There are two ways of looking at this. If this is the first three of a Natural Turn or wherever
First split the three beats of music into six. 1 and 2 and 3 and.
1 step forward turning at the
end of
( and) Bring the LF to a
neutral position under the
body bending the right knee.
2 Step to the side
( and) Draw feet together.
3 (and) Rise and lower.
That is steps with the music
as per Richard Gleave who suggests
that in practise both should count
out loud including the ( and's ).
Second method positions not music.
1. RF Forward. 2. Bring leg under body and compress. 3. Step to side.
4. Close feet.
5. Rise. 6. Lower.
As an excercise
On the even numbers the foot was lifted off the floor and replaced. This is to make sure that the weight is fully commited on each step. Dancing foot to foot are the words used. In both methods it can be seen that the rise and fall are seperated from the rest This is exactly as was given to me by two teachers who would both know what they were about..Richard and Andrew.

"In both methods it can be seen that the rise and fall are seperated from the rest"

If you take a step back far enough to look at the overall action, it is quite obvious that the rise and fall must be continous across multiple phases of your 6-segment breakdown. You can't concentrate it all in a few of those half beats and expect to create anything that looks like dancing - rise and fall have to begin and end slowly, to create a smooth movement with no sharp jerks to it.

"2 Step to the side
( and) Draw feet together.
3 (and) Rise and lower."

This breakdown either contradicts the official technique or proves my long-held suspicion that the step numbers and musical beats do not in fact match.

Officially, step three begins when the closing foot is halfway closed. You have labeled that as the second half of beat two, so either the beats mismatch the steps, or you have described a sequence of actions which violates the official step description.

Actually, you have labeled the closure as completing during the second half of beat two, wheras in the official technique it must not be more than halfway complete at by the end of step three.

Something does not match!

start of step 3

Anonymous. I've just been looking at John Wood's tape. With a slow count stopping on each major beat. Then moving to a count. Then with the music to a count. The feet are together on three having closed the feet on an ( and ) count. Does that answer you querie. If you think about it, if the closure of the feet is only half way you would have to lower immedaitely on arrival. Where would be the rise on three. Anyway it is very clear from the tapes. Two of them.
Balance is mentioned all through the tape. The steps are described this way. Most people do not Swing on step two. There is Turn at the end of step one. Then there is Swing on step two. Most people only step to the side on two making it very uninteresting. So the man said. I at this point in time cannot see where the above contadics anything in the book. That is looking through the book.
Also mentioned most of the un-enlightened ladies forget there is on a Spin Turn a drive on four and a swing onto five. It's all on the tape.

"Anonymous. I've just been looking at John Wood's tape. With a slow count stopping on each major beat. Then moving to a count. Then with the music to a count. The feet are together on three having closed the feet on an ( and ) count. Does that answer you querie."

No, you are mixing up beats and steps.

The official technique says continue to rise on 2 and 3. That would be STEP two and STEP three, not beat TWO and BEAT three.

Step thre is officially defined to begin when the foot is halfway closed. So the formal requirement is that rise continue beyond the point at which the foot is halfway closed.

There is no statement that rise must still be ongoing as the foot continues closing.

Nor is there any statement giving the precise phase relationship to of steps to beats - nothing says what part of the step should fall on what part of the beat.

"Balance is mentioned all through the tape."

Well if that is what he said then, like most dancer teachers, he is factually wrong. You cannot be in balance unless your body weight is over or between standing feet. Any examination of a tape of a real dancer will show that this is quite often not the case - almost all steps depart from balance at some point in their execution.

What most dance teachers actually mean when the use the word "Balance" is not balance at all - instead, it is the property of never letting gravity take you somewhere you weren't happy to be going nor at a speed you weren't happy to be moving at. But that is not really balance.

"Also mentioned most of the un-enlightened ladies forget there is on a Spin Turn a drive on four and a swing onto five. It's all on the tape."

Actually there is officially no real side swing type of swing onto five, but of course everyone dances one today, because the actual spin turn has become must closer to steps 45 of a full natural than to anything resembling a natural pivot turn.

However, the absence of drive on step four is another class of problem. To lover from having your feet closed and drive onto a heel lead, you must send your standing knee forward of your standing foot and send your body forward in vertical alignment over your standing knee. Which is to say, you must PROJECT your body OFF BALANCE. It's much harder to do this from foot closure as lady on step 4 than it is to do it from a prep step lowering as the man would into step 1. The other problem is the partner. Many men jump off to the side on step four, instead of staying in front of their partner, shaping a path, and pacing her lowering and drive. Also, many men fail to lower on step 3, and instead lower into step 4 - which brings the lady crashing down, with no chance to round the vertical beginning of her step 3 lowering out into a nice horizontal drive by bending her standing knee and projecting her body weight. PRojecting her body weight OFF BALANCE, but with AIM that will cause a graceful horizontal movement, rather than a heavy crash onto the moving foot.

"There is no statement that rise must still be ongoing as the foot continues closing."

Was supposed to be "there is no statement that the rise must still be ongoing when the foot has finished closing"

Anonymous. Crashing down on step four. This doesnt happen if the count is counted as it should be which is
3. ( and ) Three is up ( and ) is down
Is there any statement that says that the rise isn't on going.
Instead of putting your own interpetation into the steps. Lets take at face value.
Commence to rise. Then continue to rise on two. So what happens on three.
If you built a ramp. walking up it you would start to rise. About half way you could call that two. So where is three going to be.
The Waltz is 123 the steps 123 or first second and third. So where is the difference.

"Anonymous. Crashing down on step four. This doesnt happen if the count is counted as it should be which is
3. ( and ) Three is up ( and ) is down"

It has nothing to do with the count, and everything to do with the dynamic of movement - especially the aim.

"Is there any statement that says that the rise isn't on going."

No, but there is no statement that says it is, either. You started out by quoting the book, but the book does not say that rise is ongoing as the feet have closed, it says that rise is ongoing beyond the point at which the feet are halfway closed. You consider that to still be part of beat two of the music, which means that rise may well not be occuring during beat three of the music.

"Instead of putting your own interpetation into the steps. Lets take at face value.
Commence to rise. Then continue to rise on two. So what happens on three."

STEP 3 or BEAT 3?

You still haven't figured out that they ARE NOT THE SAME THING - you've defined beat three to be feet together, but step three officially begins with the foot only halfway closed.