A simple pact of silence

One of my contra friends (I think Maia?) recently posted swearing a pact that they would do one very simple thing to do their part to increase the joy and understanding on their dance floors: Stop talking during walk-throughs.

I am a person who talks _incessantly_. I am also a pretty good teacher, and competent (sometimes extremely so!) at teaching most of the dance forms I find myself doing. However, I think that this suggestion is a damn good one, and I'm officially throwing in my lot. I, Katarina Whimsy, in pursuit of a Better Dance Floor and More Accessibility For Beginners do solemnly swear that I will shut my damn mouth when the caller or MC or teacher is talking through the dance the first time. Even if I think I can teach it better. Even if I think they're missing something important. Even if someone really charming is my partner and we're fourth couple and I'd rather be flirtingtalking to them than paying attention because I know I can pick it up once the music starts.

Should you catch me not, feel free to give me a pinch. And absolutely, I will continue to teach beginners as I dance with them, in the spaces between rounds of the dance, and fast gestures and frantic words called while we move. But while the Person In Charge is talking, I am going to _shut up_ and let them talk. They've got a plan going on here, let's let them actually do it.

So signed, so true.

My argument against 2-couple dances in 4-couple sets

I'm not sure I've ever written this post, and I just made reference in a bio that points at this blog, so here we go. If you don't dance Scottish Country Dance, this may not make the slightest bit of sense to you. That's okay.

I don't think two-couple dances should be danced in four-couple sets.

I wouldn't think of this as a particularly controversial statement to make, but I've gotten some very confused and blank looks when I've tried making this assertion. My reason is simple --I want to have as much dancing as possible. When you dance a two couple dance in a four couple set, at least traditionally, where only the 1s start as active, then the original 3s and 4s lose out on a round of dancing. I find that terrible.

(Don't believe me? The eight rounds of a two/four dance go like this, with italics meaning the couple is dancing and bold meaning they're active. Couples keep their original number throughout:

4321
4312
4132
1423
1243
2134
2314
3241

If you count it up, 1s dance six times (3 active), 2s six times (3 active), 3s five times (3 active) and 4s five times (2 active). 3s and 4s lose out on a round of dancing, with the 4s being deprived of one round as active.)

Luckily there are some very simple fixes to the problem, to ensure that everyone in the hall gets an equal amount of dancing (as it should be). My favourite is just encouraging the dance to be done in a three-couple sets instead, and the musicians play six times through.

You can also solve the problem by having the 1s and 3s start in the first round. I recognize that this is not the "proper" way to do things, but it makes it so everyone gets six rounds of dancing (and 3 rounds as the active couple). It may feel a little weird for the 3s, who spend one round active, then several rounds moving up the set before they are active again, but if contra dancers can manage that sort of weird reversal, us SCDers certainly can.

(When I'm being especially irreverent, I will also suggest the "solution" of having the musicians play the music nine times through instead of the typical eight, so that the 4s can finish their last round active. I suspect that this would lead to people tripping all over the dance floor in confusion, however, and would probably cause the 1s to start again, thereby not really solving the problem of inequitable dancing in the first place.)

So dear Scottish Dancers, here's my plea: I want to dance as much as possible. When I find myself as the third or fourth couple in a 2-couple dance, I know that I'm not going to get as much dancing as other people and I find that unfortunate. Please, encourage a dance floor where everyone gets in as much dancing as possible --stop regimenting your two-couple dances into strictly four-couple sets with only the ones active.

A quick aside to callers

Dear callers of the world, whatever your chosen dance form may be. I have a humble request.

Please, when trying to indicate that people dancing the same role should be facing each other, use just that terminology. Do not say "someone of the same gender". Do not say "someone who looks like you" (although that's at least good for a laugh). Say, if you must, "gents face gents, and ladies face ladies" but if you do, don't follow it with some sort of 'humorous' disclaimer aimed towards someone who appears to you to be dancing on the incorrect side of the floor --you do not know their motivations, and they may be in entirely the correct place.

Just say "face someone of the same role". It really is that simple. It gets the point across, and no one has to wince as you assume a gender for them. No one has to feel hurt or insulted that you called them a gentleman or a lady or called them out for being in the wrong place. No one has to gnash their terrible teeth and stay politely silent because it's just not worth it to speak up.

"Someone of the same role". It would make those of us who's dance-gender and real genders don't necessarily line up a whole lot happier.

Thanks
Katarina/Erik