I didn't read Cary's comments about squares as an "objection", just that Cary was rebutting the comment by George: "squares are just like contras, only you have to listen."
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers <[email protected]> wrote: > Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let me > re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly. > > Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to > connect your movement to the music. > Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually > danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the > dancing time. > Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your > original partner than in a contra. > Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only make > movements in place during some of the music. > In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with the > relationship you would like to have with the music. > > Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite understood > your meaning? > > Jacob Bloom > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Some things that people to not like about squares - >> >> less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing >> having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection >> teaching time >> mixer squares breaks the partner connection >> visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods. >> >> I find squares and contras completely different. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >
