"These books do not define step three as being when the foot is halfway closed. Where did you dig that one up."

And that is precisely where you are wrong - they indeed to define step two ending and step three begining at that point in the action.

I quote:

"The end of a Side Step, such as the 2nd step of a Natural Turn in the Waltz when the feet are to close on the 3rd step, is approximately when the the third step has closed half-way towards the second step."

Before that halfway point you are dancing step two - after it you are dancing step three. It is in terms of these that the rise and fall is specified - how you fit that to the music is your artistic choice.

Can i just point out 2 things:
1)Since the book doesn't specify the relationship between steps and beats, we can put the steps anywhere in the music - however..
2)All top dancers i've ever seen place their steps on the beat (i'm talking slow waltz, and basic steps like 1-2-3 natural turn, which is what the discussion is about). this would mean that steps start on 1&, 2&
If you see a dancer not planting their feet on the beats (for 1-2-3 natural turn) it looks like they're dancing off time

"1)Since the book doesn't specify the relationship between steps and beats, we can put the steps anywhere in the music - however.."

Yes

"2)All top dancers i've ever seen place their steps on the beat (i'm talking slow waltz, and basic steps like 1-2-3 natural turn, which is what the discussion is about). this would mean that steps start on 1&, 2& If you see a dancer not planting their feet on the beats (for 1-2-3 natural turn) it looks like they're dancing off time"

Because STEPS formally begin and end at when the feet pass (or for a closing step, are halfway closed), the reality is that the planting of the foot is very approximately halfway through each step. If you wish to place that squarely on the downbeats, then you should in fact be counting the actions defined for each step in a way closer to "and one", "and two", "and three".

You may find it preferable to count "one and" but if you do so, you have shifted the step count literally used by the books to specify where in the sequence each action such as rise and fall is supposed to occcur. If you shift the count in this way, you must also shift the specification of each part of the action to its modified count.

Anonymous. Always put an (and ) after beat three. Never just finish with the count of three. There are two things to do on three, that is to be at your highest and your lowest. Thus the count three ( and ). I cannot find anywhere in any of my technique books any thing about a foot being part way between two and three. Or that it shouldn't be.
What is written in the book is. It is hoped that the keen amateur will regard this book as something more than a means of aquiring knowledge of steps and variations. It is hoped that no student will be foolish enough to be gulled into the belief that a Parrot knowledge of its contents will be sufficient to satify an astute examiner..
Bearing that in mind. To do step one then step two then step three. Doesn't that leave me up in the air on three. And with one coming up wouldn't that look a trifle hurried.
Anonymous and those who believe that the foot is moving between 2and 3. Don't realize that they are splitting the beats and the count is two (and ) three. Which is exactly according to Richard Gleave.
To go over it again. You wrote.
The end of sidestep between such as the side step of a Natural Turn when the feet are to close on the third step is aproximately when the third step has closed half way to the second step..
What exactly do you think Richard Gleave is teaching. You've been doing it all the time.

"Anonymous. Always put an (and ) after beat three. Never just finish with the count of three."

On the contrary, you should stay up on the rise until you have decided what figure you will dance next. Whatever you do, don't lower and then stop - the lowering cannot be completed until you move, so if you lower with no plan to move, you have killed the waltz action.
But this hardly has anything to do with your conceptual mistake which we have been discussing.

"I cannot find anywhere in any of my technique books any thing about a foot being part way between two and three."

Did you miss the passage I just quoted, defning the end of step two and the start of step three as that position???

"It is hoped that no student will be foolish enough to be gulled into the belief that a Parrot knowledge of its contents will be sufficient to satify an astute examiner.."

Parroting is exactly what you did when you started this thread. You criticized others for not dancing the rise and fall exactly as it is written. But then it turned out that what you though was written is not what actually is - you read it as if it were written in terms of beats, when actually it is written in terms of steps - which DO NOT MATCH the beats in the way you think they do.

The unthinking part of your parroting comes in when you ignored the evidence posted from that same book which indicates your mistake.

"To go over it again. You wrote.
The end of sidestep between such as the side step of a Natural Turn when the feet are to close on the third step is aproximately when the third step has closed half way to the second step..
What exactly do you think Richard Gleave is teaching. You've been doing it all the time."

No. You are still missing the critical detail that this halfway closed position, which you consider to be the and of beat two, but which is actually the beginning of step three. Because the rise is defined in terms of the steps rather than the beats, this half-beat offset between beet numbers and step numbers means that the rise will not occur the way you said, but actually a half beat earlier - at least if it is to be consistent both with what is written in the books and with your opinion of where the beats should go.

Anonymous. The third step has got to coincide with the third beat. Otherwise take the music off.
Are you getting the compression at the end of step one on both knees and turning.Then out to the side with swing on two. Then close the feet on the (and) continue to rise on three then Sway then lower on the (and ) count with the music.
To try to make it easier to understand. There are six moves. All occure on the even count of 2 4 6
So we have in front a 1 (and ) 2 (and) 3 ( and ). Whether the rise is from the 2 (and )joining three at the highest point. Or whether it joins lower and then rises. Is probably how a couple or their teacher prefere it.
But what will happen is the highest point will be on the count of the third step third beat. Both will lower on the (and ) count. Providing it can be seen that on the third beat the head is higher than on the second beat.This is something to look for on a tape. If you could watch this demonstration given just before John Wood retired. Watching it you would say "That music is slow, that's about 25 bars a minute". Then you count it and its the same speed we dance to.Then you wonder how on earth does he make it appeare so slow. Well he only has three beats in a bar to play with. Its how he uses those three beats. He is another who teaches splitting three into six.

"Anonymous. The third step has got to coincide with the third beat. Otherwise take the music off."

If you wish to have the PLACEMENT or arrival of the third step coincide with the downbeat of the third beat, then you will in fact have to begin the third step some time before this.

The placement of a step is approximately the middle of the sequence of actions which make up the formal definition of the step. It is not the beginning of the step as you mistakenly believe.

If you wish to personally re-define the steps to begin with the placement or arrival, then you will have to shift all of the instructions regarding rise and fall, cbm, etc, away from the way they are written in the book to new positions that would match your altered personal definition of step counting.

You are quite welcome to do that. What you are not welcome to do is ignorantly apply instructions written with respect to the books counting to your personal counting which is INCOMPATIBLE with the book counting.

Anonymous. You have a few funny ideas. Three is an up beat not a down beat. Timing and beat value. In the Waltz can you think of a better way than to strike a bell. Starting on the stroke before the next stroke the bell rings intill it is struck again. During that time we dance. Next stroke we step then we dance. That's what the music is saying and the count is and. The bell is struck harder on one than three
Just one more thing. If you believe that in the Waltz Alex Moore is refering to steps only you had better take a look at the Progressive Chasse.
The count of 1, 2, and 3 means that the 2nd and 3rd steps have half a beat only on each step. Exciting isn't it. No music no beats.

"Anonymous. You have a few funny ideas. Three is an up beat not a down beat."

There you go again Anon3, once again inventing novel meanings for words which already have accepted definitions in the applicable field of study.

3 is a DOWN beat. The AND after 3 is an UP beat. Hunt up a music major and ask about it.



Timing and beat value. In the Waltz can you think of a better way than to strike a bell. Starting on the stroke before the next stroke the bell rings intill it is struck again. During that time we dance. Next stroke we step then we dance. That's what the music is saying and the count is and. The bell is struck harder on one than three

"Just one more thing. If you believe that in the Waltz Alex Moore is refering to steps only you had better take a look at the Progressive Chasse.
The count of 1, 2, and 3 means that the 2nd and 3rd steps have half a beat only on each step. Exciting isn't it. No music no beats."

No, sir you had better look at the chart for that chasse, because the ACTIONS are listed as 12345. And it is the actions for which the rise and fall is given.

The count in beats is given as you said, but the rise and fall instructions are attached to the 12345 step action list, and NOT to the 12and3 beat counting.

You cannot reference a source unless you are willing to use the definitions used in that source, or translate what is written there into the terms of the definitions you are personally using. To copy without making such a translation is to show your extremely careless ignorance.

CAn i ask a question here. Are we referring to Alex Moore's book all the time, or to another book also. If so, what is this other book?