I think we all probably know that according to the manuel 4th step Spin Turn Waltz goes down the LOD. I've been looking at some instruction tapes, which includes the Letter Service tapes,which when in full flight both the man and the lady take this step diag to wall. Just to make things clear.The 4th step for the man and the lady is down the LOD as is according to the book. Yet in a demonstration, or in competition both step diagonal to the wall. Even on my Instruction tape the solo teaching was as the manual. Directly they danced together it was not. Question. If I were being examined for a teaching credential which would pass and which would fail.

Hi friends,
This is an old 'chestnut'. Only in a Fellowship examination would you be allowed to give an opinion and then it's still up to the examiner to give you permission. A few months ago I wrote an answer to a similar query about step 4 for the gent in the Slow Foxtrot reverse turn. It states that the alignment is backing line of dance. I believe we all know that the heel of the gent's right foot will end backing DC. This is an inherent turn and it must travel in that direction for the body weight to remain in balance over the foot. It would be entirely wrong to state that there is an 1/8th of a turn to the left between step 3 and step 4. The lady has a similar turn on step 1 of an Heel Turn. Regarding step 4 of the natural pivot with the toe turning in again it will follow the turn of the body, which will be DW. This is a cardinal rule of balance. Just recently a subscriber to this message board quoted Scrivener who said that you rise e/o 1 up on 2 then commence to lower e/o 2 and down on 3. That is for the gent's feather step. ‘Scriv' then said that experienced dancers would do that, but naturally they will not make any effort to commence to lower e/o 2. Reason for this is it simply occurs through the laws of dynamics. If this is not clear, stand with feet together, high on the balls of the feet, then take a step to the side. Notice the loss in elevation. This is a natural action, where as a lowering is a deliberate action.

Anon 3,

Do as they do. Dance the prescribed technique when demonstrating solo in an examination, quote the prescribed technique when explaining in examinations but dance the thing that all the good competitive dancers dance when dancing with your partner in competitions .

There's nothing 'technically' wrong with dancing the 123 of the NST like a lame duck. Then one will be able to dance the 4th step down LOD, toe turned quite nicely .

Here's a secret for you, when you watch those tapes where they nail the 123 and then 'step diagonally to wall'. It's really a combination of a underturned 3th step & a 'curved' 4th step, meaning that at the end-of-3 you are really underturned (less than 3/8's of a turn and not quite backing LOD) then you curve through step 4 placing the foot somewhere between LOD and diagonally to wall. If you overturn the 3rd step to back diagonally to wall and then step back diagonally to wall on the 4th (with CBM), you won't create the same quality of rotational momentum in the movement. If you use to much CBM on 4 to create the rotation you will not get the quality that comes from using just enough CBM but 'curving' as well.

Rha

"Do as they do. Dance the prescribed technique when demonstrating solo in an examination, quote the prescribed technique when explaining in examinations but dance the thing that all the good competitive dancers dance when dancing with your partner in competitions"

Why not try to do one better and make the two consistent. Couples that both move to to DW on step four are not coordinating their actions with their goals. Usually there is some instability in the lowering contributing, but often the mistake is that the man tries too hard to get out of the lady's way, and so he not only gets out of her way, he makes her curve her path off the intended direction of movement and waste part of her energy moving towards DW with him. If the man moved his body down LOD while opening the right side to give her a path, his foot would toe in slightly but he would not force a sidways component into both their steps. Some of this also gets confused with the under turned body position that exists before the lowering - specifically, it appears that many are not allowing their body (or even worse) their feet to catch up to the LOD alignment during the course of the lowering. If they attempt to take step 4 while still having a side lead (and only then dance a tardy, ineffectual CBM) it will of course be sideways...

"Couples that both move to to DW on step four are not coordinating their actions with their goals. Usually there is some instability in the lowering contributing, but often the mistake is that the man tries too hard to get out of the lady's way, and so he not only gets out of her way, he makes her curve her path off the intended direction of movement and waste part of her energy moving towards DW with him."

I'm talking about a very specific way of 'moving somwhat DW on the 4th' and I think I've described it quite clearly. You misunderstand the goals of those who dance this technique and that includes all the big names past and present. The man trying to get out of the lady's way is a very small part of employing this technique. The idea is about working with the progressive rotational momentum that already exists to create more rotation yet maintaining a superior continuity and flight versus the technique you propose.

"man tries too hard to get out of the lady's way"

Incorrect. He does not have any such intent when dancing the technique I describe. That's what you may have had in your head when you started dancing, if you've ever tried this before.

"and so he not only gets out of her way, he makes her curve her path off the intended direction of movement and waste part of her energy moving towards DW with him"

Incorrect. If one dances the 123 with a powerful swing then it feels much more natural and maintains greater continuity and rotational flight for both the man and lady to curve the 4th step if they have the choreographic intent that most competitive dancers strive for, that is a continuous and progressive rotation flight between the end-of-3,4 & 5. It blends the 123 and the 456 in a way the is very appealing to most who see it being executed.

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. There no problem with disagreeing with someone but there's a pattern here that follows the same path in all your responses. Are you willing to put your chop logic analysis and the prescribed technique aside for one moment and contemplate what is being said objectively, then give it a fair try by actually dancing it with your partner a few times? If you find a problem with something, like you balance at a specific point, then let me know. I promise I'll help you sort it out. Maybe we can take your dancing to another level because if I put together some of the technical ideas you subscribe to and your attitude to anything that deviates from that technique I get a pretty ugly picture in my mind.

Rha

"Incorrect. If one dances the 123 with a powerful swing then it feels much more natural and maintains greater continuity and rotational flight for both the man and lady to curve the 4th step if they have the choreographic intent that most competitive dancers strive for, that is a continuous and progressive rotation flight between the end-of-3,4 & 5. It blends the 123 and the 456 in a way the is very appealing to most who see it being executed."

Well there's your conceptual mistake. In the waltz, the swing from end of 3 through 4, 5, and 6 is entirely a new action, not a continuation of the swing from 0, 1, 2. If you try to blend the swings, then yes you will drift off to the wall, but you are no longer dancing the waltz. Dancers who understand the technique understand that progressive rotation does not mean curve, it means rotation superimposed on progression.

Interestingly, in the foxtrot the swings are blended one into another, but, we do not see the problem of drifting off to the wall nearly as much between a natural and an impetus. Why? Because the feet passing at the end of the natural enforces the progression down the LOD (vs drifting off to DW). Nobody has a problem remembering their goal when their feet are apart - it's with the feet together that many, even at a world class level, momentarily forget where they are going.

"Well there's your conceptual mistake."

"If you try to blend the swings, then yes you will drift off to the wall, but you are no longer dancing the waltz."

There you go again with unsubstantiated claims, "conceptual mistake", "no longer dancing the Waltz"...according to whom, yourself and the prescribed technique, yes. But neither you nor the prescribed written technique for that matter define what is Waltz and what is not Waltz. It's the height of arrogance to assume that you alone know what the Waltz should or should not be, based on your experiences and your understanding of the prescribed technique, no matter what level of expertise you have in the prescribed technique. I know the prescribed technique as well as anyone and I can dance that technique with no problems. I've made a conscious choice to dance the NST with the technique I describe because I believe that the musicality, flight and continuity of the technique cannot be matched by the prescribed technique for the NST. Coincidently I see most, if not all, top competitors doing the same.

"Dancers who understand the technique understand that progressive rotation does not mean curve, it means rotation superimposed on progression."

You may impress the un-initiated with the above statement but you are missing the subtlety of the advanced technique I'm describing. That's why I say dance first before you judge with your intellect because your intellect will most often fail you when it comes to understanding the wisdom of artistry.

Read how I described the technique earlier carefully. The 1st part is underturned so you end backing somewhere between LOD DC. I described the 4th step as curved because the foot is place more DW therefore technically it is curved. What I now say is counter-intuitive based on how one normally perceives a curve but the 'trick' is that in the case of the NST one can use a 'curving' 4th step to keep a linear progression, from 1 to 4. This allows body swing and rotation within the frame established in the 1st part to be continued effortlessly into the 4th step. So if you keep the progression linear longer you will be able to maintain the continuity of the superimpose rotation.

The prescribed technique breaks the line of progression between the 1,2,3 and the 4,5,6. So this calls for 2 components of swing no matter what one does and therefore the perception of 2 parts to the figure without the continuity and flight present in the the technique I describe.

Rha

"the 'trick' is that in the case of the NST one can use a 'curving' 4th step to keep a linear progression, from 1 to 4. This allows body swing and rotation within the frame established in the 1st part to be continued effortlessly into the 4th step. So if you keep the progression linear longer you will be able to maintain the continuity of the superimpose rotation.

The prescribed technique breaks the line of progression between the 1,2,3 and the 4,5,6. So this calls for 2 components of swing no matter what one does and therefore the perception of 2 parts to the figure without the continuity and flight present in the the technique I describe."

As you've just described, dancing steps 1 to 4 on a common line of progression to DW is a serious departure from the prescribed technique. Maximus covered that issue so well that I have little to add to it.

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.

Except of course for the fact that few dancers are able to initiaate a world world class swing while lowering from foot closure... Seriously - put the full natural turn, natural turn & back lock, closed changes, etc into a compulsory program at Blackpool or the worlds, and we'd see a lot of head scratching and technique re-evalation amongst couples whose present methods leave them unable to dance these figures beyond the limited dynamic scale of a teaching demonstration.

"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.