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
How would those of you who enjoy both squares and contras describe what you
get out of dancing square dances?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers <
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers
Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a
bit contradictory. Let
re-state them, and see if I've understood you
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
No, in my experience as a dancer, squares take longer to
teach and this is
compensated with shorter dance time.
squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your
original partner than in a contra.
squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only
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.
square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with
relationship you would like to have with the
Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite
*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.