I’ve mislaid my list of about 36 terms, but it was similar to Jeff’s. (I note that “turn alone” appears twice… but who’s counting?)

The big question for me is not how many terms there should be, or whether it’s a good idea to invent new ones; it’s “Which terms should be considered truly basic, and which should be taught every time they appear?” This is similar to Jeff’s “What would you be able to include in a no-walkthrough dance?”

Let me make an analogy with squares. In the traditional square dance world, there are two major strains of figures: (1) those made up of basic building blocks, like chains and R&L throughs; their ancestry can be traced back to 19th-century quadrilles and 18th-century cotillions; (2) unique figures, mainly visiting-couple, such as Bird in the Cage, Duck for the Oyster, and Chase the Rabbit; no one seems to know just where they came from, though there are lots of theories. A traditional (pre-revival) dance community would know a limited number of unique figures and presumably be able to dance them at the caller’s will, but in most contexts nowadays a unique figure must be taught; the dancers don’t expect to encounter it in other dances.

In the modern contra world, the normal procedure is to walk each dance through (the exceptions, such as medleys and no-walkthrough dances, are clearly labeled). This means that almost any move can be used if the caller knows how to teach it quickly and effectively. Still, there seems to be a trend toward expecting dancers to know, by heart, moves that used to be unique to one dance: Petronella, Rory O’More, Mad Robin. I note that at least one dance on Jeff’s medley page calls for a Petronella balance and spin followed immediately by a mirror version of same. This trend is much slower than the proliferation of “basics” in modern square dancing during the 1960s and 1970s, but it still makes me wonder whether we can hold onto a short list of what a newcomer is expected to assimilate in order to keep coming to dances (i.e. without being actively discouraged by experienced dancers).

Tony Parkes

Billerica, Mass.

www.hands4.com

New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century

(available now)

From: Jeff Kaufman <jeff@alum.swarthmore.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2023 7:44 AM
To: Michael Fuerst <sjapartments@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Parkes <tony@hands4.com>; Shared Weight Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: New Terminology Question

In addition to "F&B, allemande, promenade, star, chain, right and left, circle, shoulders round, hey, swing, balance", other figures I'd definitely count include dosido, pull by, California twirl, box the gnat, down the hall, Petronella, roll away, pass through, give and take, walk/step forward/back/left/right, turn alone, and courtesy turn, which makes 23. Others I'd probably count include: mad robin, contra corners, Rory O'Moore, pass through to an ocean wave, square through, cross trail, cast off, half figure eight, dosido as couples, pousette, star promenade + butterfly whirl, orbit, seesaw, zig-zag, on the diagonal chain/hey/R&L, and turn alone, which makes 39. Others I wouldn't count include right hand high left hand low, basket swing, swinging star, robin round two lark cut through, sashay, hey for three, dolphin hey, ricochet, box circulate, star through, and swat the flea.

(Additions/corrections welcome!)

One way to think about this is, what would you be able to include in a no walkthrough dance for experienced dancers? What could you see someone including in a dance early in the evening so they could use it in a harder dance later in the evening (since you wouldn't do that with a one-off/novelty figure)? For reference, here are some historical NEFFA medleys: https://www.jefftk.com/contras/dances/medlies

(Not trying to take position either way on whether this expansion basics has been a good thing)

Jeff

On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 4:22 AM Michael Fuerst via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

I need to augment my list slightly: 
F&B, allemande, promenade, star, chain, right and left, circle, shoulders round, hey, swing, balance.
A crowd comfortable with all these should be capable of learning one or two less generic figures (appropriate for the crowd's collective skill level) a caller might wish to utilize.  
What additional figures would you add to my list to create your list of 36?

Virus-free.www.avast.com

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 10:14 AM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

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

New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century

(available now)

From: Michael Fuerst via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:11 AM
To: Helle Hill <hellehill@yahoo.com>
Cc: Shared Weight Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
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> wrote:

With all the changes to the "old" terminology, I am wondering what a "Gypsy Star" is now called.

Thank you.

Helle Hill

_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net

_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net