19 Mar
2012
19 Mar
'12
2:22 p.m.
Don Coffey is a Kentucky musician and dance caller who started dancing some 40
years ago. He recently published in The American Dance Circle, the quarterly magazine
of the Lloyd Shaw Foundation, an article and a chart that attempts to organize
and show the relationships between different forms of folk dancing traditions
in America.
Don made some thoughtful comments on trends he notices in the contemporary contra
movement; he sees some disturbing parallels with what happened in modern western
square dance. With his permission, I'm including those comments here as food for
thought. Many on this list are newer to dance calling and I thought it might stimulate
some discussion and, perhaps, might alert newer callers to some trends they might
want to consider.
David Millstone
Lebanon, NH
---quoted material follows:
* Modern contra dancing has become a mass "movement" with the energy of a
greight
train, but most of the young people who so love contras?and contras only-- have
no idea it is but one component of a larger, very wonderful, tradition. This horse-blinder
focus rather reminds me of...
* ...an earlier movement, western square dance "clubs," which roared to
prominence
from the 1950s through 80s and attracted thousands. It has declined drastically
as club populations aged, young dancers were not attracted "in," and clubby
"dance
lessons" became ever more costly and complex.
* Similar to the way the western club movement strove to standardize individual
square dance figures so that every square dancer nationwide would dance them
"uniformly,
the same way" (as if in lock step, one might say), I perceive comparable urges
at work in the contras-only movement. One night some out-of-town visitors to our
Friday night dance, long accustomed to automatically lining up in improper formation,
had repeated difficulty adapting to our simple, ordinary, Ralph Page contras.
* At least two of my caller friends, both very popular and widely traveled, have
received open criticism when they tried to introduce a really-fun square or English
dance to a contra dance crowd. Makes me wonder how a rowdy foot-stompin' Appalachian
running set would have been received.
* And then there are the two whole separate worlds of "international" folk
dancing
and "AngloAmerican" folk dancing ... and why don't their two large
populations
even know each other? It's as if they were on different planets. Let's say it
again: All these dances are fun! They are living history that we, who love them,
are responsible to care for, to preserve by dancing them, AND TO PASS ON TO THE
NEXT GENERATION. [underlined in the original, but I used caps here for this text
e-mail.]
---end quoted material (from The American Dance Circle, March, 2012)
19 Mar
19 Mar
3:16 p.m.
On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:22 AM, David Millstone wrote:
* And then there are the two whole separate worlds of
"international" folk dancing and "AngloAmerican" folk dancing ... and
why don't their two large populations even know each other? It's as if they were
on different planets.
I'm happy to say I helped organize the first shared evening for Princeton's contra
and international folk dance communities this past January. (Both groups have been
flourishing in the same town for decades.) We had a great 9-piece band, an hour of contra
dancing (which I led), followed by the same band playing several international tunes,
followed by lots of interntational folk dance to recorded music. It was a very well
attended evening, and people on both sides of the "divide" (which I hope is
diminshing) enjoyed it a lot.
If there's an opportunity to try this in your town, I urge you to!
Richard
7:08 p.m.
David Millstone quoted Don Coffee as writing:
Modern contra dancing has become a mass "movement" with the energy of a
greight train, but most of the young people who so
love contras?and contras
only-- have no idea it is but one component of a larger, very wonderful,
tradition. This horse-blinder focus rather reminds me of...
Oh dear! Here we go again.
The square enthusiasts are putting forth another tome—complete with graphs
and historical references— about how contra dancers are “limited”,
“short-sighted”, “narrow-minded” or just plain ignorant in their views
about the dance tradition that they have loved for so many decades.
This annual tradition of denigration would be humorous if it were not so
insidious and insulting to people who have dedicated so much to building a
new tradition that has made called dancing available to so many people who
would not have otherwise ever tried it.
Instead of repeating the old saws about how bad contra dancers are, our
square dance calling friends might consider educating themselves about this
new tradition that they seem to know so little about. For those of us
dedicated to holding open, public, contra dances for our communities this
movement is much more than merely a “component of a larger, very wonderful
tradition.” It is, in fact, an evolution of even older traditions and,
perhaps, an alternative to the square dance tradition that has become so
moribund and unavailable to the general public.
For many of us, introduced to contras as our first social dance experience,
one of the defining factors that drew us to contra dancing was the fact
that it was NOT square dancing and it did NOT require that we attend
separate classes to learn it.
The fact is that contras are attended by a wildly eclectic crowd of people
with varied dance experience and interests. Yes, about half of those in
the hall frequent contras almost exclusively (43% attend contras only), but
almost 40% of those in the hall are enthusiasts of some other dance form
and attend other dance forms at least six times a year. About 20% of those
in the hall are not enthusiasts of any dance form.
(Note that only 3% of those in the hall attend square dances regularly.)
Square dance calling enthusiasts should consider that the contra dance
tradition might be something different from what you are familiar with, or
from what you *assume* it is. These open, public social events attract a
different mix of people, have a different purpose, and require a different
set of calling skills than many other forms of dance. When
callers—unfamiliar with the contra tradition—insist on presenting square
formations while presuming to tell the dancers what they *ought* to enjoy,
it is not surprising that many folks will decide to sit out. It would be
better to first educate yourselves about who is in the hall before calling
one of these events. Here is one place to start:
http://santacruzdance.org/drupal/node/114
I look forward to an ongoing discussion about the evolution of social dance
and the great contributions it can make to our world. That discussion will
be most productive, however, if we start with a clear understanding of what
it is that we do NOT know.
Regards,
Greg McKenzie
7:32 p.m.
Greg, could we please cut the name-calling on “both sides”? Thanks.
I do both contra and MWSD (as well as several other similar forms). I'll
state bluntly that MWSD is highly inaccessible to most social dancers.
This is a lost cause, and MWSD will never recover from it. The forms,
while passingly similar, are actually quite different, and appeal to
different desires—and so are necessarily separate events. I just wish
y'all would quit sniping at each other, and quit holding your festivals
(NEFFA and NESRDC) at times that intentionally conflict.
What I do not understand is:
Why are so many contra dancers allergic to doing “New England” squares at
contra dances? This used to be commonplace. They know almost all of the
figures—and the ones they don't, they'd pick up just as easily as they
picked up the contra figures. (Certainly right-and-left grand and weave
the ring are no more complex than contra corners! And we effectively do
both in longways sets anyway.)
Contra dance itself used to have more to it—including alternate footwork,
alternate formations, etc. When was the last time anyone in the Boston
area danced a triplet or triple minor? I can't even remember—and yet,
these used to be called regularly at the VFW. It seems that there has been
an effort to simplify the choreography to the point where, in some opinions
(including mine), it's just plain boring.
Can we please just use the same terminology where relevant? As an example,
at the Dance Flurry, one of the contra callers clearly used what in MWSD is
an “eight chain thru”. He had to explain the figure regardless, but if he
had used that name in the first place, I personally know at least 8 people
on the floor who would have immediately known what he was talking about and
been better able to assist other dancers. Similar things occur with
circulate and star thru (which some callers refer to as “twirl to swap”
instead, but leave ambiguous by not clearly stating what direction to face
after the move). Using obscure and/or ambiguous terminology for
established patterns does not help anyone.
9:03 p.m.
As Program Chair and Board Member of NEFFA for the last 12 years, I
can attest to the fact that during this time, the NEFFA Board never
intentionally planned the Festival to conflict with NESRDC. NEFFA has
been held in April for decades, and our major reason for choosing the
weekend which follows Patriot's Day (in Massachusetts) is because this
week is a school vacation week. As a result, we can get into the
school much more easily in order to do advance work for the Festival
(hanging speakers, etc.). Occasionally, we will vary our dates, but
only to avoid major religious holiday conflicts.
Also, in all of this time, I have never heard feed-back, or seen an
evaluation which suggested that we should change NEFFA dates based on
the timing of the NESRDC. NEFFA is celebrating its 68th year; NESRDC
its 54th.
I checked the NESRDC website, and this Festival is actually the
weekend after NEFFA (NEFFA is 3rd weekend, NESRDC is last weekend in
April). While it might be challenging for performers and attendees to
attend both, it is possible for this to happen. And for those who
attend both: kudos!!
Although I have no personal knowledge of the planning process on the
part of NESRDC, what I do know of the folk song & dance community in
general, and the thousands of volunteers who help make all Festivals
happen, is that we *all* do it for the love of the art forms, and the
intentions are always good ones. We want to share the experience and
joy with as many folks as possible. From my point of view, any
conflict in timing would be purely unintentional, and based on logical
reasons that may not be obvious to those who are not involved with the
many details of planning. So, let me add my voice to those who have
encouraged us to "be kind to one another".
warmly, Linda Leslie
On Mar 19, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Charles Hannum wrote:
and quit holding your festivals
(NEFFA and NESRDC) at times that intentionally conflict.
8:16 p.m.
I mostly like to sit these kind of conversations out but, not for the first
time, I am provoked. First let me say that I have been dancing contras and
mostly traditional New England squares since the 1970s. Secondly I devote a
great deal of time to either dancing or calling or preparing to call. And
yet I must remind you, in fact we must remind ourselves, that it is only a
dance, no more, no less, and not a reason for acrimony in a world beset by
so many painful and unnecessary divisions. Secondly as perhaps everyone who
has danced at such events as I did in the 1970's in Burlington Vermont can
tell you an evening normally included 4 squares. At that time they were
strictly New England Squares and as such strictly matched to the phrases of
the music. Over the last several years I have been privileged to dance
where a different tradition of squares was rooted. Dancing traditional
southern squares is a different experience. Why would I want to choose
between them? In the 1970's, when I started, Modern Western Square Dancing
appeared to be done by a different group of dancers. We did not mix. And I
am therefore not in a position to say much of substance about it, although I
do notice that several figures from Modern Western Squares have entered our
vocabulary and enriched us, as have several from the English Country Dancing
tradition. Folks, we are in a time of enrichment - just look at the music
played by many of our most popular contra dance bands - and I hope we
broaden our sources of enrichment further. Much further. Yes, we do this
without much sense of the traditions that have come before and that we come
from. When I was "coming of age", as my father might have put it, many of
us loved folk music for the feeling of connecting with the ancestors of our
shared cultures that it gave us. This is not part of the experience in
contra dancing for me. That is a shame. But throughout we have been part of
a public, evolving tradition, that once included both contras and squares.
Please be careful too about assumptions about what any of us is familiar
with. Many on this list, and even in this discussion, have a great deal of
experience with all of these traditions, and have contributed greatly to
their enrichment. Whatever their opinions they sure know of what they
speak. And, at the very great risk of alienating everyone, I ask you to
remember it is only a dance. Not a movement for social change, nor a real
source of oppression. Enjoy.
Rickey Holt, Fremont, NH
-----Original Message-----
From: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net
[mailto:callers-bounces@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Greg McKenzie
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:08 PM
To: millstone(a)valley.net; Caller's discussion list
Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels?
David Millstone quoted Don Coffee as writing:
Modern contra dancing has become a mass "movement" with the energy of a
greight train, but most of the young people who so
love contras?and
contras
only-- have no idea it is but one component of a larger, very
wonderful, tradition. This horse-blinder focus rather reminds me of...
Oh dear! Here we go again.
The square enthusiasts are putting forth another tome-complete with graphs
and historical references- about how contra dancers are "limited",
"short-sighted", "narrow-minded" or just plain ignorant in their views
about
the dance tradition that they have loved for so many decades.
This annual tradition of denigration would be humorous if it were not so
insidious and insulting to people who have dedicated so much to building a
new tradition that has made called dancing available to so many people who
would not have otherwise ever tried it.
Instead of repeating the old saws about how bad contra dancers are, our
square dance calling friends might consider educating themselves about this
new tradition that they seem to know so little about. For those of us
dedicated to holding open, public, contra dances for our communities this
movement is much more than merely a "component of a larger, very wonderful
tradition." It is, in fact, an evolution of even older traditions and,
perhaps, an alternative to the square dance tradition that has become so
moribund and unavailable to the general public.
For many of us, introduced to contras as our first social dance experience,
one of the defining factors that drew us to contra dancing was the fact that
it was NOT square dancing and it did NOT require that we attend separate
classes to learn it.
The fact is that contras are attended by a wildly eclectic crowd of people
with varied dance experience and interests. Yes, about half of those in the
hall frequent contras almost exclusively (43% attend contras only), but
almost 40% of those in the hall are enthusiasts of some other dance form and
attend other dance forms at least six times a year. About 20% of those in
the hall are not enthusiasts of any dance form.
(Note that only 3% of those in the hall attend square dances regularly.)
Square dance calling enthusiasts should consider that the contra dance
tradition might be something different from what you are familiar with, or
from what you *assume* it is. These open, public social events attract a
different mix of people, have a different purpose, and require a different
set of calling skills than many other forms of dance. When
callers-unfamiliar with the contra tradition-insist on presenting square
formations while presuming to tell the dancers what they *ought* to enjoy,
it is not surprising that many folks will decide to sit out. It would be
better to first educate yourselves about who is in the hall before calling
one of these events. Here is one place to start:
http://santacruzdance.org/drupal/node/114
I look forward to an ongoing discussion about the evolution of social dance
and the great contributions it can make to our world. That discussion will
be most productive, however, if we start with a clear understanding of what
it is that we do NOT know.
Regards,
Greg McKenzie
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
21 Mar
21 Mar
3:55 p.m.
New subject: 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:
David Millstone quoted Don Coffee
[Coffey]
as writing:
Modern contra dancing has become a mass "movement" with the energy
of a
greight train, but most of the young people who
so love contras?and
contras
only-- have no idea it is but one component of a larger, very
wonderful,
tradition. This horse-blinder focus rather reminds me of...
Oh dear! Here we go again.
The square enthusiasts are putting forth another tome—complete with
graphs
and historical references— about how contra dancers are “limited”,
“short-sighted”, “narrow-minded” or just plain ignorant in their views
about the dance tradition that they have loved for so many decades.
This annual tradition of denigration would be humorous if it were
not so
insidious and insulting to people who have dedicated so much to
building a
new tradition that has made called dancing available to so many
people who
would not have otherwise ever tried it.
Instead of repeating the old saws about how bad contra dancers are,
our
square dance calling friends might consider educating themselves
about this
new tradition that they seem to know so little about. For those of us
dedicated to holding open, public, contra dances for our communities
this
movement is much more than merely a “component of a larger, very
wonderful
tradition.” It is, in fact, an evolution of even older traditions
and,
perhaps, an alternative to the square dance tradition that has
become so
moribund and unavailable to the general public.
For many of us, introduced to contras as our first social dance
experience,
one of the defining factors that drew us to contra dancing was the
fact
that it was NOT square dancing and it did NOT require that we attend
separate classes to learn it.
The fact is that contras are attended by a wildly eclectic crowd of
people
with varied dance experience and interests. Yes, about half of
those in
the hall frequent contras almost exclusively (43% attend contras
only), but
almost 40% of those in the hall are enthusiasts of some other dance
form
and attend other dance forms at least six times a year. About 20%
of those
in the hall are not enthusiasts of any dance form.
(Note that only 3% of those in the hall attend square dances
regularly.)
Square dance calling enthusiasts should consider that the contra dance
tradition might be something different from what you are familiar
with, or
from what you *assume* it is. These open, public social events
attract a
different mix of people, have a different purpose, and require a
different
set of calling skills than many other forms of dance. When
callers—unfamiliar with the contra tradition—insist on presenting
square
formations while presuming to tell the dancers what they *ought* to
enjoy,
it is not surprising that many folks will decide to sit out. It
would be
better to first educate yourselves about who is in the hall before
calling
one of these events. Here is one place to start:
I look forward to an ongoing discussion about the evolution of
social dance
and the great contributions it can make to our world. That
discussion will
be most productive, however, if we start with a clear understanding
of what
it is that we do NOT know.
Regards,
Greg McKenzie
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers 
8:40 p.m.
New subject: Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?)
Well put Jim! I totally agree that dancer fun should be our main objective as callers. Or
programs should have variety or the dance form will become boring.
Thank you Jim.
Rich
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:55 AM, James Saxe <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
8:55 p.m.
New subject: Why I call squares (was Re: Contra / MWSD parallels?)
FWIW, in New England the names I think of as "draws" (bring more dancers
just by being on the program) tend to also do squares and work them (or
triples etc) into their evening.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Well put Jim! I totally agree that dancer fun should
be our main
objective as callers. Or programs should have variety or the dance form
will become boring.
Thank you Jim.
Rich
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:55 AM, James Saxe <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
4659
days inactive
4661
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
9 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Charles Hannum -
David.Millstone＠VALLEY.NET -
Donald Perley -
Greg McKenzie -
James Saxe -
Linda Leslie -
Rich Goss -
Richard Fischer -
Rickey Holt