If you are learning Modern International style from a book understand this. The books are dealing with steps and not beats. The Waltz is easy to understand. Rise at the end of step one is also rise at the end of beat one. Foxtrot, rise at the end of one has nothing to do with the music. It means rise at the end of step one which is beat two. And to continue. your second step is on beat three and so on. If you are into Latin we have a different situation. The book clearly states beside each group that the first step in Rumba is on beat two. the second step is beat three and so on. I think all of the above was worth mentioning and should be understood.

Possibly. Certainly, I believe, that's how the authors intended it. But some would argue that either they were shortsighted in their choice of description, or that's not actually what they intended. Either way, here's the logic:

A beat, like a step, occupies a span of time.

The beat begins at the initial strike, and continues until the strike of the following beat.

Most of us would agree that when a step is perceived to be "on time" with the music, the foot should strike at the same moment the beat strikes. But here's the rub: If we are to agree that the step and the beat begin and end at the same time, we must also therefore agree that the step begins at the moment the foot strikes (eg stops moving and begins taking weight). However, most technique books do not describe this as the beginning and end points of a step. In fact, the ISTD book itself would characterize this point as being the exact opposite: They acll it "mid-stride".

Most of us, the ISTD included, think of the beginning of a step as the moment one foot passes the other, as the moving foot begins its journey towards its new position. The step does not end until the next moving foot has completed its "follow-through". But if you were to attempt to apply this perception of a step to the generally accepted perception of the beginning and end points of a beat, you would be striking each step exactly half way between the beats.

The only possible concludion, therefore, is that in order to dance "on time", one must not align the beginning of a step with the beginning of the beat. Instead, one must begin the step before the beat, so that the foot strikes at the same time as the beat.

The question then becomes, "Does the ISTD mean to say that the rise begins on the end of step one, or at the end of count one?" The obvious answer is that they are describing rise as being at the end of step one, which is easily inferred by reading the text of some of the longer figures (eg "rise at the end of 24", whereby there are not 24 beats in a measure of Waltz music).

But to rise at the end of step one, if you are to follow the ISTD's own description of the beginning and end points of a step, you would have to begin rising before the moving foot passes the standing foot. This is much earlier than almost anybody would condone commencing foot rise. And so it is my conclusion that this discrepancy is an oversight by the ISTD. Maybe they were just trying to keep things simple, but what they forgot is that their book is scrutinized by the most analytical of minds, and discrepancies like these lead to more confusion.

Regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan,

I also see the ISTD technique description shortcomings in that it focuses entirely on 'outcomes' or 'reactions' without much attention given to the intent or the process that produces these reactions. Also, it describes technique based on a particular stylistic interpretation. For these reasons it fails intirely if is used directly by beginner and novice dancers to learn ballroom. Also, it does'nt help the emerging competitive dancer reconcile what he is doing with what is described in that technique.

Considering your statement:

"But to rise at the end of step one, if you are to follow the ISTD's own description of the beginning and end points of a step, you would have to begin rising before the moving foot passes the standing foot."

You are correct in my opinion. There is no 'intent' to rise at the end of step 1(certainly in the case of the Waltz natural turn, if anything you can continue to soften 'down'). However as the weight is collected on 1 and the moving leg comes to the new supporting leg the weight rolls from heel to ball and as this roll happens the heel leaves the floor. So while the moving leg comes to the new supporting leg (end of 1, after the mid-stride) the heel of the new supporting leg is also leaving the floor. So at the end of step 1 (123 Waltz Natural turn) one wants to be knee soft and weight well-forward on ball of foot and the heel will be off the floor.

The question is whether the ISTD technique consider this heel leaving the floor as the weight rolls from heel to ball a 'commencement of rise at the end of 1'. In their very narrow of rise (footrise and heel leaving the floor) this may be what they consider rise. I'm not going to argue with anyone about what the ISTD do or don't mean with some of their descriptions.

The point I'm making is that in a figure like the Waltz Natural turn, I agree that there is no 'intention' to rise at the end of 1 however the heel leaves the floor because the intention is to finish step 1 with weight held well forward on ball of foot on a soft knee, ready for the upswing, 'forward'.

Rha

When should the heel leave the floor on the first step of a Natural Turn in Waltz .Surely it must leave the floor before the foot turns otherwise we are into Latin technique where in all Spirals and Spot Turns the whole of the foot is in contact with the floor. So do we turn with the whole foot flat, or do we lift before. That is slightly and not popping up like in a Samba Basic.

The footwork given is heel, toe, and you must have reached the second of these before the end of the step.

The end of the first step is when the left foot is passing the right foot to begin the second step.

Your weight must be in the ball/toe with the heel commencing to rise by this time. Otherwise you are dancing the heel-only action, such as found on step 4 of the feather before the three step, which will be followed by a second heel lead on the first step (ISTD counting) of the three step.

It was my understanding that the body moves fatser than the feet, and that timing is not based on when the foot hits but when the body hits.

Bronze and beginner, yes, it's a big accomplishment to get 'on time' and stepping on the beat shows that, but that's not dancing, yet.

In Geoffry Hearn's advance book of Technique 2004. the rise has been changed to happening through the leading step and not at the end of the step, this may be because our lowest point in the waltz would be on 3.1/2

"But to rise at the end of step one, if you are to follow the ISTD's own description of the beginning and end points of a step, you would have to begin rising before the moving foot passes the standing foot. This is much earlier than almost anybody would condone commencing foot rise. And so it is my conclusion that this discrepancy is an oversight by the ISTD. Maybe they were just trying to keep things simple, but what they forgot is that their book is scrutinized by the most analytical of minds, and discrepancies like these lead to more confusion."

Actually I think you will find that both Alex Moore, and a number of recent Blackpool champions, do teach precisely this. The rise occuring before the end of the step is not so much an altitude gain, but a timely completion of the specified footwork. Heel must become toe, which sends the hips forward of the legs to lead into the upswing. If the heel is kept down through the end of the step, then the action of step two will be incorrectly lead by the free toe, when it should be hip, toe catching up only at the moment step two is placed.

There is some room for debate as to when exactly the heel begins to release from the floor. However, the issue in question here is not one of how soon you start to lift the heel after arriving on the foot. The mistake in the ISTD's description is that if you take it exactly at face value, it means that you should lift the heel before you ever arrive.

Remember that the "end of the step" is considered a span of movement, not a single point within the movement. So to rise at the "end of" is more than just commencing rise as the moving foot is passing (the end point of the step), it is commencing rise before the moving foot has passed, and therefore presumably before the body weight has fully arrived over the foot. Would you really condone lifting the heel before you even fully arrive on the foot?

Regards,
Jonathan

It depends or not if you are in a lowered position,how much you have lowered on the previous step. A pro would have a heal rise befor the swinging foot passes underneath, but some one first learning to dance would not.