Tom Hinds wrote:
> There are many reasons some contra dancers don't like squares. One
> is that they take a long time to teach.
_Some_ squares take a long time to teach with any group, because they're complex even by square dance standards. Other squares take longer to teach to contra dancers than to people used to squares. I try to avoid both types if I'm doing one or two squares in an evening of contras.
There are squares that can be taught to contra dancers in roughly the same amount of time as, say, a contra with good flow but a high piece count.
> For some squares it's a good idea to walk through the figure for both the heads and sides.
True, because the two parts are so different. I avoid squares like that with contra groups unless I'm very sure of my audience.
> Depending on the caller and dancers a full length break may be taught as well.
I've seen this done way too often. I firmly believe that this practice is a major reason some contra dancers don't like squares.
Full-length square dance breaks belong in square dance workshops (e.g. at dance weeks or weekends where people are open to different material). A modern contra dance evening is no place for them. People already think squares take a long time to teach, even though that's not necessarily true. Why double the teaching time when you don't have to? If you're not comfortable ad-libbing your breaks (a major reason callers give for teaching the break), memorize two or three simple breaks that contra dancers can do without a walkthrough.
> I also highly recommend squares written by Tony Parkes. He's written
> many that are accessible and at the same time interesting.
That's always my goal when I write material. (Thanks for the plug, Tom.) If anyone is interested, I have two collections (Shadrack's Delight and Son of Shadrack), available at hands4.com, that each contain about 20 squares. In addition, I'm about to give away the farm by publishing the bulk of my personal square dance repertoire. (Well, maybe not give it away... but sell it way too cheap.) Watch for my new square-calling text and accompanying CDs with calls.
Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
Tom Hinds wrote:
> I thought it was saddle-pack not that it really matters.
Someone (sorry, can't remember who or where) once insisted to me that it was "paddlestack," because it looked like "a stack of paddles." I doubt this very much, as I don't get any Google hits for "paddlestack" in a square dance context. I can't think of any field where a stack of paddles would make sense. A steamboat's wheel is made up of blades that I suppose are called paddles, but they're certainly not arranged in a stack. Everyone else I've heard or read on the subject of stars has used "packsaddle."
The summary of star-forming style is fascinating. It's nice to have a description of dance practice that's based on multiple witnesses. So often in researching dance history, one is confronted by bald statements with no idea whether they represent widespread practice or are solely one person's view of what's done in one area (or even what that person thinks _should_ be done). Example: In 1941 "Allemande Al" Muller, apparently writing in New York's Hudson Valley, declared flatly after describing a couple of allemandes, "There are no other calls involving the word Allemande. You can never allemande your partner." This would have been startling news to the master caller Floyd "Woody" Woodhull of Elmira in the same state, who routinely called "Allemande left with your corner, allemande right with your partner, allemande left with your corner again and a grand right and left."
Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
Hello all,
I was thinking about what I do at the "welcome to our contra dance"
introduction, and what dance would easily move in to that. Noodling around
with moves, I thought of a sequence with glossary moves, but I didn't have
it in my box. Anyone recognize it?
Improper
A1 -----------
(8) Neighbor Do-si-do
(8) Neighbor swing
A2 -----------
(8) Men allemande Left 1-1/2
(8) Partner swing
B1 -----------
(8) Promenade across the Set
(8) Long lines, forward and back
B2 -----------
(8) Circle Left 3/4
(4) Balance the Ring
(4) Pass through
During the introduction, I often teach the progression with a "ring
balance, walk past this neighbor", and I wanted something that included
that. There are lots of great accessible dances with that (The Big Easy,
Easy Peasy, etc), but I'm not seeing one with a partner promenade
(something I also use in the introduction; to go from a big circle to lines
of couples for a contra set).
If someone already wrote it, I'll happily give them credit. If not, I'll
call it "If you can walk, then you can dance" (which I'll note is not an if
and only if statement).
I started dancing in the Boston area in the late 60s and the transitions B2->A1 in Chorus Jig and Rory O’More were exactly as Jim has described them. It was in fact fun to vary the transition from one form to the other to make the dance more interesting. Both rolling into a cast off and pulling across (after moving back but not letting go from the swing) were both great fun. It needs to be remembered however that the style of swing was generally different back then. Most people used some form of barrel hold (as was promoted by Ted S.) rather than a ballroom hold. (Also important for dancing in often very crowded halls.)
Bob
Over the past several years, we have had several ‘extra’ dances here in Tallahassee that are advertised to the contra dance listserv and elsewhere as old-time or square dances, or old time square dances, with live music. We have had anywhere from 8 to 30 dancers come. One of the things we heard from dancers was that they did not like being left out — wanting to dance but not enough dancers for a full square. We decided on a policy of leaving no-one sitting who wants to dance. That means that we don’t decide what dance to call (at least not for sure) until we see how many couples stand up to dance; and it means that I have dances ready to go for 4, 5, 6 or 7 couples. With 6 or 7 it can be a longways set, a contra, a circle mixer, or a big circle square-dance. With 8 or 12 it’s a 4-couple square. Folks seem to appreciate the concern for their enjoyment, and there are plenty of good dances to choose from for any number of couples. (Although I could wish for more good five-couple dances, the vast repertory of circle mixers comes in handy.) I have also used a couple of 6- or 9-couple dances I learned from Phil Jamieson.
Others have recently dealt with the situation where you have only three or even two couples.
Richard
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Richard Hopkins
850-544-7614
hopkinsrs(a)comcast.net
Richard, I also recall reading that comment about Page's opinion on Chorus
Jig--I think it was in A Time to Dance, but might have been in Shadrack's
Delight.
I find a ball room swing that ends facing up and casting down the outside
> (one’s own side) a lot of fun - but perhaps you mean if you end the swing
> facing down - that certainly doesn’t flow as well.
> Martha
>
>
I was particularly thinking of an improper cast, yes, but the other depends
on the specific choreography, partner, music, speed, and line spacing.
Sometimes it works just fine, as you say, but the floor pattern isn't as
elegant and the relative speed can be all wrong for the dance narrative.
If you are swinging to improper and then are supposed to cast down,
however, that's simply not possible from a standard ballroom swing; the
best you can do is end the swing facing down and step apart to go down the
outside. Then the dance loses its visual structure because there's no
actual cast.
It also doesn't work well if you are supposed to cross and cast--the timing
changes because you are already close together, plus you need to
disentangle.
I may have a somewhat unusual way of enjoying and assessing the flow of
dances, because I always envision them from above as I dance. I'll
tolerate somewhat non-flowing choreography so long as the visual pattern
created is crisp and elegant. On the other hand, dances that don't create
a distinctive and pretty floor pattern irk me greatly if the sequence isn't
100% natural. (This includes just about every dance that needs the phrase
"ooze" or "shift" to describe the progression. Circling to a slide, or
promenading, or similar things are fine; "oozing" makes me think of
radioactive sludge!)
Neal
Last night at bedtime my 5 year old daughter and I had the following
interaction:
Raeden: "Daddy. I want to write a new dance, Pony Fun."
Me: "OK, how does it go?"
R: "Star, Star, Swing. Swing, Courtesy Turn, Circle 3 places, Pass Through,
repeat."
A little bit of back and forth figuring out the glue resulted in the
following. Has someone else written it first?
Thanks,
Don
Pony Fun - DI - Raeden Veino 20161012
A1
Star Left
Neighbor Allemande Left 1x
Gents start Hands-Across Star Right (1/4x)
A2
Ladies join Star behind N, all Star Right 3/4x
Partner Swing
B1
Give & Take to Gents Side, N Swing
B2
Ladies Chain
Circle Left 3/4, Pass Through
BTW, in case you may call this, Raeden's name is pronounced "RAY-den VEE-no"
Hi Neal,
Just a note: Many of the "chestnuts" have been modified from their
original form (By Ralph Page, Ted Senela and others) to be more
reflective of the modern era. Chorus Jig, Rory-O- More, Hulls Victory,
did not feature swings,
as originally written, and they (actually) dance with their original
tunes, much better than they do today.
Gale Wood
Hi all,
I'm looking to expand the number of contra-friendly Squares in my box.
1. Keepers preferred unless it's a really good mixer.
2. Not too gimmicky.
3. Not really interested currently in Southern style visiting couple
squares (heads and sides fine, but not one couple at a time).
(Got Kimmswick Express, First Night Quadrille, a couple others)
Thanks,
Ron
Hi Neal,
Thanks. But I don't understand what Ralph's smoother style was. To
me, modern contra dancing is beautifully smooth. Larry Jennings defines the
style in Zesty Contras as "zesty, purposeful, extroverted, smooth,
meticulously phrased, strongly connected, vigorous, New England, contra
dancing" and goes on to define "Smooth: Refers both to the way the dancers
carry their bodies and to the flow from one figure into another."
If anything I would say that modern choreography has made much
smoother dances; many of the Chestnuts have disjointed flows.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com 01233 625 362
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
Neal Schlein said:
This might shed some light on the subject -
https://www.library.unh.edu/find/archives/collections/ralph-page-dance-legac
y-weekend
Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend
The Ralph Page Dance Legacy Weekend (RPDLW) is held every January at the
University of New Hampshire in Durham. It takes its name from the man who
was perhaps the single most important figure in the preservation of
traditional dance in New England and was conceived to keep his legacy alive.
Begun in 1988, the RPDLW celebrates the music and dance of New England:
contras, squares, and more. From the beginning, the emphasis has been on
preserving the smoother style of dancing that Ralph Page favored.
