Don Coffey is a Kentucky musician and dance caller who started dancing some 40
years ago. He recently published in The American Dance Circle, the quarterly magazine
of the Lloyd Shaw Foundation, an article and a chart that attempts to organize
and show the relationships between different forms of folk dancing traditions
in America.
Don made some thoughtful comments on trends he notices in the contemporary contra
movement; he sees some disturbing parallels with what happened in modern western
square dance. With his permission, I'm including those comments here as food for
thought. Many on this list are newer to dance calling and I thought it might stimulate
some discussion and, perhaps, might alert newer callers to some trends they might
want to consider.
David Millstone
Lebanon, NH
---quoted material follows:
* 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...
* ...an earlier movement, western square dance "clubs," which roared to prominence
from the 1950s through 80s and attracted thousands. It has declined drastically
as club populations aged, young dancers were not attracted "in," and clubby "dance
lessons" became ever more costly and complex.
* Similar to the way the western club movement strove to standardize individual
square dance figures so that every square dancer nationwide would dance them "uniformly,
the same way" (as if in lock step, one might say), I perceive comparable urges
at work in the contras-only movement. One night some out-of-town visitors to our
Friday night dance, long accustomed to automatically lining up in improper formation,
had repeated difficulty adapting to our simple, ordinary, Ralph Page contras.
* At least two of my caller friends, both very popular and widely traveled, have
received open criticism when they tried to introduce a really-fun square or English
dance to a contra dance crowd. Makes me wonder how a rowdy foot-stompin' Appalachian
running set would have been received.
* And then there are the two whole separate worlds of "international" folk dancing
and "AngloAmerican" folk dancing ... and why don't their two large populations
even know each other? It's as if they were on different planets. Let's say it
again: All these dances are fun! They are living history that we, who love them,
are responsible to care for, to preserve by dancing them, AND TO PASS ON TO THE
NEXT GENERATION. [underlined in the original, but I used caps here for this text
e-mail.]
---end quoted material (from The American Dance Circle, March, 2012)
Greg, I think you misunderstood the tone and some of the substance of what Don
Coffey-- not Coffee-- said. I also think you made some erroneous assumptions about
where he's coming from.
He is not an ardent modern western square dancer, first of all. Yes, he's danced
MWSD but left after a few years for some of the reasons he cites. And I certainly
didn't think any of what he wrote was an attack on those who enjoy contras. I
have no interest in reigniting flame wars between contras and squares; many of
us have been through those destructive exchanges.
I posted Don's comments because I thought they were a thoughtful look a some paralles
that he finds of concern; if anything those comments could be thought of as "the
helpful admonition of a friend." Indeed, I felt that your response was far more
intemperate than his comments.
One of the things I've enjoyed about another listserv-- the trad-dance-callers
list-- is that it includes enthusiasts from the worlds of traditional squares,
contemporary contras, modern western squares, and so on, all sharing information
and thoughts from our different perspectives. This SharedWeight list, though it
focuses most of the time on contras, has also been notable over the years for
civil discourse. I'm sorry that you seemed to take my post as an attack on a form
of dance you like, as do I. It certainly wasn't meant that way.
David Millstone
Lebanon, NH
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
> ***************************************
>
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
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
>
>
>
>
