Tony,
Below are some thought about your terminology question. Reading
over what I've just written, I see that (a) I may come across as
a wet blanket, and (b) that I ramble on without coming to any
definite conclusion. Nonetheless, I'm going to send my musings,
and if you (or others) don't find the prospect of reading
inconclusive wet-blanket ramblings to be appealing, you can
feel free to skip over them. You've been warned.
* * * * * * * * * *
As you may recall, I'm also working (and making agonizingly
slow progress of late) on a book about squares. In my current
draft, I refer to "traditional squares" and I include the
following footnote at my first use of the word "traditional":
Except where it is otherwise clear from context, I
interpret “traditional” square dancing in a broad sense
that includes recently-composed squares in vaguely
traditional styles, but excludes modern western square
dancing (MWSD) as it developed after progressively
departing from its traditional roots in the late 1950s
and early 1960s. When I speak of “traditional dancing”
in a sense that includes contras, I mean to include the
flood of new contra dances composed in recent decades.
The Wikipedia article on "Traditional square dance" currently
starts with the following sentence, which I think may have been
written by you (Tony):
Traditional square dance is a generic American term for any
style of American square dance other than modern Western.
The term can mean (1) any of the American regional styles
(broadly, Northeastern, Southeastern, and Western) that
existed before around 1950, when modern Western style began
to develop out of a blend of those regional styles, or
(2) any style (other than modern Western) that has survived,
or been revived, since around 1950.
So my footnote is saying, in essence, that I use the "traditional"
in a manner that corresponds to sense (2) from the Wikipedia
definition except when it's clear from context that I'm using it
in sense (1).
If I were willing to be more verbose, I might also explain that
I mean to include fusions of traditional (sense (1)) square dance
styles such as doing traditional Appalachian repertoire but with
Mew-England-style allemandes and with buzz-step, closed-position
swings. I might also add that I mean to include dances that
incorporate (within limits) choreographic ideas from the early
modern (or "transitional") western SD of c. 1940-1960, itself a
mix of earlier traditional styles and new invention. And I might
be specific about excluding things like Irish ceili dances that
happen to be in square formation or reconstructions of 19th-century
quadrilles with period footwork.
I've considered using the term "trad square dance" in place of this
loose usage of "traditional" and reserving the word "traditional"
for sense (1) in the Wikipedia definition, but it seems a little
too cute, and I'm not sure people would really get the idea (even
if I explained it) that I was drawing a distinction between "trad"
and "traditional" and not merely occasionally abbreviating
"traditional" as "trad".
When I consider it to be completely clear from context that I'm
not talking about MWSD (which is most of the time), I usually
omit the word "traditional" and simply say "squares" or "square
dances" or "square dancing".
* * * * * * * * * *
Note that my use of "traditional", as I've defined it above,
applies to any of a variety of surviving/revived historic styles
or mixes of historic styles (including transitional WSD) plus
possibly new innovations, excluding things too much in the
direction of full-blown MWSD. It's not an attempt to specify
some *particular* observed or envisioned synthesis of styles,
such as you've described:
From Southern Mountain and traditional Western styles:
...
From New England/Northeastern style: ...
From early modern square dancing (c. 1945–1955): ...
From later modern square dancing (c. 1955 on): ...
I'm not sure just what's emerging in the world of "traditional"
(or "traditional revival" or "neo-tradtional" or "trad" or
...)
square dance, and I'm not sure it's a great idea to look for a
name for the trend you think you might be seeing unless and until
that trend is more definitely visible.
Of course if you have vision of a particular sort of dance style,
you can give a name to that vision. But there's always the
possibility that some people will latch on to the name and use it
to mean something different from what you intended. For example,
by doing a web search for "zesty contra dance" just now, I
quickly found some groups whose calendars feature occasional
"zesty" dances with descriptions like these:
(Example 1) Zesty Contras are for dancers with enough
experience to successfully do contra corners, hey-for-four,
half-figure-eight above, California twirl, and similar
moves without an explanation from the caller. Zesty contras
are danced with little caller instruction and minimal
walk-throughs. ...
(Example 2) No newcomer’s orientation. Dances taught
quickly and dancers should be familiar with hey for four,
Petronella turns and contra corners. This is an evening
for experienced dancers who want to dance with enthusiasm!
But I'm quite sure that when Larry Jennings coined the term
"Zesty Contra Dancing" he had in mind a kind of event where,
among other things, first-time dancers (at least attentive,
energetic ones) could readily be "swept in" to the action
through the guidance and the zesty example of the experienced
dancers around them. Also, his vision for a successful series
was one that would have "zesty" dancing (in his originally
intended sense) at every event, and not just, say, on fifth
Saturdays.
* * * * * * * * * *
Terminology issues aside, I also have some thoughts about what
developments may or may not be emerging with respect to
trad[itional] squares. But I have other things to deal with
now, so I'll save them for a future message.
--Jim