Polished. Youv'e lost mean on this one. What do you mean by "open" ?

anymouse, I don't understand your obsession with the use of the word "open" to describe Promenade Position.

The definition of Promenade position in both Moore and Howard is quite clear. The man's right side and the lady's left side are in contact while their opposing sides are not. Why is the word "open" unacceptable in characterizing the side which are not in contact in this position?

Whatever may be happening with the shoulders, the partners' torsos will be what Howard describes as "turned out" (a better choice of words than "open" perhaps but they both mean the same thing). It is that turning out which allows the man's right and the lady's left foot to "step through." Without that turning out of the body (including the hips), the Chasse' from Promenade Position (or Promenade in the Tango) would be impossible to execute.



jj

"Whatever may be happening with the shoulders and hips, the partners' torsos will be what Howard describes as "turned out." It is that turning out which allows the man's right and the lady's left foot to "step through." Without that turning out, the Chasse' from Promenade Position would be impossible to execute."

Ultimately, the turning out or away from the partner is limited to the feet and perhaps the hips, with the topline remaining parallel to the partner in promenade as well as 'closed' postion.

Even Alex Moore, for all his comments that have been misinterpreted to suggest turning off the partner, recognized this. For example, see his description of the chasse from promenade with its specific note that the man's body is practically square to the wall throughout (the feet are of course aligned DW). That makes the bodies, or at least the upper bodies which seem to be the specific object of this note, parallel between the partners.

The simplest practical explanation is that promenade is the compromise between the need of the partner's knees to both work in a forwards direction, and the need of their toplines to remain parallel. On the more skilled dancers, this is hardly a compromise at all, as both goals are achieved without shortfall, but in less precise settins the bodies are often seen to diverge in order to facilitate the forwardish leg/knee action when flexibility is lacking.

"Ultimately, the turning out or away from the partner is limited to the feet and perhaps the hips, with the topline remaining parallel to the partner in promenade as well as 'closed' postion."

You're trying to gain leverage with imprecise terminology. For example, do you use the word "topline" to mean the shoulders or the shoulders and the torso? If you mean the latter, then you are simply wrong. The torsos are not parallel in Promenade Position; relative to the man's right side and the woman's left, the other sides are open or turned out (Howard specifically uses this term to describe the position of the bodies).


"For example, see his description of the chasse from promenade with its specific note that the man's body is facing wall throughout (the feet are of course aligned DW). That makes the bodies, or at least the upper bodies which seem to be the specific object of this note, parallel between the partners."

So now it's "upper bodies" instead of "topline"?

Whether or not the "upper bodies" are parallel depends on what the woman is doing in relation to the man; you only mention the man. What line is her "body" facing?

"The simplest practical explanation is that promenade is the compromise between the need of the partner's knees to both work in a forwards direction, and the need of their toplines to remain parallel."

The simplest explanation is the one given by both Moore and Howard. Promenade Position is defined by the sides - not by the feet, shoulders, or hips.

jj

"The torsos are not parallel in Promenade Position"

They will be as parallel as possible; that does not mean perfectly so, but there is no desire to turn out the torsos any more than is absolutely required to permit the action of the legs.

Promenade is simply not characterized by turnout of the bodies - it's characterized by doing only what is need to let both dancers legs work in the forwards direction.

""For example, see his description of the chasse from promenade with its specific note that the man's body is facing wall throughout (the feet are of course aligned DW). That makes the bodies, or at least the upper bodies which seem to be the specific object of this note, parallel between the partners."

So now it's "upper bodies" instead of "topline"?"

Moore says body (is square to the wall) with no specificity as to what part of it. I think he's playing a little fast and loose there, so I try to specify that we are seeking parallelism literally in the upper bodies or toplines, and as close to parallel as possible in the middle of the body, with the understanding that some turnout there will be required, but that we should have no more than is required to make it work. Trying to make literal sense of Moore's comment, the hips cannot be square to the wall, but the upper part of the body can.

"Whether or not the "upper bodies" are parallel depends on what the woman is doing in relation to the man; you only mention the man."

No, it does not, as upper bodies parallel is a universal requirement of dance hold, regardless if that's closed, outside partner, or promenade in the lower bodies.

"What line is her "body" facing?"

The parallel opposite of his at the top, and an intersecting one to his in the hips.

"The simplest explanation is the one given by both Moore and Howard. Promenade Position is defined by the sides - not by the feet, shoulders, or hips."

No - this is the common mistake made be people who fundamentally fail to understand what promenade is about, and fall into the trap of taking a description of what a student might do as if it were a definition. Promenade is ultimately, functionally, about both sets of legs working in the forwards direction, and the bodies need to accomodate that - there is no merit in turning out the bodies for the sake of turning them out. Developing dancers eventually come to realize that any turnout beyond what is required to enable the legs is simply a sloppy mistake.

It's also interesting if you look at the pre-ballroom history of the idea of promenade. That idea has the bodies parallel to each other, but parallel because they are both facing the same way and square to the feet and travel - what in ballroom we might call a variation of shadow position. It would appear that as ballroom was being invented this started to close up, through a sloppy V. towards the eventual realization (present in Moore's explanatory, notes, but missing from some of his descriptions), that the cleanest configuration is for the partners to stay parallel to each other, holding their bodies sideways to the travel and dancing across their feet on a forward diagonal.

There's a very interesting photograph printed in Craig Revel Horwood's truly awful book "Teach Yourself Ballroom Dancing", that shows Len Goodman (who chairs the judging panel on BBC's Strictly Come Dancing, and its spinoff, DWTS) standing in PP with his partner.

The accompanying text says "You both have to create a V-shape with your torsos" and indeed, there is Len with his shoulders quite open - more so than his hips. Without doubt he will step forward in CBMP - he is not so open as to be facing forward as he steps, but the V is there, just as it is described and implied in all the technique books. I don't understand the dance world's fetish for denying the obvious.

It MAY be that to have the upper bodies as parallel as possible, consistent with allowing the feet to come through would represent an appropriate development of the standard technique, but it isn't the standard technique until it is adopted by the leading teaching societies: and none have made any move to recognise the change.

"indeed, there is Len with his shoulders quite open - more so than his hips. Without doubt he will step forward in CBMP - he is not so open as to be facing forward as he steps, but the V is there, just as it is described and implied in all the technique books. I don't understand the dance world's fetish for denying the obvious."

What is obviuos is that the picture you reference is one of a sloppy promenade as might be done by untrained dancers.

The shoulders more open that the hips element - which is eactly backwards from what it would be in real dancing - is the part that leaves no room for question. I wish Len didn't look down on beginners by showing them bad technique in this way, but it's probably a practical decision based on reality that this video is not intended to teach serious dance skills, but to provide just an taste - and does this by watering down and distorting the methods in actual use by experienced dancers to produce something that is conceptually more distinct and memorable, but ultimately quite wrong.

So it might be one thing to dance that way at first when you don't know any better - but don't keep doing it as you advance, unless you wish your dancing to always appear sloppy and ignorant. It's quite obvious from simple geometry that any position in which both hands are in normal hold, but the bodies are turned out, will be quite weak and will force either the trailing arms to pinch, or the leading arms to drop to horizontal - it's invariably a weak position, and experienced dancers invariably attempt to avoid such opening when they are trying to dance promenads well.

"It MAY be that to have the upper bodies as parallel as possible, consistent with allowing the feet to come through would represent an appropriate development of the standard technique, but it isn't the standard technique until it is adopted by the leading teaching societies: and none have made any move to recognise the change."

If you had sufficient lesson in-person experience with the leading teachers of these societies, you would realize that parallelism is indeed a key component of what they teach. The problem is that you are trying to do something that they do not endorse - to read the teacher training manual as some sort of holy writ to be implemented on your own without guidance. Invariably, what you end up implementing is as much misunderstanding as it is the official technique.

No, it is a studio picture set up to illustrate a standard dance position (PP) featuring a very well known and experienced dancer, teacher and judge. By all means argue that your interpretation is better, but what Len is showing IS what every single dance technique book describes.

See if you can get your proposal adopted by any of the recognised teaching societies, and let us know how you get on ....

"No, it is a studio picture set up to illustrate a standard dance position (PP) featuring a very well known and experienced dancer, teacher and judge."

Who is demonstrating for beginners that he apparently assume will not be able to do the real thing, and so need a version that has been made degenerately obvious.

"By all means argue that your interpretation is better, but what Len is showing IS what every single dance technique book describes."

No, it's what students without real teachers falsely assume the technique requires. When you read the technique book from a perspective of more practical experience, you realize that 90% of it's references to 'body' are actually targeted at the hips alone. There is extremely little commentary on the proper usage of any part of the body above that.

"See if you can get your proposal adopted by any of the recognised teaching societies, and let us know how you get on ...."

They adopted it generations ago, and have - including the authors of the books you misunderstand - been teaching it all along. How else can you explain Moore's advisory note on keeping the partner's bodies square to each other in the chasse from promenade? (and one must assume that this is one of the few places where the upper body is meant, as it would not make much sense otherwise)

But in some cases they've apparently only been giving the true technique to their "real" (as in competitive) students - some such as Len seem to believe that since it's too complicated for the social mass market they should give a simpler, broken version for that. Personally, I discourage using promenade until students have the skill to learn it right.

The Chasse from PP isn't danced IN promendade position, but FROM promenade position. Why wouldn't man and lady be square after step 1?