For my definition, key elements of a contra include: 1) repetition of a fairly short sequence of moves (typically 64 beats) 2) Whole and minor sets, couples progressing to a new minor set every repetition. 3) The concept of dancing as part of a set more than couples or individuals doing their own expression.
I'm waffling a bit on whether the form of the music (ie A and B parts) should be included. For tradition, I can search my collection for "contradance" (or contradanze etc) and come up lots of examples by Mozart etc in the same form we are used to today. On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:13 AM John Rogers via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Colin, > > I realize this isn’t the kind of answer you are looking for, but I’ll muddy > the waters a bit, and then draw a conclusion. > > In the 1980s and 1990s I lived in Switzerland and was very active in > International, Swiss, and Scottish dance groups. (I eventually had two > contra groups running, but that is a different story.) The Swiss groups put > on a big dance for New Years, and if you planned to attend, you had to > practice up on a dance called the “Francaise.” When I was taught the > Francaise, I was astonished to see that most of the figures were recognizable > as Contra/ Square figures, but given French names. (“Right and Left Through” > or “Rights and Lefts” was called “Chaine Anglaise” for instance.) > Researching this a bit, I discovered that the “Francaise” was actually short > for “Contredanse Francaise.” It turns out the French brought “Country > Dancing” back from Britain to France, and called it “Contredanse Anglaise.” > This spread through Europe, becoming all the rage in the 1800s, with dance > tunes being written by such luminaries as Johann Strauss. Apparently the > rest of Europe thought the dance form came from France, because it was known > as “Contredanse Francaise” elsewhere. > > Interestingly, the “Francaise” I learned was a non-progressive contra, i.e., > done in proper lines but you stayed within your minor set of two couples. > That this dance form was also known as a Quadrille caused me to look up the > origin of the word “quadrille.” Apparently it comes from the Italian name of > a square military formation. I cannot explain what is “quadrille” about a > non-progressive proper contra, unless it refers to the 4 dancers in each > minor set. (Since it is non-progressive, maybe that makes sense.) > > Here’s the really odd part: there was another dance form popular among the > Swiss dancers, that was known as “Kontra.” These were - I am not making this > up - SQUARES. > > Ok, my point is that it is pretty much hopeless to define very precisely what > a contra dance is. I may have skipped over it, but did anyone else mention > whole set longways dances, like the Virginia Reel? In my opinion, those are > contras, but not of the New England variety. How about Sicilian Circles, > which are just contras bent around into a circle? (And somebody please tell > me what is Sicilian about them!) > > Regarding the type of music, I have danced (and have written) contras in > waltz time. Having also danced Contra figures to music by Strauss, I would > have to opine that the type of music has little to do with the definition of > the dance form. But that’s only my opinion and my whole point is that there > are so many opinions out there that arriving at a precise definition is > hopeless. > > Enjoy it, whatever you decide! > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 27, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Jeanette Mill via Callers > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Hi Colin > > Interesting question. I have similar questions looking at this from > Australia. I have started running workshops titled something like "Modern New > England Contra Dance". (This is not to alienate folk from other parts of the > US, but most of my exposure to contra has been in New England). Then I can > focus on what the elements of such a dance are, which is what makes the > modern contra dance scene what it is. > > Then there is the historical stuff, ie what led up to contra's current > distinctive style, without which the current dance style would not have > evolved. And the innovation (eg techno contra - see comments below about > music), without which it will stagnate. But I don't talk about this in a > dance workshop - this is nerdy caller stuff. > > Then there is the music. Is dancing to anything other than what I would call > contra dance music strictly contra dancing? We have related forms of music in > Australia which have evolved from the same roots, but have a different feel. > I would argue that the pure New England Contra style needs to be accompanied > by pure contra dance music. A reel played in Irish style can have a > completely different feel to the same tune played in contra style. I can hear > the difference but can't currently describe it in words - something for > somebody's PhD I suspect. I think the package of the right dance and the > right music is incredibly important. And of course, there's the innovation ie > techno contra. > > I visit the US contra scene as often as possible, and can see and hear > changes in the style between visits. So it is constantly evolving. Eg on my > first visit in 2003 a square was often included in what I would call "an > evening of contra dance" as distinct from a "contra dance" (to get around the > terminology of a contra dance referring to both a whole program and a single > dance). On my last visit I don't recall a single square being included on a > program. And the formations were almost exclusively duple improper and becket. > > As with anything in life, as soon as we try to classify something (especially > something that is evolving), the list of exceptions is usually longer than > the list of inclusions. Ask any taxonomist :-) > > Long may the discussion and debate continue! > > Cheers > Jeanette > > Jeanette Mill > > Contra dance caller, musician, workshop facilitator > > Canberra, Australia > > Phone: +61 (0)449 686 077 > > Email: jeanette_m...@yahoo.com.au > > Skype: jeanette.mill > > > > "The piano - 88 little mistakes waiting to happen" Kate Barnes > > > > > > On Thursday, 28 June 2018, 5:48:01 am AEST, Colin Hume via Callers > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > I'm in Germany, and I'm speaking for the next few days at a Conference run by > the European Callers and Teachers Association. > Several of my sessions are about Contras, and speaking to the Contra > Coordinator as we drove to the hotel I realised we had very > different ideas about what a contra is. I say it is an American (or > American-style) dance, longways duple or triple. He classes > three-couple dances (such as Ted's Triplets), four-couple dances and circles > as contras. He even classes my dance "Sting in the > Tail" as a contra. This is for two three-couple sets side-by-side and > involves siding into line, set and turn single. I would > regard this quite definitely as "Playford"-style, and I think Americans would > categorise it as English. But what is a contra? I > know the hot-shots would say that it's longways duple improper or Becket with > a partner swing and preferably a neighbor swing, but > is that your definition? What about an early American dance such as "The > Young Widow" - is that a contra? Can a dance in waltz > time be a contra? I think of a contra as mainly danced to reels or jigs, > though I know there are a few to slip-jigs. Within > reels I would include marches and American hornpipes, which are smooth, but > not English hornpipes which I would dance to a > step-hop. And not Strathspeys. I would say contras are done to a walking > step, apart from the swing which is often a buzz step. > But do you agree with me? > > Answers fairly quickly please! > > Colin Hume > > Email co...@colinhume.com Web site http://colinhume.com > _______________________________________________ > List Name: Callers mailing list > List Address: Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > List Name: Callers mailing list > List Address: Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > List Name: Callers mailing list > List Address: Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/ _______________________________________________ List Name: Callers mailing list List Address: Callers@lists.sharedweight.net Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
