21 Apr
2010
21 Apr
'10
6:56 a.m.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:29:40 -0500, Martha Edwards wrote:
I've been challenged to call a couple of squares
at a contra dance
in August. "No New England Squares," they said. "They're too easy,
because they're just contras in a different formation."
It seems your dancers are equating "New England Squares" with "phrased
32-bar Squares" and condemning them as too simple. That may be true
if you look at the squares on the Tony Parkes / Yankee Ingenuity
"Kitchen Junket" album, but like most generalisations, it isn't always
true. Some of Ron Buchanan's Squares are very complicated, but I call
them as phrased squares. Or try one of mine, for instance Buffalo Gap
Square at http://www.colinhume.com/insts.htm#Buffalo - I'm quite sure
they won't find that too simple.
So how do you time your calls when you don't fit a
dance to 64
counts? Do most of the calls come on the "5,6,7,8" of the phrase
like contra calls do (for the most part)? If so, what do you do
when part of the room isn't ready? Wait for the next swan to go by?
It all seems pretty mysterious to me.
If you're calling unphrased, you're still with the music most of the
time, and the "5, 6, 7, 8" approach is fine. But if some squares are
behind the rest you can always add in fillers like "In to the middle
and back" or "Do-si-do your partner" while they catch up. And of
course a swing is great for catching up time. If the more experienced
people get ahead of the call because I'm slowing down for the bottom
set that's their problem - and I tell them so!
A lot of contra callers (even some big name ones) are scared of
squares because they aren't confident about fitting them to the music,
but the great thing about a square is that you're in charge - you can
add a filler, which you just can't do in a contra. So actually you
have more control when people are having problems, not less. And as
with most things, you get better by doing it. It's great that your
dancers would like to try some squares - go for it!
Colin Hume