I was talking to a really good dancer the other day and an interesting point came up about rise and fall.
A bar of slow waltz lasts the same time as a bar of foxtrot. The rise in slow waltz is commence to rise on 2, continue during 2, be up at the start of 3 and lower end of 3. Breaking the bar in to half beats, the rising takes place on 2, 2&, and 3. This is 3 half beats or half a bar.
For foxtrot (using the feather step as an example)the rise is on 3, you're up on 4, lower end of 4. This means the rising is 3 half beats, but there are 8 half beats in the bar.
So the rise is more abrupt in foxtrot. I always thought of foxtrot as more 'leisurely' and flowing, with gentler undulations.
Any comments?

I wouldn't say it's more abrupt...you're not rising as much in foxtrot because you don't have the combination of body rise and foot rise like you have in waltz, so you don't need as much time to do it.

Phil,

For the sake of clarify I will start by saying the following:

1.Precisely defining when rise or fall occurrs in terms of beats and half beats of the bar is difficult at the best of times because of the possibility of varying musical interpretations by the dancers that allow for subtle variations as to when rise can commerce, continue and be up etc. The same goes for lowering.

2.Prescribed technique adds to the confusion because there are inconsistencies between the precribed techniques definition of rise (or fall) and a 'common' sense notion of it. For example in the prescibed technique the 'closing of the feet' together, as in the 3rd step of the Waltz natural turn, is regarded as a continuation of rise because the frame is gaining elevation as a result of this action. In contrast the separation of the legs on step 1, considering the length of stride the modern dancer takes on 1, and the subsequent relaxation of the knee is not considered a 'lowering' even though the frame is reducing in elevation. These apparent inconsistencies challenges our 'common' sense perceptions. And this is just one example.

3.The rise-n-fall of the prescribed technique was codified at a time when dancing was far less dynamic in movement and musicality. Prescribed technique rise-n-fall is not incorrect, in fact far from it, but it does often confuse what is fundamental and unchangeable about mechanics of movements and therefore essential to the character of a dance and what is merely 'one man's/ institutions' interpretation of the mechanics that produce that character. Then there is the added complication that the very character of the dances themselves are subtly changing and evolving.

4.Then there is the issue of your understanding vs my understanding of the beats and half-beats within a bar itself. My view is that the time interval between the 'down-beat' of two beats of music belongs to the 1st 'down-beat' and not the 2nd 'down-beat'. For example beats 1,2,3 of the Waltz. The half-beat '&' that can be placed between 1 and 2 and therefore occupying the time interval between 1 and 2, ie 1&2, is the half-beat of the 1 and not the 2. 1& is the two half-beats of 1. Your 'breakdown' of the beats and rise implies something different.

For the sake of this discussion lets narrow down our definition of what 'rise' is, from that of the prescribed technique description of rise, to my narrower definition, ie 'a definite intent to project the movement upwards and/or forwards'. This removes incidental elements of rise like that which comes about from the closing of the feet under the body or the 'heel' leaving the floor and therefore happen to change frame elevation without a definite intent to rise. Note that I'm only taking them away from the prescribed definition and not from the actual movement. They will still ocurr in the same way as before. We just wont confuse them with the term 'rise' according to my definition. Also lets analysis the movement in terms of steps 1,2,3... (as in the prescribed technique) rather than beats of music.

Now I'm are ready to analyse rise for Waltz and Slowfox, in its broadest sense, taking into account all possible musical interpretations and modern ' dynamics'. In both the Waltz and SloxFox, rise must commence 'somewhere' between the end of step 1 and step 2 bearing in mind that one must have fully risen by the time one's foot is 'placed' for step 2. Bear in mind that the placing of the foot is a sliding of the foot over the floor before it anchors and starts to bear weight.

So, the rise in both cases is really very similar. The difference in character of the Waltz rise vs the SlowFox rise really comes from the amount of relaxation of the knee on the preceeding step, that is step 1. The Waltz character and music allows for a deeper relaxation of the knee on 1 than the SlowFox music/ character does on 1. However there are figures in the slowfox where a deeper relaxation does not detract from the character of the SlowFox.

Now the prescibed technique for the Slowfox (feather) says 'rise end of 1' . This is not incorrect because it makes an assumption that there was hardly any relaxation of the knee on the preceeding 1 and indeed if this where the case you would have risen by the end of 1. But the modern competitive dancer looking for a longer length of stride and greater dynamics relaxes the knee much more on 1 than the prescibed technique assumes. This is not incorrect either but the dancer must not now attempt to rise abruptly at the end of step 1 to satisfy the prescribed book. Just as in the Waltz he can commence to rise at the end of step 1 and must be fully risen as the foot is 'placed' for step 2.

The prescribed technique of the Waltz (Natural turn) says 'the continue to rise on 2'. This is really 'incidental' rise and merely adds to the confusion when mixed with 'intent' rise. You are fully 'intent' risen as the foot is placed for step 2. After that continue to stay up and close the feet for step 3.

'SlowFox vs Waltz rise', really more similar than different.

"In contrast the separation of the legs on step 1, considering the length of stride the modern dancer takes on 1, and the subsequent relaxation of the knee is not considered a 'lowering' even though the frame is reducing in elevation."

This is simply explained by remembering that the lowering must occur before leg division commences - hence the lowering precedes the action of the step. You lower into the trailing part of the foot, then roll through the foot, and only then divide your legs.

"The rise-n-fall of the prescribed technique was codified at a time when dancing was far less dynamic in movement and musicality."

The issue is not that dynamics and musicality have increased, but rather that they have become disconnected from the underlying mechanics of the dance in the understanding of many dancers. The book technique makes sense if you dance correctly - but if you attempt to dance for show without mastering the underlying mechanics, the book seems out of date. Apparent discrepencies between what the book says and what makes sense are 10 times more likley to be hints that you misunderstand what you are supposed to be doing, compared to problems in the book itself - this goes for pros too...

"This removes incidental elements of rise like that which comes about from the closing of the feet under the body or the 'heel' leaving the floor and therefore happen to change frame elevation without a definite intent to rise. Note that I'm only taking them away from the prescribed definition and not from the actual movement."

Closing the feet is one of the elements of the formally defined rise requested by the book, as is lifting the heel when it occurs before passing of the moving foot. Though when the heel rises after the moving foot has passed, it is not an element of rise.

"In both the Waltz and SloxFox, rise must commence 'somewhere' between the end of step 1 and step 2 bearing in mind that one must have fully risen by the time one's foot is 'placed' for step 2. Bear in mind that the placing of the foot is a sliding of the foot over the floor before it anchors and starts to bear weight."

This is incorrect. Rise commences before the end of step 1 in both dances, which is to say the heel must lift before the new moving foot passes on its way to step 2. The rise is not complete as the foot is placed for step 2 - it is not even complete when that foot is weighted. Although rise does not continue as steeply after the first step in foxtrot, in both dances the maximum rise is reached as weight comes onto step 3. This is particularly notable in weave-type groupings, where the rise will peak slightly on the 2nd to last step.

"So, the rise in both cases is really very similar. The difference in character of the Waltz rise vs the SlowFox rise really comes from the amount of relaxation of the knee on the preceeding step, that is step 1. The Waltz character and music allows for a deeper relaxation of the knee on 1 than the SlowFox music/ character does on 1. However there are figures in the slowfox where a deeper relaxation does not detract from the character of the SlowFox."

A good start, however foxtrot is not constraied from lower as much as waltz, rather it is constrained from rising as much. In foxtrot, we do not stand over a nearly straight leg on 3 the way we do when we collect our feet in waltz. (An interesting question - is the rise for a curved feather in open waltz different from that in foxtrot?)

"Now the prescibed technique for the Slowfox (feather) says 'rise end of 1' . This is not incorrect because it makes an assumption that there was hardly any relaxation of the knee on the preceeding 1 and indeed if this where the case you would have risen by the end of 1. But the modern competitive dancer looking for a longer length of stride and greater dynamics relaxes the knee much more on 1 than the prescibed technique assumes. This is not incorrect either but the dancer must not now attempt to rise abruptly at the end of step 1 to satisfy the prescribed book. Just as in the Waltz he can commence to rise at the end of step 1 and must be fully risen as the foot is 'placed' for step 2."

This is completely incorrect as the logic follows from flawed assumptions. The presecribed technique does not restrict the lowering, nor require a more abrupt rise in foxtrot. In both cases, the rising action at the end of step one is very similar, as it comes from the same early rising of the heel. The difference is that in waltz the upward trend continues as the feet gather and straighten under the body, while in foxtrot the rise does not continue as dramatically. In neither case is there a requirement that the rise be complete on 2.

"The prescribed technique of the Waltz (Natural turn) says 'the continue to rise on 2'. This is really 'incidental' rise and merely adds to the confusion when mixed with 'intent' rise. You are fully 'intent' risen as the foot is placed for step 2. After that continue to stay up and close the feet for step 3."

NO!!!

This is the key difference between waltz and foxtrot rise. In foxtrot, rise after step one is gradual and fairly incidental. But in Waltz, the actions of the next two steps are specifically designed to increase the rise. In particular, the closing of the feet into the third step should not be danced as a closing action, but rather by increasing the foot rise at the end of step 2 to draw draw in the moving foot. Foot rise continues through the weight change into the first part of step 3, then naturally cycles 'over the top' and into the lowering.

The reason I'm being so insistent about the continued rise in waltz being a result of inentional actions is that this is the key component of the energy management that makes the dance precise.

In foxtrot, you drift across your feet with fairly little alteration of track - even the turns are nearly continues walking actions that only incidentally involve a change of places.

In contrast, waltz uses intentional rise to absorb the linear momentum into a lilting action. If you attempt to aim from 1 to the top of 3 in waltz, you will either go off balance or miss the foot closure (this is practically endemic in pre-champ openings). To stay on balance, you have to intentionally convert forward momentum to increased rise. On each step, you have to lift yourself slightly above the swinging trend established on the preceding step (in effect, your feet and legs have to substitute for the tension in an imaginery pendulum string).

Anonymous,

I'm not saying that the Prescribed Technique contradicts itself. You miss the point I'm making about the contradiction between the 'common sense' notion of the dancer and the prescribed technique. Prescribed technique rise-n-fall may be perfectly clear to you but it is my experience that even the reasonably experienced dancer, without the indepth knowledge and understanding of the subtle nuances of the prescribed technique that you had I have (hope you don't mind me including myself), finds it hard to find consensus with his actual dancing experience of rise-n-fall and that of the prescribed technique. It is for this reason I call this an 'apparent' contradiction between the dancers common sense notion and what he/she understands from the prescribed technique. Note I use the word 'apparent', meaning that it may not actually be so. I am talking from the perspective of the dancer and his personal experience. This topic was started by such a dancer grappling to find consensus and I've read and heard many, many discussions over many years that cover the same territory.

Your view is that ballroom now, in the 'modern era', is not more dynamic with greater ranges of musical interpretation than at the time of the codification of the prescribed technique (Alex Moore & co). Dancers
are generally misled doing a lot of crazy, showy stuff. I cannot comment for every dancer but I contend
that the top champions of today are dancing more dynamically, and technically accurate at the same time,
than the champions of the 'past'. It's just that, the technique they are using is not necessarily reflected in the prescribed technique. Your view contradicts what can be seen of earlier dance recordings in comparison to the dancing of the champions of now and the comments made by many past champions about the champions of 'today'. By making this statement I do not imply that prescribed technique is irrelevant, completely outdated and useless. Neither is this my approval for ignoring all technique. Rather, like all ideas that grow and prosper, the prescibed technique needs to be critiqued and continually revised to include the ideas that work in practice and our new learnings about movement. You are correct in saying that the prescribed technique is largely correct but it does not accomodate certain aspects of competitive ballroom as it is danced today. It has been a little slow in revising some of the 'fundamentals'. They do regularly add and remove figures though.

You take some kind of issue with me saying that main difference in the character of the Waltz rise (natural turn) vs the Slowfox rise (feather) is the amount of relaxation of the knee on the preceeding 1. I say Waltz music and character allows for greater relaxation of the knee. In retort you talk about the straightness of the leg at the top of the rise as being the real essence of the different. I disagree to put it mildly. In fact I never heard anyone put forward your point of view before.

You talk about a flawed assumption I make about the assumption made by the prescribed technique and that the prescribed technique does not restrict lowering. I never mentioned anything about the prescribed technique explicitly restricting lowering in my previous reply. I talked about the assumption made by the prescribed technique about the amount of relaxation of the knee on the preceeding 1. By the way, technically, this is not even considered lowering. To get back to the point, in the prescribed technique, the amount of relaxation of the knee on the preceeding step is definitely implied from the type of rise that is to follow and the character of the dance. In the SlowFox (feather), prescribed technique says 'rise end of 1'. Now if the character of the SlowFox is a smooth, easy, flowing dance and you are expected to 'rise end of 1' then the implication/ assumption made by the prescribed technique for the amount of relaxation on the preceeding 1 is pretty clear. It must be 'slight'. The point I'm making that contradicts the rise given by the prescribed book is that one can use a 'greater' relaxation of the knee on 1, however one needs a more gradual rise than the prescribed technique. Then one can still maintain the smooth, flowing character of the slowFox but with greater dynamics. This is what most top class dancers dance.

Finally you take issue with the elements of rise that I consider incidental, as opposed to intentional.
Namely, continuation of rise which comes about from the closing of the feet under the body or the 'heel'
leaving the floor. Now I'm not going to contest whether the prescribed technique meant these to be
intentional or not. I concede that it would be possible to dance these rises intentionally. As you mention, there is the benefit of control over the movement. But the danger is that it is all 'so nice' and not very interesting. What I can say from my own experience and watching others is that the top class modern competitive dancer does not dance these 2 elements of rise intentionally in movements like the Waltz Natural turn or SlowFox feather. It simply does not add to better dancing, create greater dynamics, bigger movements, greater length of stride or forward progression etc. Analysing how the modern competitive dancer will dance the Waltz Natural turn for example: On step 1, he's going to let his weight roll over the foot from heel to ball, so the heel is going to leave the floor quite naturally without any intention of rise. Any attempt to intentionally rise too early, before the end of 1, will impede the forward momentum. As the weight get to ball, it is intentionally projected as far forwards and upwards (in the correct proportion) as the dancer has the capacity to handle. This is the intentional rise, all done by the time the foot is finally placed for 2 (weight bearing position). At this point the dancer feels at his/her maximum stretch and will simply stay up as the very explosive power of the swing close the feet under the body. There is massive continued incidental rise coming from this closing of the legs coming under the body and the heels being able to naturally get further from the floor as the feet line up parallel to each other in 'normal' position. Because the modern swing is so explosive, sway, shape, proactive partnering, etc. have become the array of instruments that the modern dancer uses to control the movement, adding even more to the dynamics.

many thanks to you both for the very detailed discussion. Just to reply to Rha for a moment, i agree that the '&' as in '1&' belongs to beat 1 (as in standard musical notation) and i certainly didn't intend to imply otherwise.
I also agree that trying to link rise and fall with beats in the bar has its pitfalls for the reason you stated. however, i have to start somewhere!
I liked anonymous's explanation of rise and fall of the waltz..."To stay on balance, you have to intentionally convert forward momentum to increased rise" As a scientist/engineer i feel on home ground with this sort of stuff! Is the rise in slow waltz a result of transferring linear kinetic energy developed in beat 1 into vertical potential energy on beat 3? (this question is asked with tongue firmly in cheek)

"Is the rise in slow waltz a result of transferring linear kinetic energy developed in beat 1 into vertical potential energy on beat 3?"

Yes. I saw some calcuations someone did comparing the kinetic energy at 3-1 with the potential energy at the peak of the rise, and it's fairly close.

To Rha, I'm not denying that dancing today looks more dynamic, however what I am saying is that the truly expert dancers in this "new" style are still using the classic technique, in both word and deed. Unfortunately, most of the 2nd-rate competitors immitating them are not, because they are attempting to do very advanced things without sufficient preparatory training.

Just make sure that if your legs are normal the thighs should be the first thing that closes, the foot comes in last giving a delayed effect which will not happen if the foot are jamed shut.