Since a lot of people are misreading the book, I'm going to have to spell this out explicitly.

For the forward half of a natural turn:

STEP 1 begins when the right foot passes the standing left foot, has it's middle (and perhaps the downbeat of BEAT 1) when the right foot is placed, and ends when the left foot passes the right foot on its way to step two. Commence to rise at the end of one means that the rise begins just as the feet are passing. Heel-toe footwork means that the weight has reach the ball of the standing foot before the feet pass, and the heel of the standing foot is just starting to leave the floor as the left foot passes it.

Step 2 begines when the left foot passes the standing right foot, has its midpoint approximaly when the left foot is placed (most likely the downbeat of BEAT 2). Step two ends when the right foot has closed halfway to the left foot. Continue to rise on two implies that rise is ongoing throughout the entirity of step two.

Step three begins with the right foot halfway closed, then sees the right foot finish closing and take weight. The end has not been formally defined, but would probably be when the right heel touches the floor. Continue to rise on three would imply that there must be rise during some part of step three - but nowhere is it specified how much. It could be only during the initial part, as the foot is closing. Or it could continue as the weight is switched from one foot to the other. Or it could continue even with the weight on the left foot - this has not been specified, so it is purely an artistic choice.

Also, keep in mind that the entire lowering process is really a prelude action to the next figure - the natural stopping point is on the rise, because once the body is falling it must move.

...could even continue with the weight on the RIGHT foot...

Well that makes a difference. The second step is taken "across the LOD OF the first step". The first step is the marker.

Anonymous. And what do you think Richard Gleave on his tape is teaching. When you say that the right foot is half way on its journey at the end of two. Where you might confuse people is leading them into thinking that beat two with step two is the end of the step. There is according to your way a 1/4 second to spare. So why not as Richard calls it, call it two ( and ).And do we continue to rise after beat two. Of course we do and that is what the book says. Incidently whoever told you about the half closure did not get it from a book. It could have been from an article in a dance publication. But not from the book. It is there of course but doesn't get a mention. This site has been very good to you. You have done an about turn on a few things. Haven't you.

"When you say that the right foot is half way on its journey at the end of two. Where you might confuse people is leading them into thinking that beat two with step two is the end of the step."

That is why I have been quite carefully pointing out that beat two is not the same thing as step two. But you persist in ignoring this!

"So why not as Richard calls it, call it two ( and ).And do we continue to rise after beat two. Of course we do and that is what the book says."

Because that is NOT what the book says. The book defines the steps to begin and end at certain points, and provides instructions for what occurs during each step.

If you wish to talk in terms of beats rather than steps, you will have to translate the instructions to your personal (or Richard's personal) counting of steps.

If you simply try to pretend that the instructions written in terms of steps can be applied, literally and unaltered, to the beats, then you are showing ASTOUNDING IGNORANCE.

"Incidently whoever told you about the half closure did not get it from a book. It could have been from an article in a dance publication. But not from the book. It is there of course but doesn't get a mention."

Well, you are wrong. I typed it literally out of Alex Moore's book.

"This site has been very good to you. You have done an about turn on a few things. Haven't you. "

No, I haven't. But you are occasional surrender one of your misconceptions, bringing us into agreement.

Anonymous. Yes I read that bit on page 23. I can understand now why it was written that way. Any other way would interfere with the rise on three. That is most likely why an and count came into the equation between 2 3. Then somebody took it to its logical conclusion and said it must happen between very step. Now we have conformity. But then looking back again. The foot can't stop there, that's half way. Being that they never thought about half beats in those days only on a syncopation. Alex would have been in a dilemma not wishing to upset his fiends and relations by creating a revolution with an and count. So he wrote it that way. Which still leaves us rising and lowering on three and. So if I read this correctly. Three starts with the foot half way to closed. That would give us a big three wouldn't it.

"Which still leaves us rising and lowering on three and. So if I read this correctly. Three starts with the foot half way to closed. That would give us a big three wouldn't it."

Maybe not as big as you think. Step three likely ends when the heels touch the floor, but there is a lot of lowering still to do after that, which would be part of the following step one.

Similarly, in the music step three's halfway closed beginning likely occurs around the "and" BEFORE beat three, and ends fairly shortly after beat three. Much of the "and" after beat three would belong to the next step one, as that is the time in which the movement of leg and body would have to be in progress if that next next step one is going to strike on beat one.

If you wish to subdivide the measure and action each into six pieces, you are going to have to put carefully thought into exactly how they line up, in ways in which you did not when you danced them as 123. And you probably will not find what you like when you look at that.

I would instead strongly recommend that you forget about counting at all. Learn to create a properly sequenced natural turn action without any music. And then learn to fit that whole thing as a unit to the entire measure as a unit. Don't worry about precisly what part matches what part, because you won't like the truth when you discover it. Instead, have the body's energy match the energy of the music.

And for foxtrot that is going to be the only way to make it work, as the true detailed relationships are far too messy to try to write out formally.

Anonymous. First if you can give me the page number from Alex Moore I will read it.
Are you on the rise and fall taking into consideration the pendulum swing that occures. We do not have a ramp type movement. Remember Tarzan on his rope. I'm sure he lets go at the top of the swing. Remember when you said it starts by going down below the surface of the floor.This would be a feeling only. That is between one and two. Does that still apply. And then does our swing continue upwards on an arc with sway occurring naturally. Not forced.

"Anonymous. First if you can give me the page number from Alex Moore I will read it.
Are you on the rise and fall taking into consideration the pendulum swing that occures. We do not have a ramp type movement.

"Remember Tarzan on his rope. I'm sure he lets go at the top of the swing."

Only at the time point at which he grabs a new rope from the next tree to begin a new swing down.

"Remember when you said it starts by going down below the surface of the floor.This would be a feeling only. That is between one and two."

No - the low point of the swing is between STEPS three and one, not between one and two. By the END of step 1 (or strike of down beat 1 if you prefer to think in beats rather than steps) you must be on your way up again.

The below the floor idea is really just another way of expressing the idea that in modern dancing the arriving foot will flatten before the moving foot closes. If the swing merely brushed tangent to the floor the arriving heel would flatten only as the feet pass, as they did it in the era of the book. But today's swing dips below the floor, and as a result has the arriving foot flat even before the feet close.

"Anonymous. First if you can give me the page number from Alex Moore I will read it."

It's on page 23 in the 10th edition. It's right after he looks at the waltz, quickstep, and then foxtrot natural turns, and right before the explanation of No Foot Rise - put in there as if he realized that the detailed explanations of actions could not make sense unless he formal defined the start and end points of each type of step action.

Which your confusion has proven to be the case... if you are going to use the book's methods, you have to learn to understand the books langauge, which means learning its definitions.