If you are learning Modern International style from a book understand this. The books are dealing with steps and not beats. The Waltz is easy to understand. Rise at the end of step one is also rise at the end of beat one. Foxtrot, rise at the end of one has nothing to do with the music. It means rise at the end of step one which is beat two. And to continue. your second step is on beat three and so on. If you are into Latin we have a different situation. The book clearly states beside each group that the first step in Rumba is on beat two. the second step is beat three and so on. I think all of the above was worth mentioning and should be understood.

Possibly. Certainly, I believe, that's how the authors intended it. But some would argue that either they were shortsighted in their choice of description, or that's not actually what they intended. Either way, here's the logic:

A beat, like a step, occupies a span of time.

The beat begins at the initial strike, and continues until the strike of the following beat.

Most of us would agree that when a step is perceived to be "on time" with the music, the foot should strike at the same moment the beat strikes. But here's the rub: If we are to agree that the step and the beat begin and end at the same time, we must also therefore agree that the step begins at the moment the foot strikes (eg stops moving and begins taking weight). However, most technique books do not describe this as the beginning and end points of a step. In fact, the ISTD book itself would characterize this point as being the exact opposite: They acll it "mid-stride".

Most of us, the ISTD included, think of the beginning of a step as the moment one foot passes the other, as the moving foot begins its journey towards its new position. The step does not end until the next moving foot has completed its "follow-through". But if you were to attempt to apply this perception of a step to the generally accepted perception of the beginning and end points of a beat, you would be striking each step exactly half way between the beats.

The only possible concludion, therefore, is that in order to dance "on time", one must not align the beginning of a step with the beginning of the beat. Instead, one must begin the step before the beat, so that the foot strikes at the same time as the beat.

The question then becomes, "Does the ISTD mean to say that the rise begins on the end of step one, or at the end of count one?" The obvious answer is that they are describing rise as being at the end of step one, which is easily inferred by reading the text of some of the longer figures (eg "rise at the end of 24", whereby there are not 24 beats in a measure of Waltz music).

But to rise at the end of step one, if you are to follow the ISTD's own description of the beginning and end points of a step, you would have to begin rising before the moving foot passes the standing foot. This is much earlier than almost anybody would condone commencing foot rise. And so it is my conclusion that this discrepancy is an oversight by the ISTD. Maybe they were just trying to keep things simple, but what they forgot is that their book is scrutinized by the most analytical of minds, and discrepancies like these lead to more confusion.

Regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan,

I also see the ISTD technique description shortcomings in that it focuses entirely on 'outcomes' or 'reactions' without much attention given to the intent or the process that produces these reactions. Also, it describes technique based on a particular stylistic interpretation. For these reasons it fails intirely if is used directly by beginner and novice dancers to learn ballroom. Also, it does'nt help the emerging competitive dancer reconcile what he is doing with what is described in that technique.

Considering your statement:

"But to rise at the end of step one, if you are to follow the ISTD's own description of the beginning and end points of a step, you would have to begin rising before the moving foot passes the standing foot."

You are correct in my opinion. There is no 'intent' to rise at the end of step 1(certainly in the case of the Waltz natural turn, if anything you can continue to soften 'down'). However as the weight is collected on 1 and the moving leg comes to the new supporting leg the weight rolls from heel to ball and as this roll happens the heel leaves the floor. So while the moving leg comes to the new supporting leg (end of 1, after the mid-stride) the heel of the new supporting leg is also leaving the floor. So at the end of step 1 (123 Waltz Natural turn) one wants to be knee soft and weight well-forward on ball of foot and the heel will be off the floor.

The question is whether the ISTD technique consider this heel leaving the floor as the weight rolls from heel to ball a 'commencement of rise at the end of 1'. In their very narrow of rise (footrise and heel leaving the floor) this may be what they consider rise. I'm not going to argue with anyone about what the ISTD do or don't mean with some of their descriptions.

The point I'm making is that in a figure like the Waltz Natural turn, I agree that there is no 'intention' to rise at the end of 1 however the heel leaves the floor because the intention is to finish step 1 with weight held well forward on ball of foot on a soft knee, ready for the upswing, 'forward'.

Rha

When should the heel leave the floor on the first step of a Natural Turn in Waltz .Surely it must leave the floor before the foot turns otherwise we are into Latin technique where in all Spirals and Spot Turns the whole of the foot is in contact with the floor. So do we turn with the whole foot flat, or do we lift before. That is slightly and not popping up like in a Samba Basic.