I didn't read Cary's comments about squares as an "objection", just
that Cary was rebutting the comment by George: "squares are just like
contras, only you have to listen."

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.

> 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.

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

> Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only make
> movements in place during some of the music.

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

>
> Have I understood your points correctly?  Or  have I not quite understood
> your meaning?

>
> Jacob Bloom
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>

> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>