Great letter, Tony! I rarely have time to look at, let alone respond to, postings on this list - but I saw this and really enjoyed it. I share your positive, optimistic view of the evolving attitudes towards square dancing, and I think a fresh term could be very helpful.Zesty squares? Convergent squares? hmmm.....
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Tony Parkes tony@hands4.com [trad-dance-callers] <trad-dance-callers@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi, everyone… I invite your help in clarifying my thoughts.
I believe that there may well be an eclectic style of square dance emerging that bids fair to become the “great American folk dance” that Lloyd Shaw envisioned in the 1930s. Shaw thought it would be his beloved “cowboy” dance, which he correctly theorized was a blend of the quadrille (across the set) and visiting-couple (around the set) traditions, even though he erred on the origins of those two strains, especially the latter. For a while it looked as if Shaw’s prediction was accurate: the “cowboy” dance evolved into the recreational square dance of the early 1950s, with events available at every level from beginning to advanced, and callers devising interesting new figures using the existing basic movements.
But after the fad years, organized square dancing became increasingly ingrown, with more and more lessons required to join a club. New “basics” were invented; most older figures were discarded. Except for a couple of common chorus calls, modern squares bore no resemblance to Shaw’s original vision. Leaders who rejected the new material tended to retreat into their respective corners (no pun intended) and teach the traditional figures of their own region. There was little communication or cooperation between modern and traditional leaders; at times there was outright friction. Many who participated in the post-1970 contra dance revival looked at any type of squares with scorn, partly due (I think) to the internecine squabbling (though largely due to people’s unpleasant experiences with squares in school or with the modern club scene).
In the past few decades, however, relations have thawed between the traditional and modern camps, and to some extent between the contra and traditional square worlds. Square callers of all types are borrowing moves and figures from each other’s repertoires; leading contra callers are including more squares in their programs. In addition, a new square dance network is forming; it has its origins in the old-time music scene, and is independent of both the modern square dance and the contra network.
I think I see a new style of square dance developing that draws the best features from all the broadly defined styles of the past.
From Southern Mountain and traditional Western styles:
The exuberance, fast tempo, and circular “swoopy” figures
The colorful patter (influenced during the 1920s and ’30s by radio barn dance programs and recordings)
From New England/Northeastern style:
The close connection between the dance and its music
The squared-off grid-type figures (elegant when done well)
From early modern square dancing (c. 1945–1955):
The move toward all-active choreography
The emphasis on doing as much as possible with existing basics
The bringing together of singing and patter styles
The free-wheeling allemande breaks
From later modern square dancing (c. 1955 on):
The playfulness of callers’ improvising and dancers’ matching wits with the caller
The kaleidoscopic/origami-like shifting of set shapes and facing direction/orientation
Callers are being influenced by styles other than their own, whether they know it or not, in delivery technique and in choice of material. Most callers now feel it’s OK to learn from books and recordings – and even in the case of survival (as opposed to revival) callers who learned from live role models, it’s likely that those role models were influenced by sources outside their local tradition.
Now: Is there an appropriate name for this developing eclectic style? A name that will distinguish it from its predecessors?
I’ve heard a couple of names used or suggested. I don’t think any of them is particularly apropos, and one is downright misleading. Rather than repeat them here, I’d like to hear from you: Have you heard a name used that you like (or don’t like)? Can you think of a name that might work?
I’m writing a book on squares from the working caller’s perspective, which will cover philosophy, delivery, and material. (There will be more material than in my contra text, because I believe present-day callers have more trouble finding and choosing good squares than good contras.) If I find a name for this emerging style, I’ll use it; otherwise I’ll simply describe the style and offer it as my take on the current state of the art. Thanks for any help you can provide.
Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.