[Callers] RE: Question about squares

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