[Callers] Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?)

I'm finally feeling impelled to comment on this. The reason I include occasional squares at events billed as a "contra dances" is that I have personally had a tremendous amount of fun dancing them--much of it at events that included both squares and contra. I first got into the traditional dance scene in Pittsburgh, PA, in the early 1980s. The events were mostly advertised as "square dances" but a typical evening's program might (or might not, depending on the caller) have included several contras as well. I believe most of the dancers enjoyed both. The squares I'm talking about, by the way, were "traditional", not modern western. I'm sure there was an active MWSD community in Pittsburgh at that time, and probably there were a very few dancers who did both MWSD and "traditional" squares/contras, but it was for all intents and purposes a completely separate activity and community. My intent in saying this is neither to disparage nor to praise MWSD, but merely to point out that anyone who cites anything about MWSD as a reason why contras and traditional squares don't/can't/shouldn't mix is engaging in a complete non sequitur. At the square dances I went to, we had no special attire, no need for separate lessons, and no recorded music. [Yes, I know that not all MWSD groups require or even encourage the special attire, and that some MWSD events have live music, but going into more detail about MWSD here would be a digression from my main topic.] The dances were every bit as open to the public as typical contra dances. As a new dancer, my experience of that mostly square-centric Pittsburgh scene was that it was as welcoming a community as I had ever encountered. Dances were often followed by a well-attended gathering at a local restaurant, or occasionally by a house party where conversation and musical jamming would go on into the wee hours of the morning. I don't think the community was particularly more or less eclectic than the communities of contra dancers I know of. I found that squares and contras each offered their own kind of fun. These kinds of fun were different enough so that when I moved to California and found a thriving contra dance scene, I noticed after a while that I was missing the kind of exciting squares I had danced in Pittsburgh. On the other hand, the kinds of fun and the skills involved in the two forms were similar enough IMO that a lot of the same people could (and, in at least in one community where I had danced regularly for several years, actually did) enjoy both in the same evening. In short, the reason I sometimes call squares at "contra" dances is that I believe they can add a special kind of fun to the mix. I also believe that most other callers who mix squares with contras do so for the same reason--because they think squares can add a different, but not too different, kind of fun. I'll freely admit that I, and other callers, haven't always succeeded in sharing this kind of fun with the dancers. present. Certainly there have been times when I've chosen inappropriate squares for the circumstances, and times when I've ineptly taught and called whichever dance I've chosen. (I'm sure most of us have also had experiences from time to time with contras that were poorly chosen, poorly taught, and/or poorly called.) What I bristle at are (a) implications that the fun I remember having with squares (including at mixed square/contra events) is a figment of my imagination (except in the sense that all fun and all memory are mental experiences) and (b) implications the I or other callers call squares out of motivations other than dancer fun, such as an abstract sense of duty to preserve historic traditions or some other notion of "making the dancers take their medicine". Regards, --Jim On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Greg McKenzie wrote: [Coffey]