Re: [Callers] Why I call squares

[Ron Bell-Roemer]

SoIf a contra caller was going to put effort into learning a few basic 
and yet interesting squares, which ones would you suggest working up for the 
contra dance crowd?


-Ron Bell-Roemer 

Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?

[Richard Fischer]

I am confused by this discussion. I believe Robert G summarized the focus 
succinctly as 

"The point is that modern western squares dancing took what some people think 
was a wrong turn that tended to make their events socially exclusive, rather 
than inclusive."

What I don't see is any evidence that contra dancing is becoming "socially 
exclusive."  And that can of course be my lack of perception!

Is there such evidence?

David M in his most recent post mentioned "some similar developments in the 
contemporary contra movement"--but again I don't see any of these as exclusive 
or as harbingers of contra becoming exclusive.  Maybe some folks can briefly 
spell it out for me if they do. Meanwhile, a few comments on some of the 
"developments" David mentioned.

* Pre-dance lessons. I know some people have strong feelings on this topic (I 
don't), but certainly I think we can agree that the *intention* is make the 
event inclusive.  And I don't know of any contra series where you're barred 
from participating if you don't take the pre-dance lesson.

*Dance medleys.  Yes, aimed at "experienced" contra dancers. But certainly not 
exclusive. For many dancers, there or four evenings of contra dance would 
enable them to do fine in a medley, especially if dancing with a more 
experienced friend.

*Traditional tunes. Well I'm no dance or music historian, but I do strongly 
suspect that dance musicians have always brought in new types of tunes, made up 
their own, or played old tunes in new ways. And the same with traditional 
dances. I remember a week-long class Jim Morrison gave at CCDS in Berea on all 
the different versions of Money Musk over the past two centuries. And I 
remember running into a quote from Ralph Page (from the 1950's I guess) 
somewhat to the effect of 'I know folks are putting in a balance and swing at 
the end of Chorus Jig, but I don't like this innovation.' And I'll give a 
separate asterisk to

*Techno contras.  We just had our first one in Princeton New Jersey. The 
wonderful music was provided by two gifted instrumentalists, Ross Harriss and 
Christopher Jacoby, and most (if not all) of it was well-phrased, and all of it 
quite danceable!  (I even got to do a contra dance to the wonderful old English 
country dance tune Jamaica (1670) adapted by them for contra.) The expert 
calling was by Scott Higgs. This was an event that generated a lot of 
excitement especially among the younger members of our dance community. It was 
very well attended and seemed to be a happy event for all, and most certainly 
accesible to all. As I saw it, the special lighting and the electronic nature 
of some of the music reflected a dance community's openness and social 
inclusiveness.

I guess I'll end by quoting Jeff's sentiments, since he said it so well:

"To me the test is: how good a time would a random person who has never
danced before have coming in off the street?  Dances in the 1970s did
well on this metric, I think dances still do, and I intend to work to
keep things this way."

Me too!

Richard

Re: [Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?)

[P. Campbell]

OkayI had to finally jump in here. I've been reading
a lot of the posts from this list and other callers' lists,
and usually someone else has said what I would have
said, so I've remained quiet.

Now I realize that I have a bunch of opinions about this
whole topic (squares, contras, mixers, single-genre dances),
- be forewarned). I'm going to step out on a limb here and
give a whole lot of what are *my* opinions and feelings - not
necessarily anything anyone has to agree with or disagree
with, since they're mostly not facts, they're feelings.

Some background -
I don't call dances at the monthly (or more frequent),
what I call "circuit" dances - the ongoing monthly contra
or square or ECD or International folk dances. I did a
few many years ago, and then  discovered that my
personal enjoyment came from the community and
family dances (as well as historical dance programs).

What I usually end up telling people is that I am a caller
of "traditional social dance" or "traditional country dance."
Since almost no-one has any idea of what that means, I
get to follow it by describing it the way I want to.

My whole focus is to do a variety of dance styles - I'll have
dances combinations like a Virginia Reel, Galopede, at least
one International folk dance, a traditional square, a singing
square, and whatever else I feel that the particular group
who's standing in front of me would like to do next. I often
don't do "true" contras where people have to remember to
stay out one round at the top & bottom and change over.
I also don't usually run any one dance more than about
10 times through (depending on the dance).

My work often brings me to community organizations (girl
scouts, libraries, etc.), schools, family groups, fund-raising
organizations, and more. Since 99.9% of the people who
come to the event have no traditional dance background and
no pre-conceived ideas about mixing genres, I have carte
blanche to do any kind of program I'd like. I always have
an idea of what I'm going to do, but I don't have a set program
because I have to see and get a feel for the group that shows
up (I threw my pre-planned programs out the window years
ago).

I love the family and school dances because I can introduce
people (children especially) to the incredibly wonderful variety
of dances that fit under this category of traditional social dance.
And from what I've seen over the years - they love all the styles.
Maybe they like some more than others - but that might have
been the particular dance rather than the whole genre.

The only one I don't include is MWSD because I don't have a background
in it. If I did, I'd probably throw one in, if it were simple enough to
share with mostly beginners. (My thoughts about MWSD and traditional
square dance are for a different topic).

My personal experience has shown that, as with most things, how
you present something can make or break people's experience of
it. And, that if you love what you do, people respond to you. There
still is an unfortunate "group memory" of unpleasant phys ed square
dance experiences from early school days. For those too young to
have those memories, any of our types of dances slide into more of
an "old-fashioned" category.

Deciding what to call a dance has been problematic - I usually ask
the organizer NOT to call it a "contra dance" because contra dancers
would then expect a specific type of dance; I ask them not to call it
a "square dance" because of the many, varied pre-conceptions people
would have; I ask them not to call it a "barn dance" because around
here (Fairfield County, CT), they'll think it's hay bales & cowboy hats;
and so on. One time I asked them to call it a "traditional New England
country dance" and mostly we just call them "community dances" (which has
its own issues because it doesn't say anything about what kind of dancing
there will be). I'm mainly trying to not turn people off before they get
there and not create expectations (by using a term) that won't be fulfilled.

I figure that once people have experienced the dances, they can then decide
if they want to pursue some of the monthly, organized dances, and that what
I've done is give them an appetizer (or a buffet) - and they can go check
out main courses to see what suits them.

To get to a point (realizing I was about to go off in another
tangent)...there are many of us who enjoy a variety of dance styles,
both as callers and as dancers. And there are others who really only
enjoy a certain type. There's room for all of it! Though you will always
have some people who just won't entertain the idea of anything other than
what they want the way they want it. Some of those feelings, though, were
influenced, intentionally or not, by the callers and/or particular groups
of people who happened to come together in any given place. There are
people now and there were people years ago (more than 20) who would sit
down if they knew the next dance was going to be a mixer; or the next dance

Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?

[Jeff Kaufman]

David Millstone wrote:
> 
> * The "basic figures" that one would meet in an evening was much
> smaller, so the learning curve wasn't as steep. ...

While there have been additions to what you might see at an evening,
there are also things that used to be common that are gone.  This
decreases what newcomers are likely to encounter in a typical night.
Most nights have no squares, which eliminates the formation, the
position labeling, "corner", and many figures including "grand right
and left", "four ladies chain", and "grand square".  No contra
corners.  No triple minors.  Most of these weren't in the
self-explanitory category.

To me the test is: how good a time would a random person who has never
danced before have coming in off the street?  Dances in the 1970s did
well on this metric, I think dances still do, and I intend to work to
keep things this way.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?

[David Millstone]

Dear friends and colleagues,

I sent along Don Coffey's comments in the hope that they might stimulate some  
thoughtful discussion, and that it has. I was not trying to reopen the contras  
vs. squares debate; similar groups have been ripped apart by strong rhetoric on  
all sides of that divide. Nor am I suggesting that contras-only is the problem,  
though I am a fervent believer myself of including some other formations in an  
evening's program, with even an occasional taste of a dance from a different culture.


Dave is correct that the contemporary contra dance scene continues to have a strong  
connection to live music, which MWSD lost for a variety of reasons. And yes, at  
the moment, the contra wave is a strong one. So, too, was the MWSD wave in its  
time, and yet it foundered. Is there anything in that example from which we can  
learn?


 For the square dancers, standardizing dance moves led to lessons on how to do  
particular moves and a less inclusory dance space. [snip] Moreover, unlike the  
square dance club community, we have a vibrant live music tradition that is showing  
no signs of erosion.


I suggest that there are some similar developments in the contemporary contra  
movement as it has changed in recent decades.


Here are a few data points to consider. I'm taking as my reference point the dance  
programs when I started in the early 1970s. This was the previous time of great  
expansion for contras, starting with the young people who turned out in droves  
at Dudley Laufman dances throughout New England.


* There were no events billed as "experienced dances" or "for experienced dancers  
only." I suspect that many of you see these in your dance community today. The  
square dance boom started with an activity that had been open to all, and gradually  
developed into levels/programs (Basic/Mainstream/Plus/Advanced/Challenge) as some  
dancers wanted more mental challenge than an open community dance could provide.


* There were no dance medleys. Many callers today pride themselves on including  
a medley as part of their programs, and we certainly see folks flocking to medleys  
at events such as NEFFA.


* Folks danced to traditional tunes. Today, with contra jam bands, there are some  
who enjoy dancing contra-style  figures to music that doesn't have the traditional  
AABB structure and, in some cases, they're dancing more to a beat than to a melody;  
this is similar to some of the changes in MWSD. And with the appeal of techno  
contras to a small but growing subset, folks may be dancing to popular recorded  
music, not to live bands, echoing another development in MWSD. In some cases,  
the music does not follow the traditional 32-bar structure so there is not the  
melodic hook to tell folks what to do.


* There were no classes for beginners/newcomers. Traditional squares also had  
no classes; people just showed up for the dance. Modern square dancing introduced  
the notion of attending a series of classes to learn basic figures. This started  
out, decades ago, as six lessons and now in many locations is 36 weeks. Many contra  
series went from no lessons, to perhaps a ten-minute introduction, and now many  
series offer beginners' workshops of half an hour, 45 minutes, or even an hour.


* The "basic figures" that one would meet in an evening was much smaller, so the  
learning curve wasn't as steep. Off the top of my head, I came up with this list  
of figures that one can now meet on a contra dance floor that weren't in common  
contra dance usage 40 years ago:


 box the gnat
 California twirl
 circulate
 cross to a wave (aka "pass the ocean")
 gents' chain
 gypsy
 half figure eight
 hey for four
 hey for three (with one couple acting as a unit)
 ricochet hey
 lady round two, gent cut thru
 Mad Robin
 orbit
 Petronella twirls (only seen in the eponymous dance)
 Rory O'More waves (ditto)
 ricochet hey
 rollaway
 rollaway with a half sashay
 slide left
 square thru
 swat the flea
 swing thru
 weave the line
 zig zag

(Amazing that we young folks back in the day managed to have a great time dancing  
without these figures!)


Compare these phrases to commands such as "circle left" or "forward and back"  
or "left hand turn." Yes, contras back then had their share of jargon that is  
still with us-- "balance and swing," "ladies chain," "right and left thru," etc.  
My point is that there are more figures now that dancers are expected to know,  
and the words themselves don't make clear what one does. Compare them with the  
vocabulary that MWSD created, phrases that in and of themselves don't tell dancers  
where to go: "Load the Boat," "Ferris Wheel," "Relay the Deucy," etc.


In addition, the only Becket formation dance was the Becket Reel, aka Bucksaw  
Reel. There wasn't much happening on the diagonals, and virtually all dances had  
folks staying within their 

Re: [Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?)

[Donald Perley]

FWIW, in New England the names I think of as "draws" (bring more dancers
just by being on the program) tend to also do squares and work them (or
triples etc)  into their evening.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Rich Goss  wrote:
> Well put Jim!  I totally agree that dancer fun should be our main
objective as callers. Or programs should have variety or the dance form
will become boring.
>
> Thank you Jim.
>
> Rich
>
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:55 AM, James Saxe  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

Re: [Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?)

[Rich Goss]

Well put Jim!  I totally agree that dancer fun should be our main objective as 
callers. Or programs should have variety or the dance form will become boring.  

Thank you Jim. 

Rich

On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:55 AM, James Saxe  wrote:

> 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
> 
> 

Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?

[Dave Casserly]

I think Bob is absolutely right about the point of the original post;
it's to point out supposed parallels between this community and the
square dance community of the 50s as a cautionary tale.

That said, I wholeheartedly disagree with the parallels Don Coffey's
trying to draw here.  I just don't see how standardizing individual
dance moves has anything to do with dancing more duple improper contra
dances.  For the square dancers, standardizing dance moves led to
lessons on how to do particular moves and a less inclusory dance
space.  Dancing more duple impropers won't do the same thing-- if
anything it's easier and more accessible for beginners to learn dances
that happen in just one formation.

Modern contra dances, in my understanding, have less standardized
dance moves than what people were doing thirty years ago (though
perhaps not than what people were doing 150 years ago).  Moreover,
unlike the square dance club community, we have a vibrant live music
tradition that is showing no signs of erosion.

As people on this list have discussed over the past few days, there
are advantages and disadvantages to including forms other than duple
improper in nightly programs.  But the view that a contras-only
movement will lead to the decline of contra dance, the way the western
square dance club movement declined, is in my view misplaced.

-Dave

On 3/21/12, Robert Golder  wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Greg McKenzie wrote:
>
>> All of this because I questioned the common assertion that something is
>> terribly wrong with the modern contra dance movement because most of those
>> folks don’t enjoy dancing squares?
>>
>
> Actually, no. "All of this" is because you missed the point. All of this has
> nothing to do with whether or not contra dancers enjoy dancing squares. The
> point is that modern western squares dancing took what some people think was
> a wrong turn that tended to make their events socially exclusive, rather
> than inclusive. Don Coffey is merely cautioning us not to follow that trend
> and go down a similar path.
>
> Note to Charles: I was president of NEFFA from 2008 to 2011. I can assure
> you that NEFFA and NESRDC do not snipe at each other, nor do they plan their
> festivals at times that intentionally conflict. In 2012, the festivals will
> be held one week apart.
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> call...@sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>


-- 
David Casserly
(cell) 781 258-2761

Re: [Callers] Contra/MWSD

[tavi merrill]

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 
> To: shared weight 
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?
> Message-ID: 
> 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
> 

Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?

[Greg McKenzie]

Oh my!


My last post certainly generated some heated responses.  I was admonished
for “name calling” (there was none, from anyone here).  I was told I was
“intemperate,” and one person even said, off line, that my post was
“hateful.”



All of this because I questioned the common assertion that something is
terribly wrong with the modern contra dance movement because most of those
folks don’t enjoy dancing squares?



I did not imply that anyone is ignorant of the traditions of their own
favored dance form.  I certainly did not say that anyone had a
“horse-blinder focus.”  And I most certainly have never gone to any dance
series, presented a dance form that I knew was not an appreciated part of
their tradition, and then admonished those folks for not being “open to new
experiences.”  That would be insensitive and inconsiderate.



We all need to remember that this is not a zero-sum game.  I know that the
vast majority of people will never enjoy dancing contras.  This fact does
not diminish my enjoyment of them, nor does it diminish the contra dance
tradition.  As a caller I am working in service to that tradition, and in
service to the community.



Times have changed.  In some towns there was once only one venue for
dancing.  These days most dancers have options, and are free to explore any
new experience they choose.  That is a good thing.  Dance callers should
consider respecting the choices the dancers, themselves, make.



Greg McKenzie

[Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?)

[James Saxe]

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