On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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."
Yes, thank you.
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.
are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your
original partner than in a contra.
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.
In all 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 understood
*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.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers
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
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