Anonymous. You do of course know that in the Waltz when the feet come together we commence to rise at the end of 1. Continue to rise on 2 and 3 lower at the end of 3. As you are probably aware when there is a move where the feet pass we dance rise and fall as in Foxtrot which is. Reverse Weave in the Waltz. Rise at the end of 1 up on 2 and 3 lower at the end of 3 which takes on the characteristic of rise and fall in the Foxtrot for reasons that should be obviouse. I don't think anybody will try to lower verticly on a linear step.

Our spine is always virtical when we lower excep for perhaps a sway to the side only.

"You do of course know that in the Waltz when the feet come together we commence to rise at the end of 1. Continue to rise on 2 and 3 lower at the end of 3. As you are probably aware when there is a move where the feet pass we dance rise and fall as in Foxtrot which is. Reverse Weave in the Waltz. Rise at the end of 1 up on 2 and 3 lower at the end of 3 which takes on the characteristic of rise and fall in the Foxtrot for reasons that should be obviouse."

I might agree with you in terms of what should be done (have been contemplating that for a while) but in terms of what little is officially given, you appear to be wrong. You will not find a reverse weave in the book for waltz, but looking at figures without foot closure, such as the weave from promenade, outside change, etc you still see "waltz rise" - commence end of 1, continue on 2. There is a bit of a lack of evidence though, as we don't have classics such as the open natural from promenade officially documented.

To get an obvious case you of foxtrot rise in the waltz, you have to look at one of the lady's heel turns, where its necessity should be obvious. (By why then is it missing in foxtrot's natural twist turn?)

Suomynona. You appear to be agreeing and then disagreeing. We call, what you call The Weave from Promenade Position, a Reverse Weave and Passing Change. The whole thing is then called a Reverse Weave by us. In the book the whole thing from the beginning to the end is one group with the rise and fall as a Foxtrot type, No extra rise on three. Commence to rise end of 1. continue to rise on 2. (up on 3 ). lower end of 3. Feather in the Foxtrot exactly the same rise and fall. The key words are continue to (rise on 2 and 3)
Foxtrot (up on 2 and 3 )
It would have been much better if in the Waltz Natural Turn it was down as
rise on 2 and continue to rise on 3. ;-

"In the book the whole thing from the beginning to the end is one group with the rise and fall as a Foxtrot type, No extra rise on three. Commence to rise end of 1. continue to rise on 2. (up on 3 ). lower end of 3. Feather in the Foxtrot exactly the same rise and fall. The key words are continue to (rise on 2 and 3)
Foxtrot (up on 2 and 3 )"

Quickstep, you are not really making any sense here. First you say the weave from promenade has foxtrot rise, then you give waltz rise for the feather - and of course there is never extra rise on three unless syncopation means the lowering will be on four.

Waltz rise: commence end of 1, continue on 2, lower end of 3.

Foxtrot rise: rise end of 1, up on 2, up and lower end of 3.

The weave from promenade has waltz rise in the waltz... and foxtrot rise in the foxtrot - but don't listen to me, go look it up.

It's true that when rising to pass the feet from two into three the trajecrtory will be different than when rising to close them, but this seems to be below the level of detail given in the book descriptions of waltz figures. It would be very interesting to see an official description of the rise in something like an open natural turn from promenade (danced in the waltz, compared to the book listing for foxtrot only).

Once again. Waltz. commence rise at the end of 1. continue to rise on 2 and 3.lower at the end of 3.
To me that means there is further rise on 3.

Foxtrot. commence to rise at the end of 1. up on 2 and 3. lower at the end of 3.
To me that means 2 and 3 are the same height.

In my book a Weave from Promenade. This is Waltz. the rise and fall is commence to rise at the end of 1. continue to rise on 2, up on 3. lower at the end of 3.

To me this means there is no further rise after 2 onto 3.

That is why I say the when we have passing steps in the Waltz it takes on a Foxtrot characteristic. Because the steps are linear with no verticle lowering.

Okay, now that you focus my attention on step three your meaning is clear.

I had previously been distracted by the obvious difference on step 2, where the (waltz) weave from promenade still matches waltz rise and is not foxtrot like.

But you have a good point that the foot closure figures continue to rise on 3 (too close the feet) while the passing figues do not, a property shared with the passing foxtrot figures. I'm quite glad to see that this very necesssary difference is in fact reflected in the written technique.

The one thing I would add is a caution against equating rise and fall with altitude. Watch top couples dance something like a feather and it will become clear that the actual descent starts as soon as the feet pass at the end of step two. This is decent due to leg division, a subject on which the written technique is nearly silent. The formal "lower" in the ankle and knee does not start until the final part of step three - after the foot is placed.

Suomynona. Your last pharagraph 3/15/06
Only confirms what Len Scriviner was preaching over 50 years ago. Foxtrot Feather Step. He said after the first quick we are actually on our way down. Correct me if I am wrong. The books say up on two and three. Lower at the end of three. Which is wrong so the man said in his book .

"Suomynona. Your last pharagraph 3/15/06
Only confirms what Len Scriviner was preaching over 50 years ago. Foxtrot Feather Step. He said after the first quick we are actually on our way down."

True, but

"Correct me if I am wrong. The books say up on two and three. Lower at the end of three. Which is wrong so the man said in his book . "

You are wrong, and the book is right. The lowering action does not commence until the end of step 3, just as is written.

You are still confusing the action of lowering, something that occurs in the ankles and knees, with the incidental reduction of altitude that occurs as your feet seperate. The lowering action is in the book with the correct timing - it does not occur before the given point. The earlier incidental loss of altitude is not mentioned, in part because it would have been far less visible with the lesser amount of leg division used in that day.

Again, remember the book is not written for students, and as a result a simple reading will be misleading. It is written to remind teachers of details they should already know.

That is why I say to those who say we should spend a year reading the book.BUNCK