Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

[John Sweeney via Callers]

Yes, but…

 

Variations in local styling can be very unsatisfying unless:

1) visiting dancers are prepared to accept the local styling

2) if the caller sees problems then they explain what the local styling is and 
ask visitors to respect it

 

At my contra dances I always ask visiting callers to announce, during the first 
Star that they call, that our local styling is Wrist-Locks.  This is important 
in my area as there are lots of local dancers who do country dancing where the 
default is Hands-Across.  It always amazes me how reluctant callers are to do 
this. Some of them seem terrified of actually doing any teaching of style or 
technique.

 

If everyone just does what they want, you end up with uncomfortable Allemandes 
and Stars.

 

I just spent a month experiencing this at MWSD sessions in Phoenix.

 

For example, the CALLERLAB manuals are quite clear for Waves:

“STYLING: Dancers should use hands-up position.” “Hands Up: Hands are joined in 
crossed palm position;” “Swing Thru: All hands are joined in hands-up position, 
elbows in close. Exert slight pressure to assist opposite dancer in turning. 
Arcing turns should be utilized rather than pull by type of movements and 
should flow effortlessly from one turn to the other so that you are in a sense, 
"weaving" along the line.”

 

But because there are regional variations CALLERLAB could not get a consensus 
and finally published “Styling has also been standardized. While great strides 
were made in the 1970s and 1980s certain areas and groups continued to use 
styling that did not match the approved styling (e.g., “hands up” vs. “hands 
down” in Ocean Waves). In 1992 our membership acknowledged its inability to 
have one styling used by all dancers with a motion which said, “CALLERLAB 
recognizes that regional differences in styling exist.””

 

As a result callers are scared to tell people what they should do, and with a 
community made up of dancers from all over the States (enjoying the sunshine in 
Phoenix) it was a mess. I would be doing Swing Thrus down the line with Half 
Allemandes and then the next guy is offering his arm horizontally at waist 
level, making the experience less than satisfactory. And most stars were lumps 
where everyone grabbed any part of anyone else’s hand that they fancied.

 

Moves like Promenades can vary without problem since how you do it doesn’t 
affect anyone else.

 

Terminology is a completely different matter; everything works as long as the 
caller defines their terms carefully.   I do lots of different Dosidos, but 
give them different names, otherwise it would be impossible for the dancers to 
follow the call, especially when I do a dance which uses three different 
Dosidos!

 

 

Happy dancing,  

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
574  

http://www.modernjive.com for Modern Jive Events & DVDs 
   

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent   
   

 

From: Tony Parkes via Callers [mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net] 
Sent: 30 January 2017 14:06
To: callers 
Subject: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and 
"rubies")

 

Chet Gray wrote:

 

<>


Amen!

 

One of the things I’ve long lamented about the modern square dance movement is 
the disappearance of regional variations. If square dancing is viewed as a 
hobby, it makes sense (given the mobility of people in industrialized 
countries) to standardize the meaning of calls, hand and arm positions, and 
other rules and customs. But if it’s viewed as a folk art, it’s a crying shame 
to lose the variations. To me, standardizing a folk dance form is like saying 
there’s only one right way to cook chicken. (Given how far MSD has strayed away 
from tradition and toward homogenization, it feels to me as if they’re saying 
KFC is the only right way to cook chicken.)

 

The contra dance world has never had an entity like Callerlab with the clout to 
convince local groups to standardize, and I don’t think it needs one. Two of 
the big attractions of contra dancing (IMO) are its lack of regimentation and 
the small number of terms a newcomer must learn. That small number (again IMO) 
means that adjusting from one village to another is not difficult: Typically 
only 3 or 4 terms out of 15 or 20 are understood differently.

 

A big question in my mind is whether there’s anything approaching a consensus 
among contra callers (and interested organizers and dancers) on any points 
beyond the obvious: that dancing should be enjoyable and a dance venue should 
be a safe space. I would strongly caution folks against thinking there’s a 
consensus when only a small percentage of callers and leaders has been hear

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

[Tony Parkes via Callers]

Ron Blechner wrote:

> With regards to Tony's question about the number of terms increasing in 
> contra, a question:
> I understand that squares used to be more commonly interspersed with contras 
> at dances, correct?

Yes, up until around 1975–1980, most New England series of my acquaintance were 
either 50/50 or mostly squares. Outside the Northeast, it depended on who a 
series’ first callers were and who they learned from. Some series were mostly 
or all contras, some were closer to 50/50. It’s my understanding that squares 
have all but disappeared from many of the latter.

> Squares provide so many different moves that they need special teaching for 
> individual dances. So are modern contras that much different?

It depends on what kind of squares you have in mind. New England squares, by 
and large, are based on 19th-century quadrilles and draw from the same very 
short list of moves that pre-1970s contras did. (Between 1950 and roughly 1980, 
trad-revival New England callers started using a handful of modern SD terms 
such as “box the gnat,” probably no more than half a dozen.) Southern squares 
typically have a dominant figure (like “duck for the oyster”) that’s unique to 
that dance, just as the key moves in Petronella and Rory O’More were unique 
until the current contra revival. Naturally, a group unfamiliar with a specific 
Southern square will need a careful walkthrough (how careful depends on how 
complex the figure is; some are simpler than others). In some Southern 
communities, a dance set consists of 3 to 6 dominant figures that are called in 
random order, but 90+ percent of the crowd know the figures by heart.

I can’t think of a square dance tradition that has “many different moves” 
compared to contras. That’s a hallmark of modern “Western” squares (aka club 
squares or federation squares). I think the modern contra vocabulary, with its 
recent explosion of terms, is starting to look more like modern “Western” 
squares than like either trad New England or trad Southern squares.

> If I need to teach a box the gnat or a square-thru to a room with a number of 
> new dancers, does it matter whether that move is taught for a contra or a 
> square?

Not at all. I’m not saying it’s inherently wrong to borrow terms from other 
dance forms, or even to invent new terms. But I do worry that the 80 percent of 
contra dancers who are neither beginners nor super-experienced will be expected 
to know more and more terms without much explanation. Either that or we’ll have 
to discard an old term for every one we add.

When I started contra dancing in the mid-1960s, there were about 14 terms that 
an accomplished dancer needed to know. Between then and 2000, about 14 more 
were introduced, about half of them from modern SD. Since 2000, I’ve read about 
or encountered at least 17 more. I can only hope that the more complex ones are 
left as dominant figures, special features of a tiny handful of dances, and not 
added to the collective vocabulary.

> I agree that the contras themselves have gotten more complex in the past few 
> decades, but the overall choreography over time? I might like to hear more 
> voices of long-time callers / dancers for perspective.

Not sure what you mean here, Ron. I’m not getting the distinction between “the 
contras themselves” and “the overall choreography.” (I do agree that there are 
many more contras in general circulation of a type I consider complex; I have 
my doubts as to how many dancers prefer them.)
Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hearing the multiple-prompts-for-same-move topic framed in a new way has
been helpful to me. I've enjoyed that local communities have different
feels to them. I like that this discussion led to Tony and others
indicating that term variations are part of the charm of local variations.

With regards to Tony's question about the number of terms increasing in
contra, a question:
I understand that squares used to be more commonly interspersed with
contras at dances, correct? Squares provide so many different moves that
they need special teaching for individual dances. So are modern contras
that much different?

If I need to teach a box the gnat or a square-thru to a room with a number
of new dancers, does it matter whether that move is taught for a contra or
a square? I agree that the contras themselves have gotten more complex in
the past few decades, but the overall choreography over time? I might like
to hear more voices of long-time callers / dancers for perspective.

Best regards,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 30, 2017 10:17 AM, "Tony Parkes via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Rich Hart wrote:



<< I'd also add to your two requirements (enjoyable and in a safe space), a
third one. that is that our dances should also be welcoming to all,
regardless of their position in life, and dance skills.  As callers, we all
try to chose dances and calls that are appropriate, and acceptable for the
local dancers. That should not change.>>

I deliberately kept my list of requirements short, because I’m not
convinced there’s consensus on any others. You might think “welcoming to
all, regardless of… dance skills” would be a no-brainer, but in reality,
some series are (perceived as) far less welcoming than others. One could
even argue (though I’m not arguing here) that this is not necessarily a bad
thing, as long as there’s at least one series in every metropolitan area
that nurtures beginners. I do want to say that I find it somewhat troubling
when a series that doesn’t bill itself as “challenging” or “experienced”
develops a reputation for freezing out newcomers.

I agree that callers try to present programs that are “acceptable for the
local dancers”; but that’s not the same as being “welcoming to all.” The
local dancers may be quite sophisticated in their tastes and capacities,
and it may be hard (though not impossible) to please them and still foster
an inclusive atmosphere.

The disparity between series attitudes may be a good thing, a bad thing, or
some of each, but it’s the reality in many areas.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)



___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

[Tony Parkes via Callers]

Rich Hart wrote:

<< I'd also add to your two requirements (enjoyable and in a safe space), a 
third one. that is that our dances should also be welcoming to all, regardless 
of their position in life, and dance skills.  As callers, we all try to chose 
dances and calls that are appropriate, and acceptable for the local dancers. 
That should not change.>>
I deliberately kept my list of requirements short, because I’m not convinced 
there’s consensus on any others. You might think “welcoming to all, regardless 
of… dance skills” would be a no-brainer, but in reality, some series are 
(perceived as) far less welcoming than others. One could even argue (though I’m 
not arguing here) that this is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there’s 
at least one series in every metropolitan area that nurtures beginners. I do 
want to say that I find it somewhat troubling when a series that doesn’t bill 
itself as “challenging” or “experienced” develops a reputation for freezing out 
newcomers.
I agree that callers try to present programs that are “acceptable for the local 
dancers”; but that’s not the same as being “welcoming to all.” The local 
dancers may be quite sophisticated in their tastes and capacities, and it may 
be hard (though not impossible) to please them and still foster an inclusive 
atmosphere.
The disparity between series attitudes may be a good thing, a bad thing, or 
some of each, but it’s the reality in many areas.
Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

[Richard Hart via Callers]

I agree with much of what you say, Tony. In response to your question, "Do
we really want to go down that road?", we have clearly already done that.
In reality, there are still many, relatively parallel contra dance roads,
some a little rougher than others.

We have not yet reached the point that square dancing has reached with just
a few roads, many of which are unpassable for many dancers.  I'd also add
to your two requirements (enjoyable and in a safe space), a third one. that
is that our dances should also be welcoming to all, regardless of their
position in life, and dance skills.  As callers, we all try to chose dances
and calls that are appropriate, and acceptable for the local dancers. That
should not change.

Rich hart.


On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Tony Parkes via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Chet Gray wrote:
>
>
>
> < alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand
> consensus.
>
> I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different
> communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for
> eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and
> "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means
> drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square")
> dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while
> others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three
> different promenade positions, and each is default in different
> communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never
> have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra
> dances.>>
>
>
> Amen!
>
>
>
> One of the things I’ve long lamented about the modern square dance
> movement is the disappearance of regional variations. If square dancing is
> viewed as a hobby, it makes sense (given the mobility of people in
> industrialized countries) to standardize the meaning of calls, hand and arm
> positions, and other rules and customs. But if it’s viewed as a folk art,
> it’s a crying shame to lose the variations. To me, standardizing a folk
> dance form is like saying there’s only one right way to cook chicken.
> (Given how far MSD has strayed away from tradition and toward
> homogenization, it feels to me as if they’re saying KFC is the only right
> way to cook chicken.)
>
>
>
> The contra dance world has never had an entity like Callerlab with the
> clout to convince local groups to standardize, and I don’t think it needs
> one. Two of the big attractions of contra dancing (IMO) are its lack of
> regimentation and the small number of terms a newcomer must learn. That
> small number (again IMO) means that adjusting from one village to another
> is not difficult: Typically only 3 or 4 terms out of 15 or 20 are
> understood differently.
>
>
>
> A big question in my mind is whether there’s anything approaching a
> consensus among contra callers (and interested organizers and dancers) on
> any points beyond the obvious: that dancing should be enjoyable and a dance
> venue should be a safe space. I would strongly caution folks against
> thinking there’s a consensus when only a small percentage of callers and
> leaders has been heard from. I’m thinking here, not specifically about the
> gender-free vs. gendered issue or which gender-free terms to adopt, but
> about the big picture – which includes those issues, but also includes
> standardization vs. local styles, “gypsy” vs. a new term (and again, which
> one to adopt), and which, if any, of the many new movements to expect
> dancers to memorize. This last issue is much on my mind, as the contra
> vocabulary has more than tripled since I started dancing. Do we really want
> to go down that road?
>
>
>
> Getting back to the issue of gender-free terms (though I’ve changed the
> subject line to allow more general discussion), I hope that here, as
> elsewhere, we can feel free to experiment and not feel constrained by what
> other people and groups are doing.
>
>
>
> Tony Parkes
>
> Billerica, Mass.
>
> www.hands4.com
>
> New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)
>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

[Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

[Tony Parkes via Callers]

Chet Gray wrote:

<>

Amen!

One of the things I’ve long lamented about the modern square dance movement is 
the disappearance of regional variations. If square dancing is viewed as a 
hobby, it makes sense (given the mobility of people in industrialized 
countries) to standardize the meaning of calls, hand and arm positions, and 
other rules and customs. But if it’s viewed as a folk art, it’s a crying shame 
to lose the variations. To me, standardizing a folk dance form is like saying 
there’s only one right way to cook chicken. (Given how far MSD has strayed away 
from tradition and toward homogenization, it feels to me as if they’re saying 
KFC is the only right way to cook chicken.)

The contra dance world has never had an entity like Callerlab with the clout to 
convince local groups to standardize, and I don’t think it needs one. Two of 
the big attractions of contra dancing (IMO) are its lack of regimentation and 
the small number of terms a newcomer must learn. That small number (again IMO) 
means that adjusting from one village to another is not difficult: Typically 
only 3 or 4 terms out of 15 or 20 are understood differently.

A big question in my mind is whether there’s anything approaching a consensus 
among contra callers (and interested organizers and dancers) on any points 
beyond the obvious: that dancing should be enjoyable and a dance venue should 
be a safe space. I would strongly caution folks against thinking there’s a 
consensus when only a small percentage of callers and leaders has been heard 
from. I’m thinking here, not specifically about the gender-free vs. gendered 
issue or which gender-free terms to adopt, but about the big picture – which 
includes those issues, but also includes standardization vs. local styles, 
“gypsy” vs. a new term (and again, which one to adopt), and which, if any, of 
the many new movements to expect dancers to memorize. This last issue is much 
on my mind, as the contra vocabulary has more than tripled since I started 
dancing. Do we really want to go down that road?

Getting back to the issue of gender-free terms (though I’ve changed the subject 
line to allow more general discussion), I hope that here, as elsewhere, we can 
feel free to experiment and not feel constrained by what other people and 
groups are doing.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)