What "book" are you citing?

It has been quite a while since anything by Moore has been in use as the defined technique of any major dance teaching society, although the current texts are very obviously hugely indebted to "The Revised Technique" (but not, of course, to "Ballroom Dancing").

I don't have the appetite for a point by point response your rambling post: it is very difficult to tell what it is you're trying to say, but you might like to consider that "continuing to rise" is NOT the same thing as being "up". The rather strange movement you seem to have in mind would require something like: start to rise e/o 1, continue to rise on 2, up on 3 and start lowering soon after.

Moving from the closed position on step 3 to the open position on step 4 would result in a loss of elevation, except that there is the capacity left for the final element of "continuing to rise" that more-or-less exactly compensates for the spreading of the feet. The figure is characterised by gradual rise over 4 steps, and only arrives at "up" on 4.

Perhaps you could publish a Technique of your own, although I doubt you'd sell many copies.

"What "book" are you citing?

It has been quite a while since anything by Moore has been in use as the defined technique of any major dance teaching society, although the current texts are very obviously hugely indebted to "The Revised Technique" (but not, of course, to "Ballroom Dancing")."

The ISTD is using an edited version of the revised technique. This is generally consistent with what Moore wrote in his other book, Ballroom Dancing, which is more wordy and expansive.

"you might like to consider that "continuing to rise" is NOT the same thing as being "up"."

Nor have I said it is - I have been talking about the incompleteness of the description of fall, not the treatment of rise. I would theorize that the book puts more attention into the true nature of rise because there are several distinct types with different knee usage, while the fall is more generic.

"up on 3 and start lowering soon after."

Almost. A literalist reading would conclude that we are up on the last step but lower at its end. Hopefully no one attempts to dance that way!

"Perhaps you could publish a Technique of your own."

Probably will at some point, but plan to spend several more decades on the ideas before doing so.

It does rather sound as though you DID mean "Ballroom Dancing".

Has it not occurred to you that if ANY of the standard texts had intended to say "Up on 3, Lower on 4" they might have said just that.

"Has it not occurred to you that if ANY of the standard texts had intended to say "Up on 3, Lower on 4" they might have said just that."

Neither Moore nor Howard chose to characterize it that way. I believe the reason is because both descriptions, especially with regard to lowering, are footwork-centric. You've pointed out that Howard mentions knee lowering after the foot lowering, but even this still leaves out the aspect of lowering that occurs before the foot lowering.

Scrivener on the other hand basically does say something like this - the actual subject was the feather step, and he observes (I don't have the wording available) that you are up on step 2 and descending throughout 3 rather than only at the end of 3. What Scrivener is including in his description that the other two are not is the contribution of leg division - you are highest when you are directly over your feet around the end of 2, once they start to separate you begin loosing altitude, something that happens before the falling action in the feet occurs.

It's worth noting that the contribution of leg-division lowering increases with the amount of travel. As travel has increased substantially over time, it may have been more reasonable to leave that element out of the older technique books, than it would be if composing technical descriptions from scratch today.

You can't really compare the two actions: a Feather Step has a forward movement T to TH from an already complete rise on 2 (Up), whereas a Quarter Turn has a backward movement from T to TH, continuing to rise on 3, to Up on 4.

The one thing on which I could agree is that the Technique does not say nearly enough about the mechanics of Rise & Fall. Apart from anything else, "fall" is only recognised as a Chart column heading - the technique deals exclusively with "lowering" (which is the direct counterpart to foot rise, and foot rise only). The other three elements of "rise" don't have their counterparts, and we have to infer what is happening. It's either that, or we get taller and taller as we dance around the room.

"You can't really compare the two actions: a Feather Step has a forward movement T to TH from an already complete rise on 2 (Up), whereas a Quarter Turn has a backward movement from T to TH, continuing to rise on 3, to Up on 4."

You seem to be forgetting that you have a partner who must do the forward action when you do the backward. While the situations are not identical, the way in which the book fall is substantially incomplete compared to the actual descent of the body is consistent in both cases.

"The one thing on which I could agree is that the Technique does not say nearly enough about the mechanics of Rise & Fall."

Yes, that's the whole point.

"the technique deals exclusively with "lowering" (which is the direct counterpart to foot rise, and foot rise only)."

This is part of the trouble - the difference between everyday usage of words and the specific ways they are used in technique books frequently leads to misunderstanding.

"The other three elements of "rise" don't have their counterparts, and we have to infer what is happening."

And many miss-infer. Not so much when they are out actually dancing (they end up doing what works), but that when trying to explain dancing to others they often end up trying to apply what the book says about loss of foot rise to the other aspects of descent.

And then there's also the problem that making modern usage of the other aspects of descent requires the foot rise to be lost earlier.

Anonymous. When quoting as from a technique book we have to read as it is written. There is a difference in lowering on step 4 and lowering at the end of step 4. This is the 4th step of the Progresive Chasse which is, just for the record. the same for a Chasse following a Whisk in the Waltz.
Don't let us uninformed leave bits out or add what isn't there.
It was mentioned earlier about the loss of hieght as our feet divide on a straight step. What we must remember is that as we step our knees straighten . As we arrive the knees bend. Question. If our head was touching a ceiling How much altitude would we loose on the actual step when the feet are apart. It gets a bit like the Samba where there is no variation in the height because of the knee straightening and bending and the use of the feet and ankles which would keep our head touching the ceiling.
About Len Scrivener. He wrote that on the third step of a Feather step the technique book is wrong. He said we are on our way down from step 2 to step 3. But let us be quite clear on this. He is talking about a straight line step and not a side and slightly back step.
Whilst we are on the Feather Step
Harry Smith- Hampshire asked where is the left foot in relation to the body as the right heel lowers to the floor. He never gave his answer and of course now never will. And so it goes on which i think helps to prove that Dancing is not an exact science. It is an art. I'm going to sound like one of our other writters now when i say we have eternal revolution. Where we have thesis, anti thesis culminating at a nodel point and becoming synthesis. At the moment the best thing we can do is go to the experts and in slow motion see if we can see what is actually being done on whatever problem part or parts we may have.

"Anonymous. When quoting as from a technique book we have to read as it is written."

No, you have to read it through the lens of a knowledge of the particular meaning that the author gave to words. In many cases that meaning is quite different from what the man on the street would assume the word implied.

"There is a difference in lowering on step 4 and lowering at the end of step 4."

Yes and no. I can't think of many examples there the book says to lower on a step, mostly just examples where it says to lower at the end of the step. However, if you replace the typical book meaning of the word "lower" with a more typical man on the street meaning, then lowering "on" the step, as in throughout its entire duration, is exactly what happens. But that's not what the book means by the word "lower" - because the book does not include effects such as height lost to the division of the legs. As an example, the following three statements are all correct:

Loose foot rise at the end of 4 (if dancing book-scale movement)

Descend throughout step 4

Loose foot rise shortly after step 4 is placed (if dancing substantially larger than book-scale movement)

"It was mentioned earlier about the loss of hieght as our feet divide on a straight step. What we must remember is that as we step our knees straighten . As we arrive the knees bend. Question. If our head was touching a ceiling How much altitude would we loose on the actual step when the feet are apart."

It would depend on how big the step was. Movement today is much larger than when the books were written, which means that this loss of altitude that once might have been reasonably overlooked for sake of simplicity can no longer be omitted from the description without giving a misleading impression.

"It gets a bit like the Samba where there is no variation in the height because of the knee straightening and bending and the use of the feet and ankles which would keep our head touching the ceiling."

Samba (and occasionally tango) see the feet and knees working out of phase to maintain a constant level; the swing dances do not. We flex the knee to moderate the rate of rise, but ultimately at the highest point of the figure we are standing over an at least moderately risen foot on an essentially straight (though not locked) knee.

"About Len Scrivener. He wrote that on the third step of a Feather step the technique book is wrong. He said we are on our way down from step 2 to step 3. But let us be quite clear on this. He is talking about a straight line step and not a side and slightly back step."

The direction is irrelevant. The difference between Scrivener and the other authors is that Scrivener comments on the altitude lost due to leg division, while the others do not.

"Whilst we are on the Feather Step
Harry Smith- Hampshire asked where is the left foot in relation to the body as the right heel lowers to the floor. He never gave his answer and of course now never will."

The answer depends on how far into the knee you intend to descend between step 3 and step 1 of the next figure. If not very far, then the book timing of the lowering would apply (heel down only as the feet pass). However, if you intend to continue descending beyond the position of step 3, then you will need to get your heel flat on the floor substantially earlier. This is a perfect example of how the required technique must change to achieve the same overall character and functional relationships when the amount of movement is increased beyond the size originally contemplated.

Anonymous. I take it for granted that we are trying to dance as the top dancers and demonstrators do. In that case my knee will bend to an angle of 45 degrees between the hip and the knee, which will give us 45 degrees between the knee and the foot also . Which brings us to the speed the Foxtrot is being played at, which is getting slower, especially in a demonstration which would explain the deeper knee bending to absorb the slower music. I think 30 bars a minute
is long gone.

"Anonymous. I take it for granted that we are trying to dance as the top dancers and demonstrators do."

When our goals are similar, yes.

"In that case my knee will bend to an angle of 45 degrees between the hip and the knee, which will give us 45 degrees between the knee and the foot also ."

Perhaps for some applications at specific points in time, most definitely not for others or at other times. Since you've failed to state an application or a point in time, it is not possible to evaluate your comment.

I would also point out that the lower leg angle will only be oppositely equal to the upper leg angle at the instant in time when the body is directly over the standing foot. All of the rest of the time, the two angles are unequal.

"Which brings us to the speed the Foxtrot is being played at, which is getting slower, especially in a demonstration which would explain the deeper knee bending to absorb the slower music."

The deeper knee bend is primarily due to taking more travel. Consider for example that today's dancers will travel more and descend deeper even when dancing to 30 mpm music than their teachers did during their own competitive years.

30 mpm may not be chosen for demonstrations any more, but it is still frequently encountered.