"In my opinion I should be able to point to any figure in the ISTD syllabus and the "pro" should be able to immediately be able to demonstrate the proper execution of that figure."

Sort of. There are some figures in the book that aren't much in use. Similarly, in competition circles you may find that there are alternative versions that are more viable than the official ones in the book.

So expecting this level of knowledge may be reasonable, but you might more realistically expect knowledge about dancing as it is practiced, rather than dancing as it was once written down. This at least will be useful.

"Anyone who teaches day in, day out, will find the process of recall gets easier, with experience; and so, yes, a properly trained and qualified teacher should be able to recall and demonstrate anything in the book"

This presumes that what is in the book is what is being taught on a daily basis.

There is a generation of teachers with quite solid knowledge for which this is true.

However, their students are not all that distinguished in the grand scheme of things. Most of the successful students are coming from teachers who have had more interesting competition careers, and who use their own experience as a guide to what is worth teaching in what order. While there's a lot of overlap between that and what is covered in the book, there are differences too - different material included, danced with different technique and different emphasis.

So the premise that daily work will reinforce knowledge of the book is not exactly true, but only partially.

In practical terms, dancing by the book, to the exam standards by which teachers are qualified, has fairly rare applicability. It won't win competitions, and only in special circumstances is it usable socially. It's certainly a good background, but complete dancing is a bit more. And ultimately, the complete dancer may eventually come to understand aspects of what is written in the book that would be missed by those who confine themselves to it.

Thanks - that's pretty what I meant to say. :)

I largely agree, but have to say that even if basic syllabus figures are not the whole story (for of course, they are not) no dancer of any quality will get very far, competitively, or otherwise, if their art is not firmly grounded in good basic technique. The syllabus figures are a starting point: technique IS the art - in the hands of a first rate dancer.

"I largely agree, but have to say that even if basic syllabus figures are not the whole story (for of course, they are not) no dancer of any quality will get very far, competitively, or otherwise, if their art is not firmly grounded in good basic technique. The syllabus figures are a starting point: technique IS the art - in the hands of a first rate dancer."

There are two issues here. One is that a number of the basic figures fall almost entirely out of use, so knowledge of their basic syllabus forms is not necessarily very useful.

The other is that the way things are documented in the book is not very intuitive. If you ask a working dancer to document what they do, even if they actually dance in accordance with the book, what they write will probably not be in accordance with it, because they will write what has meaning to themselves and their students, rather than in the rather artificial technical language of the examination manual. You will get a common sense explanation, not an academic one, and as a result you can expect to see changes such as in the distribution of turn between the steps.

Technique books are written in code. You have to pay serious money, as a student, to be let into the secret world, so that you can understand what they actually mean.

Watch a Waltzer take the second step of the outside of a Natural or Reverse Turn, and see how many place the foot side on - Oh dear! "But that's what the book SAYS, isn't it?" Nope. But you can't tell 'em.

"Technique books are written in code. You have to pay serious money, as a student, to be let into the secret world, so that you can understand what they actually mean.

Watch a Waltzer take the second step of the outside of a Natural or Reverse Turn, as see how many place the foot side on - Oh dear! "But that's what the book SAYS, isn't it?" Nope. But you can't tell 'em."

And this is exactly why you may get practical answers from a working teacher that don't match what an examiner would want to hear.

Officially the step is a sideways one, but practically a teacher may well prefer to tell you what you should do, which is to swing forwards towards it before turning the feet.

But that's a well known and generally well understood issue. There are more subtle differences that mislead even fairly experienced dancers.

Good grief, no it isn't!

The foot position is "to side", but only at the end of the step, following a forward step and foot swivel. I would agree that the technique is not always written in very accessible language, and you have to look at more than the Charts, but a decent teacher understands the limitations of the language, and more importantly, that sound technique underpins everything else.

"Officially the step is a sideways one

Good grief, no it isn't!"

It in fact is documented as a side step. (don't forget that directions are given relative to the orientation not of the body, but that of the standing foot)

"The foot position is "to side", but only at the end of the step, following a forward step and foot swivel."

We all know that, but this is not explicitly stated in the book.

You can only decode the book's terse statement to reveal this when you have an awareness both of the book's writing style and how everything fits together.

"I would agree that the technique is not always written in very accessible language, and you have to look at more than the Charts, but a decent teacher understands the limitations of the language, and more importantly, that sound technique underpins everything else."

Most teachers understand this obvious case, but there are more subtle ones that still confuse the majority. At that point they either dance their mistaken reading, or dance what works while mistakenly rejecting the misread book as outdated.

Quote. " The foot position is to the side but only at the end of the step forward following a forward step and foot swivel. But we all know this is not explicitly stated in the book ".
I would contradict by saying that in my book at the beginning of the chapter it tells you exactly how it is done.
Quote. " On the forward part of any turning figure it is more important to feel a forward swing rather than a concious twist of the body " ( see the word Twist is the word used )
" It should be remembered that the first step is a strong step and from the swing of this step it should be possible to take a wide second step ".
That tells me that i complete the first step turning at the end of, and not into.
Should a teacher know the book inside out as well as back to front. Of course they should and should be able to explain every part of.