Completely agree with this perspective.  Contra is, at its heart, more of a community dance than a partner dance, because you dance with so many different people during the course of one dance.  I think that, over the years, contra has become more of a partner-centered dance, and I often see dancers outright ignore their neighbors to give full attention to their partners at all times.  I also must be from the old school, because short periods of inactivity during a dance has never bothered me, and like Rich I do tend to appreciate that.  I think that the desire for contra to be fast-paced and always-moving, while exciting for many contra dancers, has turned off many other long-time contra dancers.  But the trend does seem to be for fast-moving high-energy dancing, and I do think that callers need to be somewhat concerned with that.  However, I also think that callers also need to be concerned with the folks who don't move so fast and like the periods of inactivity, where they can get themselves set if need be and be where they want to be for the next move.  Trying to integrate all types of dancers is what makes this a true form of community dance. Perry From: Rich Sbardella <richsbardella(a)gmail.com> To: Perry Shafran <pshaf(a)yahoo.com> Cc: Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] More on Programming I differ with Cary's generalized storyline of contra being "uniting of partners".  If I had to generalize a storyline, it would be of building community.  I may be wrong, but I think David Kaynor, in his calling booklet, referred to your "hands four" group as your "neighborhood".  I love that terminology.  I often choose new or weak dancers as partners, and I rely on the support of these neighborhoods to make the dance enjoyable.   In a square the neighborhood changes from four dancers to eight but you stay with them longer.  In most mixer squares, if called and danced correctly, the partner relationship is restored as the dance resolves. As a dancer, I love squares.  It is a refreshing change, thus adding variety without difficulty, during an evening of contras.  Squares often provide a rest period as others dance.  This is a plus, not a minus; as I age, I appreciate the rest. I have found that some callers who are quite competent with contras, are terrible with squares,  I also see callers choosing squares that are too difficult for an open contra dance, thus causing failure on the floor.  Calling squares is a different art than calling contras.  Choosing squares carefully with an adequate walk thru is essential.  If a caller gets too much negative feedback, or no positive feedback, perhaps that caller should not be calling squares.   Another problem is that squares are not called often enough at some series.  The concept of corners, opposites, home position, RH lady, etc,, are foreign to many contra dancers.  These are all EZ concepts but all together in a four minute blitz, every once in a while, can be overwhelming. Adding squares regularly to our programs would enhance and expand the experience. Squarely, (can I say that?)Rich SbardellaStafford, CT On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: See, this is what I mean, when I get advice from some callers that say one thing and advice from other callers that say the complete opposite.  I figure that there are lots of different people on the floor.  Some people LIKE squares, believe it or not.  Whenever I see squares called, yeah, there are some people who head for the sidelines, but generally I see dancers on the floor having a good time.  So I learned some time ago that for everyone who grumbles about a square being called, there are 10 others who love it.  As for insisting that every dance has two swings AND the neighbor swing MUST come before the partner swing, that seems to be a personal preference rather than a hard and fast rule.  I think that most dancers don't really care which one comes first.  I went to a dance weekend this past weekend where there were more than a few dances with no neighbor swing, and it appeared that everyone had a great time dancing.  I have long been taught that variety is the spice of life, and people do enjoy squares mixed in with a contra, as well as varied choreography.  Varied choreography makes the dance interesting.  Hard and fast rules limit the choreography that you can do and excludes many all-time great dances that might have a neighbor swing or a partner swing first (like Joyride and Ramsay Chase).  And let's not even talking about throwing in an occasional chestnut in there - we have to get rid of all those wonderful dances because they are "boring" by today's standards.  (Except to those folks who love them of course!) Perry From: Cary Ravitz via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] More on Programming Why swings in every dance - because that is a huge part of the contra experience, a swing with the person that you asked to dance. Why should the partner swing follow the neighbor swing - because this is an art form, not an exercise routine. The storyline of a contra is the uniting of partners, not the the breaking up of partners (that's my preference anyway). And in practical terms, I want to be with my partner at the end of a dance to thank them quickly before finding another partner. "Squares are just like contras, only you have to listen" - this is not correct. Some things that people to not like about squares -   less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing   having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection   teaching time   mixer squares breaks the partner connection   visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods. I find squares and contras completely different. On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM, George Mercer via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: I may not be a good example or even that good a caller, but ... I like swings, I have no need to have a neighbor swing in every dance and most certainly don't care where in the dance the neighbor swing happens.  That's making up rules for the sake of having rules.  I like the buzz step, but to put it mildly there are many dancers with whom a buzz step is impossible, difficult or merely uncomfortable.  I teach a walking swing and sometimes demonstrate a buzz step with a little time for practice. Far too many callers and beginner workshop instructors teach a buzz step in a way that promotes bouncing, which in turn makes swinging difficult or worse. I've also heard more than one caller-instructor tell dancers that to "give weight" (an inadequate term) they should lean back. Just kill me. As a dancer, I often combine a walking swing-with a buzz step -- especially if we have gotten out of sync with the music. I come down on to the floor when I think it's required. On two occasions recently while dancing, the person I was dancing with said, "Well, this a dance the caller has never actually danced before. If she or he had, she or he wouldn't have chosen it." Amen.  I was at an dance recently where a mixer was called near the end of the evening. I'm not sure what that was all about. Once early in my limited calling career,just as the first dance got underway about 20 newcomers walked in. I then called several dances without swings, just to get them acclimated to moving in rhythm and with the music.  I'll never do that again.  I was too cautious and shouldn't have been. I honestly was afraid the experienced dancers were going to hurt me. And they say I can't learn.  Perhaps my biggest peeve on the dance floor is the experienced dancers who insist on sharing their bad dance habits (swinging backwards, excessive and unexpected twirling -- I almost wrote twerking --, inappropriate dipping, showing how athletic and fancy they are, etc.) with new dancers rather than helping them learn the basic fundamentals, timing and courtesy. I love squares. Not everyone does, but I often explain to people in my square, "squares are just like contras, only you have to listen."  And finally, callers, please stop telling people that when they reach the end of the line, "they're out."  This seems to encourgae dancers to think, "Well now, I don't have to pay attention." While they are on the floor they should "stay in the dance." That just may be me.  Thanks, George -- Cary Ravitz caryravitz(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote: Maybe. In the SF area (and apparently in many other areas), contra dances used to include trad squares as a significant component. There are many reasons they've mostly vanished, to the point that I think nobody can really say definitively which ones were significant. Nevertheless, those reasons exist, and unless a significant number of them are addressed, I'd be doubtful that trad squares can be resurrected at contras. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html