It strikes me that another way to describe what we are talking about is
"openness to new experiences." I see that as the dimension that affects
whether people shout down squares at a contra dance versus enjoying trying
something new. That openness affects both cross-genre dance (do I do
swing, English, Zydeco...) and openness to other ways of doing what I do -
from the past or even from another part of the country. Some people like
to explore new experiences, and others like doing what they do. Of course,
any term one chooses can be seen as having negative connotations of
different sorts - "You're limited and narrow," versus "You are diluting
what we value, or you aren't doing it right." One of the quirks of this
discussion is that some of the people who say, "You aren't doing it right"
are saying it to people who have been doing it "right" for 30 or more
years. Someone more erudite can write about how this dimension - "purity"
- characterizes a lot of the world these days, to its and our detriment.
I see that dimension, which has been around for many years and might even
be loosening up a little here and there (witness Richard Fischer's lovely
description), as more central than the "higher and higher" problem that
MSWD seems to have had. There is a "higher and higher" problem with contra
as well, in the sense that some people always want more and more
challenging dances regardless of what is appropriate for the community as a
whole. From my view it is a blessing that there has been no move to
centralize traditional American dancing, so there is a wide range of
dancing available. With luck people can find a variant that suits their
personality, physical ability, and so on. There are camps and festivals
and workshops for the cognoscenti, and community dances for the person who
tries it for the first time. People will take a lot of different paths, as
Greg's interesting survey demonstrates.
I'm struck by Greg seeing "square dancers" as those of a certain sort,
perhaps some particularly single-minded MWSD people he has come across,
where in fact there is a wide range of square dancing, including MWDS but
also a lot of traditional square dances that are real community dances just
as contra dances are. David Millstone has taken the lead in compiling a
collection of videos of different styles, available at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SquareDanceHistory?feature=uploademail_ch
Those who like new experiences may find a lot of interesting things, those
who like what they like may not - or they might be surprised.
David Chandler
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:08:29 -0700
> From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com>
> To: millstone(a)valley.net, "Caller's discussion list"
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?
> Message-ID:
> <CAFqkWLtsx9e4uXk8J+APCtPHDyd=zKcqxbrCZs5PEUZmJhgE8Q(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> David Millstone quoted Don Coffee 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 those of us
> dedicated to holding open, public, contra dances for our communities this
> movement is much more than merely a ?component of a larger, very wonderful
> tradition.? It is, in fact, an evolution of even older traditions and,
> perhaps, an alternative to the square dance tradition that has become so
> moribund and unavailable to the general public.
>
>
> For many of us, introduced to contras as our first social dance experience,
> one of the defining factors that drew us to contra dancing was the fact
> that it was NOT square dancing and it did NOT require that we attend
> separate classes to learn it.
>
> The fact is that contras are attended by a wildly eclectic crowd of people
> with varied dance experience and interests. Yes, about half of those in
> the hall frequent contras almost exclusively (43% attend contras only), but
> almost 40% of those in the hall are enthusiasts of some other dance form
> and attend other dance forms at least six times a year. About 20% of those
> in the hall are not enthusiasts of any dance form.
>
>
> (Note that only 3% of those in the hall attend square dances regularly.)
>
>
> Square dance calling enthusiasts should consider that the contra dance
> tradition might be something different from what you are familiar with, or
> from what you *assume* it is. These open, public social events attract a
> different mix of people, have a different purpose, and require a different
> set of calling skills than many other forms of dance. When
> callers?unfamiliar with the contra tradition?insist on presenting square
> formations while presuming to tell the dancers what they *ought* to enjoy,
> it is not surprising that many folks will decide to sit out. It would be
> better to first educate yourselves about who is in the hall before calling
> one of these events. Here is one place to start:
>
>
> http://santacruzdance.org/drupal/node/114
>
>
> I look forward to an ongoing discussion about the evolution of social dance
> and the great contributions it can make to our world. That discussion will
> be most productive, however, if we start with a clear understanding of what
> it is that we do NOT know.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Greg McKenzie
>
>
Folsk have been weighing in on how to teach a balance. Let's keep in mind that
there are plenty of ways to balance. Perhaps the most thorough study of this topic
appeared in Ralph Page's "Northern Junket," Volume 5, #1, March 1955.
Dr. Ralph A. Piper contributed an article, "50 Variations of the Balance." Piper
was writing in the mid-1950s, a time when I suspect more regional variations could
be found than on today's contra dance floors.
If you're interested, it's online here:
http://www.izaak.unh.edu/dlp/NorthernJunket/pages/NJv05/NJv05-01/NJv.05.01.…
David Millstone
I would never want to talk about a balance as a lurch, because it is one of
my favourite moves in contra dancing. It is one of the only steps which
cannot be done as a walk. I always demonstrate it in a variety of styles,
from one very close to the floor to one with much higher steps and kicks,
just to give people the idea that they can have fun with it and make it
their own. I appreciate Read's explanation of the function of it, but I
never think about any function of the balance other than the pleasure of
the balance in itself. What I don't appreciate in a partner doing a balance
is a lazy leaning in and out. I think the 1-2-3 footwork is essential to a
good balance, as is the weight in the arms.
Maura
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:04:07 -0400
> From: Read Weaver <rweaver(a)igc.org>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] American with Style
> Message-ID: <1CD4A97E-4B5B-4ABA-8557-E539C9E9345F(a)igc.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes;
> format=flowed
>
> I assumed the lurch he was talking about was the pulling into the
> swing. I'm not sure what the pedagogical (or Terpsichorean) advantage
> is in describing it as something willfully inelegant, but I do think
> that's what he's referring to.
>
> When I teach beginners, I describe the point of the balance as moving
> you away from (while connected to) your partner so that you can pull
> in to your partner as you begin the swing (California twirl, etc.).
> With experienced dancers, it can be worth reminding them that fancy
> balances that end without that tension in the arms lose the pulling-
> in aspect.
>
> --Read Weaver
> Jamaica Plain, MA
> http://lcfd.org
>
> On Mar 17, 2012, at 7:07 AM, John Sweeney wrote:
>
> > In his article Colin Hume says that the balance before a swing is
> > "more
> > of a lurch". But I would disagree.
> >
> > My experience is that most dancers do some sort of footwork - they
> > step
> > forward with a 1-2-3 and back with a 1-2-3 or do a step and kick
> > across
> > or anything else they fancy in the way of footwork.
> >
> > What is the general view? What do you teach when you teach a balance
> > before a swing? What do people actually do on the dance-floor?
>
>
>
A big thanks to Bob Green for posting "Sharon of the Green" Eng Dance.
I had the opportunity to be calling last night for Huntsville, AL St.
Patrick's dance.
I took his dance and made it /slightly/ more contra friendly.
During cleanup last night I had 2 unsolicited comments made from
experienced dancers
regarding the flow of the dance and how they enjoyed it.
Thanks again Bob
*Sharon of the Green Contra*
Duple Improper
A1 With New Neighbor Mad Robin (walking the path of a DSD with N)
Circle Left
A2 Ladies Almd Left 1 1/2
Partner Swing
B1 Ladies Chain (Option-Ladies 1/2 hey while Gents ricochet)
Long Lines Forward & Back
B2 Star Left
With Present Neighbor Mad Robin (walking path of a See-Saw with N)
/Jane Ewing/
Grant, AL
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:43:28 -0400
> From: tavi merrill <melodiouswoodchuck(a)gmail.com>
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] What is a becket?
> Message-ID:
> <CA+hGDsX+DQgktzGPjgPVXi3KM1bSbXtbDDgv5UR-5WKVyQWJmg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> To pick up on John's point from this side of the pond, there are plenty of
> duple improper dances that end with a partner swing for the active couples.
>
> There are quite a few dances which could be started in either becket
> formation or duple improper, allowing further scope in the pairing of dance
> and music: i recently had the challenge of trying to pair a dance with
> "Staten Island Hornpipe", which has very assertive balances in measures 3
> and 4 of the b-part. One of the few satisfying moves there would be "walk
> in to wavy lines", but off the cuff i couldn't think of any dances with
> those "trip to" wavy lines in the B part (I'm sure they're out there,
> though....). Becket variations of existing dances provided some options.
>
> I guess what i'm [being overly abstract about] here is the idea that saying
> a dance requires certain moves to be a "becket dance" - or that a certain
> formation precludes certain moves - unnecessarily confines the form.
> Associating a dance with the composer's intended "starting formation"
> allows us to not only focus on the choreographic flow that starting
> formation provides, but to create variations when it's advantageous.
>
My favorite progression is circle four - slide left - circle four with new neighbors - which can only be done in Becket formation unless it is done in the middle of the sequence.
To pick up on John's point from this side of the pond, there are plenty of
duple improper dances that end with a partner swing for the active couples.
There are quite a few dances which could be started in either becket
formation or duple improper, allowing further scope in the pairing of dance
and music: i recently had the challenge of trying to pair a dance with
"Staten Island Hornpipe", which has very assertive balances in measures 3
and 4 of the b-part. One of the few satisfying moves there would be "walk
in to wavy lines", but off the cuff i couldn't think of any dances with
those "trip to" wavy lines in the B part (I'm sure they're out there,
though....). Becket variations of existing dances provided some options.
I guess what i'm [being overly abstract about] here is the idea that saying
a dance requires certain moves to be a "becket dance" - or that a certain
formation precludes certain moves - unnecessarily confines the form.
Associating a dance with the composer's intended "starting formation"
allows us to not only focus on the choreographic flow that starting
formation provides, but to create variations when it's advantageous.
Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:05:20 -0000
> From: "John Sweeney" <info(a)contrafusion.co.uk>
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] What is a Becket
> Message-ID: <6E7516378A0B4D8CADD73426CE5E3BD1@study>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Becky Nankivell said:
> "A duple improper can't have a partner swing as the last move."
>
> Lots of old duple improper dances do - the swing is just across the set
> instead of along the side. And some modern dances do the same, perhaps
> more on this side of the Atlantic.
>
> Of course you have to careful calling one like that if the hall is too
> crowded lengthwise.
>
> Happy dancing,
> John
>
> John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)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
>
>
>
>
In his article Colin Hume says that the balance before a swing is "more
of a lurch". But I would disagree.
My experience is that most dancers do some sort of footwork - they step
forward with a 1-2-3 and back with a 1-2-3 or do a step and kick across
or anything else they fancy in the way of footwork.
What is the general view? What do you teach when you teach a balance
before a swing? What do people actually do on the dance-floor?
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362 &
07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Becky Nankivell said:
"A duple improper can't have a partner swing as the last move."
Lots of old duple improper dances do - the swing is just across the set
instead of along the side. And some modern dances do the same, perhaps
more on this side of the Atlantic.
Of course you have to careful calling one like that if the hall is too
crowded lengthwise.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)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
That brings up the question of what is a Becket? In my mind defining
element, besides the starting position, is the couples progressing
along the side of the set, and around the end without having to switch
places while waiting out.
This one appears to be a conventional duple improper dance, except
with the A and B parts switched so couples happen to be on the same
side as starting position. That is, progression happens at start of B
with partners on opposite sides of the set.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Michael Barraclough
<michael(a)michaelbarraclough.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have this dance already?
>
> Becket
>
> A1 Partner balance and box the gnat, ending in a long wavy line
> Partner balance right and left, Rory O'More spin right
>
> A2 Balance the ring and petronella spin right one place
> Balance the ring and partner California Twirl
>
> B1 New neighbor balance and swing
>
> B2 Give and take (ladies take, partner swing)
>
>
> Michael Barraclough
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
