Thanks to my eyes on the ground at the Tech Squares 2013 challenge weekend, I got to hear about some cool specialty tips that were called. The same caller who came up with the Pavlovian tip shared several new ideas in sequences or tips, one of which I wanted to write about here.
This idea was a new metaconcept that took as arguments a <concept> and a <call> and said to do the call, do the call with the concept applied, and then do the call again. It was described to me as "kind of a play on echo." I agreed and thought it was so nicely symmetric that there had to be a nice existing way to define it succinctly. After a bunch of half-baked attempts (including one vastly more complicated but I believe still correct*), I came up with: echo [like a] [echo <concept> <call>].
(Note - very different from: echo [like a echo <concept>] <call>, if that's even legal syntax, which would just be: twice <call>. I'd probably want to pronounce that one "echo like an echo..." and the fact that this confusion is possible means I don't want to say "like an" for the correct parse.)
Let's go through the parsing of this definition.
echo [like a] [foo] means do the last part of foo, then do foo.
echo <concept> <call> means do <call> with <concept> applied, then do <call>
So expanding our "foo", echo [like a] [echo <concept> <call>] means do the last part of echo <concept> <call>, then do echo <concept> <call>.
And simplifying this: do <call>, then do <call> with <concept> applied and then do <call>, which is just what we wanted.
This does not, however, preserve the three-part structure of the original metaconcept... it instead has two parts, the second of which has two parts (how everyone wishes they could do swing and mix, right?). I thought of an alternative definition that DOES preserve the three parts: sandwich [twice <call>] around <concept> <call>. However I still find this a wordier definition because it includes <call> two times, and it uses "twice" which is a bit silly.
*reverse echo [like a reverse order] [reverse echo <concept> <call>] ... maybe?
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Tidbits from dances #1
Yesterday night Midnight Squares had Richard Tuck call C3A. It was a great, pretty fast pace and seemed to be about the right level for the floor, where we mostly got stuff but sometimes went over sequences.
One call that stuck out was, from a quarter tag with the centers in a wave: initially concentric relay the shadow. We ends just kind of stood there until someone had the presence of mind to give some brief directions ("step to a wave around the outside" or something like that). Very cool application of concentric!
One call that stuck out was, from a quarter tag with the centers in a wave: initially concentric relay the shadow. We ends just kind of stood there until someone had the presence of mind to give some brief directions ("step to a wave around the outside" or something like that). Very cool application of concentric!
Distortion and naming: a brief complaint
Sometimes - and perhaps more often than I'd like - I'll make a mistake and still be really sure I'm correct. Sometimes I'll even insist on this dancing this mistake the second time around! One of these instances happened the other day when we were in an O with ends facing centers and the call was percolate. I'm used to doing percolate from an eight chain, but I (and probably most dancers) am more familiar and comfortable with doing it from generalized lines. And so, in my end position of the O, I went ahead and tried to do a big block percolate instead of an O percolate. I was so confused when no one else seemed to be going as far as I was, as I thought I had to get all the way to the other end of the O! After two attempts, someone said something about columns, and I realized what I was doing.
Isn't it odd that (at C3A anyway) we have three names for distorted column-like setups and only one for line-like setups when 1) we condense the setup into one term (i.e. not counting "{disconnected, distorted, offset, magic} {lines, columns}")? Stagger, butterfly, and O all mean columns, while only big block means lines. Does this continue to be true at higher levels or does it even out? I'd prefer some other syntax, like "(in your) {staggered, butterfly, O} {columns, lines}" (and getting rid of the term "big block" altogether). Parallelogram and (at C3B) trapezoid seem to be in a class of their own, because they by themselves can refer to either columns or lines but the setups are not ambiguous between them.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Unusual applications: hop
I find that one of the best ways to learn a call well is to dig into unusual applications. Perhaps surprisingly I don't say this because it allows you to encounter those applications before they are called (which would typically give you an edge), but because it makes you focus so much on the call that it drills it into your head. After writing this entry, I'll probably never forget hop again!
For reference, the definition of "<anyone> hop" from Callerlab is "Starting formation - Any applicable non T-Bone 2 x 2 (usually Facing Couples). Designated dancers Walk as others Dodge; all Hinge. Ends in a Wave or Inverted Line. Anyone Hop is a 2-part call."
Basic C3A familiarizes us with the two most standard applications of hop: from facing couples and from a miniwave box. (The latter already feels "less standard" to me, maybe because of the partner hinge, maybe because the leaders can't see what's going on.)
When introducing variations, first I thought about whether more or fewer than two of the four people could be asked to hop, i.e. "everyone hop" or "no one hop". It wouldn't make sense for a leader to be told to hop, so "everyone hop" can only be done from facing couples (pass thru and hinge), but "no one hop" can be done from any box (half sashay and hinge). The flow may be terrible, but on Phantom Columnist we mostly care about legality!
Finally I came to the weirdest variation I could think of that was still symmetric: from facing couples, having one side of the box hop. This seems questionable because it will cause collisions and they must be resolved partway through the call (but we do that with other calls, e.g. many varieties of tally ho). If heads are facing sides and "heads hop" is called, the sides will half sashay and collide to right hands with the new head they are facing, on their original plane. The fact that this puts all four dancers in the spots of two dancers originally means many cases will get some offset. In particular, from lines facing the walk and dodge + collision will put dancers in a 100% offset parallelogram and then the hinge will put them in clumps.
3B> 4G<
1G> 2B<
4B> 3G<
2G> 1B<
heads hop
. . 2B^ 3BV
. . 4G^ 1GV
3G^ 2GV . .
1B^ 4BV . .
From an eight chain thru, if the ends are told to hop, the call ends in nice parallel waves instead of the tidal wave that would result from the typical application of hop! I would then expect centers hop from an eight chain to end with the real dancers in outside phantom boxes.
3GV 4BV
3B^ 4G^
2GV 1BV
2B^ 1G^
And what about, from lines facing, "ends hop"? The centers would slide over to the end spots and the ends would pass thru, each colliding with a center and taking right hands. Then all would hinge to end in outside phantom lines. Meanwhile if it were "centers hop," the collision (and hinge) would put everyone in normal waves.
4BV 3BV 3GV 4GV
2G^ 1G^ 1B^ 2B^
Coming to a caller near you? Probably not, but it's fun to explore weird behavior of even simple calls.
For reference, the definition of "<anyone> hop" from Callerlab is "Starting formation - Any applicable non T-Bone 2 x 2 (usually Facing Couples). Designated dancers Walk as others Dodge; all Hinge. Ends in a Wave or Inverted Line. Anyone Hop is a 2-part call."
Basic C3A familiarizes us with the two most standard applications of hop: from facing couples and from a miniwave box. (The latter already feels "less standard" to me, maybe because of the partner hinge, maybe because the leaders can't see what's going on.)
When introducing variations, first I thought about whether more or fewer than two of the four people could be asked to hop, i.e. "everyone hop" or "no one hop". It wouldn't make sense for a leader to be told to hop, so "everyone hop" can only be done from facing couples (pass thru and hinge), but "no one hop" can be done from any box (half sashay and hinge). The flow may be terrible, but on Phantom Columnist we mostly care about legality!
Finally I came to the weirdest variation I could think of that was still symmetric: from facing couples, having one side of the box hop. This seems questionable because it will cause collisions and they must be resolved partway through the call (but we do that with other calls, e.g. many varieties of tally ho). If heads are facing sides and "heads hop" is called, the sides will half sashay and collide to right hands with the new head they are facing, on their original plane. The fact that this puts all four dancers in the spots of two dancers originally means many cases will get some offset. In particular, from lines facing the walk and dodge + collision will put dancers in a 100% offset parallelogram and then the hinge will put them in clumps.
3B> 4G<
1G> 2B<
4B> 3G<
2G> 1B<
heads hop
. . 2B^ 3BV
. . 4G^ 1GV
3G^ 2GV . .
1B^ 4BV . .
From an eight chain thru, if the ends are told to hop, the call ends in nice parallel waves instead of the tidal wave that would result from the typical application of hop! I would then expect centers hop from an eight chain to end with the real dancers in outside phantom boxes.
3GV 4BV
3B^ 4G^
2GV 1BV
2B^ 1G^
| ends hop | centers hop |
| 4G> 3B> 3G< 4B< 2B> 1G> 1B< 2G< | 3B> 4G> 4B< 3G< . . . . . . . . 1G> 2B> 2G< 1B< |
And what about, from lines facing, "ends hop"? The centers would slide over to the end spots and the ends would pass thru, each colliding with a center and taking right hands. Then all would hinge to end in outside phantom lines. Meanwhile if it were "centers hop," the collision (and hinge) would put everyone in normal waves.
4BV 3BV 3GV 4GV
2G^ 1G^ 1B^ 2B^
| ends hop | centers hop |
| 2G> . . 2B> 3B< . . 3G< 1G> . . 1B> 4B< . . 4G< | 1G> 1B> 4B< 4G< 2G> 2B> 3B< 3G< |
Coming to a caller near you? Probably not, but it's fun to explore weird behavior of even simple calls.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
In your blocks, tie
The current C4 class out in Boston is not only told to memorize various calls and concepts most weeks, but is also given homework questions! Luckily for me, my friends are happy to pass these questions along to inquisitive C3A dancers. Then I can look up the necessary calls and try to figure out the answers. One recent week a certain question struck me as novel and extremely non-obvious, so I thought I'd share the question and my answer and thought process on this blog.
Q: The call was "in your block, beau tie". Or was it belle tie? You didn't quite hear it. What should you do?
For reference, the definition of "<anyone> tie" from Bill Ackerman's C4 book 1 is "Often from a completed DPT: all Peel Off. Then the original designees Couples Circulate and Bend the Line, while the others Bend the Line and Couples Circulate."
[Spoilers below!]
A: My answer is "peel off, bend the line, and couples circulate" - that is, act like you were not designated. I would also say that you should check that your starting block looks like a miniwave box.
I'd say figuring this out was a mixture of a key realization and some tedious casework. You might save yourself some casework if you know "<anyone> tie" really well. My realization was that the Blocks concept must be applied only to calls that start and end in 2x2 formations. At this point, I did casework. There are really just two 2x2 starting formations to consider from which you can do "tie": tandem couples, and a miniwave box. From each of these, you have to consider beau tie and belle tie. I will show these cases below, adding another box on to show what happens when the 2x2s don't work within themselves.
From tandem couples:
3B^ 3G^
2B^ 2G^
4GV 4BV
1GV 1BV
belle tie
1G> 2B>
4G> 3B>
1B< 2G<
4B< 3G<
From a (RH) miniwave box
2B^ 2GV
3G^ 3BV
1B^ 1GV
4G^ 4BV
belle tie
3B< 3G>
2G< 2B>
4B< 4G>
1G< 1B>
OR
beau tie
2G> 4B<
3B> 1G<
3G> 1B<
2B> 4G<
Q: The call was "in your block, beau tie". Or was it belle tie? You didn't quite hear it. What should you do?
For reference, the definition of "<anyone> tie" from Bill Ackerman's C4 book 1 is "Often from a completed DPT: all Peel Off. Then the original designees Couples Circulate and Bend the Line, while the others Bend the Line and Couples Circulate."
[Spoilers below!]
A: My answer is "peel off, bend the line, and couples circulate" - that is, act like you were not designated. I would also say that you should check that your starting block looks like a miniwave box.
I'd say figuring this out was a mixture of a key realization and some tedious casework. You might save yourself some casework if you know "<anyone> tie" really well. My realization was that the Blocks concept must be applied only to calls that start and end in 2x2 formations. At this point, I did casework. There are really just two 2x2 starting formations to consider from which you can do "tie": tandem couples, and a miniwave box. From each of these, you have to consider beau tie and belle tie. I will show these cases below, adding another box on to show what happens when the 2x2s don't work within themselves.
From tandem couples:
3B^ 3G^
2B^ 2G^
4GV 4BV
1GV 1BV
belle tie
1G> 2B>
4G> 3B>
1B< 2G<
4B< 3G<
OR
beau tie
2G< 1B<
3G< 4B<
2B> 1G>
3B> 4G>
From a (RH) miniwave box
2B^ 2GV
3G^ 3BV
1B^ 1GV
4G^ 4BV
belle tie
3B< 3G>
2G< 2B>
4B< 4G>
1G< 1B>
OR
beau tie
2G> 4B<
3B> 1G<
3G> 1B<
2B> 4G<
This work shows that only one of these cases would be legal from blocks: belle tie from a RH miniwave box (everyone is a beau). From symmetry, we can tell that beau tie from a LH miniwave box (everyone is a belle) would be legal as well. Therefore if the call was legal, even if you didn't hear the <anyone>, you should assume you were not one of the designees, and act accordingly.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Pavlovian snap switching
Many Tech Squares members are always looking to put a twist on club level dancing (plus), especially when they've been doing it for years. We even introduce our new dancers to the idea at graduation with a "hack tip" where we decide a variation for them to perform, often ending in hilarity (but we let them decide on one for us, too - which is usually the more evil of the two!). On any given Tuesday, there might be a hexagon forming, people snap switching, or some gemini dancers. Our caller rolls with the punches. He may gripe a little and give up on sighting off that square, but doesn't seem to mind much.
Our annual retreat, East Hill Farm, has some dance sessions dedicated to doing odd things - with not only the caller's approval but also their cooperation! In 2013, one of our talented attendees called a "Pavlovian" tip. I wasn't sure what it was going to be, but it sounded like we'd have an action to do when some condition was met. It turned out that the condition was "being next to your partner at the end of a call" and the action varied depending on the sequence among trading, half sashaying, or half of either of those (we'd be told at the beginning of the sequence). Each sequence resolved beautifully... it was surely a challenge to write.
When the weekend was over, I found myself still thinking about that tip. I wrote a few of my own such sequences with the additional twist that while you'd trade when next to your partner, you'd hinge when next to your corner. (But that's a subject for another post.) I missed the fun of noticing when you were next to your partner at the end of a call, but knew that it took complicated sequence writing to make a tip work with the Pavlovian variation... so how could I do more of it? The answer was clear - instead of doing a set action like a trade or hinge when next to your partner, snap switch with them! This takes the form of a half sashay if you end up facing the same direction and a trade if facing different directions, but ideally would be danced as smoothly as possible (e.g. turn a wheel and deal into a turn and deal if starting with your partner).
I tried out this snap switching technique with a few of my friends on Tuesdays and had a ton of fun doing it (they seemed to enjoy it too!). It turns a normally paced tip into quite the workout! We've found the best way to do it is to skip the switching after a call if neither of you were involved in the call, and not to worry about missing opportunities. After all, the point of hacks is to have fun and undue stress doesn't help that. Sometimes it's just too hard to switch as many times as you need to when the calls are coming quickly and you keep ending up with your partner, e.g. swing thru (end with partner), centers run, bend the line - all in a row. It's tricky when you end up next to your partner as centers of lines after you've been working with your box, but it's arguably the most fun when it's a little unexpected like that! It can also be harder than normal to keep track of your gender since it's changing so frequently, but having good opposites (who aren't also switching!) helps with that immensely.
Anyway, try it the next time you're feeling bored! One more note: it's helpful to tell your squares you're doing this before starting so they know not to panic when they expect your partner and get you instead.
Our annual retreat, East Hill Farm, has some dance sessions dedicated to doing odd things - with not only the caller's approval but also their cooperation! In 2013, one of our talented attendees called a "Pavlovian" tip. I wasn't sure what it was going to be, but it sounded like we'd have an action to do when some condition was met. It turned out that the condition was "being next to your partner at the end of a call" and the action varied depending on the sequence among trading, half sashaying, or half of either of those (we'd be told at the beginning of the sequence). Each sequence resolved beautifully... it was surely a challenge to write.
When the weekend was over, I found myself still thinking about that tip. I wrote a few of my own such sequences with the additional twist that while you'd trade when next to your partner, you'd hinge when next to your corner. (But that's a subject for another post.) I missed the fun of noticing when you were next to your partner at the end of a call, but knew that it took complicated sequence writing to make a tip work with the Pavlovian variation... so how could I do more of it? The answer was clear - instead of doing a set action like a trade or hinge when next to your partner, snap switch with them! This takes the form of a half sashay if you end up facing the same direction and a trade if facing different directions, but ideally would be danced as smoothly as possible (e.g. turn a wheel and deal into a turn and deal if starting with your partner).
I tried out this snap switching technique with a few of my friends on Tuesdays and had a ton of fun doing it (they seemed to enjoy it too!). It turns a normally paced tip into quite the workout! We've found the best way to do it is to skip the switching after a call if neither of you were involved in the call, and not to worry about missing opportunities. After all, the point of hacks is to have fun and undue stress doesn't help that. Sometimes it's just too hard to switch as many times as you need to when the calls are coming quickly and you keep ending up with your partner, e.g. swing thru (end with partner), centers run, bend the line - all in a row. It's tricky when you end up next to your partner as centers of lines after you've been working with your box, but it's arguably the most fun when it's a little unexpected like that! It can also be harder than normal to keep track of your gender since it's changing so frequently, but having good opposites (who aren't also switching!) helps with that immensely.
Anyway, try it the next time you're feeling bored! One more note: it's helpful to tell your squares you're doing this before starting so they know not to panic when they expect your partner and get you instead.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Introduction
Hello fellow dancers! I'm Rachel, creator of Phantom Columnist, a blog in which I hope to write a subset of my multitudes of squares-related thoughts. I expect these will range from musings on square dance etiquette to explorations of calls and concepts, from tales of last night's trickiest calls to ideas about teaching, from original sequences to the worst puns you've ever heard, and whatever else comes up. Part of the reason I'm starting this blog is to put all of my thoughts and ideas in one place in order to have a more consistent record than my current collection of social media posts here, emails there, and notes-to-self hiding somewhere on my hard drive. I'm also hoping to reach a wider audience than just the people with whom I'm comfortable starting random conversations about squares.
Here's some info about my background in square dancing: I learned plus as a college freshman at MIT's Tech Squares from September to December 2008 and it has been one of my best decisions of recent memory. I think my initial motivation for trying the class had to do with fond memories of father-daughter square dances held for young Girl Scouts in my hometown (which all assumed no prior experience). After taking time to get comfortable with plus, I eagerly learned A1, A2, and C1 between September 2010 and June 2011 and C2 between September 2011 and June 2012. I've self-studied C3A but (as of this post) have had few opportunities to dance it. A bunch of my dancing friends have been taking a C4 class and love to talk about it, so I've also had the privilege of hearing about many calls and concepts that I can enjoy without needing to remember after the conversation. I'm "ambidancetrous" (fantastic term used for being able to dance either gender) and enjoy snap switching and dancing with phantoms. Sometimes I enjoy other hacks like hexagon dancing, nose dancing, or gemini/tandem dancing. I'm currently between clubs as I've just left MIT but haven't yet settled in my next city, San Francisco, but I'm looking forward to dancing various places out in the Bay Area.
Until next time, a quick joke:
Q: What challenge call is like speed dating?
A: Single rotate
Here's some info about my background in square dancing: I learned plus as a college freshman at MIT's Tech Squares from September to December 2008 and it has been one of my best decisions of recent memory. I think my initial motivation for trying the class had to do with fond memories of father-daughter square dances held for young Girl Scouts in my hometown (which all assumed no prior experience). After taking time to get comfortable with plus, I eagerly learned A1, A2, and C1 between September 2010 and June 2011 and C2 between September 2011 and June 2012. I've self-studied C3A but (as of this post) have had few opportunities to dance it. A bunch of my dancing friends have been taking a C4 class and love to talk about it, so I've also had the privilege of hearing about many calls and concepts that I can enjoy without needing to remember after the conversation. I'm "ambidancetrous" (fantastic term used for being able to dance either gender) and enjoy snap switching and dancing with phantoms. Sometimes I enjoy other hacks like hexagon dancing, nose dancing, or gemini/tandem dancing. I'm currently between clubs as I've just left MIT but haven't yet settled in my next city, San Francisco, but I'm looking forward to dancing various places out in the Bay Area.
Until next time, a quick joke:
Q: What challenge call is like speed dating?
A: Single rotate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)