Hi to all.
For those readers who never saw or heard a lecture or read an article by the late Len Scrivener, I write the following:

/* Let us take for example where the written word can easily be misapplied. In the Feather Step rise and fall is given thus: Rise e/o 1. Up for 2 and 3. Lower e/o 3. This is not an accurate description of the rise and fall of a skilled exponent. Peak rise is reached as the second step is completed and the follow through of the body causes the third step to be carried forward, with the foot making an ever decreasing angle to the floor. Contact with the heel is made at the end of the step. To be more accurate, therefore, the technique should read: Rise e/o 1. Up for 2. Commence lowering e/o 2. Down e/o 3. No doubt this description can be just as easily misinterpreted, but the fact remains that the effort of many dancers to maintain the rise through the second and third steps (as indicated by the technique) and at the same time move forward in character with the dance is quite unnatural. Fluency of progression is hindered and the following swing step (LF forward) is materially impeded. Experienced dancers will do as I have described, but naturally they will not make an effort to commence lowering e/o 2. It simply occurs through the laws of dynamics. However, technique states ‘up' when in actual fact the dancer is lowering.*/

Len also said that there can be no exactitude in the dance technique.

It seems to me that Moore talks about what the dancer does in the way of rise and fall actions, wheras Scrivener talks about what an oustide observer sees in terms of body altitude - which inclues incidental rise and fall from the geometry of the leg positions.

Moore's descriptions of rise 'n fall, that subsequently because the basis for the prescribed technique, are a complete botch-up and Scrivener's corrections have their own inadequacies. The sooner we abandon thinking about these actions in term of 'rising' and 'lowering' the better. I do not believe that these two gentlemen did not understand the actions that they are talking about. On the contrary they probably understood these actions very well. But their descriptions are woefully lacking. We need to express the technique of ballroom dance far more eloquently, unambiguously and accurately than what we have and accept at the moment. And I believe we can do this without being verbose or 'scientific'. So when are we going to have the courage to say that the emperor does not have any clothes on with regards to the prescribed technique. Some of these British institutions like the ISTD seem far more interested in tradition, heritage and preserving the British influence on ballroom dancing than improving it.

Rha

Hi,
It was the ISTD committee that decided on the technique, not Alex. Alex happened to be the chairperson.

"It was the ISTD committee that decided on the technique, not Alex. Alex happened to be the chairperson."

AFTER he had written his book.

Which the committee result rather strongly resembles...

Anonymous the "",

"AFTER he had written his book."

That "" I find interesting. Alex's book was first printed in Oct. 1948. Could you let me know what technique was used before that, please.

Hi to all,
The following LINK will take you to a page which gives an insight to that great gentleman, Mr Alex Moore.

http://www.istd.org/ballroom/facultynews/december2006/alexmoores.html

Curious. I find your speach quotes to distinguish one anonymous from another very amusing.

Rha,
I found your post interesting. Why not write what you consider should be the technique for the feather step. I sincerely would like to read what you have to say. Thank you.