Many thanks to Cary Ravitz for explaining why some dancers prefer contras to squares. (You can see that explanation below.)

Tom Hinds said that, when dancers tell him they don't like squares, he tells them, "then stay home when I call". I wouldn't be comfortable giving that reply. While square dances might not offer dancers the "

dancer, music, motion connection", without the voice of a caller intruding, that they might find in contra dances, the square dances offer other benefits. I would rather come up with a way of describing those benefits, in the hope that some of those dancers will find things to enjoy in the squares.

How would those of you who enjoy both squares and contras describe what you get out of dancing square dances?

Jacob

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let me
> re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly.
>
> Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to
> connect your movement to the music.
Yes.

> Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually
> danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the
> dancing time.
No, in my experience as a dancer, squares take longer to teach and this is compensated with shorter dance time.

> Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your
> original partner than in a contra.
Yes.

> Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only make
> movements in place during some of the music.
In my experience as a dancer, visiting couple square use the interaction sequence 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 2-3, 2-3, 2-4, 2-1 and 3-4, ... so for 2/3 of the dance half the dancers are not included.

> In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with the
> relationship you would like to have with the music.
Yes.

>
> Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite understood
> your meaning?
For me, this all comes down to

dancer, music, motion connection. It can be wonderful in a contra. I've never found it in a square.