"It would seem that both you and Clive are writting about the second step of a Natural Turn in th Waltz."

Only with regard to explaining pointing alignments.

"The lady keeps her weight over the LF and is still facing diag to centre as she points her right toe on step two, down the LOD ( not across )."

NO!

That's exactly the mistake people make in understanding pointing alignments. The foot does not fully achieve the new alignment or the extension that would go with it while the body is stationary over the left foot, it achieves it only
as the body is in motion. It is not a stop-point-go action, instead it is one that unfolds continously, albeit more slowly than the forward partner's larger action. The often demo'd pose of standing over the standing foot and pointing the moving foot in the new alignment never actually happens when the figure is danced through properly.

I remember the first time a teacher told me that the bend in both knees is usually quite comparable. I immedaitely objected, what about pointing alignments. That was the day I learned how pointing alignments are actually danced - not by extending the foot and then moving to it, but rather by extending it and developing the alignment only as you move towards it.

Anonymous. you have got that completely wrong.
Its no good sending you to youtube which you obviously do not have . So instead go to Learn the Dances right here and tell me what you see.
Isn't the ladies weight still over the left foot and the heel still in contact with the floor as the right foot is placed.
Look at what is and not what you think it is. Don't write into it something that is not there.

"Isn't the ladies weight still over the left foot and the heel still in contact with the floor as the right foot is placed."

The heel is in contact with the floor, but the BODY is no longer OVER the left foot as the right foot reaches its ultimate position. Instead, the body has already moved away from the left foot towards the soon to be achieved placement of the right foot.

The only support at this time is through the left foot, yes, but the body is not in balance over it. Instead it is accelerating through an unbalanced position towards impendending arrival on the moving foot. You could not stay there - it is only possible to do this during a continuous motion.

This is ultimately the difference betwen real, fully-flighted dancing, and a series of poses: real dancing involves passing through positions which cannot be sustained as static poses, because during these intermediate positions the body is not balanced, but must continue in movement.

If you could look at the action during frames 128 to 137of the video "Natural Turn Narrated counts. (0:26)" on this website, you would see that during this time when the right foot is moving towards its placement, the lady's body is moving away from her standing left foot. The pointing alignment is never achieved while the body is stable over the left foot, but only as it moves away from it towards where the right foot is about to arrive. You might also note that the knees straighten together - the moving foot only achieves extension as the standing leg's straightening pushes the body away from the standing foot.

I had a feeling this might be a CBM thing. it is a shame the technique book does not make this clearer. Looking at the amounts of turn as you suggest clearly suggests no turn - but does this refer to the turn at the end of foot placement or at the end of the step. Having acheived a particular alignment on placement during the first part of the step there is nothing to say I cant make any turn or continue turning on the latter part. Indeed it would be deterimental to acheiving smooth continuous turn. So the question what do the tabulated alignments in GH refer to.



OK - Again more confusion from the way this book is written in that it seems odd they should make a point of the delayed body turn in some instances but not others.

"Looking at the amounts of turn as you suggest clearly suggests no turn - but does this refer to the turn at the end of foot placement or at the end of the step."

On step one there is not usually any turn of the foot between its placement and the end of the step, because the direction of movement is continued unaltered during step one.

"Having acheived a particular alignment on placement during the first part of the step there is nothing to say I cant make any turn or continue turning on the latter part."

What says you can't is the reality of the situations making turn of that foot inappropriate until the action has progressed beyond the formal end of step one, and well into what is defined to be part of step two.

"Indeed it would be deterimental to acheiving smooth continuous turn."

Turn of the feet is not continuous over all three steps. Most of it is concentrated during step two, though some remains for step three. Again this has to do with the continuation of the direction of movement unaltered throughout step one.

"it seems odd they should make a point of the delayed body turn in some instances but not others."

We should also consider that the dividing line between steps two and three falls in a different place with respect to the completion of the turn for the closing and passing cases. For the closing case, step 2 ends with the feet halfway closed, but for the passing case it ends at the instant when the feet are closed during the course of passing. That makes some actions that are part of step two in the passing case instead part of step three for the closing case.

Anonymous. If my left foot is flat on the floor and my right toe is to the side. Where would you say my weight would be. How exactly would you explain NFR on step one. Why is there NFR on one as stated in all the technique books. If you cannot find In Learn The Dances a place where the lady is still facing on the diagonal with the right foot to the side and the weight still over the LF there is something wrong with you.
Just explain the reason the technique books all say No Foot Rise On One. Is it because step two is placed without weight.

talking about the last three steps of a waltz reverse turn, say, for the man, on the inside of the turn. the question seems to be at what point is the heel of step 1 released. it is down (just ?) at the e/o 1 as the feet pass. but then it could come off as the moving foot moves towards its final position as step 2 is taken, or as the final position is reached [and weight transferred] or sometime after ie as step 3 is taken. whatever the answer it is obviously different for the corresponding steps in foxtrot where there isnt nfr and the ftwk is tht - so in the latter case the heel presumably comes up again almost immediately after it lowers ie as step 2 moves past the passing position. my inclination then is to think that in waltz the heel must stay down for longer, otherwise no distinction would be made between the two dances - but obviously there is a point where keeping the heel down becomes awkward - so again the question is at wahat point does heel release occur. a related question is what is the "alignment" of the standing foot as step 2 is placed ie does it stay where it was facing (backing)at the e/o 1.

Polished. you confuse me. on the one hand you seem to be a stickler for standardised technique but on the other hand you base a lot of your thinking on what todays professionals are doing which of course is different. i am personally more interested in the standardised technique because (a) that is what is being examined - undesirable though this situation might be, and (b) it is hard enough to understand the standardised technique leave alone all the variations, which to an extent just muddies the water. I agree it is interesting that technique is diverging, for better or worse i do not know, and may be many of the details make little difference, but i will not be able to decide until i have understand the original technique to the point where its foundations become clear.

"Talking about the last three steps of a waltz reverse turn, say, for the man, on the inside of the turn. the question seems to be at what point is the heel of step 1 released. it is down (just ?) at the e/o 1 as the feet pass. but then it could come off as the moving foot moves towards its final position as step 2 is taken, or as the final position is reached [and weight transferred] or sometime after ie as step 3 is taken."

On the inside of turn NFR step, the stan ding heel stays down until the moving foot has found its final position. On the video here, it appears to rise just as the moving foot stops moving across the floor, but before the moving foot does a little roll from the inside edge to to ball of foot - a roll which seems to include the final turn to the ultimate alignment.

"but obviously there is a point where keeping the heel down becomes awkward - so again the question is at wahat point does heel release occur."

I think you just named it - the point at which keeping it down is no longer advantageous.

"a related question is what is the "alignment" of the standing foot as step 2 is placed ie does it stay where it was facing (backing)at the e/o 1."

The standing foot is usually stationary as the moving foot is placed, but may then rotate against the floor as the weight arrives on the moving foot.

Interested. When anonymous says in paragraph two 8/14/08
The standing heel stays down untill the moving foot has found its final position.That is exactly right, at last.
This is a learning thing. I will ask you why is it neccessary to do it that way. Why not raise the heel imediatally as the person on the outside of the turn does.
I will also ask out of the five dances which three have the same action throughout. And again if this is not done correctly what is the end result.
Anonymouse . It's good to see that at last you've finaly clicked
Clive .It would be more correct to say. Between step one and two
For a bit of additional information. In his book Victor Silvester who introduced the Natural Turn says. For the lady make 3/8ths of a turn between steps 1 and 2.Step three doesn't get a mention. On the second half of the turn for the man step six doesn't have any turn. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just what is written. and how it was being performed for years.
Being a musician as well as a Professional dancer. I think if it had been around Victor would have recorded
" Look What They've Done To My song Ma "!!!.

"Anonymouse . It's good to see that at last you've finaly clicked"

The only thing that's changed is that you've finally decided to actually read what someone else wrote, instead of pretending that they said something different than what they actually did.