cdroge. A simpler way to expain is.. In the Foxtrot we are at our highest point on two which we maintain onto step three before we lower.
In the Waltz we are still rising on three before we lower.

"A simpler way to expain is.. In the Foxtrot we are at our highest point on two which we maintain onto step three before we lower."

Simply not true.

You get this by reading the simplified description in the book far too literally, and not paying enough attention to what actually happens in dancing.

The reality is that the body continues to gain altitude as the legs close towards passing at the end of step two, and then starts losing altitude as the legs separate again.

The rise and fall described in the book is only one part of the overall change in altitude, and if it's the only part that you pay attention to then you will give answers that are inconsistent with what real dancers can be seen to do so well.

To explain the theory a little more.. as Scriv. so correctly stated,that to commence to lower on the second Q, allowed the momentum to be carried fwd , the sustained rise prevents this from happening.

The literal translation of the book can be very misleading ( no pun ) as has been stated many times.. it is a GUIDE, that is partially why it is called the" Revised " techn.

Again, as Len said, there can be no such thing as an absolute technique, as you also can neither measure rise and fall .

Can i just get back to waltz for a moment.
The "continue to rise on 3" part. I have a question. As the legs close, the body will naturally rise a little. Is this the 'continue to rise' component?Do the feet do anything to add (or detract) from this "on 3" rise? similarly do the legs do anything (apart from closing, of course) such as more or less softening?
Could anyone volunteer a description of what the feet and legs are doing from the moment step 2 (of 1-2-3 natural turn)is planted?

I believe Anymouse answers your question in part. " However, I would agree that the rise occurring during the later part of step two and the earlier part of step three feels more like you are "floating up" from the swing than that you are lifting yourself by intentionally pushing with your muscles." So how much you would have to use your muscles strengh to close the feet and transfer weight would depend on how strong an upward swing you can achieve at the leval of dancing you are at. I think this is correct? Cheers

Anonymous. In the Foxtrot according to you the rise we get on step two is not maintained onto step three. Now you are quoting Len Scrivener Is is it 20 or is it 30 years ago that he wrote the technique book is wrong. If we arrive on step two with height we must maintain that height onto the beginning of step three and then start to lower. Otherwise we would be lowering on step two which would mean that knee is bending too early. And that's not correct is it.I would suggest that Len was only trying to say that we soften the movement between two and three and let what comes naturally happen. Go to Learn the Dances Feather Step on this site, copy and you will be correct.. Another to look at is Luca and Lorain Foxtrot Demo. If it is possible try to keep an eye on their heads in relation to the wall to see the rise and fall of which there is plenty of.

"Anonymous. In the Foxtrot according to you the rise we get on step two is not maintained onto step three."

The quality that the book considers to be rise is maintained, what is not maintained is the actual altitude.

"Now you are quoting Len Scrivener Is is it 20 or is it 30 years ago that he wrote the technique book is wrong."

No, I'm not quoting with him. While I agree with him about what the dancing looks like overall, unlike him I don't consider the book to be wrong. It's accurate for what it describes, but what it described is only part of the picture, not the whole story. The book's idea of rise and fall is only one part of what creates the overall change in altitude.

"If we arrive on step two with height we must maintain that height onto the beginning of step three and then start to lower. Otherwise we would be lowering on step two which would mean that knee is bending too early."

The problem is that you are thinking only in terms of the action of the feet, ankles, and knees, and forgetting about the change in altitude due to the legs being apart, then together, then apart again. As the feet close at the end of step two, the altitude peaks. From there, it starts decreasing again, not because the knees are bending or the feet lowering (that happens later), but because the legs are separating. The book doesn't talk about this component of change of altitude, but it can be plainly seen in any video of good dancing - and the bigger the movement is, the more obvious it becomes.

"If it is possible try to keep an eye on their heads in relation to the wall to see the rise and fall of which there is plenty of."

You will see continuing gain of altitude until the end of step two, and loss of altitude beginning immediately thereafter.

Anonymous. So now we come to the big question. If you were taking a teaching examination and was asked to explain , you would be wrong according to the technique book which you would be working from. Isn't that so.

"Anonymous. So now we come to the big question. If you were taking a teaching examination and was asked to explain , you would be wrong according to the technique book which you would be working from. Isn't that so."

If you are being examined in the context of the technique book, give answers in the context of the technique book.

These answers are not incorrect if stated in the way they are written in the book, they are merely incomplete. But the goal of the technique book and related examination is to present some of the key ideas in a consistent manner. It was never about explaining everything. With your actual students you would have time to do that as necessary.