Absolutely NO SQUARES
David #6
remain nameless and was politely informed that the dancers there disliked
squares and they would appreciate it if I not call any.
Just curious -- is this common? And if so, how do all of you folks who
like to call squares react when told this by dance organizers?
It's the first time I've run into such a firm prohibition, but then again
I haven't been calling much beyond the DC area until recently.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Bob Stein
I remember going to a dance in Princeton years ago. The caller tried to
call some squares and he was actually booed!
Unfortunately, some people do not think variety is the spice of life.
-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
========================================================
Kiran Wagle
> dav...@netcom.com (David #6) wrote:
D6> I just agreed to call a contra dance for a regular series that shall
D6> remain nameless and was politely informed that the dancers there disliked
D6> squares and they would appreciate it if I not call any.
BS> I remember going to a dance in Princeton years ago.
BS> The caller tried to call some squares and he was actually booed!
BBS> Unfortunately, some people do not think variety is the spice of life.
Most contra dancers I know (a small and insignificant number, as you
probably know <grin>) pretty much despise squares. (Even in the Midwest,
Kathy Anderson and Ron Buchanan's squares cause a good deal of grumbling
during the walk-thoughs.) So it doesn't suprise me that dance organisers
would ask that squares not be called.
As for booing callers, I'm SO tired of having people complain to ME about
this crap that I've been encouraging them to complain--vocally--during and
after dances. Complaints are much more likely to be taken seriously when
recieved directly from users, rather than filtered through curmudgeons.
I have some ideas about why contra dancers may not enjoy most squares, but
I won't post them again tonight.
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
--
1628 5th St NW Washington DC 20001
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/home.html
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
"Puddle ducks just wander around... Commercial Ducks have modern ideas.
The Long Island Duckling is a big success at the age of three months,
with applesauce. The Canvasback feeds on wild celery in the Chesapeake
Bay region, thus improving his flavor and raising his price in the market.
Pretty smart for a duck."..........Will Cuppy, _How to Attract the Wombat_
SamiFidler
> I just agreed to call a contra dance for a regular series that shall
> remain nameless and was politely informed that the dancers there
disliked
> squares and they would appreciate it if I not call any.
>
> Just curious -- is this common? And if so, how do all of you folks who
> like to call squares react when told this by dance organizers?
>
> It's the first time I've run into such a firm prohibition, but then
again
> I haven't been calling much beyond the DC area until recently.
I've heard people at other dances say the same thing about squares . At
our dance, in Hoboken, we call both squares and contras - the appeal is
different, they are called differently -IMHO, contras are for people who
like to get into a groove and fly and like to interact one to one-southern
squares are more communal, more forgiving rythmically (sp?) and involve
the moment to moment effort of every member and the caller to create a
whole pattern. They involve different emotional and thought processes and
I guess they don't always appeal to the same people.- I love 'em both,
though as you can see, for different reasons - dancing contras has the
same kind of feeling for me as playing southern old time music - its the
groove that's so seductive, squares are more like solving puzzles, or
playing a team sport ( I guess- though that's really never been my
thing).
By the way, considering what I pay, its not so easy to find people to call
squares in this neck of the woods - particularly southern squares.
Sami
Toby Koosman
>I just agreed to call a contra dance for a regular series that shall
>remain nameless and was politely informed that the dancers there disliked
>squares and they would appreciate it if I not call any.
It doesn't surprise me. If some people had their way I guess we'd have
a prohibition on squares in Knoxville. I know that one of the
organizers (David knows who, I bet) has specified when hiring callers
for the dance weekend that they not call many squares. I thought that
was pretty presumptious myself, reflecting that person's bias more than
the known tastes of the festival crowd.
I used to take it hard when peopled booed those words "square your
sets". I tried not calling any squares but I was bored and a different
group of people complained because they _wanted_ to do squares. Now I
just take it in stride. My perception is that the square haters are a
vocal minority (often rudely so), although I understand that badly
called squares are no fun and that the walkthroughs take too long. But
you know, one reason the walkthroughs take too long is that many
experienced dancers sit them out and callers have so much incentive to
avoid them, so that the square literacy is always much lower than the
contra literacy of a given crowd, and that necessitates more teaching.
It also makes it all too easy to select a square which seems perfectly
suited to the experience level on the floor, but turns out to be
surprisingly difficult, for the above reasons, resulting in an
interminable and frustrating walkthrough.
A lot of very popular callers, like Kathy Anderson, are known for
calling squares, so obviously somebody likes to dance them. I think
both callers and contra-seperatists could make them more fun with
appropriate effort.
--
Toby Koosman tako...@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Laura L. Lengnick
Yes, I've seen this at a few dances in various locations from
east to west coast. But I'm a musician, not a caller. Still,
I can't think of any reason why any dance organizer would
actually support such narrow-mindedness in the dance community.
I played a dance recently where we were told that the crowd didn't
like squares, that if we wanted to protect our pay for the evening,
we better not do any squares until after 10 pm. Evidently, if
a square is called prior to 10 pm, dancers leave in droves, demand
their money back and the organizers ACTUALLY REFUND THE ADMISSION.
This is an actual, true story. We didn't press our luck, so I
didn't get to see if the dancers would actually do it. But no one
ever let on it was a joke, so I must assume something similar actually
happened, at least once.
The callers I've worked with have responded in a couple of ways:
1) bowed to the organizers demands and didn't call squares, justifying
this by saying the organizers are boss.
2) ignored the "request" called some squares anyway, dancers groaned,
but squared up, and MUCH TO THEIR SUPRIZE had fun. This response
probably only safe for well known callers that are completely comfortable
with squares and confident dealing with a slightly hostile crowd.
3) discussed the issue with the dance organizers and declined to accept
no squares as a condition of calling the dance. Got the job anyway, and
it went fine.
Of course, what do I know? I just sit behind the caller, start playing
when I'm told to, stop playing when I told to, and quietly wait during
the walk throughs....
So, I'm curious....any dance organizers want to defend this practice?
Laura
Nancy Mamlin
Bob Stein <squ...@omni.voicenet.com> wrote:
>In article <david6D3...@netcom.com>, dav...@netcom.com (David #6) wrote:
>
>> I just agreed to call a contra dance for a regular series that shall
>> remain nameless and was politely informed that the dancers there disliked
>> squares and they would appreciate it if I not call any.
>>
>> Just curious -- is this common? And if so, how do all of you folks who
>> like to call squares react when told this by dance organizers?
>>
>> It's the first time I've run into such a firm prohibition, but then again
>> I haven't been calling much beyond the DC area until recently.
>
>I remember going to a dance in Princeton years ago. The caller tried to
>call some squares and he was actually booed!
>
>Unfortunately, some people do not think variety is the spice of life.
>
>-Bob Stein
Bob's right. You can't be all things to all people when they don't want
you to be. Somehow I haven't gotten David's original post on my newserver
yet, but I'm guessing this is basically the whole thing.
So, as you might guess, I have indeed had to deal with this before. There
are several ways to go about "handling" the situation.
1. Don't accept the gig. You can say, "well, this is what I do, so I
guess you don't want me." This only works if the organizer gives you the
prohibition in advance. If it's a *real* policy, then they should.
Along those same lines, when I'm talking with organizers I don't know, or
who aren't familiar with my calling, I will tell them that I generally
plan an evening which will be a balance of squares and contras. (Do I use
the term balance to make them feel more comfortable? Hmm.... :)
2. Do the gig and call only contras. Sure, you'll be bored to death, but
the crowds will adore you. (Actually, I'll be doing an evening of all
contras within the next six months because of the music I'll have. For
me, it will be a new challenge to keep variety in the evening without
squares.)
3. Do what a mutual friend of ours did when, at a dance, the dancers
either booed or something even ruder, when he announced a square. He made
a deal with the crowd: "I'll call this square and guarantee you'll like
it. If, during the dancing, you aren't having fun, raise your hand. When
over half of you have your hands up, I'll stop the dance on the spot and
not call any more squares." He went on to call all the squares he had
planned for the evening.
You need to distinguish, in my opinion, whether the "no squares" is the
preference of a vocal minority (or majority) or whether it is policy there
for a good reason. You have to decide what a good reason is for yourself.
Also, keep in mind- it's *their* dance, not yours.
Finally, just to provide some balance (there's that word again!) in the
world, I will be calling this Saturday at the monthly dance in Blacksburg,
Virginia. The organizers there are *very serious* about maintaining and
preserving local dance traditions. (Motto: If you want to contra, go to
Roanoke). It states in my contract that I can *only* call dances in
square and circle formations, and to be sure to include several two-steps
and waltzes during the evening. It's one of the friendliest, most fun
dances I do each year. They use only local music- which happens to be the
best you could find anywhere. I get the band that won at Galax a few
years ago!
So, there's more than my two cents worth, David#6- I'll talk more about it
next weekend in Knoxville if you like.
Nancy "of course I have an opinion on this" Mamlin
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Kevin S. Liske
In general, I don't like doing squares myself. But I'm amazed and
dismayed that people would actually boo the caller. That is
completely unacceptable behavior at any dance.
Kevin
Peter Olszowka
are really just a vocal minority, and it is possible that people who
generally don't like squares might like ***Insert name of favorite
caller***'s squares, but if the dancers don't want squares, why is it
so bad to give them what they want? Isn't the customer always right?
--Peter Olszowka
Bob Stein
<olszo...@tuck.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> but if the dancers don't want squares, why is it
> so bad to give them what they want? Isn't the customer always right?
Well, why should a vocal minority control what the whole community could
benefit from (witness the November elections: only 38% of the people
voted!)?
I think that the "contra-only" mindset is detrimental to contra and square
dancing. Even if you don't like Southern music and dance, there are
wonderful Northern and French-and-Anglo Canadian squares that are not
being done now. It would be a shame to lose these dances because of a
small number of dancers who cannot appreciate other froms.
Bob Stein
> In general, I don't like doing squares myself. But I'm amazed and
> dismayed that people would actually boo the caller. That is
> completely unacceptable behavior at any dance.
Absolutely! A "tradition" like this does nothing to build community, and
serves to limit the experience of all dancers. YOU may not like squares,
but other people may enjoy them.
A simple solution might be to sit out the dances that you don't like. A
rest now and then ain't bad (especially for us "older" folks!)
wes...@imap2.asu.edu
contras (one or two squares in an evening). At a fest this past summer I
danced some "traditional" squares, that I must say were rather boring-
too much standing and watching. however, squares I have done at contra
dances are often a lot of fun and quite energetic. Grand Right and Left
is one of my favorite calls. Perhaps if you found (or have) a really
"good" dance you could coax them to try it (or maybe tell them it's a
challenge).
Joel L Breazeale
I must agree. Booing at the caller, even if in jest, can be taken badly.
This is a poor reflection on the dance organizers and then perhaps the
regular caller(s) inability to set an accepting tone in the dance culture.
As for squares, I find myself not being attracted to [traditional] squares
in general. I may take the opportunity to sit out during a square. I do
think it is good to have variety and I do think it is good to have toler-
ance of variety in the dance culture, so squares are good at least for that.
There are many fun/fine squares out there (Smoke on the Water)! I like cer-
tain chestnut squares, for example.
Perhaps when people say they don't like squares they really mean they don't
like a certain style of squares? A good test might then be to name a few
classic squares and see if they like those in particular.
--Joel
Joel L Breazeale
Commercial caller answer: Yes, the customer is always right.
Long haul answer: No, the customer is not always right.
Here's one example of a vocal minority issue: Insisting on every contra
dance having a partner swing. Some hypothetical results follow.
Result #1: There are many fine dances out there without partner swings.
People may begin to be unable to appreciate the simple pleasure of a "down
the hall four in a line" while seeking their partner swing.
Result #2: New callers only compose dances with partner swings, further
exacerbating the direction toward partner swings and the lack of satisfaction
with all the other moves which connect the swings.
I believe the vocal minority can become the majority under some circum-
stances. This situation can be compounded by a lack of continuity in the
leadership of a dance culture. When the lid of Pandora's Box gets removed
in order to satisfy the customer, it is sometimes difficult to replace it.
A good dance organizer/producer and a good dance leader will recognize the
vocal minority pitfall. The dance producer should reel in the caller if
they are programming the dance in a manner which caters to the vocal minority
and puts the newcomers to such a disadvantage as to turn them off, never to
return.
--Joel
Warren Blier
Having significant experience dancing in a community where there is a strong
anti-square sentiment among, in my opinion, a majority of the dancers, I
was surprised to see many of these same people participate enthusiastically
in a square-dance session at a dance camp. Why the difference? Four things
come to mind:
(1) All of the dancers at the camp were experienced, so walk-throughs took
very little time. In my opinion, the biggest objection to squares comes
from the long time typically needed to teach any but the simplest (and often
least interesting) squares when there are many beginning dancers present (the
typical situation in the dance community I'm thinking of).
(2) All of the dancers at the camp were experienced, so interesting but
complicated squares tended to work smoothly, rather than collapse part way
through.
(3) The person calling the squares was one of the best square-dance callers
in the country. This resulted in a good selection of dances, crisp,
focused walkthroughs and, especially, good calling. In my opinion, it's
harder to call a square well than a contra dance. For a variety of
reasons, most of them obvious, an erroneus or late call will do much more
damage in a square dance than a contra dance. (Recently having had my
first experience as a caller, I was pleasantly surprised that, when I gave
the wrong prompt part-way through one of the contra dances, the lines all
quickly recovered. On the other hand, I've often seen a single mistaken call
kill a square dance.)
(4) There were a lot (over 100) dancers at the camp. With a small turnout,
the requirement of groups of 8 people can result in a significant percentage
of people present who want to dance being unable to do so. For example, I once
attended a dance series where the typical turnout was 15-25 people. On those
nights when 15 people showed up, there was at any given time one square and 7
people sitting out. Then on another occasion 25 people might show up, but
for a given dance 2 or 3 are tired and want to sit out. So either another
6 or 7 people who want to dance also have to sit out, or the folks who are
tired are pressured to dance anyways.
Warren
Kiran Wagle
> My perception is that the square haters are a vocal minority (often rudely
> so), although I understand that badly called squares are no fun
I disagree. While there certainly is a vocal minority (and a rude one;
though I wonder if that isn't the best way they can make their views
clear) I think there's a silent majority that also does not like squares.
> and that the walkthroughs take too long. But you know, one reason the
> walkthroughs take too long is that many experienced dancers sit them out
If you mean that "many experienced dancers" sit out squares (as opposed to
sitting out walkthrus) doesn't that say something about their feelings
about squares?
> and callers have so much incentive to avoid them, so that the square
> literacy is always much lower than the contra literacy of a given crowd,
Yep. However, many of the squares people grumble the hardest about are
composed mostly of "contra" figures, so the dancers CAN do them fairly
easily, in my experience. And many contra dancers like a challenge; if
squares are "harder," this should be an advantage.
> A lot of very popular callers, like Kathy Anderson, are known for
> calling squares, so obviously somebody likes to dance them.
I've danced at a fair numer of Kathy's dances in her home turf (the
Midwest) and dancers who turn out in droves for her dances STILL grumble
about squares at those dances. However, in Kathy's case, they usually
stop grumbling once they dance the dance.
> I think both callers and contra-seperatists
> could make them more fun with appropriate effort.
Indeed. Since I like squares, I'd like to see callers look seriously at
how they can encourage the dancing of squares (which begins, IMO, with
figuring out why so many dancers dislike them, and what exactly they
dislike about them.)
~ Kiran
--
1628 5th St NW Washington DC 20001
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/home.html
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
: Also, sometimes [Netcom] management had different priorities...
: for instance, I and other employees were once directed by Bob Rieger to
: take the time to clean our desks, rather than do things like callbacks.
(Found in a post by Bruce Woodcock (a former employee) on netcom.general)
Kiran Wagle
> While there is some legitimate concern that the
> anti-square people are really just a vocal minority,
I wish this were true; I don't think it is.
Perhaps it's time to get some real numbers here. The BACDS has had an
ongoing series of mostly-square dances on Sunday nights in Berkeley for
several years. I danced at it for about six months, and remember three
squares as being a big night. That's less than 25% of the turnout I
remember at other area dances, including Sunday/weeknight dances. Heck,
the Santa Cruz dance drew a hundred or so on Sundays.
(The series has moved to Fridays; I don't know how that's affected it.)
Jim Saxe can probably give us detailed statistics about attendance. I'd
like to see them. There's also a Tuesday square series in Philly; perhaps
someone has numbers or info about those.
> and it is possible that people who generally don't like squares
> might like ***Insert name of favorite caller***'s squares,
In my experience, this part is indeed true. SOME callers call squares
that are only grumbled about until the walk-thoughs are over. What are
they doing right?
> but if the dancers don't want squares, why is it so bad to
> give them what they want? Isn't the customer always right?
That's a good question. IMO, the short answer is that there seem to be
people who are convinced that if they try JUST ONE MORE TIME you'll
suddenly see the light and enjoy something you may have perfectly good
reasons not to enjoy.
The most common example of this is people who insist on mixing English and
contra dances at the same event--a sure-fire way to keep THIS curmudgeon
away.
~ Kiran "I bet you're taking notes now!" <gr...@netcom.com>
--
1628 5th St NW Washington DC 20001
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/home.html
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
"It's hard to sleep at night when you know that a 10 pound frog
from Southern Cameroon might come and jump on your stomach."
--Chas. M. Schultz "Snoopy"
Nancy Mamlin
>
>Having significant experience dancing in a community where there is a strong
>anti-square sentiment among, in my opinion, a majority of the dancers, I
>was surprised to see many of these same people participate enthusiastically
>in a square-dance session at a dance camp. Why the difference? Four things
>come to mind:
>
>(1) All of the dancers at the camp were experienced, so walk-throughs took
>very little time. In my opinion, the biggest objection to squares comes
>from the long time typically needed to teach any but the simplest (and often
>least interesting) squares when there are many beginning dancers present (the
>typical situation in the dance community I'm thinking of).
I've experienced the same things, Warren. I'm more likely to try lots of
things at dance camps I might not do in my own community. I've even done
English Country dancing, swing dancing, and other things that make people
say "I didn't know you did that!" (Well, the English dance episode caused
some *other* comments, but that's a different story.:)
>(3) The person calling the squares was one of the best square-dance callers
>in the country. This resulted in a good selection of dances, crisp,
>focused walkthroughs and, especially, good calling. In my opinion, it's
>harder to call a square well than a contra dance. For a variety of
Okay, there's reason #2 why dancers think they don't like squares. They
*are* harder to call than contra dances. That means there's a lot more
time involved in learning to to call them. The only way for callers to
learn to call is to get a bunch of dancers together and call dances.
(It's harder, anyway, to practice in the privacy of your own home.)
You actually hit the other reason, too: choice of dances.
The walkthrough thing is a red herring. Clear walkthroughs are also
important for contras (in fact, that's about all there is to calling
contras that is hard). It's familiarity with the lingo that makes
contra walkthroughs go more smoothly. (Why is it that contra dancers can
do a R&L thru in a contra dance but not a square dance? It is the same move.)
>quickly recovered. On the other hand, I've often seen a single mistaken call
>kill a square dance.)
That's due to the dancers knowing what to do with a caller's mistake
during a contra and not a square. Maybe the caller, too. I can recover
as a dancer or a caller more easily in a square. Square dance communities
can recover from the worst callers- go home and swing!
>(4) There were a lot (over 100) dancers at the camp. With a small turnout,
>the requirement of groups of 8 people can result in a significant percentage
>of people present who want to dance being unable to do so. For example, I once
I agree. A caller shouldn't come *determined* to do 8-people dances if
that means most people not dancing. There are, though, in the square
dance "tradition" dances for different numbers of people.
Nancy "one more response to go, I think" Mamlin
Email: nm...@umail.umd.edu
"You seem to have averted any grave political/social disrespects
from the folk community here" --in an email to me recently
Nancy Mamlin
are all different, yet equally enlightening. :)
In article <D3pxz...@world.std.com>,
Joel L Breazeale <j...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <3hb6pi$s...@crl.crl.com>, Kevin S. Liske <kli...@crl.com> wrote:
>>: BS> The caller tried to call some squares and he was actually booed!
>>
>>In general, I don't like doing squares myself. But I'm amazed and
>>dismayed that people would actually boo the caller. That is
>>completely unacceptable behavior at any dance.
>
>I must agree. Booing at the caller, even if in jest, can be taken badly.
>This is a poor reflection on the dance organizers and then perhaps the
>regular caller(s) inability to set an accepting tone in the dance culture.
Yes, Joel! I've seen other ways to express opinions to the caller rather
than booing. For instance, one could *talk* to the caller. Rudeness is
not acceptable at a social ocassion.
>As for squares, I find myself not being attracted to [traditional] squares
Which tradition are you talking about?
>in general. I may take the opportunity to sit out during a square. I do
>think it is good to have variety and I do think it is good to have toler-
>ance of variety in the dance culture, so squares are good at least for that.
That sounds patronizing. Kind of like reasons to integrate handicapped
people in our society because "it would be good for us able-bodied people".
>There are many fun/fine squares out there (Smoke on the Water)! I like cer-
>tain chestnut squares, for example.
Wouldn't chestnuts be traditional? (For the record- I *hate* Smoke on the
Water, and in general find that it is squares like that which help people
develop a distaste for squares. Sure, the singing is fun, but the moves
are soooo simple.)
>Perhaps when people say they don't like squares they really mean they don't
>like a certain style of squares? A good test might then be to name a few
>classic squares and see if they like those in particular.
I think you're absolutely right here. I think that the choice of squares
is *one* of the reasons that dancers don't think they like squares.
Stay tuned for more reasons in my next response.
Nancy Mamlin
Nancy Mamlin
Kiran Wagle <gr...@netcom.com> wrote:
>ongoing series of mostly-square dances on Sunday nights in Berkeley for
>several years. I danced at it for about six months, and remember three
>squares as being a big night. That's less than 25% of the turnout I
>remember at other area dances, including Sunday/weeknight dances. Heck,
>the Santa Cruz dance drew a hundred or so on Sundays.
Is this the same Kiran that was just talking about how the *number* of
people who turned out at a dance didn't reflect the success or not- or
even how fun it was- or anything???
>like to see them. There's also a Tuesday square series in Philly; perhaps
>someone has numbers or info about those.
I don't think the Tues Philly dance is still going. However, there's a
monthly square dance in Cochranville, PA (an hour north of B'more) that
draws over 100 people from all over the tri-state. I called it on a
rainy, cold night, had about 8 squares, and the organizer apologized for
the turnout! It was the most fun I'd had in a *long* time calling a dance.
THere's also the Pittsburgh every Friday dance, which is equally open to
squares and contras. When I lived there, the split was about 60/40
squares to contras. Now I think it's the other way around, but I can
certainly go there and call all squares without an eyebrow being raised.
And there's the Blacksburg, VA, monthly squares-only dance I mentioned
earlier.
>> and it is possible that people who generally don't like squares
>> might like ***Insert name of favorite caller***'s squares,
>
>In my experience, this part is indeed true. SOME callers call squares
>that are only grumbled about until the walk-thoughs are over. What are
>they doing right?
They are choosing the right squares, and calling squares that they *really
know*. Example: I will call a contra I got from a book, but I generally
won't call a square dance unless I've *danced* it. (That's because I
learn by doing. YMMV.)
BTW, I seem to be one of those people that gets told "I don't like
squares, but I like *your* squares." Like I said, I just call the squares
that I've danced, which means that *someone else* out there is calling the
same squares as I am.... And I have *lots* of sources.
>That's a good question. IMO, the short answer is that there seem to be
>people who are convinced that if they try JUST ONE MORE TIME you'll
>suddenly see the light and enjoy something you may have perfectly good
>reasons not to enjoy.
Then sit down! Don't do them! No one is forcing you to do every dance!
Or do you think the caller might be right? :)
>The most common example of this is people who insist on mixing English and
>contra dances at the same event--a sure-fire way to keep THIS curmudgeon
>away.
But that's how the dances *all* used to be before we got so specialized!
A few contras, a few squres, some English, some International... Oh well.
I guess we thought variety was the spice of life back then. Guess we
were wrong. :)
>~ Kiran "I bet you're taking notes now!" <gr...@netcom.com>
Nancy "now they are" Mamlin
nm...@umail.umd.edu
"Do you realize that "burn up" and "burn down" mean the same thing?"
Nancy Mamlin
<wes...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>Speaking as a dancer, I like a mix of squares and contras, though mostly
>contras (one or two squares in an evening). At a fest this past summer I
>danced some "traditional" squares, that I must say were rather boring-
>too much standing and watching. however, squares I have done at contra
Again, which tradition are you talking about? THere are several "square
dance traditions"- Southern, Western, New England. And within those,
there are varying amounts of "standing around with nothing to do."
If you're talking about visiting couple squares, there's no reason to sit
(or stand) around while other couples are visiting. In communities where
these dances are the norm, you'll see *very little* standing around.
I think this might come from the mistaken idea that "if the caller isn't
talking to me, I shouldn't be dancing." In fact, if there is music, you
are dancing.
>dances are often a lot of fun and quite energetic. Grand Right and Left
>is one of my favorite calls. Perhaps if you found (or have) a really
>"good" dance you could coax them to try it (or maybe tell them it's a
>challenge).
I had just the opposite experience a few weeks ago. I was walking through
a square dance figure (one by Ron Buchanan as it happens) and the dancers
weren't getting it. I stopped and said, "Oh, I forgot to tell you! This
is an *easy* dance!" It worked. They got it perfectly. (Earlier they
were trying to make it harder than it was.)
Nancy "okay, I'll be quiet now." Mamlin
nm...@umail.umd.edu
"You seem to have averted any grave political/social disrespects
from the folk community here" -- an email to me recently
David #6
: Indeed. Since I like squares, I'd like to see callers look seriously at
: how they can encourage the dancing of squares (which begins, IMO, with
: figuring out why so many dancers dislike them, and what exactly they
: dislike about them.)
Yes, but the point of my posting was that callers will not get the chance
to figure this out if the dance organizers insist that they not call
squares in the first place.
I call contras almost exclusively, mostly because I feel confident that I
call them well, and I don't feel confident about calling squares. I know
that the way to get confident (and get better) at calling squares is to
_call them_. But if dance organizers insist on contras, that takes away
the ability for me to become a better square dance caller so that the
dancers will like my squares next year, even if they don't like them now.
Another way of thinking about my questions might be: how does a dance
organizer balance his/her desire to give the dancers everything they want
and his/her desire to maintain a healthy, growing, open dance community?
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Bob Stein
Wagle) wrote:
> There's also a Tuesday square series in Philly; perhaps
> someone has numbers or info about those.
Yes, I can. It's a pretty small dance now; it happens only once a month,
and two to three squares is the norm.
In the late 70's and early 80's this dance had over 25 squares in any
given evening, and it was a weekly dance.
I guess things do change when it comes ot dancers tastes. However, there
were other factors involved in the demise of the Tuesday night dance--some
which I am not aware of , and some that would take too long to go into at
this time.
Brad Battey
I agree. The point is, what is so bad about them? Why is one dance form
preferred over another? Is this a case of dance discrimination? If so,
it is extremely biased and unfounded. Playing for dances for the past
almost 5 years (BTW- I am only 17), I have seen hudreds of dancers having
a great time dancing squares, in many different venues. These have
ranges from dance schools in KY, Buffal Gap, our own Michigan Dance
herritage weekends, every local dance (Detroit Metro/Ann Arbor). This
may seen sorta suprising to readers who do not "enjoy" squares, but has
anybody who "hates" them really given them a chance? Do they precieve
them as "pertaining to the image of the cheesy western square dancing"?
(sorry 'bout all the "blah's", anyways) They are fun, dancing is only as
fun as you make it, and only as fun as you allow it.....
--
Later....
Br...@oeonline.com
elg
: David #6 <dav...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >I just agreed to call a contra dance for a regular series that shall
: >remain nameless and was politely informed that the dancers there disliked
: >squares and they would appreciate it if I not call any.
: It doesn't surprise me. If some people had their way I guess we'd have
: a prohibition on squares in Knoxville. I know that one of the
: organizers (David knows who, I bet) has specified when hiring callers
: for the dance weekend that they not call many squares. I thought that
: was pretty presumptious myself, reflecting that person's bias more than
: the known tastes of the festival crowd.
I, too find these stories a bit much. I have had to bow to my group's
(unspoken, but financially clear) edit not to book old-timey bands, but
the idea of actually booing a caller... that's outrageous.
: I used to take it hard when peopled booed those words "square your
: sets". I tried not calling any squares but I was bored and a different
: group of people complained because they _wanted_ to do squares. Now I
: just take it in stride. My perception is that the square haters are a
: vocal minority (often rudely so), although I understand that badly
: called squares are no fun and that the walkthroughs take too long. But
: you know, one reason the walkthroughs take too long is that many
: experienced dancers sit them out and callers have so much incentive to
: avoid them, so that the square literacy is always much lower than the
: contra literacy of a given crowd, and that necessitates more teaching.
: It also makes it all too easy to select a square which seems perfectly
: suited to the experience level on the floor, but turns out to be
: surprisingly difficult, for the above reasons, resulting in an
: interminable and frustrating walkthrough.
And yes, I find squares pretty boring, too. But when a caller knows what
he/she is doing, and calls them well and makes them fun.... that's a
whole different story. I think the main problem is too many callers call
squares wherein ONLY ONE COUPLE is doing anything at all, so 6 other
people are bored to tears... another hint to those those who aspire to
calling squares: please DON'T make us keep the same square for 2 in a
row. I will sit out 2 squares, rather than be stuck in a deadly set.
: A lot of very popular callers, like Kathy Anderson, are known for
CathyDM
*still* leery of squares--though I certainly wouldn't boo them.
I hesitate when the caller announces a square because the dance rarely
seems to fit the music. Maybe I'm just revealing a pitifully primitive
bias, but I like it when figures start and stop with the musical phrasing,
and, for example, you grab someone's hand right on the beat. But squares
I've done often seem to ignore the music and just wander about without any
interest in the beat or the phrasing. While I've danced in squares that
were right on, most have been pretty far off. It doesn't seem like
dancing then.
Another problem with squares occurs when callers link them together--they
call one square, then tell you to stay in your squares for another one.
If you're dancing, that means it will be hard to politely ditch your
partner or square. If you're sitting out, it will be hard for you to join
in. I once had to sit out four squares in succession because the caller
never broke them up and there weren't enough strays to form a new square.
(I didn't boo, and I didn't ask for my money back, but I did talk to the
dance organizer later.)
Just two thoughts from a casual dancer and musician.
Dwayne Johnson
am not amazed by the variety of answers. I have been calling
contra dances for years and have a number of squares that I call
regularly. I have found very narrow-minded communities and very
open communities and a variety of in between communities. My
experience leads me to believe that squares aren't so much the
problem as are callers. Many a caller has attempted squares
without the proper preparations and has made for a lousy set of
dances. Squares ARE harder to call than contras and can be very
boring. However if a caller really prepares the dances, meets up
with the right music, and understands how to furtively recover
from his/her mistakes, then the dancers will 'generally' enjoy
the squares. I call New England Style Squares and I personally do
not enjoy Southern or Western Squares due to their visiting
nature. The grumblers are in my opinion the minority but quite
outspoken and in most cases rightly so.
P J Barnes
Nancy, Good God! What's next, cocaine?
People who like English Country are looked down upon by the contra
and square dance set.
People who like Squares are looked down upon by those who prefer all
contras.
People who like a wide variety of old and new contras are looked down
upon by those who only like contras where everyone is active, and there is
a partner swing and a corner swing.
What's next, folks? If we cater to the elite, will there be nothing
left of contra-dancing in a few years but this:
Swing your partner (8 measures)
Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
Right and Left Through (2 measures)
Twirl partner around (7 measures).
Peter Barnes
N70...@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu
squ...@omni.voicenet.com (Bob Stein) writes:
>
>In article <david6D3...@netcom.com>, dav...@netcom.com (David #6) wrote:
>
>
>call some squares and he was actually booed!
>
>
squares for just that reason....in a square you dance with 3 other couples
only. In a contra, depending on the length of the line, you dance with a
large VARIETY of couples.
ANd I agree with some comments, it depends on the caller how enjoyable a
square can be. And I have noticed there are some callers who prefer/
squares and call way too many. If it's a contra dance, then there should
be contra dancing. If it's a square dance, well then......
My feeble two cents worth.
Sandy
>========================================================
Nancy Mamlin
Laura L. Lengnick <ar...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>
>I can't think of any reason why any dance organizer would
>actually support such narrow-mindedness in the dance community.
If the organizer was also narrow-minded, they wouldn't notice.
>I played a dance recently where we were told that the crowd didn't
>like squares, that if we wanted to protect our pay for the evening,
>we better not do any squares until after 10 pm. Evidently, if
>a square is called prior to 10 pm, dancers leave in droves, demand
>their money back and the organizers ACTUALLY REFUND THE ADMISSION.
>This is an actual, true story. We didn't press our luck, so I
>didn't get to see if the dancers would actually do it. But no one
>ever let on it was a joke, so I must assume something similar actually
>happened, at least once.
Sadly, it's a believeable story. As a former organizer, I would be hard
pressed not to refund admission in similar circumstances. No, I take that
back. I think if the folks had been dancing at least some of the time
(the contras, I guess) then I'd say that they could certainly leave, but
couldn't have their money back. When I go to a concert, I don't think I
deserve my money back if the band plays *one song* i don't like. And I
don't ask for my money back at dances that contain *only contras* even
though I find an entire evening of one formation extremely tedious.... Oh
well.
>Of course, what do I know? I just sit behind the caller, start playing
>when I'm told to, stop playing when I told to, and quietly wait during
>the walk throughs....
Yeah, Laura, the switch from bass player to caller was a huge one....
>So, I'm curious....any dance organizers want to defend this practice?
There are many, I'm sure, who can and will.
Nancy
Dan Breslau
> What's next, folks? If we cater to the elite, will there be nothing
> left of contra-dancing in a few years but this:
>
> Swing your partner (8 measures)
> Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Right and Left Through (2 measures)
> Twirl partner around (7 measures).
>
> Peter Barnes
Then, of course, the "Pro Right-and-Left-Through" people and
the "Anti Right-and-Left-Through" people will splinter into
two separate groups. The latter will spend all "9" measures
just twirling? ;-)
--
Dan Breslau da...@lna.logica.com
Help! I'm trapped inside a Dilbert cartoon!
Jonathan Sivier
>couldn't have their money back. When I go to a concert, I don't think I
>deserve my money back if the band plays *one song* i don't like. And I
>don't ask for my money back at dances that contain *only contras* even
>though I find an entire evening of one formation extremely tedious.... Oh
>well.
>>So, I'm curious....any dance organizers want to defend this practice?
>There are many, I'm sure, who can and will.
In our dance group we have similar responses to squares. No booing, but
a little grumbling and more people sitting out during those dances than during
others. However this hasn't stopped us from having squares and most people do
end up enjoying them, once they get a little experience and get past the
longer walk-throughs. We have an almost underground movement within our
group trying to promote English Country dance and we've make a few converts
over the past year or so. Our best turn out to date has been around 20 people
on a couple of occasions. ECD has a reputation similar to squares, for varoius
reasons people perceive it as boring. After they get a little experience
they often find it is not. I've even slipped an English Country dance in
during an evening of contras and squares. I've also slipped some early
American contras in to a program. One of the best evening of dance I can
recall in teh past year or so was at the Caller, Musician and Leader
conference in Ann Arbor last January (1994). The callers were Dan Pearl and
Bruce Hamilton (I'm pretty sure) and they divided the evening up into quarters
with half the night being contras and half being English. It was great and
is something I'd like to try to emulate.
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier | Ballo ergo sum. |
| jsi...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | (I dance therefore I am.) |
| Flight Simulation Lab | - des Cartwright |
| Beckman Institute | |
| 405 N. Mathews | SWMDG - Single White Male |
| Urbana, IL 61801 | Dance Gypsy |
| Work: 217/244-1923 | |
| Home: 217/359-8225 | Have shoes, will dance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell E. Owen
<72712...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> I call New England Style Squares and I personally do
> not enjoy Southern or Western Squares due to their visiting
> nature.
I wanted to take exception to this remark in an otherwise interesting and
reasonable posting.
Some southern squares are indeed visiting couple squares, but many are
not. I am not an expert, but I think that Southern squares are sometimes
divided into 3 categories: visiting couple squares, squares where first
heads and then sides lead the figure, and finally, squares where everybody
is moving most of the time ("breakdowns"?). The last two categories may be
missing an important point about mixing partners.
I think the term Western squares usually refers to fast-moving squares
that are explicitly NOT phrased to the music, and the squares are usually
(always?) "modern". Visiting couple Western squares are not the norm.
Here in Seattle it seems that visiting-couple squares and the really
well-known singing squares (Smoke on the Water, Trail of the Lonesome Pine
and Just Because) are the ones that are disliked by most people. And
visiting-couple squares that have been modified so people don't stand
around all the time seem to go over OK. I've heard varying opinions about
New England Quadrilles vs Southern style squares, but I think both have
their followers.
Personally, I'm a big fan of non-visiting-couple Southern squares, but
also enjoy Western and some Quadrilles.
-- Russell
Kathy Fletcher
Mamlin described in Blacksburg VA in that we prefer squares to contras. We are
trying to discover which callers call mostly contras (with maybe an easy
boring square thrown in) and avoid them for future gigs. Our crowd is very
disappointed if a caller shows up and calls contras and circle dances all
night long.
I happen to love visiting couples squares because it gives me a chance to
catch my breath and regain composure from swinging too much. If a couple wants
to liven it up some, they can by visiting when they're not supposed to or
visiting a resting couple from a nearby set and trying to make it back in
time for their required participation. Cheaters' Swing squares are also
lively and fun. However, I don't like it when too many squares are alike
in a row, such as 3 or 4 visiting couples squares called back to back in
an evening.
Some squares are boring but then again so are some contras I've danced to.
In my somewhat limited experience, I've ended up in many more boring contra
lines than squares and it's more of a problem because contras can go on for
SOOOO long; I've been known to applaud at the end because I'm so relieved
it's over.
Carl Levine
living and dancing in New Haven), that many experienced contra dancers
do, in fact, tend to hold squares in disfavor. In general this is not an
absolute judgment however. Many people who generally dislike squares
will make exceptions when it comes to particular callers - and this list
tends to be quite lengthy - including callers like Kathy Anderson, Ron
Buchanan, Larry Edelman, Ralph Sweet, and on and on it goes. Much of the
negativity about squares relates to squares in which there is alot of
standing around (many of the visiting couple dances) and squares that are
just not called well. The dancers I know are not adverse to a fun, fast,
square that is well called. Of course, booing, not something that I have
encountered, is never acceptable, and we should try to figure out ways to
deal with it.
Robert Golder
squ...@omni.voicenet.com (Bob Stein) wrote:
> In article <david6D3...@netcom.com>, dav...@netcom.com (David #6) wrote:
>
> > I just agreed to call a contra dance for a regular series that shall
> > remain nameless and was politely informed that the dancers there disliked
> > squares and they would appreciate it if I not call any.
>
> Unfortunately, some people do not think variety is the spice of life.
>
> -Bob Stein
Contra dances can be mere calisthenics.
Contra dances can be a sensual roller coaster of pure delight.
Square dancing can be cornball hokum.
Square dancing can be like dancing in a thunderstorm.
English country dancing can be stiff, awkward movements performed to
excruciatingly holier-than-thou standards.
English country dancing can be so sensual that you wonder how it ever
became legal to do in public. You feel like you have to go home and lie
down in a darkened room for about three days in order to be normal again.
But many people still "dislike" squares... or triple minor contras... or
modern contras...or English country dancing...
I find that the beauty of dancing to live music, with a live caller or
prompter, is that you never know what will happen next....
Bob Golder (lgo...@mbl.edu)
Woods Hole, MA USA
Robert Thurlow
Dwayne Johnson <72712...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>My experience leads me to believe that squares aren't so much the
>problem as are callers. Many a caller has attempted squares
>without the proper preparations and has made for a lousy set of
>dances.
In Dallas, the NTTDS has been trying to cultivate new callers;
I wanted to start doing that despite some worries that I may
not be quite good enough as a dancer to do it (rule #1 - be an
excellent dancer before trying to call). I've of course
solved this dilemna temporarily by moving to California :-)
Anyway, one of the people who did become a fine caller was Linda
Mrosko (hey, someone hug Linda for me, okay?), who had this
great and abiding love of squares. She did what it took to
prepare for calling the squares she called, and while I've been
party to a couple of complete disasters, the squares she calls
are usually fun, and work very well.
>Squares ARE harder to call than contras and can be very
>boring. However if a caller really prepares the dances, meets up
>with the right music, and understands how to furtively recover
>from his/her mistakes, then the dancers will 'generally' enjoy
>the squares.
I agree; I think if there isn't a variety of dance styles in a
dance series that you will eventually have problems replacing
the people who go away. We can't have ALL dances consist only
of couple swings, as Peter Barnes says.
Rob T
Pete Laberge
>squares wherein ONLY ONE COUPLE is doing anything at all, so 6 other
>people are bored to tears... another hint to those those who aspire to
>calling squares: please DON'T make us keep the same square for 2 in a
>row. I will sit out 2 squares, rather than be stuck in a deadly set
This is certainly an entertaining discussion! As a public service and to
address some issues mentioned in previous posts, I offer to you:
TOP TEN LIST OF THINGS TO DO WHILE STANDING AROUND IN A SQUARE
DOING NOTHING
10. Think of your favorite Contra dance.
9. Clog awhile.
8. Sneak a swing.
7. Enjoy the fiddlin'
6. Meaningful glances at partner.
5. Pick your nose.
4. Mentally prepare request for admission refund.
3. Boo the caller. Nah. Too Rude.
2. Shout Yee-haw !!!
1. Two words: Lighten up.
Your humble servant
Pete
Kiran Wagle
> squ...@omni.voicenet.com (Bob Stein) writes:
>>Unfortunately, some people do not think variety is the spice of life.
> But I DO think variety is the spice of life, therefore I prefer contras to
> squares for just that reason....in a square you dance with 3 other couples
> only. In a contra, depending on the length of the line, you dance with a
> large VARIETY of couples.
Indeed, this is a common objection I hear to a particular *type* of
square. Unless it's distinguished by singing, I have rarely (if ever)
danced a square that consisted of "contra" type moves that didn't elicit
exactly this response--we did ALL THIS with only three other couples?
Another reason some people may not like squares as much as contras is that
they may require more attention to the dance, and less to the person one's
dancing with. I danced a square tonight with a woman from NJ, and would
like to have carried on a conversation with her, or at least flirted, but
the dance didn't lend itself to either. It was a NEAT dance, but it was
not a chance to get to know someone I'll dance with only occasionally.
~ Kiran "So it's back to Summit for me" <gr...@netcom.com>
--
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/home.html
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
"The Tasmanian Devil is so awful that he is protected by the government."
..................... Will Cuppy, _How to get from January to December_
MCramton
>Another problem with squares occurs when callers link them together--they
>call one square, then tell you to stay in your squares for another one.
>If you're dancing, that means it will be hard to politely ditch your
>partner or square.
A variation on that was after one (long, silly) square the caller said
something like, "hold your squares. But if there's someone else in your
square you'd rather dance with, then switch around." !!!
Dancers shouldn't boo and organizers shouldn't dictate, but I think one
reason a lot of people would avoid squares if they knew they were coming
is that some callers feel they "should" call them and seem to abandon
their normal judgement of what makes a good dance by calling very dumb
dances as squares. It's not always true, but even good callers do some
surprisingly weird things around squares.
Marge Cramton
Nancy Mamlin
Pete Laberge <YRG...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>Toby Koosman (tkoo...@martha.utcc.utk.edu) wrote: I think the main
>problem is too many callers call
>>squares wherein ONLY ONE COUPLE is doing anything at all, so 6 other
>>people are bored to tears... another hint to those those who aspire to
>>calling squares: please DON'T make us keep the same square for 2 in a
>>row. I will sit out 2 squares, rather than be stuck in a deadly set
>
>This is certainly an entertaining discussion! As a public service and to
>address some issues mentioned in previous posts, I offer to you:
>
>TOP TEN LIST OF THINGS TO DO WHILE STANDING AROUND IN A SQUARE
> DOING NOTHING
Great list, Pete! In fact, I've had occasion to use a similar list with
some contra-dance groups. When I call a visiting couple dance, I have
instructed the other couples about what they could do if it's not "their
turn".
Again, this is strange to me. Just as contra dancers know what a R&L thru
is in a contra dance, but can't do it somehow in a square formation,
contra dancers seem to know what to do when they're out at the top of the
set in a contra dance, but not when they're not active in a square. Same
dancers, same evening. Does contra dancing use a different part of the
brain? (Wait- I'm supposed to know the answer to questions like that.)
>7. Enjoy the fiddlin'
You mean there's *live music* up there?
And, for my PSA, here's a sneak peek at what I have planned for my
all-squares dance in Blacksburg tonight: (Crowd expected about 50/50
experienced and not. Experienced dancers very interested in helping the
newcomers)
1. circle mixer
2. easy square dance (Shoot the Owl)
3. easy, but very fast and fun square dance
4. Big set (probably about three different figures)- you know, "circle up
four, do the figure, on to another couple"
5. two-step
6. visiting couple dance
7. waltz
<break>
1. Big Set (previous three plus two more figures)
2. traditional square from Athens, GA
3. square I got from Larry Edelman about ten years ago (Three Ladies Chain)
4. two-step
5. visiting couple square
6. trad. (PA?) square (RIght Hands High, Left Hands Low)
7. waltz
I probably won't get through all these. I made a decision *not* to do any
western squares or any "new" squares, like ones by Ron Buchanan. This is
because this dance intends to preserve traditional mountain square dances.
I think that's important.
Nancy "now you know" Mamlin
Nancy Mamlin
P J Barnes <pjba...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I've even done English Country dancing...
>
> Nancy, Good God! What's next, cocaine?
Actually, I've been playing piano in old-time music jams. :)
> What's next, folks? If we cater to the elite, will there be nothing
>left of contra-dancing in a few years but this:
>
> Swing your partner (8 measures)
> Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Right and Left Through (2 measures)
> Twirl partner around (7 measures).
Indeed. I think we have to decide (each dance, dancer, musician, caller,
whatever) what it is we're about and why we exist. No matter how many
people I draw to a dance I still am not drawing as many as Paul McCartney-
I know this for a fact. We've played the same venue, one week apart.
Point is, this is traditional dancing, which implies (to me at least) that
there's is something appealing, or worth saving, about *the way it used to
be done*. OTOH, I like new innovations, too. But they should be seen as
such, and *mixed* with old stuff rather than replacing it.
I can be a real grouch about this subject. However, the *roots* of this
all is important to me. It really is, in my case, about honoring my
ancestors. And that's why old-time music resonates with me more than New
England music, and why I can't understand this "English" stuff real well.
(No one from there in my family tree.) I'm not saying that it has to
be/should be/is this way for other dancers, I'm just saying that that's
how it is for me.
I just don't think it should be simply another form of aerobics.
Nancy "sticking my neck out" Mamlin
Gary D. Shapiro
[major snip]
> The degree of confusion about "right and left through" vs. "pass
> through" (vs. "cross-trail thru") is a source of continual amazement to
> me (though I've finally learned to expect it and act accordingly).
[snip]
> I'd dearly love to have some effective (and
> non-abrasive) tactics for breaking people of this habit and tuning them
> in to the idea that the different calls have different (and consistent)
> meanings. Repeated reminders that "a `right and left through' always
> includes a courtesy turn" don't do the trick.
Do dancers distinguish between R & L Thru and Pass Thru better in
communities where R & L thru is done with hands?
--
Gary D. Shapiro <gsha...@rain.org> http://rain.org/~gshapiro/
Q: Which is more infallible: the Pope, or The Free Market?
A: Ricardo Montalban
Susan Kevra
unpopular, I wanted to incorporate squares into my program. Initially, my instructions to form square sets were met with grumbles, and
from the less gracious, outright boos. (I'm happy to report that the reaction these days is positive, even enthusiastic. Perhaps all the
hardcore contraphiles don't come anymore. I can't complain, we average 100-140 dancers per night and the average keeps increasing.)
What were my reasons for bucking the trend and calling squares? Well, as a dancer, I enjoy a variety of different dances in an evening.
As for squares specifically, I like the challenge of dancing breaks and have always enjoyed even hokey singing squares just for the
pleasure of hearing a chorus of voices on the dance floor. As a caller, I enjoy the challenge of calling squares, of improvising breaks -
there's also a kind of playfullness you can indulge in when doing squares that is harder to manage when calling contras.
All of these comments have doubtless been echoed by many a dancer and caller. Here are few more reasons, which border on the
psychological or sociological and maybe even new-age. The actual dancing of a contradance strikes me as a kind of metaphor for
modern life: you and your partner move up and down a contraline, with fleeting interactions with your neighbors, most often pleasant in
nature. But even if the experience is a negative one, like the encounter of a panhandler on a city street, you have the assurance that the
encounter will be brief, and soon you'll move on to someone less objectionable.
Honest contraphiles tell me the reason they dislike squares is - that unlike in contradances, if you end up in a "lousy" square, you're
stuck with them til the two squares are over. You can't leave them behind, as in a contradance. You have to dance with them, put up with
them, smile at them(?). I used to argue that, even if it's a crummy experience it's only about eight to ten minutes long. But the truth is,
those eight to ten minutes count. In my opinion, it's an attitude thing. To return to the metaphor again, a square is like a small
community. You "know" everybody in it; (or you will by the time the dance is over.) It's up to you what kind of character your "neighborhood"
has. Part of my hope in doing squares is that dancers find another way to connect through this kind of dancing - to really dance as a
group. I'll often start a walk-through with a quick, "introduce yourself to anyone in the square you don't know" or try to find ways to break
down cooler/less cool barriers.
I've danced some memorable squares in my life. The ones that stand out for me do so because of the dancers in the set. (Sure the
calling and music help, too!) I vividly remember some great dancing with incredible drive and connection between the dancers but I also
remember the dances in which we laughed so hard at grand right and lefts that broke down or at our inability to get our partners back that
we could barely swing.
In Walden, Thoreau said, "not all books are as dull as their readers." (I paraphrase.) I would argue that the boredom and the frustration
has more to do with the attitudes we bring with us, than with the actual dance.
-Susan Kevra
KirkMccall
swing should occur on beat 1 of B2. So there!
Ed Gebauer
>From: blier@lassen (Warren Blier)
>Subject: Re: Absolutely NO SQUARES
>Date: 9 Feb 1995 08:22:03 GMT
>Having significant experience dancing in a community where there is a strong
>anti-square sentiment among, in my opinion, a majority of the dancers, I
>was surprised to see many of these same people participate enthusiastically
>in a square-dance session at a dance camp. Why the difference? Four things
>come to mind:
>(1) All of the dancers at the camp were experienced, so walk-throughs took
>very little time. ..........(deleted)
>(2) All of the dancers at the camp were experienced, so interesting but
>complicated squares tended to work smoothly, rather than collapse part way
>through.
>(3) The person calling the squares was one of the best square-dance callers
>in the country. ...........(deleted)
>(4) There were a lot (over 100) dancers at the camp. ..........(deleted)
This thread sort of touched a guilt nerve. I consider myself a strong
intermediate level contra-dancer and I confess to heading for the hallway when
the caller asks us to square up sets. I believe Warren touched on most of the
reasons in the previous post but I would like to add a few other thoughts.
Squares scare me. I've even been through about 9 weeks of Square classes (we
left when it was time to buy the Bolo tie and Petticoat) and have danced for
12 years and they are still a challenge. In a contra, if a "new" dancer or
couple comes at me in the line I can almost always assist (silently) them in
getting through the figures in such a way that everyone has a good time and is
where they need to be when the dance starts again. In a square, only the best
dancers seem to be able to keep the group together, I can't even try without
losing my place and making matters worse. I believe there is merit in the
system of ranked dancing and training that the Mainstream Square people have
developed over the years. I can't believe it was done with any "exclusionary"
intent but was a logical solution to a real problem.
Squares seem to suffer from "center line" syndrome. The squares right in
front of the stage seem to be packed with the advanced dancers and those at
the fringes have the most beginners or first-timers. (or worse yet, someone
who insists on bringing in their 8 year old daughter for a partner). Perhaps
if callers could, after the squares form, rearrange the (intact) squares on
the floor, the most fragile could be place near the stage where the caller
could see them better.
We too have asked visiting callers to limit squares. A few years ago, at the
requests of several of our dancers, we had Kathy Anderson in and we made the
same request. Her response (correct) was that her product was mostly squares
and that's what we would get. We crossed our fingers and went forward. The
event was lightly attended but everyone had a good time. In fact we sort of
mark our time line with that event. (pre Kathey, post Kathy) Immediately
following her appearance here, our numbers rapidly doubled. I'll never
undserstand it!
So this sounds like I don't think squares should be called at contra-dances.
Wrong. I have been to many camps and my experience's, like Warren's above,
have been the same. There were many magical dance moments that happenned in
squares that would never have happenned anywhere else. I was able to enjoy
these because I had toughed it out in the occasional square and could steer
myself through the dance well enough. If I had never had the opportunity to
learn some basic figures at our local dance, I'd have been SOL.
So let's keep the squares in the local series'. Let's just fix what's wrong
about the calling and teaching so everyone can have a good time.
Sorry this got so long
Ed (Smoke on the Water is my favorite Square) Gebauer
Toby Koosman
Concerning variety being the spice of life, I would like to stick up for
stylistic coherence. In fact I prefer to do the same kind of dancing
all night; when I do English Country Dancing, I want to do it for an
hour, not one dance; I like to do Cajun dancing all night, or polskas,
or swing, or something else. I don't want it all mixed up because each
dance tradition has a character and a musical style that benefits from
isolation. That doesn't mean I want to do the same dance formation all
night, or that the tunes should be in the same key. I wouldn't insist
on calling squares if I thought they were a different kind of dancing;
to me squares and contras are the same kind of dancing. Perhaps people
who cut their teeth on contra-only dances feel that squares are an
invading species?
leda shapiro
>
> People who like English Country are looked down upon by the contra
>and square dance set.
>
> People who like Squares are looked down upon by those who prefer all
>contras.
>
> People who like a wide variety of old and new contras are looked down
>upon by those who only like contras where everyone is active, and there is
>a partner swing and a corner swing.
>
> What's next, folks? If we cater to the elite, will there be nothing
>left of contra-dancing in a few years but this:
>
> Swing your partner (8 measures)
> Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Right and Left Through (2 measures)
> Twirl partner around (7 measures).
>
I have even heard from an "experienced dancer" here that the "ideal"
dance would be one long swing... hyperbole is now impossible even in
contra dancing discussion... the reality is far beyond our imaginings.
Catering to the elite, vocal minority could indeed bring this to pass..
But, Peter... what tune would you play with the above dance?
>
Leda Shapiro
--
A good way to judge people is by observing how they treat those who can
do them absolutely no good.
- Anonymous -
Adam Carlson
>CathyDM said:
>>Another problem with squares occurs when callers link them together--they
>>call one square, then tell you to stay in your squares for another one.
>>If you're dancing, that means it will be hard to politely ditch your
>>partner or square.
>
>A variation on that was after one (long, silly) square the caller said
>something like, "hold your squares. But if there's someone else in your
>square you'd rather dance with, then switch around." !!!
>
During the Slugs at Sunrise dance camp this weekend (which was absolutely
stupendous!!!:), The caller called a couple of squares, and had people hold
their squares, but announced that anyone who was sitting out and wanted to
"tap in" could join any square anywhere they wanted to.
At first I thought this was great. It allows people who are sitting out to
get in. It allows beginners to dance with experienced dancers who may not
have thought to ask them. Upon further consideration, I'm not sure that it
was the ideal solution. I don't think anyone should ever be _forced_ to dance
with someone they don't want to. In this case the tap-ee's partner would have
to dance with the tap-er. I think this was a step in the right direction as a
solution to this problem, but perhaps should be worded, "Anyone who is sitting
out can ask someone in a square to dance and be allowed to replace their
previous partner."
Adam Carlson
leda shapiro
>>like squares, that if we wanted to protect our pay for the evening,
>>we better not do any squares until after 10 pm. Evidently, if
>>a square is called prior to 10 pm, dancers leave in droves, demand
>>their money back and the organizers ACTUALLY REFUND THE ADMISSION.
>>This is an actual, true story. We didn't press our luck, so I
>>didn't get to see if the dancers would actually do it. But no one
>>ever let on it was a joke, so I must assume something similar actually
>>happened, at least once.
>
>Sadly, it's a believeable story. As a former organizer, I would be hard
>pressed not to refund admission in similar circumstances.
>
>
>There are many, I'm sure, who can and will.
>
perhaps other formations... no I would not refund anyone's money unless
they left pretty damn at the beginning. >--
Another question..
In L.A. our dance runs from from 8 -11, as do most. We collect
admission only til about ten at most of our dances. Is this uncommon?
Do other places collect admission through the 8 -11 time slot or what?
Leda Shapiro
>-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>
--
Dave Goldman
Barnes) wrote:
> What's next, folks? If we cater to the elite, will there be nothing
> left of contra-dancing in a few years but this:
>
> Swing your partner (8 measures)
> Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> Right and Left Through (2 measures)
> Twirl partner around (7 measures).
Peter --
Surely we can somehow eliminate that pointless Right and Left Through?
-- Dave Goldman
Toby Koosman
>>>Another problem with squares occurs when callers link them together--they
>>>call one square, then tell you to stay in your squares for another one.
>>>If you're dancing, that means it will be hard to politely ditch your
>>>partner or square.
I'm surprised to hear that "hold your squares" is still done. I don't
think it's common in the Southeast. It certainly isn't appropriate
unless the squares are brief and the dancers are hip enough to square
vocabulary to require minimal teaching.
Kiran Wagle
> Kiran Wagle <gr...@netcom.com> wrote:
KW> That's less than 25% of the turnout I remember at other area dances,
KW> including Sunday/weeknight dances. Santa Cruz drew a hundred or so
NM> Is this the same Kiran that was just talking about how the *number*
NM> of people who turned out at a dance didn't reflect the success or not-
NM> or even how fun it was- or anything???
Indeed, it is. <grin> You missed my point in that article--which doesn't
surprise me, because *I* missed it myself the first time I read your
followup.
The number of people at a dance doesn't reflect anything by itself.
That said, I like big dances, because I like a small percentage of people
in any crowd. At a big dance, there will always be enough people I want
to dance with, and maybe even so many I can't dance with all of them.
There will also be enough partners for ALL the other kinds of dancers, be
they whirling dervishes or walking-step swingers (or both.)
However, the number of *regular dancers* (not just "people") who turn out
DOES mean something, IMO. If the number of people who'd regularly dance
(at an all-contra event, if you like) on Sundays is three times the number
of people who regularly dance squares, I think that says something about
what the dancers in the community want, or at least what they like.
If turnout at the annual mixed-but-mostly-non-contra Christmas dance (the
one I'm thinking of had a lot of English dance) is much lower than at
regular dances, just what part of the community is being served? Does
that part of the community contribute to the long-term health of the whole
community? In this case, would that smaller set come dancing anyway; if
so, what's gained by a dance geared towards just them?
If turnout at the annual Swallowtail dance is so high that regular dancers
get banged into by all the people who come out once a year, just what part
of the community is being served? Does that part of the community
contribute to the long-term health of the whole community?
(In the latter case, I think the answer is clear. Those extra 300 people
crowd the floor, thus making it harder for both regulars and new dancers
to dance. Since they only come out once a year for the Peak Swallowtail
Experience (how long till we have an acronym here?) I would guess that
they are less likely to spoil their PSE by dancing with new dancers.
They'll be too busy talking to their old friends to make new ones. And
they'll leave without helping to clean up, to return more quickly the next
day to the busy lives that keep them away from dancing the rest of the
year.)
While I tend to worry more about dances being too small to meet enough
people's needs, I do think it's possible to be too big. The important
question IMO is, generally, "Does a particular set of dance choices help
or hinder the long-term health of the community?" In many cases, this
boils down to "Do the people whose needs are being met contribute to the
long-term health of the community?"
NM> monthly square dance in Cochranville, PA (an hour north of B'more) that
NM> draws over 100 people from all over the tri-state. I called it on a
I'll check it out. Especially if I get info and schedules for my Web pages. :-)
KW> That's a good question. IMO, the short answer is that there seem to be
KW> people who are convinced that if they try JUST ONE MORE TIME you'll
KW> suddenly see the light and enjoy something you may have perfectly good
NM> Then sit down! Don't do them!
I will--IF they warn me in advance. I'm certainly not going to say
"Sorry, I asked you to dance but I don't do squares, so now you have to
sit out too."
NM> No one is forcing you to do every dance!
No, they aren't. But they aren't necessarily facilitating my choices, either.
KW> Or do you think the caller might be right? :)
*snork* :-)
KW> example of this is people who insist on mixing English and contra
KW> dances at the same event--a sure-fire way to keep THIS curmudgeon away.
NM> But that's how the dances *all* used to be before we got so specialized!
NM> A few contras, a few squres, some English, some International... Oh well.
If dances were still that way, I wouldn't be dancing. I don't like
everything in the world equally well, and neither does anyone else I
know. I guess I'm glad I live in enlightened times. <grin>
NM> I guess we thought variety was the spice of life back then.
NM> Guess we were wrong. :)
Not wrong at all--but not right for everyone.
KW> Kiran "I bet you're taking notes now!" <gr...@netcom.com>
NM> Nancy "now they are" Mamlin
~ Kiran "But it's not you they want to keep away!" <gr...@netcom.com>
--
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
"It's hard to sleep at night when you know that a 10 pound frog
from Southern Cameroon might come and jump on your stomach."
--Chas. M. Schultz "Snoopy"
Kiran Wagle
> I agree; I think if there isn't a variety of dance styles in a dance series
> that you will eventually have problems replacing the people who go away.
I agree;
however, I also feel that some of that variety may itself make people go away.
English dancing in any amount is a way to make me go away. While that may
warm the cockles of certain dance organisers', callers', and musicians'
hearts, it also means one less person who's willing to dance with new
dancers, push a mop after the dance, and promote the dance in other ways.
SO I can quite understand other people saying "they don't do enough of
what I like" and staying home.
> We can't have ALL dances consist only of couple swings, as Peter Barnes says.
Oh? <grin>
I've actually heard stories of people griping if there's no -neighbor- swing.
(So I'm trying to write a five-swing dance.)
~ Kiran "I like Petronella" <gr...@netcom.com>
--
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
"History is made at night; and character is what you are in the dark!"
--Dr Emilio Lizardo/Lord John Whorfin in _Buckaroo Banzai_
Bo Bradham
>
> I'm surprised to hear that "hold your squares" is still done. I don't
> think it's common in the Southeast. It certainly isn't appropriate
> unless the squares are brief and the dancers are hip enough to square
> vocabulary to require minimal teaching.
>
It's a "New England" squares thing. The sets are usually short
(7 times thru the tune: intro, figure 2X, chorus, figure
2X, chorus). Believe it or not, 2 such squares take about the
same time as 1 contra set unless the walkthrus take too long.
So it shouldn't ruin your evening to get "stuck" in such a
square.
Bo Bradham
Toby Koosman
>on a couple of occasions. ECD has a reputation similar to squares, for varoius
>reasons people perceive it as boring. After they get a little experience
>they often find it is not. I've even slipped an English Country dance in
>during an evening of contras and squares.
Honestly, I think what turns people off to English Country Dancing is
trying to do it at contra dance events, where people are psyched for
energetic, self-indulgent, easy gratification and those Playford dances
(especially the ones simple enough to teach quickly to contra dancers)
just seem like contras that lack something. I love Playford and I feel
the same dread of it at contra nights as other people. It needs to be
experienced in concentration. This is another argument against too much
eclecticism: the most superficially appealing dance wins. That's why
the contra has choked out every other traditional dance form in so many
places. The Knoxville dance was formed during a revival of interest in
regional tradition, and twenty years ago they did Appalachian squares
and circles, but the New England contra has swept everything else away.
I think that's a shame.
Robert Golder
squ...@omni.voicenet.com (Bob Stein) wrote:
> I think that the "contra-only" mindset is detrimental to contra and square
> dancing. Even if you don't like Southern music and dance, there are
> wonderful Northern and French-and-Anglo Canadian squares that are not
> being done now. It would be a shame to lose these dances because of a
> small number of dancers who cannot appreciate other froms.
Some people may grumble about squares in southern New England, but squares
are still frequently danced here. The dances which are truly endangered
are older contra dances, the triple-minor contras where the line organizes
into groups of three couples, the 1's traveling down to the foot of the
line while the 2's and 3's travel up to the head. A few months ago, I
asked a friend if he would be attending an upcoming dance. "No," he
replied, "because '****' will be calling, and he'll probably call some
triples." My oh my! I went to the dance, and the caller did indeed call
one triple contra; it was "British Sorrow," and it was pure joy to dance
it. (The modern contras and the squares were excellent too.) Now I'll
tell you a secret. Here's a good method to help preserve the square
dancing you enjoy, or the triple minor contras, or any other aspect of folk
dancing that pleases you. After the last waltz, go up to the stage and
thank the caller and the band. Don't take up a lot of their time; they're
tired and they need to pack up and go home. Just thank them, and perhaps
say something like this to the caller: "I particularly enjoyed 'British
Sorrow'" (or "the southern squares", etc.). A brief, specific thank-you
probably offsets a good deal of generalized grumbling.
David #6
: Do dancers distinguish between R & L Thru and Pass Thru better in
: communities where R & L thru is done with hands?
Having danced in DC where we use hands, and in Knoxville, where we
didn't, I have not seen an appreciable difference.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Mark Bluemel
>> I've even done English Country dancing...
> Nancy, Good God! What's next, cocaine?
"You should try everything once except incest and folk-dancing" ...
--
Mark Bluemel Unix/Oracle Trainer and Consultant
My opinions are my own, but I'll share them
All solutions to problems are offered "as is"
and without warranty - you have been warned :-)
Lisa Sieverts
: but squares
: are still frequently danced here. The dances which are truly endangered
: are older contra dances
This thought reacted with something that has been going through my mind
for the past week or so.
As many of you know, we are in the midst of starting a contra dance
here in the Boise, Idaho area. We have a great band, formed mostly of
Boise Philharmonic members who have decided that they love New England
style contra music. This band has had to take pot luck with the callers,
namely myself and another woman. Neither of us has called before.
Now, I have these great electronic connections, and I knew about CDSS,
so I have "Zesty Contras" and the Gene Hubert, Tony Parkes, and Ted
Sanella books. Thus, I'm calling the dances that are currently in
fashion. Our other caller has been using the Library to find dances.
She has the Ralph Page/Beth Tolman "Country Dance Book" and others
of that vintage.
So she calls triple minors, and chestnuts like Hull's Victory.
And it's great! We have a fine time dancing to these dances. Nobody
knows they are "out of fashion".
Maybe in a few years, our dancers will be jaded and require symmetric
dances with a 16 count swing between every move, and no squares, but
right now, ignorance is bliss and we are a small but happy crew.
lsie...@boi.hp.com
Eagle, Idaho
Alan Crosman
fl...@jm.acs.Virginia.EDU (Bo Bradham) wrote:
The convention from MWSD is a "tip" of 20 minutes or less, two squares to
the tip, one "hash" and one singing call with rotation between squares so
that heads move to the side and sides become heads. As noted above, this
is the same amount of time or less as is taken with most Contra sets.
Nancy Mamlin
Brian Rost <ro...@nutshell.maelstrom.timeplex.com> wrote:
>
>From the caller's perspective, this just saves time. It's not an
>attempt to drive dancers crazy 8^)
You're right. We have *other* ways to drive dancers crazy. :)
>It always takes longer to get the squares in place than contra lines,
>so most callers I know do squares in pairs; usually one pair per half
>of the evening.
It does not take longer to get in squares than it does to form contra
lines, talk to everyone around you, arrange the next three or four dances
and then wonder why you haven't started the walkthrough only to realize
that the caller is asking for something called "hands four".... At least
that's the way it's done in DC.
Nancy "see you at Glen Echo next Friday" Mamlin
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
Lynn Garren
In article <groo-14029...@192.0.2.1>, gr...@netcom.com (Kiran Wagle) writes:
|> > Clear walkthroughs are also important for contras
|>
|> Sure they are--until you learn the dozen most common moves, and the other
|> dozen or so uncommon moves. Then walkthroughs aren't necessary at all for
|> basic dances, and are only minimally necessary for more advanced dances.
|>
|> Even if square dances became well enough known that dancers recognised
|> them by name (e.g. Hey Mania <g>) and could dance them without
|> walkthroughs, many squares have complicated figures (like the teacup chain
|> (?) that Woody Lane called last Friday) that are not easy to remember
|> before or after the dance. And squares don't always use the same n
|> figures, the way contradances do.
|>
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH
One of my favorite things to happen at a dance is for the caller to
announce a square and then call it without a walk-through. Of course
this doesn't happen often because you need dancers who are familiar
with the basic moves, but it's just as easy to learn the basic
square moves as it is to learn the basic contra moves.
As a matter of fact, around here beginners think that squares are
easier than contras. Probably because callers don't often call
New England squares.
Lynn, yes I live near Chicago, Garren
Russell E. Owen
acro...@haverford.edu (Alan Crosman) wrote:
> The convention from MWSD is a "tip" of 20 minutes or less, two squares to
> the tip, one "hash" and one singing call with rotation between squares so
> that heads move to the side and sides become heads. As noted above, this
> is the same amount of time or less as is taken with most Contra sets.
I take it MWSD = "modern western square dancing?". If so, the situation is
very different than for old-time dancing. Club square dancers don't walk
through dances first, and so two dances go much more quickly and all the
time is spent dancing. It makes perfect sense to have 2 squares per "tip".
My personal opinion is that old-time squares (which are taught before
being danced) are more fun if one is NOT asked to hold one's sets. I
realize that New England Quadrilles are usually very short, but still
prefer to change sets. I think holding sets was more appropriate when
things went at a more relaxed tempo, attention spans were longer, and when
squares were more well accepted (a day I hope will return!).
-- Russell
David #6
: [Squares] at the fringes have the most beginners or first-timers. (or
: worse yet, someone who insists on bringing in their 8 year old daughter
: for a partner).
Oh? I recall dancing a square on "the fringes" at Glen Echo with Ginny
(Uncle Gizmo) Snowe's daughter Megan at about that age. She was very good
at telling the less experienced dancers which way to go.
--
David
dav...@netcom.com
Nancy Mamlin
Robert Golder <lgo...@mbl.edu> wrote:
>In article <squeeze-0802...@ivyland25.voicenet.com>,
>squ...@omni.voicenet.com (Bob Stein) wrote:
>> I think that the "contra-only" mindset is detrimental to contra and square
>> dancing. Even if you don't like Southern music and dance, there are
Bob, I just figured out why "you" (NE musicians like you and Peter) are
such strong supporters of "us". When we're all on staff at a dance
weekend, the only dancing you get to do is "southern" (to me) and the only
I get to do is "NE" (to you). (There's your hint, Peter about my
short-lived career in ECD.)
But that's not the point:
>asked a friend if he would be attending an upcoming dance. "No," he
>replied, "because '****' will be calling, and he'll probably call some
>triples." My oh my! I went to the dance, and the caller did indeed call
>one triple contra; it was "British Sorrow," and it was pure joy to dance
>it. (The modern contras and the squares were excellent too.) Now I'll
First, your friend did the right thing by staying home if one triple minor
was going to ruin his evening. People that sensitive shouldn't be in too
many social situations without supervision. :) Second, notice that this
caller did ONE "offending" dance, and yet he's known as "one of THOSE
callers". Like me being a square caller when most evenings I call more
contras.
>thank the caller and the band. Don't take up a lot of their time; they're
>tired and they need to pack up and go home. Just thank them, and perhaps
>say something like this to the caller: "I particularly enjoyed 'British
>Sorrow'" (or "the southern squares", etc.). A brief, specific thank-you
>probably offsets a good deal of generalized grumbling.
YES!!!! Because I can tell you that if you don't - that one jerk who
yelled about the triple minor will be in that guy's dreams.... That's why
he only called one that night, I bet.
Nancy Mamlin
Toby Koosman
>I have even heard from an "experienced dancer" here that the "ideal"
>dance would be one long swing... hyperbole is now impossible even in
>contra dancing discussion... the reality is far beyond our imaginings.
And yet, it's a beginning square dance caller's error to let a swing
go on too long, because people don't really want to swing longer than
eight bars. Anyway, why are these people doing set dances?
Joel L Breazeale
Nancy Mamlin <Nancy....@launchpad.unc.edu> wrote:
>In article <3hf057$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>P J Barnes <pjba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I've even done English Country dancing...
>>
>> Nancy, Good God! What's next, cocaine?
>
>
>> What's next, folks? If we cater to the elite, will there be nothing
>>left of contra-dancing in a few years but this:
>>
>> Swing your partner (8 measures)
>> Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
>> Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
>> Right and Left Through (2 measures)
>> Twirl partner around (7 measures).
>
>whatever) what it is we're about and why we exist. No matter how many
>people I draw to a dance I still am not drawing as many as Paul McCartney-
>I know this for a fact. We've played the same venue, one week apart.
>Point is, this is traditional dancing, which implies (to me at least) that
>there's is something appealing, or worth saving, about *the way it used to
>be done*. OTOH, I like new innovations, too. But they should be seen as
>such, and *mixed* with old stuff rather than replacing it.
>
>I can be a real grouch about this subject. However, the *roots* of this
>all is important to me. It really is, in my case, about honoring my
>ancestors. And that's why old-time music resonates with me more than New
>England music, and why I can't understand this "English" stuff real well.
>(No one from there in my family tree.) I'm not saying that it has to
>be/should be/is this way for other dancers, I'm just saying that that's
>how it is for me.
>
>I just don't think it should be simply another form of aerobics.
It is really nice to see people thinking this way. What I believe we need
to realize is that the tendency for American culture to glorify fads and
innovation. A "tradition of innovation" is an oxymoron, so if we are to
establish contra dance as a tradition it cannot innovate quickly. It has
innovated quickly and the causes of that are easy to identify (but that's
another posting). We also have to get away from the "bigger is better"
mentality -- a big dance is fine, but it is not an optimal social
experience; it may be the best dances are small dances (but not too small).
To REALLY have a tradition and assure its long-term survival we have to
integrate this tradition into the culture. Look around you and you will
see examples. These traditions may only address the needs for a certain
age group, but they remain for generations to come. Make contra dance a
staple in American culture and it will be around a long time, make it a
fad in a subculture and it may not be around in fifty years.
I have used 'a walk on a beach' as an example, going to a restaurant,
going to a movie as examples of culture which are traditional (or common-
place). How can contra dance be as common?
Watch what's happening with the Internet! Ten years ago you wouldn't see
an e-mail address on network TV, now it's there!
Make something commonplace, integrated into the culture, and it has the hope
of becoming a tradition.
There are definately ways to keep contra dance from being a tradition. I
won't enumerate all the ways, but I'll summarize it this way: If the
first-timer has a bad time or the dancers care more about dancing prowess
than social skills then watch out.
Education is a key here, we have to
know why we are here. If we realize the risk to the tradition when we
do a complex dance as the first dance of the evening, then we will know
the disoriented first-timers may sit out the second dance and watch and
may never come back.
Education is the safety net. In our fast-moving culture perhaps the dance
leaders of the past did not teach the social aspects of the dance form, so
contra dance may have been reduced to dance figures from a dance culture.
When information is passed down the next generation then retransmits it;
what is lost at successive points represents the points were erosion of a
tradition occurs. It is clear to me that the social aspects of the contra
dance culture need to be reemphasized!
If we keep the social aspect of dance first in our minds and enjoy dancing
with first-timers then we will go a long way toward long-term survival.
If our dance leaders try to make every decision based first upon what would
be good for the tradition, then that too will help to assure the long-term
survival of the dance (social) form.
At some point a "contra dance" is not a contra dance when it is unfriendly.
It is hard to detect the difference between dance form and dance culture,
but I strongly feel people are confusing these two issues. I believe most
of us want to keep contra dance (the culture) approachable and assure its
long-term survival. Yet, contra dance (the dance form) is becoming more
complex. You can't have it both ways, so I think the best thing to do is
for individual leaders to decide whether they want a social dance or a
complex dance. I strongly believe the surviving dance groups will be the
one's who keep their dances social. A leader who can advertize their dance
to the general public will be assured more newcomers versus a leader who
must advertize their dance via the flyer table at another dance; the
general public is a much larger market than the collection of existing,
active dancers.
I hope we can come up with a new name for complexity- and challenge-driven
contra dance so these folks aren't confused with the socialization-driven
contra dances. Remember that contra dances years back were known as
square dances and the term 'contra dance' was created for the sake of
differentiation from the modern western square dance movement.
[Watch for a posting entitled "The Future of Community Dance by Chris Kermiet"
which mentions the subject of "no squares".]
Regards,
Joel
Bill Tomczak
>
> > What's next, folks? If we cater to the elite, will there be nothing
> >left of contra-dancing in a few years but this:
> >
> > Swing your partner (8 measures)
> > Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> > Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
> > Right and Left Through (2 measures)
> > Twirl partner around (7 measures).
> >
> I have even heard from an "experienced dancer" here that the "ideal"
> dance would be one long swing... hyperbole is now impossible even in
> contra dancing discussion... the reality is far beyond our imaginings.
>
>
> Catering to the elite, vocal minority could indeed bring this to pass..
>
> But, Peter... what tune would you play with the above dance?
Who needs a tune? A really good drummer and maybe a bass player
could just do some rhythm jamming all night.
Bill "Shake yer Booty" Tomczak
nort...@interserv.com
(What *IS* a booty, anyway?)
GregMcK
It seems to me that a dance series needs some kind of character and that
visiting callers should respect the character developed locally by the
organizing committee. If you call your own series that's one thing. When
visiting a series you should be willing to compromise what you normally
do, or work with the committee to schedule the dance as a special event
with a special character.
I would like to address the comments about "narrow mindedness" on the part
of some dancers who prefer contras. We all have our preferences. Is it
"narrow minded" if the people at a ballroom dance were to balk at spending
just 20 minutes to set up and teach a contra dance? These are different
venues. If you want to see real "narrow mindedness" try teaching just two
or three country western line dances at an English Country dance.
I don't mind one or two squares in an evening of contras. (It gives me a
chance to sit out and rest.) I wonder, though, why they are called when
they are not appropriate, such as when the hall is packed to begin with,
(and people must sit out since squares require more room), or when there
are only 14 dancers in the hall making it impossible to form two full
squares.
Just a thought,
Greg McKenzie
Monterey, CA
Alan Collins
In article <3heghc$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CathyDM (cat...@aol.com) writes:
.........
>
>Another problem with squares occurs when callers link them together--they
>call one square, then tell you to stay in your squares for another one.
>If you're dancing, that means it will be hard to politely ditch your
>in. I once had to sit out four squares in succession because the caller
>never broke them up and there weren't enough strays to form a new square.
>(I didn't boo, and I didn't ask for my money back, but I did talk to the
>dance organizer later.)
>
As a caller from the other side of the Atlantic, I don't
have the Contras vs Squares problem. But in view of Cathy's
comment Above I'd like to say that I have only once been
"advised" by an organiser vis-a-vis my programme. And that
was not to retain the same format for successive dances in
order to allow people to drop out/join in. At the time I
was rather surprised, but on contemplation I think this is
a good thing, and now(as then) make an effort to keep a
varied programme.
after all everyone dances because they enjoy it (don't
they?) and callers should make every effort to make sure
that every body attending a danc has a good tiem, be they
beginner or experienced (prejudiced?) dancer.
alan collins UK
Alan Collins
In article <ROST.95Fe...@nutshell.maelstrom.timeplex.com>, Brian Rost (ro...@nutshell.maelstrom.timeplex.com) writes:
>It always takes longer to get the squares in place than contra lines,
>so most callers I know do squares in pairs; usually one pair per half
>of the evening.
>--
I just don't agree that it takes longer to set up squares!
If the dances (squares, circles or longways) are chosen
by the caller to suit the skills of the dancers there
should be no difference.
Alan Collins
Alan Collins
In article <groo-14029...@192.0.2.1>, Kiran Wagle (gr...@netcom.com) writes:
>nm...@umail.umd.edu (Nancy Mamlin) wrote:
>
>> Clear walkthroughs are also important for contras
>
as for any dance
>.... Then walkthroughs aren't necessary at all for
>basic dances, and are only minimally necessary for more advanced dances.
>
Hang on a minute. This sweeping generalisation just can't be
allowed through!
Most dances I attend and/or call have a fair percentage of
beginners. It is incumbent on callers and experienced
dancers to be patient. Do we really want to drive
newcomwers away?
Alan "Give everyone a chance" Collins
Joel L Breazeale
>7. Nancy Mamlin writes:
>
>>(For the record- I *hate* Smoke on the
>>Water, and in general find that it is squares like that which help people
>>develop a distaste for squares. Sure, the singing is fun, but the moves
>>are soooo simple.)
>
>I happen to like singing squares, though I rarely call them because
>I'm not much of a singer. I find that the singing aspect adds an
>interest that makes up for the relative simplicity of the figures.
>There are also some dead simple southern/western squares where the main
>charge comes from energetic yet flowing motion at blazing tempos.
>I also love the more complex dances (common in the "transitional"
>western repertoire and in Ron Buchanan's output) that challenge your
>reaction time and sense of orientation.
I'm really surprised by Nancy's comment on that particular dance. She
clearly shows her distaste for simple dances. As someone who has done
modern western through A1 and all that stuff I have *specifically* cho-
sen doing contra and traditional squares due to their simplicity and
inclusiveness. I heard there aren't boring dances, only boring dance
partners; therefore, someone who cannot have a good time with a simple
dance must not be a good dancer. My preference, as I have stated many
times, is to look at a dance as a collection of people and not as a
collection of dancers. The preference toward more challenging dances
seems to be linked with the deemphasis of the social aspect of the
gathering, hence my preference to emphasize the social aspect.
I don't want to totally discount challenging squares, just that in
light of the ignorance of the impact of challenging dances in general
that we should consider their exclusiveness when they are emphasized.
---
Another dance I like is Riverboat. This dance is still found in the
modern western square dance repertoire. It has been my goal to learn
this one at some point and call it in both the modern western and
contemporary traditional cultures. That is a singing call square too.
I do not remember all the calls on that one; is that one a "transitional
square"?
Regards,
Joel
Nancy Mamlin
I didn't think I clearly showed my distaste for simple squares. I have
about fifty in my collection that I regularly call. I just thought I
showed my distaste for Smoke on the Water.
MSchway
> Tune, schmoon! Phrasing in music is becoming more and more irrelevant in
> contra dancing anyway!
>
> Let's just use a trap set!
Nah...too tonal. Better to use a metronome (set at the requisite 122
BPM).
--Mike Schway
Kiran Wagle
> this doesn't happen often because you need dancers who are familiar
> with the basic moves, but it's just as easy to learn the basic
> square moves as it is to learn the basic contra moves.
What do you think of as the basic square moves?
Is "teacup chain" (for example) a basic move?
> As a matter of fact, around here [Chicago] beginners think that
> squares are easier than contras. Probably because callers don't
> often call New England squares.
Interesting.
I tend to think of "Hey Mania" as a basic square, and "Country Corners
Canon" as a difficult square, just to give a reference point. Are these
the kinds of dances your dancers think of as "easier than contras"?
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
--
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
Kiran Wagle
> We also have to get away from the "bigger is better" mentality--a big
> dance is fine, but it is not an optimal social experience; it may be
> the best dances are small dances (but not too small).
A big dance may in fact BE the optimal social experience for some people
(for example, the ones who don't find many kindred spirits in ANY group,
or for seriously extroverted people.)
> If we realize the risk to the tradition when we do a complex dance as the
> first dance of the evening, then we will know the disoriented first-timers
> may sit out the second dance and watch and may never come back.
Sure. And other first-timers may decide this stuff is seriously
fun--especially if the allegedly complicated dance (and NOTHING we're
doing here is rocket science!) inspires the regulars to dance with
beginners and get them up to speed in a hurry. See Sharon's posting, or
dance in Louisville on a Monday night in summer.
<URL:news:950215230...@grizzly.bowdoin.edu>
I've gotten first-timers thru dances like "Good Friday" without a
walk-through at all. (Swallowtail; Annapolis.) They even had fun. What
kind of dances do YOU consider complex?
> It is clear to me that the social aspects of the contra
> dance culture need to be reemphasized!
What do you think those social aspects are?
What about dancers who don't feel *those* things are "the" social aspects?
> If our dance leaders try to make every decision based first upon what would
> be good for the tradition, then that too will help to assure the long-term
> survival of the dance (social) form.
Good for the tradition, or for the dance and the people who dance?
Why are we (dancers) here? Are we just museum pieces?
> It is hard to detect the difference between dance form and dance culture,
> but I strongly feel people are confusing these two issues.
Yes, they often do.
> Yet, contra dance (the dance form) is becoming more complex.
> You can't have it both ways,
I disagree.
See Sharon's post. <grin>
Or dance in Louisville on a summer night just after Kentucky Music Weekend.
> so I think the best thing to do is for individual leaders
> to decide whether they want a social dance or a complex dance.
Or both. See <URL:news:950215230...@grizzly.bowdoin.edu> :-)
> A leader who can advertize their dance to the general public
> will be assured more newcomers
Will those newcomers stay? If not, what is the use of attracting them?
> the general public is a much larger market than the collection of existing,
> active dancers.
Is the general public a receptive market? Is it a *more* receptive market
than the friends of active dancers?
~ Kiran <gr...@netcom.com>
--
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
"_The Underground Grammarian_ does not seek to educate anyone.
We intend rather to ridicule, humiliate, and infuriate those
who abuse our language, not so that they will do better but
so that they will stop using language entirely or at least go away."
--Richard Mitchell, the Underground Grammarian
Kiran Wagle
> Doesn't it seem wasteful to have callers running all over the country
> when they could just call local dances and stay home?
Doesn't seem wasteful to me. I like the cross-fertilization that comes
from having callers from all over the country bringing their ideas and
repertoire to other locations. But I'm one of those wacko Midwesterners
ya know.
> Let me be clear on this: A contra dance is supposed to be
> a social event based on dance, so if it isn't social it
> isn't a contra dance. It may look like one, but it isn't one.
I see.
Joel L Breazeale
>
>It seems to me that a dance series needs some kind of character and that
>visiting callers should respect the character developed locally by the
>organizing committee. If you call your own series that's one thing. When
>visiting a series you should be willing to compromise what you normally
>do, or work with the committee to schedule the dance as a special event
>with a special character.
I agree and disagree and will explain. Your statement is very general.
If were in a perfect world what you say would be true. What if, however,
the dance series was very, very unfriendly to first-timers and the caller
could definately sense this. If the attitude of the organizers is to be
unfriendly then I would think a responsible caller would not takee the gig.
If the dance series was "non-toxic" then, of course, the caller should try
their best to do as the organizers ask.
I think much of the confusion begins when non-local callers are asked to
call in an unfamiliar situation. Wouldn't the series be better served by
hiring a majority of its callers from the local area, especially from
callers who are also dancers? Doesn't it seem wasteful to have callers
running all over the country when they could just call local dances and
stay home? Much of the confusion you are citing is a result of this
travelling caller phenomenon.
>I would like to address the comments about "narrow mindedness" on the part
>of some dancers who prefer contras. We all have our preferences. Is it
>"narrow minded" if the people at a ballroom dance were to balk at spending
>just 20 minutes to set up and teach a contra dance? These are different
>venues. If you want to see real "narrow mindedness" try teaching just two
>or three country western line dances at an English Country dance.
I reemphasize my point regarding the 'contra dance.' These statements are
direct evidence of this issue. It is very possible to reduce 'contra dance'
to a dance form alone causing comparisons to be valid, so Greg's statement
would then be true.
However, I don't believe 'contra dance' is simply dancing -- it is a dance
form which is optimized to be social and inclusive; it is also a culture.
Healthy dance cultures are out there which recognize this whether they are
actually cognizant of it. Look for social aspects such as inclusiveness
and non-dance gatherings before/during/after the dance for these clues.
I believe when we reduce 'contra dance' to a simple dance form it will be
an oversimplification which may be very hard to reverse. The modern western
square dancer movement quickly deevolved their dance form to what it is
today. The modern western square dance culture (at a whole) cannot offer
a dance event to the general public, to people without experience period.
How close is the contemporary contra dance culture to this point --- I'd
say damn close based on these discussions!
>I don't mind one or two squares in an evening of contras. (It gives me a
>chance to sit out and rest.) I wonder, though, why they are called when
>they are not appropriate, such as when the hall is packed to begin with,
>(and people must sit out since squares require more room), or when there
>are only 14 dancers in the hall making it impossible to form two full
>squares.
It is easy to just look at a 'contra dance' as a dance event. At one
level what you say is quite true, but let's look a little more closely.
I firmly believe a crowded hall is a sign that a dance is too big. It
is, therefore, not a situation which should be tolerated for long and is
exceptional. In this circumstance I'd say squares are not advised. This
is therefore a SPECIFIC circumstance.
A case where there are too few dancers is also a special circumstance.
Any caller who'd insist on calling a square when there are 13 willing
dancers is, well, showing poor judgement. Fortunately, the contemporary
contra caller can and should call a contra dance in this case! I agree
with your example in this case.
Let me be clear on this: A contra dance is supposed to be a social event
based on dance, so if it isn't social it isn't a contra dance. It may
look like one, but it isn't one. Squares may be a tool to keep a non-
social attitude in check. If some people are anti-social and refuse to
dance at a series which calls squares then the loss of that one dancer
may prevent the loss of an indefinate number of newcomers.
As a dance organizer I prefer to work with people (dancers, callers,
organizers, musicians) who do not display elitist attitudes. They are
inflexible, anti-social, and have some need to have their ego nourished
by making things overly complex. I prefer to work with people who want
to just get together and have a good time and want to maximize the enjoy-
ment of everyone ESPECIALLY the first-timers.
A responsible dance leader must be inflexible when there is a clear danger
which represents potental physical or even social harm to a dance participant.
I choose to point out the social implications of these issues as I have for
some time. Those who are quiet on this issue are part of the problem by
omission. I'll guess there were people saying these same things when modern
western squares created the concept of lessons and prior knowledge just
like the regular dances are lessons for the "experienced dancer dances."
Regards,
Joel
Peter Olszowka
I find a serious inconsistency in your arguments. You say that we
shouldn't consider bigger, better. Yet, simultaneously you say that
dances should be more social and beginner friendly and then organ-
izers could recruit from the general population.
If bigger isn't better, then there is no need to recruit people any
faster than people leave. While this still leaves some recruiting and
beginner focus necessary, it doesn't require the attitude that every
single moment of every single dance at every single event be
absolutely perfect for beginners.
--Peter
Peter Olszowka
dance even without walkthroughs. At this weekend's Dance Flurry the
following happened to me more than once. I entered a hall while a
dance was already in progress and wanted to join in. The first
person I asked replied that she was a beginner, but I returned that
it didn't matter. We watched the dance cycle through once while
I explained it and then we joined in. The other
dancers overheard my
explanation and quickly adjusted to the beginning dancer. Generally,
by the 3rd time through the dance, all appearance of apprehension on
the beginner's face was gone. Finally, at the end of the dance she
excitedly ran over to her friends to tell them all about it.
--Peter
Peter Y
what. However, here are a few thoughts.
When calling for beginners, squares are definitely easier than contras: no
cast off, no contra progressions. You can teach the Grapevine Twist,
Honolulu Baby or any number of squares much easier than the simplest of
contras. When calling for contradancers who don't normally dance squares,
it can be almost more difficult than teaching squares to complete
beginners. On the other hand, teaching contras to a group of square
dancers is just as difficult.
Someone characterized southern squares as coming in three varieties:
visiting couple dances, dances alternating between heads and sides being
active, and dances where everyone is active. New England squares have been
mentioned several times in apparently contradictory manner, but they could
be described in exactly the same way. I guess it's important to mention
which type of New England squares you're talking about.
I call one or two sets of squares at each dance (some prompted, some
singing squares and many chanted [part way between as Ralph Page and Duke
Miller often did]) and a couple traditional contras each evening at our
local dances (southeast New Hampshire), and my modern contras tend to be
at least 10 years old. Everyone seems to enjoy these dances, our dances
are well attended and complaints are rare. Undoubtedly some people whose
tastes differ just don't come, and a few hotshots go to Boston regularly.
However, I call these dances because I enjoy dancing them, and everyone
knows that (I get out and dance whenever I can - not frequently enough -
and sometimes will call something like Money Musk or British Sorrow from
the floor). I suspect that the fact that I clearly enjoy doing these
dances contributes to others enjoying them as well.
When the dancers are up to it, I'll play around with breaks quite a bit in
the squares. I'm nowhere near as good as Ted Sannella, but I think it adds
to the enjoyment of the dancers; and they probably get a kick out of it on
those occasions when I (as a normally reasonably good caller) call myself
into a corner.
I think one of the most important things as a caller is to be one of the
dancers at times too. People may know that my tastes are somewhat
different at times, but they are my friends and we are all part of the
community, so they are more likely to find it interesting rather than
objectionable if I call something different. I'm not sure how this relates
to being a guest caller in an unfamiliar community; I hate to drive too
much for that to happen!
Well, that's enough rambling. By the way, some of us feel cheated if the
caller doesn't do two squares per set, and would really prefer three. So
there!
Peter Yarensky
Peter Yarensky
N70...@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu
Gulp! Now I'm starting to feel guilty because I love the exhileration of the
swings! Am I going to have to become a swing junkie....surreptitiously
sneaking a swing in the alley, or in my living room with the shades all
drawn??
In article <3id0up$n...@martha.utk.edu>
tkoo...@martha.utcc.utk.edu (Toby Koosman) writes:
>all that swinging. I'm just not
>convinced this is really demanded by dancers.
> When did this happen? When did it come about that the
>contra with only one swing (and it better be your partner by God) is the
>exception? It's crazy. Maybe it's so excessive that it's got to turn
>around soon. The new novelty will be contras with low swing content.
>I'll go write some.
elg
: ["Cater to the Elite" by Peter Barnes:"]
: >> Swing your partner (8 measures)
: >> Swing your neighbor's partner (8 measures)
: >> Swing your other neighbor's partner (8 measures)
: >> Right and Left Through (2 measures)
: >> Twirl partner around (7 measures).
: Hey, I think this dance is catching on! In the last three days
: I've done three dances that had three swings. One of them went:
: Balance and swing your (same sex) neighbor
: Something something swing your neighbor's partner
: Something something swing your partner
: ...
: Actually it was a little more elegant than it sounds, but I had to
: laugh at the resemblance. Another dance had two partner swings and a
: neighbor swing. 90% of all contras called at the Knoxville Dance
: Weekend had two swings--the percentage was a little lower when Cis was
: calling and a little higher the rest of the time. At 3 a.m. on Sunday
: morning somebody called a dance without a partner swing (no riot
: ensued). Don't you think this is getting out of hand? Is this catering
: to the elite? I chatted up Al Olson on the subject and he seems to
: share my disappointment in the choreographic straightjacket imposed by
: all that swinging. I thought Al _was_ the elite. I'm just not
: convinced this is really demanded by dancers. When I'm dancing
: I think those double swing dances are more exciting when they
: come as a treat instead of an expectation. I call about two of them in
: an evening. When did this happen? When did it come about that the
: contra with only one swing (and it better be your partner by God) is the
: exception? It's crazy. Maybe it's so excessive that it's got to turn
: around soon. The new novelty will be contras with low swing content.
: I'll go write some.
: --
: Toby Koosman tako...@utkvx.utk.edu
: University of Tennessee
: Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Hey Toby, you've got my vote! I really don't enjoy 3 swing dances.
Sometimes even 2 can be too much, though I will admit to a preference for
dances that allow me to swing with my partner. In the DC area you'd
better be ready to duck & run if you dare call a no-partner-swing dance.
I'd say only callers like Goerge Marshall can get away with it and expect
to ever be hired again!
Edith Goldman
Frederick, MD
Toby Koosman
Dan Pearl
leda shapiro <ac...@lafn.org> wrote:
>In L.A. our dance runs from from 8 -11, as do most. We collect
>admission only til about ten at most of our dances. Is this uncommon?
>Do other places collect admission through the 8 -11 time slot or what?
The Thursday Cambridge, Mass. (8-11pm) dance has these policies:
1. We collect $5 from all dancers.
2. Guests of the performers do not have to pay.
3. Even if someone is not dancing, they can do a dance or two for no charge.
4. If someone leaves after a short time, their money is refunded.
5. If we assess that a latecomer is arriving too late to get into the
waltz before the break (around 9:30), then they are charged $3.
6. The door sitter is relieved at the beginning of the second called dance
after the break (around 10pm to 10:10pm). At that time, an oatmeal
can is placed on the table. It has a slot in the top and is labelled:
"Latecomers: Please Help Support the Dance. $2 donation".
It is the committee's feeling that even someone who arrives at 10:30pm should
be asked to support the dance.
Our previous policy just had the door shutting down, and admission fees
going from $5 to $0, at the beginning of the second called dance after the
break. Some dancers would hover outside the door, and only enter when the
money box was closed. This made us feel as though we were be taken advantage
of. The new policy goes from $5 to $3 to suggested $2, and although
it is a little more complex to administer, we feel more comfortable with it.
By the way, the oatmeal can is on the honor system. We usually get about
$4-$5 dollars in it. Only one week did we perceive that money had been
TAKEN from the can.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Pearl ** Stratus Computer, Inc. ** pe...@sw.stratus.com
Jim Saxe
by Swinging" (bemoaning the apparent trend towards expectations of
multiple swings in every single dance), is that death from overexertion
is something that really can happen (and occasionally has happened) at
dances. Fortunately, I've never (so far) been at a dance where someone
has died, but I know of cases where it has happened. I've also been at
two dances where individuals lost consciousness (one case involved
hyperventilation; I don't know specifically about the other), and I can
tell you that it was quite a relief for everyone when they started
coming around. With a trend towards more continuous high energy
dancing going on at the same time that (it seems to me) the average age
in the contradance community is increasing, I fear such incidents wll
become more common in the future (however, neither of the people
involved in the incidents I saw were by any means elderly). Here are
some off-the-cuff thoughts on making such incidents less common;
perhaps a medical professional can say more.
Callers: Especially on those hot, crowded nights, include some lower
energy dances, be mindful of the tempos, and don't let the dances run
on and on and on. Let folks know where the drinking fountain is.
Dancers: A feeling of unaccustomed dizziness, light-headness, or
shortness of breath is an adequate excuse even for dropping out of the
middle of a contra line (a couple adjacent to the couple dropping out
can repair the line by moving to the bottom). Note also that
overexertion might not catch up with you until some time after the
period of most vigorous activity, for example during the walk-through
of the following dance. Be cognizant and respectful of the energy
level that your partner and neighbors feel comfortable with.
Folks in the western squares community have developed a signal called
the Emergency Call for Medical Assistance (ECMA) to be used in case a
dancer collapses on the floor. A group of nearby people (e.g., the
other seven dancers in a square) form a ring around the victim, stretch
back and hold their joined hands high in the air. This clears a space
around the victim (providing better air circulation and protection from
jostling bodies) and also gets the attention of the caller, who can
then stop the music and ask over the mic for a doctor and/or somebody
to call 911.
--Jim Saxe
elg
: > In article <1995Feb13.1...@lafn.org>,
: > leda shapiro <ac...@lafn.org> wrote:
: > >In L.A. our dance runs from from 8 -11, as do most. We collect
: > >admission only til about ten at most of our dances. Is this uncommon?
: > >Do other places collect admission through the 8 -11 time slot or what?
: I'll paraphrase the door man at the Birchmere (a club in Alexandria, VA
: which often features folk music): "It doesn't matter when they come. They
: pay full price. We publicized the start time; if they get here late it's
: their problem." Basically I agree with this policy. It's not like dances
: cost a lot of money, or that the callers, bands, or organizers are making
: huge amounts of money. Dancers should pay.
: --
: Dean Clamons
: Naval Research Lab
: Code 5110
: Washington, DC 20375
: (202) 767-2384
: de...@n5170a.nrl.navy.mil
Our organization (MMFAC, in Frederick, MD) has a policy very similar to
the one Dan described and it has always worked well for us (tho I can't
say as anyone has ever actually *removed* money from the "honor system"
basket!).
Edith Goldman
Peter Olszowka
>
> Hey, I think this dance is catching on! In the last three days
> I've done three dances that had three swings. One of them went:
> Balance and swing your (same sex) neighbor
> Something something swing your neighbor's partner
> Something something swing your partner
> Actually it was a little more elegant than it sounds, but I had to
> laugh at the resemblance. Another dance had two partner swings and a
At the recent Dance Flurry and some other time in the past, I danced
a dance which went something like
Inactives swing in the middle,
Same sex swing on the side
Actives swing in the middle
..
(I think the dance was by Gene Hubert, but I'm not sure)
Actually, the dance is pretty interesting because of the same sex
swing and since the swings are all short, one tries to flow directly
from one swing into the other which is a bit of a challenge.
Personally, I like variety. I even like Lady Walpole's Reel in
which you swing your neighbor, but never your partner.
--Peter
Dean Clamons
> leda shapiro <ac...@lafn.org> wrote:
> >In L.A. our dance runs from from 8 -11, as do most. We collect
> >admission only til about ten at most of our dances. Is this uncommon?
> >Do other places collect admission through the 8 -11 time slot or what?
>
Nancy Mamlin
I'd have to give that more thought, but there aren't any more and they
aren't any harder than contra moves. If I have a night of all
only-timers, I'll stick to squares and circles.
>Is "teacup chain" (for example) a basic move?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>> As a matter of fact, around here [Chicago] beginners think that
>> squares are easier than contras. Probably because callers don't
>> often call New England squares.
>
>Interesting.
Also used to be true in Pittsburgh when I was a pup. Still true in
Morgantown, nearby.
>I tend to think of "Hey Mania" as a basic square, and "Country Corners
>Canon" as a difficult square, just to give a reference point. Are these
>the kinds of dances your dancers think of as "easier than contras"?
These squares are both
1. Pretty darn hard, especially for square dancers. (E.g., square
dancers don't do heys.)
2. Only called by a handful of callers who mostly got them directly from
Ron Buchanan (the author of both).
Ron is a good good friend, a talented choreographer, and the most fun
caller I've ever played to (and one of my faves to dance to.) Ron's
dances, for the most part, are *not* easy, and do not travel well. He
knows it, and most callers who call his stuff ocassionally know it, too.
Find other examples.
Nancy
Jim Saxe
>>Is "teacup chain" (for example) a basic move?
>
>ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>
For what it's worth, it just so happens that "Teacup Chain" is one of
the "basics" of the Plus program (but not of the Basic program--note
the two different uses of the word "basic") of modern western square
dancing. In other words, if you call "head ladies (or `girls') to the
center for a teacup chain" to a hall full of Plus MWSDers, they're
supposed to be able to just do it, without having walked through it
earlier that evening. I don't have a whole lot of experience with the
MWSD world, but I'm fairly sure this is actually true in practice,
even for many relatively "soft" groups of Plus dancers (who might
totally fall apart on, for example, Relay The Deucey from left-handed
arky waves).
Since my pesonal interest is in the contra & "traditional" square
dance culture, which emphasizes accessibility to newcomers, I've never
even called Teacup Chain once, much less attempted to train dancers to
do it without a walk-through. But I thought you might be interested
to know that there really are quite a large number of people out there
(probably significantly more than the total number of regular contra
dancers of all experience levels), who've managed to learn Teacup
Chain well enough to remember it from one night of dancing to the
next.
--Jim Saxe
Brian Rost
> I think much of the confusion begins when non-local callers are asked to
> call in an unfamiliar situation. Wouldn't the series be better served by
> hiring a majority of its callers from the local area, especially from
> callers who are also dancers? Doesn't it seem wasteful to have callers
> running all over the country when they could just call local dances and
> stay home? Much of the confusion you are citing is a result of this
> travelling caller phenomenon.
I'm not sure I get the point you are trying to make here, Joel.
I don't see anything bad in having traveling callers. Variety is
nice, I like being able to dance to different callers. When does the
area stop being "local"? More than 50 miles away? Out of state?
As a musician, I know that one attraction of music as a profession to
some people is the ability to travel as part of the job. I'm not sure
why a caller might not feel the same way.
I would agree, though, that using *only* "out of town" talent at the
expense of giving opportunities to local talent is indeed a bad idea.
--
Brian Rost
Ascom Timeplex APBU
rost_...@timeplex.com
********************************************************
"There were three things that keep a group of musicians
together: the social life between the members, the money
they make and the quality of the music. And any two of
them will keep the band together."
-Michael Giles
********************************************************
Robert Borcherding
squares for contradancers and feel the need to participate. Sorry
for the length of the post.
First, I believe every dancer has their likes and dislikes. It
seems to me that the majority of contradancers eschew square
dances. To expect hard-core contradancers to enjoy squares that
do not fulfill their contra-like expectations would be folly.
However, as a caller, I know that squares can be a more familiar,
less intimidating, and less demanding way for the general public
(read that, first-time dancers) to be integrated into a dance.
Note that I largely regard visiting couple squares in this
category, not New England-styled squares, which are essentially
contradances in a square formation. A visiting couple square
appears more forgiving to new dancers.
The NE tradition of holding the same square brings back memories
of an awful dance experience I had at the Scout House, where I, a
visiting, unknown dancer, found it quite hard to compete with
advance booking and the center-line syndrome, and sat out a quite
*long* contradance, then a pair of squares (close to an hour's
worth of the dance).
As a musician, visiting couple squares can be more forgiving in
timing, type of tune, etc. (again excluding the New England square
styles), allowing for a variety of tune not allowed during a
contradance.
It is absurd and ludicrous that a dance series would refund
people's money if a square is done once in an evening, with those
displeased folks leaving. If that is the case, I would like to
get my money back at any dance where a contradance with a "gypsy"
is called, because I DON'T LIKE THEM. :-)
I admit that many squares can be quite boring - not because the
dance is bad, but because of the length of time it takes to teach,
as well as the often poor quality calling. But a square called in
a place where there is sufficient space, a good caller, and a good
band, can be heavenly.
It comes down to this: Why Do We Dance, and help others to dance?
Dance organizers, musicians, and callers (hereafter referred to as
"advocates") tend to focus on community issues because
(generalization following) that is why they are do what they do--
they enjoy music, dance, and community and want to share it.
Dancers in the "community" already have their needs met, and want
to have them met "more."
So there is this continual tug-of-war between dancers and the
advocates. The dancers typically want hotter dances, the
advocates typically want to encourage participation by new
dancers. I would guess that the utopian goal of most advocates is
to help build a world where dancing and music would be a part of
the lives of most people. I suspect that the utopian goal of many
dancers would be to have dances where everyone would dance well,
were handsome, had great music, sprung wooden floors, and there
was a continuous influx of beginners who already knew how to
dance, but not so much that the floor was crowded. If this were
the case, they would probably even enjoy squares.
For me, playing, calling, and organizing are nearly a religious
experience. I've been at this long enough to see the positive
changes dance has brought to my now-friends, as well as the
extended family that the dance community has been.
As an advocate, I would like to ensure that these dance
"traditions", using the word to encompass all levels (folklorists,
ignore this paragraph, please), continue in some manner. There is
now a swelling of contradance musicians, precisely because there
are contradances at which they can play. If these contradances
fall by the wayside, so will the musicians. I read once, I
believe in "The Northern Fiddler", a wonderful book about fiddlers
and fiddling in Northern Ireland, that when the dancing fell into
disuse in Ireland, 80% of the musicians quit playing the music. I
would be disappointed to see fiddles, currently in use, hung on
walls and stashed in attics. (especially my fiddle)
However it is reached, there must be a compromise between the
needs of the advocates and the needs of dancers. A way that
dancers get what they need and advocates get what they need. And
the answers will be different for different parts of the country,
where different traditions hold.
In general, advocates do what they do not for financial reward,
but rather for the good feeling they gain when they see a dancer
smile, a life improve.
Just as dancers will quit dancing if they don't like the dances,
so will callers, musicians, and organizers quit if they see their
efforts diverted.
Robert Borcherding, please address E-Mail as follows,
from INTERNET: sempco!rob...@wupost.wustl.edu
UUCP: wupost.wustl.edu!sempco!robertb
leda shapiro
Hi, Mike..
122 BPM?? Way too slow... 130-135 is the way they like it. the faster
the better
>
Leda Shapiro
>
>
--
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft
music - Vladimir Nabokov
Peter Y
New England squares, often as if they are some sort of fearsome entity. To
quote a recent (mild) example, Robert Borcherding says:
<<However, as a caller, I know that squares can be a more familiar,
less intimidating, and less demanding way for the general public
(read that, first-time dancers) to be integrated into a dance.
Note that I largely regard visiting couple squares in this
category, not New England-styled squares, which are essentially
contradances in a square formation. A visiting couple square
appears more forgiving to new dancers.>>
(Please excuse nonstandard quotation method; it's less likely to produce
weird line breaks when posting from AOL.)
As I understand it, a visiting couples dance is one in which couple #1
goes to #2, 3, 4 in turn doing some set of figures, then couple #2 repeats
this pattern, etc., with suitable breaks in between. As a New Englander
who rarely dances outside of New England (NH & Maine to be precise), and
who calls New England square dances, it is my understanding that
historically most New England quadrilles (as we used to call them around
here until pretty recently) were traditionally of the visiting couples
variety. The other types of squares we do these days are much more recent,
mostly from the square dance revivals started by Henry Ford and Ralph
Page.
I'm not trying to criticise Robert B. or anything; the quotation is just
representative of the sort of thing I'm seeing. I am feeling somewhat
confused though about what the rest of the country thinks are New England
squares. Any enlightenment would be very interesting.
Along similar lines, I've done some southern squares (or at least what we
call southern squares in New England), but little else. I'm curious what
people in other parts of the country think of when they think about square
dances. I didn't even recognize the dances Kiran mentioned earlier; and
the idea of doing a hey in a square sounds bizarre to me. The objections
to doing squares in sets (with the possible exception of NE squares) and
some other postings tell me that in other parts of the country you must be
doing things that are quite different! I like what we do around here just
fine, but I'm real curious about what goes on elsewhere.
So, any descriptions of what characterizes rest-of-the-country squares or
your ideas of what we do would be very interesting, either here or by
e-mail.
Thanks!
Peter Yarensky
Stuart A Barkley
> gar...@sp051.cern.ch (Lynn Garren) wrote:
> > this doesn't happen often because you need dancers who are familiar
> > with the basic moves, but it's just as easy to learn the basic
> > square moves as it is to learn the basic contra moves.
>
> What do you think of as the basic square moves?
>
> Is "teacup chain" (for example) a basic move?
"Teacup chain" may not be basic, but it may also not be as hard as people
make it out to be.
One Friday night a few weeks ago the acoustics were very bad at Glen Echo.
You could barely understand the caller, yet he called a square with
"teacup chain" in it. I was thinking to myself about what a mistake it
was to be calling it under such conditions, and with a fair number of
beginners. People in my square were not paying much attention to the walk
through, and didn't really get it during the walkthrough, but when it came
time to actually dance it, it went pretty well. I didn't see the other
squares during the dance, but I don't think any of the squares near me
broke up completely.
I've been at other dances where the caller spent lots of time teaching it,
and eventually would get everyone get it. But on this Friday, the caller
never said it was difficult, and everyone (in my square) just assumed it
was easy.
** :) ** Now the "beer mug chain", thats a hard one. ** :) **
Stuart (see you in Frederick on the 25th)
-- I've never been lost; I was once
Stuart.A...@cdc.com bewildered for three days, but
Silver Spring, MD, USA never lost! -- Daniel Boone
Warren Blier
In article <1995Feb13.1...@lafn.org>,
leda shapiro <ac...@lafn.org> wrote:
>In L.A. our dance runs from from 8 -11, as do most. We collect
>admission only til about ten at most of our dances. Is this uncommon?
>Do other places collect admission through the 8 -11 time slot or what?
I strongly support the idea of having a clearly-established and well-
disseminated policy regarding admission fees. I believe the organizer or
sponsoring organization has the right to establish whatever sort of policy
he/she desires regarding collection of fees, as long as it is clearly stated
and uniformly applied to those attending. Problems have arisen when either
there is no defined policy or the policy has not been made known to the
dancers. For example, I have attended a number of dances where no one is
collecting at the door after a certain time, but near the end of the
evening the caller announces that anyone who hasn't yet paid should make
sure they do so. Does this mean that someone arriving 20 minutes before
the end of the dance is expected to pay the full amount? It isn't clear.
Under these circumstances I found that some of the dancers went ahead
and payed the full amount, while others payed nothing.
In my opinion, there should be some sort of reduced fee for those arriving
after a certain time. Dan Pearl, for example, states that at the Thursday
Cambridge dance someone arriving after the break-waltz is charged $3.00
instead of the full $5.00 fee, and someone arriving within the last hour is
asked for a $2.00 donation. This sounds quite reasonable. There was,
for example, a period of time where my work schedule precluded me from
getting to a weekly dance series more than 30 minutes before the end of the
dance. I enjoyed stopping by on my way home, seeing friends, and doing a
dance or two, but would not have paid $6.00 every week in order to do so.
There was no policy stated for late arrivals, however, and usually there
was no one collecting at the door by then. Several of us regularly
arrived near the end of the evening, though. My impression was that some
paid the full amount every week, some never paid, and some paid some of the
time.
So I would encourage organizers to define and post/distribute a clear
policy regarding what the admission fee is. If a reduced admission fee
is offered to those arriving after a certain time, make it clear what the
reduced fee is and what time it goes into effect. The organizers have the
right to determine the fee policy, but the dancers have the right to know
that if they show up at time x, they will be expected to pay y dollars.
Most contra dancers are exceedingly honest and would even pay the requisite
fee simply on the honor system, as long as the policy is clear and known
in advance.
Warren Blier
Jim Saxe
(Greg McKenzie) writes:
>I have read several comments that squares are easier for first-time
>dancers. As someone who really enjoys dancing with beginners I find the
>opposit to be true. That perception, however, may be based on my
>assumption of a large number of experienced dancers in the crowd. If the
>crowd is mostly beginners I can see that squares might be easier to call.
>...
I'm sure there are some people reading this who really have some
extensive experience calling "one-night-stands" both to groups of all
or almost all beginners (e.g., church groups or company parties) and
to mixed crowds (e.g., dancer weddings with varying numbers of dancer
friends mixed with the non-dancer friends and relatives of the wedding
couple). Perhaps some of you folks would care to share your
perceptions of what dances are easiest for (and best-liked by)
beginners. I'd be especially interested in hearing from folks who've
done tens (or hundreds) of such events.
My guess is that what's "easiest" for beginners can depend very
strongly on what is most familiar to (and liked by) the caller and
any experienced dancers who may be present.
--Jim Saxe