Thank you Chris for your thoughtful remarks.

Chris wrote:
>This is a big subject. There is a lot we can talk about and debate. 
>It is indeed easier to call for an experienced crowd than it is for 
>newer dancers and when you're working with a mixed crowd, it is 
>easier when they truly mix instead of "clumping" beginners to 
>beginners and experienced to experienced dancers.

This discussion could be very helpful.  At the heart of any "debate" 
is the question of what a contra dance caller is, in fact, 
doing.  (We don't talk about that much on this list.  It is a subject 
with widely varying views.)  My own view is that "working with a 
mixed crowd" is at the heart of contra dance calling.  In a tradition 
based upon open public dances without separate classes, calling 
contra dances is, primarily, an exercise in integrating 
newcomers.  This is precisely how the tradition will survive.  It is also fun.

Chris also wrote:
>I would challenge the thought that there is much that the caller can 
>do besides gently encouraging the dancers to mix.

I agree with this statement.  The question lies in how you define 
"gentle encouragement."  This phrase might be a suitable definition 
of good contra dance calling.  As such it would include much more 
than explicit instructions to the dancers.  It would include, for 
example, how the caller comports herself on stage.  How the caller 
sets an example of graciousness, community spirit, and 
goodwill.  And, most important, how the caller actively takes 
responsibility for everything that happens in the hall.

It might also include factors like programming decisions, how the 
caller phrases instructions, and giving out programming information 
in advance so that the regulars feel included and empowered to help.

Here is a specific example:  If the caller begins the evening with a 
series of short dance slots--with quick walk-throughs and lots of 
neighbor interaction (swings)--this will have the effect of lowering 
what I call "partnering pressure." (This is the feeling that one must 
find a "good" partner for the next dance or must find a partner 
quickly to position himself or herself favorably in the hall.)  When 
the caller offers lots of short dance slots with neighbor swings the 
dancers quickly get the sense that there will be lots of partnering 
opportunities during the evening and that getting "stuck" with a 
"poor" partner for 20 minutes is not an issue.  This is a way of 
"gently encouraging" regular dancers to be more generous in their 
partnering decisions since it is only a 10 minute commitment and they 
will be swinging with lots of other people during that slot.

This is subtle stuff.  Few dancers will be aware of the 
difference.  The caller says nothing about this tactic.  It will not 
"solve" the problem.  But combined with many other tactics of "gentle 
encouragement" it can change the entire mood of the hall.  In my 
calling workshop I have a list of over 100 such tactics of "gentle 
encouragement" that callers can use to help generate a spirit of 
community and gracious regard for others.  None of them are 
heavy-handed and few dancers, or even callers, will notice.  In my 
experience the vast majority of regular dancers would prefer that 
callers use these tactics.  Most of them would be considered, simply; 
"good contra dance calling."

Yes.  The regulars at a dance have a great influence.  But only the 
caller has a microphone and is on stage where they can be seen by 
everyone.  They have a commanding view of the action and can control 
more subtle factors than any other individual.  If the caller does 
not take responsibility for what happens in the hall, why should anyone else?

Just a thought,
Greg McKenzie

***************

Chris also wrote:
>In my mind, this is the responsibility of the organizers and the 
>core group of regulars who come to the dance series. They do much 
>more to decide how welcoming and successful they are in integrating 
>newer dancers into the community. If they're not being aware and 
>saying to their friend "Hey, that new couple is dancing with each 
>other, let's see if we can break them up." Or "Sally, this is Bob. 
>Bob, Sally is new tonight and needs a good dance partner and I 
>thought of you, would you dance with her?" All callers can do is 
>offer encouragement to do this sort of thing. The organizers and 
>core group of experienced dancers can set the example for others to 
>emulate. I disagree that if the dancers are failing to integrate the 
>newer dancers that this is a failing of the caller.
>
>In my experience, the dancers are attending the dance with a certain 
>expectation of how the evening is going to be. They expect the 
>caller to be competent, concise and encouraging. They have a certain 
>amount of trust and patience that if the caller does something 
>outside of their expectations or new it will be fun or they will 
>learn something. The more the caller wastes their time with 
>manipulation and over-teaching, the less patience they have with it. 
>If you're not careful, you loose their trust completely and don't 
>get asked to return. More than one or two walkthroughs, manipulating 
>the sets by moving dancers around, reminders from the mic to dance 
>with new people are fine if used sparingly. If used too much will 
>become preachy and lecturing.
>
>Some of the comments that I will use early in the evening, maybe one 
>every other dance or one per dance if the dancers are not 
>responding. I don't repeat them if I can help it:
>
>"Find someone who was sitting out to dance with for this next dance"
>"Find someone to dance with you've never danced with before"
>"If you're new tonight, dance with experienced dancers, and you'll 
>learn quickly"
>"Thank your partner, thank the band and find someone new to dance with"
>
>or if I'm really desperate:
>"Who here has been dancing a while and is comfortable dancing with 
>someone who is new to dancing? Keep your hands up. If you're new and 
>want some help, go ask one of these people to dance."
>
>I will use mixers in a dance because I feel that they have value in 
>themselves. It allows the experienced dancers to come in contact 
>with as many new people as possible. It's a great lesson for the new 
>dancers in how different each person's dance style is and how to 
>dance with them. It's also one of the best swing tutorials that I 
>know for beginners who are only dancing with their friends who are 
>also new. I also think that it's a great way of opening people's 
>eyes to people they might not have chosen to dance with before. It's 
>a great way to build community. If I am dancing and ask a beginner 
>to dance and it turns out to be a mixer, then I will ask them to 
>dance the next one. Then they get the experience of the mixer and 
>still get the benefit of dancing with me.
>
>My perspective is that the more the caller says from the microphone, 
>beyond the minimum needed to lead the dancing, intrudes on the 
>dancer's enjoyment of the music, the dance and their friend's 
>company. The more time spent teaching or lecturing or manipulating 
>is less time talking to friends and dancing to music. I have had 
>people tell me that what they enjoy most in a caller is how 
>invisible they can be. If all they notice is the fun of dancing and 
>the great music, then the caller is doing their job right.
>
>my 2 cents
>
>Chris Weiler
>Goffstown, NH
>
>
>Greg McKenzie wrote:
>>
>>Integrating newcomers into the dance community is a core skill for 
>>contra dance callers.  It is a key metric I use to judge the skill 
>>of a caller because it is one of the most difficult tasks.
>>
>>Personally, I love dancing with newcomers and put significant 
>>personal energy into partnering with them, particularly in the 
>>early part of the evening.  When addressing the issue of 
>>integration please consider how your tactics will affect dancers 
>>who take the initiative to integrate themselves.  Mixers, for 
>>example, will thwart my efforts because I will lose the newcomer I 
>>have put effort into partnering with.  Some of the more 
>>heavy-handed tactics mentioned here can have a similar 
>>effect.  They can also send the implicit message that the caller 
>>feels that some experienced dancers are behaving poorly by not 
>>mixing in with newcomers.
>>
>>A better strategy is to assume that all of the experienced dancers 
>>will support your efforts to integrate newcomers and simply assume 
>>that all newcomers will be matched up with people who have danced 
>>at least one night of contras.  The result of this assumption is 
>>that you can eliminate much of the instruction a less experienced 
>>caller will tend to use when confronted by a large percentage of newcomers.
>>
>>My experience is that when the experienced dancers fail to seek out 
>>and partner with newcomers it is a sign of poor calling, either by 
>>the current caller or by regular callers at the series.  It is the 
>>caller's job to make sure that everyone in the hall has a good time 
>>regardless of what the dancer's skill level is, with whom they are 
>>dancing, or where they are located in the hall.  If the caller is 
>>successful in doing this job, almost all of the experienced dancers 
>>will quickly learn that dancing with newcomers is as much fun as 
>>dancing with other experienced dancers.
>>
>>This is a big subject area.  There are many subtle tactics and 
>>skills that callers can and must use to accomplish good 
>>integration.  The key is to bring all of your calling skills to the 
>>task.  Calling for a hall of experienced dancers is an easy gig.  A 
>>mixed hall is much more demanding of your knowledge and skill.
>>
>>
>>Just a thought,
>>
>>Greg McKenzie
>>
>>********
>>
>>At 01:01 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote:
>>>  In a small dance I called recently, an enthusiastic but 
>>> inexperienced group of young people almost always lined up in a 
>>> foursome together.  There it worked to walk the contra dances 
>>> through twice, then start the dance from the progressed positions 
>>> where the foursome was not with each other.  Some communities 
>>> wouldn't like this, but there I think everyone was also happy 
>>> with the suggestion they take whoever they ended up with after a 
>>> mixer for the next dance; also, they were happy with a few mixers 
>>> in various formations.
>>>
>>>  Another idea I often use when I teach the workshop is to make 
>>> the last dance they learn in the workshop the first dance of the 
>>> evening, often Becky Hill's Simplicity Swing or a variation of it 
>>> with a hey at the end instead of a star and do-si-do.  (Is there 
>>> a name and author for that dance?  Surely I didn't make that one 
>>> up?)  That way, the new dancers who attended the workshop already 
>>> know the dance and it's the experienced dancers who need the walkthrough.
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerome Grisanti" 
>>><jerome.grisanti at gmail.com>
>>>To: <callers at sharedweight.net>
>>>Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 1:25 PM
>>>Subject: [Callers] Spreading out the "Inexperience"
>>>
>>>
>>>>I recently had the following exchange on a different list with Michael
>>>>Shapiro (guitarist with U4):
>>>>
>>>>Michael wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>U4 just played the SwingShift weekend in Lexington/Berea. The caller was
>>>>Barbara Groh. She did something that I think most callers should do, but I
>>>>haven't seen before. After the sets were formed and people had 
>>>>done the hand
>>>>four, she then broke up the beginners sets that had formed at the 
>>>>end of the
>>>>lines. She asked then to move forward and intersperse themselves with the
>>>>more advanced dancers (so that they were more toward the beggining of the
>>>>line and the foursomes were not all beginners).
>>>>
>>>>She was also good at letting the music be heard ...
>>>>
>>>>I wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Regarding the caller asking sets to reform in order to spread the less
>>>>experienced dancers throughout the hall, much tact is required. Generally,
>>>>callers strive to avoid calling attention to particular dancers other than
>>>>when asking people to watch a demonstration, but asking people to change
>>>>sets can have the effect of making them feel like there is attention on
>>>>them. In addition, newish dancers want to dance with people they know, even
>>>>if those friends may also be newish dancers.
>>>>
>>>>>>Speaking to the entire crowd, I do encourage experienced dancers to share
>>>>their experience by asking someone they've never met to dance at least once
>>>>in the evening, and praise the community for being so welcoming to newcomer
>>>>dancers. So while I might be thinking "let's break up this clump of
>>>>confusion," it would not be good to say something that draws attention to
>>>>"you people right here."
>>>>
>>>>>>I have asked, off mic, for a set of experienced dancers to offer to
>>>>repartner with a set of inexperienced dancers down the line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To this list, I ask:
>>>>
>>>>I'd be interested in the wording that Barbara Groh used (which I'm assuming
>>>>was quite gentle). I'm also guessing other callers on this list have
>>>>developed tactful ways to address this issue.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Jerome
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Jerome Grisanti
>>>>660-528-0858
>>>>http://www.jeromegrisanti.com
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Callers mailing list
>>>>Callers at sharedweight.net
>>>>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Callers mailing list
>>>Callers at sharedweight.net
>>>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Callers mailing list
>>Callers at sharedweight.net
>>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>_______________________________________________
>Callers mailing list
>Callers at sharedweight.net
>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers