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.

"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.

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

"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.

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.

"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!

Anonymous. Maybe on paper it could be argued where a step starts or finishes. But when we are dancing that's a different story. Take the Foxtrot. I was always told don't bother about the Slows but get those quicks dead on the beat. If you are being judged the judge will be able to see clean timing an readable choreography. Any stepping inbetween beats will look and is muddy. Once again we are governed by the music not the steps.

I'm with those who believe that music is the ruler.If there is evidence that says the step begins and ends half way. My way of thinking woudn't it be better to move the step either forward or back onto the beat then maybe theses rocket scienists might become happy. We can't move the music backward or forward can we. The music is set. We have it on a disk. The argument it infantile and fruitless. Would anyone like to try a Quickstep starting on a step halfway into a beat. It sound as stupid as it is. Who agrees..

"I'm with those who believe that music is the ruler.If there is evidence that says the step begins and ends half way. My way of thinking woudn't it be better to move the step either forward or back onto the beat then maybe theses rocket scienists might become happy."

It's simply a matter of the definitions used to formally document dancing. Someone decided that, FOR PURPOSES OF DESCRIPTION, steps start and end when the feet pass.

If you want to re-write the defintions, then you have to adjust the step descriptions in the books to match your new idea of where steps start and end...

The steps start with the music and end when the music stops playing. If you dance without music there is no way to tell if the dance is in time or out.