Many of your responses reminded me of how it was when I first started calling.
Years ago, dancers would complain whenever I would tell them to form squares.
They
were rude. They were rude to other callers as well. I noticed that Larry
Edelman
and Bob Dalsemer were able to find squares that the contra dancers would enjoy.
In ten years I watched square haters turn into square lovers. One dancer 'Mr.
Grumpy" (that's not his real name) used to roll his eyes when I called a square.
Then, 10 years later he came up to me, put his arm around me and said, "Tom I
really loved those 2 squares you called". I was floored. Of course I had gained
more skill as a caller. But I think the dancers changed as well.
While at the John C. Campbell Folk School, I read a book in the library about
the
history of longways and squares from the 1600s to the present. The author said
that about every 50-75 years one form would become more popular over the other.
So, for a while, longways dances would become popular. Years later dances in
square formations would become more popular etc. Will squares one day become
more
popular than contras?
Here's a dance you might enjoy:
Margo's Square
A1 Men star left
Allemande right partner once and a half. Make an Alamo ring by giving left
hands to right-hand lady
A2 balance. Allemande left once around.
do si do person on right (original)
B1 balance and swing person on left (right-hand lady)
B2 promenade to woman's home.
Tom
[email protected] wrote:
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> [email protected]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [email protected]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [email protected]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Question about squares (Jeffrey M.Petrovitch)
> 2. Re: RE: Question about squares (Robert Golder)
> 3. Re: RE: Question about squares (Jeffrey M.Petrovitch)
> 4. Re: question about squares (barb kirchner)
> 5. RE: Question about squares (David Millstone)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:15:01 -0400
> From: Jeffrey M.Petrovitch <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Tom:
>
> As a caller I really can not say that I have much to say about squares. I
> have attended a couple different workshops about calling squares, and not
> doubt calling contras and squares are very different animals...
>
> As a dancer, a contra dancer I can definately do without the square and if
> anything I really am not a fan at all. Personally I do not really enjoy
> dancing squares for a couple different reasons, same people, same dance moves
> all the way through, the pace of a sqaure is usually such that there is not
> much room for creative dance expression, and I find the majority of callers
> are not good at either explaining or calling them.
>
> A lot of callers and dancers really like squares and that is fine. A lot of
> people like them because of the tradition, etc. that is behind them and that
> is great as well. Personally, I would prefer to dance Chorus Jig or Money
> Musk any day of the week over a square...
>
> Squares are not for everyone...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Petrovitch
>
> Jeffrey M. Petrovitch
>
> [email protected]
>
> "Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique,
> with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was
> awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:30:34 -0400
> From: Robert Golder <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: "Jeffrey M.Petrovitch" <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <bed4d2ca.33d6%[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> > ... Personally, I would prefer to dance Chorus Jig or Money
> > Musk any day of the week over a square...
> >
> > Squares are not for everyone...
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jeff Petrovitch
>
> There is surely one time when, as a dancer, squares are not for me. That
> time comes when every dancer in the hall has dutifully lined up in contra
> formation, and then the caller says, "OK, let's make squares!" Everyone
> grumbles as they shuffle into new positions, not so much because they
> dislike squares as because they just realized that the caller isn't really
> paying attention to them. Squares in an otherwise all-contra evening work
> better when the caller finishes teaching a contra and then says, "By the
> way, the NEXT dance will be a square."
> I could happily dance "Money Musk" all night long, but many dancers
> dislike it more than a square, because there is no swing. We all have our
> prejudices.
> The skilled caller believes in her material, and by her demeanor
> convinces the dancers that each new dance will be a joy, whether it's a
> square, duple minor contra, triple minor contra, triplet, four-facing-four,
> etc.
> The smart dancer is ready to experience new dance formations, and not
> just repeat the same old improper duple minor contra formation.
> I like calling for beginning dancers in small venues, because beginners
> have few or no prejudices. Sometimes, in a small hall, you can keep track of
> all the dancers. If I sense that I'll have eight couples on the floor, I'll
> have an easy square ready to go. If I have six or nine couples, I'll call a
> triplet. Works like magic. .... Bob
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Robert Jon Golder
> 164 Maxfield Street [email protected]
> New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 999-2486 voice
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:25:21 -0400
> From: Jeffrey M.Petrovitch <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: Robert Golder <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey M.Petrovitch"
> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> My home dance being Nelson, New Hampshire, I am not stranger to the old
> traditional dances, such as Chorus Jig, Money Musk, Petronella, etc., and all
> these dances are dances that I love... As a caller, as a dancers, I believe
> there is a certain responsibility places on the callers and musicians of any
> dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old traditional dances being
> one of these things).
>
> I also believe that contra dancing, like everything is evolving, with is
> self-evident by the music, such as Airdance, Wild Asparagus, and the list goes
> on... It is bands such as these, which in a lot of way have defined what
> modern contra dancing is today. Along with that contra dances have changed,
> examples of this would be the majority of dances that are danced now are
> improper opposed to proper; this is how modern contra dancing has evolved.
>
> In no way am I suggest that we elimate the old and bring the new, but callers,
> dancers, musicians, and everyone have to be aware the contra dancing and
> square dancing are changing, and the great callers, the people that are going
> to make the most difference, in my opinion are not the people who are firm set
> in the traditional ways of dancings, but the people who are firm set in the
> adaptation of the traditionaly ways of dancing and making dancing appealing to
> an ever changing crowd...
>
> I caller should be confident in the program that he or she is putting on, but
> at the same time he or she needs to know the crowd they are calling to,
> because I believe there are just some dances that should not be caller to
> certain groups of people, and the perfect and most basic example is, you are
> not going to start with a really hard dance for a bunch of new dancers. And
> you are not going to call Money Musk at the Brattleboro Dawn Dance. And you
> are just not going to call squares are certain dances. There are callers'
> callers and dancers' callers, and people somewhere in between...
>
> I love contra dancing, as a caller I love calling, as a dancer I love dancing,
> but the reason I love contra dancing is because it is fun. Fun, fun, fun, is
> the key to the whole thing, if you are not having fun dancing, why would you
> ever want to dance. I admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when
> a caller is going to be calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun
> for me. Of course everyone is going to have their own opinion on squares, but
> there is not doubt as a formation, a dance formation there are a lot of
> limiting factors that contra line do not have. Everything that you can do in
> a square, you can do in a contra line, either proper, improper, beckett,
> whatever formation, so based simply on the possiblities of dance movement, the
> contra line is far superior then the square...
>
> I believe that future of squares are squantras and contreas. Rich Mohr is a
> great writer of these and perhaps a simple example of this would be the dance:
> "Dance All Night", which is a great combination of a contra and a square. I
> think the square needs to be looking at the future, because a square is just a
> square...
>
> Closing thoughts: as a caller, as a dancers, I feel that perhaps one of the
> most important things to do, is get new dancers interested in contra dancing.
> I think contra dancing perhaps one of the most wondeful things I have ever
> done. There are dances that struggle on a week to week, month to month basis,
> because they lack the ability to attach new dancers. Dancing should be rooted
> in tradition, not stuck in it... Evolve the square...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Petrovitch
>
> Jeffrey M. Petrovitch
>
> [email protected]
>
> "Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique,
> with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was
> awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:46:31 +0000
> From: "barb kirchner" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] question about squares
> To: [email protected]
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> chris, it has not been my experience that dancers/organizers who complain
> about lack of variety in a program are talking about different formations.
>
> i have never been to the whitefield dance, and i don't know anything about
> it - so i could be wrong in this instance. but i have been to dances where
> i felt the dances "were all the same" and they were all contras. i've also
> been to dances where all the dances were contras and every dance felt
> different. so here are some of my thoughts on planning an evening.
>
> each dance needs a "hook" - something interesting that makes people remember
> the dance, and which distinguishes it from the dance before.
>
> early in the evening, at a "normal" dance, the hook may not be so memorable.
> as you move through the program, you should add something (usually one
> thing at a time - don't overwhelm them!) to keep people interested.
>
> example:
>
> 1. nice combination - gene hubert. a glossary dance, easy to do/remember,
> both neighbor and partner swing, down the hall is great. i think it's
> important to have a neighbor swing in the first few dances when you have
> beginners, just in case they're all dancing together. they need to swing
> with OTHER people for awhile to get the hang of things. down the hall is a
> good move for understanding timing - ask for a strongly phrased tune from
> the band so it's really clear to the dancers when to turn around and come
> back.
>
> 2. for dances with high proportion of beginners, i might do peter
> lippincott's snake river reel. there is no partner swing - only a neighbor
> swing. beginners don't know they're always supposed to have a partner
> swing, and again, they need to swing with people other than beginners to
> learn. wavy lines in the middle are easy and fun, and the B1 is similar to
> down the hall in terms of timing (they're in a wavy line, drop hands, walk
> forward alone in the direction you're facing for 8 counts, turn around and
> come back to find your neighbor to B/S). reinforces the timing aspect, but
> feels different than down the hall.
>
> 3. add an easy/medium dance with a full hey (easier than a half hey - they
> start and end in the same place). make sure it has good flow - no
> unexpected changes of direction, etc. i like to set this up ahead of time
> with a group of dancers who know how to do a hey - during the walkthru, have
> them do it right the first time, then instruct them to "do it wrong" the
> second time WHILE YOU CALL IT CORRECTLY. tell one person to imitate a "deer
> in the headlights" and the others wander around aimlessly and THEN ALL RUN
> BACK TO WHERE YOU STARTED TO B/S your partner. tell them either kind of hey
> is ok, AS LONG AS THEY SWING THEIR PARTNER at the end. be sure to
> congratulate them during the dance when you see "both kinds of heys" going
> on.
>
> 4. do another easy/medium dance without a hey, but with some other
> interesting figure - wavy lines, etc.
>
> 5. something without a hey or a wave - maybe a petronella dance. i like
> "salmonella evening" - an easy variation of steve zakon's salmonchanted
> evening with a petronella in the B part. for a more experienced crowd,
> something like becky hill's "balance to my lou" is good.
>
> 6. end the half with something that has both neighbor and partner swing and
> some variation of one or more of the figures above.
>
> second half - first dance, start easy. second dance, add another new figure
> - or maybe something on a diagonal - even a circle to the right. you get
> the idea. one dance i really like is "friday night fever", which has both
> neighbor and partner swing and a square through (another figure where you
> START AND END in the same place). use a dance with the progression in the
> middle. use a different progression - circle left, slide left to NEW
> neighbors, circle left. use a couple of dances where there is interaction
> with people from other minor sets. use at least one dance with a shadow and
> a couple of beckets. it's always great to throw in at least one proper
> dance.
>
> that's a whole lot of variation without ever using a formation other than a
> contra line. i love to call squares and four-face-fours and mixers, but
> some places don't want 'em. i can still have a varied program without them.
>
> looking forward to hearing the details of your first full evening soon!
>
> barb
>
> http://www.barbkirchner.us
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Chris Weiler <[email protected]>
> To: Tom Hinds <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Callers] question about squares
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:39:17 -0400
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I haven't collected any as of yet (except the ones in the reference books
> that I've bought). I do plan to call them and have signed up for the Square
> Dance Callers course at Pinewoods next month. I'm really looking forward to
> working with Kathy Anderson.
>
> One of the things that was reported back to me from the N. Whitefield dance
> (I'm still working on the full e-mail to the group) was that the person
> thought I lacked some variety in my program. I'm thinking that it has to do
> with my limitations as far as formations go. Putting a couple of squares in
> the evening breaks things up nicely.
>
> Chris
>
> Tom Hinds wrote:
>
> >I wanted to know what people think of squares. Have any of you collected
> >any good ones? Do
> >any of the new callers plan to include one in their programs in the future?
> >Tom Hinds
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> >>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >>than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
> >>
> >>Today's Topics:
> >>
> >> 1. Re: Gorham, New Hampshire new venue (Chris Weiler)
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Message: 1
> >>Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:54:12 -0400
> >>From: Chris Weiler <[email protected]>
> >>Subject: Re: [Callers] Gorham, New Hampshire new venue
> >>To: Marlena Schilke <[email protected]>
> >>Cc: [email protected]
> >>Message-ID:
> >>
> >><of8d6d10c1.155c9dce-on8525701c.0072d3a5-8525701c.0072d...@weirdtable.org>
> >>
> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >>
> >> Marlena,
> >> Unfortunately, it's just too little notice, so I can't help you out.
> >> I am copying the SharedWeight list just in case one of the callers on
> >> there SharedWeight people: If you're looking to gain experience, and
> >>you're
> >> ready for it, jumping on an opportunity like this is a great way to do
> >> it.
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> -----Marlena Schilke <[email protected]
> >> To: Chris Weiler <[email protected]>
> >> Date: 06/10/2005 04:31P Subject: Re: [Callers] Gorham, New
> >>Hampshire new venue
> >> Hello Chris,
> >> Harry Brauser, our schedule health
> >> problems, and cannot make it tomorrow for our small develo at
> >> 7:30pm?
> >> -- On 4/29/05, Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler@weirdtable > Hi
> >>Marlena,
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I c dances this
> >> > summer >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>------------------------------
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Callers mailing list
> >>[email protected]
> >>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> >>
> >>End of Callers Digest, Vol 10, Issue 1
> >>**************************************
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Callers mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: 14 Jun 2005 21:30:22 EDT
> From: [email protected] (David Millstone)
> Subject: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: [email protected], [email protected] (Robert
> Golder), [email protected]
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Jeff Petrovitch wrote, "...everyone is going to have their own opinion on
> squares."
>
> No disagreement there. Some folks like 'em, others don't. Some folks like
> contras, others don't. Some like Balkan line dances, others don't. Some like
> tango, lambada, Sufi dancing, trance dance, mosh pits... heck, some folks like
> the Macarena and the Hokey Pokey and the Chicken Dance. Different strokes for
> different folks. Jeff, you're clearly in the "don't like squares" camp. Okay,
> that's your preference.
>
> But then you go on to say, "but there is not doubt as a formation, a dance
> formation there are a lot of limiting factors that contra line do not have.
> Everything that you can do in a square, you can do in a contra line, either
> proper, improper, beckett, whatever formation, so based simply on the
> possiblities of dance movement, the contra line is far superior then the
> square..."
>
> Well, I have some doubts, and I'll invite Shakespeare to chime in here:
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
>
> To name a few:
> Grand square, grapevine twist, Alamo thar (and throw in the clutch), grand
> chain, dip and dive, rip and snort, teacup chain... well, you get my drift.
> Your
> comment is akin to saying that there is absolutely nothing that you do in
> triple
> minor contras that you can't do in duple minor. Again, you may have your
> preferences, but please, don't try to pass off your preferences as absolute
> fact.
>
> <soapbox alert>
> The part of your post that most concerned me, though, was this statement: "I
> admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when a caller is going to
> be
> calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun for me."
>
> You also say, "I believe there is a certain responsibility places on the
> callers
> and musicians of any dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old
> traditional dances being one of these things)."
>
> Perhaps I'm misreading you here, but I would hope that you would set a better
> example than to groan at the choice made by another caller. If you do believe
> that it is important to carry on certain traditions of dancing, then I'd hope
> you realize that squares have an equally long tradition, with both squares and
> longways dances going back at least 350 years. Indeed, it is only in the last
> few decades that an all-contra program became the norm in certain regions.
> That's a mighty small chunk of time in the span of Anglo-American country
> dance
> and the folks who enjoy that particular narrow spectrum of dances represent
> just
> one segment of the dancing public. I am not asking you to call squares-- few
> things are less appealing than someone doing something they really don't
> like--and a caller calling squares even though he or she really hates them
> will
> only pass on that dislike to others. I am asking you to consider that there
> may
> be other points of view that are equally valid, and that you have an
> obligation
> not to undercut a fellow caller at the mic.
>
> As a caller, you have higher visibility in the dance community and others will
> model themselves on what you do. A dancer who is also a caller has an
> obligation, I believe, to lead by example. This means that when you're out on
> the dance floor, you make a conscious effort to invite folks who are sitting
> on
> the sidelines, to dance now and then with the perpetual beginners, to join
> side
> sets, to join at the bottom end of the line, to refrain from talking while the
> caller is talking, to avoid extraneous embellishments in your dancing
> (especially when surrounded by new dancers), to be gentle and supportive... in
> short, to model the very behavior that we all want to see on the dance floor
> when we're at the microphone.
> <soapbox off>
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject and for considering another
> point of view.
>
> David Millstone
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3
> **************************************
