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.

Well , I agree with Rha and will describe the feather step from an entirely different and outrageous point of view from over 40 yrs and still dance at 79, so here goes. First we ( my wife and I)don't dance the timing of the slow foxtrot with steps but with strides just like you do when you walk or march. Taking a prep step on approx beat 3&4 we swing down but mostly forward into the first step starting with the right

foot behind, on beat one the right foot is now along side the left foot in a lowered position the right foot continues to swing for beat 2 until the heal hits the floor, our weight then has past completely over the left foot for the slow count of whatever the music dictates, which of cause is variable. We then finish the feather step on the slight rise feet apart with left foot outside partner . From this position we are now able swing into the three step or a figure of our choosing. This is what we do wether it is correct or not. We are known for our beautiful foxtrot and lovely timing . food for thought? Cheers

Lluv2dance. When you wrote that it is unnatural and the fluency of progress is hindered is as Len Scrivener described in his book which was written from his notes after he had passed away. In the book it is written that the technique book is wrong in that the second and third step are the same height. Quite unnatural and should start to lower at the end of step two.
It was explained to me that if you follow the officiall book. you will climb onto a flat topped platform and lower over the end of it. With Len you go up the slope and down a slope instead of flat across the top.
Interestingly on another subject. The Whisk. He wrote that if the lady keeps the head to the left throughout a better Whisk in the Waltz can be performed. You know what he was right.
He also used to teach in the Tango don't think of S S Q Q for Two walks and a Link. Say Stop Stop Quick Stop. Timing is still the same what is different is the interpretation within the steps.
Quite a character Len Scrivener.

"the technique book is wrong in that the second and third step are the same height."

Guess what. NOWHERE in the book does it say that.

"Quite unnatural and should start to lower at the end of step two."

Depends on what you mean by "lower" If you mean "decrease altitude", then yes you should. If you mean dance a classic lowering action in the leg and foot, then no, that is saved until the end of step three - which is what the technique does tell you.

"It was explained to me that if you follow the officiall book. you will climb onto a flat topped platform and lower over the end of it."

Nope. That only happens if you take an disingeniously simplistic interpreation of the book. A beginner could be forgiven that. A skilled dancer cannot.

"With Len you go up the slope and down a slope instead of flat across the top."

Len's description is clearer, yes, but he's actually describing the same thing that the offical book is specifying. He just eliminated the potential for confusing intermediates.

"Interestingly on another subject. The Whisk. He wrote that if the lady keeps the head to the left throughout a better Whisk in the Waltz can be performed. You know what he was right."

That's true of almost any promenade figure, at least as a learning exercise. Many of the old time teachers had the lady keep her head left in all promenades, until she learned to fill out the promenade shape. Only later did they introduce the head turn. Try it in your next practice - dance the figure a few times head left, then have the lady turn her head but keep the same feeling as when it was left.