This might seem to play right into "divisive", but hear me out: it's worth giving thought in the discussion to the reason some contradancers dislike squares. Now, i speak as a dancer/caller who has had loads of fun dancing traditional New England squares at Ralph Page Legacy Weekend, among other places, and aspire to master the NESD form and add it to my calling repertoire. Yet i'm acutely aware of the fact that many of my peers among the GenY contra community aren't as appreciative of squares.
One topic that has come up in several of my conversations with mentors is the concept of "staying on the mic" (when it's no longer necessary to the dance) as a bit of egotism on the caller's part. Of course, squares and contras require somewhat different approaches; a square caller can't "drop out", and that makes squares less conducive to the trance-dance experience some young contra folk want to achieve. Additionally, in that square-dancing is associated at times with Appalachian and "barn-dance" traditions, it tends toward somewhat different musical ground than some contradancers (including myself) prefer. (Please note that these are generalizations, and glaring exceptions aren't hard to find.) BUT... a big reason why some contradancers feel (to put it bluntly) like squares are the plague? Perhaps because when we try to explain contra to those uninitiated in traditional dance, they ask "is it like square dancing?" And i, for one, shudder at the ensuing task of acknowledging the very close relation between the two forms while trying to negate whatever pop-culture caricaturizations of square dance have popped into this person's head. Please forgive if i speak from partial ignorance here, but it seems to me square dancing took the brunt of mass culture's evolution away from traditional forms, and those who want to see contradancing as "cool" and "hip" struggle to maintain a distinction between the two forms. (see Don Coffey's "freight train/horse-blinder" comment). This is a good point to reiterate that i certainly enjoy squares. Jim Saxe put it nicely when he mentions (to paraphrase) bristling at the implication that callers choose squares out of motivations other than dancer fun, and lots of love to Chrissy for the "branches" analogy. It may be instructive, in smoothing relations between two grand branches of the social-dance tradition, to consider the more subtle underlying reasons for that "horse-blinder focus" in the hope that we as dance leaders can address them more fully. tavi > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:38:24 -0400 > From: Chrissy Fowler <[email protected]> > To: shared weight <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > Oh hooray! Divisive politics are my favorite! (Not) But somewhere in > the SW archives I've already pointed out what a waste of time it is to > point fingers and deride each other. So just a couple other things, > starting with an example. > > On David Chandler's note of openness to new experiences, a year or so ago > our dance series celebrated the DEFFA Board (DownEast Friends of the Folk > Arts) and hired a fiddler and several dance callers who were DEFFA board > members. Given the expertise of the callers, the program included a Czech > mixer-Doudlebska Polka, an English Country Dance-Knole Park, a Croatian > dance-Moja Diridika, and several contras (mostly modern compositions). > Because none of the callers considered themselves skilled at calling > squares, there were no squares. In some ways, this program was a first for > public contra dances in Maine. > > But (a) it seemed like everyone had a good time (dancers, callers, > organizers, and even musicians who were asked to learn some unfamiliar > music), and (b) it was still delivering our dance's usual fare -- namely, > accessible, fun, traditional social dances, taught & prompted, and danced > to excellent live music. And on the plus side, we were also celebrating > the varied contributions to the world of the board members who serve our > local folk organization - board work that is done, as Linda Leslie points > out, with "good intentions" and "for the love of the art forms." > > What I got out of David Millstone's original post was a cautionary note - > asking us as dance leaders (organizers, callers, dancers) to be conscious > of the perils of rareifying or stultifying our social dance traditions > (making them so complex/exclusive or proscriptive/rigid that they lose > their capacity to live on into the future in good health.) So, I got out > of it an exhortation to consider sustainability, but I also got a reminder > that we are connected inextricably to history - this isn't some brand new > movement. It's got deep, strong roots. And it's not a dead form. It's > got branches. And quite thankfully, it's got richness of variety. There's > something for everyone, thanks to the variety of visions of the organizers > who make these dances happen. But at the core it's about participatory > social dance. And I say, the more people who join us in participatory > social dance, the better. (Even if you don't want to think about dance as > positive social change...) > > Dance on, > Chrissy Fowler > Belfast, ME > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:55:09 -0700 > From: James Saxe <[email protected]> > To: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]> > Subject: [Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD > parallels?) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > I'm finally feeling impelled to comment on this. > > The reason I include occasional squares at events billed as a > "contra dances" is that I have personally had a tremendous > amount of fun dancing them--much of it at events that included > both squares and contra. > > I first got into the traditional dance scene in Pittsburgh, PA, > in the early 1980s. The events were mostly advertised as "square > dances" but a typical evening's program might (or might not, > depending on the caller) have included several contras as well. > I believe most of the dancers enjoyed both. > > The squares I'm talking about, by the way, were "traditional", > not modern western. I'm sure there was an active MWSD community > in Pittsburgh at that time, and probably there were a very few > dancers who did both MWSD and "traditional" squares/contras, but > it was for all intents and purposes a completely separate activity > and community. My intent in saying this is neither to disparage > nor to praise MWSD, but merely to point out that anyone who cites > anything about MWSD as a reason why contras and traditional squares > don't/can't/shouldn't mix is engaging in a complete non sequitur. > At the square dances I went to, we had no special attire, no > need for separate lessons, and no recorded music. [Yes, I know > that not all MWSD groups require or even encourage the special > attire, and that some MWSD events have live music, but going > into more detail about MWSD here would be a digression from my > main topic.] The dances were every bit as open to the public as > typical contra dances. > > As a new dancer, my experience of that mostly square-centric > Pittsburgh scene was that it was as welcoming a community as > I had ever encountered. Dances were often followed by a > well-attended gathering at a local restaurant, or occasionally > by a house party where conversation and musical jamming would > go on into the wee hours of the morning. I don't think the > community was particularly more or less eclectic than the > communities of contra dancers I know of. > > I found that squares and contras each offered their own kind of > fun. These kinds of fun were different enough so that when I > moved to California and found a thriving contra dance scene, I > noticed after a while that I was missing the kind of exciting > squares I had danced in Pittsburgh. On the other hand, the > kinds of fun and the skills involved in the two forms were > similar enough IMO that a lot of the same people could (and, > in at least in one community where I had danced regularly for > several years, actually did) enjoy both in the same evening. > > In short, the reason I sometimes call squares at "contra" dances > is that I believe they can add a special kind of fun to the > mix. I also believe that most other callers who mix squares > with contras do so for the same reason--because they think > squares can add a different, but not too different, kind of > fun. I'll freely admit that I, and other callers, haven't > always succeeded in sharing this kind of fun with the dancers. > present. Certainly there have been times when I've chosen > inappropriate squares for the circumstances, and times when > I've ineptly taught and called whichever dance I've chosen. > (I'm sure most of us have also had experiences from time to > time with contras that were poorly chosen, poorly taught, > and/or poorly called.) What I bristle at are (a) implications > that the fun I remember having with squares (including at mixed > square/contra events) is a figment of my imagination (except in > the sense that all fun and all memory are mental experiences) > and (b) implications the I or other callers call squares out of > motivations other than dancer fun, such as an abstract sense > of duty to preserve historic traditions or some other notion > of "making the dancers take their medicine". > > Regards, > --Jim > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Greg McKenzie wrote: > > > David Millstone quoted Don Coffee > [Coffey] > > as writing: > > > > > > Modern contra dancing has become a mass "movement" with the energy > > of a > >> greight train, but most of the young people who so love contras?and > >> contras > >> only-- have no idea it is but one component of a larger, very > >> wonderful, > >> tradition. This horse-blinder focus rather reminds me of... > >> > > > > Oh dear! Here we go again. > > > > > > The square enthusiasts are putting forth another tome?complete with > > graphs > > and historical references? about how contra dancers are ?limited?, > > ?short-sighted?, ?narrow-minded? or just plain ignorant in their views > > about the dance tradition that they have loved for so many decades. > > > > > > This annual tradition of denigration would be humorous if it were > > not so > > insidious and insulting to people who have dedicated so much to > > building a > > new tradition that has made called dancing available to so many > > people who > > would not have otherwise ever tried it. > > > > > > Instead of repeating the old saws about how bad contra dancers are, > > our > > square dance calling friends might consider educating themselves > > about this > > new tradition that they seem to know so little about. For those of us > > dedicated to holding open, public, contra dances for our communities > > this > > movement is much more than merely a ?component of a larger, very > > wonderful > > tradition.? It is, in fact, an evolution of even older traditions > > and, > > perhaps, an alternative to the square dance tradition that has > > become so > > moribund and unavailable to the general public. > > > > > > For many of us, introduced to contras as our first social dance > > experience, > > one of the defining factors that drew us to contra dancing was the > > fact > > that it was NOT square dancing and it did NOT require that we attend > > separate classes to learn it. > > > > The fact is that contras are attended by a wildly eclectic crowd of > > people > > with varied dance experience and interests. Yes, about half of > > those in > > the hall frequent contras almost exclusively (43% attend contras > > only), but > > almost 40% of those in the hall are enthusiasts of some other dance > > form > > and attend other dance forms at least six times a year. About 20% > > of those > > in the hall are not enthusiasts of any dance form. > > > > > > (Note that only 3% of those in the hall attend square dances > > regularly.) > > > > > > Square dance calling enthusiasts should consider that the contra dance > > tradition might be something different from what you are familiar > > with, or > > from what you *assume* it is. These open, public social events > > attract a > > different mix of people, have a different purpose, and require a > > different > > set of calling skills than many other forms of dance. When > > callers?unfamiliar with the contra tradition?insist on presenting > > square > > formations while presuming to tell the dancers what they *ought* to > > enjoy, > > it is not surprising that many folks will decide to sit out. It > > would be > > better to first educate yourselves about who is in the hall before > > calling > > one of these events. Here is one place to start: > > > > > > > > > > I look forward to an ongoing discussion about the evolution of > > social dance > > and the great contributions it can make to our world. That > > discussion will > > be most productive, however, if we start with a clear understanding > > of what > > it is that we do NOT know. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Greg McKenzie > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > End of Callers Digest, Vol 91, Issue 37 > *************************************** >
