Contra Callers

contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net

22 participants
4362 discussions

What makes a program varied, how important is that

by Rickey Holt

Hi Callers, I have asked this question before and still I do not understand this. I suspect that it will take thinking about it several more times before I do. Here is my question. What makes a program varied and how important is that. Let me say that I am thinking of this in situations where most of the dancers are experienced. I have had programs like this before and someday mean to pay attention to this at dance evenings I have enjoyed. I have a program in mind which I list below, that I know has 7 dances with a ladies chains in it, six of them in a row. I know this because I am the proud and happy owner of Will Loving's program "The Caller's Companion". Yet the evening's program seems very varied to me. If the "hooks" or the mood of the dances, for instance, are sufficiently different is that what matters. In terms of variety versus too much repetition, how does this look to you. It does not strike me as a boring program at all. The proposed program is: Scout House Reel, Rod's Grits, MAD About Dancing, Ease About Mixer, A Question of Balance, Zombies of Sugar Hill, [BREAK], Roll Eleven, Laura's Zig Zag, Snowshoe, Shipping and Receiving, Fan in the Doorway, and Sleepwalking I am interested in your thoughts, Rickey Holt, Fremont, NH _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers

13 years, 1 month

Re: [Callers] What makes a program varied, how important is that

by Chrissy Fowler

wow, i love don's analogy! chrissy fowler belfast, me > ------------------------------ > > From: Donald Perley <donperley(a)gmail.com> > > I'll make an analogy between an evening of 12 dances and an essay of > 12 paragraphs. > > If a common word appears in every paragraph, I wouldn't notice. If > it's a less common word, or every paragraph begins with the same > word, or the same sentence appears in several paragraph, then I would. > > To me as a dancer, ladies chain or B&S I wouldn't notice as > repetitious. Something like rory o'more or mad robin I would. > >

13 years, 1 month

Low numbers - slow starts

by Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing

Callers -- I called last weekend (St Patrick's Day, and a very rainy night) and the dance was very slow to get started. By about 10 minutes after the starting time we had something five or six couples, with two first-timers among them. I let the first two dances run normal length, consciously, because I wanted the first-timers to get the experience of getting the dance long enoug to get it and no longer need calling. I think I was successful in that goal, but I heard that the experienced dancers were pretty bored seeing the same faces over and over. (By the third dance more people had turned up and it wasn't so much of a problem.) How do y'all handle this kind of thing? -- Alan -- =============================================================================== Alan Winston --- WINSTON(a)SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056 Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025 ==============================================================================

13 years, 1 month

Re: [Callers] Low numbers - slow starts

by John Sweeney

I see how many people are there when it is time to start and choose a dance with a contra feel that works for that number: A square like Kimmswick Express (by Gene Hubert) A four couple Becket dance like Still Waiting on the Corner (by Gary Roodman) A circle mixer like Avery One Dance (by William Watson/Tiffany Tabbert) A six-couple dance like Hexitation (by Tom Hinds) Any of Ted Sanella's Triplets With the right music these all have most of the elements of a contra dance. But definitely keep the number of repetitions low so that people don't get bored and so that you can start another dance quickly with all the new people that have turned up while you were doing the first dance. Circle Mixers are good because experienced late arrivals can join in. 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

13 years, 1 month

Re: [Callers] Low numbers - slow starts

by JohnFreem＠aol.com

It's important for the band, caller, and hosts to be ready when the clock chimes the appointed hour. If one or two couples are present, then do couples dances. If three or more are present, then you can do a triplet or a simple cotra dance. Many squares can easily be adapted to three or five couples. John B. Freeman, SFTPOCTJ

13 years, 1 month

UK Tours in 2013

by John Sweeney

Hi, I am just starting to plan our monthly contra dance series for 2013. If you know of anyone who is planning to come to the UK in 2013 to play or call please could you contact me at info(a)contrafusion.co.uk? Thanks. 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

13 years, 1 month

number of contra dancers?

by David.Millstone＠valley.net

[Duplicate posting to trad-dance-callers and SharedWeight lists] A friend recently wrote me, "I am trying to pin down an unpindownable number: namely the number of people in the world who regularly contradance. Any idea of this number, or anyone who might steer me to it?" I'm wondering if anyone on this list has tackled this question, has developed even a crude methodology, and would be willing to share what you came up with. As for "the world," with the exception of the folks in Denmark and in England, I think we're really talking about the US and Canada in terms of any significant numbers. I can ask friends ub Denmark for their estimates. The annual country dance festival in Prague brings together several hundred dance enthusiasts from central Europe, though their definition of "regular" is certainly different from someone in the Boston or SF Bay or DC areas. David Millstone

13 years, 1 month

Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?

by David.Millstone＠valley.net

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 minor set, whether it was duple minor or triple minor. That's part of what made Bucksaw so distinctive and exciting-- wow! Left diagonal! Let me be very clear. At most of the events I call at regular dance series, I program mostly contras. (Heck, I've called entire programs with nothing but duple improper and Becket formation contras!) I am not saying that each of these items bulleted above is in itself A Bad Thing. I have called at experienced dances and have organized my own "for experienced dancers" events. I'll be calling in at least one of the NEFFA medley sessions, as I do most years. I have offered beginner workshops, though it's certainly not my preference. I have called entire evenings using recorded music; my iPod is loaded with great tunes. And all those figures I listed? Every one of those can be found on dance cards that I use. I love the contra scene even as there are some changes about which I am less sanguine. SharedWeight is a group of callers talking to one another. I take it as a given that we are all interested in keeping the dance traditions alive and healthy, though we may have different ideas of how that can best be done. As callers, I think it's worth pondering these developments and keeping the MWSD experience in mind. David Millstone

13 years, 1 month

Re: [Callers] Why I call squares

by Ron Bell-Roemer

So....If 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

13 years, 1 month

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

by P. Campbell

Okay....I 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 was going to be a square; or the next dance was going to be....fill-in-the-blank. Some people decided that after trying them out and discovering they simply didn't enjoy them; others decided that because of a group dynamic or a caller's attitude. Having just been interrupted about 8 times as I've been writing this, I apologize for losing the original train of thought I started with here... My point is that for those who are leading community and/or family dances, especially if you go into schools - please - give them an experience of a variety of dance styles - I think that will go a long way in overcoming some of the walls that may not be as solid as they appear. There is such a huge need for our kinds of dances. I just did a community dance for a Transition Town Initiating Committee - "grassroots and based on creating inclusive conversations, encouraging neighbors to come together to sustain and enhance their quality of life, the local economy and environment". They were excited when they'd sold about 50 tickets. The number of people who showed up was over 100 (the room capacity was 126, and that was not for dancing). They had a great time - we did circle dances, longways dances, square dances, mixers...and just about everyone stayed and danced all the way to the end (we ended with La Bastringue with the musicians in the middle of the circle). The committee who organized it was still talking about it 3 days later. The opportunities we create for people to connect, to touch, to look, to move together, is invaluable to our society. Respectfully submitted (though *much* longer than I originally anticipated), Patricia Patricia Campbell Newtown, CT www.countrydancecaller.com http://www.youtube.com/user/countrydancecaller/videos * * *"Dance First. Think Later. It's the natural order."* * ~ *Samuel Beckett On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM, <callers-request(a)sharedweight.net> wrote: > Send Callers mailing list submissions to > callers(a)sharedweight.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > callers-request(a)sharedweight.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Contra / MWSD parallels? (Greg McKenzie) > 2. Re: Contra / MWSD parallels? (Robert Golder) > 3. Re: Contra/MWSD (tavi merrill) > 4. Re: Contra / MWSD parallels? (Dave Casserly) > 5. Re: Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?) > (Rich Goss) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com> > To: millstone(a)valley.net, "Caller's discussion list" < > callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:26:16 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels? > 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 > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert Golder <robertgolder(a)comcast.net> > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:00:38 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels? > 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. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: tavi merrill <melodiouswoodchuck(a)gmail.com> > To: callers(a)sharedweight.net > Cc: > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:01:12 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra/MWSD > 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 <ktaadn_me(a)hotmail.com> > > To: shared weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels? > > Message-ID: <COL113-W869A44897C010082499108D430(a)phx.gbl> > > 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 > > something for everyone, thanks to the variety of visions of the > organizers > > who make these dances happen. But at the core it's about participatory > > social dance. And I say, the more people who join us in participatory > > social dance, the better. (Even if you don't want to think about dance > as > > positive social change...) > > > > Dance on, > > Chrissy Fowler > > Belfast, ME > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:55:09 -0700 > > From: James Saxe <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com> > > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > > Subject: [Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD > > parallels?) > > Message-ID: <15A670F1-03A6-4AE5-8148-714441BE3AC0(a)gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; > > delsp=yes > > > > 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 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Callers mailing list > > > Callers(a)sharedweight.net > > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > Callers(a)sharedweight.net > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > > End of Callers Digest, Vol 91, Issue 37 > > *************************************** > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dave Casserly <david.j.casserly(a)gmail.com> > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:19:31 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels? > 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 <robertgolder(a)comcast.net> 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 > > Callers(a)sharedweight.net > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > > > -- > David Casserly > (cell) 781 258-2761 > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net> > To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:40:03 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD > parallels?) > 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 <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com> 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 > Callers(a)sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > >

13 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Contra Callers