In which case, how do you know that I am correct in saying that IDTA Technique does not mention body contact? Howard = IDTA Technique!

As for the Sway on a Chasse from PP, the chart gives "Sway: 1 2 & 3". Of course, this is a misprint - one of dozens in the ****** book, and the column heading should be "Timing". However, there IS a column headed Timing, and that says: "1 1/2 1/2 1". Er, no. Those are the beat values.

But for anyone who doesn't know (perhaps they believe the Introduction, which states categorically: "The book is a complete work. The candidate ... will find ALL THAT IS NECESSARY there-in"), there is no sway on a Chasse from PP.

1 2 & 3 anyone? I'd like to see that.

I had to chuckle when I looked at wikipedia's definition of artistic or poetic license, and found "used to denote the distortion or complete ignorance of fact".

1&23 or 123& for a Chasse? Hmm.

Telemark. All i have to do is pick up the phone. I can call any one out of scores of people who will look in their books and tell me what i need to know.

Anymouse,
I've read in a couple of places that there are several different "schools of thought" with regard to standard dancing(body, square, round, and traditional, I think) and latin dancing. But no one really seems to define the tenants of each school, or to provide information on the founders of each school, or give examples of current couples from any of those schools. It seems to be just a "hide the ball" game for people who say that these schools exist and then turn to tangential issues when asked for specific details. Are you able to provide any concrete information on any these schools? If so, are you willing to do so?
I'm very curious about these "schools", and would appreciate any information that you might be able and willing to share.

I believe " schools " is an inaccurate description .

essentially , it is this..

The approaches to hold and body positioning, even tho subtle , are distinctive in their own right.

The " italian " ideas on movement in general are best described as being more " grounded " and appearing to over extend some progressive movements ( for e.g. in F/T )creating a much lower look .It also appears to me to be more "laboured " .

One has to go back to the 3os and early 40s to see what might be known as the "Classic English " style.. a strong fwd pitch was employed ( some still adhere to those principles ) this was evident in Scriveners approach to some degree and would fit into the" round " school.

The first major change that I recall, is the much more upright stance of Irvine .
I would place him in the "Sq" and maybe Body school of thought .

I hestitate to pigeon hole current coaches, primarily because their intentions may be somewhat different with changing times .

dance is evolutionary, and every knew champion attempts to put their " mark " on the practical application of dance..one also needs to consider what influences were brought to bear in the early days of coaching .

There is no right or wrong " style ".. choose what ever suits you .

terence2,
Thanks for those snippets of information. I appreciate it.

I'm certainly not trying to label any of the schools as right or wrong - it's just that I can't choose one if I don't know what they teach. Right?

You know, I can pretty readily find out the basic differences between, say, Harvard and Stanford - I can find information on the curriculum and faculty, and maybe even some prominent alums, and make my decision about which one I'd want to attend.

But, gee - try to find out that kind of information about these 4 Standard Schools so that I can make an informed decision about instruction and no one will provide even the most basic of outlines of what/how they teach. It's very frustrating.

Cyd,
Thanks for your insights. Please don't think that I expect everyone to come out of a particular school as though they were formed by a "cookie-cutter". I realize that doesn't happen, and I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing anyway.

But Ms. Serve presumably identified 4 Standard Schools of Thought because each one emphasises certain things - even if dancers apply them to their own particular bodies and partnerships. I'm just trying to figure out which "things" fit into which schools.

For instance - what "things" is Andrew teaching you that appeal to you and work for you for your "style"? Who was Andrew's teacher, and what did his teacher emphasize? Does he know anything about these "schools of thought"?

Thanks.

Your instructor should NEVER pull up your shoulder, but rather help encourage it down. Ian Gillette (who is well over six foot) has come to my studio and danced with the shortest woman there, she isn't even 5 feet tall. However, he adjusted his frame and posture so as to be a match for her and make both of them look good. He did this by taking a slightly lower dance hold than he might normally and then relaxed his forearm, from his elbows down so that where his hands were on her shoulderblade was much lower to suit her height. This way one can effectively dance with someone of any height without disturbing one's own frame or the frame of one's partner.

There is a common misconception about where arm position should be. If the couple is well-matched, your arms should be at the height of your sternum, NOT the height of your shoulders.