Part of evolving into a master dancer is understanding that ACCENTUATION is not a formula (such as lifting a shoulder here, or raising a leg there). Rather, it is a CUSTOMIZATION of moving parts that create an interpretation of a segment of music that will evoke lyrical qualities of that music.

There is a point in the mastery of dance when you have to stop thinking about the MECHANICS (again, parts such as lifting or lowering a shoulder).
And instead focus on the type of expression that the music demands from your OVERALL technique.

The irony is, true, you need to learn the rules--BUT--until you can divest yourself of those same rules, you cannot truly dance with unfettered expression.



m

I couldn't imagine what he means, since I have been taught to rise to toe on 2 on heel lead straight SQQ timing - and that is all the rise the measure gets. Moore doesn't mention this in his book - yet Irvine's picture is all over earlier editions. I'm sure Irvine reviewed the book

Miles. Your not getting muddled betwean beats and steps are you. Its the third beat which is the second step.Best of luck there.

"I couldn't imagine what he means, since I have been taught to rise to toe on 2 on heel lead straight SQQ timing - and that is all the rise the measure gets. Moore doesn't mention this in his book - yet Irvine's picture is all over earlier editions. I'm sure Irvine reviewed the book"

Miles - you will understand it a lot better if your ignore quickstep's mistaken posts.

The accent Irvine is talking about has nothing to do with the rise. It is more the timing/attitude of the step. This is the one step that is really "nailed" to the music, while all the other float to a position that is comfortable rather than mathematically precise.

In terms of rise, although the book talks about the deliberate rising action, there will be an incidental gain and then loss in altitude as the legs close at the end of step two and reopen at the start of step three. Alex Moore chose not to talk about that, but it surely happened to him. Len Scrivener on the other hand did choose to talk about it, and took exception to Moore's failure to mention it in his explanation of rise and fall. It all depends on if you consider this incidental change to be part of the rise and fall, or if you consider only the more deliberate foot and related actions to be rise and fall, as Moore has done.

there will be an incidental gain and then loss in altitude as the legs close at the end of step two and reopen at the start of step three.

that is certainly true, I didn't think of it - the man would actually have to lower on the second step of the Feather count 3 to maintain a constant distance between the top of the head and the floor through the Feather counts 234.

Anyway count 3 is certainly accented as a rise through the spin on the Closed Impetus, and there is an intentional rise to accent count 3 on the Hover Corte

Rise at the end of one. What can be clearer than that. I would suggest that you go to Learn the Dances or any video you may have and look. It is very plain to see that the current professional champions get much higher than the most on that second step. I've just been looking . You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see it.
When you mention Len Scrivener. He said the book was wrong only on that after the second step the third step is not up but is decending. So if I am not up on two I can't decend on three can I. Just for the record I had lessons with Len way back in the 50's. I would suggest that a look at the current professional champions might be a good idea.
There is something else that needs to be looked at. If this is not done correctly then the Feather Step will be sub standard. If you watch Jonathan on the Feather or the Three step. Look at the correct action of the rear foot. You will see it goes to the tip of the toe and is held in contact with the floor, which gives it a delayed look. When we walk we lift the rear toe from the floor. When we dance we do not. Failure to do this correctly will result in the ball and then the heel having little or no contact with the floor. Which then means that we are standing on one leg. If the partner is the same then what sort of balance do we have between us.
How high is the heel from the floor for both the lady and the man. I would suggest we look at the moving pictures or the still ones at the extent of the stride. You will clearly see that the very last part of the toe is on the floor by both and also on every extension front and back. Falure to go all the way to the toe will also mean that last little bit of power off our standing foot is going to be lost.
Again go and look for yourself there are enough examples on this web site to look at and copy. Start with the Feather Step and look at evert detail from the feet to the head and everything inbetween.

"Rise at the end of one. What can be clearer than that."

It's clear, it is just not the whole story, as everyone except for you realizes. There is incidentally gain and loss of altitude after that. The book isn't wrong, it is just oversimplified.

"When you mention Len Scrivener. He said the book was wrong only on that after the second step the third step is not up but is decending."

Well the book isn't wrong, but he rightly pointed out that there is more to the story than what is written there. You continue going up until the end of step two, and then you start going down immediatley. This is not part of the formal rise and fall, but it obviously happens as result of the legs closing and opening, as anyone can see.

"Look at the correct action of the rear foot. You will see it goes to the tip of the toe and is held in contact with the floor, which gives it a delayed look."

If you look closer, you will see that it doesn't go to the tip until after the weight has left it. Yes, the closure is delayed, but the weight has already left the foot. In fact, you will have a hard time finding more than a single frame of video on which you might argue that there is weight in both feet - and quite often you will find zero such frames!

"Which then means that we are standing on one leg."

Which is exactly what all the skilled dancers do!

"If the partner is the same then what sort of balance do we have between us."

Answer: you are balanced. Standing one two legs is not balancing, it is cheating. Standing on one leg, and either being balanced, or moving along your intended path - that takes skill.

"How high is the heel from the floor for both the lady and the man. I would suggest we look at the moving pictures or the still ones at the extent of the stride. You will clearly see that the very last part of the toe is on the floor by both and also on every extension front and back."

Indeed, but if you take the time to look carefully, you will see that this position with just the toe on the ground and the heel high is not achieved until AFTER body weight has left the foot. It is followthrough only.

By hit the third beat,do you mean with a foot position or a body position? Thanks

Dave.You can work this out for yourself. The step is a quick. We don't slide it into position as we do on the first step. Rise at the end of step one. I think you will find that foot and body arrive at about the same time with swing and is controlled by the rear foot. One of the arguments is. Do we continue onto step three on a level plain like we are on a plateau (a flat top), or after the second step are we on the way down.
It is worth looking at the difference between the first step in the Waltz, which is commemce to rise. And the Foxtrot which is rise at the end of step one.

"Do we continue onto step three on a level plain like we are on a plateau (a flat top), or after the second step are we on the way down."

If you go only by the words in the textbook, you might form the mistaken conclusion that you continue level.

However, if you take a minute to think about the geometry of what happens as your legs divide into step three, or watch actual dancers, it will be obvious that you are going down slightly from the very beginning of step three.

Some teachers such as scrivener have been up front about this; others such as Moore left this incidental detail out in favor of concentrating attention on the actions in the body and foot that create rise and fall.