![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Squaredancing, my life in hell.
Jul. 21st, 2005 09:00 amMornin' world.
It is official. I really detest square-dancing. Sorry guys! I tried. Really I did. But I just can't stand it. I mean absolutely no offense to those who enjoy it. Power to ya. But... it is so not for me. And why, you might ask?
Music: With rare exception, I really do not care for either kind of music - Country OR Western (as if I can tell the freaken' difference). I have never been a fan of twang. I don't care for mouth-harps. I really don't care if the goddamned dog died. I really don't care if the pickup won't work. I don't care if the girl ran off with some city-slicker. It just ain't me.
Synergy: For a lack of better terms, I define this as the way that the music AND the steps stand on their own, while complimenting each other. In a way, it is like walking into a fine art gallery, and spotting a particularly beautiful painting framed in an appropriate frame. The two of them should be equally beautiful, but compliment each other. To see a minimalist-cubist piece in a huge, over the top, guilded baroque frame would be ludicrous. And to the opposite extreme, I would not want to see the Mona Lisa in a plain plastic frame, either. Square dancing, to me, lacks synergy. The music could be pretty much anything. It doesn't seem to have a beginning, or an end, but is just background twang used to help the caller stay on-cue. There is no pizazze to it, and it does not stand equal to the steps or figures. The balance is just off.
Steps: In all honesty, I believe the steps and figures of square dancing are the best aspect of square dancing. I enjoy them. They are, after all, the natural descendent of the types of historical dance that I have studied. I find it fascinating to contemplate how dance steps and moves have changed over the centuries, yet remained the same in many ways. I guess it comes down to one basic thing - fun is fun. If it works, why change it?
The calling: Speaking as a dance instructor, I believe that calling should be done when one is teaching a choreography. Ideally, when a group actually LEARNS a dance, there should be no calling. This is another issue that I have with square dancing. There seems to be no set choreography, and no learning of a dance. It seems to always involve the dancers simply following the whim of the caller, which drives me nuts. What's the point?
Also on the calling, I believe dance calling should be minimal. Announce the move quickly and in as few words as possible so that the dancers can concentrate on the music (if it is worth listening to), and their own steps. Square dancing callers frequently take up a LOT of time talking/singing. It seems more like "Squar-eoke" to me than dance-calling.
Gay-dancing: OK, let me stress this. I have no issues with women. I have no issues with lesbians. But that being said, if I go to a "gay square dance", my hope is to be dancing with men. I ended up in a set of mostly women. To me, this sort of defeats the purpose of it being a gay square dance. As a gay man, I can go to any dance at any time, and dance with women. I think I would have preferred a set where it had been JUST men. That isn't a complaint - just a wish.
Terminology: OK, particular rant here. WHY, oh WHY in a "gay square dance" does the caller insist upon referring to "girls" and "boys"? ARGH! No set was equal. Sometimes men danced with men. Sometimes women danced with women. Sometimes, they were mixed. Whether I am gay or straight does not change the fact that I am a man. Had the caller used the term "lead" or "follow", it would have worked out much better. To me, it seems ludicrous to use gender-specific terminology when referring to gender-neutral spots. Yes, when I teach dance, I frequently refer to the "Lord" or the "Lady" position. However, that is in a historical context where there really WOULD be a Lord and a Lady. In this context, different terminology would have been better.
If my husbear wants to do it, I absolutely 100% encourage him to go and do it. I think I'll pass.
It is official. I really detest square-dancing. Sorry guys! I tried. Really I did. But I just can't stand it. I mean absolutely no offense to those who enjoy it. Power to ya. But... it is so not for me. And why, you might ask?
Music: With rare exception, I really do not care for either kind of music - Country OR Western (as if I can tell the freaken' difference). I have never been a fan of twang. I don't care for mouth-harps. I really don't care if the goddamned dog died. I really don't care if the pickup won't work. I don't care if the girl ran off with some city-slicker. It just ain't me.
Synergy: For a lack of better terms, I define this as the way that the music AND the steps stand on their own, while complimenting each other. In a way, it is like walking into a fine art gallery, and spotting a particularly beautiful painting framed in an appropriate frame. The two of them should be equally beautiful, but compliment each other. To see a minimalist-cubist piece in a huge, over the top, guilded baroque frame would be ludicrous. And to the opposite extreme, I would not want to see the Mona Lisa in a plain plastic frame, either. Square dancing, to me, lacks synergy. The music could be pretty much anything. It doesn't seem to have a beginning, or an end, but is just background twang used to help the caller stay on-cue. There is no pizazze to it, and it does not stand equal to the steps or figures. The balance is just off.
Steps: In all honesty, I believe the steps and figures of square dancing are the best aspect of square dancing. I enjoy them. They are, after all, the natural descendent of the types of historical dance that I have studied. I find it fascinating to contemplate how dance steps and moves have changed over the centuries, yet remained the same in many ways. I guess it comes down to one basic thing - fun is fun. If it works, why change it?
The calling: Speaking as a dance instructor, I believe that calling should be done when one is teaching a choreography. Ideally, when a group actually LEARNS a dance, there should be no calling. This is another issue that I have with square dancing. There seems to be no set choreography, and no learning of a dance. It seems to always involve the dancers simply following the whim of the caller, which drives me nuts. What's the point?
Also on the calling, I believe dance calling should be minimal. Announce the move quickly and in as few words as possible so that the dancers can concentrate on the music (if it is worth listening to), and their own steps. Square dancing callers frequently take up a LOT of time talking/singing. It seems more like "Squar-eoke" to me than dance-calling.
Gay-dancing: OK, let me stress this. I have no issues with women. I have no issues with lesbians. But that being said, if I go to a "gay square dance", my hope is to be dancing with men. I ended up in a set of mostly women. To me, this sort of defeats the purpose of it being a gay square dance. As a gay man, I can go to any dance at any time, and dance with women. I think I would have preferred a set where it had been JUST men. That isn't a complaint - just a wish.
Terminology: OK, particular rant here. WHY, oh WHY in a "gay square dance" does the caller insist upon referring to "girls" and "boys"? ARGH! No set was equal. Sometimes men danced with men. Sometimes women danced with women. Sometimes, they were mixed. Whether I am gay or straight does not change the fact that I am a man. Had the caller used the term "lead" or "follow", it would have worked out much better. To me, it seems ludicrous to use gender-specific terminology when referring to gender-neutral spots. Yes, when I teach dance, I frequently refer to the "Lord" or the "Lady" position. However, that is in a historical context where there really WOULD be a Lord and a Lady. In this context, different terminology would have been better.
If my husbear wants to do it, I absolutely 100% encourage him to go and do it. I think I'll pass.
