Absolutely No Contras
Tony Parkes
I've been following the "No Squares" thread with interest,
wondering when to jump in. Most of the good things have been
said by now, but I still feel moved to contribute my nickel's
worth.
When I started dancing in 1956, and even when I began calling
in 1964, what we did was *square dancing.* I don't mean that
we did "modern western" or "club-style" squares, although the
line between styles was hazier then than now. I mean that we
did squares and a few couple dances. Contras were unheard of.
My first exposure to contras came around 1965. I danced to
Ralph Page's calling at Folk Dance House in NYC and at Maine
Folk Dance Camp, and to Dudley Laufman's calling when he visited
my summer camp and again when he invited us campers to his house
for a real kitchen junket. I fell in love with contras...the
hypnotic repetitive rhythm of the music, the ebb and flow of the
figures...and I've loved them ever since. *But* I had already
fallen in love with squares, and I've never lost that love either.
Fortunately, the two loves aren't mutually exclusive.
For the first several years after that, I tried to include at
least one or two contras in all my programs. *And it was like
pulling teeth to get anyone to do contras.* Dancers complained
that contras were too hard to learn, too complicated, too
monotonous, *took too long to set up,* fell apart if one couple
stumbled, forced them to dance with everyone instead of a hand-
picked set, and so on. I'm sure that many of their complaints
stemmed from my inexperience with contras and my resultant
awkwardness in presenting and teaching them, as contrasted
with my ease in teaching and calling squares.
Sound familiar? I think a large part of our attitude toward
squares *and* contras depends on how we've been conditioned
to see them.
Tony Parkes
Toby Koosman
perspective. I can remember the term "eastern" squares still in use
when I started dancing about 15 years ago, referring not to squares we
found boring but to squares we found accessible as opposed to those
difficult "western" squares you had to take twenty weeks of lessons to
do. We thought of our squares as 'traditional', and maybe they were,
but often that designation gets attached to the novelty dances of
another era, like the singing squares.
I wonder if the decline of squares owes something to the scarcity of
source material, especially for callers who don't want to do patter or
singing calls. There's no _Zesty Contras_ of squares. The rise of
contra-only calling has contributed to the unpopularity of squares in two
ways: first, dancers are less comfortable with the form, and second, we
are self-selecting for those who want only contras. The more callers
don't call them, the more dancers don't want them. I've seen that trend
take shape over the years I've been involved in dance so I can assure you
it's not idle theorizing. I also have many friends who no longer dance
contras because they find the lack of variation unsatisfying--not only
the concentration on a single formation but too much repetition of one
mood of contra, the symmetric, double-swing, never-stand-still modern
choreograph. I submit that such dances are an indulgence primarily to
the modesty experienced.
--
Toby Koosman
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
tako...@utkvx.utk.edu
Bob Stein
Koosman) wrote:
> The rise of
> contra-only calling has contributed to the unpopularity of squares in two
> ways: first, dancers are less comfortable with the form, and second, we
> are self-selecting for those who want only contras. The more callers
> don't call them, the more dancers don't want them. I've seen that trend
> take shape over the years I've been involved in dance so I can assure you
> it's not idle theorizing. I also have many friends who no longer dance
> contras because they find the lack of variation unsatisfying--not only
> the concentration on a single formation but too much repetition of one
> mood of contra, the symmetric, double-swing, never-stand-still modern
> choreograph. I submit that such dances are an indulgence primarily to
> the modesty experienced.
Yes, It's a shame that this trend has happened. As a veteran of
international folk dancing, Southern Square dancing, and contra dancing, I
have seen the changes that time has wrought in each community. I like
squares; I think they offer their own unique challenge to dancers,
callers, and musicians alike. I love to dance them, because it requires
me to listen hard to the caller and try to anticipate (not always
successfully!) where he/she is going to go next. I love squares in all
forms: Northern, Southern, singing, etc. They all have their own charm.
I love playing for them, because I usually end up playing piano behind
some very energetic fiddling and mandolin playing, and I can let fly with
all kinds of rhythmic variations and harmonic variations with that wild
energy that squares can provide (in this case, Southern, some of the
others demand a *little* more restraint).
I guess one can't really steer a dance community's preference; if they
only want contras, that's what they want and get. I imagine the factors
that contribute to the demise of any particular dance form are myriad; in
the case of squares, it seems to be the following:
1. Lack of experience among the callers
2. Lack of experience among the musicians
3. Lack of tolerance for a learning phase for everybody on the part of
the dancers, who want good quality dancing NOW!
Maybe communities need to set aside special nights for learning how to
dance, call, and play for squares.
Then again, maybe we just have to ride the tide out and wait for their
popularity to rise anew. I imagine these trends are fairly cyclical.
My $ .02 worth; let's hear from others!
-Bob Stein
--
**************************************************
Bob Stein
squ...@omni.voicenet.com
========================================================
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend: and inside a dog,
it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx
========================================================
Peter Y
out the problems he had when he first started to put contras into his
programs. Thanks Tony for saying it so well. I'd been thinking the same
thing but unable to figure out how to say it.
Your message reminds me of an experience I had last week. I was reading a
Northern Junket from 1957 in which an article reprinted from a Westchester
square dance publication was discussing why some people like complex
squares, and why it was still important to keep the level of dancing
accessible to people who were attending for more social reasons. It
occurred to me that if I were to substitute "contra" for "square" all the
way through and print it in my newsletter without comment, no one would be
able to figure out that the article had been written 40 years ago; it was
a perfect description of the current state of contradancing.
Peter Yarensky
Will Roper
>Now that I have your attention... ;-)
>
>I've been following the "No Squares" thread with interest,
>wondering when to jump in. Most of the good things have been
>said by now, but I still feel moved to contribute my nickel's
>worth.
>
>When I started dancing in 1956, and even when I began calling
>in 1964, what we did was *square dancing.* I don't mean that
>we did "modern western" or "club-style" squares, although the
>line between styles was hazier then than now. I mean that we
>did squares and a few couple dances. Contras were unheard of.
>
Ditto here. I wandered into a teenage square dance club when I was in
my young teens, in that notable hotbed of traditional American culture,
Long Island, and loved it. When I showed up in Boston after college
I found contras, and loved those too, although I cant understand why
some of the equally fun squares arent mixed in more frequently.
What I havent seen is some of the gags, which ties into the April Fools
thread. Once the dancing got a little too predictable, it used to be
fairly common for someone to 'crash' a square. You turn left to allemande
left and find your corner busy, someone else's feet where yours go. You
look right and your partner is looking equally puzzled. And the square
is moving around you without needing your help. Then you realize the
adjacent square has 3 couples and is waiting for you ... The variations
on this are nearly endless. Sort of like mixing a chinese fire drill
with a dance, you find out who's really paying attention (and whos not).
Anyway, when I find someone at a dance who knows the western flourishes
and stomps, I like it, I find there arent enough squares or square dance
moves in the contras I go to.
And as for Schottisches, waltes, circle dances, and European round dances,
well, those are the ones I hate. But nobody but my wife ever knew, and
if asked to dance them, I accept, once I mention that I dance them rarely
and therefore arent particularly good at them. But there isnt enough
time to dance with everybody in the entire world, so you cant afford to
sit out too many.
Melissa Weisshaus
>Now that I have your attention... ;-)
>
>I've been following the "No Squares" thread with interest,
>wondering when to jump in. Most of the good things have been
>said by now, but I still feel moved to contribute my nickel's
>worth.
>
>When I started dancing in 1956, and even when I began calling
>in 1964, what we did was *square dancing.* I don't mean that
>we did "modern western" or "club-style" squares, although the
>line between styles was hazier then than now. I mean that we
>did squares and a few couple dances. Contras were unheard of.
(Hi, Tony..)
I started dancing regularly (not counting my three feeble attempts
with contra dances at NEFFA 3 years ago..) about 1.5 years ago. I
didn't like squares until about 6 months ago. I think I figured out
what made the difference. Squares are harder to follow, and so they
are much more enjoyable if everyone in the square has an idea of what
is going on, and pays attention to the walk-through. People at
"contra" dances are (IMO) notorious for socializing instead of paying
attention.. they've done all the dances before, right? :-) So maybe
the caller isn't loud enough or is hard to hear; or he or she throws
in something weird, or the figure is similar to, but not the same as,
another dance the folks in the square have done before, and something
happens, and they get confused.. and then the thing falls apart, at
least momentarily (if the people are pretty good) or hopelessly (if
they aren't so experienced). When I started, I hated being "the
reason" that a square didn't work, and now that I know how they work
(usually!), I admit that I get frustrated with others in the square
who don't get it, either because of not paying attention, or not being
as experienced (even though I am in favor of new dancers showing up,
and will help them out if I get the chance..).
In a contra dance, if you don't get it the first, or second time, or
if someone along the way isn't as experienced, you or they have about
ten more oportunities to figure it out. Each time it's with different
people, so things are less likely to "fall apart" for the same 7 other
people in the dance; people are less likely to get completely
frustrated and decide that that type of dance isn't for them.
Some thoughts. Cheers,
melissa