[Callers] Re: New Terminology Question

Bravo, Michael! (I’ve bolded, below, the point on which I want to agree wholeheartedly.) I’ve believed this for years, and had no way of knowing what percentage of active contra callers agreed. I dare to hope that, as Michael is known for writing and advocating difficult sequences, his opinion will carry added weight. Over the decades, I’ve seen the number of contra “basics” increase dramatically – from about 12 in the 1960s, when many groups got started, to at least 36 today. I’ve worried that the modern contra world has been going down the same path as modern “western” squares did. There’s always a gap between what a first-timer can grasp in one night and what a dancer needs to know to be comfortable at a dance series. But if “basics” are continually added, the gap gets ever wider, until a lesson or a series of lessons is needed. Western squares started with 6 lessons in the late 1940s; currently the Plus program (the prevailing club level in most parts of the US) contains 97 “basics” and (coincidentally) is recommended to be taught in 97 hours, or about 50 lessons. (Most clubs insist that their callers take less time, which results in new dancers not learning the calls adequately.) We contra and trad square callers are nowhere near the excesses of MWSD. But even 36 “basics” are too many for an activity that supposedly anyone can join in without lessons. Some sequences – maybe even some moves – should be reserved for workshops. I’m glad to see an influential modern contra caller speaking out on this. Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass. www.hands4.com<http://www.hands4.com/> New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century (available now) From: Michael Fuerst via Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:11 AM To: Helle Hill &lt;hellehill(a)yahoo.com&gt; Cc: Shared Weight Contra Callers &lt;contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; Subject: [Callers] Re: New Terminology Question Jeff's suggestion of "facing star" works perfectly, and merits becoming the standard term used for discussions about and written descriptions of dances. However, such occasionally used figures must always be explained during walk-throughs, so the caller can designate, for the duration of the dance, any appropriate name. (I think I have used "funny" or "silly" star in the past.) The point being that dancers should need to understand the names of a dozen or so basic figures (such as F&B, allemande, promenade, star, chain, right and left, circle, shoulders round, hey, and maybe several more) and that callers should need only basic figures to teach any dance. On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:58 PM Helle Hill via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: With all the changes to the "old" terminology, I am wondering what a "Gypsy Star" is now called. Thank you. Helle Hill