English
Hello, guest.

Log In or
Register
Return to Forum
81 Messages
Page 1 of 5
Next »
If my maths are ok
Posted by Anna
11/20/2006  5:47:00 AM
Modern Waltz. 28 bars a minute. will equall 1 second each beat. As there are six half beats. in one bar of music. And six moves. Do we count it this way. 1/2 sec. to step. 1/2 sec to draw the foot up and turn. 1/2 to put the foot to the side. 1/2 sec to draw the feet together.Now I have 1 second or 2 1/2`s to rise and fall. Can it be any other way and still comply with the technique book
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by phil.samways
11/20/2006  6:24:00 AM
Hi Anna
At 30 bars per minute and 3 beats to the bar, you have 90 beats per minute, so each beat is only 2/3 second. It'll be very s;lightly longer of course at 28 Bars per minute.
The rest of your question is more complex. I think you have it pretty well correct, though many would argue with some of the details.
For example, the technique book says "lower end of 3" (this would be for 1-2-3 natural turn, for example)without saying exactly when this is. Perhaps it's as well it's not too tightly specified. Most would lower on 3&. But again, the technique book only refers to foot lowering and not body lowering (am i right on this?)
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/20/2006  6:42:00 AM
"For example, the technique book says "lower end of 3" (this would be for 1-2-3 natural turn, for example)without saying exactly when this is."

That is lower at the end of STEP three, not the end of BEAT three.

Even if you make the assumption that each step takes exactly one beat, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that beats align with steps. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that steps begin and end somewhere around halfway through each beat - that would put the weight change which is approximately the midway action of each step on the downbeat, and would have us counting steps in terms of beats as and-one, and-two, and-three.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by phil.samways
11/21/2006  9:55:00 AM
In another thread somewhere, we agreed that the technique book doesn't define the relationship between steps and beats.
So i dance the way virtually all dancers do - plant my right foot (as in right foot forward at the 'start' of waltz natural turn)on beat 1. By the technique book this is halfway through step 1, but that doesn't matter. I'm not going to drive myself (and my partner)bananas by trying to step on beat 1&. The judges wouldn't like it either
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anna
11/21/2006  3:57:00 PM
Anonymous.There is an and at the end of three. You have put an and count at the beginning of one which belongs with the bar of music just gone.
Just something alse to argue about. There are teachers who very sucessfull teach at a very high level, who count the Foxtrot in threes, thats steps. Have Fun.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/21/2006  9:12:00 PM
"Anonymous.There is an and at the end of three."

There is an "and" at the end of beat three, but there is not one at the end of step three - because that part of the music belongs to the following step one.

"You have put an and count at the beginning of one which belongs with the bar of music just gone."

You need to read more carefully. I put the and count after beat three at the begining of STEP 1. If you wish step 1 to land squarely on beat 1, then the part of step 1 that takes place before the foot lands (which is about half of the step!) must take place before beat one... which is to say, during the later portion of beat three.

The fundamental source of confusion is a misunderstanding of what a "STEP" is in the language of ballroom. In the language of ballroom technique, a "STEP" is the action from one foot passing to the next foot passing (or half closure in the case of a closing step). It is not the action from one landing to the next!

Now you can of course invent your own language for talking to your friends and use the words any way you want. But if you are going to do that, you have to translate all recommendations written in terms of the standardized langauge of ballroom technique into the langauge of Anna - and that means moving the numbers around, since Anna steps are halfway offset from Alex Moore steps.

Just something alse to argue about. There are teachers who very sucessfull teach at a very high level, who count the Foxtrot in threes, thats steps. Have Fun.
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/21/2006  9:13:00 PM
"Just something alse to argue about. There are teachers who very sucessfull teach at a very high level, who count the Foxtrot in threes, thats steps. Have Fun."

Indeed - that is precisely how the figures are written. And those are obviously not beats for the foxtrot. Nor are the beats for the waltz, evne though there happen to be three steps and also three beats, they don't match. Just look at the chasse - it has four actions plus one followup - but I don't recall any waltz with four unequal beats in a measure!
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by phil.samways
11/22/2006  4:02:00 AM
Hi anonymous
i don't know whether there are 2 anonymii or 1.
Anyway, i think you're trying to confuse us.
Anna's steps will not be halfway offset from Alex Moore's steps because Alex Moore never specified when the steps would take place relative to the music. You've agreed to this before.
""""Just look at the chasse - it has four actions plus one followup - but I don't recall any waltz with four unequal beats in a measure!"""""
What do you mean?? A chassis can be danced 1,&,2,3 or 1,2,&3 or possibly even 1,2,3,& - all of these are 4 actions in 3 beats. Everyone does syncopated steps. What does your comment mean?
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Anonymous
11/24/2006  9:37:00 PM
"""""Just look at the chasse - it has four actions plus one followup - but I don't recall any waltz with four unequal beats in a measure!"""""
What do you mean?? A chassis can be danced 1,&,2,3 or 1,2,&3 or possibly even 1,2,3,& - all of these are 4 actions in 3 beats. Everyone does syncopated steps. What does your comment mean?"

The rise and fall is specified in terms of the FOUR STEPS, not in terms of the THREE BEATS. Obviously in that case shows that beats and steps are not the same thing.

Nor are they the same thing in a natural turn - you just get confused because their are three of each and they may take the same amount of time - but the DO NOT LINE UP. Instead, the beats land roughly in the middle of the steps, maybe a little earlier - but steps do not being anywhere near on the beat, because there is quite a bit that needs to happen between the beginning of a step and when it lands.
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!
Re: If my maths are ok
Posted by Don
11/29/2006  11:26:00 PM
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.
81 Messages
Page 1 of 5
Next »
Copyright © 1997-2014 BallroomDancers.com