good 'ol Contra Corners
Chicoqueen
corners, apparently so because of callers' reluctance to spend the extra time
teaching such a complex figure. I'm willing to bet, were it not for its
'grandfathered in' status, such a figure would *never* be accepted if it were a
recent invention. Contra curmudgeons everywhere (incl this NG) would be
howling over it being a step down the slippery slope toward modern square
dancing with its obligatory pedantic rites of passage.
But it wasn't always this way. Last year I was asked to call a dance at a
Civil War Ball, and loaned a reprint of a book published in the mid 19th
century by one of the many dancing masters of the day. There was considerable
space given over to detailing the fancy steps of numerous mazurkas, waltzes,
polkas, and similar couple dancing, plus many elaborate quadrilles, but the
thing that caught my eye when I perused the table of contents was the listing
for "country dances". Naturally, I turned to it immediately. There, somewhat
toward the back of the book, was less than a page devoted to contra. It was
the author's stated opinion that such stuff was very much out of fashion by
then, something that only backwoods rubes would do, but perhaps out of some
desire for completeness he included descriptions for Chorus Jig and two other
chestnuts.
My eyes widened when I read the description for Chorus Jig. It went something
like: "Active cpl down the outside and return, down the inside and return,
contra corners, balance and swing partner." What hit me was the author's
obvious assumption that the term "contra corners" required no elaboration.
Even as late as the mid 19th century, when nobody who was anybody still deigned
to do so, *everybody* still knew what contra corners was all about!
Does this suggest something about the volatility and transience of our current
culture?
Reine Wonite
<chico...@aol.com>
Chico, CA
Jonathan Sivier
>On various threads I keep reading about the increasing rarity of contra
>corners, apparently so because of callers' reluctance to spend the extra time
>teaching such a complex figure. I'm willing to bet, were it not for its
>'grandfathered in' status, such a figure would *never* be accepted if it were a
>recent invention. Contra curmudgeons everywhere (incl this NG) would be
>howling over it being a step down the slippery slope toward modern square
>dancing with its obligatory pedantic rites of passage.
Here, here! I think part of the trick in getting CC to work easily is
to get the inactives more involved in the figure. Their part is very
important and if they move towards their corners (1st and then 2nd) with
their left hand out instead of waiting for someone to come along to take it
the figure will work better and they may enjoy it more. This will help
inexperienced actives who will have someone coming towards them with out-
stretched hand to help them tell where to go and it may help the inactives
since it seems like it easier to make the next move if you are still moving
from the previous one rather than starting from a complete stop. Also having
a specific movement to perform rather than having people appear and take
your hand may make the pattern easier to remember. They don't have to move
far, just a step on the right diagonal and then on the left.
>But it wasn't always this way. Last year I was asked to call a dance at a
>Civil War Ball, and loaned a reprint of a book published in the mid 19th
>century by one of the many dancing masters of the day. There was considerable
>space given over to detailing the fancy steps of numerous mazurkas, waltzes,
>polkas, and similar couple dancing, plus many elaborate quadrilles, but the
>thing that caught my eye when I perused the table of contents was the listing
>for "country dances". Naturally, I turned to it immediately. There, somewhat
>toward the back of the book, was less than a page devoted to contra. It was
>the author's stated opinion that such stuff was very much out of fashion by
>then, something that only backwoods rubes would do, but perhaps out of some
>desire for completeness he included descriptions for Chorus Jig and two other
>chestnuts.
>My eyes widened when I read the description for Chorus Jig. It went something
>like: "Active cpl down the outside and return, down the inside and return,
>contra corners, balance and swing partner." What hit me was the author's
>obvious assumption that the term "contra corners" required no elaboration.
>Even as late as the mid 19th century, when nobody who was anybody still deigned
>to do so, *everybody* still knew what contra corners was all about!
Just out of curiosity, was Chorus Jig listed as a duple or triple minor
dance?
Jonathan "Caped Contra Corners Crusader" Sivier
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Sivier |Q: How many angels can dance on the |
| j-si...@uiuc.edu | head of a pin? |
| Flight Simulation Lab |A: It depends on what dance you call. |
| 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. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Home page URL: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~j-sivier |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiran Wagle
> On various threads I keep reading about the increasing rarity of
> contra corners, apparently so because of callers' reluctance to
> spend the extra time teaching such a complex figure.
More precisely, because of our perception that hotshot, vocal dancers
aren't willing to SHUT UP and listen to the walkthroughs, and do them at
the pace at which the caller's teaching the weakest dancers.
(Whether it's reasonable for dancers to grumble when callers demonstrate
they just aren't up to teaching the figure concisely and well, I don't
want to get into. :-))
~ Kiran
--
<http://www.io.com/contradance/> 1628 5th St NW Wash DC 20001 (202) 483-3373
Chicoqueen
Actives goes a long way toward making the figure work with those who are not
familiar with it. Along with telling them to look to the right, then to the
left, for their corners, I also tell the Inactive men their first corner is
their current neighbor (the one their partner did the cast around with) and
tell the Inactive women their first corner is *not* their current neighbor. I
also tell the Inactives to hide their right hands where the Actives won't be
tempted to grab them.
By charging the Inactives with such responsibility this caller eliminates the
secondary walkthrough I've endured with some callers who think it's appropriate
to have the dancers change roles in mid walkthrough and have the Inactives
walkthrough CC in the role of the Actives. That takes up 'way too much time
and doesn't really make the future Actives any more confident, esp if they're
far enough down the line that they don't become Active early on. Chances are
they'll blow their first go-round or two as Actives, anyway. Well-oriented
Inactives directing them are their best hope for mastering the figure.
I confess I didn't notice whether the choreography of that Civil War era dance
book specified whether Chorus Jig was a duple or triple minor. At the time (a
year ago), I didn't know there ever was a triple version, and I still don't
know for certain how the dance would be affected. Would there have been
something different to notice?
Alan Gedance
>I agree with you, Jonathan; encouraging the Inactives to be Proactive with the
>Actives goes a long way toward making the figure work with those who are not
>familiar with it. Along with telling them to look to the right, then to the
>left, for their corners, I also tell the Inactive men their first corner is
>their current neighbor (the one their partner did the cast around with) and
>tell the Inactive women their first corner is *not* their current neighbor.
Reine, that's clever! It certainly should help. But I had to do a
doulble take- I never before considered that the inactives _had_
corners, but that they _were_ corners, and the actives were not. It's
a good idea, but in this part of the country I think that a different
wording will have to be found to prevent the same confusion that I
had.
> I also tell the Inactives to hide their right hands where the Actives won't be
>tempted to grab them.
Cute!
Alan
(To reply by email, remove the middle initial "r" in my username, argedance.)
The Martins
: By charging the Inactives with such responsibility this caller eliminates the
: secondary walkthrough I've endured with some callers who think it's appropriate
: to have the dancers change roles in mid walkthrough and have the Inactives
: walkthrough CC in the role of the Actives. That takes up 'way too much time
: and doesn't really make the future Actives any more confident, esp if they're
I agree that the method of changing roles in the walkthrough is a waste of
dance time. A beginner is struggling to get the picture, then the caller
turns everything inside out. As long as the figure ends with something
forgiving, like a long swing where they can regroup, its better to get
going after a couple of walkthroughs. Half the fun of contra corners is
the chaos of learning on the fly.
Bill Martin
Alan Gedance
<mar...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
<..snip..>
>I agree that the method of changing roles in the walkthrough is a waste of
>dance time. A beginner is struggling to get the picture, then the caller
>turns everything inside out. As long as the figure ends with something
>forgiving, like a long swing where they can regroup, its better to get
>going after a couple of walkthroughs.
Three times this past year I've seen different callers teach contra
corners to a hall filled with a high percentage of beginners and
once-a-month dancers who had either never or rarely done the figure
before. It was walked through concisely, twice- once for the ones
then again for the twos. In all three of these instances the figure
was danced far better than it usually is these days.
During one of these somewhat longer walkthroughs my male neighbor, a
dancer of long experience but only mediocre ability, grumbled
something like "Let's get on with it". For my own part, the extra two
minutes spent in the second walk-through was more than paid for by the
resulting much-better-than-usual dancing.
> .... Half the fun of contra corners is the chaos of learning
>on the fly.
Chaos is not my idea of fun dancing.
I think it's just great when the caller teaches a figure well enough
so that the talented beginners, who generally pay attention, are
started off on the path of becoming better dancers than many of the
"experienced" dancers on the floor.
KMsSavage
manual offered no description.
At the CW re-enactment dances I call (and I'm doing one tomorrow!!) the
folks have trouble with the simplest maneuvers, e.g. ladies chain, allemande...
When the swing is the progression, I always have to add "you've traded places
with the one you swung. Gents, you are on the left..." etc etc. Their favorite
dance is the Virginina Reel and they could do it all night (and frequently ask
for it again and again, perhaps because they know the name). A close second is
the Fan Dance (i.e. Favors the Rose/Fan/Pumpkin), which isn't even a dance.
(However, it's easy for the hip-flask crowd to participate in and holler
for...but I digress.)
I've begun offering a dance workshop mid-afternoon (after the battles,
before the corset-lacing crunch time) to try to raise the bar a little bit, and
get me some floor managers. I mean, these people will find a partner and come
up to me midway in a dance walk-through, not even understanding where-how-why
to join the foot of a set.
Contra corners is easy to teach in a 3 facing 3 dance, like Dashing White
Sargeant (now there's a PC title for ya).
--Karen Missavage
Ann Arbor
(off to Hastings....)
mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> I agree with you, Jonathan; encouraging the Inactives to be Proactive with the
> Actives goes a long way toward making the figure work with those who are not
> familiar with it. Along with telling them to look to the right, then to the
> left, for their corners, I also tell the Inactive men their first corner is
> their current neighbor (the one their partner did the cast around with) and
> also tell the Inactives to hide their right hands where the Actives won't be
> tempted to grab them.
>
> secondary walkthrough I've endured with some callers who think it's appropriate
> to have the dancers change roles in mid walkthrough and have the Inactives
> walkthrough CC in the role of the Actives. That takes up 'way too much time
> and doesn't really make the future Actives any more confident, esp if they're
> they'll blow their first go-round or two as Actives, anyway. Well-oriented
> Inactives directing them are their best hope for mastering the figure.
I definately agree that orienting the inactives is crucial for Contra Corners.
And yes, EVERYONE in a contra corners has a corner. The fact that some
experienced people never thought of it that way explains a lot of bad
teaching for this move.
How many walkthroughs? Should roles be switched? I resent any "should"
for these that doesn't involve a description of the crowd.
In my neighborhood, the problems with complicated figures does NOT
come from the beginners, it comes from the long-time clueless dancers.
This seems to be particularly true with moves like contra corners: they
aren't difficult, but they aren't done every week and they require
consciousness.
Some nights, when calling, I have to rely on the beginners to guide
the clueless through the dance. When this happens I want to make sure the
beginners have walked through every thing they have to do.
A good second or third walkthrough will be almost as fast as dancing the
dance. It can include style tips lightly interspersed with instructions.
If it is boring, then there is something wrong with either the dance or the
explanation.
The number and depth of the walkthroughs depends on the crowd.
Michael Young
Pittsburgh, PA
>
> Reine Wonite
Nancy Mamlin
Chicoqueen wrote in message
<199807170121...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>I agree with you, Jonathan; encouraging the Inactives to be Proactive with
the
>Actives goes a long way toward making the figure work with those who are
not
>familiar with it
Maybe we should refer to couples as either "active" or "proactive", rather
than "inactive"- it is more accurate, especially for "even" dances...
>I confess I didn't notice whether the choreography of that Civil War era
dance
>book specified whether Chorus Jig was a duple or triple minor. At the time
(a
>year ago), I didn't know there ever was a triple version, and I still don't
>know for certain how the dance would be affected. Would there have been
>something different to notice?
If it didn't say duple, and given that it was civil war era, I'd guess it
was triple minor. There's no difference in the figures, but that it makes
contra corners *way* easier, since each inactive couple only looks in one
direction, and only turns a person once.
In the book I have from 1863, Money Musk and College Hornpipe are very
clearly done in triple minor, and chorus jig is written the way Chicoqueen
has said, so it's more ambiguous. However, given the context, I'd guess
you'd want "hands six", since there's no special instruction otherwise.
BTW, my book is called "Hillgrove's Ballroom Guide". Really good description
of Lancers, plus the first part on "Dancing and its happy influences",
followed by "The Toilet"...
Cheers,
Nancy
******
Nancy Mamlin
"it's hard to beat paper towels" - Tommy Jarrell
******
Jonathan Sivier
>I confess I didn't notice whether the choreography of that Civil War era dance
>book specified whether Chorus Jig was a duple or triple minor. At the time (a
>year ago), I didn't know there ever was a triple version, and I still don't
>know for certain how the dance would be affected. Would there have been
>something different to notice?
I don't know for certain if Chorus Jig originated as a triple minor, but
the contra corners figure seems to be a very likely one to have been collapsed
from a triple to duple as contra dances were modernized. Each active couple
would have their own private pair of inactive couples to turn contra corners
with. This means being a 3 would be very boring (for dancers today) since
the only thing you would do would be turn one person by the left. 2's would
also get to participate in the cast off. I don't think I would ever want
to call this (or dance it) as a triple minor, but it would be interesting
to know from a historical standpoint. You can get some feel for how this
might go from Sackett's Harbor which is a triple minor dance with contra
corners. However it is more interesting for the 2's and 3's and so has
remained as a triple. I'm not sure if you could collapse it to a duple
without changing the dance completely even if there was some reason to do
so.
Jonathan
Jonathan Sivier
>The number and depth of the walkthroughs depends on the crowd.
This is very true. I also find that beginners many times pay more
attention than "experienced" dancers. This may be because they know that
they don't know everything.
Walking it through twice and giving everyone a chance to dance each role
doesn't take much longer than walking it through twice in the normal fashion.
Given the presence of beginners and/or dancers uncertain with contra corners
you would walk it through twice anyway. Assuming it is a duple improper
dance you just tell everyone to trade places with their partners and face
their original neighbors and they are all set to walkthrough with the 2's
doing the 1's part and vice-versa. After the 2nd walkthrough tell everyone
to trade places with their partners and face their original neighbors again
and voila they are in place and ready to dance from their original location.
Ken McKinney
> mc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>
> >The number and depth of the walkthroughs depends on the crowd.
>
> This is very true. I also find that beginners many times pay more
> attention than "experienced" dancers. This may be because they know that
> they don't know everything.
>
> Walking it through twice and giving everyone a chance to dance each role
> doesn't take much longer than walking it through twice in the normal fashion.
> Given the presence of beginners and/or dancers uncertain with contra corners
> you would walk it through twice anyway. Assuming it is a duple improper
> dance you just tell everyone to trade places with their partners and face
> their original neighbors and they are all set to walkthrough with the 2's
> doing the 1's part and vice-versa. After the 2nd walkthrough tell everyone
> to trade places with their partners and face their original neighbors again
> and voila they are in place and ready to dance from their original location.
>
> Jonathan
I've seen it done both ways (walk thru for the twos/no walk thru for the twos).
I've seen both succed and bomb. If you're going to have the two's switch you've
got to be _very clear_ and you've got to make sure people are realy listening.
btw. Contra Corners seems to be in no danger of dying out in my neck of the
woods. Most weeks we dance at least one C.C. dance.
Ken McKinney - Ithaca NY. - ken at cmold dot com
Sharp/Smukler
>
> Chicoqueen wrote in message
> <199807170121...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >I agree with you, Jonathan; encouraging the Inactives to be Proactive with
> the
> >Actives goes a long way toward making the figure work with those who are
> not
> >familiar with it
>
> Maybe we should refer to couples as either "active" or "proactive", rather
> than "inactive"- it is more accurate, especially for "even" dances...
>
> dance
> >book specified whether Chorus Jig was a duple or triple minor. At the time
> (a
> >year ago), I didn't know there ever was a triple version, and I still don't
> >know for certain how the dance would be affected. Would there have been
> >something different to notice?
>
> was triple minor. There's no difference in the figures, but that it makes
> contra corners *way* easier, since each inactive couple only looks in one
> direction, and only turns a person once.
>
> In the book I have from 1863, Money Musk and College Hornpipe are very
> clearly done in triple minor, and chorus jig is written the way Chicoqueen
> has said, so it's more ambiguous. However, given the context, I'd guess
> you'd want "hands six", since there's no special instruction otherwise.
>
> BTW, my book is called "Hillgrove's Ballroom Guide". Really good description
> of Lancers, plus the first part on "Dancing and its happy influences",
> followed by "The Toilet"...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nancy
> ******
> Nancy Mamlin
> "it's hard to beat paper towels" - Tommy Jarrell
> ******
Contra corners is clearly a figure that originated in the context of
triple minor dances. That's the context that makes two of the inactives
first contra corners and the other two second contra corners. It's not a
challenging figure when done with six. The inactives' att'n is on one
set of actives and so they see them coming. When the figure became
transmogrified into the version done in a duple minor dance, it
certainly gained a notch in excitement, but also in the challenge to the
number two person who feels like (s)he's moved to England and back (cars
driving on the wrong side) with every phrase. One of my favorite dances
for teaching contra corners to beginners is Sackett's Harbor. The groups
of six turned 90 degrees never break down beyond repair. Once the idea
is established a duple dance with contra corners becomes less of a leap.
But teaching triple minor dances has its own challenges in today's
world.
David Smukler
to email me, use my aol address: davidssm at you-know-what
Peter Yarensky
> I don't know for certain if Chorus Jig originated as a triple minor, but
> the contra corners figure seems to be a very likely one to have been collapsed
> from a triple to duple as contra dances were modernized.
When I first started dancing in Seacoast New Hampshire in the late 1970's,
it was still moderately common practice to teach and walk through Chorus
Jig as a triple; then when everyone was comfortable the caller would start
the inactives a bit sooner and turn it into a duple minor dance. I think
Ralph Page started this practice with dances that were originally triples
but were fun to dance as duples too.
By the way, it surprises me to hear contra corners described as a complex
figure in the context of modern contradancing. When I first started
dancing it really _was_ the most complex figure around. However, in modern
contradancing it strikes me as only of moderate complexity compared to
what's done in other dances. The more complex moves may be combinations of
figures (e.g. allemands) rather than given a single name; but that doesn't
reduce their complexity. Personally I'd much rather teach contra corners
than many of the other complex figures now in use!
Peter Yarensky
Chicoqueen
>When I first started dancing in Seacoast New Hampshire in the late 1970's,
>it was still moderately common practice to teach and walk through Chorus
>Jig as a triple; then when everyone was comfortable the caller would start
>the inactives a bit sooner and turn it into a duple minor dance. I think
>Ralph Page started this practice with dances that were originally triples
>but were fun to dance as duples too.
>
>
Hey! Now *there's* a great idea! I'll try it when the Chico series comes out
of estivation in September.
~Reine Wonite
Chico, CA
David Millstone
chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) wrote:
> (Peter Yarensky) writes:
>
> >When I first started dancing in Seacoast New Hampshire in the late 1970's,
> >it was still moderately common practice to teach and walk through Chorus
> >Jig as a triple; then when everyone was comfortable the caller would start
> >the inactives a bit sooner and turn it into a duple minor dance.
> >
> Reine Wonite adds: Hey! Now *there's* a great idea! I'll try it when
the Chico series comes out of estivation in September.
There are many New England chestnuts that were once done as triple minors
and are now more commonly danced as duples. At the Ralph Page Legacy
Weekend in New Hampshire, Ted Sannella ran a workshop on this theme and I
followed with another the next year, after Ted's untimely death. I
followed Ted's approach, which is this:
Ask dancers to form longways sets with four couples. The active couple
dances through the figures twice, once involving the original 2s and 3s,
and the second time with the original 3s and 4s. Then, the actives drop to
the bottom of the short set. If you call the dance eight times, each
couple has a chance to be active twice. This method (similar to Scottish
country dance) gives everyone a chance to be active, which in regular
longways sets would mean playing the tune for a VERY long time.
Furthermore, couples at the end only wait out once through the music
instead of twice as in a "normal" triple minor dance.
To teach the duple version, just combine several short sets into longer lines.
David Millstone
Lebanon, NH
Marc Sacks
: In article <199807242351...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: chico...@aol.com (Chicoqueen) wrote:
: > (Peter Yarensky) writes:
: >
: > >When I first started dancing in Seacoast New Hampshire in the late 1970's,
: > >it was still moderately common practice to teach and walk through Chorus
: > >Jig as a triple; then when everyone was comfortable the caller would start
: > >the inactives a bit sooner and turn it into a duple minor dance.
: > >
I haven't seen one of those in decades. I learned one in Pittsburgh back
in the '60s. The idea was that you take a triple minor dance, the active
couple dances the whole sequence normally while the inactives are couple
number 2 with one active couple and number 3 with another at the same time!
This only works for triple minors where the two inactive couples wouldn't
otherwise be moving at the same time (e.g., in a hey for three).
I found this very difficult to keep up with--I was a beginner at the time--
but a lot of fun. I thought it was a dance designed that way; until I saw
this thread I didn't realize you could do it with other dances.
Marc Sacks
msa...@world.std.com