Square dance sets?
Paul M. Gifford
square dancing, but I'm curious about the following.
In Michigan (which is the style of dancing I'm most familiar with),
traditional square dances are ALWAYS grouped into sets of three changes: the
first change is usually an easy-going one, often to a tune in 6/8 time, the
second a little more complicated, and the third change even more. Sometimes
the 3rd change is in 6/8, and the first two 2/4; this is not rigid, but
usually there is a mix of 6/8 and 2/4 tunes. In between sets are round dances.
The old quadrille books have 5 changes. I don't know when the practice
changed from 5 to 3.
Paul Tyler says in Indiana, they are grouped into "tips" of 2 changes (but is
this a Western Square Dancing practice?).
My question is: where else are square dances organized in this way? The only
other place I know for sure is Ontario.
Paul Gifford
Dave Goldman
Within the contradance community, most places where I've danced have done
squares in sets of two. (Pacific Northwest, California, a little in New
England) The reason most often given for this is that it takes so long to
assemble the room into squares that the caller figures we might as well do
two of them while we're there.
However, after a previous discussion about this here in r.f-d, my
impression is that this practice might actually stem from New England. The
New England style of square or quadrille tends to run much shorter than
traditional Western squares -- something like seven times through the tune
and you're done. So putting two New England squares back to back seems
reasonable. But when the practice got carried over to Western squares,
which can run a _lot_ longer, the result is that you'll be dancing with
the same people (or sitting out watching those people) sometimes for over
half an hour.
Lately I have noticed callers doing just one square at a time (at
contradances), perhaps because of this problem.
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
S Miskoe
late 70's, when they were condensed into sets of 2's. This was probably
due to the rise in contra interest, balanced by the waning interest in
squares.
Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH
brent m lofgren
Dave Goldman <r...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Paul --
>
>Within the contradance community, most places where I've danced have done
>squares in sets of two. (Pacific Northwest, California, a little in New
>
>impression is that this practice might actually stem from New England. The
I got something like this impression, too, and there is a slightly amusing
story which hangs thereon. At the night-before-the-Ann-Arbor-Dawn-Dance
dance this year, I danced a square with someone visiting from Chicago. As
the square finished, she hit the high road to find another partner. When
I asked her to come back because we were dancing two squares with the same
partner, she said, "Oh, yeah, this is the East Coast." Being originally
from the Minn.-No. Dak. border area, I often have difficulty thinking of
southeastern Michigan as being the Midwest, but someone who says that it
is the East Coast needs a geography lesson.
The thought just occurred to me, though, that she may have been referring
to the fact that the band and caller were from the DC area. I can't
remember their names. Curses, I have a bad memory for that sort of
thing.
Brent Lofgren
Peter Laberge
: I know there is apparently little interest on this board regarding traditional
Not necessarily true. There are many of us out in cyberland. However,
we tend to have naturally laid back personalities as opposed to
your typical contra dancer who tends toward the type A personality.
These individuals are driven by the need for constant change, new
thrills and maximal dance experience (center line syndrome).
Hence, the perceived need to change partners after every
square or contra. A traditional square dancer who dances two
(and even three!) dances with the same person will take the
opportunity to get to know the person, develop a compatible dance
style and interact with others in the square. Sometimes, this
can take as long as 30-45 minutes! With a few big circles
and waltzes thrown in, you may only have 7 or 8 partners during
the course of the evening. Is this a big problem?
: My question is: where else are square dances organized in this way? The only
: other place I know for sure is Ontario.
When I started square dancing in the early '70's around Philly,
squares were always done in sets of three dances. It was not
unusual that some partner changes would occur as sets quickly
reformed after the dance concluded. Generally, you kept your
partner for at least two dances. The third was just as likely
to be a big circle mixer where you only saw your original partner
briefly anyway. One caller I learned from (Bill Hunn) used
to call quadrilles with three changes. As each built on the previous
one, you were expected to keep your partner for all three. Each
was short and a set of quadrilles lasted no more than 30 minutes.
The Paul Jones and various waltzes and polkas were and still
are thrown in between the sets of squares.
One thing that annoys me is when a caller insists that dancers
change partners after a dance. Why not let people dance together
all night if they so desire. Afetr all, the caller can disengage
them with a mixer. (end of editorial)
(Contra)ry to allegations put forth in this forum, traditional
square dancing is alive and well in communities all over
the country. Resuscitation is (contra)indicated. :->
Pete LaBerge
Donald B. Larson
: Paul M. Gifford (giff...@lib.flint.umich.edu) wrote:
: : I know there is apparently little interest on this board regarding traditional
: : square dancing, but I'm curious about the following.
: Not necessarily true. There are many of us out in cyberland. However,
: we tend to have naturally laid back personalities as opposed to
: your typical contra dancer who tends toward the type A personality.
: These individuals are driven by the need for constant change, new
: thrills and maximal dance experience (center line syndrome).
Good point!!! ... actually I think the changing partner's thing in
Contra dancing is just poorly thought out philosophy (or a poorly chosen
solution to the problem of integrating new-commers into the dancing)...
I really wish that were NOT one of the "un-written RULES of contra-dancing"
At contra dances where the crowd of dancers is large and amplification is
necessary for the caller and band to be heard... tend to need a lot of
"guidlines" and "rules" for crowd management... As I reflect upon my
days of dancing, I find that Contra-dancing in large crowds is some of the
must Un-settling (and un-relaxing) dancing I've done.... Contra
dancing in smaller rooms in which I know 25% or more of the people there
were much more relaxing for me [e.g. the art-form is not at fault... just
it's popularity causes problems.... so as callers figure out better
crowd-management... we'll get back to that Joy of relaxing through the
medium of dance].
: Hence, the perceived need to change partners after every
: square or contra. A traditional square dancer who dances two
: (and even three!) dances with the same person will take the
: opportunity to get to know the person, develop a compatible dance
: style and interact with others in the square. Sometimes, this
: can take as long as 30-45 minutes! With a few big circles
: and waltzes thrown in, you may only have 7 or 8 partners during
: the course of the evening. Is this a big problem?
[text snipped.]
: Pete LaBerge
Don Larson
Toby Koosman
> One thing that annoys me is when a caller insists that dancers
> change partners after a dance. Why not let people dance together
> all night if they so desire. Afetr all, the caller can disengage
> them with a mixer. (end of editorial)
I never saw any caller single out those who neglect to change partners for
special criticism. I request that people change partners, I don't insist.
This helps those unfamiliar with the culture realize that they are not being
abandoned when their partner thanks them and moves on, and takes a bit of the
burden off the regular dancer who asked an unfamiliar person to dance. In
general, I am interested in moderating the risk of asking someone to dance or
of accepting a dance. I started out contra dancing in a place where it was
customary to keep partners for three or four dances, and I found it much
harder for new people to become integrated at those dances; I also found
myself reluctant to ask many people to dance, fearing to be "stuck" with an
unsatisfactory partner. I prefer to dance where frequent partner changing is
the custom, and I have found it mainly the custom where callers encourage it.
If the caller doesn't prompt people to take new partners, they tend not to.
People seem quite capable of resisting my suggestions.
Toby Koosman
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
tkoo...@utkux.utk.edu
http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~tkoosman/
Garry C. Kaluzny
In a previous article, do...@cup.hp.com (Donald B. Larson) says:
>Peter Laberge (plab...@news.epix.net) wrote:
>
>Good point!!! ... actually I think the changing partner's thing in
>Contra dancing is just poorly thought out philosophy (or a poorly chosen
>solution to the problem of integrating new-commers into the dancing)...
>I really wish that were NOT one of the "un-written RULES of contra-dancing"
No, it's *not* a poorly thought out philosophy. It's the *best* method of
assimilating newcomers into the "mainstream" (to borrow a square dance
word!) of the dancing, whether it be contra, square, ballroom, etc. I
have attended different social type clubs in the past, and if no-one came
over to talk to me and get me into the club's activities, I just figured
they were an unfriendly bunch and never went back. I wonder how many
dance groups lose potential dancers by not graciously welcoming them and
getting them into the "swing" of things right away?
>
>At contra dances where the crowd of dancers is large and amplification is
>necessary for the caller and band to be heard... tend to need a lot of
>"guidlines" and "rules" for crowd management... As I reflect upon my
>days of dancing, I find that Contra-dancing in large crowds is some of the
>must Un-settling (and un-relaxing) dancing I've done.... Contra
>dancing in smaller rooms in which I know 25% or more of the people there
>were much more relaxing for me [e.g. the art-form is not at fault... just
>it's popularity causes problems.... so as callers figure out better
>crowd-management... we'll get back to that Joy of relaxing through the
>medium of dance].
Heck, I *love* dancing in a crowded room! It makes you have to dance
precisely to avoid running into and injuring other dancers (I do think
about that a lot, especially since I'm 6'2" and 210 lbs.). I agree that
it's more fun to dance when you know a lot of people at the dance, but
are you talking about knowing them because you recognize what they look
like or do you know them because you have danced with them and have
socialized with them before/after the dance or during a break? I find
that dancing with a lot of different partners during the evening is an
excellent way to get to know the people you dance with. I believe if I
came to a dance and stayed with the partner I "brung" to the dance, I
wouldn't know as many people there and by your own definition I wouldn't
enjoy the dance as much.
I also do enjoy dancing squares, but more like the way we dance them at
contra dances where you only keep the same square for one or maybe two
dances in a row. When I used to go to regular square dances, it was a
nightmare if you got into a square where one or more couples really
couldn't dance well! You were stuck with them for a while. (And the
square dancing system of "rating" dancers really doesn't mean anything.
Someone may "know" the moves but may be unable to dance them in time with
the music!)
Garry Kaluzny
Ann Arbor, Pontiac, Plymouth, Lansing, et al Dance Gypsy
Dave Goldman
> >Contra dancing is just poorly thought out philosophy (or a poorly chosen
> >solution to the problem of integrating new-commers into the dancing)...
> >I really wish that were NOT one of the "un-written RULES of contra-dancing"
>
> No, it's *not* a poorly thought out philosophy. It's the *best* method of
> assimilating newcomers into the "mainstream" (to borrow a square dance
> word!) of the dancing, whether it be contra, square, ballroom, etc. I
> >At contra dances where the crowd of dancers is large and amplification is
> >necessary for the caller and band to be heard... tend to need a lot of
> >"guidlines" and "rules" for crowd management...
> >...
>
> Heck, I *love* dancing in a crowded room! It makes you have to dance
>...
>
> I also do enjoy dancing squares, but more like the way we dance them at
> contra dances where you only keep the same square for one or maybe two
> dances in a row. When I used to go to regular square dances, it was a
> nightmare if you got into a square where one or more couples really
>...
I figure this is a shot in the dark, but as a veteran of a particularly
prolonged "language war" on one of the computer programming boards a few
years ago, I guess I feel compelled to offer this:
Okay, some people prefer some dance venues and other people prefer other
dance venues. Some like to change partners, some don't; some like crowds,
some don't. Etc.
Therefore some of us prefer one form of dancing to another. This does not
make one form "better" or "worse", or "friendlier" or "unfriendlier".
The fact that these different venues are out there is proof that there are
people who prefer any one of them over all the others.
It _can_ be interesting to hear from some of the people who don't share my
own preferences, for the sake of hearing a new point of view and maybe
learning something.
But I really hope there's not going to be a squares-vs.-contra debate on r.f-d.
Melissa Weisshaus
(Garry C. Kaluzny) writes:
I agree that it's more fun to dance when you know a lot of people
at the dance, but are you talking about knowing them because you
recognize what they look like or do you know them because you have
danced with them and have socialized with them before/after the
dance or during a break? I find that dancing with a lot of
different partners during the evening is an excellent way to get to
know the people you dance with. I believe if I came to a dance and
stayed with the partner I "brung" to the dance, I wouldn't know as
many people there and by your own definition I wouldn't enjoy the
dance as much.
my regular dance has.. um, i don't know, maybe 150-200 dancers on an
average night? more than that on a really crowded night (dan pearl
would know more accurately..). this week should be a bit more tight,
since wild asparagus is coming to visit. anyway, i like dancing there
mainly because that is where i learned to dance, and yeah, i do feel
like i know almost all the regulars there (and the air conditioning
doesn't hurt, either.. *grin*). in some ways, i kind like it more
when it's crowded because, like (i think) most people, there are
people who i prefer to dance with more than others, and if it's
crowded, the chances of dancing with them goes up (since they're more
likely to be there, and i'm not one to passively wait for men to ask
me to dance ;-) ). there's also something about the energy that is
different when particular bands play and more people are there. it's
almost magical; you can see it in peoples' faces..
on the other hand, one place where i like dancing more than most
places is *small*.. if you got many more than 100 dancers in there,
it would be a big crowd, and get uncomfortable (it does get *hot*!).
it's also in a small(ish) town in central/western massachusetts, and
there is a different *feeling* there. a heartbeat, a feeling that
these people grew up dancing (there, or not too far away from there),
and their children probably dance, and will dance there, etc. somehow
it feels a bit more real than dancing country dances while knowing
that you're not more than about a 15 minute drive from a major
metropolitan area..
When I used to go to regular square dances, it was a nightmare if
you got into a square where one or more couples really couldn't
dance well! You were stuck with them for a while.
it took me about a year dancing in general (mostly contra) and
claiming loudly that i "hated" squares before i realised that i hated
squares when 1) more than one or two people in the square didn't
really know what he/she was doing, and was being pushed around and
directed by the others, or 2) the square itself was *boring*. note
that for much of that year, i was often one of the ones who didn't
know what i was doing, sigh.
i'm sure i surprised more than one person (and might do so again,
here!) when i said that my very most favorite part of NEFFA this year
was ron buchanan's "hot squares" hour in the lower hall, just before
the contra medley. and i'm the one who posted my anger about only
having one medley! the squares were amazing, fast, furious, fun, and
new (ever done a "grand hey"?); the dancers were pumped, eager,
waiting; kind of like a dog waiting for you to throw a stick and
straining to hold itself back until the stick is actually released.
give me a night of squares like that every week, and i might just be
converted. i think i still prefer contras over all, but a *really*
good square is often more satisfying than most contras.
melissa
Paul Tyler
giff...@lib.flint.umich.edu says...
>
>Paul Tyler says in Indiana, they are grouped into "tips" of 2 changes
(but is
>this a Western Square Dancing practice?).
>
was doing 2 squares at time in the '70s and '80s. They were all simple,
brief singing calls. On occasion, the caller might add a 3rd dance as a
kind of encore.
My memories of growing up in the same area are that three square dances
might be done in a row with the same set. And back then (the '60s), one
or more of the dances might be a old (and longer) visiting couple figure
with patter calls.
My experience in southern Indiana is that there was no regular method for
doing sets of squares, just so long as you did at least 2 in a row.
The above comments refer to traditional dance events. When I started
calling for revival groups (read contra), I almost always would do two
squares in a row. That's almost impossible to do today for hot shot
dancers, especially when they have booked ahead. But I still call that
way at hire outs for non-dancers.
Paul Tyler
Paul Tyler
says...
>
>In article <rsd-070795...@ip-pdx7-36.teleport.com>,
>story which hangs thereon. At the night-before-the-Ann-Arbor-Dawn-Dance
>dance this year, I danced a square with someone visiting from Chicago.
As
>the square finished, she hit the high road to find another partner.
When
>I asked her to come back because we were dancing two squares with the
same
>partner, she said, "Oh, yeah, this is the East Coast." Being originally
>from the Minn.-No. Dak. border area, I often have difficulty thinking of
>southeastern Michigan as being the Midwest, but someone who says that it
>is the East Coast needs a geography lesson.
That's because Detroit is in the AL East and not in the AL central with
Chicago and Cleveland and other Midwestern cities.
Paul Tyler
Chris Brady
American square dances were largely derived, were always
danced in 'sets' of figures, a figure being a shortish square
dance in its own right. A 'set of figures' would be danced with a
short interval between each one. Sometimes each figure would be
danced to a different rythm, e.g. jigs, reels, hornpipes, etc.
Typical quadrille sets were The Lancers, Caledonians, Alberts,
etc. The number of figures ranged from one through to nine. A
set would be danced throughout with the same partner(s). This is
reflected in the traditonal Irish sets now undergoing an
enthusaistic revival.
Paul M. Gifford
>From: Chris Brady <10034...@CompuServe.COM>
>Subject: Re: Square dance sets?
>Date: 12 Jul 1995 11:20:37 GMT
>The European cotillons and quadrilles of the 19'th C., from which
>American square dances were largely derived, were always
>danced in 'sets' of figures, a figure being a shortish square
>dance in its own right. A 'set of figures' would be danced with a
>short interval between each one.
From research I've done concerning dancing in Michigan, the cotillions (with
five figures, each with French names) began to get popular in the early 1840s,
but by the late 1850s, they were called quadrilles. It seems that Society
dances (including "Society" in small towns), in hotels, etc., did the dances
you mentioned, such as the Lancers, the Caledonian, and the Montebello
Quadrilles (1860s-1870s), most of them with five figures. But somewhere along
the line the figures began to be called "changes," and the number went down to
three. Maybe what happened is that once quadrilles were no longer fashionable
in the cities, among the younger set, they mostly remained in the rural areas.
From the discussion on this post, it seems that the three change set is (or
was) the usual practice at traditional dances in New England, Pennsylvania,
Indiana (?), and Michigan (same partner throughout the set). The two-figure
"tip" perhaps is an older Modern Western Square Dancing practice, while in
current Contra Dance practice, "squares" may be in groups of two or just
singular.
Are Irish sets usually in sets of five figures? What about Russian or Polish
quadrilles, or Italian quadriglie? Are quadrilles of other nationalities
still danced, either traditionally or in folk dance groups?
Paul Gifford
Kiran Wagle
> The thought just occurred to me, though, that she may have been referring
> to the fact that the band and caller were from the DC area. I can't
> remember their names. Curses, I have a bad memory for that sort of
That part is easy. They were Susan Kevra and Evening Star (Steve Hickman,
Claudio Buchwald, Bill Tomczak, & John Devine.) Only two of them are
actually from the DC area these days, btw.
Susan seemed to be calling a New England quadrille and a singing square in
each tip, btw (but she can correct that impression if necessary.) Some of
the singing squares were really neat.
~ Kiran
--
1628 5th St NW Washington DC 20001 +1 202 483 3157 +1 202 483 3373
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/home.html
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
Lee Thompson-Herbert
Paul M. Gifford <giff...@lib.flint.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Are Irish sets usually in sets of five figures? What about Russian or Polish
>quadrilles, or Italian quadriglie? Are quadrilles of other nationalities
>still danced, either traditionally or in folk dance groups?
Depends on which dances your looking at, for irish. In general, there's
some sort of opening, a "body" which is a set of figures that gets repeated,
an arbitrary number of figures (usually 2 or 3), and a closing.
So, the jig Humors of Bandon looks like this:
Opening: lead around
Body
First figure: Whirlygig
Body
Second figure: Sevens down the middle
Body
Third figure: Ladies' Chain
Body
Closing: lead around
Humors of Bandon is a four-hand dance, but that doesn't really change much.
In eight-hand dances, figures are done with the head couples, then the side
couples. In some dances, the last repeat of a figure terminates in a Grand
Round the House. Twelve-and-sixteen-hand dances follow the same sorts
of rules, though how the figures are handled vary by dance. In general,
everybody dances during the body, but figures are danced in groups of four
or eight.
There are also Kerry sets, which are rather like 4 or 5 dances strung
together. If I remember correctly, there's usually a polka/march, a reel,
a jig and a hornpipe. I'm sure someone else will know more than I do,
because I haven't danced one in a long time.
Locally, we also sometimes dance sets of jigs or reels. So we may dance
3 or 4 four-hand reels seamlessly. Or 2 jigs (none of us are masochistic
enough to do more than that without a rest). This works best when each
set calls their own dances (small group, no amplified music or callers).
That way, any given set can decide that they're defeated and go take a
rest. ;} It also means we can walk newer people through the dances
without the hassle of keeping in sync with everyone else. We screwed
up that figure? Ohwell. Try it again. We generally dance until the
last set has dropped or the musicians give out.
--
Lee M.Thompson-Herbert l...@crl.com
Chaos Monger Annoy the Scientologists, l...@soda.berkeley.edu
and Read alt.religion.scientology!
Jill-of-all-Trades Member, Knights of Xenu (1995) KD6WUR
Echo 01
own experance was that the caller would work the floor for about 20 to 30
minutes then take a break. Part of the thim this was due to the time it
took to set up the floor for the particular formation the caller wanted to
use. He had a few tricks to transistion from a circle to squares and lines
and back to circles. About once a moth we even did a wind the clock from a
circle.
Lysle 'Dad' Shields Ech...@aol.com
Bill Tomczak
>Susan seemed to be calling a New England quadrille and a singing square in
>each tip, btw (but she can correct that impression if necessary.) Some of
>the singing squares were really neat.
More likely the first square was a western-style square (her current
love) followed by a singing square. I don't think she does all that
many NE quadrilles.
Bill "Susan's designated husband" Tomczak
----------------Okay, Okay... so now I have a sig file. BFD---------------------
my name is Bill and my address is btom...@sover.net
So here's my obligatory quote:
If they act too hip you know they can't play shit - Miles Davis
Chris Brady
ErikThor
responding to Peter Laberge, " your typical contra dancer who tends toward
the type A personality.
These individuals are driven by the need for constant change, new
thrills and maximal dance experience (center line syndrome)."
It's interesting to attribute these concepts to modern day contradancers.
My experience as a caller sees modern contradancers with a general
distaste for squares. If they really were driven by a need for constant
change, they would support squares where constant change is the norm. I
think the center set syndrome has far more to do with wanting to dance
with only experienced dancers than constant change.
I also think that most of us dance to get into a somewhat trance, or
no-thought, state. Contras make this easy by their repetitive style.
Squares require both knowledge of figures and position, and the ability to
respond to the caller (that is to say, listening skills) before the
no-thought state can be approached. That, and good calling, which is
getting harder to find, as callers are reluctant to request dancers do
something for which they (the dancers) demonstrate distaste.
I hope someday this pendulum changes, as squares are potentially such fun!
Bobfab
progression was new, that is, mix dances and start repeating after once
through every dance. (you could do it twice or three times if the crowd
were not experts.) The art of calling such a dance, I think, would be to
artfully stitch together dances with minor changes until the ending dance
is nothing like the previous, then work back to the original.
Robert Fabinski
bob...@aol.com
Dan Pearl
>Eric, I thought it would be interesting to dance to a contra where every
I have seen this done. It seems to turn contra dancing into some other
beast. All the socializing, flirting, etc. was replaced with people
concentrating to hear the call, getting uptight with the dancers who
did not react fast enough, etc. It was not a pretty sight.
Why would a caller do this? To impress the dancers? (They were not
impressed, only aggravated.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Pearl ** Stratus Computer, Inc. ** pe...@sw.stratus.com
Michael Resnick
It would be done for the same reasons contra medleys are done. To challenge
the hot shot dancers. It may have a place, like medleys, as a specialty
item, but not in a normal evening of contra dances.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Michael Resnick O B J E C T D E S I G N
res...@odi.com Twenty Five Mall Road
t 617.674.5339 f 617.674.5439 Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-4194
Gene Hubert
>Eric, I thought it would be interesting to dance to a contra where every
>through every dance. (you could do it twice or three times if the crowd
>were not experts.) The art of calling such a dance, I think, would be to
>artfully stitch together dances with minor changes until the ending dance
>is nothing like the previous, then work back to the original.
>Robert Fabinski
>bob...@aol.com
Squares are much better suited to improvisation than contras. Although too
seldom seen in the contra/square scene, improvisation is an accepted part of
the square dance tradition.
Gene Hubert
Peter Renzland
>
>Are Irish sets usually in sets of five figures? What about Russian or Polish
>quadrilles, or Italian quadriglie? Are quadrilles of other nationalities
>still danced, either traditionally or in folk dance groups?
A great new book on Irish Set Dancing has just been published:
"Toss the Feathers" by Pat Murphy, Mercier Press 1995 ISBN 1 85635 1157 #8.99
It includes about 50 pages of very well researched dance history.
Irish Set Dances have from 3 to 9 figures. Typically 4 or 5.
"Dance a While" says:
The Quadrille was a 5 figure dance done by 4 couples ...
1. La Pantalon
2. L'Ete
3. La Poule
4. La Frenis
5. Le Final
There Vintage Dancers, and perhaps Renaissance and Baroque dancers
might have answers to the other questions.
Or, Paul could just ask his neighbour, Glen Morningstar ... :-)
--
Peter Renzland +1 416 323-1300 @__{) Cajun Contra ECD SCD , @ _{)_ ,
Pe...@Passport.Ca EntP Kia Ora! (>~(] Hambo Irish Pol(s)ka \/( )\/"\/\ /\/
Toronto Traditional Social Dance /\ /| Snoa Schottis Square /=\ /==\
Calendar: mail Da...@Passport.Ca /( (\ Swing Tango Vintage /___\ |/\|
Je danse donc je suis tanztoll Waltz Zwiefach Zydeco _/ \_ \# _#
Barbara Ruth
wrote:
> I also think that most of us dance to get into a somewhat trance, or
> no-thought, state. Contras make this easy by their repetitive style.
> Squares require both knowledge of figures and position, and the ability to
> respond to the caller (that is to say, listening skills) before the
> no-thought state can be approached. That, and good calling, which is
> getting harder to find, as callers are reluctant to request dancers do
> something for which they (the dancers) demonstrate distaste.
>
> I hope someday this pendulum changes, as squares are potentially such fun!
Listening to the debate between square and contra dancers I have come to
the conclusion that the two groups are like that famous statement about
the English and Americans, "two peoples divided by a common language."
Squares and contras share the common language of similar figures, so that
people coming to them expect to find the same kind of dance experience,
and then experience frustration when they don't get it. I indeed dance
contras for that "no-thought" rapturous state. The satisfactions of
squares are somewhat more intellectual, paying attention and responding to
challenges, but are no less than that of contras. There is something
exquisitely joyous about working with a group of fellow dancers and going
through the changes that a good, challenging square provides.
As to good square calling being difficult to find, I suggest that you
immediately seek out dances being called by Ron Buchanan, Kathy Anderson,
Ralph Sweet or Susan Kevra, who are I am sure only a handful of incredible
callers out there, but the ones I have most recently had the pleasure of
having my mind blown by.
ErikThor
This is a response to, "Subject: Dance hall size (long) (was: Re: Square
dance sets?)" by melissa. I can't seem to find that original posting, but
this seems to go beyond that anyway, so I put it its own subject heading.
> my regular dance has.. um, I don't know, maybe
> 150-200 dancers on an average night? more than
> that on a really crowded night
> ...
> if you got many more than 100 dancers in there,
> it would be a big crowd, and get uncomfortable
> (it does get *hot*!).
I've noticed, dancing in Santa Barbara, that more than 70 - 80 dancers
seems to promote Center Set Syndrome (CSS). It seems that when the size
of a dance is small, it's easy to dance with all your favorite partners,
and still fit in a few with newcomers. Also, at that level, it's easy to
have a bit more time for socializing, and not caring where in the hall you
are.
Something seems to happen when there's 90 or more dancers at a hall. Time
gets compressed, you might dance half the evening before you even see a
friend ("Hi, Pam, have you been here long?" "All night! Where have you
been?"). It gets harder to connect with all the dancers you'd like to. I
agree, crowded halls can be fun, and roomy halls can feel a bit hollow.
But it seems there other things at play. CSS sets in.
At this greater size, the center seems to gain some prestige. The "good"
dancers go there. People feel more likely to run into their familiar
dancing friends there. Hopeful center die-hards think beginners will be
in the sides, and for the most part, they're right.
Personally, I love dancing with good dancers, old friends, and newcomers
(highly overlapping groups, I might add). I attempt to do some of each at
every dance, no matter how crowded. I also tend to gravitate towards the
sides, though I'll make an effort to do at least one or two in the "center
set." I like to move around, and see everyone that way.
I, like many callers, don't know how to address CSS. Mostly, I joke about
it, and accept that it won't go away. I love it when I go to communities
that have either somehow avoided it, or have yet to develop it. It's nice
to know, although it's all over the place, it's not everywhere.
> it took me about a year dancing in general (mostly contra)
> and claiming loudly that I "hated" squares before I realized
> that I hated squares when 1) more than one or two people
> in the square didn't really know what he/she was doing, and
> was being pushed around and directed by the others, or
> 2) the square itself was *boring*. note that for much of that
> year, I was often one of the ones who didn't know what I was
> doing, sigh.
When I started dancing, the mix between squares and contras was probably
40/60. I thought they were terrific fun. Of course, at that time, Santa
Barbara in the early 80's, we weren't so sophisticated. We came to dance
to dance and have fun. I don't recall any strong expectation except the
dancing was fun, it was OK to be a bit zany (seems part of my nature), and
whatever we did was fun.
By a year of dancing I knew, kinesthetically, if not by name, almost our
two callers entire repertoire. I remember we'd often have one
"challenging dance for experienced dancers" early in the second half.
This was usually Rory O'More or Chorus Jig. Again, after a year, even
these were familiar. My how times have changed!
Now there are expectations for more fanciful figures, and new dances. At
the same time, squares have lost favor. There are dancers who want
"experienced only dances." And people want to move all the time, dancers
no longer seem to know how to enjoy being "inactive." (Personally, I
enjoy being inactive: I love watching other dancers, being there for them,
and hamming with my partner or a friend in the next line at that time.
But I digress...)
People who are into the "experienced only" might do well to study the
square dance movement as it progressed from 1950 to now. It journey was
predicated on the desire to be able to dance with people at a particular
level. I cringe to think the contra dance movement is going the same way,
but there are signs...
Again, I digress. I think there are a number of problems with squares at
contra dances. Most of these have to do with the ease at which new
callers can call contra dances, and the comparative difficulty of calling
squares.
Calling squares is harder than calling contras. It takes a bit more
practice, and it's harder to dance, and thus experience, collect, and
practice squares. The nature of fast moving western squares requires a
different sort of attention than contras. One might think that since
these dances are not so strongly phrased with the music, it might be
easier, but actually, it demands more attention to the dancers, and the
"beat timing" of the dance. Also, part of square calling is ad-libbing
material, so it requires enough familiarity with figures to be able to
think on ones feet. (Contras, on the other hand, are repetitive figures,
that are phrased with the music. Although some of them can have tricky
timing, this can be practiced at home, as well as learned on the fly as
the dance repeats and repeats and repeats.)
Since there is a relatively strong anti-square sentiment (I've experienced
it in most of my travels throughout the US) one has to have a pretty
strong will to even consider calling square dances. Then, since fewer and
fewer squares are called in a evening dance, dancers are unfamiliar with
the flow of the figures and stations of the dance so it takes more
teaching. Also, a caller doesn't get call them as often, so real-time
experience of both teaching (often the hard part) and calling is limited.
Thus it's hard to become good at calling squares.
I'm not sure what can be done to remedy this situation. Those of us who
care can noticeably appreciate callers struggling with the growing pains
of square dance calling. Also, we can support (as we do in the bay area)
square dance series and parties that give opportunities for callers and
dancers to become competent, and even good at this wonderful activity.
erik hoffman
Mike Kuhn
DP>In article <3urn3q$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Bobfab <bob...@aol.com> wrote
DP>>Eric, I thought it would be interesting to dance to a contra where every
DP>>progression was new...
DP>I have seen this done. It seems to turn contra dancing into some other
DP>beast. All the socializing, flirting, etc. was replaced with people
DP>concentrating to hear the call, getting uptight with the dancers who
DP>did not react fast enough, etc. It was not a pretty sight.
DP>Why would a caller do this? To impress the dancers? (They were not
DP>impressed, only aggravated.)
I once danced one called something like "Nuclear Meltdown" that had one
small change every 2 or 3rd time thru. By the end, it was a total mutation.
The mutations felt very natural and the whole thing was a delight.
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * He who dies with the most toys is dead.
ErikThor
changing contras. In squares you are dancing with a set number of people,
and the variations change how you interact with these seven other dancers.
In contras, the change comes from constantly seeing new faces, and
getting to vary how you react with them. There is lots of room for
improvisation within the structure.
As a matter of fact I don't know that I enjoy needless complication (even
though some dances I wrote might have a bit (oh well)). I can enjoy
succeeding at a difficult dance (the square, Riptide, or contra Lost
Child), but I love a simple dance as well.
I tend to believe the addage that there are no boring dances, just bored
dancers.
erik
Melissa Weisshaus
I think the center set syndrome has far more to do with wanting to
dance with only experienced dancers than constant change.
yup. sigh. this may get me in trouble, but.. i can be as patient as
they come, but my usual desire when i go dancing is to have fun; and i
have more fun when i'm dancing with people who know what they're
doing. on the other hand, i'm aware of the need to help out the
general community, and i'm *very* aware that less than 2 years ago, i
didn't know what i was doing.. so i try to think of ways to help out,
like participating in beginners' workshops and asking people to dance
who are obviously not totally comfortable yet.
I also think that most of us dance to get into a somewhat trance, or
no-thought, state. Contras make this easy by their repetitive style.
Squares require both knowledge of figures and position, and the
ability to respond to the caller (that is to say, listening skills)
before the no-thought state can be approached. That, and good
calling, which is getting harder to find, as callers are reluctant
to request dancers do something for which they (the dancers)
demonstrate distaste.
I hope someday this pendulum changes, as squares are potentially
such fun!
yes!
erik, this whole thing hits the nail on the head for me. i'm a self
described former square hater. i realised that i could like them when
the others in the square knew what they were doing (and in the
beginning, after *i* figured out what i was doing!). i realised, much
to my surprise, that i could really love them at least as much as a
good contra. i only love them if they're something.. different.
either fast (i've been told i'd like southern squares, but i really
have no idea what they are, except that one time, susan kevra called
one square in cambridge that made the whole hall whoop and sweat, and
someone said later on, how did you like that southern square? and i
realised that the one i'd really liked was that one.), or weird/
intricate (the "grand hey" that ron buchanan painstakingly taught us
in one of his squares at NEFFA was nothing short of a mind bomb of
amazing proportions, and very worth the time it took to figure it
out..). i get bored by the old style "men left hand star in the
middle, allemande your partner, do-si-do your corner, swing and
promenade your corner" etc. routines. it requires just enough
thinking that i can't relax into it and turn on auto-pilot and just
feel the music, and not enough thought that i feel like i (and the
other 7 in the square) have accomplished something interesting.
i go contra dancing for many reasons. i am both more relaxed and more
excited at a dance than at any other time of the week; thursdays are
sacred to me, and giving up one is a major trauma. :-) i mean, i get
to flirt with anyone and everyone who is willing. i get human
contact, and i feel beautiful and graceful (both of these are firsts
for me). for me to like a square, i have to be in a different mindset
than i am for contras; and if i'm going to get into that mindset, i
want to really have a grand time and feel that sense of teamwork and
accomplishment. does this make sense to anyone but me? :-)
melissa
brent m lofgren
And you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"
And you may say to yourself, "This is not my beautiful house."
And you may say to yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife."
Sorry, I've been listening to the Talking Heads recently.
>
>erik hoffman
Brent Lofgren, Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab, Ann Arbor
Bill Frysinger
dances, but also enjoys contras, I am adding my thoughts.
I grew up learning "traditional" square dances from my parents, and I am
doing my best to pass that on to my two children. I had the pleasure of
dancing with each of my children to Pete's calling last weekend, with
people participating from such a young age they could barely walk to
those so old they could barely walk. It certainly felt like a real
community event. I have attended contra dances in New England with a
similar community feeling, but local contra dances seem to be too intense
to include such a range of people. I really enjoy the contras (I'm an
intense person, too), but the contras I have attended locally do not have
the feeling of community the square dances do.
Paul M. Gifford
>From: pe...@passport.ca (Peter Renzland)
>Subject: Irish Sets (was Re: Square dance sets?)
>Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 18:16:07 GMT
>A great new book on Irish Set Dancing has just been published:
>"Toss the Feathers" by Pat Murphy, Mercier Press 1995 ISBN 1 85635 1157 #8.99
>"Dance a While" says:
> The Quadrille was a 5 figure dance done by 4 couples ...
> 1. La Pantalon
> 2. L'Ete
> 3. La Poule
> 4. La Frenis
> 5. Le Final
This appears to be an early 19th-century quadrille. I have some calls from
about 1810 and 1850 for cotillions, each with five changes. I forget the
names of the individual changes, but they seemed pretty standard (one was from
Marietta, Ohio, the other from western Michigan).
To get back to the original question in this thread, the five changes must
have gotten reduced to three early on (say, 1880-1890), even though publishers
continued to print music with four and five changes. I mean northern U.S.
quadrilles (including Ontario). I know that in the 1920s, Quebecois fiddlers
recorded records with 5 changes.
Paul Gifford
Bill Tomczak
>(i've been told i'd like southern squares, but i really
>have no idea what they are, except that one time, susan kevra called
>one square in cambridge that made the whole hall whoop and sweat, and
>someone said later on, how did you like that southern square?
Technically, those are western squares. Susan and I always thought of
them as southern squares too until Susan came back from Larry
Edelman's Augusta workshop with the correction.
Jonathan Sivier
>Melissa Weisshaus wrote:
Can you give a brief definition of the the types of squares, New England/
Southern/Western, and their differences? I know (or think I know) that New
England squares are done in synch with the music, like contras, so the main
figure and breaks are all 32 bars long. Is this true? Are there other
differences that would allow someone to look at a square and say which type
it was? I've been calling contras for about 3 1/2 years and calling squares
a bit over a year. I try to put at least one square in my program each time
I call, and while I can definitely say that I have improved over the past
year with squares, I know I still have a long way to go.
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. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Baden
I think there must be at least three groups of dancers involved in the square/
contra issue. My first experience in country dancing was with RSCDS Scottish
country dancing. There the dancing is, ideally, done without calling, with
generally only a talk through or at most one or two walkthroughs of a dance
before the music starts.
The dances are often considerably more complicated than in contra dancing, and
the dancing is controlled by the music rather than by voice. The major
challenge and pleasure is in fitting the dance exactly to the music. This is a
pleasure that I have not been able to find in a square dance. Perhaps this is
because I am more of a spacially and rythmically orinted person than a verbal
one.
Lynn Chirps
and surprising squares called by Ron Buchanon and Kathy Anderson, something
really wonderful is lost if dancers are denied (or deny themselves) of the
classic visiting couple square dances done to fast, often irregular and
quirky tunes. These are high energy, earthy (maybe some spins but nothing
I would characterize as a twirl) and, when done well, propel dancers into
circles that feel like community swings -- it's big fun. The inactive moments
that seem to aggravate 90's dancers are pure pleasure for me: a chance to
watch the others, clog some, and really tune in to the band. If your community
has old-time musicians, I recommend you take advantage of tunes in their
repetoire that are too steppy and irregular for a contra or phrased square,
call an old-time square or running set, and really bust down!
Dot Kent
Paul M. Gifford
>From: isa...@corp.hp.com (Stan Isaacs)
>Subject: Re: Irish Sets (was Re: Square dance sets?)
>Date: 31 Jul 1995 16:04:35 GMT
>Paul M. Gifford (giff...@lib.flint.umich.edu) wrote:
>: In article <DCAA...@passport.ca> pe...@passport.ca (Peter Renzland) writes:
> The 19th century quadrille typically had five figures. The ones >listed
above were the names of the figures of the "First Set" or "Plain >Quadrille"
(sometimes), and were perhaps the original set that came to>England just after
the defeat of Napoleon. A set of quadrilles is like>5 (or so) little square
dances done in succession, with a short breathing>space between each.
>Not to be confused with cotillions, which had "changes" instead of
>"figures". A cotillion had a single fancy figure, which was done sort
>of as a chorus figure between the changes, perhaps 10 or 12 of them in
>a full cotillion. The changes were well known by everybody, and were
>fairly easy; the figure could be complex, but was done many times in
>the dance, so the set would get comfortable with it. A nice form of
>dance, I think. You see the same type of thing in a lot of Playford
>dances, with a set figure done several times, and Forward&Back,
>Siding, Arming done between, as changes.
Interesting. Maybe I should bring in the 1840s cotillion calls which clearly
shows five figures (changes). I use the term "changes" because in old-time
square dancing in Michigan, which is what I'm most familiar with, they are
called "changes," not "figures," unless the dancers are trying to do something
from Henry Ford's "Good Morning."
Isn't the type of cotillion you are referring to a later form? I know that
various black social organizations still sponsor annual "coming out"
cotillions, and I think that the teenagers rehearse in advance to get the
cotillion right.
I've found an interesting reminiscence of a fiddler named James Swan, who
claimed to have taught the first cotillions in Michigan west of Detroit in
1852, "country dances" (which had no calling) only being known up to that
time. The cotillion craze only seems to have lasted a relatively short time,
as quadrilles started appearing in the state in the late 1850s and square
dances are still known by that name.
In short, it would seem that, whatever the original form of cotillions and
quadrilles were, by the 1850s, both had five parts. I'll try to post the
calls for the cotillions or sett dances.
Paul Gifford
Stan Isaacs
: In article <DCAA...@passport.ca> pe...@passport.ca (Peter Renzland) writes:
: > The Quadrille was a 5 figure dance done by 4 couples ...
: > 1. La Pantalon
: > 2. L'Ete
: > 3. La Poule
: > 4. La Frenis
Actually, that should be La Trenis.
: > 5. Le Final
: This appears to be an early 19th-century quadrille. I have some calls from
: about 1810 and 1850 for cotillions, each with five changes. I forget the
: names of the individual changes, but they seemed pretty standard (one was from
: Marietta, Ohio, the other from western Michigan).
The 19th century quadrille typically had five figures. The ones
listed above were the names of the figures of the "First Set" or "Plain
Quadrille" (sometimes), and were perhaps the original set that came to
England just after the defeat of Napoleon. A set of quadrilles is like
5 (or so) little square dances done in succession, with a short breathing
space between each.
Not to be confused with cotillions, which had "changes" instead of
"figures". A cotillion had a single fancy figure, which was done sort
of as a chorus figure between the changes, perhaps 10 or 12 of them in
a full cotillion. The changes were well known by everybody, and were
fairly easy; the figure could be complex, but was done many times in
the dance, so the set would get comfortable with it. A nice form of
dance, I think. You see the same type of thing in a lot of Playford
dances, with a set figure done several times, and Forward&Back,
Siding, Arming done between, as changes.
-- Stan Isaacs
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <3viuuj$e...@hpcc48.corp.hp.com> isa...@corp.hp.com (Stan Isaacs)
writes:
>>From: isa...@corp.hp.com (Stan Isaacs)
>>Subject: Re: Irish Sets (was Re: Square dance sets?)
>>Date: 31 Jul 1995 16:04:35 GMT
>
>shows five figures (changes). I use the term "changes" because in old-time
>square dancing in Michigan, which is what I'm most familiar with, they are
>called "changes," not "figures," unless the dancers are trying to do something
>from Henry Ford's "Good Morning."
>
>Isn't the type of cotillion you are referring to a later form? I know that
>various black social organizations still sponsor annual "coming out"
>cotillions, and I think that the teenagers rehearse in advance to get the
>cotillion right.
The cotillions to which Stan refers are an _earlier_ form. I don't have my
sources here [see below], so this is from memory, but this style of cotillion
is found somewhere in the 1800-1820 period. Morrison says that while there
were about ten changes current at any given time, dancers would ordinarily pick
five or so to do in any one dance, which is what revivalists typically do now.
There were also German cotillons (sic) which were party games rather than
dances per so. This word has almost as many meanings as "allemande."
For a sample of the cotillion figure, here's Marlbrouk (from the Morrison
colection); I happened to have the description on line. (For those playing at
home, this is a square formation.)
B1: Heads meet in the center and rigadoon (or just set),
take hands with opposite and slip out between the sides (who slip
sideways themselves), all rigadoon, heads slip in and fall back to place
while sides slip in and rigadoon again.
B2: As above, but with sides leading instead of heads.
Sources if you're interested in pursuing this further:
Twenty Four Early American Country Dances, Cotillions & Reels for the
Year 1976, carefully selected by James E Morrison (CDSS)
Country Dances of Colonial America, edited by John Fitzhugh Millar,
13 Colonies Press, Williamsburg
Dances From George Washington's Birthday Balls, edited by Leland B.
Ticknor, apparently self-published.
A Choice Selection of American Country Dances of the Revolutionary
Era, 1775-1795, by Ralph Sweet and Kate van Winkle Keller, edited by
by James E Morrison. CDSS, 1976.
More than you ever wanted to know, I'm sure.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL750.BITNET or WIN...@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 415/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
Paul M. Gifford
1850 or so. Here are some calls, one from about 1810, the others from the
late 1840s.
From the William Woodbridge Papers, 1807-1811, Burton Historical Collection,
Detroit Public Library, there is a notebook containing figures for various
dances, mostly ephemeral contra dances. Born in Connecticut, he was then an
official at Marietta, Ohio.
Under "Cotillions," there are five figures. The first figure is untitled, the
2nd one is "La Mondaine," the 3rd "L'Aristocrate," the 4th is "La Monacot,"
and the 5th is "Les Pantalons." (Note that "Le Pantalon" was the name of a
figure in the original quadrille). Here is "La Monacot," for example:
Balance to and turn partner
La queue du chat
2. couple double chassee
English chain
2. couple double chassee
The next is from the Henry Parker Smith Papers, Regional Historical
Collections, Western Michigan University. Smith was a fiddler and caller who
lived most of his life in Schoolcraft, Michigan. The group of calls listed
under the heading "Cotilions" is in an undated volume but which is probably
from the late 1840s. The numbers must be related to the number of beats in a
particular figure, but they are not entirely clear to me.
80 1st 4 Right & Left 20
Ballance 4 Swing 20
Ladies chain 20
Half promenade 10
Right & Left to place, sides same 10
60 1st 2 Forward & Back, cross over
Chasse de Chasse, cross Back
Ballance 4 Swing, side same
60 1st Couple Ballance to Right
Hands round, with next couple
Right & Left with next couple
All promenade
80 Allemande Left
1st 4 Contra face chasse out & half round
Ladies chain across
Forward all & Swing to Place, sides the same
Jig
60 1st Couple Ballance to the Right
Change Partners, repeat
Promenade All.
[etc.] Then follow six more similar calls, then one headed "Medley," another
"Windmill Figure," "March Cotilion," "Basket dance," etc.
Then he also has a list of tunes, grouped by "Sett." Sett no. 1, for example,
is:
Key G
80 Labyadera
60 Postilion
60 Rory O'More
80 Ocean Wave
Jig Lassie Yet
All sets have five changes or figures. I know that the last change of a
quadrille was called a "jig" around 1910 in Michigan. Thus I would assume
from the above that these setts were cotillion setts (as this book was from
the 1840s) and that they were grouped into five changes. But it's not clear
to me how many couples were in each set----two or four.
From comparing these two records, approximately 40 years apart, it would
appear that the calls became more Americanized, being borrowed from
contradances, but the basic organization of cotillions into five changes or
figures remained, even if most of the names got dropped. Also that in 1810,
cotillions no doubt were danced by the elite, such as military officers,
government officials, and merchants, who, through diplomatic relations, were
more attuned to the latest fashions from Europe. Cotillions didn't reach the
rural areas of Michigan until the late 1840s and early 1850s, however.
Any comments?
Paul Gifford
Flint, MI
Stan Isaacs
: >From: isa...@corp.hp.com (Stan Isaacs)
: >Subject: Re: Irish Sets (was Re: Square dance sets?)
: >Date: 31 Jul 1995 16:04:35 GMT
: >Paul M. Gifford (giff...@lib.flint.umich.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <DCAA...@passport.ca> pe...@passport.ca (Peter Renzland) writes:
...
: >Not to be confused with cotillions, which had "changes" instead of
: >"figures". A cotillion had a single fancy figure, which was done sort
: Interesting. Maybe I should bring in the 1840s cotillion calls which clearly
: shows five figures (changes). I use the term "changes" because in old-time
: square dancing in Michigan, which is what I'm most familiar with, they are
: called "changes," not "figures," unless the dancers are trying to do something
: from Henry Ford's "Good Morning."
: Isn't the type of cotillion you are referring to a later form? I know that
: various black social organizations still sponsor annual "coming out"
: cotillions, and I think that the teenagers rehearse in advance to get the
: cotillion right.
No, it is an earlier form. Cotillion was used for different things at
different times; in particular, later in the 19th century, it was used
for both a type of dance party and a type of party-dance or parlor
game. The kind I was referring to were popular during the late 18th
century and early 19th, if I remember correctly. I believe the new
cotillion (sometimes called German Cotillion, or even Parlour
Cotillions) appeared in the United States in the 1840's as an upper
class city dance. And the term was also used later as a coming-out
party. The party-dances, or Germans, are described in a lot of dance
books from the last half of the 19th century.
I would like to see the 1840s version you have. Where was it done?
What kind of steps and figures? Are the "changes" more like quadrille
figures or old cotillion? It is entirely possible for the old
Cotillion to have lasted in some places, or combined with quadrilles
or other dances. Dance names and forms change constantly, and I would
not pretend that no quadrille was ever called a cotillion, nor that
some places might have combined (or confused) the names.
-- Stan Isaacs
Paul Tyler
>
>Paul M. Gifford (giff...@lib.flint.umich.edu) wrote:
>: In article <DCAA...@passport.ca> pe...@passport.ca (Peter Renzland)
writes:
>
>: > 1. La Pantalon
>: > 2. L'Ete
>: > 3. La Poule
>: > 4. La Frenis
> Actually, that should be La Trenis.
>: > 5. Le Final
>
>: This appears to be an early 19th-century quadrille. I have some calls
from
>: about 1810 and 1850 for cotillions, each with five changes. I forget
the
>: names of the individual changes, but they seemed pretty standard (one
was from
>: Marietta, Ohio, the other from western Michigan).
>
>listed above were the names of the figures of the "First Set" or "Plain
>Quadrille" (sometimes), and were perhaps the original set that came to
>England just after the defeat of Napoleon. A set of quadrilles is like
>5 (or so) little square dances done in succession, with a short
breathing
>space between each.
>
>"figures". A cotillion had a single fancy figure, which was done sort
The quadrille as a dance largely replaced the cotillion in North America
shortly after it was introduced to the English. But we crazy Americans
kept calling it a cotillion. Drove English visitors nuts. So Paul
really found quadrille figures (also called 'changes' in some circles),
even though they were referred to as cotillions.
Could you all follow that?
later
Paul Tyler
Chris Brady
popular for exhaustive reasons. However there is a survivor in
the Irish set-dance tradition - the Roscommon Lancers. This also
has a travelling and setting steps not unlike English simple
ranting. Other quadrilles had only one figure, La Russe is an
example. This has been found in many traditions not only in
Scotland, but we also have a version from 1874 from Ireland
(Dundalk Manuscript), and versions of it appeared in the
formal dance programmes of high society in Australia and New
Zealand. Chris.
C J Brady
can do no better than recommend the reading of the following books,
particularly the first listed, and most of which can be found in any
library or antiquarian bookshop:
(i) "Dancing" edited by Lilly Grove and published by the Badminton
Library in 1895. This may be found in most large antiquarian book shops
and is not expensive. It is particularly valuable in that it predates the
formation of certain late 19'th and early 20'th century political
organisations, religious movements, and/or dance societies who
deliberately imposed their rigid interpretations and uniform styles onto
so many of the old social dance traditions. This imposition effectively
wiped out whatever remained of many of the more interesting local dances
a few of which are only now
beginning to be revived.
(ii) Local variants of many of the English and Scottish traditional
social and step dances are kept alive by groups such as the Reading
Traditional Step and Dance Group, alias the Reading Cloggies, who
celebrated their Silver Jubilee in 1990 and whose members have direct
links with the original
collectors of the dances in the Group's extensive repertory.
In particular a few local variants of figures from the quadrilles as
collected in Westmoreland/Cumberland are regularly displayed during which
the 'inactive' dancers performed 'clog-steps' whilst waiting for the
'active' dancers to finish executing a movement.
Many of the dances in the Group's repertory have been described in
"Traditional Dancing in Lakeland" published by the EFDSS, and
"Traditional Dances of Scotland". Both of these are by Tom and Joan
Flett, and both are in still in print.
(iii) "La Contredanse - A History of the Cotillion & Quadrille" by Mr.
Guilcher and published in French by Mouton & Co., Paris, 1969.
(iv) "Grammar of the Art of Dancing" by F. A. Zorn, originally published
in 1905 and republished by Dance Horizons, New York, USA, (date unknown).
(v) "Late 18'th & 19'th Century Ballroom Dances", which is vol. VII in
the "Nonsuch Early Dance" series, edited by Peggy Dixon and published by
Eglington Productions, Junella McKay, 97 Queensborough Gardens, Glasgow
G12 9RY. The introduction and most of the extensive notes were written
and compiled by Chris and Ellis Rogers, who have been instrumental in
reviving these old social dances.
(vi) "Collector's Choice - of Old Time, New Vogue and Modern Ballroom
Dances in Australia", volumes 1, 2 and 3 compiled by Peter Ellis, and
published by The Victorian Folk Music Club Incorporated, Box 2025S,
G.P.O., Melbourne 3001, Australia. These volumes are the result of
extensive research and collecting of dances, music, and reminiscences of
many m.c.s, band leaders, bands, musicians, and dancers in numerous
communities throughout the State of Victoria.
(vii) "Set Dances of Ireland - Tradition & Evolution" by Larry Lynch and
published by Seadna Books & Dal gcais Pub. of Miltown Malbay, Co. Clare,
Eire.
(viii) "'I Never Played to Many Posh Dances' - Scan Tester, Sussex
Musician, 1887-197211 by Reg Hall and published by Musical Traditions,
1990.
Chris Brady.
Stan Isaacs
: In article <gifford_p.3...@lib.flint.umich.edu>
: giff...@lib.flint.umich.edu (Paul M. Gifford) writes:
: >... probably
: >from the late 1840s. The numbers must be related to the number of beats in a
: >particular figure, but they are not entirely clear to me.
: >
: >80 1st 4 Right & Left 20
: > Ballance 4 Swing 20
: > Ladies chain 20
: > Half promenade 10
: > Right & Left to place, sides same 10
: >...
: The mysterious numbering Paul alludes to is precisely the subject of
: in an article titled "The Five Step Solution" by Michael McKernan in
: Vol. 1, No. 1 (January, 1995) of his quarterly journal, _Contra &
: Square Dance History_. Briefly, Michael describes his initial
: confusion over similar notations in other 19th-century sources and his
: eventual accumulation of evidence that the basic stepping pattern in
: quadrilles/cotillions/contradances (at least as taught by some dancing
: masters at some time in some parts of the country) once involved
: taking 5 steps to each 2 measures, rather than the 4 steps (one to
: each downbeat) commonly taken today. He conjectures that the rhythm
: was typically
: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 &
: step step step step step
: but is unsure of the finer points of styling.
Both Richard Powers and I believe the conjecture is backwards; that
the actual rhythm probably has the quick steps at the beginning, and
is just another way of talking about the basic early-quadrille steps
described in French as "temps-leve` - chasse - jete - assemble" in the
rhythm 1 & 2 3 4. It may have been simplified to Polka step + 2
steps, but I haven't seen any American descriptions in enough detail
to know for sure. There is a note to that effect in Issue 2.
: I just got my 3rd issue of _Contra & Square Dance History_ in the mail,
: and I continue to be impressed by Michael McKernan's scholarship. He
: clearly understands the difference between primary source evidence and
: fakelore, has examined many primary source documents, is careful to
: distinguish off-the-cuff conjectures from conclusions supported by
: solid evidence, and cites and quotes his sources sufficiently to allow
: readers to draw their own conclusions about his methodology. To
: subscribe to C&SDH or communicate with Michael, address correspondence
: to
: Michael McKernan
: RD 3 Box 1056
: Putney, VT 05346
:
: Disclaimer: I have no personal financial interest in C&SDH. However
: I do hope that Michael gets enough subscribers so that he can afford
: to keep publishing it.
Yes, I agree. This is a good publication, and everybody should subscribe.
: Aside to Paul Gifford: Michael might be interested learning about the
: notebook you cited, as it may shed further light on the "five step"
: question.
I'd be very interested, also.
: --Jim Saxe
-- Stan Isaacs
Jim Saxe
I just got my 3rd issue of _Contra & Square Dance History_ in the mail,
and I continue to be impressed by Michael McKernan's scholarship. He
clearly understands the difference between primary source evidence and
fakelore, has examined many primary source documents, is careful to
distinguish off-the-cuff conjectures from conclusions supported by
solid evidence, and cites and quotes his sources sufficiently to allow
readers to draw their own conclusions about his methodology. To
subscribe to C&SDH or communicate with Michael, address correspondence
to
Michael McKernan
RD 3 Box 1056
Putney, VT 05346
Disclaimer: I have no personal financial interest in C&SDH. However
I do hope that Michael gets enough subscribers so that he can afford
to keep publishing it.
Aside to Paul Gifford: Michael might be interested learning about the
notebook you cited, as it may shed further light on the "five step"
question.
--Jim Saxe
Bill Tomczak
> Can you give a brief definition of the the types of squares, New England/
>Southern/Western, and their differences?
With fear and trepidation...... I know there are number of folks out
there who would know far better than I and are probably reading this.
I have here in my lap Larry Edelman's text from his workshop for
callers. There are no set definitions here but... well, here goes.....
NE Squares:
Prompted, highly phrased to the music, dancers begin a prompted figure
on the first beat of the next musical phrase.
Music: Reels, jigs, polkas, marches/NE, French-Canadian, Celtic
Southern Squares:
Patter calling (also called chanting), using fill-ins that don't
instruct the dancers in any way, lots of diversity in the way they are
done, not closely phrased to the music, some calls are guided by the
dancers not the music, dancers can begin a figure on the next
comforatble beat. Hard to generalize due to so much variety in
practice. One general rule is that a main figure is done four times,
sandwiched between an introduction and an ending. Includes visiting
couple squares.
Music: hoedowns(reels)/Appalachian
Western Squares:
Includes a very wide variety. Larry describes traditional Western
dances rather than modern club square dancing - Patter calls, use NE
and southern figures as well as a number of new figures specific to
the Western Square repertoire. The variety of calls, especially
fill-in calls has been expanded. Phrasing is similar to Southern
squares only (I surmise from the way he's written this) even less
phrased "The dancers move to the beat of the music rather than long
phrases of music." Basic and common format is to do a main figure with
a break each time, all sandwiched between an introduction and an
ending. So you get:
Intro / Main / Break / Main / Break / Main / Break / Main / Ending
Music: hoedowns with appalachian or western flavor. Modern Western
calling also uses contemporary music, including Country-Western.
Singing Squares can be found in all traditions.
I hope this helps.
BT
----------------Okay, Okay... so now I have a sig file. BFD---------------------
my name is Bill and my address is btom...@sover.net
So here's my obligatory quote:
If they act too hip you know they can't play shit - Miles Davis
Paul Tyler
>
>Jonathan Sivier wrote:
>
>> Can you give a brief definition of the the types of squares, New
England/
>>Southern/Western, and their differences?
>
>With fear and trepidation...... I know there are number of folks out
>there who would know far better than I and are probably reading this.
>
>I have here in my lap Larry Edelman's text from his workshop for
>callers. There are no set definitions here but... well, here goes.....
>
>
>NE Squares:
>Prompted, highly phrased to the music, dancers begin a prompted figure
>Southern Squares:
>Patter calling (also called chanting), using fill-ins that don't
>practice. One general rule is that a main figure is done four times,
>sandwiched between an introduction and an ending. Includes visiting
>couple squares.
>
>Includes a very wide variety. Larry describes traditional Western
>dances rather than modern club square dancing - Patter calls, use NE
>phrases of music." Basic and common format is to do a main figure with
>a break each time, all sandwiched between an introduction and an
>ending. So you get:
>Intro / Main / Break / Main / Break / Main / Break / Main / Ending
This classification has always bothered me. From my geographically
biased perspective, I think it is much more accurate to use the term
Midwestern Squares for what everyone calls Southern. Though there is
some historical debate about which came first in the South, the big
circle formation or the four couple square, the Southern tradition in the
20th century (at community dances anyway) is heavily weighted towards the
big circle formation.
And please. Can we drop all references to the "Running Set."
The point in common between the Midwestern and Southern traditions is the
visiting couple thing. Of course that's built in to the big cirlce
formation. But visiting couple figures were more common at Midwestern
traditional dances than in New England or Western affairs.
The Western tradition as a whole has much more variety, and many more
figures that keep the whole set active. That's where most of the square
dance innovations came from in the first half of this century.
Of course, none of these categories are perfectly airtight. I bet very
few of us could tell from certain figures if they were Eastern (read
New England) or Western just by dancing them. As with most attempts at
classification, though they were somewhat useful at a practical
level, these categories have some pretty shoddy scholarship behind them.
My rant for today.
Paul Tyler
Paul Tyler
is not only a re-send, but also a re-write.
In article <3vphhm$g...@thrush.sover.net>, btom...@sover.net says...
>
>Jonathan Sivier wrote:
>
>> Can you give a brief definition of the the types of squares, New
England/
>>Southern/Western, and their differences?
[SNIP]
>NE Squares:
>Prompted, highly phrased to the music, dancers begin a prompted figure
["]
>Southern Squares:
>Patter calling (also called chanting), using fill-ins that don't
["]
>practice. One general rule is that a main figure is done four times,
>sandwiched between an introduction and an ending. Includes visiting
>couple squares.
>
>Western Squares:
>Includes a very wide variety. Larry describes traditional Western
>dances rather than modern club square dancing - Patter calls, use NE
>and southern figures as well as a number of new figures specific to
["]
>phrases of music." Basic and common format is to do a main figure with
>a break each time, all sandwiched between an introduction and an
>ending. So you get:
>Intro / Main / Break / Main / Break / Main / Break / Main / Ending
This classification has always bothered me. Like most taxonomies that
arise out of practical considerations, it has some very shoddy
scholarship behind it.
From my geographically biased position, I would say there is another
large category of squares that could be called Midwestern. Though there
is a historical debate about which came first in the South, the big
circle formation or the four-couple set, the Southern tradition in this
century is heavily weighted toward the big circle formation. Therefore,
most figures are visiting couple figures. The Midwestern tradition also
features a lot of visiting couple dances, but in four-couple squares. In
some places, Michigan in particular, the old quadrille figures for
opposing couples hung on well into this century.
What distinguishes the Midwestern from the Western is variety. I think
most of the innovations from the first half of this century are rooted in
the west. Many figures involving the whole set came from way out there,
though I know that Ralph Page and a whole host of Yankee callers could
give those westerners a run for the money. Few of us would be able to
identify the provenance of some figures just by dancing them.
One more thing. Can we please put the term "Running Set" to rest. Cecil
Sharp's discovery of distinct dance form is and always has been bogus.
He did a good job of collecting the figures those Kentuckians used to
"run a set." But he left us with just as many questions as he tried to
fit what he found into his preconceived theories.
Jim Saxe
> ... Michael McKernan in ... his quarterly journal, _Contra & Square
> Dance History_, describes ... evidence that the basic stepping pattern
> in quadrilles/cotillions/contradances ... once involved taking 5 steps
> to each 2 measures, ... He conjectures that the rhythm was typically
> 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 &
> step step step step step
In article <3vrcnh$n...@hpcc48.corp.hp.com> isa...@corp.hp.com (Stan Isaacs)
replied:
> Both Richard Powers and I believe the conjecture is backwards; that
>the actual rhythm probably has the quick steps at the beginning, and
>is just another way of talking about the basic early-quadrille steps
>described in French as "temps-leve` - chasse - jete - assemble" in the
>rhythm 1 & 2 3 4. ...
Yes, this may be right. Michael's article actually cites at least one
source favoring the timing Stan suggests. It also quotes another
source whose description of the steps for a particular figure (right
and left) seems quite clearly to call for six, not five, steps to the
first two bars of music, followed by five steps to the next two bars.
This indicates that even if dancing masters tended to think of two
bars as "five steps' worth" of music, the pattern of steps (as taught,
let alone as actually danced) wasn't necessarily uniform. In
attempting to condense a 10- or 15-page article to a short paragraph,
I omitted mention of these facts and many others.
--Jim Saxe
Gene Hubert
of square dancing since they seem to mean so many different things to
different folks.
I do use "New England" as a square dance type since this seems to have
a fairly consistent meaning.
I also find "Visiting Couple", "Big Circle" and "Club" to be fairly clearly
understood types of square dancing.
Additionally, I think a case could be made for a "50's" style of square
dancing as having a readily understood meaning. I think 50's style
dances make up a significant amount of what is sometimes referred to
as Southern or Western squares.
Gene Hubert
Dave Goldman
> dancing as having a readily understood meaning. I think 50's style
> dances make up a significant amount of what is sometimes referred to
> as Southern or Western squares.
How about all those singing squares? "Smoke on the Water" and so on.
Aren't those from the 40's? Or is that just the vintage of the tunes?
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
Paul M. Gifford
>From: r...@teleport.com (Dave Goldman)
>Subject: Re: Square dance sets? (more taxonomy)
>Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 00:13:42 -0700
Some of them clearly are part of the 1949/1950 Western square dance boom, like
"Oh, Johnny, Oh," etc., but there is a reminiscence of a dance in Pennsylvania
in 1881 which claimed that singing calls were new. Certainly calls like
"Ocean Waves (First Two Ladies Cross Over)" go back before 1920, or "Lady
Round the Lady," "Spanish Cavalier-o," etc.
Paul Gifford
Paul M. Gifford
Western, as proposed by a poster on this thread (sorry, I lost the message!)
is deficient.
These three styles really refer to "revivalist" dancing where calling,
etc., is formally taught in various ways, for example, Ralph Page's bunch in
New England; activities at Berea, KY, Augusta Heritage (WV), and various
settlement schools, for "Southern;" and the Lloyd Shaw Foundation for Western.
Although these efforts have had lots of influence, they belong to the realm of
recreational square dancing, associated with physical education teachers,
adult education programs, school and church basements, etc. The three styles
might be valid, if only this type of square dancing is considered.
To define and discover regional styles, you have to compare dancing as done by
people without these influences, where the calling is done by amateurs who
have learned calling locally. These dances would be mostly rural affairs,
accompanied by live music (fiddlers), and probably where other, more modern
dances (two-steps, fox trots, and perhaps even rock, as well as polkas,
schottisches, waltzes, etc.) are part of the dancing. The dancers do not
consider themselves to be "square dancers," nor are there any "walk-throughs"
(or minimal at best). Costumes are not worn. The participants make no claims
that these dances are part of a regional or ethnic identity.
Once you define what you're comparing, then you can make comparisons. The New
England/Southern/Western division is not valid for defining traditional
dancing because it leaves out large swaths of the U.S., for one thing, and it
groups together large areas under other types (what is Southern, for
example?). However, this division probably is valid for "revivalist" (lacking
a better term) dancing. Still, this is a problem because one state can have
all three "regional" styles at recreational dances and yet have a local,
traditional style.
Paul Gifford
C J Brady
> To define and discover regional styles, you have to compare dancing as
> done by people without these influences, where the calling is done by
> amateurs who have learned calling locally. These dances would be
mostly
> rural affairs, accompanied by live music (fiddlers), and probably where
> other, more modern dances (two-steps, fox trots, and perhaps even rock,
> as well as polkas, schottisches, waltzes, etc.) are part of the
dancing.
> The dancers do not consider themselves to be "square dancers," nor are
> there any "walk-throughs" (or minimal at best). Costumes are not worn.
> The participants make no claims that these dances are part of a
regional
> or ethnic identity.
>
> Paul Gifford
Paul - that is precisely the difference between the traditional Irish
sets and the modern set dance revival. For "square dancers" read "set
dancers".
Sadly such traditional dancing does not exist in England, Wales, Isle of
Man, even Scotland anymore. The revivalists even from Sharp's day - have
effectively wiped out what remained of our social dance tradition(s) and
replaced them by what you call 'revivalist' styles which sadly do not
bear much relationship to the orginals.
Unfortunately in the Irish set dance revival they are now busy inventing
costumes to perform the sets on stage, they are introducing calling
because everyone is now trying to learn every set rather than just the
few from their community, and they are even inventing sets for various
nationalistic &/or political reasons, e.g. the Sein Feine Set, the
Birmingham 6 Set,
etc.
The trouble is that the revivalists think that they are perpetuating
traditions whereas they are in fact completely inventing new ones.
Chris.