Wow, that does all sound very confusing. Let me see if I can help clear it up.

I'll start by correcting what appears to be a very simple typographical error: You referred a couple of times to amount of turn being "1/2 + 1/8", when I believe what you really meant was 1/4 + 1/8, which is quite a bit different. 1/4 + 1/8, of course, equals 3/8, so assuming I'm right about the typo, that clears a lot of it up right there.


3/8 of a turn twice is 6/8, otherwise known as 3/4, and that is correct. To get 9/8 of a turn you would have to have a Natural Turn consisting of 9 steps, which of course it doesn't. If you include the subsequent Forward Change, you get an amalgamation of 9 steps, but Mr. Moore is clearly referring only to the Natural Turn of 6 steps, not the entire 9-step amalgamation. Forward Changes, as we all know, have no turn (At least, not in the feet, but that's a discussion for another day).

The next point is that you seem to be confusing competitive technique, where rules are often bent for the sake of performance, with book technique, which serves as a very general guide to execute figures in a way that is simple, clean, and "correct". You can't fault someone who follows the book to the letter -- everything he does would be considered correct. It's just not going to win any competitions these days. So when you look at a video of a world champion dancing a figure, and try to reconcile it with what the book says is correct, don't be surprised if you find quite a few discrepancies.

One of the major aspects of dance technique that is simply not addressed in the book (and understandably so, as it severely complicates things) is the notion that we very rarely truly move straight forward or back; Steps described as such are actually taken (or commenced, if CBM is involved) somewhat diagonally with respect to the body alignment. This is where, when watching a pro, you might be tricked into thinking they're using a different alignment. In extreme cases, they might actually be (more on that in a minute). But if careful attention is paid to the feet, one can dance a Natural Turn with exacting foot alignments, and still make it appear as though he is quite under/over rotated, especially if you as an observer are watching the whole body and not paying close attention to the feet.

That's not to say that you necessarily misinterpreted what you were seeing. The whole idea of "using diagonals" is sometimes taken to such an extreme that dancers indeed move along a diagonal not just in relation to the body position, but also with respect to the feet. In other words, that under-rotation of the upper body toward the end of 3 that you normally see -- the action that should leave the man pointing against LOD with his feet but with body turned to almost back diagonal center -- might carry all the way down to the feet, so that the man is indeed backing diagonal center top to bottom.

As to whether you yourself should attempt this degree of rule bending, well, it's your own personal decision. I certainly can't recommend it. A dancer of the calibre of the one you mentioned has a tremendous amount of skill, and can commit any manner of sins without paying a heavy toll. (At that level, rules are normally bent or broken as a "trade-off", typically a sacrifice of something small in the interest of making greater gains somewhere else). The average student will likely suffer much greater losses by breaking the rule, which is of course why the rules exist in the first place.

At any rate, you can decide those things for yourself. My goal here is not to advise you on your dancing. I'm simply hoping to clarify what you're seeing when you watch top pros, and how to reconcile that with what you might read in a

O.K., I think I see what is confusing you. You interpret Alex Moore's "Make three eighths of a turn on each three steps" as making 3/8 of a turn on EACH STEP. That isn't what Moore said (he could have said it more clearly). He meant: make three eighths of a turn on each GROUP of three steps. 3/8 (total) on steps 1-3, 3/8 (total) on 4-6, etc. Three eighths of a turn in one measure is the normal amount of turn in quite a few figures in Standard.

Interestingly, the first edition of Alex Moore's "Ballroom Dancing" also from 1936 appears to be subtly different, it says "Amount of turn. Make one-third of a turn on each three steps ". This was not changed to 3/8 until the 6th edition in 1951.

As Telemark says the amount of turn is described over each _group_ of three steps, not per step, so the total turn would have been 2/3, later changed to the 3/4 that we need to adhere strictly to the diagonals as now defined.

When reading Moore's technique it is important to read everything, preferably several times. He discusses inside and outside of turns in the General Note of the Natural Turn as man, and says: "For the same reason, the continuance of the turn on the ball of the foot on the 2nd step of the forward turn is much more marked than in the backward turn."

Finally, Moore's footprint diagrams generally make things very clear, particularly in showing any turn on the standing foot as the next step is taken. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Finally, Moore's footprint diagrams generally make things very clear, particularly in showing any turn on the standing foot as the next step is taken. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Unfortunately this is not clear at all . The word facing refers to the feet and not to the body. At the end of beat three the body is under turned and not backing the line of dance , it is not until beat one of the next bar of music do we complete the body turn and start to change the sway into whatever variation we which to dance. One reason for the under turn is to make it possible to use a good cbm and swing action into the next figure.. All turns of the body should be looked at as a gradual smooth turning action of the body danced to the melody of the music,.

Yes you lower on three and, if you are new to dancing, but what happens when you combine to figures with the fall and rise of body swing when danced to the music by anyone social or otherwise who does not dance to every single beat or halve beat?

Who in there right mind would take on writing a Technique Book.The oldest writing on the first three of a Natural Turn in the Waltz according to Henry Jacques gives us 3/8 of a turn on the first two steps which means there is no turn on the third step. But today it would be correct if it is written that on the first two steps we turn half of the available turn and the remainder as the feet arrive together which overall is 3/8 of a turn. Of course that is only half of the information. According to Henry we have the precise correct use of the knees as well as the feet and also the body. And even on a Natural Closed Change Step that after the second step is in place a line drawn from the extended right heel, which is off the floor, it should be in line with the toe of the left foot. That takes care of the C.B.M. In short to have the feet square is wrong. If we look at the Alex Moore book diagram the feet are square. Any comments on this.

You seem to be saying that technique (and practice) changes with time. This is not a surprise. The Double Reverse is called that because the amount of turn is twice what used to be the "normal" amount of turn. And there are many other examples.

In the Waltz.The Double Reverse Spin was introduced by Maxwell Stewart in 1924. It was called a Double Reverse Spin because he when introduced it, he did it twice, and named it a Double Reverse and usually finished going into a Whisk. It was about this time that the Forward Change which previously had been three passing steps was altered to forward side together as we know it today. Also the crossing of the feet on the third step of a Reverse Turn went out pf fashion. To get back to the Double Reverse. If we do one, that amounts to one complete turn. Do it twice and we have a double amount of turn, thus the name..

I wasn't trying to start an argument about the reason for the name of the Double Reverse Spin. I was trying to make the point that there are many examples of changes in the way we do dance figures. The story I gave is from an instructor (ISTD Fellow) with many years of teaching experience. But O. Z. may be right. (The instructor who taught me the Double Reverse liked to have his students do it twice. He said that it wasn't hard to sort of do the Double Reverse, poorly, but it was nearly impossible to do it twice in a row without using correct technique.)

Another example both of differences in technique and possibly spurious stories is (American Style) Rumba. The basic movement is the box. Both BallroomDancers.com and DanceVision (among others) start with the leader moving his left foot forward (S). But many students have learned to start with the left foot moving to the side (the first Q). And many of these students have heard the story that Fred Astaire Studios started teaching it that way to avoid a lawsuit from Arthur Murray, which starts with the forward step. But there is a very entertaining old movie "short," called "Cuban Rhythm," that shows up on television (Turner Classic Movies shows it on U. S. television) from time to time. In that movie two professional instructors show how to dance the Rumba box, with credit given to Arthur Murray. And they start with the side step!

If you enter a competition, you have to follow the rules. But in social dancing, I think you can follow the advice of another instructor I know: "There are no wrong steps in dancing, just variations."

Yes. I had a teaching video the Gleaves demonstrating the basic 18 of the Waltz, if you look closely the closing of the feet was progressive, by that I mean when moving foreword. He would close the free foot slightly forward of the standing foot and conversely when moving back. At that time he had more body flight than his competitors. The lock step has been changed to a cross step for the same reason .cheers