Log In

Username:

Password:

   Stay logged in?

Forgot Password?

User Status

 

Attention

 

Recover Password

Username or Email:

Loading...
Change Image
Enter the code in the photo at left:

Before We Continue...

Are you absolutely sure you want
to delete this message?

Premium Membership

Upgrade to
Premium Membership!

Renew Your
Premium Membership!

$99
PER YEAR
$79
PER YEAR
$79
PER YEAR

Premium Membership includes the following benefits:

Don't let your Premium Membership expire, or you'll miss out on:

  • Exclusive access to over 1,620 video demonstrations of patterns in the full bronze, silver and gold levels.
  • Access to all previous variations of the week, including full video instruction of man's and lady's parts.
  • Over twice as many videos as basic membership.
  • A completely ad-free experience!

 

Sponsored Ad

+ View Older Messages

Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anna
11/25/2006  12:13:00 AM
Anonymous. So beat one. Then foot lands, now let me see is it in between that and the second beat. We are not even considering the step before which would have its own problems. Are you saying we have step and then the musical beat of one. Or are you saying that the music beats one and sometime after we step one. Do you realise how ridiculace this sounds looks and is . Why would anybody try to seperate the steps from the beats, unless they aren't capable of hearing the beats. The count remains 1 and 2 and 3 and. The and cannot come from the beat which has not struck ,it is always part of the beat that is still ringing.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/25/2006  5:31:00 AM
"Anonymous. So beat one. Then foot lands, now let me see is it in between that and the second beat. We are not even considering the step before which would have its own problems. Are you saying we have step and then the musical beat of one. Or are you saying that the music beats one and sometime after we step one. Do you realise how ridiculace this sounds looks and is ."

You are missing one simple fact which is preventing you from understanding this.

A STEP DOES NOT BEGIN WHEN THE FOOT IS PLACED.

Instead, a step is DEFINED to begin when the feet pass. That means that the placement of the foot is closer to the MIDDLE of the step than it is to the begining. And similarly, the downbeat would be close to the middle of the step if it is to match the strike of the foot.

This is the universal language of ballroom technique, long established now in tradition. You don't have to use it yourself, but if you choose not to, you will have to translate written references between this language and whatever idea of what a "step" is that you have personally chosen to use.

You can't go on igonring the difference in defitinions, or you will not be making any sense.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anna
11/25/2006  1:58:00 PM
Anonymous. The step does not begin when the foot is placed.
Shouldn't you be saying that the step begins when the music starts to play. The way it is interpreted is another thing. I've yet to see anybody dancing before the music starts. I don't know what you do . But I listen to the four bar introduction to gauge the tempo and I expect to move onto my first step which will coincide with the music.
Alex did actually say in his book," The time value of the step". If that is not talking about music then what is.
I think I can see where you are coming from. You are saying that the foot that is behind has to move early and in front of the beat to arrive on the beat. But it will arrive on the beat regardless of where it started. Feet together for instance. Then we might have feet together to feet together. I think you will find that it was intended that the foot arrives on the beat. Arrive before you are out of time. Arrive late you are out of time. If you are in a competition and it gets known among the judges ( they do talk ) That you are not usually with the beat you will get yourself crucified and rightly so.
Heres one for you. In the Samba which part of the foot is touching the floor dead on the beat.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/25/2006  4:56:00 PM
"Anonymous. The step does not begin when the foot is placed. Shouldn't you be saying that the step begins when the music starts to play."

What I am saying is that for purposes of documenting dance technique a "step" is something with a specific, precise meaning, encompassing the action from one passing of the feet to the next passing or halfway closure.

You may not find that definition of the word logical, but it is the formal one accepted for usage.

"Alex did actually say in his book," The time value of the step". If that is not talking about music then what is."

Good that you mention this - a time value of one beat does not necessarily equal beat one or beat two. It might instead equaly the period from beat 1.65 to beat 2.65 for example (which as a guess might be where the official duration of step 2 should fall, with the landing of the foot squarely on beat 2.00)

"I think I can see where you are coming from. You are saying that the foot that is behind has to move early and in front of the beat to arrive on the beat. But it will arrive on the beat regardless of where it started. Feet together for instance. Then we might have feet together to feet together."

In fact, we do have feet together to feet together as the step boundaries, at least for situations where the feet pass. But from feet together, the leg has to complete the remaining half of its swing before it lands on the beat. The time it spends doing that would need to come out of the previous beat. In other words, steps begin well before the beat and end well after it.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anna
11/26/2006  11:48:00 PM
Anonymous. So there is an and count at the end of one according to your last paragraph. Soon you will agree that it is a collection point as well.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/27/2006  7:05:00 AM
"Anonymous. So there is an and count at the end of one according to your last paragraph."

There is an "and" at the end of BEAT one.

But there is no "and" at the end of STEP one, instead there is an "and" at the BEGINNING of step one. That is, at least if you use the accepted definition of the beginning of a step. If you invent your own definition, then all bets are off.

"Soon you will agree that it is a collection point as well."

More of a passing point.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Don
11/27/2006  10:50:00 PM
Anonymous. If we are talking just steps only. All we have is 1 2 3 or if this is Foxtrot 1 2 3 4. I'm counting the lapping step there as it is the the book. Lets stick to the Waltz. But that isn't dancing. It's in between the steps that we dance. A Step, Drive or whatever you may call it is just a step. When we put this to music we have spaces between the beats just as we have spaces between the steps. Combined we have (and) coming from the last bar of music. Then we have one (and) and so on. Can the very first (and) that's before one, be classed as part of one. There is a space for it to go but beat one hasn't been struck yet. I think it is best left alone. A lot of people have danced for a long time without thinking about this.
The same goes for Latin in
particular the Rumba. Latin dancers know more about filling those inbetween places than most modern dancers do. Fina Legare
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/28/2006  8:20:00 AM
"Can the very first (and) that's before one, be classed as part of one. There is a space for it to go but beat one hasn't been struck yet."

No, but STEP one has already begun.

The "and" before BEAT one is not part of beat one, it is part of the preceding beat 3 or 4.

However, it is mostly part of STEP one, at least if we are talking about waltz.

"I think it is best left alone."

Indeed, it is best left alone. The only reason it came up was that someone misread the book rise and fall as being in terms of beats, and tried to claim that people were dancing it wrong. Actually, the book rise and fall is given in terms of the STEPS, not be the beats, and when you realize that, you would realize that the claimed technical error (not saving any rise for three - STEP three that is) is quite rare. An artistic error may still be there, but not a technical error in relation to what the book requests.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Don
11/28/2006  3:56:00 PM
Anonymous. I suppose a good argument would be that what is past is dead. Therefore the first step only starts as it lands. We cannot turn time backwards. It is gone it no longer exists. All of you scientists have a go at that one. Taking it on from there. Step one starts as it lands. Step two starts as it lands. Between you and me I don't give a hoot.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/28/2006  6:31:00 PM
"Anonymous. I suppose a good argument would be that what is past is dead. Therefore the first step only starts as it lands. We cannot turn time backwards. It is gone it no longer exists. All of you scientists have a go at that one. Taking it on from there. Step one starts as it lands. Step two starts as it lands. Between you and me I don't give a hoot."

Don, if you choose to redefine when a step starts and ends, then you have to take all those instructions about what is supposed to happen at the end of a step (commence to rise, lower, whatever) and move them to new portions of your redefined steps, so that they will still happen at the same point in the action as they are formally written to.

It is in your failure to make that translation that the fundamental mistake occured.

If you change the defintion of a step, then you must also change everything else that depends on that definition!

+ View More Messages

Copyright  ©  1997-2024 BallroomDancers.com