There's actually more body flight into step 1 than into step 2.

Step one must go in the position determined by the body flight of the previous downswing. There is simply no choice in the matter.

But once you rise some through step 1, you have the option of redirecting step two in a new direction - your options are less restricted by the lesser remaining body flight, since some of your energy is now stored in rise. Both the closed changes and the underturned (1/4 turn) natural and reverse make use of this, as well as the obviously named quarter turns in quickstep. Still the more common course is to continue in the same direction on step 2, as used in all 3/8 turning figures.

"There's actually more body flight into step 1 than into step 2."

Depends on how one would define body flight but I generally don't agree with that. There are possible choreographic exceptions to what I'm about to say and I don't mean to be prescriptive but one generally continues to build onto the 'flight' (power, momentum and energy) from the end-of-3 into step 1 into step 2, ever increasingly in the Waltz. One can dissipate or maintain that 'flight' between step 2 and 3 depending on one's choreographic intent thereafter.

"Step one must go in the position determined by the body flight of the previous downswing. There is simply no choice in the matter."

Obviously how one has already danced the previous step has an influence on how one is going to dance the step that is to follow, it sets a context of what can be done, yes. But it does not absolutely determine what it will follow.

Rha

"I don't mean to be prescriptive but one generally continues to build onto the 'flight' (power, momentum and energy) from the end-of-3 into step 1 into step 2, ever increasingly in the Waltz."

You are confusing multiple types of energy. Body flight is kinetic energy, specifically kinetic energy in a particular direction sufficient to force you to either take another step in that direction, or loose your balance and fall. This is at its maximum at the lowest point in the swing. Once you start to rise, you are converting kinetic energy to potential energy - you have less body flight (even if you might have greater total energy, though I believe total energy should be constant in efficient dancing). Because potential energy does not have a directionality (besides 'up') the more that your energy is in the potential form and not in the kinetic form, the more freedom you have to choose the direction of the next step. That's why in the waltz we must never, ever change direction between 3 and 1, but only after we have converted some of our body flight to rise (between step 1 and 2) or for a more flowing action, as the rise peaks between step 2 and 3.

I am learning by the minute. Thanks all. I must not understand, If we arrive on a high heal on the left foot ,then the foot is not used for additonal energy so we don't push from it in the NT. It is only used to collect our weight. All the energy coming from the lowering of the third step and first. In a sycopation where the first two steps are slow followed by a rise would we have three thrust. 3,1,2.

"You are confusing multiple types of energy. Body flight is kinetic energy, specifically kinetic energy in a particular direction sufficient to force you to either take another step in that direction, or loose your balance and fall. This is at its maximum at the lowest point in the swing...."

Fair enough, you are welcome to a difference of opinion with me but I'm not confused, dear.

Firstly, body flight is much more than kinetic energy in a particular direction. The physics of an inanimate object does not equate to a human dancing body. Body Flight is an artistic term and does not directly relate to a particular concept in the science of physics.

The body swing and rotation in the horizontal plane continues to build into step 2, add to that the lateral swing of the hips (up-swing) from the end of step 1 into step 2 and then even further to that add the use of the knees and ankles of deeply soften standing leg that propels the body from the end-of-step 1 into step 2.

The entire character of step 1 of the Waltz is a preparation for the powerful 'swing' from the end-of-1 into step 2. There are definite actions, coming from within the dancers body from the end-of-1 into 2 that maximize what in dancing terms is 'body flight'.

Rha

Well Rha aand Soumyona you both now have me confused ? Rha's way of dancing the basic 18 of the waltz is the way I was taught, and may be fine for first learning to dance up to bronze leval, but I think as we learn to develop more power and swing in our dancing we make less use of the left foot(second step)to increase the swing or control the rise since we will have enough swing power to carry us up to the top from the timing of the lowering on through to step one. But I feel that you are more knowlegable than I (this is a compliment) so this is why I am confused. The way it is described in (A Technique of Advanced Standard Ballroom Figures 2004) is not the way I was first taught back in 1980. Dave.

Dave
Things change.I have an Andrew Sinkinson teaching tape, and his 1-2-3 of the natural in slow waltz departs from the technique book. (and this isn't the 'advanced' section of the tape)
Actually, we've come a little away from my original posting.
At the top of the rise at the start of 3, how straight are the legs? Do you dance this with a conscious bending or softening of the knees, or are they straight (not locked)?

Please read previous comments. We have been looking at this from the mans steps. When we look at how the lady swings her right hip and foot back into place we will see that the leg is straight,that there is no pushing up off that foot and that it is not used to control the timing. Yes I know the man controls the timing but the lady has danced her timing and rise with the swing of that hip.

Hi Dave,

No doubt, the Waltz is being danced with ever increasing flight and therefore the flight in all steps has increased over time.

What I am contesting, is very specifically the relative difference between the flight into step 1 versus the flight into step 2 ie., generally I disagree that the flight into step 1 is more than the flight into step 2, in the basic figures dancing the classical musicality.

To achieve the 'classical' Waltz character and musicality one should dance the end-of-3 into 1 into 2 with ever increasing flight. The entire mechanics of the basic steps are constructed from this musical intent that harmonises the flight with the way the musical tension is built and released in the music. And I don't see the very best messing with the 'flight' pattern I mention when dancing the basics (not that I'm prescibing that one should never...you will not find me using that kind of language).

Yes, there are other musical interpretations and choreographic possibilities and by all means dance them, no harm there. Variation is important.

Rha

Thanks Rha. I personally find it easyer and more enjoyable to dance it more horazontal with less sway and the way that Gleave dances and describes the basic waltz in his video. When teaching someone to dance for the first time you obviosly have to get them to dance the timing with each foot since they have no flight. I still don't know the difference between step swing and step push. Where is the incorrect push taking place ? It can't be on (one) the first step as we roll over the foot onto the ball using the ball toe for more power to push off do we not? or are we supposed to have have enough power from the 3& . But as you say the old way is to increase the power gradually over step one and two. The problem with the old way is that it does not work that way when we swing into a FSPivot or a DRS here we step and swing onto the second step, perhaps the new way if it is new,of dancing a NT makes it easyer to swing into the next movement. I say try dancing a curved feather from a contra check without using the second step to continue the rise or control the timing