Wherever the backward partner's foot goes, both bodies will likely have to pass over that point, so this can provide a fair amount of guidance as to where that foot should or shouldn't go.

Generally I would say that CBM should be executed such that the thighs are "closed" rather than "opened", which is to say that the body rotation is greater than any curve in the path of foot placement.

When this is not done, the connection between the steps is effectively broken - all of the steps need to be tied one to another along a line of continuation - it's a line that can be arched into a curve, but it musn't be broken. Very often when people consciously try to turn the CBM step, what they end up doing is breaking the continuation of movement.

(For an idea of doing dramatic curves right, think about dancing a series of curved three steps, "brushing along a curve" on each middle step, so that you have a path that curves rather than simply folding in on itself)

In the ordinary three step it's very likely due to the right side lead that the movement is actually not square to the feet, but almost into CBMP much as it would be in tango. Most definitely no divergence of the foot placement is appropriate there. Even if doing a curvy version (think doing it backwards as waves), the "turn" does not show up in foot placement of the CBM step, but only the steps that follow after.

There IS no right side lead in an ordinary Three Step, but the same is not true of a Curved Three Step.

"There IS no right side lead in an ordinary Three Step"

It may not make the official description, but there most certainly is a right side lead on the corresponding step in practice. This is required to have any depth of fullness to the step, because it is what allows the partners to take a reaching step somewhat in parallel rather than suffer the limiting interference they will find when trying to move squarely in tandem.

Note that the CBM being discussed is not technically included in the three step either, because it is on the step that precedes the official three step.

Not according to written technique, but that's because the written technique does not typically account for the complexities of rotational differential (i.e. the difference in amounts of turn between top and bottom) in basic closed position turns. In actual application, most turns begin under-turned. Prior to the turn (for example, during the Change action), we wind up. This is the case in the Three Step, which is essentially a variation of Change action, preparing for the Natural Turn. So although the writers of the ISTD technique book may have thought it too complicated to explain without writing a ten-volume encyclopedia, I would not recommend dancing your Three step perfectly square to the direction of travel.

Regards,
Jonathan

"I would not recommend dancing your Three step perfectly square to the direction of travel."

Indeed, when you get right down it, only step one actions tend to be square, and even then only at the specific instant in which they pass through body-foot neutralization.

In the case of the Moore/ISTD three step, that actually occurs on the step preceding the three step itself, though the neutralization at the end (many would say the start of the next figure) is included.

You should compare the old techniques of Moore/ISTD with later Howard/IDTA, who can't agree where the figure begins or ends: perhaps we are not even talking about the same step?

Howard has quite a different take, and the differences are interesting. If I use a technical term like "Side leading" it will be supported by the technique in which I have trained. Here, Howard describes slight body turn between 1 and 3, always remembering that his 1 is LF fwd for man (with CBM), and no turn.



I don't, but the track of my foot is straight, as I am not turning (to return to the original question).

"I would not recommend dancing your Three step perfectly square to the direction of travel.

I don't, but the track of my foot is straight, as I am not turning (to return to the original question)."

There are two different issues here.

First, incidentally, side leading does not imply turn or even rotation, it is merely an observation that the body is not square to the feet, but instead aligned at an angle to them, specifically the one in which the moving foot's side of the body is in advance.

The second is the difference between "straight" and "straight forward in the direction of the standing foot". The movement in the three step is straight, but for the step that could legitimately be called side leading, it is not straight forward in the direction in which the standing foot is pointing. We might say it's straight, but not square.

The issue that was at the heart of the original question was whether the track of the foot should be straight, or curved, not whether the movement of the foot is square to the body.

BTW, can anyone with a copy of the current ISTD technique settle whether the figure does or doesn't call for a side lead (and does the figure start on LF or RF). My oldish copy of the Revised Technique has it start RF and with a slight side lead on 1 & 2, the preceding LF step being from another figure. Contradictory info has been posted here as to what the ISTD technique currently is. I am interested in the answer.

My twopenneth for what its worth -

In response the original question:

I would say that the track of the moving foot will change as a result of CBM being applied (and, in that sense, that foot won't move "straight"). But to describe the track as curved would (to me) imply a change in (foot)alignment and direction. My feeling is that even though the upper body has some degree of independence of action from the hips/legs/feet, there is still some miniscule change in the (foot) alignment/direction even upon rotation of the upper body by the 1/16 typical of an action involving CBM but no turn (such as the feather step). However, the tecnique books do clearly state that a shoulder lead is not considered to alter the aligmment, and certainly, there are many examples of figures with CBM & a side lead that also have no change in alignment. This is indeed consistent with any knock on effect that CBM may have on the feet being small.

Re:the three step. I would have thought the reason for the lack of a R side lead status in the charts is because it would be difficult to combine this with the HT footwork and rise e/o step on the RF fwd step (the diffculty coming from the fact that side lead would tend to shift the action onto the inside edge of the foot). I guess extra body rotation to give a more substantial side lead could occur after the RF fwd step was placed, but this would not be acheived in time to warrant a mention in the charts with regard to this particular step.

Re Telemark: In the current ISTD the RF step with the rise e/o step is still referred to as step 1. They also have in the footnote a note that the figure should be danced with a "slight R side lead on steps 1 & 2" - their steps 1 and 2, that is.

I dont think any competent teacher would teach that the Three Step starts on the man's left foot. Unless they were taking an examination. Sway. We Sway to the Right on the Feather Step. On the Reverse we Sway to the Left on 2 and 3 and to the Right on 5 and 6. Then on the Three Step we Sway slightly to the Left with the Right Side leading. Which gives us an wind up ( for want of a better word ) into a Natural Figure. Why would anyone want to alter that pattern.
Do you see the pattern .First R. then L.then R then L and so on.
Also it is desirable to use the inside edges of the foot on most steps except on a CBMP where we use the outside edge.