"Your error however, is that you do not in fact understand the proscribed technique. You have the superficial details right, but you are missing the critical detail that the change of direction is located at a point in time when all of the energy is in potential form - there is not really supposed to any residual progression at the point where it happens. Because of this, changing direction there has no negative side effect - both the preceding swing over 0-3, and the following swing of eo3-next 3 can be executed without compromise."

I understand the prescribed technique perfectly. The difference between dancers like you and dancers like me is that I know it well enough to see the fundamental intent of the dance beyond the prescribed written 'outcomes' of alignment, heel, toes, sway, etc, of a figure, so that I can modify that technique to enhance the fundamental artistic intent without losing the essence of a dance and its musicality. Guys like you are slaves to those written prescribed outcomes. You either make it the fundamental intent or you fixate on one particular interpretation.

I would'nt say that the changing direction in the prescribed technique had a 'negative side effect'. What I am saying is the 2 techniques, the prescribed technique and mine, present 2 different stylistic choices. The choice that most competitors make to dance it the way I describe is a conscious one because they prefer it and I'm willing to bet that most top judges and members of the audience do so as well.

One can't have ones cake and eat it. If one chooses to dance the prescribed technique then one must dance the 1st part in a particular way, as you've said, "no residual progression after the 1st part". There's nothing 'right' or 'wrong' about it but that's precisely what I dislike about the "2 part", prescribed NST. I like to rip the 1st part and maintain a greater degree of rotational and progressive continuity into the 2nd part. It's an informed choice, it's an NST on steriods .

Rha

Rha:

"I like to rip the 1st part and maintain a greater degree of rotational and progressive continuity into the 2nd part. It's an informed choice, it's an NST on steriods"

Maximus:

"There is a point of departure when a figure is so severely stretched beyond its standard parameters that it no longer embodies the spirit of its design."

Suomynona:

Once you eliminate the usage of foot closure as an opportunity to establish a new downswing in a new direction, the figure you end up with has more in common with a four step chasse into a 2-step natural spin than it does with the classic 3-then-3 natural spin turn.

Much as with continuity styling in the American waltz, what is happening is that the most difficult action of the figure is being replaced with an alternative that makes it easier to create the desired flow. Only after seeing a couple demonstrate that they can dance the original figure with competition-winning dynamics would I believe that the choice to use the alternate is purely artistic - absent proof that they've figured out how to fully lower from foot closure and dynamically push out of the standing heel without loosing the flow, I have to conclude that they've subconsciously found an alternate path around a challenge they could not master.

If we are going to validate the new method though, we should take time to ask if there is any reason to stop with the present state of affairs. Given the goals of the new trend, I would not be suprised if the teenagers' habit of unashamedly dancing an actual chasse with lowering into step 4 eventually becomes recognized as the most dynamic way of commencing the new waltz. Much as I'd miss the old, I may toy with trying to figure out what the optimum solution would be once all pretense of dancing a natural spin turn is dropped.

"Once you eliminate the usage of foot closure as an opportunity to establish a new downswing in a new direction, the figure you end up with has more in common with a four step chasse into a 2-step natural spin than it does with the classic 3-then-3 natural spin turn."

You're being argumentative by taking a idea to it's extreme to prove the opposite point. There is a correct limit to everything and the same applies here. There is no doubt that the technique I'm talking about creates a very distinct and recognizable natural spin turn, a beautiful natural turn spin turn.

"Much as with continuity styling in the American waltz, what is happening is that the most difficult action of the figure is being replaced with an alternative that makes it easier to create the desired flow. Only after seeing a couple demonstrate that they can dance the original figure with competition-winning dynamics would I believe that the choice to use the alternate is purely artistic - absent proof that they've figured out how to fully lower from foot closure and dynamically push out of the standing heel without loosing the flow, I have to conclude that they've subconsciously found an alternate path around a challenge they could not master."

Argumentative, once again. My argument for the merits of the technique is not based on what competitive dancers are doing correctly or incorrectly. I'm not asking you to judge the merits of something based on what others are doing. My argument is based on the inherent limitations of a technique that are intractable. The prescribed technique of the NST creates a particular distinct style of NST. I find that style to be somewhat artificial.

Rha

"There is no doubt that the technique I'm talking about creates a very distinct and recognizable natural spin turn, a beautiful natural turn spin turn."

It is not any flavor of spin turn at all! It is a _new figure_ taking the place of the spin turn - it no longer has the key actions which define the natural spin turn.

"My argument is based on the inherent limitations of a technique that are intractable."

Intractable to you. But then by your own admission, solving this problem is not even a goal of yours.

"The prescribed technique of the NST creates a particular distinct style of NST. I find that style to be somewhat artificial."

Only because you have not learned how to dance it.

"It is not any flavor of spin turn at all! It is a _new figure_ taking the place of the spin turn - it no longer has the key actions which define the natural spin turn."

That's your opinion. Why not grant others the same grace that you granted yourself when you contested a key action like the 'pivot on 4', in another thread, by suggesting that there is no pivot on 4 but rather make the turn on 5, yet you still considered the figure you were describing to be an NST. There were those who disagreed with you but you did not find anyone telling you that you were defining a new figure because you contested a fundamental element of the prescribed technique. Neither did they suggest that you have not learned how to dance it with a 'pivot on 4' that is why you are suggesting otherwise. By the way I actually agree with you on the point that there is no pivot on 4.

"Intractable to you. But then by your own admission, solving this problem is not even a goal of yours."

I don't see any 'problem' with the prescribed techniques NST so there's nothing to solve. I just see it's inherent limitations when I dance with the expression and musicality that I enjoy.

"Only because you have not learned how to dance it."

...can anyone believe this guy.

Rha

"Why not grant others the same grace that you granted yourself when you contested a key action like the 'pivot on 4', in another thread, by suggesting that there is no pivot on 4 but rather make the turn on 5, yet you still considered the figure you were describing to be an NST."

If you re-read this thread, you'll see I explicitly mentioned that someone might someday figure out how to do it with a pivot. However, I've also pointed out that the given footwork for the lady is not that of a true pivot (constrast step 4 of the natural pivot turn) but instead implies something closer to 4 of the natural turn.

"I don't see any 'problem' with the prescribed techniques NST so there's nothing to solve. I just see it's inherent limitations when I dance with the expression and musicality that I enjoy."

What you call a limitiation is what I call a challenge problem - one which can be overcome. But you have already decided to go with a different figure, rather than work on learning to dance the original one in a way you could be happy with.

"can anyone believe this guy."

Well, who is more credible - the person who has decided that making the original figure look good is not possible and admits they no longer attempt to, or the person who has devoted extensive study and effort to the development of the original?

If you believe it is not possible to dance the original action smoothly and let that aim your practice towards a different goal, you will obviously find plenty of evidence to support your viewpoint - nothing in dancing is possible without practice.

As far as my credibility goes, I'm not for or against the prescribed technique. I see it for what it is, both its strengths and weaknesses. You on the other hand have taken it to be infallible, unquestionable and always right no matter what evidence or arguments are presented to the contrary. That's a kind of fanaticism that severely compromises your objectivity when evaluating anything to the contrary. You'd do well in some religions and cults that I know.

"If you re-read this thread, you'll see I explicitly mentioned that someone might someday figure out how to do it with a pivot."

It will never happen that's what you are unable to see. What is more likely to happen is that the ISTD will see the folly they made on the 4th step and then revise the technique.

"What you call a limitiation is what I call a challenge problem - one which can be overcome."

You still don't get the point. There's nothing particularly challenging about the prescribed techniques NST. It's quite easy to execute smoothly, effortlessly and perfectly as described in the text. I can do both but I prefer the technique I describe because I enjoy the expression and musicality it gives me.

"But you have already decided to go with a different figure, rather than work on learning to dance the original one in a way you could be happy with."

No, it's not a different figure I talking about it's an NST. And no again, the prescribed technique NST is not the 'original'. The prescribed technique's NST description is Alex Moore's incorrect description of the NST. The NST existed before the prescribed description. It's the prescribed technique that took a figure commonly danced the way I describe to replace it with this other description.

Rha

"No, it's not a different figure I talking about it's an NST. And no again, the prescribed technique NST is not the 'original'. The prescribed technique's NST description is Alex Moore's incorrect description of the NST. The NST existed before the prescribed description. It's the prescribed technique that took a figure commonly danced the way I describe to replace it with this other description."

I would be suprised if Moore's description were seriously incompatible with what was being danced at the time he wrote, at least in terms of the direction in which step 4 moves. Change that, and hardly any of the rest of the book makes sense - CBM no longer has a definition, foowork terminology looses it's precise meaning, swing has new endpoints - everything changes.

(Actually I'd be quite curious to know on what specific basis you consider your new figure to be closer to a natural turn than to a chasse? Other than the exaggerated lilt & sway as the feet temporarily close on the rise, in most aspects I've examined it falls on the chasse side of the division )

The key point though is that what has drastically changed since Moore's day is the athletic dynamics of the style. The result has been a widespread lack of effort towards understanding the details of technique that created a measure of dynamics in the classical style. In the search for "more everything" dances skipped right past the classic enabling techniques to things that at first glance seem more obviously effective. A perfect example would be the replacement of rolling the weight through the length of the foot with a more aggressive leg swing (do this on the end of 3 in your natural and it's obvious that step 4 must move down LOD) In reality, the best result will only be achieved by doing both the foot roll and leg swing in an optomized sequence - but most dancers today learn only the obvious component of swinging their leg. They still know of the classic technique as details to be memorized, but they don't actually understand them as details to be practiced and put to use (change the timing even slightly and of course they seem impractical) - as a result, classic technique is viewed as quaint.

Wheras those of us who actually study it find it works extremely well.

"You seem to have the usual pat unsubstantiated response to anything that deviates from what you've READ in the prescribed technique and that is that every competitor who dances otherwise has a 'problem' with balance, misunderstood goals, etc."

In my lessons with various world class teachers, I've found a consistent pattern that for almost every element of the proscribed technique some find unworkable, someone else has figured out how to incorporate that as an advtange in their dancing. I can only conclude - by logic as well as observation of what they are forced to do instead - that the ones not practicing that technique simply don't understand it, while the ones using it to advantage either understand it, or lucked out in working with someone who did.

The one exception to date? Dancing an actual pivot on a spin turn - I don't know anyone who really does that outside of a beginner context. But maybe someone someday will create a performance where it looks approrpriate and not forced.

It would be a serious mistake to think that couples currently on the world stage have exhausted all the possibilities for technical merit. In fact, it's quite plain to see areas where even the best still fall short - that what they are doing now is enough to make a final, or even to win, does not mean that it should be our ultimate goal.

Please allow me to raise for consideration a related question, which I believe will shed quite a bit of light on the reality of the situation today: Why is it that the full (1-6) natural turn and either preceding or following closed changed are essential unseen in advanced competition?

The cause behind this is of course no great mystery. All one has to do is attempt to dance these figures with a partner (especially in combination) while still achieving the type of flowing dynamic movement and travel expected today. A seriuos attempt at this will show that it's not done because it's almost superhumanly difficult to dance these classic foot closure figures at that level of performance.

The first three steps of the natural survive of course, out of tradition. Or do they? I believe that a carefull examiniation of what is often danced in the context of the taxonomy of recognized dance figures will show that 1-3 of the natural is also nearly extinct, and has in fact been commonly replaced by a different figure. Instead of a natural, many today are dancing a four-step chasse, with an exaggerated lilt as the feet draw together. This ends with a turn coincident with a lowering into step 4, after which a new natural figure begins as the man steps down LOD on what would be step 5 in alleged counting.

This is actually a fairly legitimate sequence - drop the pretense of calling the first figure a natural turn and such chasse + natural hover combinations are to be found standing under their own names all over the place. What is somewhat illegitimate though is to confuse oneself by using the same name ("natural turn") for the original figure, and for it's modern chasse-derived replacement.

Some points for consideration:

What would have to change from the common practice in order to dance a repeating sequence of full (1-6) natural and reverse turns connected by closed changes?

Where is the point at which the direction of travel over the floor changes in the common practice alleged "natural turn" of today actually located? Is it between 2 and 3 as written, or has it moved to between 3 and 4, as is recognized for a chasse?