 |
 |
| The Original Community Page for Modern Western Square Dancing | |
|
Home
Clubs
Articles
Call Lists
Callers Corner
Software
Resources FREE! Submit New Listing Contact Us Search Link To Us 
|
|
|
|
| The Original Community Page for Modern Western Square Dancing | |
|
Home
Clubs
Articles
Call Lists
Callers Corner
Software
Resources FREE! Submit New Listing Contact Us Search Link To Us
|
Ask the Square Dance GuruThe Square Dance Guru (aka Stewart Kramer) will answer your most probing questions about square dancing. Here is a collection of these articles that we have been able to find.Permission is granted to freely distribute the wisdom of The Guru, but impersonators will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the low.
Unsure? Confused? Squarebroken? If the hissy fits, send email to:
Ambiguous Calls - Split Phantom Wave Inroll Motivate - date unknownO Most Exalted One:What is your opinion on ambiguous calls like Split Phantom Wave Inroll Motivate? -- A Bewildered Dancer Beloved Acolyte: Ah, yes, does he mean Inroll Motivate in your Split Phantom Wave, or does he mean Motivate using Split Phantom Wave Inroll Circulate for the first circulate? This is only ambiguous if the phantom circulate leaves you in parallel waves able to finish a Motivate, but in that case you have no way of knowing what he wants, and there is no obvious way for him to know that there is another interpretation for his words.
His exact phrasing may give you a clue, since "in your Split
Phantom Wave Inroll" would not normally be considered a kind of
circulate. Indeed, there are a number of formation concepts that
can be either a circulate or a modifier, like Diamond
This is why many callers prefer to use the "-er's" modifier,
such as "Split Phantom Wave Inroll-er's Normal Motivate." (If you
have not encountered this usage, be forewarned that Normal only
reminds you that "-er's" cancels the concepts on the first part of
the call and provides an opportunity to add concepts to the
remainder of the call, but DOES NOT mean to restore the deleted,
replaced, or modified portions of the call.) When calls have
compound names, with each part meaning something specific, it is
common to apply concepts to the parts separately, such as "Split
Phantom Column The Pulley But, Trapezoid Zing," in which the real
people have a Trapezoid, not a Split Phantom Column Trapezoid.
Some people wish that square dancing had parentheses, but I
would rather deal with occasional ambiguity than with callers
playing games with nested concepts. Ambiguity teaches callers to be
cautious, while new rules encourage callers expect too much of the
dancers, and to play "guess what I want." Few people (even among
C-4 dancers) can think like a computer, and being in a square with
people who can't when they need to is not my idea of a good time.
If the call is Triple Box Pass In (or Out), how do you know what the
caller wants? --Troubled
Beloved but Troubled Acolyte:
Sometimes concepts are used superfluously (if not gratuitously), as
in As Couples Single Wheel instead of Wheel and Deal. The caller
does this to make dancers think (instead of dancing by rote). Other
times, a call may resemble another call, without being at all
extraneous, as in As Couples Single Cross Trade and Wheel (where the
trade is done As Couples, unlike Cross Trade and Wheel).
The problem here is that Pass In (or Out) is relative to the
flagpole center, and it is not clear what the Triple Box concept
does to the flagpole center. Consider a Triple Box Counter Rotate:
is it a Box Counter Rotate, or is it a Counter Rotate done only in
each box? My personal preference is to assume that there is a word
"Box," which by convention is omitted from Triple Box Box Counter
Rotate because Box Counter Rotate is a relatively recent name for
the call. (Indeed, the distinction between Box and Split is
difficult to describe in English, and there are many dangerous
callers with a little knowledge of it; these are the callers who
think that the Box version implies Centers Only, or that there is a
call Box Trade Circulate.) Sometimes, there is an implied Working
Together, at least with Triple Lines or Waves, but this is rarely
used with Triple Boxes; if the caller says, "Triple Box Counter
Rotate," you shouldn't do a Triple Boxes Working Together All 8
Counter Rotate, because that is not the customary usage for the
call.
But in the case of Pass In, there is an explicit rule that tells you
to turn toward the center of the square (although concepts like
Split Phantom Lines can specify a phantom 8-person formation that
replaces the real square and real flagpole center). Triple Box is
not such a concept, so any caller who wants you to turn toward the
center of each box is clearly mistaken.
This does not, however, tell you which way the caller DOES want you
to turn, only which way he or she SHOULD want you to turn. And that
is a much more subtle question, which can only be answered by
knowing what the caller has done earlier in the tip, or earlier that
session, or even earlier in your dancing lifetime. Is the caller
trying to use creative choreography (but in this case going too far
and making an elementary error) or is he or she testing the dancers
to see how well they avoid those same elementary errors. A good
rule of thumb is that new callers (or callers new to a particular
level) are more prone to errors, just like new speakers of a
language, who have not yet mastered all of the idioms and the
subtleties of connotations, and who make the occasional error or
solecism.
And yet none of this excuses the dancer from the ultimate
responsibility to contribute cooperatively to the square. There are
only two ways to turn on the call Pass In, and one of them is
incorrect, so if you tentatively turn one direction, and discover
that the next call is impossible, you should take this as a clue
that you may have turned the wrong direction. If you and your
symmetric opposite (or even your counterpart in another square) make
different guesses, then you've got both cases taken care of: you
will do the same calls, but from different starting set-ups, and if
one of you becomes unable to do the next call, you can at that point
decide that the other one was correct, and "make one of those" to
copy the set-up that seems to work. This way, you both continue
dancing (although one of you may not have been in the position that
the caller intended), and you may be pleasantly surprised to
discover that the caller has outwitted you both, by creating a
sequence which can be interpreted both ways and still work
successfully. (In contrast, a caller can make an unpleasant
guessing game where those who guess wrong are unable to continue
dancing.)
But the very worst mistake you can make is to make the same mistake
that your counterpart does, when you suspect you are right. This is
where cooperative dancing reaches its pinnacle: With appropriate
eye contact, a questioning glance, a decisive nod of
acknowledgement, even a shrug, a pair of cooperative dancers can say
"What does he want?" and "I've seen him call this before" and "Oh,
well, I guess someone convinced him that his old interpretation was
wrong, and you were right after all." Of course, this level of
communication is only possible when you have mastered the level and
needn't struggle with definitions, and is difficult when there are
many complex concepts in quick succession. But of course skilled
dancers have an easier time dancing, and hard sequences are not easy
to dance, which is why there are differences between hard and easy,
or between skilled and shaky. Which leads me to the next letter:
In "Confidential to Puzzled," you mentioned dances that are by
invitation only, and asked what this says about dancers as human
beings. The obvious answer: They're not as dumb as they look.
--Renewed Faith in the Bay Area Square Dance Community
When our tape group quits for the evening, we usually stop at the
end of a tip, but always at least at the end of a sequence. Why
does the tape always start again the next week in the middle of a
sequence? --Still Without an Answer
My Still Beloved Acolyte:
If you remove the tape, it may accidently get turned upside-down.
If you don't shut off the machine immediately when you finish, you
may not realize that you are very near the beginning when you start
again, and if you fast-forward, you will have to go through the
entire sequence to find the start of a sequence. If you actually
did stop in the middle of the sequence you would probably not
remember it because you would be tired at the end of the evening.
And of course if you dance in the evening, the supernatural beings
like phantoms may be a part of the answer, especially if your tapes
come from RHC, because the phantoms may decide to dance in the dark,
and since they can't read the tape labels they must listen to Dick
Cook's headers on the tape, which may confuse them. (Have I
mentioned that once he must have misunderstood his own voice, and
accidentally sent the tape for next years dance?)
I know how to do the call First Left Next Right, and I can even do
Sets In Motion, which has a Single First Left Next Right, but I was
confused when the caller had us Tag the Line, Ladies Go Left, Gents
Go Right, and while I was trying to make facing lines, the caller
and the rest of the square did an Allemande Left.
--Testy (and a Sore Loser)
Beloved but Momentarily Lost Acolyte:
The whole name of the call is First Couple Go (or Wheel) Left, Next
Couple Go (or Wheel) Right, To A Line Of Four. The other call is
Tag the Line, Ladies Go Left, Gents Go Right, To the Corner, which
is a style of directional calling that is more common in Basic or
Traditional choreography (e.g., Separate, Around One To a Line).
On the other hand, if you do a Single Girls Left Boys Right, you
will end up in facing lines, from which you can Allemande Left, but
if you try to work As Couples you are thinking too hard. This is
very context sensitive, because Tag The Line often includes a
direction to turn at the end, which is always done individually, but
First Left Next Right is traditionally done As Couples. You have
simply been overtrained in the Challenge-style choreography, which
expects people to remember the words that the caller didn't say
(Rotate: "Not Single!" or 1/4 Thru: "Right!"), as opposed to the
expectations of more traditional calls, such as, from a single file
promenade, Ladies Backtrack, Go Once Around, where you must remember
to make a note of the people you were between, especially the one
who was behind you (even though you will be facing out of the square
at the moment that he or she passes behind you) because you will be
finishing with that dancer in front of you. The analogous
traditional case for the other sex is circling left, Men Make a
Right-Hand Star (or Star by the Right), turning it once around,
which is somewhat easier.
What hand do the outsides use for Scoot and Counter from a
left-handed quarter tag? --Puzzled
Beloved Acolyte:
You have encountered one of the great mysteries of Square Dancing,
the problem of descriptive definitiveness. Counter is usually
defined as "Centers Cast Off 3/4 and Counter-Rotate, Outsides
Divide, Touch 1/2, and Step and Fold." The Divide is sometimes
described as Cast Back, or Separate, or even (imprecisely) Clover.
The Touch 1/2 is sometimes described as Touch and Trade, or Arm Turn
1/2, or simply as Trade with an implicit Step to a Wave. Clearly,
these all default to right hands. But the Scoot is also usually
right-handed, which leads to uncertainty. The consensus is that the
Touch 1/2 is literally a Touch 1/2, unless the caller says something
like "Left Scoot and Counter," in which case "Left" modifies the
entire call, including the Touch 1/2. On the other hand, in the
call Tag the Top (usually described as "Tag the Line 3/4; Centers
Spin the Top, Outsides Face and Touch 1/2"), the consensus
is that when a Left tagging call is used (e.g. Flip the Top,
from left waves), you meet with lefts, as if the definition were
"Tag 1/2; 1/2 Circulate; Centers Spin the Top, Outsides Trade."
Why isn't it Linear Cycle defined as Recycle & Sweep 1/4? The
current definition is gratuitously difficult. --Puzzled
Beloved Acolyte:
You are asking the wrong question, and the question you do ask has
an answer so obvious you cannot see it.
Why should there be any call at all defined as Recycle & Sweep 1/4?
What possible advantage is there to using such a call rather than
calling "Recycle, Sweep 1/4"? Is is significantly difficult to get
those words out before the dancers finish the first part? Is there
some important anticipatory motion the dancers must make because the
combination will not flow well if called unexpectedly? Is it
important that there be a distinct first and second part of the
call? Would the Plus list be too short if Linear Cycle were not
there to intimidate the Mainstream dancers?
Indeed, you have the question entirely backward. The call was
invented first (as the centers' part of a more complicated call that
never became popular), and the name "Linear Cycle" was given to it
because of the superficial similarity to Recycle. The human mind,
in seeking to comprehend that which is new, tries to match the
patterns that it already knows, but often it simplifies something
complex in order to compare it to something well-known; the danger
lies in believing that the simplification is the real thing. In the
example at hand, the name "Linear Cycle" misleadingly reaffirms the
comparison to Recycle. It would not be a significant issue, except
that Linear Cycle, in its original definition, is the basis for many
popular higher-level calls, which involve things like 2/3 Linear
Cycle. It is the same situation for Recycle itself: Dancers
learning C-1 must learn a confusing, seemingly-unrelated call (2/3
Recycle), because they learned a simplification (either U-turn the
Centers and Wheel & Deal, or Callerlab's Cross Fold/Fold and Follow
definition)
The real mystery, of course, is why it ever became a Plus call. It
would seem much more at home with similar calls on the C-3 or C-4
lists, where its decendents like Linny Your Neighbor and Linear Flow
reside.
Is it better to the right call in the wrong formation, or the wrong
call in the right formation?
Beloved Acolytes:
Any old fool can do the wrong call. Even one such as The Guru still
retains the vestiges of human frailty, and can be distracted by a
shapely body or the twinkling eyes of a half-hidden smile.
But to do a call in the wrong formation requires a greater mental
lapse. If by "wrong formation" you mean, for example, working in
each wave rather than each box for a call like Scoot Back or Zig
Zag, then this betrays a deep and disturbing wrongness in thinking,
and will require much concentration and effort to avoid in the
future. If you mean mis-hearing the call, such as Once-Removed
Phantom Boxes vs. Split Phantom Boxes Working Once-Removed, this
again is bad news, because such errors are hard to recognize even
after the fact. If you mean being in the wrong formation or on the
wrong spot before the call, then it is not a bad thing but rather a
challenge to overcome, since a skillful dancer can, by intuition and
deduction, find a plausible way to do the next few calls, with a
good chance of ending up reasonably correct.
But on a larger scale, if you become too good at "faking it" because
you are never in the right spot or because you never do the right
call, then something is wrong, and you need to find the underlying
problem. If you don't know the Plus calls, perhaps you should dance
Plus more often; if you break down because you can't see sloppy
formations, perhaps you should be an angel in a workshop with sloppy
dancers to help you learn to cope with them. Perhaps you just need
to dance more often, to get more floor time at all levels. As they
say, practice makes perfect.
Why do so many bad dancers go on to higher levels? --Puzzled
Beloved Acolyte:
It should come as no great surprise to you, if you will only
consider what you know about these people:
(1) They have gone through months and months of Basic & Mainstream
classes without dropping out, so they must enjoy the learning
environment,
and (2) They are bad dancers, but they are still dancing, so they
their lack of skill must not bother them too much.
Remember, Square Dancing does not appeal to everyone. Many people
who try it will discover that it does not interest them; some of
these people prefer Two-Stepping, Line Dancing, Contra Dancing, or
Ballroom Dancing. The fact that Square Dancing requires a great
deal of learning means that only those people who enjoy learning are
likely to stay in the activity.
Consider a caller like Larry Ward, who has a sizable and loyal
following. At each of his regular dances, he teaches half a dozen
calls, as if the dancers have never seen them before. Of course,
being a loyal following, the dancers will mostly remember seeing the
calls before, so they will easily re-learn each call, but they will
experience the joy of learning. Never mind that the calls repeat
every few months, never mind that the re-learning might seem empty
to you, the point is that this is a group of people for whom the joy
of learning is endlessly recaptured, and it makes them happy.
It is certainly true that less-eccentric callers could do the same
thing with Mainstream or Plus calls; in fact, Callerlab has at times
designated certain "Emphasis Calls" for callers to workshop in just
such a way. But it takes a very patient caller, with excellent
showmanship skills, to present the same material repeatedly in an
enthusiastic manner. And even then, not all dancers would beamused for very long.
There is a niche for everything: Exhibition teams with their
endless rehearsals, APD workshops, definition workshops, Intro
sessions for Advanced or Challenge, Intro to Round Dancing or
Clogging, etc. Each of these will appeal to a different group.
You will often hear foolish ideas like, "Nobody should learn
Advanced until they've danced Plus competently for a year," or other
blanket statements. Nothing could be further from the truth. If
your dancing is inaccurate, or you have trouble telling Left from
Right, or you occasionally blank out on familiar calls, you might or
might not benefit from staying at Plus, or going on to Advanced.
There's nothing magically harder about higher levels, nothing that
makes only "good dancers" able to dance higher levels; the levels
are just higher, and more abstract, with a lot more calls to learn.
Experience at a level may be helpful, but it doesn't automatically
make for a good dancer. There are many fine Challenge dancers who
must work around their own shortcomings; there are C-4 dancers who
appear to have no sense of rhythm, or who have never been able to
Flutterwheel correctly without help, or who often do the wrong call
(and can fix their mistakes), or who can only learn kinesthetically
(by dancing the calls) or aurally (by hearing the definitions) or
graphically (with written definitions or pictures) or visually (by
seeing or imagining the action).
If you like learning calls, and you like abstractions, and you're
enthusiastic about learning more, then you should learn more if you
have the time available. On the other hand, if you feel shaky or
precarious at your current level, perhaps you do need more floor
time. But everyone must decide individually. No one should be
forced to learn any level, or to stay at a level.
How do you Trade Circulate from Inverted Lines? -- Troubled
Beloved Acolyte:
You don't. And if you do, you do it differently.
You can [C-1 Phantoms] Phantom Trade Circulate
(which is the same as Crossover Circulate).
You can also do the C-2 call "Split Trade Circulate"
(which would be the same as Magic Box Circulate, if Magic
Boxes were legitimate and if they always had right-shoulder
passes, which they don't and aren't accepted as being).
The problem with Trade Circulate is that it is defined
only from Waves and Two-Faced Lines.
It is perennially tempting to try to extract some kind
of general definition ("Leads Trade, Trailers Jaywalk")
that will unify the two different kinds of Trade Circ,
but any attempt to extend such a definition will bog down
in hopeless ambiguity ("Trade with WHOM?"), or will
conflict with other intrinsic or defining properties of
Trade Circulate (e.g., "Centers Become Ends" & vice versa).
The "real" definition (disregarding whatever nonsense
Callerlab is currently spouting) is:
Lead End: Trade with the Lead Center in your line;
Lead Center: Trade with the Lead End in your line;
Trailing Center: Jaywalk with the Trailing End of the other line;
Trailing End: Jaywalk with the Trailing Center of the other line.
Note that the Jaywalk is the Diagonal Pass Thru kind,
not the Bent or T-boned kind of Pass Thru.
Trade Circulate is illegal from any kind of Inverted Lines,
3-and-1 Lines, T-bones, Columns, Diamonds, etc., and any
attempts to contrive a plausible interpretation will fail
to be amusing to the majority of dancers.
There is, however, the open question of asymmetric setups,
such as opposite-hand 2-Faced Lines: Do the facing couples
Cross Trail Thru? (or, from Opp.-hand Waves, do the trailers
Once-Removed Cross-Trail Thru?)
"No" is the most popular answer, and with good reason.
The ends become centers according to most definitions,
but the trailers never cross paths, either, and new
dancers often try to cross, so teachers often create
ad-hoc "rules" about not crossing. Does this make them
"real" rules? That's another open question.
But again, the real issue is that there is no consensus,
and the call has been in widespread use for decades;
the only remaining envelopes to push are in related calls,
like doing Trade the Deucey from Columns or Diamonds,
or traffic patterns (if any) for Trade Counter-Rotate.
Why doesn't "In your Parallelogram, you have Split Phantom Waves"
look like this:
Beloved Acolyte:
It's just a question of numbers. "Waves" (or "Parallel Waves")
means an 8-person formation. "Parallelogram" means that the
formation is split in half and offset, but the number of spots does
not change, merely their location and topology along the shear line.
"Split Phantom" means twice as many spots, with half of them being
phantoms, and all lined up.
When the formations are nested, you take the words from inside to
outside as you collect the setup in your mind. Starting with an
8-person square, what you have illustrated is Parallelogram Split
Phantom Split Phantom Waves (i.e., doubled twice, then sliced).
Other possibilities:
Applied group theory is not Challenge Square Dancing. C-4 is too
quirky and full of intuition and counter-intuition for it to be
reduced to a logically consistent system.
In the call Chain Reaction, does the Pass Thru always need to be
done right-shouldered, or are there cases when it should be done
left-shouldered?
---Just Dwondering
Beloved Acolyte:
Yes, the Pass Thru must always be done with right shoulders.
There are several good reasons for this.
The first reason is that, as is often the case, that's just the
way it is.
The second reason is that Pass Thru is almost never done Left,
even in calls like Left Travel Thru where you might expect each part
of the call to be done Left.
A third reason is that it isn't an Extend (which is what you want
it to be). If I may digress, there is a small contingent of poorly
taught dancers and callers who do believe that Chain Reaction either
does or should have a Left Pass Thru from a left-handed Quarter Tag.
Their preferred redefinition of the call starts with Extend, then
Half an Acey Deucey. This definition, when applied to other setups,
produces a completely different call, which can be found in Burleson
as the call Allergic Reaction (from a Quarter Line: Couples Extend;
all do 1/2 an Acey Deucey; Turn the Facing Star 1/4, Outsides Trade;
those who meet Cast 3/4, others Move Up), which is one of the most
appropriately named calls in Square Dancing.
It can be argued that it "flows better" if the Pass Thru and
Hinge are always a "weaving" motion, and that having the hinging
hands close to each other (rather than separated by an intervening
body) allows more time to anticipate the hand contact, but these are
not serious considerations. The flow is equally good for a wide,
arcing motion in the Pass Thru that blends into a Hinge, as long as
the dancers know what they're doing and aren't dancing by rote.
Attempts to redefine or simplify Chain Reaction are ineffective
and misguided, as well as being counter-productive. Remember that
the phrase "chain reaction" means that the activity is contagious.
The intermittent small moves at the beginning enable others to move
later, but not everyone gets to move at the same time until the last
parts of the call.
Some easy calls are on the Advanced list because there's no room
on the previous lists, but Chain Reaction is not one of those.
Chain Reaction is a difficult call, and the ability to do it
correctly is one of the hallmarks of a good, solid Advanced Dancer.
What's the story on Crossfire? Is it legal from Inverted Lines?
-Fertile Ymagination
Beloved Acolyte:
The story has no simple answer, because it is one of the subtle
mysteries of Square Dance Theory. From a two-faced line, there is a
wide range of definitions for Crossfire that will produce the
correct result, but from other formations the exact definition can
matter a great deal, and there is no universal answer.
The first ambiguity is number of parts. Certainly the Centers
Trade, and the Ends Cross Fold. But then it is not clear whether
Everyone does the Extend, or just the (original) Centers Extend.
(Indeed, Callerlab's definition doesn't even include the word
Extend, although that's irrelevant.) The definition could also be
"Centers Trade and Extend, while the Ends Cross Fold"; in that case,
it is a 2-part call for some and a 1-part call for others. This is
why "And Roll" is ambiguous: those who Cross Fold may or may not
extend or be extended to, which may or may not prohibit their
rolling. (In general, any caller who calls Crossfire And Roll and
doesn't want the Cross-Folders to Roll is being abusive and has
given up the right to get what he or she wants.)
A second ambiguity is the kind of Extend that is involved. Is
it the same as the "Step" in the C-1 call Step and Fold? Is it the
C-2 call "1/2 Press Ahead"? Is it the orphan call "Extend the Tag"?
Is it some other notion of Extend? Does it preserve handedness?
Does it accommodate offsets? Can it be done from Facing Couples?
Is it a 4-person call? 8-person? 1-Person?
A third ambiguity is the kind of square-breathing that is
allowed. Since Crossfire transforms each line in Two-faced Lines
into each box in Columns, or each half of a Tidal Two-faced Line
into each box in Waves, we can assume that Crossfire is a 4-person
call that turns a line into a box, and the square adjusts the
spacing to make room. But is that part of the definition or not?
Can the definition allow an inverted line to turn into a wave?
Probably, but there are those who would dispute even that. (Note
that another Myopically Muddled poster's comparison to 3/4 Tags is
unwarranted, even though the vaguely related question of breathing
also comes up in the matter of 3/4 Tag formations vs. Twin Single
3/4 Tags vs. Z's, and in the subtle isomorphisms that link them
together but don't make them the same.)
Finally, there is the awkwardness of Ends who are facing in
doing a Cross Fold. This causes the centers to move out, even
though they are not involved. (Note that the Matrix interpretation
is not appropriate, since in Crossfire from Two-faced Lines the
Trailing Ends work in their own respective lines, rather than going
past each other.)
In (2), we certainly can't Extend the Tag. (Going from a Full Tag
formation to a 5-quarter tag?) However, callers who use this may
want the dancers to "Do Your Part" as if from Two-faced Lines,
ending in normal columns. Or they may think that Extend from here
does nothing, or everyone breathes and extends simultaneously.
In (3), the situation is ambiguous, and even Callerlab's definition
begs the question and doesn't help, because we need to know if the
centers can work with each other before we know whether they make a
wave (shown with []), or stay facing out in their own box (shown
with {}). There are several excellent callers who subscribe to each
school of thought. (Compare this to Tidal Waves doing Swing Thru
vs. Grand Swing Thru.) Most callers who use this are expecting the
Quarter Tag formation, but only because they don't understand the
controversy.
In (4) and (5), dancers are either extending to make a wave, or
coming to the same spot with right hands. The most common
interpretation is that Crossfire takes an inverted line into a wave
in the same footprints, as shown. An equally good case, however,
could be made for "Do Your Part" leaving all the dancers sharing
either the center or end spots of a Column, leaving them in waves
close together or waves far apart (or in Common-Spot Columns, at
levels where it is appropriate to Opt For that kind of phantom
formation).
In short, the fact that the caller uses Crossfire from an unusual
formation usually can tell you what the caller wants, because anyone
who didn't want that would not have called Crossfire from there.
Except from Lines Facing Out, in which case you should make a
cautious guess. Until the following calls make it clear what the
caller wants, you should probably make something nebulously in
between a Quarter Tag and Starting Double Pass Thru, such as a 1/8
Tag formation.
Why does the call "rims trade back" contain the word "back"?
---Furrowed Brow
Beloved Acolyte:
The C-2 call Rims Trade Back is defined as Partner Trade, then
Original Ends Circulate. Since the Trade reverses their facing
directions, the Circulate is in the direction that was behind them
originally. In other words, they Trade to face backwards, and then
keep going that direction.
The whole family of calls was originally done from Thars,
Promenades, and other wheel-like formations that had distinct Hubs
and Rims, and only later was it generalized to apply to Ends and
Centers of Waves/Lines.
Shouldn't the term "Swing 1/2" be relegated to the same
graveyard as "Hinge 1/4"? They are both ambiguous and redundant.
Also, I believe the term "Cast" should be used for mini-waves, and
"Cast Off" should be used for couples.
--Acolyte #123-45-6789
[Identification numbers have been changed to corrupt the innocent.
If this had been an actual innocent, the identification number
you've just seen would have been followed by further instructions on
whom to do and where to go in your area.]
Beloved Acolyte:
You have fallen into the twin traps of Prescriptivism and
Provincialism. The Swing of "Swing 1/2" is an ancient and
traditional Fundamental Call, and the default in this context is a
Hand-Swing or Forearm-Swing (rather than the Ballroom or Buzzstep
Swing, or the archaic Elbow Swing). Remember, Swing Chain Thru is
the one with 1/4 Turns, as you should well know. Swing & Cross is
the best example of a call in which Swing means 3/4 Turn, and the
now-defunct call Swing Across had 3/8 and 5/8 Turns. The A-2 call
Swing (as in Swing Slip Slide & Slither) is merely shorthand for a
special case of All Swing 1/2.
For "Hinge 1/4" you at least have an excuse for ignorance. You
could not be expected to know of the call Hinge By m & n [& ...],
which requires multiple Hinges (possibly including Partner Hinges).
Getting people to distinguish between Cast and Cast Off is a
hopeless task, like pushing a rope, or herding cats. You are free
to make such distinctions for yourself, but don't expect anyone to
notice, much less cooperate. And don't do your dancers the
disservice of telling them that such a distinction is possible, when
it is neither widely known nor commonly accepted where it is known.
Dancers who take such notions to heart are likely to balk, or at
least be distracted unnecessarily, if they ever encounter a caller
with a different usage.
Don't forget that the term "Push Cast" is already popular and
unambiguous, to refer to the action that you would call Cast Off.
The term "Cast" is only used in shorthand, to cue definitions
(either by the caller, or by fellow dancers). The fact that Cast is
shorthand (meaning that it is used in informal contexts), and the
fact that the users are a diverse group, few of whom would be
willing or able to change their vocabulary even for good reasons,
means that your task will be daunting and unrewarding if you try to
impose your usage on others. But if it keeps you out of trouble,
you have my permission to try.
The Big Five mentions the call Curlique but I can't find the
definition. It does not appear in the index. It was the 26th most
frequently called square dance call in 1973 according to John &
Bill's Top 30 Calls of Past Years. (Figure 3, page 6.) But now it
has disappeared.
What was it? What happened? How do you pronounce it? Is it
kur-LEEK or kur-LEE-kyew? Why do calls go "extinct?" Should we try
to save them? What will be next? Eight-chain Thru? Spin Chain
Thru? (New ends say, "Curlique" ten times fast.)
In the future will we look back wistfully upon the 70's as the age
of Pringle's potato chips, disco, tan M&Ms and dancing Curlique?
--Dazed and Confused
Beloved Acolyte:
"CURR-lih-KYEW" was a fancy version of Touch 1/4, but the styling
was like Box the Gnat And Girls Roll And Boys Un-Roll. I liked it,
but it was unpopular because of the awkward twirl, the overflow for
the girls, and the perennial disputes about what kind of handhold to
use to prevent broken wrists (e.g., make a fist, don't let anyone
hold on, and jerk your hand away if anyone tries anything).
Curlique was popular before Touch 1/4, and gave birth to a sizable
family of related calls, but it slowly lost popularity. The "arch"
calls have been slowly losing ground to their no-twirl equivalents
for many years, but only Curlique has actually died so far. Star
Thru is still nearly as popular as Slide Thru, but California Twirl
and Dive Thru are being replaced by Partner Trade and Pass to the
Center.
When Curlique was dropped, it's orphan relatives like Curli-Cross
and Grand Curli-Cross were effectively replaced by their "Touch 1/4"
versions when the general suffix (anything) And Cross and the call
Triple Cross were added to the Advanced and C-1 lists. Curli-Wheel
was dropped from C-3A, and its no-twirl equivalent ("Interchange" or
"Touch 1/4 And Change") never caught on. Curli-Cross The Top has
remained a C-4 call, but its no-twirl equivalent (Touch 1/4 and
Hinge the Top) is indistinguishable from Spin the Top.
The same perfunctory slap-and-go styling that is popular at the
higher levels for Star Thru was used to avoid the arching twirls in
Curlique.
Curlique and its common variations (including Curlique and Roll) are
still in limited use at C-4, along with the occasional "Curli Circ And
Dodge" or "Curli Circ And Cross" that are dredged up as relatively
easy-to-guess Test Calls. (Curlique, SPLIT or Box Circulate, and
either Walk and Dodge or And Cross).
Curlique, Pringles, and, to a lesser extent, tan M&M's, are not
quite dead yet.
Where does Grand Square 6 Steps end?
-Just Dwondering
Beloved Acolyte:
That should depend on the definition of Grand Square. Is it 3
Steps, then Turn in place on the fourth beat? Is the fourth beat
a Step that includes a Turn? If the fourth beat includes a Step,
does the Turn happen simultaneously, or at the beginning, middle,
or end of the Step?
Like most of these questions, all answers are correct, but not
at the same time, and the real definition doesn't count, since no
definition is universally accepted or agreed upon.
Squares are 3 Steps wide. The fact that a sloppy Grand Square
takes 12 beats each direction is proof of this.
The Turn happens at the end of a Step. The fact that the real
dancers convert to sloppy Grand Squares is proof of this.
In a precise Grand Square, the Turn is done in place, and does
not include any kind of Step. In the IAGSDC's style of precision
Grand Squaring, it is done with a kick or hop in place.
But notice that 3 is an odd number, which has no middle, while
4 is an even number, which does have a middle. If two people are
taking equal steps, they will meet halfway only if they are using
an even number of steps to travel equal distances. Halfway when
trying to do 3 steps would be 1.5 steps.
Let's look at the first four beats of Grand Square, using this
apostrophe-and-comma diagram: (Facing directions are not shown.)
Notice that this involves the ever-popular "Fence-Post" error.
It is tempting to say that "2" is the middle of "1-2-3," but most
situations actually start with zero, and "0-1-2-3" has 1.5 as its
midpoint.
I dance through A-2 and was recently at a weekend where some of the
workshop material was on Deal & Wheel. As Deal & Wheel was
described, it seemed to me to be a left (or reverse) Wheel & Deal.
How far does the parallelism with being a left Wheel & Deal carry?
In a left-handed 2-faced line, should the call actually be Deal &
Wheel instead of Wheel & Deal? What about Single Deal?
--Perturbed
Beloved Acolyte:
Deal and Wheel is an obsolete and archaic call. It is not currently
in use at any Challenge level. It is also not compatible with other
"Deal" calls, so it cannot easily be resurrected in Challenge
choreography. It only survives today as an anomalous historical
tidbit, and apparently as an occasional gimmick call.
The basic idea behind it is that if you reverse the order of words,
you can, by implication, reverse the only other reversible aspect of
the call, namely Left/Right. There are a few other calls in which
this is done, such as Left and Right Thru. The modern trend is to
use Mirror (or Mirror Image) to reverse left and right throughout
the call, to avoid the confusion of Reverse vs. In Reverse Order vs.
Reverse Leads/Trailers (as in Reverse Stack The Line), and the
ambiguities of weak or loose usages of Left (such as Left Travel
Thru, which for historical reasons starts with a normal Pass Thru
rather than a Left Pass Thru).
The modern interpretation of Wheel And Deal has it resembling
Couples Trade, except that the couples don't go past each other.
When originally introduced, however, it was usually described in
terms of Wheel Around (which is always counter-clockwise). The
right-hand couple Wheeled in front, and the left-hand couple Dealed
behind them (from lines facing out). There was a brief controversy
about the then-new formation of 2-faced lines, and some callers
wanted left-hand 2-faced lines to end back-to-back after Wheel and
Deal (since everyone was Wheeling and ending "in front"). The issue
was soon settled, and the definition became Couples Hinge And As
Couples Roll. When both couples are facing the same way, this means
that they must pass right shoulders.
So, if you are doing an archaic call, do you use the archaic
interpretation? Does Deal And Wheel from right-hand 2-faced lines
end in couples back-to-back? My answer would be No, unless you were
dancing actual choreography from old records or tapes.
There were a few other variations that should be mentioned here:
Wheel But Don't Deal had the right-hand couple in a 1-faced line
doing a Wheel Around in place, to make a 2-faced Line. Deal But
Don't Wheel had the left-hand couples Reverse Wheel Around.
There are also a few calls that are derived from Turn And Deal. For
example, the nearly-obsolete C-4 call Cycle And Deal is like the
Advanced call Cycle And Wheel, but it's defined as Cycle And (Turn
And Deal).
There are also a very small number of calls in which "Wheel And
Deal" has been shortened to _Deal_, as in the C-4 calls Mix The
Deal (=Concentric Wheel And Deal), and its companion call Mix The
Turn And Deal (=Concentric Turn And Deal, but outsides work Any
Hand).
In contemporary usage, the only Single versions are Single Wheel and
Single Turn And Deal. It is not clear whether Single Deal should be
a shorthand for Single Turn And Deal, or the Single version of Deal
And Wheel. In any event, it is not in general usage.
In Square Dancing, this became a figure called Sashay, which was
like a sideways Do Sa Do. A separate folk-modification transformed
the figures Allemande and Chasse into All Around the Left-Hand Lady
and See Saw Your Taw, where "Your Taw" is a corruption of _autour_,
the French word for "around" (as in Sidestep Around).
Sashay and See Saw are both counter-clockwise (i.e., left-shoulder
passes), and they differ in that Sashay starts with the person next
to you, and See Saw starts with the person you are facing. See Saw
is also used as the mirror image of Do Sa Do, but that usage is
comparatively recent.
If Sashay took you all the way around, then Half Sashay would take
you only half-way, and you would have changed spots with your
partner. This was so useful and popular with callers that the
original Full Sashay is now a completely obsolete call. There are
only a tiny handful of references to it in Modern Western Square
Dance, buried in Burleson's Encyclopedia, like Allemande Left, Go
Allemande "A"; With A Right And Left, And A Full Sashay. Such a
figure obviously dates back to the era of rhyming patter, which
hasn't been fashionable for at least a couple of decades.
Now, the name Half Sashay is commonly shortened to Sashay.
Calls like Ladies Center, Men Sashay involve a slightly different
meaning of Sashay, close to the original "sidestep" idea.
The idea of Rollaway came later, and at first involved the Ladies
doing the Rollaway while the Men just did the normal Half Sashay.
It is still sometimes called Rollaway With A Half Sashay. Some
people believe that Rollaway called when the dancers are circling
left, for example, means that the Ladies do the Rollaway while the
Men merely stand still, rather than being the same thing as Rollaway
With A Half Sashay.
There is another call, Eight Rollaway (With A Half Sashay), which
may or may not be an eight-person call, in which everyone does theRollaway action, i.e., everyone does a Trade And Roll And Roll.
This call is still occasionally used at the C-4 level, and it
typically starts from mini-waves. I believe it was originally used
from Thars, etc., which explains the "Eight" in the name.
In the Callerlab definition of Peel Off, the original leads have a
"step forward" as their final motion, and thus shouldn't be able to
roll. But callers use Peel Off and Roll all the time, wanting
everyone to Roll. Who is right? --A Little Frantic
Beloved Acolyte:
This is a good example of the uselessness of "official" definitions.
Human beings are not computers, and human languages are full of
ambiguity. The language of Square Dancing is no exception.
Definitions are there to help the dancers and callers agree on what
actions are associated with what words.
The suffix "...And Roll" refers to an additional 1/4 turn in place,
which is much harder to define than it seems. There are several
traps for the unwary.
The stupid catch-phrase "Parts is parts" is the worst problem.
Calls can have a smooth flowing motion but be described as a series
of sharp or precise actions. Most of the controversial calls
involve different ways to describe motions that are curved at the
beginning and less curved at the end.
The call Chase Right cannot be fractionalized; it is a single
flowing motion. The traditional interpretation was that the
Left-hand Dancer followed a J-shaped path that was more curved at
the beginning than at the end, but still curved all the way through.
I believe that the official Callerlab definition at one time said
that Chase Right resembled Box Circulate 2, except that everyone
could Roll (to face) at the end of the call.
Crossfire, on the other hand, has always been controversial.
Everyone agrees that the ends Cross Fold, and the Centers Trade, but
after that, there is no consensus. Some believe that everyone will
Extend, others think the centers only do the Extend, and some
believe that the centers "Step Forward" in some way that differs
from Extend.
This opens a new can of worms, namely, the "do nothing" problem.
Some calls (like Swing Thru from Right-hand Waves) leave some people
doing nothing while others are still moving. One school of thought
(the currently fashionable one) says that And Roll applies to each
dancer as soon as they finish their part of the call. Doing nothing
doesn't count as part of the call. Another school of thought (which
at one time had the official backing of Callerlab) says that
standing still is part of the call, so And Roll only applies to the
people who are still moving at the end of the call.
But this still doesn't answer the whole question. What if the
caller says "Single Hinge, Centers Trade, and Roll"? Are the new
Ends doing nothing while the Centers are Trading, or are they
standing still? Does it matter if the caller inserts words like
"and" to join the two calls together? Most people would say that
And Roll applies only to one call, especially since the name is
usually listed as "(Anything) And Roll."
Peel Off suffers from several definitional problems, notably the
contrived shoe-horning that makes the Z and Box starting formations
the same. There are also some poorly-thought-out statements
included in the definition.
Yes, these starting formations are mostly correct, but the body of
the definition is written only for the Box starting formations
(either couples or miniwaves):
We'll ignore the grammar of "turns away . . . , walks in a
semi-circle" (which implies that these are separate parts of the
call, when what it should say is something like, "walks in a
semi-circle, turning away from the center . . .").
The ends still have the same problem (J-shaped path) that we saw in
Chase Right, but here it is even less clear, and it gets worse from
a Z.
The last two cases here are nonsense. From a Box Circulate,
everyone has been stepping forward (either before or after turning
around), so they should be adjusting then, not at the end of the
call. And what on earth is "one step"?
The Z problem is harder. Perhaps the definition just assumes that a
Z is always a Trailing Z (e.g., Ends Fold from a Wave). But there
are many other Z formations that allow Peel Off. The other
formations may be less common, and harder to set up, but they'd be
even harder to get out of, if Peel Off were not available.
The One-Faced Z illustrates most of the problems.
Dancer "b" just turns around in place, and doesn't step forward at
all during the call, but according to the definition, "b" must step
forward an unknown amount (since the definition fails to mention the
middle of the formation, which is where "b" already is). Then "b"
turns around, and, possibly, takes "one step" forward.
Meanwhile, "c" does the semi-circle, but doesn't do any stepping
forward, contrary to the definition. Note that even from the common
Z formations, the new ends only do the semi-circles, without
stepping forward.
Dancers "a" and "d" must exaggerate the motions that they do. Note
that "d" must add the extra "one step" (if that has any meaning at
all) near the beginning of the call. That's the last line of the
definition, which might or might not suggest that it happens at the
end of the call, but there's no good way to decide.
And poor "a" has to turn away, move in a semi-circle, step forward,
and then maybe take another one step forward, but by conventional
usage he can still Roll.
A better way to think about Peel Off is to consider the leaders and
trailers to be working together. The call name refers to the
outward motion of airplanes moving apart in sweeping curves. You can
consider Peel Off to have all the dancers face away from the
formation, and then turn as a couple until they are facing
the opposite direction from where they started (1/4 Out, and As
Couples Roll). As they do this, they adjust their position so that
they end up in a line centered on the original starting formation
(whether it was a Z or a general box).
A final consideration in Rolling is that not all callers know what
they're talking about. The many e-mail messages on this topic
haven't exactly been in agreement. Some calls (e.g., Cut or Flip
the Hourglass, or Scoot Back) have well-defined parts, and it is
well-known at the higher levels that some of the dancers can't Roll.
Some callers don't know any better, and others make occasional
mistakes (but phrases like "Roll to Face" often suggest what the
caller wants).
Please explain how to tell when the phrase "To A Wave" refers to the
C-1 concept and when it is just part of {any tagging call} Back To A
Wave.
At the recent IAGSDC convention, I heard one of these called (I
don't remember whether it was tag/flip/vertical tag), and it seemed
that some people did the full "back" call, while others did "to a
wave" -- and most of the floor had problems.
--Timidly Lamenting
Beloved Acolyte:
The call Tag Back To a Wave has "To a Wave" in it because there was
once a related call that didn't end in a wave. Tag Back was defined
as "Tag the Line 3/4; Centers Turn Thru, Outsides U-Turn Back to the
right." It ended with the dancers facing.
Historically, the "To a Wave" in Tag Back To a Wave is actually a
"Step to a Wave" rather than a "Hold the Wave"; you might encounter
something similar when Anne calls "Heads Wheel Thru, To a Wave"
(meaning "And Step to a Wave" rather than 1/2 Wheel Thru or some
such).
Some callers occasionally insert "To a Wave" as filler words in
calls like Flip Back, which is unnecessary, but usually harmless.
It's not clear what's appropriate with tagging calls that include
the word "Tag" (like Vertical Tag Back [?to a wave], or Loop and Tag
Back [?to a wave]), and even less so with calls where the word "Tag"
isn't immediately before the "Scoot" (e.g., Tag the Star Back [??to
a wave]).
There usually isn't much confusion. Most callers say "Centers To a
Wave" when they want the C-1 "To a Wave" modifier in a Scoot Back or
other scooting call.
Since the "-Back" versions of Tagging Calls are box-type scoots
rather than 1/4-tag-type scoots, only the centers can strictly "Hold
the Wave"; very few callers say just "To a Wave" meaning "Centers
Hold the Wave," and those who do deserve the broken floors that they
get. In general, I recommend that you assume "To a Wave" is noise
in any scooting call, unless it's "Centers To A Wave," but, as you
have learned, you should be aware of the possible confusion. If you
can guess what the caller wants, and the rest of your square can't,
it may help to say "CENTERS to a wave" or "The Other 'To a Wave'!"
But like I always say, ambiguity is the bane of good calling.
Is it true that there is a Square Dance call "Stimulate the Column"?
How is it done, and how many people are required? What about the
concepts "Working with Latex" and "Working with Lube".
Beloved Acolyte:
Yes, there is a C-4 call named Stimulate the Column: starting in a
normal column, Circulate 1 and 1/2; Lone ends Counter-Rotate and
Extend, while those in the column of 6 do a Grand Hinge the Top
(i.e., Hinge, and those who meet Cast 3/4 while the others Move Up
as in Fan the Top [=Isolate]); normally ends in waves. Since the
call starts with a Circulate, the C-2 Anything concept applies,
e.g., Split Counter Stimulate, in which the first full circulate is
replaced with another call. Note also that there is a weak tendency
to reserve the words "the Column" for the full call, and use only
the "Stimulate" part for variations (similar to the distinction
between the Advanced calls "Transfer the Column" and "Split
Transfer"). Stimulate the Column is an 8-person call, and the
sound effect is "Heh-heh-heh."
Loop is a call on the C-2 list, similar to Run. Macros in LaTeX are
available (from ftp://ftp.x.org/misc/c4/papers/tex-squares.sty) for
those who want the maximum for their presentation tools.
When one finds oneself attending a square dance function and, due to
relocation or inactivity, one has no badge from the appropriate
club, what should one do? A) Appear nameless? B) Wear a club badge
where one was formerly a member (even though it may be years since
one has actively contributed to the club)? C) Another option known
only to the wise guru?
I have tried option "B" when attending a dance in the area where
I've lived for three (non-dancing) years. I was asked by my
partners and corners if I was visiting, and when I replied that it
was my most recent badge, I was told I was a "fake and a cheat." (!)
I have since ordered a badge from that particular club, but wonder
what course I should take for an upcoming fly-in. I wouldn't want
to appear thoughtless and offend dancers by wearing their club
badges, if inappropriate. Do you have any suggestions, O Solomon of
the Square?
Beloved Acolyte:
Badges remind acquaintances of your name, avoiding those awkward
moments when others (or even you yourself) forget who you are or
where you're from. Badges also show support for local clubs, or
they identify visitors from distant clubs. It is quite common to
wear old badges when, for example, current badges have been lost or
misplaced, or when divorced women return to their maiden names. If
you need to sweet-talk a club sheriff who checks for badges, you can
show good faith by wearing whatever badge you did find, instead of
one you couldn't find, so you might not be fined.
Politeness dictates that you join local clubs or associations when
you start dancing in a new area, and that you buy and wear the
appropriate local badge, to show political and financial support for
dancing in the area. The penalty for doing otherwise is gentle
teasing about not really being a local yet, to which you can reply
that you've not yet been offered a local badge. Old badges can even
be worn intentionally, to start conversations.
Another popular choice is a generic name-only badge. Miniaturized
club-badge dangles can be added to indicate multiple clubs, avoiding
the dilemma of what badge to wear, without wearing multiple badges.
People will naturally assume that your badge reflects your current
name and home, so you should try to stay current if you wish to
minimize confusion and avoid questions about the latest news and
gossip from your former hometown.
On a Linear Cycle, why do the dancers say "Hinge, Fold, Pass (or
Follow), Peel" when it should be "Hinge, Fold, Follow, Trail"?
It's obvious that Plus dancers don't know Trail, but that seems a
slim excuse for perpetuating the wrong thing.
--Doggedly Striving
Beloved Acolyte:
Simplicity may be tempting and comforting, or even beautiful in its
own way, but that doesn't always make it right. Linear Cycle is a
3-part call (even according to Callerlab): (1) Hinge; (2) Vertical
Tag All the Way But Don't Adjust; and (3) Peel toward the hand used
for the Hinge into the vacant un-adjusted space. Since Vertical
Tag is a C-1 call, the definition must be reworded and explained
for Plus dancers.
The Peel in the definition isn't a Peel Off, it's a Peel In, toward
the center axis of the formation. (Peel is syntactically like
Cast; instead of In/Out/Right/Left, you substitute the word "Off"
for "Out" when you use the explicit directions, and only the "Off"
versions are still popular in each case. Trail Off, however, is a
pun on Peel Off and Cross Trail Thru, and it is rarely or never
used with directions.)
But notice that Trail Off is effectively a Sashay and Peel Off:
After 2/3 Linear Cycle, there is a definite center axis, which a
Trail Off would force you to go past. There may be a great deal
of modification needed so that the Peel will be done relative to
the outer margin rather than the central axis, and so that space
will be "invaded" (to use up the empty space rather than forcing
the formation to grow outward), but it is definitely more Peeley
than Trailey.
Starting from Parallelogram Facing Lines, what is the ending
formation for Parallelogram Split Recycle?
--Pensively Musing
Beloved Acolyte:
It ends in a Tidal Wave. You only restore the offset of the
Parallelogram if it is possible to do so. (This is unlike certain
other concepts, like Butterfly, O, or In Your Block, in which you
work to footprints, and Concentric or All 4 Couples, in which you
use a more complex rule.)
Parallelograms and other sliced formations use the same basic rules
for shapechangers, in that you to preserve the amount of overlap
(usually 50%) and the direction of the offset, but any dancers who
end on the shear-axis will just stay there; it's called the Solomon
Rule, because you can't cut a dancer in half.
Be careful with the Solomon Rule. Concepts like As Couples or In
Tandem make it important to notice where the parentheses are.
One way to think of the Solomon Rule, however, is to consider a
simple and obvious shapechanger, and make that the standard:
Finally, the Solomon Rule can be applied partially, when only some
of the dancers are on the center line.
*** Addendum ***
O Most Exalted One:
What about Parallelogram Fascinate? Is it legal?
Beloved Acolyte:
Yes, of course it is:
This leaves you in an Offset Quarter Tag overlapped by 50%, if you
start in a normal Parallelogram. Of course, your matrix is
undetermined, but you know that you're overlapped by 50% for
whatever the next call is. (I think you're 2/3 of the way over, so
that the overlapping spots consist of, here, the outside belles and
1/2 each of the center dancers, for a total of 2 spots. If the next
call were Follow Thru, you would assume that "Parallelogram" was
implied, which it typically is for shapechangers from
offset/parallelogram footprints, so you would end in a normal
50%-overlapped Parallelogram.)
There's even more ambiguity when the offset goes the other direction
in Parallelogram Diamonds/Quarter-Tags, since you're not in a
12-matrix. For simplicity, I illustrated it like this:
But this doesn't preserve the 50% overlap, nor does it erase it
entirely with the Soloman rule. In fact, the adjustment is stored
partly in the minds of the caller and dancers, and partly in the
position of the points or outsides; it would be reasonable to call
Flip the Parallelogram Diamond from there, ending in Offset Waves.
But this touches on a problem that goes beyond merely adjusting
Parallelograms. In any formation like those illustrated above, the
exact positioning will be ambiguous, because the structure of
Diamonds and Quarter Tags is only an approximation, with two
conflicting kinds of topology at the same time. In the Diamond
example, the outside points are In Tandem with the center points,
while simultaneously being in the outside Triple Diamond:
In formations with more than 8 spots, the Diamond Points and Quarter
Tag Outsides don't know what is expected on a call like Loop or
Press that requires you to know where you are in the matrix.
The root of the problem is the fudging in the universally accepted
isomorphism between a 12-matrix and normal Twin Diamonds or Single
Quarter Tags. As the number of formations increases beyond 2, the
adjustments become too large to ignore, and the caller must be very
cautious and explicit:
Notice that in the middle diagram, the outsides are in 2 Lines of 4,
while the other diagrams show two distinctly different locations for
the real people in Triple Tidal Lines of 8. It would be reasonable
for a caller to expect the dancers to adjust to or from the middle
setup if the context required it, but to adjust directly from one
outer diagram to the the other would be inappropriate, awkward, and
bogus.
In Motivate, the definition has the dancers move to the end from the
star by doing an Hourglass Circulate, but earlier it has them move
TO the star by doing a 1/2 Circulate instead. Callerlab, the Big
Five and the C1-C2 Cedar Chest all have this difference.
Why is that? If Hourglass Circulate is acceptable to describe the
last motion, why not the earlier one?
As it is, if the trailing ends do 1/2 Circulate from lines, they're
out there on the borders of the formation, not in the center for a
star -- no wonder dancers "can't see the star".
--Fine Kettle of Fuzzy Logic
Beloved Acolyte:
Well, for one thing, Callerlab explicitly says that any dancer on a
centerline can Hourglass Circulate as a very center. You may think
this is foolish, but it keeps the definition of Tally Ho workable.
(It makes the other dancer's part ambiguous, but we seem to be able
to live with that.)
Another consideration is that the ends concentrically 1/2 Circulate,
and then ignore where they came from in order to determine the
location of the Star; this only makes a difference if the ends are
T-boned to the centers (and the initial Circulate Once is done
concentrically, or deleted, as in the C-2 "Anything" Motivate).
A third consideration is that, once you make the Star and turn it,
you're holding hands across the Star, in the very center of the
square, so you're a Center rather than an End, whereas after the 1/2
Circulate on the outside you can be the point of the Center Diamond.
After the Star turns, your position is no longer ambiguous, so you
actively leave the center.
Finally, there is no particular advantage in defining the call
symmetrically. Circulate 1/2 is probably more familiar to most
dancers than Hourglass Circulate, so there is no reason not to use
it.
The use of Hourglass Circulate in this context is not haphazard, but
carefully considered. It may not be ideal, but it the best
compromise for the situation.
At a recent dance we were in this 16-matrix formation:
The caller called Siamese Z ...(some call, Chase Right, let's say).
It was clear where the Siamese Z was, but I could not figure out
what the ending position should be. Does it work to footprints,
giving a new 16-matrix, or does the couple end up centered on the
tandem? Did Siamese Z abolish the 16-matrix and create a new 3x2
matrix? Would it have made a difference if the caller had said "In
your distorted Siamese Z"? In this particular case it didn't
matter, but if it did, is it defined?
--Almost Kept Me Sleepless in Seattle
Beloved Acolyte:
Yes, it makes a new 3x2 matrix, and, no, it wasn't distorted, but it
also isn't particularly defined. It ends in a Siamese Z, but with
whatever spacing you like; the matrix is not restored, and it
doesn't work to footprints.
The various "working as a unit" concepts, like Siamese, or As
Couples, have an ambiguity in their spacing if the units are
different in size, shape, or orientation. The most common
situations have either a normal formation with excess dancers
attached in various places, or an expanded formation with each
position large enough to have a unit centered inside of it.
Depending on what the units are, and what the starting formation
is, you may be expected to preserve the kind of starting formation,
or to adjust to something more ordinary. Occasionally, callers will
want the formation "normalized" (i.e., lined up edge-to-edge,
without unnecessary gaps), but that will usually be clear from the
context, or at least from the next call.
For example, "Some work As Couples, and all Single Hinge" has the
same result from each formation:
It would be very uncommon to start in a gap-y grand wave, but that
would also suggest that you should preserve the spaces:
Some concepts, like the newly-generalized 3 By 1 concept, tell you
to always Normalize when possible, but some people (myself included)
think that that is usually awkward and should be avoided. Most
calls are not so well-defined, and many are simply ambiguous:
The Siamese concept, on the other hand, customarily ends with the
units centered on each other, regardless of where they started:
Note that we leave space, but not phantoms or matrix spots. It
would be awkwardly unconventional choreography, but it would be
perfectly legal to call a 16-matrix call from there:
A strange phenomenon occurs with Siamese formations, and also with
Triangles and Galaxies: The spacing tends to breathe itself outward
until it resembles Diamond points, or C-1 Phantoms. For example, if
a 4-handed Star loses one dancer, the opposite dancer in the Star
will invariably slide out and become a Point rather than staying in
the 3-handed Star. Similarly, if an individual dancer or a Couple
is supposed to be holding hands with a Tandem, there will be a gap,
almost as if the Tandem were circular or spherical instead of
columnar.
So your Siamese Z Chase Right is ambiguous. The fact that you start
in an "attached" setup suggests that perhaps you should also end in
one, but that's very rarely the right answer for Siamese. You
should probably make the "centered" formation, but be ready to
adjust.
Note that a normalized Siamese formation produces a rarely-used and
choreographically inconvenient 9-Matrix, which cannot be made back
into a Z, because Z shapechangers are not well-defined:
From a left-handed tidal wave, what shoulder do the centers pass on
"Divide the Ocean"?
--Fertile Ymagination
Beloved Acolyte:
Your question contains its own answer. It's not a question about
what shoulder they DO pass, but what shoulder they SHOULD pass, and
the definition is quite clear: the Center 4 Hinge, then Partner
Tag, Step Ahead, and take the call or facing direction if one is
given. Partner Tag is defined as a right-shoulder pass.
But the fact that you asked the question betrays the fact that real
dancers don't always follow definitions. Since Hinge and Partner
Tag (from right-handed mini-waves) is very similar to Trade and
Step Thru, or to Turn Thru, it should not be surprising that many
people assume that it should always flow that way.
Partner Tag from a left-hand mini-wave is usually considered to be
bad flow, and can only be made worse by the forward-curving action
of a hinge, so it naturally follows that (when faced with a choice
between good flow, that produces the same net result, and slavish
adherence to a "correct" traffic pattern) only the very best dancers
will martyr themselves in order to be able to complain loudly about
the awkward flow.
After learning Relay the Deucey and Acey Deucey, several students
wondered about the meaning of "Deucey". Is there some sort of
commonality among the Deucey calls?
--Humble but Enquiring Mind
Beloved Acolyte:
Yes and no. The root call is Acey Deucey, which is defined as Ends
Circulate while the Centers Trade. The name is derived from either
a card game or a variety of Backgammon, where it means, literally,
One-Two. At the time the call was invented, it was rather novel,
because it had multiple things going on, with some people Trading in
pairs and other people Circulating individually. But it's not
really clear which is the "Acey" and which is the "Deucey"; for
example, there are at least 3 different names for Ends Zoom while
the Centers Trade: Acey Zoom, Zoom The Deucey, and Deuce's Wild
("He sure was"), of which only the last one is still used at C-4.
In general, the only relation among Deucey calls is that they all
have different parts, usually a Trade or Cast in the middle and some
Circulate or other non-Trade-like call for the Ends or Leaders.
Relay the Deucey, for example, has many Trades and many Circulates,
which propagate through the formation.
"Deucey" is the preferred spelling, but my dictionary also allows
"Deucy"; other spellings include "Ducey" and "Ducy," which looks
like it should be pronounced "Ducky," and is the origin of the
quacking sound effects for various Deucey calls.
What is the story behind the "kissing" sound effect used on many
calls with a Slither movement?
--Just Osculating
Beloved Acolyte:
"Hiss" is an occasional sound-effect for Slither, because snakes are
known for slithering and hissing. Over a sound system, with an
appropriate bit of static or poor microphone placement, it is easy
for "Hiss" to sound like "Kiss," and the rest is the stuff of urban
legend.
Note that the kiss on a Slither is only popular among the gay and
lesbian community, and that it is typically a same-sex kiss.
Is it kosher (for C1 dancers) to call Swing the Fractions from a
setup like this?
I can make the Sd program do something that seems like a swing the
fractions, but I wonder whether it's a legitimate use of the call.
--Kind of Jumpy
Beloved Acolyte,
Yes, it's legitimate, but no, it's not kosher.
The key here is that you're implicitly invoking the Parallelogram
concept for shapechangers (the 50% rule). How are C-1 dancers
supposed to know that the center Triple Wave does the first Hinge to
become the center Triple Box? Why wouldn't each Box become a Wave
(Parallelogram overlapped by 75% or so)?
Just because the outsides breathe out by default at C-4 (which is
what sd always does) doesn't make it right at C-1. It's just as
reasonable for the centers to breathe while the ends stay put. I
think there's a good reason that the Parallelogram concept is on the
C-2 list. I think it's inappropriate to have Parallelogram
adjustments be the default at all levels. It adds vast amounts of
unnecessary complexity to choreographic theory, and isn't in the
best interests of Square Dancing.
There's also the minor point that the outside mini-waves are turning
by the same hand with the same people multiple times. Part of the
definition of 1/4 Thru, for example, says "There must be dancers who
can do each part -- the call is not legal, say, from a right-hand
tidal wave"; a similar idea can be assumed for Swing the Fractions,
in the sense that it requires alternating hands. It may not be
illegal, but it's questionable. It's a fuzzy issue at best.
I would be willing to workshop this for C-1 dancers, telling them
that it's a marginal usage, but they might see it sometime, and not
to worry about it. Since it's somewhat contrived and gimmicky, I
would avoid calling it more than once. I personally wouldn't just
call it out of the blue; it pushes the envelope just a little
further than I would want. The dancers probably wouldn't have a
problem with it, but I don't think it deserves a significant place
in a good caller's repertoire.
Just out of curiosity, can Stretch only be used on four-person
calls? And does it implicitly mean the box version? For example,
would "Stretch Side Track" mean to do a Box Side Track, or is this
just a bogus call? What about "Stretch Counter Rotate"?
-- Fertile Ymagination
Beloved Acolyte,
Yes, Stretch can only be used on 4-person calls, because you must
be working in a formation on each side of the set in order to
Stretch across to the other side.
The caller is responsible for using 4-person calls. Calls like
Stretch Side Track or Stretch Counter-Rotate are not quite bogus,
but they are poorly phrased. A good caller will insert the word
"Split" to make the meaning clear.
Stretch Counter Rotate by itself could be ambiguous, because the
caller might be one of those few (thankfully) who think Stretch can
mean to do an 8-person call and then Slither the Centers past each
other. When a caller shows signs of peculiar opinions, violating
the conventions of accepted usage, the observant dancers may begin
to question whatever that caller says.
Using Stretch to imply Split or Box is a dangerous practice, because
it opens up the possibility of confusion for the clearest and most
conventional calls like Stretch Recycle. If Stretch implies Split
in some contexts, how will we distinguish a wave-type Stretch
Recycle from a box-type Stretch Split Recycle?
Is it legal (from parallel two-faced lines) to call Stretch Bounce the
Trailers? Bounce seems to be a 4-person call, but on the other hand it
requires the other four dancers in order to identify who the trailers are.
-- Less-than-Positive
Beloved Acolyte,
Is it legal? Yes and no. Your question cuts to the very heart of Square
Dance theory.
In calls like Bounce, the designation customarily applies to the dancers as
they were at the start of the call, unless otherwise specified. For
example, Bounce the Centers is always the Original Centers, unless it's
called as Bounce the New Centers.
Here, we're really dealing with a terminology conflict between the Stretch
concept and the Leads/Trailers identification. Are they still Trailers if
their Leads are in a different formation, which by definition isn't working
with them? Any competent C-2 dancer should be able to see the conflict (at
least after it's pointed out), but competent C-2 dancers should also know
immediately what the caller wants; it's not at all ambiguous, it's just a
bit bogus. Sometimes the most inventive, creative, or entertaining
choreography is not strictly legal. If something is obviously bogus, but
still clear and unambiguous, there really isn't anything wrong with calling
it.
The popular "Separate Rooms" paradigm for concepts says that you can take
the dancers and phantoms in your formation into another room, doing the
call in isolation, without any additional information about the formation,
and then put the formation back together in the original square according
to the appropriate rules for the current concept. This paradigm is very
limiting, and, by encouraging dancers to ignore each other, it creates
habits that are antithetical to good dancing.
Other paradigms require more intelligence and judgement on the part of the
dancers and callers; these paradigms allow the dancers to use information
like the positions and facing directions of the other real dancers, when
necessary. For example, in 2-faced lines, Own the Ends, Crossover
Circulate by Trade Circulate: The Ends can immediately do their Crossover
Circulate, but the Centers need to decide which kind of Trade Circulate to
do. If they use Separate Rooms, they have no idea which kind to do. If
they use the facing directions of the real people, it's obvious that their
Trade Circulate is the one that's not equivalent to Everyone Crossover
Circulate.
Consider (lines or waves) Once Removed, Centers Run. Certainly, they are
not Centers of the Once Removed couple or mini-wave, but there are no other
Centers available. The alternate formulation, Centers Once Removed Run is
even less appealing, because the Ends don't know whether or not to work
Once Removed. Does the fact that it's bogus mean that it's illegal? Or
perhaps that it shouldn't be called? Not necessarily. For teaching
purposes, I once called Jay Good Show; I don't think it's good choreography
for dancing, but it's good for thinking, learning, discussing, and
doubting.
What if we called Stretch Bounce the In-Facers (instead of "Trailers")?
Clearly, they are facing In at the start of the call, even if there is no
one in front of them. If the dancers use their own positions and facing
directions, it's less controversial. But is there really a difference
between Trailers and In-Facers?
And what is a designation, anyway? Remember, "My name is not what you call
me, but what I answer to." If the callers use the terms one way, and the
dancers respond accordingly, then that's what the calls mean. You may not
be comfortable defining "mean" that way, but there are no viable
alternatives. Square Dancing can never be as standardized as computer
networking protocols, or programming language specifications; there are too
many callers with good ideas and firm opinions. If a call or usage is
ambiguous or controversial, it will cause squares to break down, and it
won't become popular.
|