...@middlebury.edu> wrote in article
<x6ibtvu...@caddis.middlebury.edu>...
> >>>>> " " == Nancy Mamlin <maml...@appstate.edu> writes:
> > Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy!
>
> It's so refreshing to know that I'm not the only one who hates the
> gypsy. How many do we need to get before we can start our own Off the
> Gypsy Movement? What was it Arlo Guthrie said constituted a Movement?
> 50? Count me in.
Counted.
> But how? The thing is, gang, we're in the minority, I think. My
> humble sugestion is that we start insidious rumblings that the very
> term "gypsy" is Culturally Insensitive to Certain Noble People of
> Eastern European ancestry, and let politics take it from there.
Well, we had *that* thread, but it didn't diminish the number of gypsys
called, I don't think.
My contribution to the movement is not to call them. So, there will be four
dances next week in major metropolitan areas which will not have a gypsy
called.
BTW, on the "dizzy" thread, there are some folks who can't do things like
swing real fast due to vertigo or some other problem. My mom is one of
them. When she attends my dances she willonly do certain ones (the Big Sets
usually) because she's less likely to get real dizzy. My dad, who doesn't
have this problem, prefers the contras because sooner or later he knows
what to do!
Have fun, and see ya!
Nancy
--
******
Nancy Mamlin
"it's hard to beat paper towels" - Tommy Jarrell
******
Lee S. Billings
In article <19980226214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
chico...@aol.com says...
>
>Ralph Barthine <rbar...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>
>>spinning around while
>>*tilting your head* to look into the eyes of a partner who is
significantly
>>taller or shorter than yourself *will* make you dizzy and may induce
motion
>>sickness.
>
that they
>feel dizzy after their first attempt(s) at swinging. Most get over
this, but a
>few do not, and these folks tend to not last long on the dance floor.
I have
>always assumed they were not following instructions, but as I think
about it,
>it occurs to me that a disportionate number of these people have been
very
>short women.
>
to hear
>comments from other teachers/dancers about this.
I've had that happen to me a few times with exceptionally tall partners
(it doesn't seem to kick in, for me, until there's at least a foot of
height difference). The quick cure is to give up trying to look into
your partner's eyes and focus on something else (shoulder, shirt
button) instead.
Celine
--
"It is perhaps one of life's more interesting ironies that, of the many
who beseech the Goddess to send them love, so few will accept it when
it comes, because it has come in what they consider the wrong shape, or
the wrong size, or at the wrong time. Against our prejudices, even the
Goddess strives in vain." -- Diane Duane, _The Door Into Fire_
Lee S. Billings
In article <34fe31ec...@news.dnai.com>, ant...@alphageo.com
says...
>THANK YOU (yes, I'm shouting!).
>
>Despite the followup complaining about looking into partner's eyes if
>very different heights, this is very important to _social_ dancing.
>
>There is very little which actually happens that is more obnoxious
>than dancing with someone who refuses to acknowledge your presence by
>making eye contact. There are a few skilled dancers on my list of
>"don't bother asking them" because of this.
>
> btw - it's not me (except possibly in one case), it's them. They
>don't make eye contact with _anyone_.
And from the other side... the single gesture I can use which most
vividly expresses, "I am unhappy/uncomfortable dancing with you" is to
refuse eye contact. Fortunately the occasions when it becomes necessary
are extremely rare!
Les Francey
Nancy Mamlin <maml...@appstate.edu> wrote in article
<6d3vr6$8gm$1...@lester.appstate.edu>...
> In article <6d3bfc$rcm$1...@news1.teleport.com>, "Bill Martin"
<mar...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
> >One reason I don't like the gypsy is because it is an awkward movement
> >with no connection, no balance, no giving of weight. It's a thing to be
> >endured but it sure as hell is not dancing.
> (snipped description of what the experience is like)
> This is the kind of puerile melodrama
> >that belongs in a singles' bar. Join with me, fellow Nabobs! Let us
shout
> >together! Say it now and say it loud: "Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off
> >the gypsy!"
> >Bill Martin
>
>
> Bill, I'm with you! I think gypsys are one of the stranger and more
> uncomfortable dance figures in contra dance. As I've said before on this
> newsgroup, I feel like the choreographer is wanting me to do something
that my
> mother said I oughtn't.
>
> Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy!
>
> Nancy Mamlin- who always "melts down" immediately
>
For me, the gypsy is probably *the* most comfortable and connecting
figure in contra dance. When I am dancing a gypsy, I feel more connected
to the person with whom I am dancing than at any other time. Connection
for me does not merely mean holding hands or holding someone in a swing. It
means a lot more than physical contact. Whether I am dancing or talking
to a group of people or talking to someone one to one, I am connected when
there is eye contact. If I want to tune someone out, I simply avoid the eye
contact. If I am crammed into an elevator with lots of people and I am
feeling very uncomfortable, I don't make eye contact. When I want to
connect, I make eye contact. The eye contact in a gypsy does not have to be
an intense gaze of longing ( although it could be ). It merely has to be a
connection.
As far as balance and giving weight are concerned, I am always
doing that whether I am dancing alone in my living room or dancing with
someone. I don't think you have to be physically connected to someone to
do that.
Imaging the contact and experiecing a real connection are what do it me
in a gypsy. And then, since I am single, there are the times where there
is a hint of something * more* in the eye contact. Of course it's just
play. But play is fun.
For me, contra dancing would be much less fun without a gypsy. So I
say, bring on the gypsy. If gypsy be the food of love, play on. Give me
excess of it so I can revel in it. ( can't say the real ending to that
quote. It would mess up my point.)
Takes all kinds to make up the world doesn't it?
Les Francey
AnneFay
> Imaging the contact and experiecing a real connection are what do it me
> in a gypsy. And then, since I am single, there are the times where there
>is a hint of something * more* in the eye contact. Of course it's just
>play. But play is fun.
> For me, contra dancing would be much less fun without a gypsy. So I
>say, bring on the gypsy. If gypsy be the food of love, play on. Give me
>excess of it so I can revel in it. ( can't say the real ending to that
>quote. It would mess up my point.)
> Takes all kinds to make up the world doesn't it?
Les, I'm with you... love those gypsies... I had to cut out one evening between
the potluck and the dance, and the caller (a friend of mine) who knows I love
gypsies of course told me of *all* the gypsies he'd called that evening....
agree that gypsies are play... play is fun... and you can look, smile, and
invite the other into a shared moment of enjoyment... and if you're both up for
a *hint*, that can be a lot of fun too... up, up with gypsies... at least for
those fo us who like them....
Gldancer
When I used to dance, I would always come across someone that wasn't smiling or
looking happy and would say to them - "Smile, you are supposed to be having
fun!" After that, I'd usually get a big smile or laugh from them.
Flirting is to be done with style - it is not meant as a come-on during
dancing, but a way to give the dancing sparkle!
Look at the difference between the German Ice Dancers and the Russian Ice
Dancers! One couple is stiff, but doing all the correct moves, don't look at
each other, etc. While the other couple seems to having a lot of fun, passion
of dancing with each other and keep eye contact. That's what I call flirting
with style!
Gloria "Only the iguanas knows for sure"
Bob Borcherding
The flirting discussion has descended into the "gypsy" phenomenon.
I only rarely call dances with gypsy's. There are a couple of dances I
enjoy that have them, but most of them are, IMHO, awful.
1. Being tall, I find it to be quite awkward to be connected to another by
the "eyeballs." I have to lean over and they have to look up, tilting
their head back. In other moves where eye contact is possible, if height
disparity is a problem, eye contact isn't required to successfully execute
the move. Eye contact is akin to an ornament in music--something to dress
up the tune, but not the tune.
2. Timing is usually awkward or the sequence of moves are not well
choreographed in dances containing a gypsy.
3. The gypsy is a gimmick movement, not an actual "dance" movement. Can
someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy? It seems that the
requirements for each dance they are used in are different. IMHO, the
gypsy is unworthy of inclusion in the standard repertoire of contradance
moves.
In Morris and English dance, the gypsy isn't about eye contact, it is a
travelling figure, with a set path of motion. The eye contact is
incidental to the motion made during that motion, which results from a face
to face positioning--the eyes could be successfully closed and still
successfully do the figure.
I can think of one of the very finest dancers I know who eschews eye
contact. In all figures, eye contact is optional, EXCEPT in the gypsy,
where one is told to basically, "Stare at that other person."
(Note that I do greatly enjoy eye contact while dancing, perhaps too much so.)
Bob Borcherding, St. Louis, MO
JLR Snyder/J Williams
> Say it now and say it loud:
> "Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy!"
"Clap-Clap"
Lisa K Tamres
Excerpts from netnews.rec.folk-dancing: 26-Feb-98 obstacles to flirting
in Co.. by Chico...@aol.com
> Ralph Barthine <rbar...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>
> >spinning around while
> >*tilting your head* to look into the eyes of a partner who is significantly
> >taller or shorter than yourself *will* make you dizzy and may induce motion
> >sickness.
>
> Really? It's not unusual for me to get feedback from a few beginners
that they
> feel dizzy after their first attempt(s) at swinging. Most get over
this, but a
> few do not, and these folks tend to not last long on the dance floor. I have
> always assumed they were not following instructions, but as I think about it,
> it occurs to me that a disportionate number of these people have been very
> short women.
>
Researchers who study the vestibular system and balance know that the
sure-fire way of making someone dizzy is to spin them and then tilt
their head. Sound familiar?
I am fairly short (5'4") so I have run into that problem on occasion,
though more often in a zippy waltz than during a swing which doesn't
often take that long. The best solution I have found is to keep my head
level and use only my eyes to look up. Of course, this may be
misinterpreted as excesssive flirting :).
When I used to teach the beginners workshops I always noted that
eye-contact is not only part of this dance form but is useful for
knowing which way to go. For example, if no one is looking at you, then
you are probably headed the wrong direction. On the other hand, if
someone is looking right at you with a hand out, you probably should be
headed their way for an allemande, or whatever. I think that it helps
the new people to understand that eye-contact is pleasant, useful, and
not necessarily a pick-up attempt. I also tell them that if direct
eye-contact feels too intense, then to look at an ear or a chin, because
they will still get the information they need.
Alan, I don't understand your description of why it is *hard* to give
eye contact during a swing. If my shoulders are parallel to my
partner's, then our heads should be facing each other *unless* we turn
them. This makes eye contact nearly unavoidable, and peripheral vision
goes a long way in seeing what is going on. Especially since most swings
happen in place and one tries not to travel anywhere.
Swings are much nicer with parallel shoulders. The follower can share
more of the "weight", it is more comfortable on the back, and it
prevents arms making contact with innapropriate regions. It is from the
waist (or maybe hips) down that the body is turned in the direction of
the swing. I have found that most women who complain that men are always
bumping their breasts are twisting their upper bodies at an angle during
a swing *causing* the contact they are complaining about.
--Lisa Tamres
(Pittsburgh)
Hal Mueller
Mama don' allow no southern squares 'round here,
Mama don' allow no gypsyin' around here.
We don't care what Mama don' allow,
we're gonna clap on petronella anyhow!
Mama don' allow no high fives around here.
--
Hal Mueller h...@peak.org
Corvallis, Oregon http://www.peak.org/~hal/
http://www.peak.org/~hal/ccd/ (dance)
Kiran Wagle
> If you are attending for the first or second time, you may be smitten by
> the handsome partner who smiles and twirls you about the floor and be
> sad to find out at the end of the evening that he's married to that
Indeed. That's why I think newcomers should be TOLD (in words, no less)
about the culture of the dance. Unfortuantely, that seems to happen far
less often than it should.
At some point I'm going to put together a handout of both physical and
cultural notes for beginners. (Another project that will probably not go
anywhere til I get a laptop, but anyone *else* who wants to do it is
strongly encouraged. <g>)
~ Kiran, fighting Information Poverty again <ent...@io.com>
--
<http://www.io.com/contradance/> 1628 5th St NW Wash DC 20001 (202) 483-3373
Kiran Wagle
Alan Winston <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
> I also don't think it's compulsory to consider it flirting to actually
look at the person you're dancing with, or even in their eyes. As I said
in this thread before, I'd prefer words like "acknowledge" or "connect",
In-deed. I look at my partner/neighbor/comrade as much as possible while
dancing. I certainly make as much eye contact while swinging than I do
while gypsying. And let's not even talk about a good allemande!
While I agree with you and David (Kirchner) about the negative effects of
*encouragement* of flirting by callers, I don't understand why the gypsy
is seen as *inherently* flirtatious, while an allemande or a swing is
not. Inherently *connecting*, yes--but that's why we're here, or at least
it's why *I* am here instead of doing some form of partner-centric or
self-centric dancing instead.
(This is a family newsgroup, so we can't talk about a good hey or circle
either--well, sure we can. Marilee Standifer, a very talented caller from
Madison (WI), once overheard a comment about a "gypsy for four."
Wondering what a figure with that name might actually BE, she wrote a
dance that included something that might be described as a "left-brain
star"--namely, a left-hand star without the hands. This allows all four
people a chance to connect with each other without actually touching. The
dance, which also includes a gypsy, can be found at
<http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/marilee/>
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
Bill Martin
"Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr" <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
: In article <6d3bfc$rcm$1...@news1.teleport.com>, "Bill Martin"
: <mar...@user1.teleport.com> writes:
: >One reason I don't like the gypsy is because it is an awkward movement
: >with no connection, no balance, no giving of weight.
: Unlike, for example, dosido? Or hey?
And Bill sez: Do-si-do has dynamics, distinct change of direction on the
beat, it feels good - physically. Same goes for hey but to a lesser
degree. The hey is a series of distinct side to side movements done in
sync with the music. Unless your my size, in which case the movements
develop their own rhythm distinct from the music.
Gypsy, however, has NO connection to the music, has one fighting the pull
of centrifugal force, trying to walk around in a circle with no assistance
but a goony look from your partner.
As for eye-contact: Blind people don't make eye contact and yet they can
dance with sensitivity for their partner. I've danced the female part with
a blind man who is a skilled buzz-step swinger and we had a great time.
However, I have had terrible swings with some women who, while never over
the years learning to swing, have never the less mastered the eye-contact
thing.
Bill Martin
Mark Langner
For years I passed on the usual contra-wisdom to new dancers to "make
eye contact during the swing" to avoid or reduce dizziness. It seldom
helped. A couple years back I heard something about focusing attention
inward vs outward to reduce dizziness. I don't recall which way was
recommended, but I have found that doesn't really matter.
Here's what I have been suggesting to dancers who complain about
dizziness:
"Notice as you dance, where you are putting your attention, whether it
is focused inward or outward, on your body, or on all the things going
on in the room. Whatever you are doing, try doing the other way! Shift
your attention somewhere else... play with it..."
Most dancers I have said this to report almost immediately that it
reduces their dizziness.
mark
Alan Gedance wrote:
>
.....
Mark Langner
A couple people wrote:
> Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy! Off the gypsy!
Well, no - not entirely, please. When I was a new dancer, the gypsy was
my favorite move [incorrigble flirt!]. Later I became aware that doing a
gypsy over and over with one person got *boring*, and I realized that
the gypsy is much more fun done in short bits with different people.
At our annual overnight dance (curiously enough called "Gypsy Moon
Ball"), the caller last year challenged the dancers to identify the one
move she refused to call the whole night. It turned out to be a "partner
gypsy, then swing". She DID call gypsy moves with neighbors, even a "men
gypsy in the center", as I recall. As an observer from the stage, she
had found that a partner gypsy done over and over looked "mooney" - with
the dancers getting bored and silly.
I think the gypsy is best used as one would use a strong spice or
seasoning: sparingly and tastefully. My favorite gypsy dance right now
is "The Tease" (Tom Hinds), which starts "Actives gypsy in the center,
just once around - look deeply and fondly into each other's eyes, then
go swing your neighbor". With the right partner, you can start fires
with that move.
(Speaking of spices, there's an old story about a yak herder from Tibet
who walked his flock all the way to Europe and then sold them to a
restaurant. They were almost too tough to eat by then, but the
restaurant made a very strong curry. Which turned out awful, thus
proving the old adage: "Tibet's things curried to excess are wrong".
Sorry.)
Mark "variety is the spice of life" Langner
GregMc
Very interesting thread. I enjoy hearing the different perspectives on the
gypsy and callers instructions on flirting.
Gloria wrote:
"When I used to dance, I would always come across someone that wasn't smiling
or
looking happy and would say to them - 'Smile, you are supposed to be having
fun!' After that, I'd usually get a big smile or laugh from them."
That would not be my reaction.
I would like to gently suggest that it is not polite to make casual comments
about the countenance of other dancers. Keep in mind that you have no idea of
the reasons for their momentary expression. If you would like your dance
partner to smile I think it is incumbent upon you to do something that will
bring out a smile. Complaining about a person's expression is not the best way
to do that. It is, after all, a criticism, of sorts. A warm connection might
be a better way to get a more positive response.
Just a thought.
Greg McKenzie
Somewhere near Santa Cruz, CA
Alan Gedance
>Alan, I don't understand your description of why it is *hard* to give
>eye contact during a swing. If my shoulders are parallel to my
>partner's, then our heads should be facing each other *unless* we turn
>them. This makes eye contact nearly unavoidable, and peripheral vision
>goes a long way in seeing what is going on. Especially since most swings
>happen in place and one tries not to travel anywhere.
Hi, Lisa. I hadn't stopped to think about this before, but possibly my
bad back limits the amount that I can turn my upper body to face a
partner who is well offset from me. (She must be offset unless we're
to move sideward like crabs.) If I try to turn my face directly
toward hers, most of the twist has to occur in my neck, and that's
tiring and uncomfortable. But in any case, I do feel that many women
who try to face their partner directly do so not by twisting above the
waist but by aiming their feet at rather than past those of their
partner. This results in her shoulders not being parallel to those of
her partner, and makes her further from her partner and harder to
hold. In the most extreme situation it causes her to shuffle sideword
rather than move forward, making her swing really unpleasant.
Perhaps if I could twist above the waist far to my right some of these
problems would lessen. But- it's not really necessary for the two
dancers to twist much to face each other if they're content to have
their upper bodies offset from each other. They can turn their heads
enough to steal glances and flirt, but still have a comfortable
position for swinging.
I wish that it were practical to include drawings in these posts.
Typewriter art just doesn't hack it.
Gldancer
>I would like to gently suggest that it is not polite to make casual comments
>about the countenance of other dancers. Keep in mind that you have no idea
>of
>the reasons for their momentary expression. If you would like your dance
>partner to smile I think it is incumbent upon you to do something that will
>bring out a smile. Complaining about a person's expression is not the best
>way
>to do that. It is, after all, a criticism, of sorts. A warm connection
>might
>be a better way to get a more positive response.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Greg McKenzie
>Somewhere near Santa Cruz, CA
Oh, Greg, but I do this with a big smile and a gleam in my eye! Not a
criticism, but instead a gentle reminder that relaxing and smiling makes
everyone feel good!
I have danced for 25 years and never had a negative response to my smiling
comment! Of course, when I danced I always had this big big grin of joy for
dancing. And besides, this was with dancers that I knew, not strangers or
beginners.
Believe me, I am not a dance bitch! I am too playful for that!
Kiran Wagle
gapb...@stlnet.com (Bob Borcherding) wrote:
> The gypsy is a gimmick movement, not an actual "dance" movement.
> Can someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy?
I tend to dance it like an allemande, except without using hands or arms.
(Alan, do you have your video camera handy, so we can test my claim that
this is in fact the way most people dance it? <g>)
Kiran Wagle
Lisa K Tamres <lk...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I have found that most women who complain that men are always
> bumping their breasts are twisting their upper bodies at an angle
> during a swing *causing* the contact they are complaining about.
Indeed. I've often noticed that new women dancers seem to *put
themselves* into exactly that position, which *I* assume (perhaps
incorrectly?) must be at least less than comfortable, except perhaps in
that perfect dance community where they *want* to have their breasts
pressed against the arm of each and every male dancer they meet in the
line. (Yah, there really is a place where all the dancers are sexy but I
won't say where. <g>)
Why do they do this? If it's actually uncomfortable for some generic
woman to have her breasts pressed against some random man's arm, what can
one say (either from the stage or in a workshop or one-on-one) to suggest
a better way without drawing undue attention to the awkwardness of the
position? <g>
Kiran Wagle
Mark Langner <mlan...@iquest.com> wrote:
> gypsy over and over with one person got *boring*, and I realized that
> the gypsy is much more fun done in short bits with different people.
> At our annual overnight dance (curiously enough called "Gypsy Moon
> Ball"),
Which is in fact one of the most enjoyable dance events I have EVER had
the pleasure to attend....
> the caller last year challenged the dancers to identify the one
> move she refused to call the whole night. It turned out to be a
> "partner gypsy, then swing". As an observer from the stage, she
> had found that a partner gypsy done over and over looked "mooney"
That would be Erna-Lynne (Bogue), right? She's SUCH a sharp caller and
all-round cool person too.
Bob Borcherding
(Kiran Wagle) wrote:
>(Bob Borcherding wrote:
>
>> The gypsy is a gimmick movement, not an actual "dance" movement.
>> Can someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy?
>
>I tend to dance it like an allemande, except without using hands or arms.
^^^^^^
So this is your *interpretation* of it. One could teach it that way, I
suppose. That would actually be a better way than most do the move. I've
never heard it taught this way, BTW, it has always been "look that person
in the eyes and walk around each other." Finding a balance point while
leaning into the other person
is nearly always not graceful.
Question: If you dance it like an allemande, perhaps an allemande would be
more appropriate, since the best part of that movement for me is the
connection and weight given?
When one dances, there is a step, a lightness, a bounce (but not a bounce,
kind of a foot roll) that one uses while dancing to put energy and life
into it. I find it extremely difficult to do a gypsy with any sort of
dance-like step, due to the leaning and awkwardness of the move.
One of the benefits of reaching one's 40s is you can start to be a curmudgeon!
Mary Beth Goodman
In article <gapbobrem-ya024080...@news.stlnet.com>,
gapb...@stlnet.com (Bob Borcherding) wrote:
> One could teach it that way, I
> suppose. That would actually be a better way than most do the move. I've
> never heard it taught this way, BTW, it has always been "look that person
> in the eyes and walk around each other." Finding a balance point while
> leaning into the other person is nearly always not graceful.
I have certainly seen gypsies taught this way: start with a strong
connected allemande and then let go of hands, maintaining the connection.
I think the teaching method is just trying to emphasize the connectiveness
of the movement and the spacing.
> Finding a balance point while
> leaning into the other person is nearly always not graceful.
LOL I read this as "leering into the other person" but I think we've
already discussed that ad nauseum!
Mary Beth Goodman
AnneFay
>BTW, it [gypsy] has always been "look that person
>in the eyes and walk around each other." Finding a balance point while
>leaning into the other person
>is nearly always not graceful.
When I am talking with a new dancer (usually someone I have brought), I
describe a gypsy as directing the left (rt) shoulders towards the other person,
walking around that pivot point between the shoulders, and looking at the
person.... no leaning involved..... not that I always dance it quite that way
(I admit)... depends somewhat on how frisky I'm feeling that evening.... and
how the person I am gypsying with responds... I will sometimes circle facing
the person with a little more of a "slink" in the motion.... but then, I dance
in So CA... which may or may not have anything to do with it but I thought I'd
throw that in....
As far as getting boring by gypsying with only the partner, I have reached the
conclusion it really depends on which partner I have for that dance dance...
there are some that I would prefer to gypsy the neighbors instead, and some
partners I would be willing to gypsy with all evening... I also really enjoy
doing a women's gypsy, and will admit to a lot of enjoyment/amusement in
watching the men when a men's gpsy is called... some of them will gypsy, but
with some of them it looks like they are warily circling....
GregMc
Kiran Wagle wrote:
"Indeed. I've often noticed that new women dancers seem to *put
themselves* into exactly that position, which *I* assume (perhaps
incorrectly?) must be at least less than comfortable, except perhaps in
that perfect dance community where they *want* to have their breasts
pressed against the arm of each and every male dancer they meet in the
line."
"Why do they do this? If it's actually uncomfortable for some generic
woman to have her breasts pressed against some random man's arm, what can
one say (either from the stage or in a workshop or one-on-one) to suggest
a better way without drawing undue attention to the awkwardness of the
position? <g>"
Good question. This is one instance where I sometimes break my own rule and
gently suggest an alternative swing postion while waiting out at the end of the
line. With newcomers, particularly those I'd like to see again, I am concerned
that this kind of familiarity might be mistaken for the norm and that they may
not return because the dancing seems too invasive for them. I'm also concerned
that this uncomfortable swing position might attract the attention of a few
opportunistic creeps in the community who enjoy the contact for other reasons.
I would interested in any other ideas about how to deal with this delicate
situation.
Steallight
>Gloria wrote:
>"When I used to dance, I would always come across someone that wasn't smiling
>or
>looking happy and would say to them - 'Smile, you are supposed to be having
>fun!' After that, I'd usually get a big smile or laugh from them."
>
>That would not be my
>
>I would like to gently suggest that it is not polite to make casual comments
>about the countenance of other dancers. Keep in mind that you have no idea
>of
>the reasons for their momentary expression. If you would like your dance
>partner to smile I think it is incumbent upon you to do something that will
>bring out a smile. Complaining about a person's expression is not the best
>way
>to do that. It is, after all, a criticism, of sorts. A warm connection
>might
>be a better way to get a more positive response.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Greg McKenzie
>Somewhere near Santa Cruz, CA
I've been fortunate enough to dance with Gloria. There's no way anyone seeing
her grin would fail to smile.
Her dance partners always have a smile on their face when dancing with her.
Fun to watch the faces change when she moves down the line.
She's the best dance partner I've ever encoutered.
Happily dancing in the Phil Zone and scattering Garcia Ashes!
http://members.aol.com/steallight/index/
Healthcare: The bottom line is patients not profits!
Steal...@aol.com is Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) should you care to know.
Mark Langner
Kiran Wagle wrote:
>
> Mark Langner <mlan...@iquest.com> wrote:
> > the caller last year challenged the dancers to identify the one
> > move she refused to call the whole night. It turned out to be a
> > "partner gypsy, then swing". As an observer from the stage, she
> > had found that a partner gypsy done over and over looked "mooney"
>
> That would be Erna-Lynne (Bogue), right? She's SUCH a sharp caller and
> all-round cool person too.
>
> ~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
In-deed! (Where have I seen that?) I didn't want to give her name away
lest she decide to give the same quiz another time and place, and I've
already given away the answer!
Mark
Les Francey
Bob Borcherding <gapb...@stlnet.com> wrote in article
<gapbobrem-ya024080...@news.stlnet.com>...
>
> When one dances, there is a step, a lightness, a bounce (but not a
bounce,
> kind of a foot roll) that one uses while dancing to put energy and life
> into it. I find it extremely difficult to do a gypsy with any sort of
> dance-like step, due to the leaning and awkwardness of the move.
>
IMHO, there should be no leaning in a gypsy. I hold myself straight
and erect and I do this imaginary sort of giving weight thing. This makes
the gypsy a very smooth and comfortable figure done to and while enjoying
the music. This is dancing. The giving of weight ( I know, wrong term ) is
a mental as much as a physical idea. Holding yourself erect and not
leaning, finding your own balance is essential, in my mind * before* you
even start dancing with a partner. And that same erectness - that same
balance - that same giving of weight, if you will - is what you use
when you connect physically with a partner. And I find that if I can do
that, I can dance any step with my feet. I can walk, I can skip, I can
shuffle. I can even wiggle my hips and/or my chest and/or my shoulders as
the music moves me. And if my gypsy partner begins to mirror my movements
or I mirror hers, there is even more connection. It's wonderful!
Les Francey
KMsSavage
Gloria wrote:
"When I used to dance, I would always come across someone that wasn't smiling
or looking happy and would say to them - 'Smile, you are supposed to be having
fun!' After that, I'd usually get a big smile or laugh from them."
Greg wrote:
>That would not be my reaction.
I would like to gently suggest that it is not polite to make casual comments
about the countenance of other dancers. Keep in mind that you have no idea of
the reasons for their momentary expression. If you would like your dance
partner to smile I think it is incumbent upon you to do something that will
bring out a smile. Complaining about a person's expression is not the best way
to do that. It is, after all, a criticism, of sorts. A warm connection might
be a better way to get a more positive response.
I'm with Greg. One of my least favorite phrases is "C'mon, smile!" And I try
to avoid those who tell me this.
Maybe my knee hurts. Maybe I'm trying to recall the name of the tune the
band just switched to. Maybe I'm trying to memorize the dance figures to write
them down later. Maybe I don't like a event that just happened. Maybe I'm
dreading it happening again. Maybe I don't like being told to "smile, dammit!"
I'm sure Gloria is a lovely person and a bundle of fun. But I live in here;
no one else does.
--Karen M.
Ann Arbor
Ken Davis
In article <entropy-2802...@max2p207.smart.net>, ent...@io.com
(Kiran Wagle) wrote:
I believe the gypsy is best acomplished by having both people
simultaneously attempt to walk behind one another while maintaining eye
contact. - Ken
> gapb...@stlnet.com (Bob Borcherding) wrote:
>
> > The gypsy is a gimmick movement, not an actual "dance" movement.
> > Can someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy?
>
> I tend to dance it like an allemande, except without using hands or arms.
>
> (Alan, do you have your video camera handy, so we can test my claim that
> this is in fact the way most people dance it? <g>)
>
> ~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
>
> --
> <http://www.io.com/contradance/> 1628 5th St NW Wash DC 20001 (202) 483-3373
--
please send replies to: kend...@erols.com
Ken Davis
In article <19980302024...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
kmss...@aol.com (KMsSavage) wrote:
> Gloria wrote:
> "When I used to dance, I would always come across someone that wasn't smiling
> or looking happy and would say to them - 'Smile, you are supposed to be having
> fun!' After that, I'd usually get a big smile or laugh from them."
>
> Greg wrote:
> >That would not be my reaction.
> I would like to gently suggest that it is not polite to make casual comments
> about the countenance of other dancers. Keep in mind that you have no idea of
> the reasons for their momentary expression. If you would like your dance
> partner to smile I think it is incumbent upon you to do something that will
> bring out a smile. Complaining about a person's expression is not the
best way
> to do that. It is, after all, a criticism, of sorts. A warm connection might
> be a better way to get a more positive response.
>
> I'm with Greg. One of my least favorite phrases is "C'mon, smile!"
And I try
> to avoid those who tell me this.
> Maybe my knee hurts. Maybe I'm trying to recall the name of the tune the
> band just switched to. Maybe I'm trying to memorize the dance figures to write
> them down later. Maybe I don't like a event that just happened. Maybe I'm
> dreading it happening again.
Perhaps it is your partner's best attempt at reminding you that your
attention belongs with him or her. While everyone's attention drifts from
time to time, I think that it would be hard to argue that it doesn't
correctly belong with your partner.
> Maybe I don't like being told to "smile, dammit!"
Maybe you don't--but if you would attempt to understand your partner's
comment in the manner it was intended, perhaps you might not get so up in
arms at the threat to your autonomy of thinking and perhaps both your
partner and you would have a better time dancing. Just a thought. - Ken
Oops... I just noticed that you are probably a woman and I am a little
more willing to understand your anger in the context of the oppressive
sexist society in which we live and in which remarks like "keep smiling"
might be construed as controlling or patronizing... but still... I should
imagine that such anger seldom enhances the situation for either you or
your partner. Best wishes - Ken
> I'm sure Gloria is a lovely person and a bundle of fun. But I live in here;
> no one else does.
> --Karen M.
> Ann Arbor
--
jgriffiths
> 3. The gypsy is a gimmick movement, not an actual "dance" movement. Can
> someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy? It seems that the
> requirements for each dance they are used in are different. IMHO, the
> gypsy is unworthy of inclusion in the standard repertoire of contradance
> moves.
I *like* the gypsy. Especially when it melts down into a swing. The
anticipation of the swing is very pleasant, I find.
As for the "proper" way to dance the gypsy, I was told once that it's like
holding baoth hands with your partner once around, only you use eyes, not
hands.
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
In article <19980226214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) writes:
> Ralph Barthine <rbar...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>
>>spinning around while
>>*tilting your head* to look into the eyes of a partner who is significantly
>>taller or shorter than yourself *will* make you dizzy and may induce motion
>>sickness.
>
> Really? It's not unusual for me to get feedback from a few beginners that
> they feel dizzy after their first attempt(s) at swinging. Most get over
> this, but a few do not, and these folks tend to not last long on the dance
> floor. I have always assumed they were not following instructions, but as
> I think about it, it occurs to me that a disportionate number of these
> people have been very short women.
It is hard to tell what exactly is causing people trouble, but I think that
tilting one's head (either up or down) will increase dizziness - the tilt
changes the orientation of the inner ear, as well as changing the field of
view.
In the hall where we dance in Pittsburgh, there are ceiling fans that
are on. If you get them in your visual field while you swing, equilibrium
becomes difficult at best. I tell beginners that if they WANT to become
disoriented and nauseous, look squarely at the fans while swinging.
I tell short women that they might want to look at the top button of the
person they are dancing with.
Another aspect of dizziness is that good steady weight between partners
greatly reduces dizziness. This is hard for many beginners, because their
center of balance becomes a SHARED center of balance. If they are unsure,
they think that they want to keep their feet right under their center of
balance. This precludes giving good weight, and, I believe, makes dizziness
worse.
I think that eye contact alone (without good weight) will do almost nothing
towards reducing dizziness.
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
> Reine Wonite
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
In article <entropy-2802...@max2p207.smart.net>, ent...@io.com (Kiran Wagle) writes:
> Lisa K Tamres <lk...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I have found that most women who complain that men are always
>> bumping their breasts are twisting their upper bodies at an angle
>> during a swing *causing* the contact they are complaining about.
Hi, Lisa. It's nice to see you post here :)
> Indeed. I've often noticed that new women dancers seem to *put
> themselves* into exactly that position, which *I* assume (perhaps
> incorrectly?) must be at least less than comfortable, except perhaps in
> that perfect dance community where they *want* to have their breasts
> pressed against the arm of each and every male dancer they meet in the
> line. (Yah, there really is a place where all the dancers are sexy but I
> won't say where. <g>)
> Why do they do this? If it's actually uncomfortable for some generic
> woman to have her breasts pressed against some random man's arm, what can
> one say (either from the stage or in a workshop or one-on-one) to suggest
> a better way without drawing undue attention to the awkwardness of the
> position? <g>
As someone who has taught beginners for many years and has noticed women's
breasts with intense interest for even longer than that ;-), I have some
thoughts on this.
I think that our regular swing, with the upper bodies facing each other, and
arms arched around to the man's shoulder and to the middle of the woman's
back, is a pretty vulnerable position. A woman's personal space, that is, her
face and her chest is completely open to her partner in a swing. This
swing works in our community because of trust that is there, but it is
a very vulnerable position.
For many beginning women, the most natural way to swing would be to turn a
bit to her own left and not directly face the man. This keeps the man's
face out of the womans face. As far as I can see, they would wish the man's
arm to be MUCH lower on the woman's back than we contra dancers typically
would have it. The man's forearm then could be FIRMLY HELD in position by
being pinned between the woman's left arm and waist.
This is painful for the man and awkward for everyone, but you could see how a
beginner might tend towards this swing. One big problem is men who get
their hands in the middle of the woman's back (that is, the regular position),
BEFORE the woman can 'pin him down'. In this case he is firmly pressed
against a rather personal area. This happens most of the time that the woman
encounters an experienced dancer: we're quick at getting our hand in the
middle of her back. The beginning man she came with doesn't do this, after
all, he is a GENTLEMAN ;-).
In my workshops, if I think that there might be a problem with this, I get an
experienced guy to help me and I take the woman's part and demonstrate:
"If I'm uncomfortable with the closeness, I might turn away.
If I do that, watch where his arm is (make my eyes get REAL big and
look at his arm on my chest in mock alarm). With me, this is
OK. If I were a woman, I might not be comfortable with this,
though. After all, I don't know Bob THAT well."
"My next move might be to push his arm down and pin it
to my side. This may cause him to howl in pain and would almost
certainly cause him to sit out next time I ask him to dance. Worse
than that, it wouldn't work very well and most of the time his arm
would be clamped on my chest."
"In the standard position, you allow the man to keep his arm out
of your personal space, and you just have to trust the he won't do
anything invasive. The guys here are really quite good about that."
This is one of the few things that is much easier for a man to show in a
workshop, than it is for a woman to show.
It is one of the few problems where I think it is better to NOT have direct
personal feedback to someone during the workshop. "Look where his arm is..."
is more reassuring than "MY arm is on YOUR breast", I think ;-)
If I encounter a partner that does that swing, I will say "If you lift your
arm and turn to face me, then I CAN stay out of your personal space." Almost
all the time, they are grateful for the tip. If I pass someone in the line
that does that, there is really nothing I can do.
The only thing I could see a caller doing is giving a swing demonstration and
addressing the problem there.
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
> ~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
Lisa K Tamres
Excerpts from netnews.rec.folk-dancing: 28-Feb-98 Re: obstacles to
flirting i.. by Kiran Wa...@io.com
> themselves* into exactly that position, which *I* assume (perhaps
> incorrectly?) must be at least less than comfortable, except perhaps in
> that perfect dance community where they *want* to have their breasts
> pressed against the arm of each and every male dancer they meet in the
> line. (Yah, there really is a place where all the dancers are sexy but I
> won't say where. <g>)
>
> Why do they do this? If it's actually uncomfortable for some generic
> woman to have her breasts pressed against some random man's arm, what can
> one say (either from the stage or in a workshop or one-on-one) to suggest
> a better way without drawing undue attention to the awkwardness of the
> position? <g>
>
>
I use two options:
First and mostly I do *not* address the placement of the bosom issue. I
suggest that keeping one's shoulders parallel is 1. more comfortable on
the back, 2. allows better "giving weight" and 3. is easier on the
lead's right arm. I figure that the more discreet placement of one's
accoutrements can be considered a "fringe benefit" of better dance
technique that most women will notice just fine on their own.
Second, when I hear women complain about men pressing against their
breasts in a swing, I *then* can merely point out that the women can fix
it themselves by shifting their own frame.
I also can get away with alot of this in my own community, without
seeming overly rude, since many of the dancers recognized me as a local
dance instructor. Or at least they used to until I went back to school.
:(
--Lisa
Robin Cohen
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> It is hard to tell what exactly is causing people trouble, but I think that
> tilting one's head (either up or down) will increase dizziness - the tilt
> changes the orientation of the inner ear, as well as changing the field of
> view.
I always get dizzy swinging with Greg McKenzie, no matter how intently
we gaze into each other's eyes.....but maybe it's not the room that's
spinning.
--
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
Robin Cohen phone: 408-526-7504
Cisco Systems, Inc. email: rco...@cisco.com
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
In article <gapbobrem-ya024080...@news.stlnet.com>, gapb...@stlnet.com (Bob Borcherding) writes:
>(Kiran Wagle) wrote:
>
>>(Bob Borcherding wrote:
>>
>>> Can someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy?
>>
>
>So this is your *interpretation* of it. One could teach it that way, I
>suppose. That would actually be a better way than most do the move. I've
>in the eyes and walk around each other." Finding a balance point while
>leaning into the other person
>is nearly always not graceful.
I see a difference between "look that person in the eyes" and "stick your face
into that person's face," although it seems that a lot of contra dancers don't
see the difference. Your other remarks suggest that your objections to the
gypsy (leaning, awkwardness, height adjustment problems) come from the "stick
your face into that person's face" interpretation, which is just not how it's
typically done in either English or Morris.
In my mind (a strange and lonely place, perhaps), a gypsy has the same
technical issues as a non-spinning dosido, adjusted only to keep facing
the person you're gypsying with.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
Kiran Wagle
gre...@aol.com (GregMc) wrote:
> Kiran Wagle wrote:
>> Indeed. I've often noticed that new women dancers seem to *put
>> themselves* into exactly that position, which *I* assume (perhaps
>> Why do they do this? If it's actually uncomfortable for some generic
>> woman to have her breasts pressed against some random man's arm, what can
> With newcomers, particularly those I'd like to see again, I am concerned
> that this kind of familiarity might be mistaken for the norm and that
> they may not return because the dancing seems too invasive for them.
What puzzles me is that [more precisely than my original formulation] they
make no effort to get themselves into any other position. Do they really
not mind? If they don't, it's not a problem, but.... I mean, I figure if
they did mind they'd at least fidget. They don't.
(I can crook my arm at the elbow and still carry weight, so this is the
technique I usually use when a straight arm would end up pressing against
the woman's chest. But it seems to me that a dancer with weaker arms
couldn't do that.)
Lisa K Tamres
On the subject of swings invading more personal spaces on women:
Excerpts from netnews.rec.folk-dancing: 3-Mar-98 Re: obstacles to
flirting i.. by Kiran Wa...@io.com
>
> What puzzles me is that [more precisely than my original formulation] they
> make no effort to get themselves into any other position. Do they really
> not mind? If they don't, it's not a problem, but.... I mean, I figure if
> they did mind they'd at least fidget. They don't.
>
Kiran,
Fidgeting would exacerbate the problem! :)
--Lisa
Kiran Wagle
Lisa K Tamres <lk...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> On the subject of swings invading more personal spaces on women:
>> IF they did mind they'd at least fidget. They don't.
> Fidgeting would exacerbate the problem! :)
Depends on thwt parts of their bodies they fidget WITH.
I wonder if turnabout might be the best approach: "If you move your
<whichever> shoulder (*and hip*!) backwards, you wouldn't put your breasts
into MY personal space."
(Not that I care; I started dancing in a community that once moved its
dance weekend to a facility with two showers instead of one and considered
marking them "Coed" and "Everyone else." But it might get the point
across in a less threatening manner in a workshop.)
Will Roper
KMsSavage wrote:
>
> Gloria wrote:
> "When I used to dance, I would always come across someone that wasn't smiling
> or looking happy and would say to them - 'Smile, you are supposed to be having
> fun!' After that, I'd usually get a big smile or laugh from them."
>
> Greg wrote:
> >That would not be my reaction.
> I would like to gently suggest that it is not polite to make casual comments
> about the countenance of other dancers. Keep in mind that you have no idea of
> the reasons for their momentary expression. If you would like your dance
> partner to smile I think it is incumbent upon you to do something that will
> bring out a smile. Complaining about a person's expression is not the best way
> to do that. It is, after all, a criticism, of sorts. A warm connection might
> be a better way to get a more positive response.
>
> I'm with Greg. One of my least favorite phrases is "C'mon, smile!" And I try
> to avoid those who tell me this.
> Maybe my knee hurts. Maybe I'm trying to recall the name of the tune the
> band just switched to. Maybe I'm trying to memorize the dance figures to write
> them down later. Maybe I don't like a event that just happened. Maybe I'm
> I'm sure Gloria is a lovely person and a bundle of fun. But I live in here;
> no one else does.
> --Karen M.
> Ann Arbor
I have been both accused of not smiling when I should be, and told that
I have a nice smile, and I can deal with either comment.
But I'm posting to tell you a story - like most of my stories it starts
with "I have to tell you about my kids".
I got up on stage singing with the Mystic Chorale last fall, the first
time in about 20 years I'd done anything like that. We we somewhat
under rehearsed as the concert arrived, and while everything came into
place nicely for the concerts, we were tense and straining our
concentration to recall our parts and cues.
After the first concert, my sister, the conductor, told us that while it
went well, we should be smiling more.
So for the second concert my kids posted themselves up in the balcony at
the back where only we could see them, and periodically would jump up
with these huge grins on their face, even pointing to their smile, to
remind us.
At the halftime, my sister Ruthie asked them to knock it off, but the
response from my fellow singers was that it had helped them, and they
wouldn't have minded it in the second half as well.
Cut forward a month to the New Year's Eve dawn dance in Northfield. At
4:30 a.m. while dancing with Joanna, my 12 year old, I notice the 10
year old, Erica, following us down the line on the outside gesturing to
us. Turning to Joanna to ask what she was doing, I was told "She's
being the Smile Police, you're not smiling daddy".
It seems to me that if you're dancing with someone who isn't smiling,
the correct response is to smile at them, and if that doesn't work, to
smile even more. But some of the truly clueless like me don't mind
being told outright when we still don't get it.
Will
wi...@geac.com
David Cottle
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> In article <19980226214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) writes:
> > Ralph Barthine <rbar...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
> >
> >>spinning around while
> >>*tilting your head* to look into the eyes of a partner who is significantly
> >>taller or shorter than yourself *will* make you dizzy and may induce motion
> >>sickness.
> >
> > Really? It's not unusual for me to get feedback from a few beginners that
> > people have been very short women.
I think it also has a lot to do with what you are used to. I've been dancing for
years and have never been bothered by motion even when I first started. But one
day I danced with a woman who was significantly taller and was dizzy after the
first two swings.
Beth Parkes
Great story, Will!
I remember a dancer (caller?) once telling of their first experience contra
dancing. They walked into a hall where the dance was already in progress.
The dancers were all moving to the music, but absolutely no one was
smiling. As I recall the story (and I can't even remember whose story it is
- if the owner is on line please jump in) they almost walked right out
again. They said they couldn't imagine why these people were doing this
thing, since they obviously wern't enjoying themselves.
Beth
Will Roper <wi...@geac.com> wrote in article <34FD87...@geac.com>...
AnneFay
Another vignette to add to this thread... I brought a friend to a dance a
couple of months ago... on the way home in the carpool, the four of us were
talking about the evening (we had two first-time dancers with us)... my friend
commented that what he *really* liked about the evening was that *everyone* was
smiling...
That got me thinking... not only do a lot of us smile, we really have the
opportunity in the dance to notice those smiles... the dance encourages us to
look each other in the face when we dance... and I'm not even talking gypsies
here... :-)
D. Budd
>> Gloria wrote:
>> "When I used to dance, I would always come across someone that wasn't
smiling
>> or looking happy and would say to them - 'Smile, you are supposed to be
having
>> fun!' After that, I'd usually get a big smile or laugh from them."
>>
I never like it when someone tells me to smile. I'm almost always smiling
and laughing and when I'm not there is usually a pretty darn good reason.
For instance.....one evening comes to mind right now. Only a couple of
years ago I began playing the tin whistle. Only a few month after starting
to learn to play I was asked to play in a performance at a folk festival. I
was unbelieveably nervous and totally concentrating on just getting the
notes right and not being freaked out by the audience. At a small break an
immature friend of mine made a big deal about the fact that I wasn't smiling
from ear to ear. I became very self conscious of this but after all I was
playing the whistle and it's hard to grin and blow at once. Each time I
looked up into the audience there she was making stupid faces at me and
making sign language for me to smile. My feelings at that time were I
disliked her intensely for doing that to me when it was my first time in
front of an audience. Also when I think back to that evening I don't
remember feeling proud that I'd performed in front of an audience but
instead the memory of her smirking at me from the front row stands out
clear. So when someone isn't smiling before you make some silly remark
about it - just think first that they may have other things going on at that
particular minute in time.
Melanie Taylor
Hello.
Does anyone know of places to dance near Ft Wayne, IN?
I've seen references to Elkhart and Valparaiso, IN and
Kalamazoo, MI. Is there anything closer?
Thanks,
melanie...@noaa.gov
Empulse
>3. The gypsy is a gimmick movement, not an actual "dance" movement. Can
>someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy? It seems that the
>requirements for each dance they are used in are different. IMHO, the
>gypsy is unworthy of inclusion in the standard repertoire of contradance
>moves.
It seems to me, like the hey and the concept of "active" and "inactive"
couples, that the gypsy it one of the distinguishing features of contra dance.
All contribute to the fun and unique aspects of contra. Without these the
dance would be more like old boring square dances.
Two unfortunate (at least, to me) trends I have noticed in the past few years
is (1) there are fewer and fewer dances with gypsies being called and (2)
There seems to be less and less distinction between the choreography for
"active" and "inactive" couples. It seems the callers want to make sure
everybody is dancing all the time. I actually enjoy dancing when the
"inactives" are really inactive for part of the dance. It gives me a chance to
1) take a little breather, (2) talk breifly with my partner - contributing to
the social enjoyment of contra. and (3) observe other dancers - I have learned
a lot about dancing like this - without having to sit out the dance (the view
is better from inside anyway)
JJB
Jonathan Sivier
emp...@aol.com (Empulse) writes:
>In article <gapbobrem-ya024080...@news.stlnet.com>,
>gapb...@stlnet.com (Bob Borcherding) writes:
>>3. The gypsy is a gimmick movement, not an actual "dance" movement. Can
>>someone tell me how to properly "dance" a gypsy? It seems that the
>>requirements for each dance they are used in are different. IMHO, the
>>gypsy is unworthy of inclusion in the standard repertoire of contradance
>>moves.
Bob, lighten up. The gypsy is no more a "gimmick" than any other figure
where you go around your partner or neighbor and return to place (i.e. dosido,
allemandes, two-hand turns, etc.) As a figure in English Country dance it
has been included in choreography for over 300 years (at least). It must have
something that people like to hang around that long. One fine example is
"Hey, Boys, Up Go We (Cuckolds All A Row)" from the late 1600's.
>It seems to me, like the hey and the concept of "active" and "inactive"
>couples, that the gypsy it one of the distinguishing features of contra dance.
>All contribute to the fun and unique aspects of contra. Without these the
>dance would be more like old boring square dances.
>Two unfortunate (at least, to me) trends I have noticed in the past few years
>is (1) there are fewer and fewer dances with gypsies being called and (2)
>There seems to be less and less distinction between the choreography for
>"active" and "inactive" couples. It seems the callers want to make sure
>everybody is dancing all the time. I actually enjoy dancing when the
>"inactives" are really inactive for part of the dance. It gives me a chance to
>1) take a little breather, (2) talk breifly with my partner - contributing to
>the social enjoyment of contra. and (3) observe other dancers - I have learned
>a lot about dancing like this - without having to sit out the dance (the view
>is better from inside anyway)
I haven't noticed a reduction in the frequency of dances with heys and
gypsies (and gypsy-heys) at dances in the mid-west. You are correct about
the relative rarity of unequal dances, but I compensate for this by dancing
plenty of English Country (in addition to contra). However, I would like to
see contra corners used more often. While I don't think it would be good to
have contra corners in every dance in an evening, I would like to see at least
one good dance with this figure in every regular contra dance program (dances
with large numbers of beginners possibly excepted). I put at least on in each
evening of dance that I call, though sometimes the program gets changed due
to the make-up of the crowd.
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier |Q: How many angels can dance on the |
| j-si...@uiuc.edu | head of a pin? |
| Flight Simulation Lab |A: It depends on what dance you call. |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Home page URL: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~j-sivier |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Davis
In article <19980313234...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
emp...@aol.com (Empulse) wrote:
[snip]
> Two unfortunate (at least, to me) trends I have noticed in the past few years
> is (1) there are fewer and fewer dances with gypsies being called and (2)
> There seems to be less and less distinction between the choreography for
> "active" and "inactive" couples. It seems the callers want to make sure
> everybody is dancing all the time. I actually enjoy dancing when the
> "inactives" are really inactive for part of the dance. It gives me a
chance to
> 1) take a little breather, (2) talk breifly with my partner - contributing to
> the social enjoyment of contra. and (3) observe other dancers - I have learned
> a lot about dancing like this - without having to sit out the dance (the view
> is better from inside anyway)
>
> JJB
As one who prefers the "symmetric" dances, I don't care for the
active/inactive dances much. Indeed, the few I encounter are often ones
with contra corners. In those cases, I'd prefer the practice I've seen of
alternating the contra corners between ones and twos. I believe that
waiting out at the end of the line is the appropriate time for breathing.
I recognize that my preferences may be biased by dancing in a place with
very long contra lines so one doesn't always get to go in both directions
(or at least, not for very long). It seems unreasonable that the
randomness of whether I'm an active or inactive will determine whether I
get to enjoy the active (and most interesting) part of the dance. - Ken
Alan Gedance
>In article <19980313234...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>emp...@aol.com (Empulse) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> It seems the callers want to make sure
>> everybody is dancing all the time. I actually enjoy dancing when the
>> "inactives" are really inactive for part of the dance.
>
>As one who prefers the "symmetric" dances, I don't care for the
>active/inactive dances much. Indeed, the few I encounter are often ones
>with contra corners. In those cases, I'd prefer the practice I've seen of
>alternating the contra corners between ones and twos. I believe that
>waiting out at the end of the line is the appropriate time for breathing.
>I recognize that my preferences may be biased by dancing in a place with
>very long contra lines so one doesn't always get to go in both directions
>(or at least, not for very long). It seems unreasonable that the
>randomness of whether I'm an active or inactive will determine whether I
>get to enjoy the active (and most interesting) part of the dance. - Ken
Ken, I understand the long-set situation because I dance there too.
But I have a different point of view about the unequal dances. While
it's true that our long lines tend to make them impractical, we
dancers bring that problem on ourselves. Our hall can support as may
as six sets, but our dancers prefer to clump into one or two long sets
jammed between the stage and the back wall. It's too bad. It causes
most callers to call only equal dances, and dancers to complain if an
occasional unequal dance is called. So, at least at our location,
many fine dances are passing into obscurity, and many dancers are
coming up who are almost totally ignorant of them.
At another location in this same overall dance community, recently a
few of use had the temerity to try to start an new set when the
existing single set stretched almost the full length of the hall. We
managed to get a total of three couples into our set. No one else
would join. (Boy, what an opening I'm giving for snide remarks %^) )
I was all for holding our ground and dancing that way. After all,
with three couples the set is marginally viable. But my companions
weren't that stubborn. They wimped out, and squoze themselves in at
the back of that now even more crowded single set.
I think I might try to form a subversive group of dancers whose
mission it is to try to make a new set whenever the existing sets get
over about 20 couples long. This would assure that in only about 10
minutes of dancing every couple would have enough time to travel all
the way up and down the set, and the main argument against doing
unequal dances would not apply, at least not to us who choose to dance
in the short sets. For those who choose to remain in the longer sets,
well, that would be their choice, so they'ed have no reason for
complaint.
If anyone is interest in this subversion, look me up.
As for limiting contra corners dances to those double-length dances in
which the ones and twos alternate being active, as far as I know this
would limit us to just a very few clever dances by Jim Kitch. They
_are_ nice dances, but who wants to do the same few dances over and
over?
One of the results of this general antipathy to unequal dances is the
relative rarity of contra corners dances at our venue.
I'll probable bump into you tonight. And I do mean bump, considering
how the house will be packed because of the wild vegetables on the
stage. %^)
Alan
(To reply by email, remove the r in my username, argedance.)
Alan Gedance
Nancy Mamlin
>At another location in this same overall dance community, recently a
>few of use had the temerity to try to start an new set when the
>existing single set stretched almost the full length of the hall. We
>managed to get a total of three couples into our set. No one else
>would join. (Boy, what an opening I'm giving for snide remarks %^) )
>I was all for holding our ground and dancing that way. After all,
>with three couples the set is marginally viable. But my companions
>weren't that stubborn. They wimped out, and squoze themselves in at
>the back of that now even more crowded single set.
Alan, I called a dance there recently where what you described was happening.
The existing sets (3, I think) were too long and a handful of fols decided to
start a new set. I did my usual from the stage announcement: "There's a
shorter set made up of quality dancers who would like you to join them... blah
blah blah..." Nothing. Not a single couple broke ranks from the other sets. I
was perfectly willing for the shorter set to remain- and I may have even
switched to an uneven dance at that point just to "reward them". Anyway, in
disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of people!" At
that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable length! I was
amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed to work!?
Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out" of me- if I had
thought about it I wouldn't have said it publicly; then again, if I had known
the effect I would have said it sooner....
Say hello to the vegetables for me.
Nancy
Paul Tyler
Call up Gerry Prokopowicz. He's a curator at the Lincoln Museum. It's
associated with Lincoln Life Insurance Co. (I don't remember exact
names.) Gerry's a caller who's been trying to get something started
there for a couple of years.
There used to be some public dances out by Roanoke and at Besancon (St.
Louis church just east of New Haven). Simple old time squares with
funky music. Not the sort of thing urban contra dancers devote their
lives to. But on their own terms, they are quite interesting and fun
events.
Let me know what you find.
Paul Tyler
Chicago
Phil Davidson
In rec.folk-dancing, emp...@aol.com (Empulse) wrote:
>It seems the callers want to make sure
>everybody is dancing all the time. I actually enjoy dancing when the
>"inactives" are really inactive for part of the dance. It gives me a chance to
>1) take a little breather, (2) talk breifly with my partner - contributing to
>the social enjoyment of contra. . . .
In my brief experience, the inactive couple are usually on opposite
sides of the set when they're idle. They're not even close enough to
the neighbors to talk.
-- Phil Davidson PhilDa...@compuserve.com
http://www.idiom.com/~davidson/
2016A Ninth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710-2116 USA
Telephone 510-843-3156
Phil Davidson
In rec.folk-dancing, maml...@appstate.edu (Nancy Mamlin) wrote:
>. . . Not a single couple broke ranks from the other sets. I
>was perfectly willing for the shorter set to remain- and I may have even
>switched to an uneven dance at that point just to "reward them". Anyway, in
>disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of people!" At
>that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable length! I was
>amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed to work!?
>Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out" of me- if I had
>thought about it I wouldn't have said it publicly; then again, if I had known
>the effect I would have said it sooner....
Maybe the tendency is for dancers to stay settled once they've got a
place, and they don't think about the larger ecology. Maybe your
experience shows they just need a little education about what behavior
helps the group as a whole. It only requres a few civic-minded
couples to ameliorate an imbalance in set sizes; and it takes even
fewer pioneers to attract enough couples to make a difference.
Mark Langner
Nancy Mamlin wrote:
> ....
> switched to an uneven dance at that point just to "reward them". Anyway, in
> disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of people!" At
> that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable length! I was
> amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed to work!?
> Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out" of me- if I had
> thought about it I wouldn't have said it publicly; then again, if I had known
> the effect I would have said it sooner....
Whatever works! Actually, I think that if you have already built a sense
of rapport and trust with the dancers, as I suspect you had, you can say
things like that, no harm - no foul. My sense is that it would be taken
as humorous, especially said in your best grit's 'n 'gravy drawl,
y'all.
My compliments to David Kirchner, who called a dance in Bloomington IN
this weekend, and got people to move and create extra sets a couple
times quickly and without fuss - I wish I had a tape of what he said
(and how he said it!). Having called there myself, I know that it ain't
'cause the dancers are more responsive than elsewhere!
Mark Langner
Nancy Mamlin
Mark Langner <mlan...@iquest.com> wrote in article
<350D66...@iquest.com>...
> Nancy Mamlin wrote:
> > ....
> > switched to an uneven dance at that point just to "reward them".
Anyway, in
> > disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of
people!" At
> > that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable length! I
was
> > amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed to
work!?
> > Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out" of me- if I
had
> > thought about it I wouldn't have said it publicly; then again, if I had
known
> > the effect I would have said it sooner....
>
> Whatever works! Actually, I think that if you have already built a sense
> of rapport and trust with the dancers, as I suspect you had, you can say
> things like that, no harm - no foul. My sense is that it would be taken
> as humorous, especially said in your best grit's 'n 'gravy drawl,
> y'all.
Yeah, I think I said it in a humorous way, and I did used to dance there-
though there's been enough turnover that the crowd in general may not know
that. But I did want to say one thing: I am from the South, and have always
used the perfectly good word y'all when I'm talking to a group of you. It's
how I talk, and my accent or patterns of speech in and of themselves
shouldn't be taken as "funny". I don't think it's necessarily meant to be
"funny" when New England callers leave of the ocassional "r", for example.
Bye, y'all!
Nancy
--
******
Nancy Mamlin
"it's hard to beat paper towels" - Tommy Jarrell
******
David Elek Kirchner
Mark Langner (mlan...@iquest.com) wrote:
: My compliments to David Kirchner, who called a dance in Bloomington IN
: this weekend, and got people to move and create extra sets a couple
: times quickly and without fuss - I wish I had a tape of what he said
: (and how he said it!). Having called there myself, I know that it ain't
: 'cause the dancers are more responsive than elsewhere!
Thanks. Maybe the trick was not knowing it would be difficult. I didn't
feel like I was making any extra effort over what I normally do.
--
David
dav...@artsci.wustl.edu
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~david6
Ken Davis
> In rec.folk-dancing, maml...@appstate.edu (Nancy Mamlin) wrote:
>
> >. . . Not a single couple broke ranks from the other sets. I
> >was perfectly willing for the shorter set to remain- and I may have even
> >switched to an uneven dance at that point just to "reward them". Anyway, in
> >disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of people!" At
> >that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable length! I was
> >amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed to work!?
> >Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out" of me- if I had
> >thought about it I wouldn't have said it publicly; then again, if I had
known
> >the effect I would have said it sooner....
>
> Maybe the tendency is for dancers to stay settled once they've got a
> place, and they don't think about the larger ecology. Maybe your
> experience shows they just need a little education about what behavior
> helps the group as a whole. It only requres a few civic-minded
> couples to ameliorate an imbalance in set sizes; and it takes even
> fewer pioneers to attract enough couples to make a difference.
> -- Phil Davidson PhilDa...@compuserve.com
> http://www.idiom.com/~davidson/
> 2016A Ninth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710-2116 USA
> Telephone 510-843-3156
I'm puzzled by your posting. How do shorter lines help the "larger ecology"?
Why are couples "civic-minded" when they move. What about an imbalance in
set sizes requires amelioration. Apparently there is some moral principle
involved here which eludes me and about which I have never been apprised.
I dance on the long lines because I prefer to dance on long lines. I
prefer to dance with different people rather than a shorter line where I
might encounter the same people several times. Perhaps other people don't
understand the ecological principle involved and they prefer to dance on
long lines too. I don't believe I'm being stubborn when I don't move.
Perhaps there is some aspect of calling that I don't understand but I
don't see why a caller should be spending much time trying to readjust the
contra lines. Perhaps the dancers are already "voting with their feet" for
what they prefer.
Nancy, why does it matter to you how long the lines are? If you warn
people when you are calling an "uneven" dance, they will probably adjust
themselves accordingly, otherwise, why not let people enjoy their long
lines?
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to know if there is
any real reason why I should be prefering shorter lines.
Dave Goldman
In article
<no_spam_please-...@207-172-141-212.s21.as20.dam.erols.com>,
no_spam...@erols.com (Ken Davis) wrote:
> I'm puzzled by your posting. How do shorter lines help the "larger ecology"?
>...
Well, here are two considerations for you. The first relates to the
enjoyment of those in the long lines, the second to those in the short.
- If a long line extends almost the length of the hall during the
walk-through, it will probably crunch into the bottom of the hall once the
dance gets going. Everyone in that line will eventually reach an
overcrowded section of the line, and have a less fun dance experience than
if the line had not been overly long.
- If 80% of the dancers have formed one or two very long lines, leaving no
room for the remaining 20% of the dancers, then those 20% are forced to
create a new short line. However, this new line is so short that, as you
yourself point out in your post, its dancers will keep encountering the
same people over and over -- something most contradancers would probably
rank as less enjoyable than encountering a greater variety of dancers.
In other words, when you observe:
> Perhaps the dancers are already "voting with their feet" for
> what they prefer.
What is usually _really_ happening is that the quickest dancers are voting
with their feet to get into a long line (though not necessarily intending
it to end up quite as long as it sometimes does), thus _forcing_ the
slower-to-join-a-line dancers to form a too-short line.
Meanwhile, the caller can see that if everyone would just readjust
themselves into a set of equal-length lines, the resulting lines would be
plenty long enough to satisfy everyone.
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
Alan Gedance
>In article <350cbf03...@news.idiom.com>, PhilDa...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
>> In rec.folk-dancing, maml...@appstate.edu (Nancy Mamlin) wrote:
>>
>> >. . . Not a single couple broke ranks from the other sets. I
>> >was perfectly willing for the shorter set to remain- and I may have even
>> >switched to an uneven dance at that point just to "reward them".
>> > <..snip..>
>>
>> Maybe the tendency is for dancers to stay settled once they've got a
>> place, and they don't think about the larger ecology. Maybe your
>> experience shows they just need a little education about what behavior
>> helps the group as a whole. It only requres a few civic-minded
>> couples to ameliorate an imbalance in set sizes; and it takes even
>> fewer pioneers to attract enough couples to make a difference.
>> -- Phil Davidson PhilDa...@compuserve.com
>I'm puzzled by your posting. How do shorter lines help the "larger ecology"?
>Why are couples "civic-minded" when they move. What about an imbalance in
>set sizes requires amelioration. Apparently there is some moral principle
>involved here which eludes me and about which I have never been apprised.
>I dance on the long lines because I prefer to dance on long lines. I
>prefer to dance with different people rather than a shorter line where I
>might encounter the same people several times.
> <..snip..>
Well, here's the view of another dancer from the same venue-
When I find myself in one of the typically long lines there (and this
occurs most of the time) I know the following:
1. Most callers with any experience will not, under those
circumstances, call any unequal dances because many couples will have
little or no chance at dancing the active part.
2. Only a few very aware callers will remember to ask the dancers to
take hands in long lines and spread the sets before each dance. The
dancers generally don't seem to have the sense to do this without
direction. Heck, much of the time the need to take hands four is lost
on them.
3. Frequently, the efforts to spread the sets result in almost
adequate dancing room at the top of the sets, but at the price of the
bottom of the sets being packed shoulder-to-shoulder.
4. All of the regulars at this venue know that this occurs, so that
they are among the first to pack themselves in at the tops of the
sets. The result is that the bottoms of the sets contain a
disproportionally high fraction of newcomers. Similarly, any new sets
that form as a result of absolute necessity are composed of people
crushed out of the bottoms of these long sets. So, the new short
sets are largely newcomers.
5. Many nicely choreographed dances just don't work well under these
crowded conditions. Stars and allemandes have to be kept tight. Star
promenades turn into a bad joke, but that doesn't prevent callers from
using them. In the crowded bottoms of the sets even right-and-left
throughs or heys can be difficult and unpleasant. And four-in-line,
down the hall results in the bottom couples piling up like a train
wreck against the tables at the back of the hall.
The curious thing about all this is that it frequently occurs when the
hall has only one-sixth as many dancers as it can hold- one crowded
set in a hall that easily supports six!
The results- few unequal dances are called, so we seldom do any old
chestnuts. Contra corners dances have become rare indeed, except for
the several ones by Jim Kitch which the active part alternates between
the ones and twos. And triple-minor dances, well, just what are
those, anyway? They're certainly never danced here- And with good
reason, too. In these excessively long sets the dances would have to
run for twenty minutes or so before everyone would have a chance to
be active.
Ken, you can keep your long sets! I'd just like to see the callers
make a practice of calling dances appropriate for the shortest set in
the hall.
I repeat my call to rebellion! Anyone interested in forming a group
dedicated to the subversive activity of forming short sets, see me!
Experienced agents are welcome to join!
Alan Gedance
On 17 Mar 1998 19:02:49 GMT, pe...@alta.sw.stratus.com (Dan Pearl)
wrote:
>Dancers will tend not to join a new set if it is on the side. Form
>it in the center of the hall, and you might get takers.
Dan, I'm just not man enough for that. To start a new line in the
center would mean doing it over the bodies of the center set, and, by
definition of the problem, they'd outnumber and overwhelm the few
members of my brave but foolhardy band!
I'm allergic to the sight of blood, especially when it's my own! %^)
Kiran Wagle
Ken Davis wrote:
> I believe that waiting out at the end of the
> line is the appropriate time for breathing.
Kids today have too much energy. :-)
> I recognize that my preferences may be biased by dancing in a place with
> very long contra lines so one doesn't always get to go in both directions
> (or at least, not for very long). It seems unreasonable that the
> randomness of whether I'm an active or inactive will determine whether I
> get to enjoy the active (and most interesting) part of the dance. - Ken
So make shorter lines. <g>
The dancers are quite capable of making lines in whichever direction they
prefer. They demonstrate this in halls where the organisers have sensibly
put the stage in the long wall, by making long lines that run (from the
caller's perspective) sideways. I have no idea why the dancers prefer
this.
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
Kiran Wagle
aged...@bcpl.net (Alan Gedance) wrote:
> I think I might try to form a subversive group of dancers whose
> mission it is to try to make a new set whenever the existing sets get
> over about 20 couples long. This would assure that in only about 10
> minutes of dancing every couple would have enough time to travel all
I've suggested this approach to dancers for years; they never listen.
However, I've always urged them to do it as individuals, not a group, and
I've always directed my comments to the people who really care about hot
dancing and who they dance with--namely, the center-set dancers. I
suspect you'll find the side-set dancers more amenable to your
suggestion. But then, they *already* form new sets. <g>
I also suspect that if *you* consistently try to form an additional set,
even when it seems hopeless, and consistently join new sets, other dancers
will learn from your example.
(Note that I do think it's the caller's job to request, before the
walkthoughs have begun and *before the dancers have formed their sets*, as
many sets as she feels are needed for the conditions in the hall and the
sequence she intends to call.)
I'd be happy to bring my foursome to join you, of course.
~ Kiran
Kiran Wagle
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
maml...@appstate.edu (Nancy Mamlin) writes:
>> in disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of
people!" >> At that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable
length!
>> I was amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed
>> to work!? Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out"
> When I first started dancing in Pittsburgh, there was a regular caller here
> who would never fail to insult the dancers in an evening. He seemed to have
> a very popular dance. I found it quite puzzling.
Perhaps the dancers are smart enough to know that they *are* a stubborn
group of people, and having it pointed out to them explicitly caused them,
just for a moment, to try to do better. The truth doesn't always hurt.
<g>
~ Kiran <ent...@io.com>
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
In article <6eh814$m43$2...@lester.appstate.edu>, maml...@appstate.edu (Nancy Mamlin) writes:
[much stuff snipped]
> switched to an uneven dance at that point just to "reward them". Anyway, in
> disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of people!" At
> that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable length! I was
> amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed to work!?
> Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out" of me- if I had
> thought about it I wouldn't have said it publicly; then again, if I had known
> the effect I would have said it sooner....
When I first started dancing in Pittsburgh, there was a regular caller here
who would never fail to insult the dancers in an evening. He seemed to have
a very popular dance. I found it quite puzzling.
At that point, I really did not know a good caller from a bad caller, so I
cannot really say how good a caller he was. Whenever he is mentioned in
this group, it is with respect and people seem to refer him a good caller.
I stopped going to his dances. ; )
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
> Nancy
Ralph McAllister
Ken Davis wrote:
> PhilDa...@compuserve.com wrote:
> > (Nancy Mamlin) wrote:
> > > . . . Not a single couple broke ranks from the other sets. I
> > > was perfectly willing for the shorter set to remain- and I may have even
> > > disgust I said (over the mic), "Y'all are one stubborn group of people!" At
> > > that, the short set grew almost immediately to a reasonable length! I was
> > > amazed- and kind of horrified that insulting these dancers seemed to work!?
> > > Truly what I said about their stubborness just "popped out" of me- if I had
> > > thought about it I wouldn't have said it publicly; then again, if I had
> > > known the effect I would have said it sooner....
> > place, and they don't think about the larger ecology. Maybe your
> > experience shows they just need a little education about what behavior
> > helps the group as a whole. It only requres a few civic-minded
> > couples to ameliorate an imbalance in set sizes; and it takes even
> > fewer pioneers to attract enough couples to make a difference.
>
> Why are couples "civic-minded" when they move. What about an imbalance in
> set sizes requires amelioration. Apparently there is some moral principle
> involved here which eludes me and about which I have never been apprised.
The principle is called THE GOLDEN RULE. It's about paying attention to
the
happiness of other people instead of just selfishly making yourself
happy.
> I dance on the long lines because I prefer to dance on long lines. I
> prefer to dance with different people rather than a shorter line where I
> might encounter the same people several times. Perhaps other people don't
> understand the ecological principle involved and they prefer to dance on
> long lines too.
Okay, so you *agree* that short lines are not as fun. So... the obvious
way to make it more fun is to LENGTHEN THE LINE. How do you do that?
Get
some people to move from the overcrowded long lines to the short ones.
> I don't believe I'm being stubborn when I don't move.
No, you are being SELFISH when you don't move on your own volition. You
are
being STUBBORN when the caller politely asks you to move and you still
refuse.
> Perhaps there is some aspect of calling that I don't understand but I
> don't see why a caller should be spending much time trying to readjust the
> contra lines.
It is part of the callers job to try to make the dance enjoyable for
*everyone*. The caller is in a position (both litterally and
figuratively)
to see what needs to be done to accomplish that.
> Perhaps the dancers are already "voting with their feet" for
> what they prefer.
By that same logic, we should let people drive 100mph on the highway--
if that's what they "prefer" doing. We should also let people cut in
line at the movies if they "prefer" not to wait. And, come to think
of it, why do we charge money for movies at all? We should just let
people choose freely. (1) outside, there is no movie. (2) inside,
there *is* a movie. Let everybody "vote with their feet" which place
they would "prefer": inside or outside.
All three of these examples demonstrate the fact that simply telling
people to choose whatever they want can lead to a situation which is
not beneficial to the majority. CIVIC MINDED people recognize that
it is important to consider the welfare of the entire group, not just
themselves. They are willing to behave unselfishly because they know
that everyone in the group, themselves included, benefits from it in
the long run.
> Nancy, why does it matter to you how long the lines are?
> If you warn people when you are calling an "uneven" dance, they will
> probably adjust themselves accordingly, otherwise, why not let people
> enjoy their long lines?
>
> I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to know if there is
> any real reason why I should be prefering shorter lines.
No, there is no reason you should prefer short lines. But the only way
to *eliminate* short lines is to get people to move to them.
BTW, speaking as a caller, it is extremely frustrating to stand on stage
trying to persuade people nicely, even on those occasions when you get
mad and want to yell at them. You CAN'T yell at them, because they will
never forgive you for it.
Peace,
Ralph McAllister <sbun...@usit.clothes.net>
________________________________________
Before sending a reply, remove clothes.
________________________________________
Dan Pearl
In article <350c1c4a...@news.abs.net>,
Alan Gedance <arge...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>Ken, I understand the long-set situation because I dance there too.
>But I have a different point of view about the unequal dances. While
>it's true that our long lines tend to make them impractical, we
>dancers bring that problem on ourselves. Our hall can support as may
>as six sets, but our dancers prefer to clump into one or two long sets
>jammed between the stage and the back wall. It's too bad. It causes
>most callers to call only equal dances, and dancers to complain if an
>occasional unequal dance is called.
If the dancers trust the caller, then this situation is avoided. The
caller requests "lots of short sets because the 1's do something that
the 2's don't do". If the caller calls for short sets for equal dances,
then they lose credibility.
>At another location in this same overall dance community, recently a
>few of use had the temerity to try to start an new set when the
>existing single set stretched almost the full length of the hall. We
>managed to get a total of three couples into our set. No one else
>joined us...
Dancers will tend not to join a new set if it is on the side. Form
it in the center of the hall, and you might get takers.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Pearl ** Stratus Computer, Inc. ** pearl<AT>sw.stratus.com
I represent the views of my employer. [*WHAP!*] NO HE DOESN'T
Nancy Mamlin
In article <no_spam_please-...@207-172-141-212.s21.as20.dam.erols.com>, no_spam...@erols.com (Ken Davis) wrote:
>people when you are calling an "uneven" dance, they will probably adjust
>themselves accordingly, otherwise, why not let people enjoy their long
>lines?
>
>I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to know if there is
>any real reason why I should be prefering shorter lines.
>
>
Well, you're right, it may not matter, except that dancers sometimes overlook
something: From my vantage point of the stage, plus my advance knowledge about
what the dance will be, I have an advantage. I can see the bottom of the set
that may be too crowded to have a good time, or may just know that with lines
this long it may take forever just to get hands four...
No, I don't always "warn" people about whether I'm calling an uneven dance.
Nor do I call all that many in locations where I think it may _really_ matter
to the dancers (It doesn't everywhere).
Others on this thread- I think it was Alan, in fact, mentioned that "callers
rarely have us spread the lines out", meaning, I presume, in long lines.
Again, sometimes this is needed and sometimes it isn't. Some dances will
correct themselves on the walkthrough, and others may correct themselves on
the first turn through the dance... At some of the larger dances, I'm happy to
have hands four before I start walking through the dance. (Actually another
technique I have used is to start the walkthrough _before_ people have hands
four, becuase otherwise we'd stand there all night waiting for that one couple
who was holding up the process....
But I digress.
Nancy
All week at my place of employment there are free old-time music concerts at
12, 3, and 7 daily. Free contra dance Friday night with Rodney Sutton and the
Smokey Valley Boys (Benton Flippen); free concert on Saturday night with Etta
Baker, Roan Mountain Hilltoppers, and others.... nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!
Kiran Wagle
Ken Davis wrote:
> I'm puzzled by your posting. How do shorter lines help the "larger ecology"?
> Why are couples "civic-minded" when they move. What about an imbalance in
Speaking as a caller, a group of dancers who "dance with all kinds of
people in all parts of the room" will get to spend more minutes dancing
and will dance more interesting sequences, at least when I'm on stage.
Shorter lines, by encouraging the mixing-up of dancers around the room,
provide a better approximation of that ideal situation.
Speaking as a dancer, I like dancing more dances and more interesting dances.
(The repertoire that I call and dance in smaller midwestern communities is
much more sophisticated than what I dance at Glen Echo. While it's true
that these dances have a smaller percentage of beginners, they are also
*smaller*, which causes people to dance with most of the other dancers
instead of only 10% of the other dancers. So callers of barely adequate
skill can, in a multi-caller event no less, present dances that would be
considered hard at the larger dances out here.)
> I dance on the long lines because I prefer to dance on long lines. I
> prefer to dance with different people rather than a shorter line where I
> might encounter the same people several times.
Well, I agree. I think that the lines should be long enough that you
dance with every couple once, and only once, in a single-progression
sequence.
Unfortunately, lines at Glen Echo are MUCH longer than that. My rough
calculations suggest that they're 50% longer than they should be for
12-minute slots--with 240 dancers, and *four* lines, we have 30-couple
sets, but the optimum length is 20 couples or so. And note that we often
have three lines if the caller's asleep on the job, resulting in 40-couple
sets. (Alan, can you check my math here?)
I don't think either Alan or I want lines so short you'll meet the same
dancers more than once. We want lines long enough, and *only* long
enough, that the top couple will dance to the bottom and back to the top
in about 10 minutes of music. But that's a lot shorter than the lines you
Glen Echo dancers want to crowd into. <g>
> Perhaps there is some aspect of calling that I don't understand but I
> don't see why a caller should be spending much time trying to readjust the
> contra lines.
See above. Do you want to dance simple dances the whole night, or get to
do interesting ones as well? Do you want to be able to dance *all* the
good dances, including the unequal ones, or just some of them? Do you
want beginners to stay beginners for several weeks (if they bother to come
back at all) or to become dancers in a single evening? In extreme
conditions, do you want to be *injured* at the dance? (Two people fell
over last night, and on two previous occasions a dancer has been hit by
elbows when the sets were overcrowded.)
Do you want to dance in lines which are overcrowded at one end and empty
at the other? Do you want to meet with more people as you dance? That's
helped by any algorithm which mixes dancers--I tend to move from line to
line in sequence so I don't get stuck dancing with only half the dancers.
Do you want to *spend more time dancing*?
> I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to know if there is
> any real reason why I should be prefering shorter lines.
Well, there aren't necessarily ANY reasons *you* should *prefer* shorter
lines. I do, however, wonder why you (and/or dancers in general) prefer
lines that are *longer* than you can dance through in 12-minute slots.
Just because you cram more dancers into your lines doesn't mean you get to
dance with them, and calling equal dances doesn't change this.
But there are a variety of goals you might aspire to (like better dancing)
or consider desirable (like interesting sequences) which are facilitated
by shorter lines--not because shorter lines are themselves good (though
they do allow unequal dances to be enjoyed by everyone) but because they
facilitate dancing with all kinds of people in all parts of the room.
KMsSavage
Here's a way to get more, shorter lines:
--have the center sets move away from each other
--have the lines stretch down while the tops stay in place
--ask those who are getting scrunched at the bottoms to form a new set--in the
center!
It works for Glen Morningstar at Lovett Hall; it'll work for you.
--Karen in Ann Arbor
Ralph Barthine
On 18 Mar 1998, KMsSavage wrote:
> Here's a way to get more, shorter lines:
Hey, guys & gals- how about changing the header? This discussion has
gotten far, far away from flirting.
ralph
Ken Davis
I am choosing your posting to respond to, Kiran, but this response should
really be spread around several of the postings in this thread.
A lot of the problems of long sets that people have mentioned could be
eliminated if our venue (the Spanish Ballroom) would resume the practice
they instituted several years ago of putting a line of blue tape on the
floor near (but not at) the back of the room and requiring that no lines
extend beyond the tape line. Admittedly this was instituted because I
accidentally knocked someone over while swinging in a crowded line but
I've been in crowded long lines and crowded short lines (Lovely Lane in
Baltimore or Cambridge VFW).
As for variety of neighbors, It has been my experience that most dances at
Glen Echo last long enough for me to get from one end of the line to the
other. I assume that most callers will track a "marker couple" to decide
how long to run the dance. I suppose that if callers wanted shorter lines
they could just let the dances run for less time and see if that makes any
difference.
Also, when callers warn of an uneven dance, I'm usually among the first to
move to a shorter line.
With respect to challenging dances and new dancers... I think that longer
lines are better places for new dancers in challenging dances because they
have more time to get it right and because brief "rapids" in a contra line
are less frustrating to other dancers than a whole line with "rapids" all
the way. The limiting case are squares. One inexperienced couple can't
(easily) meltdown a contra line but they can meltdown a square.
Any this is the most responses I've ever gotten from a NG posting... this
is exciting. (I'm easily amused)
Most humbly
Ken
In article <entropy-1703...@max2p193.smart.net>, ent...@io.com
(Kiran Wagle) wrote:
--
Ken Davis
Before you call me selfish, why don't you explain to me how long lines
damage the happiness of other people. You completely ignore this question
in your posting. If you read my previous posting you will see that I'm
asking precisely this question. Absent any reason to think short lines
help other people and even assuming that many other people prefer long
lines since they, like me, are staying in them, I don't see how you can
claim I'm being selfish.
Perhaps you should consider being a little less self-righteous and doing a
little less name-calling.
If you think that this is the same logic... then you have very different
concepts of safety and fairness from me.
>
> All three of these examples demonstrate the fact that simply telling
> people to choose whatever they want can lead to a situation which is
> not beneficial to the majority. CIVIC MINDED people recognize that
> it is important to consider the welfare of the entire group, not just
> themselves. They are willing to behave unselfishly because they know
> that everyone in the group, themselves included, benefits from it in
> the long run.
>
You haven't made the case that I am being selfish. You haven't said how my
preference for longer lines damages "the welfare of the entire group". If
I believed that I was hurting the entire group... I wouldn't do this. That
was the point of my posting. I am really bothered that you make all sorts
of assumptions about my character.
> > Nancy, why does it matter to you how long the lines are?
> > If you warn people when you are calling an "uneven" dance, they will
> > probably adjust themselves accordingly, otherwise, why not let people
> > enjoy their long lines?
> >
> > I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to know if there is
> > any real reason why I should be prefering shorter lines.
>
> No, there is no reason you should prefer short lines. But the only way
> to *eliminate* short lines is to get people to move to them.
>
> BTW, speaking as a caller, it is extremely frustrating to stand on stage
> trying to persuade people nicely, even on those occasions when you get
> mad and want to yell at them. You CAN'T yell at them, because they will
> never forgive you for it.
>
> Peace,
> Ralph McAllister <sbun...@usit.clothes.net>
> ________________________________________
>
> Before sending a reply, remove clothes.
> ________________________________________
I welcome your response... as long as it's not insulting. - Ken
KMsSavage
Here's a way to get more, shorter lines:
--have the lines stretch down while the tops stay in place
--ask those who are getting scrunched at the bottoms to form a new set--in the
center!
It works for Glen Morningstar at Lovett Hall; it'll work for you.
--Karen in Ann Arbor
(reposted with topical header)
Jonathan Sivier
no_spam...@erols.com (Ken Davis) writes:
>As for variety of neighbors, It has been my experience that most dances at
>Glen Echo last long enough for me to get from one end of the line to the
>other. I assume that most callers will track a "marker couple" to decide
>how long to run the dance. I suppose that if callers wanted shorter lines
>they could just let the dances run for less time and see if that makes any
>difference.
One rule-of-thumb that many callers use for unequal dances is to call
the dance long enough for everyone in the shortest line to return to
orginal place. Obviously there are many exceptions to this, but in general
it works well and gives the dancers incentive to form equal length lines.
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier |Q: How many angels can dance on the |
| j-si...@uiuc.edu | head of a pin? |
| Flight Simulation Lab |A: It depends on what dance you call. |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Home page URL: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~j-sivier |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Mamlin
In article <no_spam_please-...@207-172-156-28.s69.as3.dam.erols.com>, no_spam...@erols.com (Ken Davis) wrote:
>A lot of the problems of long sets that people have mentioned could be
>eliminated if our venue (the Spanish Ballroom) would resume the practice
>they instituted several years ago of putting a line of blue tape on the
>floor near (but not at) the back of the room and requiring that no lines
>extend beyond the tape line.
I think this had to be dropped when the center of the floor started to cave
and it was more important not to have people dance in the center of the hall
than behind the blue line... But all this happened after I left. A few weeks
ago when I was there folks were pretty much staying out of the previous
"center line" space, but it wasn't being enforced.
>As for variety of neighbors, It has been my experience that most dances at
>Glen Echo last long enough for me to get from one end of the line to the
>other. I assume that most callers will track a "marker couple" to decide
>how long to run the dance. I suppose that if callers wanted shorter lines
>they could just let the dances run for less time and see if that makes any
>difference.
I stopped doing this a while ago. Now, after I've got the dance going I will
look at my watch and let the dance run about 5-6 minutes from that point. My
favorite callers do the same. If I did as you suggest at Glen Echo, even with
the shortest line (and I used to do this) then I would get much fewer dances
in during an evening.
>. The limiting case are squares. One inexperienced couple can't
>(easily) meltdown a contra line but they can meltdown a square.
I disagree. One new couple and three couples of contra dancesr can meltdown a
square, but I've seen seven new people and one experienced square dancer hold
it together. One new couple and three experienced square dancers shouldn't
have a problem.
Nancy Mamlin
In article <6ep39a$5hb$2...@lester.appstate.edu>, maml...@appstate.edu (Nancy Mamlin) wrote:
Go back and read it. I just forgot to sign it.
Nancy Mamlin
Nancy Mamlin
Alan Gedance <arge...@bcpl.net> wrote in article
<350e7fc...@news.abs.net>...
>
> 1. Most callers with any experience will not, under those
> circumstances, call any unequal dances because many couples will have
> little or no chance at dancing the active part.
Nope. I have been calling for eight to ten years now (depending on when you
think I started) and I feel perfectly free to call uneven dances. I
probably call no more than two in an evening. At my local dance there are
far too many dancers to have one couple travel all the way up and back,
even in the shortest set. The dancers, actives and inactives alike, don't
seem to mind the variety...
By large, I'm talking a regular attendance of 150-200. We're in a rural
area, too. And most of the dancers are under the age of 25.
Boy do I feel lucky to be here.
Nancy
Boone, NC.
AnneFay
>I disagree. One new couple and three couples of contra dancesr can meltdown a
>square, but I've seen seven new people and one experienced square dancer hold
>it together. One new couple and three experienced square dancers shouldn't
>have a problem.
Especially if the square dancer(s) know(s) where everyone ends up from a call
and is used to directing traffic... To anyone who is new, the key is to keep
moving and look for some one who looks like they want you... preferably in the
same square, of course....
Anne...
"If you ask me what I came into this world to do, I will tell you:
I came to live out loud" - Emile Zola
Mark Langner
> In article <no_spam_please-...@207-172-156-28.s69.as3.dam.erols.com>, no_spam...@erols.com (Ken Davis) wrote:
> >(easily) meltdown a contra line but they can meltdown a square.
>
>
> I disagree. One new couple and three couples of contra dancesr can meltdown a
> square, but I've seen seven new people and one experienced square dancer hold
> it together. One new couple and three experienced square dancers shouldn't
> have a problem.
When I saw Ken's post, I heard an ominous ticking sound (as in time
bomb).
I used to side with Ken, but continued observation has led me to the
notion that the cricital factor as to whether a square will melt down
with an inexperienced couple may actually be the CALLER, not the
experience level (or dance-political leanings) of the dancers. I've
seen a good square caller give just a little extra attention to a
walkthrough for a new couple and have a relatively complex square
succeed. I danced recently to a caller who did a sloppy walkthrough for
_experienced_ dancers, and had squares melting down all around (this
caller walked through the break twice, but gave different instructions
both times, then called it a THIRD way.).
OTOH, there are inexperienced dancers and there are inexeperienced
dancers... I know one couple who have been dancing contras *and* squares
regularly for 6 mos or more, and who STILL look like deer in the
headlights of an oncoming truck at the end of almost EVERY figure in
either (the medical term is Dancelexia) - and I have to admit that they
create more havoc in a square than in a contra...
My two cents for the day...
Mark Langner
Jonathan Sivier
Mark Langner <mlan...@iquest.com> writes:
>dancers... I know one couple who have been dancing contras *and* squares
>regularly for 6 mos or more, and who STILL look like deer in the
>headlights of an oncoming truck at the end of almost EVERY figure in
>either (the medical term is Dancelexia) - and I have to admit that they
>create more havoc in a square than in a contra...
It seems to me that this syndrome would be better named as dancelepsy.
These dancers always remind me of someone having a petit mal seizure.
Dancelexia might be better used to describe the inability to distinguish
right from left.
:-)
Les Francey
Nancy Mamlin <maml...@appstate.edu> wrote in article
<01bd52e3$c5f58e20$2c12...@mamlin.appstate.edu>...
>
> ...... I have been calling for eight to ten years now (depending on when
you
> think I started) and I feel perfectly free to call uneven dances. I
> probably call no more than two in an evening. At my local dance there are
> far too many dancers to have one couple travel all the way up and back,
> even in the shortest set. The dancers, actives and inactives alike, don't
> seem to mind the variety...
>
> By large, I'm talking a regular attendance of 150-200. We're in a rural
> area, too. And most of the dancers are under the age of 25.
>
> Boy do I feel lucky to be here.
>
And you should feel lucky to be there. I live in a city where the
regular attendance at our twice a month dance is 25 and all the dancers
are older than .....well, they are all about as old as me which is pretty
old. So we have one contra set of 10 - 12 or ( if we are lucky ) 3
squares. And if the caller and band are exciting, we might get everyone
staying until the end.
It doesn't really matter if the caller calls unequal or equal dances
as we all are going to get a chance to be an active couple and we all get
to dance with everyone else during the evening. But centre set syndrome is
a big thing here. No one has the guts to start a new shorter set on the
side.
What I really want to know is why a rural area gets 150 - 200 people
most of whom are young and my city gets only 25 people.
Les Francey