Wow- when you look at al the Hatchlings have accomplished – it is very impressive. We have tried to make calling opportunities available for everyone to get their feet wet. Now it is time to raise the bar.
Childgrove will try to set aside one dance each month for the further development of the hatchlings. These can be used in any format that makes sense at that time. You can schedule the multi-caller format where everyone calls one or 2 dances and you program as a team – or we can use just 2 or 3 callers (who also need to coordinate their programs)
I have been asked (and reluctantly accepted) the responsibility of coordinating format and callers for each date. Do not approach Peggy about calling – she will simply set the dates and book the band – she will not book callers for these dances.
Hatchlings who have scheduled to call through Peggy from now to the end of June will stay on the schedule. All bookings beyond that are cancelled and will be handled in the new format.
Childgrove is committing 25% of the calling opportunities to the Hatchings. This is a bit of a risk. I am sure everyone will take this seriously and work to maintain the quality we are used to. Even with that – I am sure there is more demand than we can fill. I am not sure what we will work out to be fair to everyone. I expect I will make someone unhappy (remember – I didn’t ask for this job).
Now – about raising that bar…
By now everyone has had a chance to call several dances. No one is brand new and just needs some experience calling a dance. You should all be well beyond that first dance experience. Everyone should be aware of his or her strengths and weaknesses. Going forward I want all the callers to identify what they are trying to accomplish to improve. If you need suggestions you can talk to any of the more experienced local callers. I expect they would all be eager to help. That doesn’t just mean calling more dances than last time. Find specific things you need to do to challenge yourself and work on specific skills. It might mean just calling one dance that really needs your full attention.
Keep up the good work
Mac
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Calling Workshop with Nils Fredland
One of the ways to get to be good at something is to adopt the belief system of someone who's really good at it. Nils Fredland, who actually makes a living as a contra dance caller, an amazing fact in and of itself, knows that his continuing success relies heavily on his ability to quickly establish himself with a new crowd as someone likable and reliable. This gets easier, he admits, as word travels and he faces new crowds who expect in advance that they will like him and have a good dance experience. Nothing like crowd expectation to lay the groundwork for a good time.
But he also has certain principles that help create that expectation, and they really work for him. One is to be rested, calm and centered, and focus on patience, sensitivity and flexibility. If you are calm and centered, and patient with less-skilled dancers, people feel that they can trust you, and listen to what you say. If you are sensitive to what it feels like to be in that "everything's new and there's too much to remember" stage, you will explain more clearly and gently, and people will learn. And if you are flexible (and don't take yourself too seriously) all sorts of good things can happen.
Other people in the workshop augmented what he said as well. Nils talked about the importance of trying to reconstruct dances in your head after you've danced one you like. Even if you don't get it all, if you get the part that made the dance fun, you may be able to fill in the rest (the glossary moves) and it will help you memorize new dances. Then Peter Yronwode told us that he and his wife (Paula Farling) often reconstruct from memory the entire dance they've just attended on the way home. Wow.
I also like something Jerome Grisanti said about what to do when the crowd just keeps chattering when you're trying to get the dance started - he said it's important to frame all that talking as "They're having a good time socializing," rather than "They're not paying any attention." You still need to get folks paying attention, but you'll do it with a good attitude rather than petulance, which never works.
We talked about voice production - that ability to get the folks in the last part of the hall hearing you. And we talked about speaking "interestingly" - which also involves having good vocal production. Nils said we should use "our own voice", which I didn't quite understand. That's great for someone like him who could probably make a good living doing those deep voices in documentaries, but I figure the rest of us probably need to figure out how to improve the voices we have. He did recommended doing some vocal exercises before one of our Calling Parties (which I interpret as saying "Ha Ha Ha, Ho Ho Ho" from the diaphragm in various interesting rhythms, possibly to really good music) and see if it improves people's delivery.
There was much more in the workshop, but this is the part I remember best. Perhaps someone else who was there will fill in some of the rest.
M
E
But he also has certain principles that help create that expectation, and they really work for him. One is to be rested, calm and centered, and focus on patience, sensitivity and flexibility. If you are calm and centered, and patient with less-skilled dancers, people feel that they can trust you, and listen to what you say. If you are sensitive to what it feels like to be in that "everything's new and there's too much to remember" stage, you will explain more clearly and gently, and people will learn. And if you are flexible (and don't take yourself too seriously) all sorts of good things can happen.
Other people in the workshop augmented what he said as well. Nils talked about the importance of trying to reconstruct dances in your head after you've danced one you like. Even if you don't get it all, if you get the part that made the dance fun, you may be able to fill in the rest (the glossary moves) and it will help you memorize new dances. Then Peter Yronwode told us that he and his wife (Paula Farling) often reconstruct from memory the entire dance they've just attended on the way home. Wow.
I also like something Jerome Grisanti said about what to do when the crowd just keeps chattering when you're trying to get the dance started - he said it's important to frame all that talking as "They're having a good time socializing," rather than "They're not paying any attention." You still need to get folks paying attention, but you'll do it with a good attitude rather than petulance, which never works.
We talked about voice production - that ability to get the folks in the last part of the hall hearing you. And we talked about speaking "interestingly" - which also involves having good vocal production. Nils said we should use "our own voice", which I didn't quite understand. That's great for someone like him who could probably make a good living doing those deep voices in documentaries, but I figure the rest of us probably need to figure out how to improve the voices we have. He did recommended doing some vocal exercises before one of our Calling Parties (which I interpret as saying "Ha Ha Ha, Ho Ho Ho" from the diaphragm in various interesting rhythms, possibly to really good music) and see if it improves people's delivery.
There was much more in the workshop, but this is the part I remember best. Perhaps someone else who was there will fill in some of the rest.
M
E
Friday, March 20, 2009
English Dance March 20
Two Hatchlings (okay, one newish caller, and one of our folks who has been flying for years) called the second evening in the new Webster Groves English Country Dancers series of dances, and were wonderful, if I do say so myself.
Chrystal started off the evening with four dances, one of which she choreographed.
Then, our beloved mentor, Dr. John Ramsay, called four dances by Loretta Holtz, all written in the last few years. Missy ended the evening with four wonderful favorites. I loved Missy's programming of the end - instead of the usual romp to a wow finish, the romp (Lover's Knot by Jim Kitch to Black and Grey) was the second to last dance, and we ended peacefully with the lovely Elizabeth by Colin Hume. We played Dave Wiesler's gorgeous Saturday Morning Waltz (to which we had danced The Molly Andrew last month) to end the evening.
This month, a respectable forty-five dancers showed up at the dance, and again, danced beautifully. We didn't quite break even - two more dancers would have done it - but Kent said he loved the dance, and he dances on the East coast all the time, so I put this one in the success column.
We (the band) tried to develop a new habit - of playing the next tune while the dancers are lining up, to give them something to help them make sense of the dance instructions. It's hard - we're not used to playing immediately after a dance ends, so there was much scrambling to get our heads in the right place (and the music open) to play the next tune. It's going to take some getting used to for the callers, also, but we think it's probably the right thing to do. I'm hoping the callers get accustomed to it, and begin to ask for it if we forget. So far, however, they forget, and we just barely remember. But I think we managed it 80-90% of the time tonight. It feels funny so far, but I think when we get smooother at it, it will really add to the experience. Next we'll add the rolling start, which isn't as hard as people make it out to be, but you do have to be ready and alert. Doing both the preview and the rolling start doesn't give the band as much down time as we're used to, but hey, you aren't paying us the big bucks for nothing.
M
E
Chrystal started off the evening with four dances, one of which she choreographed.
Then, our beloved mentor, Dr. John Ramsay, called four dances by Loretta Holtz, all written in the last few years. Missy ended the evening with four wonderful favorites. I loved Missy's programming of the end - instead of the usual romp to a wow finish, the romp (Lover's Knot by Jim Kitch to Black and Grey) was the second to last dance, and we ended peacefully with the lovely Elizabeth by Colin Hume. We played Dave Wiesler's gorgeous Saturday Morning Waltz (to which we had danced The Molly Andrew last month) to end the evening.
This month, a respectable forty-five dancers showed up at the dance, and again, danced beautifully. We didn't quite break even - two more dancers would have done it - but Kent said he loved the dance, and he dances on the East coast all the time, so I put this one in the success column.
We (the band) tried to develop a new habit - of playing the next tune while the dancers are lining up, to give them something to help them make sense of the dance instructions. It's hard - we're not used to playing immediately after a dance ends, so there was much scrambling to get our heads in the right place (and the music open) to play the next tune. It's going to take some getting used to for the callers, also, but we think it's probably the right thing to do. I'm hoping the callers get accustomed to it, and begin to ask for it if we forget. So far, however, they forget, and we just barely remember. But I think we managed it 80-90% of the time tonight. It feels funny so far, but I think when we get smooother at it, it will really add to the experience. Next we'll add the rolling start, which isn't as hard as people make it out to be, but you do have to be ready and alert. Doing both the preview and the rolling start doesn't give the band as much down time as we're used to, but hey, you aren't paying us the big bucks for nothing.
M
E
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Calling without a card
I mentioned in my facebook status that I had called a dance without a card. Of course I didn't explain that it was 'cause I forgot to bring my cards to the Hatchling party (oops).
Jerome responded via email with a message I think may be of general interest so with his permission, I'm posting it here:
Dale,
Congratulations!
Is calling without a card a movement among the hatchlings? If so, I welcome it. I believe it's a natural progression for a caller to begin setting aside the cards after having called for a year or two. (OK, it's unnatural for some, but with effort it can be done).
Two things that got me thinking this way:
1. Prior to attending Dance Callers Week at the John C. Campbell Folk School (Brasstown NC) with Bob Dalsemer, we filled in a questionaire about our goals and such. One of the questions was: You've arrived at a gig and realize that you've forgotten your cards. Which dances do you know well enough to call without cards? I came up with about six at the time, but now that I'm concentrating on memorizing sequences I've got dozens of contras and squares memorized. (It's great fun at parties as well as at dances to reach into my metaphorical back pocket for something I haven't done in a while).
2. Reading the book Calling New England Squares by Tom Hinds. Tom recommends to memorize every square as you prepare to call it: memorize the prompts and where they go, memorize where the dancers are at any stage of the dance. Squares in particular are horrible if the caller has his/her face in a card, because so much is about timing calls just as the dancers are almost finished with the prior move.
I have called entire dances using the cards only to keep track of which dance I had planned to dance next, but not to teach from or prompt with.
Not every caller can memorize easily, but the skill of visualizing entire sequences is important for callers to develop, and memorizing is certainly one way to develop that skill. If I had a good place to practice, I'd like to start developing my "hash-calling" skills (as in Modern Western Square Dancing), i.e. using modules (memorized sequences) connected by sections of improvization, and then resolving from certain formations using modules. I do it in the car while listening to contra music, but not at dances.
You're welcome to share these ideas on the Hatchlings blog if appropriate.
--Jerome
Jerome responded via email with a message I think may be of general interest so with his permission, I'm posting it here:
Dale,
Congratulations!
Is calling without a card a movement among the hatchlings? If so, I welcome it. I believe it's a natural progression for a caller to begin setting aside the cards after having called for a year or two. (OK, it's unnatural for some, but with effort it can be done).
Two things that got me thinking this way:
1. Prior to attending Dance Callers Week at the John C. Campbell Folk School (Brasstown NC) with Bob Dalsemer, we filled in a questionaire about our goals and such. One of the questions was: You've arrived at a gig and realize that you've forgotten your cards. Which dances do you know well enough to call without cards? I came up with about six at the time, but now that I'm concentrating on memorizing sequences I've got dozens of contras and squares memorized. (It's great fun at parties as well as at dances to reach into my metaphorical back pocket for something I haven't done in a while).
2. Reading the book Calling New England Squares by Tom Hinds. Tom recommends to memorize every square as you prepare to call it: memorize the prompts and where they go, memorize where the dancers are at any stage of the dance. Squares in particular are horrible if the caller has his/her face in a card, because so much is about timing calls just as the dancers are almost finished with the prior move.
I have called entire dances using the cards only to keep track of which dance I had planned to dance next, but not to teach from or prompt with.
Not every caller can memorize easily, but the skill of visualizing entire sequences is important for callers to develop, and memorizing is certainly one way to develop that skill. If I had a good place to practice, I'd like to start developing my "hash-calling" skills (as in Modern Western Square Dancing), i.e. using modules (memorized sequences) connected by sections of improvization, and then resolving from certain formations using modules. I do it in the car while listening to contra music, but not at dances.
You're welcome to share these ideas on the Hatchlings blog if appropriate.
--Jerome
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Congratulations to Wade
Congratulations go to Wade for calling his first whole dance at Childgrove! It was a wonderful dance, with interesting dances, and very well called. He has now graduated from "Fledgling" to "Caller" and earned his golden megaphone.
Dangerous Dancing - One Line or Two?
We've had a passionate conversation going on at Childgrove Discussions, our local contra dance online discussion group, on the subject of Dangerous Dancing. The initial post suggested that when callers suggested making one long line instead of two shorter ones, the dancing was more dangerous. We have had several foot stompings lately, and it does seem as if crowding could be contributory.
I myself took a fall last night, and, though I haven't seen the video yet, I'm pretty sure it was a crowding issue, since the move we were doing was not complicated (a circle left, I think). But the hall we were in, down at the wonderful Cape Girardeau Chance Dance, had a most strange effect on dancers. The right line (stage right, house left) tended to drift to the bottom of the hall, while the left line (stage left, house right) tended to drift to the top of the hall. I was in the left line, about second couple from the top when someone's right foot was to the right of my left foot, and down I went. This can only have happened because we were packed too closely together.
Earlier in the evening, we were in two lines and the caller suggested that the dance (a double-progression dance) would be better if we were in one line. Okay. What I noticed was that one of the moves, a diagonal ladies' chain, I think, happened not so much on a right diagonal as on slight, very slight, veering to the right (see the diagram). The dance, in other words, needed a lot of room, so we took it across the set since we didn't have the room up and down the set. The sets ended up about ten feet apart. It was fun, and those who felt that it was right to put two shorter lines together could feel they made the right choice (especially given that it was a double-progression dance). On the other hand, those who wanted two lines could also feel vindicated, given that it was often difficult to dance through the other line, as the movements would get slowed down as they had to plow through traffic.
I myself am on the verge of making a strange proposition, one I would not have imagined possible - that the caller NOT make one line when the dancers have made two. There may be wisdom in the unconscious choices that the dancers make.
At the same time, we callers need to find a way to suggest to the dancers that they remain aware of the dancers around them, indeed, the whole line of dancers, and know what the optimum distance between the dancers should be. It is possible for a single person to fix a line that has drifted up or down, just by insisting on being in the place where that set would be if it were spaced out correctly, forcing the dancers above and below them to chose a better spot to dance in. Imagine if each dancer did the same thing, and automatically adjusted the space so that the dance came out just right.
I myself took a fall last night, and, though I haven't seen the video yet, I'm pretty sure it was a crowding issue, since the move we were doing was not complicated (a circle left, I think). But the hall we were in, down at the wonderful Cape Girardeau Chance Dance, had a most strange effect on dancers. The right line (stage right, house left) tended to drift to the bottom of the hall, while the left line (stage left, house right) tended to drift to the top of the hall. I was in the left line, about second couple from the top when someone's right foot was to the right of my left foot, and down I went. This can only have happened because we were packed too closely together.
Earlier in the evening, we were in two lines and the caller suggested that the dance (a double-progression dance) would be better if we were in one line. Okay. What I noticed was that one of the moves, a diagonal ladies' chain, I think, happened not so much on a right diagonal as on slight, very slight, veering to the right (see the diagram). The dance, in other words, needed a lot of room, so we took it across the set since we didn't have the room up and down the set. The sets ended up about ten feet apart. It was fun, and those who felt that it was right to put two shorter lines together could feel they made the right choice (especially given that it was a double-progression dance). On the other hand, those who wanted two lines could also feel vindicated, given that it was often difficult to dance through the other line, as the movements would get slowed down as they had to plow through traffic.I myself am on the verge of making a strange proposition, one I would not have imagined possible - that the caller NOT make one line when the dancers have made two. There may be wisdom in the unconscious choices that the dancers make.
At the same time, we callers need to find a way to suggest to the dancers that they remain aware of the dancers around them, indeed, the whole line of dancers, and know what the optimum distance between the dancers should be. It is possible for a single person to fix a line that has drifted up or down, just by insisting on being in the place where that set would be if it were spaced out correctly, forcing the dancers above and below them to chose a better spot to dance in. Imagine if each dancer did the same thing, and automatically adjusted the space so that the dance came out just right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)