The Progressive Link should not be confused with the Promenade Link. This latter figure does end inline.

I've followed with interest all the comment over the last couple of weeks over the correct presentation of a Chasse from PP (and the issue of the body alignment of PP generally), and now, this week's "Variation" on this site ends with a Promenade Chasse, which couldn't show more clearly the classic turn out of the bodies in the V shape referred to in the technique books.

V-shape of the bodies, sure. But look closely at the shoulder lines and you'll notice that they are, if not perfectly parallel, then at least very close.

By the way, that's me on the video clip. And I am a firm subscriber to the idea of shoulders parallel (or almost), hips open, feet open more. Any time I don't produce that, I consider it a mistake.

Depending on your build, you can get away with a tiny bit of angle between the shoulder lines. But it doesn't take very much before the top lines start to distort.

Our friend Polished is so caught up in what people have written in some book that he's neglected to look at the end product of his theory. Show me a couple with 90 degrees between shoulder lines and I'll show you a horrifyingly broken dance position.

Regards,
Jonathan

Anonymous . There is no mention of the bodies of either the man or lady being square or practicaly square to the wall in the Progressive Chasse following a Whisk. Will you read page 147 correctly.I have Marcus Hilton Basic Waltz on my computer. I can move the figures a fraction at a time. I have done this on a Whisk and Chasse. I see a V shape between them on the Promenade and untill the lady turns square. This is what Andrew Sinkerson teaches. I was there. Square to a wall he was not, neither is Marcus. Go and look for yourself. Which is upheld by the technique book which says there is no turn for the man on a Whisk.Does it say that or does it not. I take it that you can read.

Polished,
When you refer to alignments are you relating this term to the feet or the body? Would you give a straight answer, either, feet or body. I'll stress again, is it feet? or is it body?

Polished, since you refer to page 147 I assume you are reading the 9th edition. As I explained earlier, the 10th edition contains a much more detailed description of the chasse from PP.
The 9th ed. makes no mention of CBM or CBMP which are included in the 10th ed. Both these have an effect on the body position. The 10thed. note says "The slight CBM on 1 will ensure that the body is practically square to the wall the whole time, thus keeping the bodies in a good alignment on step 5, the outside step".
There are however other clues to the body alignment in the 9th ed. The man's LF is twice placed "side and slightly forward along the LOD". Those steps would need to be diagonally forward if facing DW, or to the side if facing Wall, so we must be somewhere in between.

I now refer you to the IDTA technique book by Guy Howard (which I know you do not have). Note to Whisk as man "There will be a slight body turn to R on 3".

Nice observation, SQ, but I think you'll find that indisputable visual evidence doesn't count for much with some folks on this board.

I have the Variation DVDs and Jonathan and Melissa execute the Promenade in their Tango with pretty much the same configuration. If you look at the Veyrassets' videos for International Standard (Tango or Waltz), you'll see that turnout again.

Some seem to believe that the lady's turnout will be either zero degrees or ninety with no possibility of anything in between.

jj

"Some seem to believe that the lady's turnout will be either zero degrees or ninety with no possibility of anything in between."

The foot turnout will tend towards 90 degrees (in other words almost directly into the movement) to the degree achievable, while the upper body alignment will tend to be as parallel to the partner as possible. Rather obviously the parts of the body in between will have to make up the difference.

A low level student will either not have the flexibility to do this (even with the officially recommended 45 degree foot alignment), or will have difficulty showing a clear sense of direction and will simply become all contorted in the attempt - thus the often watered down presentation and the tendency towards turning out the entire body. But a high level dancer will adapt their body to both the direction of movement and the matching of their partner.

How many times are you going to repeat the same thing?

We all get it. The shoulders should not be turned out as far as the feet. We got that several days ago.

Show me one video - instructional or demonstration or performance in any Standard dance - in which the partners shoulders are parallel in Promenade Position or during the Promenade itself.



jj

I like to think I'm doing just that whenever I dance, however, close inspection of video clips on this website reveal that I'm not always perfect in this respect. On the other hand, it also reveals the end result of such imperfection: You can tell very clearly, without having to break out a protractor, just how close to parallel our shoulders really are. The more open our shoulders, the more broken my topline becomes.

You can see it very clearly in this week's variation, in the very first Twinkle. If you compare the end of step 3 (where my right foot almost passes my left) with the foot strike of step 4, I make a very big and noticeable correction in the rotation of my shoulders, and you can see the difference in the topline. At first I'm turned about 1/16 off of Melissa (between diag wall and wall), causing my right shoulder to be slightly jacked up and forward -- not so much to look literally broken, but definitely weakening the look overall. Once I fix it and add that little bit of extra twist a half-step later, my chest is turned exactly to the wall (hips still open to diag wall), and the topline is solid as a rock... If I may say so myself.

So there's the video you requested. Better than just an example of right or wrong, this is an ideal display of wrong next to right, a perfect display of cause and effect. I couldn't have done it better myself. Oh, wait a minute...

Regards,
Jonathan