Thank you for sharing your thoughts and thank you for keeping me honest.
Perhaps, I have been quick in my assessment of "squares", and retract my
statement regarding contra lines being superior the square formation.
Perhaps one of the greatest things about contra dancing is that when you are
dancing up and down a contra line, you are always going to see a new face, a
new dancer, and if you asked me what I really love about dancing, the answer
would be simple, the people... Dancing in perhaps everyway bring people
together, people of all different background and that is truly a great thing.
In my opinion, that is perhaps what I personally dislike about squares the
most, four couples, four of the same couples, four of the same couples for
10-15 minutes or however long the square is going to be, of course this is my
personal opinion...
Perhaps, I have been to quick to throw contra dancing and square dancing in
the same boat, because I believe that there are two very different types of
dances, with different styles and techniques... I think it is interesting
that contra dancing and square dancing are so closely associated together, and
perhaps they should not be. There are a lot of different types of dances,
everything from contra dancing to square dancing, to swing, tengo, etc. but I
would pose the question how many swing dances are also going to have tengo???
Square dancing not doubt has a long history, with a great sense of community
and tradition behind it and in no way am I trying to take away from that, but
perhaps there should be contra dances and square dances, because I would not
expect to go to an English Country Dance and dance swing...
I think there are a lot of people that think of contra dancing and square
dancing as the same thing, and it simply is not... Of course one would make
the may argue that a triple minor is not contra dancing either, but I would
tend to debate the a triple minor is more of a formation then a style of
dance, much like proper, improper, and becket formation.
In closing, I would simply pose the idea, that maybe contra dancing and square
dancing should not be all group together, that perhaps contra dances should be
contra dances and square dances should be square dances... In perhaps keeping
with the peservation of that dance tradition.
Sincerely,
Jeff Petrovitch
Jeffrey M. Petrovitch
jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net
"Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique,
with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was
awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch
Many of your responses reminded me of how it was when I first started calling.
Years ago, dancers would complain whenever I would tell them to form squares. They
were rude. They were rude to other callers as well. I noticed that Larry Edelman
and Bob Dalsemer were able to find squares that the contra dancers would enjoy.
In ten years I watched square haters turn into square lovers. One dancer 'Mr.
Grumpy" (that's not his real name) used to roll his eyes when I called a square.
Then, 10 years later he came up to me, put his arm around me and said, "Tom I
really loved those 2 squares you called". I was floored. Of course I had gained
more skill as a caller. But I think the dancers changed as well.
While at the John C. Campbell Folk School, I read a book in the library about the
history of longways and squares from the 1600s to the present. The author said
that about every 50-75 years one form would become more popular over the other.
So, for a while, longways dances would become popular. Years later dances in
square formations would become more popular etc. Will squares one day become more
popular than contras?
Here's a dance you might enjoy:
Margo's Square
A1 Men star left
Allemande right partner once and a half. Make an Alamo ring by giving left
hands to right-hand lady
A2 balance. Allemande left once around.
do si do person on right (original)
B1 balance and swing person on left (right-hand lady)
B2 promenade to woman's home.
Tom
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: Question about squares (Jeffrey M.Petrovitch)
> 2. Re: RE: Question about squares (Robert Golder)
> 3. Re: RE: Question about squares (Jeffrey M.Petrovitch)
> 4. Re: question about squares (barb kirchner)
> 5. RE: Question about squares (David Millstone)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:15:01 -0400
> From: Jeffrey M.Petrovitch <jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net>
> Subject: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Message-ID: <354JFNVPB8912S11.1118783701(a)cmsweb11.cms.usa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Tom:
>
> As a caller I really can not say that I have much to say about squares. I
> have attended a couple different workshops about calling squares, and not
> doubt calling contras and squares are very different animals...
>
> As a dancer, a contra dancer I can definately do without the square and if
> anything I really am not a fan at all. Personally I do not really enjoy
> dancing squares for a couple different reasons, same people, same dance moves
> all the way through, the pace of a sqaure is usually such that there is not
> much room for creative dance expression, and I find the majority of callers
> are not good at either explaining or calling them.
>
> A lot of callers and dancers really like squares and that is fine. A lot of
> people like them because of the tradition, etc. that is behind them and that
> is great as well. Personally, I would prefer to dance Chorus Jig or Money
> Musk any day of the week over a square...
>
> Squares are not for everyone...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Petrovitch
>
> Jeffrey M. Petrovitch
>
> jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net
>
> "Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique,
> with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was
> awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:30:34 -0400
> From: Robert Golder <robertgolder(a)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: "Jeffrey M.Petrovitch" <jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net>,
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Message-ID: <BED4D2CA.33D6%robertgolder(a)comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> > ... Personally, I would prefer to dance Chorus Jig or Money
> > Musk any day of the week over a square...
> >
> > Squares are not for everyone...
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jeff Petrovitch
>
> There is surely one time when, as a dancer, squares are not for me. That
> time comes when every dancer in the hall has dutifully lined up in contra
> formation, and then the caller says, "OK, let's make squares!" Everyone
> grumbles as they shuffle into new positions, not so much because they
> dislike squares as because they just realized that the caller isn't really
> paying attention to them. Squares in an otherwise all-contra evening work
> better when the caller finishes teaching a contra and then says, "By the
> way, the NEXT dance will be a square."
> I could happily dance "Money Musk" all night long, but many dancers
> dislike it more than a square, because there is no swing. We all have our
> prejudices.
> The skilled caller believes in her material, and by her demeanor
> convinces the dancers that each new dance will be a joy, whether it's a
> square, duple minor contra, triple minor contra, triplet, four-facing-four,
> etc.
> The smart dancer is ready to experience new dance formations, and not
> just repeat the same old improper duple minor contra formation.
> I like calling for beginning dancers in small venues, because beginners
> have few or no prejudices. Sometimes, in a small hall, you can keep track of
> all the dancers. If I sense that I'll have eight couples on the floor, I'll
> have an easy square ready to go. If I have six or nine couples, I'll call a
> triplet. Works like magic. .... Bob
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Robert Jon Golder
> 164 Maxfield Street robertgolder(a)comcast.net
> New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 999-2486 voice
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:25:21 -0400
> From: Jeffrey M.Petrovitch <jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: Robert Golder <robertgolder(a)comcast.net>, "Jeffrey M.Petrovitch"
> <jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net>, <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Message-ID: <718JFNXZV3856S06.1118791521(a)cmsweb06.cms.usa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> My home dance being Nelson, New Hampshire, I am not stranger to the old
> traditional dances, such as Chorus Jig, Money Musk, Petronella, etc., and all
> these dances are dances that I love... As a caller, as a dancers, I believe
> there is a certain responsibility places on the callers and musicians of any
> dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old traditional dances being
> one of these things).
>
> I also believe that contra dancing, like everything is evolving, with is
> self-evident by the music, such as Airdance, Wild Asparagus, and the list goes
> on... It is bands such as these, which in a lot of way have defined what
> modern contra dancing is today. Along with that contra dances have changed,
> examples of this would be the majority of dances that are danced now are
> improper opposed to proper; this is how modern contra dancing has evolved.
>
> In no way am I suggest that we elimate the old and bring the new, but callers,
> dancers, musicians, and everyone have to be aware the contra dancing and
> square dancing are changing, and the great callers, the people that are going
> to make the most difference, in my opinion are not the people who are firm set
> in the traditional ways of dancings, but the people who are firm set in the
> adaptation of the traditionaly ways of dancing and making dancing appealing to
> an ever changing crowd...
>
> I caller should be confident in the program that he or she is putting on, but
> at the same time he or she needs to know the crowd they are calling to,
> because I believe there are just some dances that should not be caller to
> certain groups of people, and the perfect and most basic example is, you are
> not going to start with a really hard dance for a bunch of new dancers. And
> you are not going to call Money Musk at the Brattleboro Dawn Dance. And you
> are just not going to call squares are certain dances. There are callers'
> callers and dancers' callers, and people somewhere in between...
>
> I love contra dancing, as a caller I love calling, as a dancer I love dancing,
> but the reason I love contra dancing is because it is fun. Fun, fun, fun, is
> the key to the whole thing, if you are not having fun dancing, why would you
> ever want to dance. I admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when
> a caller is going to be calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun
> for me. Of course everyone is going to have their own opinion on squares, but
> there is not doubt as a formation, a dance formation there are a lot of
> limiting factors that contra line do not have. Everything that you can do in
> a square, you can do in a contra line, either proper, improper, beckett,
> whatever formation, so based simply on the possiblities of dance movement, the
> contra line is far superior then the square...
>
> I believe that future of squares are squantras and contreas. Rich Mohr is a
> great writer of these and perhaps a simple example of this would be the dance:
> "Dance All Night", which is a great combination of a contra and a square. I
> think the square needs to be looking at the future, because a square is just a
> square...
>
> Closing thoughts: as a caller, as a dancers, I feel that perhaps one of the
> most important things to do, is get new dancers interested in contra dancing.
> I think contra dancing perhaps one of the most wondeful things I have ever
> done. There are dances that struggle on a week to week, month to month basis,
> because they lack the ability to attach new dancers. Dancing should be rooted
> in tradition, not stuck in it... Evolve the square...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Petrovitch
>
> Jeffrey M. Petrovitch
>
> jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net
>
> "Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique,
> with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was
> awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:46:31 +0000
> From: "barb kirchner" <barbkirchner(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] question about squares
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Message-ID: <BAY102-F16F21FB121D81ACD4C48F6DEF20(a)phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> chris, it has not been my experience that dancers/organizers who complain
> about lack of variety in a program are talking about different formations.
>
> i have never been to the whitefield dance, and i don't know anything about
> it - so i could be wrong in this instance. but i have been to dances where
> i felt the dances "were all the same" and they were all contras. i've also
> been to dances where all the dances were contras and every dance felt
> different. so here are some of my thoughts on planning an evening.
>
> each dance needs a "hook" - something interesting that makes people remember
> the dance, and which distinguishes it from the dance before.
>
> early in the evening, at a "normal" dance, the hook may not be so memorable.
> as you move through the program, you should add something (usually one
> thing at a time - don't overwhelm them!) to keep people interested.
>
> example:
>
> 1. nice combination - gene hubert. a glossary dance, easy to do/remember,
> both neighbor and partner swing, down the hall is great. i think it's
> important to have a neighbor swing in the first few dances when you have
> beginners, just in case they're all dancing together. they need to swing
> with OTHER people for awhile to get the hang of things. down the hall is a
> good move for understanding timing - ask for a strongly phrased tune from
> the band so it's really clear to the dancers when to turn around and come
> back.
>
> 2. for dances with high proportion of beginners, i might do peter
> lippincott's snake river reel. there is no partner swing - only a neighbor
> swing. beginners don't know they're always supposed to have a partner
> swing, and again, they need to swing with people other than beginners to
> learn. wavy lines in the middle are easy and fun, and the B1 is similar to
> down the hall in terms of timing (they're in a wavy line, drop hands, walk
> forward alone in the direction you're facing for 8 counts, turn around and
> come back to find your neighbor to B/S). reinforces the timing aspect, but
> feels different than down the hall.
>
> 3. add an easy/medium dance with a full hey (easier than a half hey - they
> start and end in the same place). make sure it has good flow - no
> unexpected changes of direction, etc. i like to set this up ahead of time
> with a group of dancers who know how to do a hey - during the walkthru, have
> them do it right the first time, then instruct them to "do it wrong" the
> second time WHILE YOU CALL IT CORRECTLY. tell one person to imitate a "deer
> in the headlights" and the others wander around aimlessly and THEN ALL RUN
> BACK TO WHERE YOU STARTED TO B/S your partner. tell them either kind of hey
> is ok, AS LONG AS THEY SWING THEIR PARTNER at the end. be sure to
> congratulate them during the dance when you see "both kinds of heys" going
> on.
>
> 4. do another easy/medium dance without a hey, but with some other
> interesting figure - wavy lines, etc.
>
> 5. something without a hey or a wave - maybe a petronella dance. i like
> "salmonella evening" - an easy variation of steve zakon's salmonchanted
> evening with a petronella in the B part. for a more experienced crowd,
> something like becky hill's "balance to my lou" is good.
>
> 6. end the half with something that has both neighbor and partner swing and
> some variation of one or more of the figures above.
>
> second half - first dance, start easy. second dance, add another new figure
> - or maybe something on a diagonal - even a circle to the right. you get
> the idea. one dance i really like is "friday night fever", which has both
> neighbor and partner swing and a square through (another figure where you
> START AND END in the same place). use a dance with the progression in the
> middle. use a different progression - circle left, slide left to NEW
> neighbors, circle left. use a couple of dances where there is interaction
> with people from other minor sets. use at least one dance with a shadow and
> a couple of beckets. it's always great to throw in at least one proper
> dance.
>
> that's a whole lot of variation without ever using a formation other than a
> contra line. i love to call squares and four-face-fours and mixers, but
> some places don't want 'em. i can still have a varied program without them.
>
> looking forward to hearing the details of your first full evening soon!
>
> barb
>
> http://www.barbkirchner.us
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Chris Weiler <chris.weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
> To: Tom Hinds <twhinds(a)earthlink.net>
> CC: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] question about squares
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:39:17 -0400
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I haven't collected any as of yet (except the ones in the reference books
> that I've bought). I do plan to call them and have signed up for the Square
> Dance Callers course at Pinewoods next month. I'm really looking forward to
> working with Kathy Anderson.
>
> One of the things that was reported back to me from the N. Whitefield dance
> (I'm still working on the full e-mail to the group) was that the person
> thought I lacked some variety in my program. I'm thinking that it has to do
> with my limitations as far as formations go. Putting a couple of squares in
> the evening breaks things up nicely.
>
> Chris
>
> Tom Hinds wrote:
>
> >I wanted to know what people think of squares. Have any of you collected
> >any good ones? Do
> >any of the new callers plan to include one in their programs in the future?
> >Tom Hinds
> >
> >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: Gorham, New Hampshire new venue (Chris Weiler)
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Message: 1
> >>Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:54:12 -0400
> >>From: Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
> >>Subject: Re: [Callers] Gorham, New Hampshire new venue
> >>To: Marlena Schilke <mschilke(a)gmail.com>
> >>Cc: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> >>Message-ID:
> >>
> >><OF8D6D10C1.155C9DCE-ON8525701C.0072D3A5-8525701C.0072D3A9(a)weirdtable.org>
> >>
> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >>
> >> Marlena,
> >> Unfortunately, it's just too little notice, so I can't help you out.
> >> I am copying the SharedWeight list just in case one of the callers on
> >> there SharedWeight people: If you're looking to gain experience, and
> >>you're
> >> ready for it, jumping on an opportunity like this is a great way to do
> >> it.
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> -----Marlena Schilke <mschilke(a)gmail.c
> >> To: Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
> >> Date: 06/10/2005 04:31P Subject: Re: [Callers] Gorham, New
> >>Hampshire new venue
> >> Hello Chris,
> >> Harry Brauser, our schedule health
> >> problems, and cannot make it tomorrow for our small develo at
> >> 7:30pm?
> >> -- On 4/29/05, Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler@weirdtable > Hi
> >>Marlena,
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I c dances this
> >> > summer >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>------------------------------
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Callers mailing list
> >>Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> >>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> >>
> >>End of Callers Digest, Vol 10, Issue 1
> >>**************************************
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: 14 Jun 2005 21:30:22 EDT
> From: David.Millstone(a)valley.net (David Millstone)
> Subject: [Callers] RE: Question about squares
> To: jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net, robertgolder(a)comcast.net (Robert
> Golder), callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Message-ID: <60580095(a)enfield.VALLEY.NET>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Jeff Petrovitch wrote, "...everyone is going to have their own opinion on
> squares."
>
> No disagreement there. Some folks like 'em, others don't. Some folks like
> contras, others don't. Some like Balkan line dances, others don't. Some like
> tango, lambada, Sufi dancing, trance dance, mosh pits... heck, some folks like
> the Macarena and the Hokey Pokey and the Chicken Dance. Different strokes for
> different folks. Jeff, you're clearly in the "don't like squares" camp. Okay,
> that's your preference.
>
> But then you go on to say, "but there is not doubt as a formation, a dance
> formation there are a lot of limiting factors that contra line do not have.
> Everything that you can do in a square, you can do in a contra line, either
> proper, improper, beckett, whatever formation, so based simply on the
> possiblities of dance movement, the contra line is far superior then the
> square..."
>
> Well, I have some doubts, and I'll invite Shakespeare to chime in here:
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
>
> To name a few:
> Grand square, grapevine twist, Alamo thar (and throw in the clutch), grand
> chain, dip and dive, rip and snort, teacup chain... well, you get my drift. Your
> comment is akin to saying that there is absolutely nothing that you do in triple
> minor contras that you can't do in duple minor. Again, you may have your
> preferences, but please, don't try to pass off your preferences as absolute
> fact.
>
> <soapbox alert>
> The part of your post that most concerned me, though, was this statement: "I
> admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when a caller is going to be
> calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun for me."
>
> You also say, "I believe there is a certain responsibility places on the callers
> and musicians of any dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old
> traditional dances being one of these things)."
>
> Perhaps I'm misreading you here, but I would hope that you would set a better
> example than to groan at the choice made by another caller. If you do believe
> that it is important to carry on certain traditions of dancing, then I'd hope
> you realize that squares have an equally long tradition, with both squares and
> longways dances going back at least 350 years. Indeed, it is only in the last
> few decades that an all-contra program became the norm in certain regions.
> That's a mighty small chunk of time in the span of Anglo-American country dance
> and the folks who enjoy that particular narrow spectrum of dances represent just
> one segment of the dancing public. I am not asking you to call squares-- few
> things are less appealing than someone doing something they really don't
> like--and a caller calling squares even though he or she really hates them will
> only pass on that dislike to others. I am asking you to consider that there may
> be other points of view that are equally valid, and that you have an obligation
> not to undercut a fellow caller at the mic.
>
> As a caller, you have higher visibility in the dance community and others will
> model themselves on what you do. A dancer who is also a caller has an
> obligation, I believe, to lead by example. This means that when you're out on
> the dance floor, you make a conscious effort to invite folks who are sitting on
> the sidelines, to dance now and then with the perpetual beginners, to join side
> sets, to join at the bottom end of the line, to refrain from talking while the
> caller is talking, to avoid extraneous embellishments in your dancing
> (especially when surrounded by new dancers), to be gentle and supportive... in
> short, to model the very behavior that we all want to see on the dance floor
> when we're at the microphone.
> <soapbox off>
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject and for considering another
> point of view.
>
> David Millstone
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3
> **************************************
I wanted to know what people think of squares. Have any of you collected any good ones? Do
any of the new callers plan to include one in their programs in the future?
Tom Hinds
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: Gorham, New Hampshire new venue (Chris Weiler)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:54:12 -0400
> From: Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Gorham, New Hampshire new venue
> To: Marlena Schilke <mschilke(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Message-ID:
> <OF8D6D10C1.155C9DCE-ON8525701C.0072D3A5-8525701C.0072D3A9(a)weirdtable.org>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> Marlena,
> Unfortunately, it's just too little notice, so I can't help you out.
> I am copying the SharedWeight list just in case one of the callers on
> there SharedWeight people: If you're looking to gain experience, and you're
> ready for it, jumping on an opportunity like this is a great way to do
> it.
> Chris
>
> -----Marlena Schilke <mschilke(a)gmail.c
> To: Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
> Date: 06/10/2005 04:31P Subject: Re: [Callers] Gorham, New Hampshire new venue
> Hello Chris,
> Harry Brauser, our schedule health
> problems, and cannot make it tomorrow for our small develo at
> 7:30pm?
> -- On 4/29/05, Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler@weirdtable > Hi Marlena,
> >
> > Sorry, I c dances this
> > summer >
> > Thanks!
> > Chris
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 10, Issue 1
> **************************************
hey folks,
i posted something years ago to rec.folk-dancing along the lines
of this:
contras and squares are completely different animals for me, and
i love them both; but i look for completely different things
from each. (note that these are idealized descriptions of "what
i want," and that i can and do enjoy dances that do not match
these descriptions!)
from a contra, i want *flow*: i want the dance to be relatively
simple, with plenty of partner interaction that builds to a
cadence of a good long swing. i don't want any sudden weight
shifts or jerky moves and i don't want to have to learn a new or
gimicky move that feels awkward; basically i don't want to have
to think. i want to be able to memorize the dance, figure out
what embellishments work (but ideally not what is necessary to
make the timing work out), set my motor to "on" and go. the
most important consideration, dancer-wise, is who my partner is,
what our type of interaction is, how good our swing is, etc.
from a square, my wants are completely different. i want
(remember, this is idealized) to have 7 other people who are
equally intent on having fun with the square as i am. i want it
to be creative, with good weight exhange (the fun breaks in the
middle that wheel the square around, or completely turn it
inside out and then back again are great), and a bit of a
magical quality. i like feeling like i have no idea how i got
there, but then suddenly all becomes clear again. :) i don't
mind swapping partners around, and i don't mind the absence of
long swings or major amounts of partner interaction. the most
important consideration for me, for a square, is the *attitude*
of the other dancers in the square, since we'll be with each
other for about 10 minutes solid.
*****
just for the sake of completion, i'll also speak a few words
about triplets. triplets and such ("other odd formations") are
a mixed bag for me. moneymusk happens to be up there on my list
of favorite dances of all time, despite the lack of swing, and i
think it has to do with the concept of *timing*. similarly to
english dancing, moneymusk manages to be a dance that fits the
traditional tune perfectly. as such, it really encourages (or
requires, actually) dancers to take the time to do the moves to
the music -- otherwise, no dance magic. for some sad reason,
many contradancers seem to have a tough time with this, and so
dances like moneymusk end up feeling, and being boring...
final note: i'm finding that as i branch out more and more into
other dance forms (english, international, etc) i become more
and more concscious of the importance and relevance of timing in
all dance, including contradance.
take it easy,
melissa, who hasn't ever really figured out the how-to-call
game. :)
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
Jeff Petrovitch wrote, "...everyone is going to have their own opinion on
squares."
No disagreement there. Some folks like 'em, others don't. Some folks like
contras, others don't. Some like Balkan line dances, others don't. Some like
tango, lambada, Sufi dancing, trance dance, mosh pits... heck, some folks like
the Macarena and the Hokey Pokey and the Chicken Dance. Different strokes for
different folks. Jeff, you're clearly in the "don't like squares" camp. Okay,
that's your preference.
But then you go on to say, "but there is not doubt as a formation, a dance
formation there are a lot of limiting factors that contra line do not have.
Everything that you can do in a square, you can do in a contra line, either
proper, improper, beckett, whatever formation, so based simply on the
possiblities of dance movement, the contra line is far superior then the
square..."
Well, I have some doubts, and I'll invite Shakespeare to chime in here:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
To name a few:
Grand square, grapevine twist, Alamo thar (and throw in the clutch), grand
chain, dip and dive, rip and snort, teacup chain... well, you get my drift. Your
comment is akin to saying that there is absolutely nothing that you do in triple
minor contras that you can't do in duple minor. Again, you may have your
preferences, but please, don't try to pass off your preferences as absolute
fact.
<soapbox alert>
The part of your post that most concerned me, though, was this statement: "I
admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when a caller is going to be
calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun for me."
You also say, "I believe there is a certain responsibility places on the callers
and musicians of any dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old
traditional dances being one of these things)."
Perhaps I'm misreading you here, but I would hope that you would set a better
example than to groan at the choice made by another caller. If you do believe
that it is important to carry on certain traditions of dancing, then I'd hope
you realize that squares have an equally long tradition, with both squares and
longways dances going back at least 350 years. Indeed, it is only in the last
few decades that an all-contra program became the norm in certain regions.
That's a mighty small chunk of time in the span of Anglo-American country dance
and the folks who enjoy that particular narrow spectrum of dances represent just
one segment of the dancing public. I am not asking you to call squares-- few
things are less appealing than someone doing something they really don't
like--and a caller calling squares even though he or she really hates them will
only pass on that dislike to others. I am asking you to consider that there may
be other points of view that are equally valid, and that you have an obligation
not to undercut a fellow caller at the mic.
As a caller, you have higher visibility in the dance community and others will
model themselves on what you do. A dancer who is also a caller has an
obligation, I believe, to lead by example. This means that when you're out on
the dance floor, you make a conscious effort to invite folks who are sitting on
the sidelines, to dance now and then with the perpetual beginners, to join side
sets, to join at the bottom end of the line, to refrain from talking while the
caller is talking, to avoid extraneous embellishments in your dancing
(especially when surrounded by new dancers), to be gentle and supportive... in
short, to model the very behavior that we all want to see on the dance floor
when we're at the microphone.
<soapbox off>
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject and for considering another
point of view.
David Millstone
My home dance being Nelson, New Hampshire, I am not stranger to the old
traditional dances, such as Chorus Jig, Money Musk, Petronella, etc., and all
these dances are dances that I love... As a caller, as a dancers, I believe
there is a certain responsibility places on the callers and musicians of any
dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old traditional dances being
one of these things).
I also believe that contra dancing, like everything is evolving, with is
self-evident by the music, such as Airdance, Wild Asparagus, and the list goes
on... It is bands such as these, which in a lot of way have defined what
modern contra dancing is today. Along with that contra dances have changed,
examples of this would be the majority of dances that are danced now are
improper opposed to proper; this is how modern contra dancing has evolved.
In no way am I suggest that we elimate the old and bring the new, but callers,
dancers, musicians, and everyone have to be aware the contra dancing and
square dancing are changing, and the great callers, the people that are going
to make the most difference, in my opinion are not the people who are firm set
in the traditional ways of dancings, but the people who are firm set in the
adaptation of the traditionaly ways of dancing and making dancing appealing to
an ever changing crowd...
I caller should be confident in the program that he or she is putting on, but
at the same time he or she needs to know the crowd they are calling to,
because I believe there are just some dances that should not be caller to
certain groups of people, and the perfect and most basic example is, you are
not going to start with a really hard dance for a bunch of new dancers. And
you are not going to call Money Musk at the Brattleboro Dawn Dance. And you
are just not going to call squares are certain dances. There are callers'
callers and dancers' callers, and people somewhere in between...
I love contra dancing, as a caller I love calling, as a dancer I love dancing,
but the reason I love contra dancing is because it is fun. Fun, fun, fun, is
the key to the whole thing, if you are not having fun dancing, why would you
ever want to dance. I admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when
a caller is going to be calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun
for me. Of course everyone is going to have their own opinion on squares, but
there is not doubt as a formation, a dance formation there are a lot of
limiting factors that contra line do not have. Everything that you can do in
a square, you can do in a contra line, either proper, improper, beckett,
whatever formation, so based simply on the possiblities of dance movement, the
contra line is far superior then the square...
I believe that future of squares are squantras and contreas. Rich Mohr is a
great writer of these and perhaps a simple example of this would be the dance:
"Dance All Night", which is a great combination of a contra and a square. I
think the square needs to be looking at the future, because a square is just a
square...
Closing thoughts: as a caller, as a dancers, I feel that perhaps one of the
most important things to do, is get new dancers interested in contra dancing.
I think contra dancing perhaps one of the most wondeful things I have ever
done. There are dances that struggle on a week to week, month to month basis,
because they lack the ability to attach new dancers. Dancing should be rooted
in tradition, not stuck in it... Evolve the square...
Sincerely,
Jeff Petrovitch
Jeffrey M. Petrovitch
jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net
"Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique,
with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was
awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch
Tom:
As a caller I really can not say that I have much to say about squares. I
have attended a couple different workshops about calling squares, and not
doubt calling contras and squares are very different animals...
As a dancer, a contra dancer I can definately do without the square and if
anything I really am not a fan at all. Personally I do not really enjoy
dancing squares for a couple different reasons, same people, same dance moves
all the way through, the pace of a sqaure is usually such that there is not
much room for creative dance expression, and I find the majority of callers
are not good at either explaining or calling them.
A lot of callers and dancers really like squares and that is fine. A lot of
people like them because of the tradition, etc. that is behind them and that
is great as well. Personally, I would prefer to dance Chorus Jig or Money
Musk any day of the week over a square...
Squares are not for everyone...
Sincerely,
Jeff Petrovitch
Jeffrey M. Petrovitch
jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net
"Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique,
with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was
awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch
Marlena,
Unfortunately, it's just too little notice, so I can't help you out.
I am copying the SharedWeight list just in case one of the callers on
there= is available to run up there tomorrow.
SharedWeight people: If you're looking to gain experience, and you're
ready for it, jumping on an opportunity like this is a great way to do
it.
Chris
-----Marlena Schilke <mschilke(a)gmail.c= om> wrote: -----
To: Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
= From: Marlena Schilke <mschilke(a)gmail.com>
Date: 06/10/2005 04:31P= M
Subject: Re: [Callers] Gorham, New Hampshire new venue
Hello Chris,
Harry Brauser, our schedule= d caller for tomorrow, has developed
health
problems, and cannot make it= . Any chance you can come to Gorham
tomorrow for our small develo= ping contra dance scheduled to begin
at
7:30pm?
--= Marlena
On 4/29/05, Chris Weiler <Chris.Weiler@weirdtable= .org> wrote:
> Hi Marlena,
>
> Sorry, I c= an't make it the 15th. Keep me in mind for other
dances this
> summer= and fall.
>
> Thanks!
> Chris
>
Hi All,
Thank you very much for all of your feedback. I plan on doing a rework
of my program tonight and will publish the revised program afterwards.
On another note, I forgot to ask if anyone has worked with Calliope
and cou= ld give me any advice about working with them?
Thanks!
Chris
So sorry! There is a typo in my message in the first paragraph, second
sentence. It should read "Some form of going down the center"...thought I
caught all the typos, but that one got by me!
Linda Leslie
on 5/23/05 12:00 PM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net at
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. thoughts for Chris W. (Linda A. Leslie)
> 2. Re: thoughts for Chris W. (David Millstone)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 23:06:18 -0400
> From: "Linda A. Leslie" <laleslierjg(a)comcast.net>
> Subject: [Callers] thoughts for Chris W.
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Message-ID: <BEB6C0EA.9AE4%laleslierjg(a)comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Dear Chris,
> Good luck and have fun in Maine! A few thoughts about your program: your
> first half has three dances with some form of going to the center (two with
> 4 in line, and another with actives); then you have a fourth one in the
> second half. I would encourage you to strive for more variety. How about a
> dance with some Petronella balances/twirls, Give & Take, Rory O'More type
> Balance/slides? I have also found that doing triplets in the first half
> works out a bit better. If I wait for the second half, the energy level is
> sometimes reduced a bit too much; but they are perfect for some variety
> early on.
>
> In the second half, almost all of the dances have the women in the center
> (allemandes or chains mostly), so I would suggest taking a look at trying to
> replace at least one. Since it is a long evening, you might want to consider
> calling at least one dance that has only one swing (partner).
>
> Hope these ideas help!
> warmly, Linda Leslie
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: 23 May 2005 00:04:54 EDT
> From: David.Millstone(a)valley.net (David Millstone)
> Subject: Re: [Callers] thoughts for Chris W.
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Message-ID: <58783686(a)enfield.VALLEY.NET>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Delighted to see Chorus Jig in that program!
>
> A few thoughts that occurred to me when I read your note...
>
> I think you said the dance is 8 - 11:30, and you're planning on taking a break
> around 9:30. I find that taking the break a little more than halfway through
> works well. That way, the folks who plan to leave at the break get in plenty
> of
> dancing.
> Our usual Northern Spy dance, for example, is scheduled to run from 8 - 11,
> although we sometimes go longer. On a typical night, I'll start the break
> around
> 9:45 or 9:50, and then we come back after ten minutes or so for the last part
> of
> the evening, typically five dances.
>
> Ted's #38-- when we danced it as part of our Triplets Marathon, we used a rag
> for the tune, which made a nice change of pace and fit the zippy feeling of
> the
> dance.
>
> You might want to get a few more simple dances to have as a backup. Who knows?
> Hearing that there's an unfamiliar caller lined up may bring in masses of
> newcomers and it's nice to be ready if you need to stick to easier fare.
>
> Let us know how it all goes.
>
> David Millstone
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 9, Issue 6
> *************************************
