Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue that I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much about this publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong” side of a controversy
or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind.
Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each dance event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in such a brief session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles and what differentiates
one from the other. Fine.
Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for the roles. Also fine.
But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers not to indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either male/female or leading/following.
This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers as long as the contra dance repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b) moves (e.g. courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very often leads the
other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare).
I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role of their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a part associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only if the two roles
are truly equal in the physical movements required and the physical sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and following in present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen as something to work toward extinguishing. I feel that
to be fair and consistent, the contra world should either do away with the asymmetrical moves (not likely) or give new folks the option of choosing to lead or follow.
At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles are fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over from an earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you start as a
lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a robin.” I fail to see the problem with this.
As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a consummation devoutly
to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with this, but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do and what one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced dance. That gap has been widening over the last couple
of decades anyway, as the list of accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But I’ve said enough for now.
Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
(available now)
From: Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: Shared Weight Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')
Dear All,
I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies to women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders and followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into positional calling
out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing.
Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem in the actual dancing.
"Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance in the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups publish on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement -- anyone who attends
a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance community wants to change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal, then I must, perforce, support that decision.
Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly uncomfortable doing a ballroom swing with other same-gender dancers.
I've discussed my feelings with other dancers in my area, and I know I am not alone, both among dancers of my gender and dancers of the opposite gender. Yet, by even raising the question, I have also been described (not to my face) in very
unflattering terms.
About ten thousand years ago, when I first started dancing, there was a commonly accepted symmetrical swing that was used. It was, in retrospect, a little bit uncomfortable as it involved reaching the right arm across the other dancer's
body and hooking a hand around the other dancer's torso. In retrospect, not good. A two-hand turn is, in my mind, not a very acceptable alternative to a ballroom swing. I have seen some folks do some lively variations with crossed hands and such so that it
can work, but I think there is a better option that I have been encouraging dancers to learn. I call it a Scottish swing. (John Sweeny includes it in his videos of eleventy-seven ways to swing as a Northumbrian swing.)
I like it because I can give a clear signal for the kind of swing that I want to do, I feel completely comfortable doing it with any dancer, and it allows my swinging partner and me to enjoy a very satisfactory swing. It's easy to learn.
I have even found that I can teach it to dancers on the fly in the middle of a dance.
Maybe it is not the best option for a symmetrical swing (an alternative to a ballroom swing). If someone can propose a better alternative, I'll give it a try.
But for all of the concern about words and terminology, it seems to me that the overall dance community ought to pay attention to this particular aspect of actually dancing.
Sincerely,
Ridge
Ridge Kennedy [Exit 145]
Hey -- I wrote a book! Murder & Miss Austen's Ball.
It's a novel with musical accompaniment. Now that's different.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:57 AM Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: