[Callers] Building to Contra Corners

[jim saxe]

Alexandra Deis-Lauby wrote:

> If the figure is new to your dancers, use a triplet (by David smuckler) or a three facing three (Melanie axel lute wrote one).  Contra corners is much easier in that formation.

You can find Melanie Axel-Lute's "Down by the Riverside" here:

     http://www.maxellute.net/down.html

In either a triplet or a three-face-three the "inactives" don't have to do double duty being contra corners to two different "active" dancers.  Something I like about the 3-face-3 setup is that the center people get to dance with a variety of different opposites, so that unsure dancers might at least occasionally meet someone who can send them in the correct direction.

While the triple-minor setting also avoids having "inactives" do double duty, it could be problematical because most contra dancers these days, except for those who are also English country dancers, are not very familiar with the way progression works in triple minors.

Bob Fabinski wrote:

> I have successfully called "Almost Sackett's Harbor," a triple minor, triple progression dance.
> with the Contra Corners figure in a triplet formation, and there is no waiting out at the top.

For those unfamiliar with Al Olson's dance "Almost Sackett's Harbor," instructions can be found in Larry Jennings's book _Give-and-Take_ and on pages 21=22 of the 1990 Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend syllabus:

     https://www.library.unh.edu/special/forms/rpdlw/syllabus1990.pdf

I'd recommend considerable caution about using this dance.  The challenging part isn't the contra corners; it's the progression.  In the notes on the dance in the RPDLW syllabus cited above, Larry Jennings writes:

     If the active couples make a point of letting go of the couple
     above them, it may be easier for the #2 and #3 to keep their
     roles straight.

This point is not to be taken lightly!  The action in phrase 7 of the dance (first half of B2) puts the dancers into new groups of six, and it can be very tempting to think that that's all the regrouping they need to do.  Not so!  After circling right in phrase 8, the dancers must again regroup into NEW(er) groups of six with the active couples, who were in middle positions in the groups that just circled right, are again in top position.  To achieve this the actives must let go of the couple above them (who have been the #2 couple in the round of the dance just completed), and those former #2 dancer must attach themselves to the next couple above so as to become a #3 couple in the round about to commence.

If there's even one place and time where a sufficient number of dancers cone together who don't understand and remember to do the regrouping that I've just described, the likely result will be that in the phrase 2 (second half of A1) of the new round, instead of the dancers all being in circles of six, there will somewhere be a circle of four and a nearby circle of eight.  Once that happens, recovery can be practically impossible and the discombobulation can spread along the set at triple-progression speed.

I don't doubt Bob's assertion that he's called the dance successfully, and if he has any specific advice about teaching it, I'd be delighted if he'd share it.  But for anyone else who's thinking of calling it, especially to dancers who aren't already familiar with triple minors, I advise you to make sure you understand the dance thoroughly (including end effects) and to think carefully about how to teach it.

--Jim