Send Callers mailing list submissions to callers(a)sharedweight.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to callers-request(a)sharedweight.net You can reach the person managing the list at callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: Question about squares (Jeffrey M.Petrovitch) 2. Re: RE: Question about squares (Robert Golder) 3. Re: RE: Question about squares (Jeffrey M.Petrovitch) 4. Re: question about squares (barb kirchner) 5. RE: Question about squares (David Millstone) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:15:01 -0400 From: Jeffrey M.Petrovitch &lt;jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net&gt; Subject: [Callers] RE: Question about squares To: &lt;callers(a)sharedweight.net&gt; Message-ID: &lt;354JFNVPB8912S11.1118783701(a)cmsweb11.cms.usa.net&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Tom: As a caller I really can not say that I have much to say about squares. I have attended a couple different workshops about calling squares, and not doubt calling contras and squares are very different animals... As a dancer, a contra dancer I can definately do without the square and if anything I really am not a fan at all. Personally I do not really enjoy dancing squares for a couple different reasons, same people, same dance moves all the way through, the pace of a sqaure is usually such that there is not much room for creative dance expression, and I find the majority of callers are not good at either explaining or calling them. A lot of callers and dancers really like squares and that is fine. A lot of people like them because of the tradition, etc. that is behind them and that is great as well. Personally, I would prefer to dance Chorus Jig or Money Musk any day of the week over a square... Squares are not for everyone... Sincerely, Jeff Petrovitch Jeffrey M. Petrovitch jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net "Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique, with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:30:34 -0400 From: Robert Golder &lt;robertgolder(a)comcast.net&gt; Subject: Re: [Callers] RE: Question about squares To: "Jeffrey M.Petrovitch" &lt;jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net&gt;et>, &lt;callers(a)sharedweight.net&gt; Message-ID: &lt;BED4D2CA.33D6%robertgolder(a)comcast.net&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" There is surely one time when, as a dancer, squares are not for me. That time comes when every dancer in the hall has dutifully lined up in contra formation, and then the caller says, "OK, let's make squares!" Everyone grumbles as they shuffle into new positions, not so much because they dislike squares as because they just realized that the caller isn't really paying attention to them. Squares in an otherwise all-contra evening work better when the caller finishes teaching a contra and then says, "By the way, the NEXT dance will be a square." I could happily dance "Money Musk" all night long, but many dancers dislike it more than a square, because there is no swing. We all have our prejudices. The skilled caller believes in her material, and by her demeanor convinces the dancers that each new dance will be a joy, whether it's a square, duple minor contra, triple minor contra, triplet, four-facing-four, etc. The smart dancer is ready to experience new dance formations, and not just repeat the same old improper duple minor contra formation. I like calling for beginning dancers in small venues, because beginners have few or no prejudices. Sometimes, in a small hall, you can keep track of all the dancers. If I sense that I'll have eight couples on the floor, I'll have an easy square ready to go. If I have six or nine couples, I'll call a triplet. Works like magic. .... Bob ---------------------------------------------------- Robert Jon Golder 164 Maxfield Street robertgolder(a)comcast.net New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 999-2486 voice ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:25:21 -0400 From: Jeffrey M.Petrovitch &lt;jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net&gt; Subject: Re: [Callers] RE: Question about squares To: Robert Golder &lt;robertgolder(a)comcast.net&gt;et>, "Jeffrey M.Petrovitch" &lt;jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net&gt;et>, &lt;callers(a)sharedweight.net&gt; Message-ID: &lt;718JFNXZV3856S06.1118791521(a)cmsweb06.cms.usa.net&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My home dance being Nelson, New Hampshire, I am not stranger to the old traditional dances, such as Chorus Jig, Money Musk, Petronella, etc., and all these dances are dances that I love... As a caller, as a dancers, I believe there is a certain responsibility places on the callers and musicians of any dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old traditional dances being one of these things). I also believe that contra dancing, like everything is evolving, with is self-evident by the music, such as Airdance, Wild Asparagus, and the list goes on... It is bands such as these, which in a lot of way have defined what modern contra dancing is today. Along with that contra dances have changed, examples of this would be the majority of dances that are danced now are improper opposed to proper; this is how modern contra dancing has evolved. In no way am I suggest that we elimate the old and bring the new, but callers, dancers, musicians, and everyone have to be aware the contra dancing and square dancing are changing, and the great callers, the people that are going to make the most difference, in my opinion are not the people who are firm set in the traditional ways of dancings, but the people who are firm set in the adaptation of the traditionaly ways of dancing and making dancing appealing to an ever changing crowd... I caller should be confident in the program that he or she is putting on, but at the same time he or she needs to know the crowd they are calling to, because I believe there are just some dances that should not be caller to certain groups of people, and the perfect and most basic example is, you are not going to start with a really hard dance for a bunch of new dancers. And you are not going to call Money Musk at the Brattleboro Dawn Dance. And you are just not going to call squares are certain dances. There are callers' callers and dancers' callers, and people somewhere in between... I love contra dancing, as a caller I love calling, as a dancer I love dancing, but the reason I love contra dancing is because it is fun. Fun, fun, fun, is the key to the whole thing, if you are not having fun dancing, why would you ever want to dance. I admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when a caller is going to be calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun for me. Of course everyone is going to have their own opinion on squares, but there is not doubt as a formation, a dance formation there are a lot of limiting factors that contra line do not have. Everything that you can do in a square, you can do in a contra line, either proper, improper, beckett, whatever formation, so based simply on the possiblities of dance movement, the contra line is far superior then the square... I believe that future of squares are squantras and contreas. Rich Mohr is a great writer of these and perhaps a simple example of this would be the dance: "Dance All Night", which is a great combination of a contra and a square. I think the square needs to be looking at the future, because a square is just a square... Closing thoughts: as a caller, as a dancers, I feel that perhaps one of the most important things to do, is get new dancers interested in contra dancing. I think contra dancing perhaps one of the most wondeful things I have ever done. There are dances that struggle on a week to week, month to month basis, because they lack the ability to attach new dancers. Dancing should be rooted in tradition, not stuck in it... Evolve the square... Sincerely, Jeff Petrovitch Jeffrey M. Petrovitch jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net "Five nights of contra dancing... through 'top-notch' style and technique, with the love and passion for the dance, the title above all others was awarded. I am an 'Iron Dancer'." - J.M. Petrovitch ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:46:31 +0000 From: "barb kirchner" &lt;barbkirchner(a)hotmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [Callers] question about squares To: callers(a)sharedweight.net Message-ID: &lt;BAY102-F16F21FB121D81ACD4C48F6DEF20(a)phx.gbl&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed chris, it has not been my experience that dancers/organizers who complain about lack of variety in a program are talking about different formations. i have never been to the whitefield dance, and i don't know anything about it - so i could be wrong in this instance. but i have been to dances where i felt the dances "were all the same" and they were all contras. i've also been to dances where all the dances were contras and every dance felt different. so here are some of my thoughts on planning an evening. each dance needs a "hook" - something interesting that makes people remember the dance, and which distinguishes it from the dance before. early in the evening, at a "normal" dance, the hook may not be so memorable. as you move through the program, you should add something (usually one thing at a time - don't overwhelm them!) to keep people interested. example: 1. nice combination - gene hubert. a glossary dance, easy to do/remember, both neighbor and partner swing, down the hall is great. i think it's important to have a neighbor swing in the first few dances when you have beginners, just in case they're all dancing together. they need to swing with OTHER people for awhile to get the hang of things. down the hall is a good move for understanding timing - ask for a strongly phrased tune from the band so it's really clear to the dancers when to turn around and come back. 2. for dances with high proportion of beginners, i might do peter lippincott's snake river reel. there is no partner swing - only a neighbor swing. beginners don't know they're always supposed to have a partner swing, and again, they need to swing with people other than beginners to learn. wavy lines in the middle are easy and fun, and the B1 is similar to down the hall in terms of timing (they're in a wavy line, drop hands, walk forward alone in the direction you're facing for 8 counts, turn around and come back to find your neighbor to B/S). reinforces the timing aspect, but feels different than down the hall. 3. add an easy/medium dance with a full hey (easier than a half hey - they start and end in the same place). make sure it has good flow - no unexpected changes of direction, etc. i like to set this up ahead of time with a group of dancers who know how to do a hey - during the walkthru, have them do it right the first time, then instruct them to "do it wrong" the second time WHILE YOU CALL IT CORRECTLY. tell one person to imitate a "deer in the headlights" and the others wander around aimlessly and THEN ALL RUN BACK TO WHERE YOU STARTED TO B/S your partner. tell them either kind of hey is ok, AS LONG AS THEY SWING THEIR PARTNER at the end. be sure to congratulate them during the dance when you see "both kinds of heys" going on. 4. do another easy/medium dance without a hey, but with some other interesting figure - wavy lines, etc. 5. something without a hey or a wave - maybe a petronella dance. i like "salmonella evening" - an easy variation of steve zakon's salmonchanted evening with a petronella in the B part. for a more experienced crowd, something like becky hill's "balance to my lou" is good. 6. end the half with something that has both neighbor and partner swing and some variation of one or more of the figures above. second half - first dance, start easy. second dance, add another new figure - or maybe something on a diagonal - even a circle to the right. you get the idea. one dance i really like is "friday night fever", which has both neighbor and partner swing and a square through (another figure where you START AND END in the same place). use a dance with the progression in the middle. use a different progression - circle left, slide left to NEW neighbors, circle left. use a couple of dances where there is interaction with people from other minor sets. use at least one dance with a shadow and a couple of beckets. it's always great to throw in at least one proper dance. that's a whole lot of variation without ever using a formation other than a contra line. i love to call squares and four-face-fours and mixers, but some places don't want 'em. i can still have a varied program without them. looking forward to hearing the details of your first full evening soon! barb http://www.barbkirchner.us ----Original Message Follows---- From: Chris Weiler &lt;chris.weiler(a)weirdtable.org&gt; To: Tom Hinds &lt;twhinds(a)earthlink.net&gt; CC: callers(a)sharedweight.net Subject: Re: [Callers] question about squares Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:39:17 -0400 Hi Tom, I haven't collected any as of yet (except the ones in the reference books that I've bought). I do plan to call them and have signed up for the Square Dance Callers course at Pinewoods next month. I'm really looking forward to working with Kathy Anderson. One of the things that was reported back to me from the N. Whitefield dance (I'm still working on the full e-mail to the group) was that the person thought I lacked some variety in my program. I'm thinking that it has to do with my limitations as far as formations go. Putting a couple of squares in the evening breaks things up nicely. Chris Tom Hinds wrote: _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: 14 Jun 2005 21:30:22 EDT From: David.Millstone(a)valley.net (David Millstone) Subject: [Callers] RE: Question about squares To: jeffrey.m.petrovitch(a)usa.net, robertgolder(a)comcast.net (Robert Golder), callers(a)sharedweight.net Message-ID: &lt;60580095(a)enfield.VALLEY.NET&gt; Content-Type: text/plain Jeff Petrovitch wrote, "...everyone is going to have their own opinion on squares." No disagreement there. Some folks like 'em, others don't. Some folks like contras, others don't. Some like Balkan line dances, others don't. Some like tango, lambada, Sufi dancing, trance dance, mosh pits... heck, some folks like the Macarena and the Hokey Pokey and the Chicken Dance. Different strokes for different folks. Jeff, you're clearly in the "don't like squares" camp. Okay, that's your preference. But then you go on to say, "but there is not doubt as a formation, a dance formation there are a lot of limiting factors that contra line do not have. Everything that you can do in a square, you can do in a contra line, either proper, improper, beckett, whatever formation, so based simply on the possiblities of dance movement, the contra line is far superior then the square..." Well, I have some doubts, and I'll invite Shakespeare to chime in here: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" To name a few: Grand square, grapevine twist, Alamo thar (and throw in the clutch), grand chain, dip and dive, rip and snort, teacup chain... well, you get my drift. Your comment is akin to saying that there is absolutely nothing that you do in triple minor contras that you can't do in duple minor. Again, you may have your preferences, but please, don't try to pass off your preferences as absolute fact. <soapbox alert> The part of your post that most concerned me, though, was this statement: "I admit that I am one of those dances who will grown when a caller is going to be calling a square, because dancing squares are not fun for me." You also say, "I believe there is a certain responsibility places on the callers and musicians of any dance to carry on certain traditions of dancing (old traditional dances being one of these things)." Perhaps I'm misreading you here, but I would hope that you would set a better example than to groan at the choice made by another caller. If you do believe that it is important to carry on certain traditions of dancing, then I'd hope you realize that squares have an equally long tradition, with both squares and longways dances going back at least 350 years. Indeed, it is only in the last few decades that an all-contra program became the norm in certain regions. That's a mighty small chunk of time in the span of Anglo-American country dance and the folks who enjoy that particular narrow spectrum of dances represent just one segment of the dancing public. I am not asking you to call squares-- few things are less appealing than someone doing something they really don't like--and a caller calling squares even though he or she really hates them will only pass on that dislike to others. I am asking you to consider that there may be other points of view that are equally valid, and that you have an obligation not to undercut a fellow caller at the mic. As a caller, you have higher visibility in the dance community and others will model themselves on what you do. A dancer who is also a caller has an obligation, I believe, to lead by example. This means that when you're out on the dance floor, you make a conscious effort to invite folks who are sitting on the sidelines, to dance now and then with the perpetual beginners, to join side sets, to join at the bottom end of the line, to refrain from talking while the caller is talking, to avoid extraneous embellishments in your dancing (especially when surrounded by new dancers), to be gentle and supportive... in short, to model the very behavior that we all want to see on the dance floor when we're at the microphone. <soapbox off> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject and for considering another point of view. David Millstone ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)sharedweight.net http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers End of Callers Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 **************************************