"If you use the first of the Feather as a quick."

They don't.

"You must start that bar of music as a quick on the introductory step on beat one with the LF."

They don't.

"So your Feather will now have four steps instead of three."

They don't, so it doesn't.

"That's not to hard to understand is it."

Easy to understand, but NOT WHAT HAPPENS.

"Thats why frame by frame analysing is not a good idea because you haven't a clue what timing they are using. Does that make sense or not."

Look at the numbers again - the amount of time used up by the three steps (THREE STEPS, NOT FOUR) is 61 frames, which is two seconds, one measure aka one bar. And it's the same amount of time as is used for the THREE STEPS in each of the following two measures.

You don't like the anwers, so you just keep trying to find ways out of facing reality.

Why didn't you tell me you can't count. I have a final from Russia were Mirko, Soale. Karabey. Boyce and Danuite. Guess how many start their Feather on a quick. All but one. which was Danuite and partner. So don't tell me I am wrong please. You previously have said that you don't count whilst dancing. You also should add to that whilst standing still also. I am quoting what happens in a competition. If any on an instruction tape use a slow, so be it . In a competition very few do.

"Why didn't you tell me you can't count. I have a final from Russia were Mirko, Soale. Karabey. Boyce and Danuite. Guess how many start their Feather on a quick."

Count the frames between each weight change, post the numbers as I did, and we'll see if they are actually starting on a quick prep step contained in the first measure, or if you are simple STILL MISUNDERSTANDING FOXTROT TIMING..

Do you still believe that the secnd quick is on the fourth beat, even after my measurements (of a couple YOU SELECTED) proved it can't be???

"I am quoting what happens in a competition."

No, you aren't. You are quoting your mistaken impression of what happens - but it is PLAINLY CONTRADICTED BY EASILY MEASURED FACTS.

You have a lot to learn my friend. I've been to lectures where the professional taught the way they start. Some pick up the phrasing and count in 5 6 7 8. Stepping off on an introduction 8.
Another had us doing the usuall way, taking the two beats introduction calling them 7 8. I found that a bit awkward so to myself I counted his 7 8 as 3 4. Which is the same except he wanted to be with the eight bar phrasing as he begun.
To add to that we have stepping on one as an introduction.
Then we have on this site a count of (and said verbally ). So take your pick they are all correct.
I've looked very carefully watching that LF introduction counting with the music and watching that left foot .
Both Mirko and Soale step on one on this tape. All danced to exactly the same music and all started with a Feather Step. Who knows. Play another tune and they might dance differently.
I think you will find that on an instruction tape they will all teach normal timing which is an introduction step on 3 4. and 1 2 on the first of the Feather.

"To add to that we have stepping on one as an introduction."

Very unusual. I suspect that your extreme confusion about foxtrot timing leads you to erroneously conclude that this is happening, in cases where careful measurement of the timing will prove it isn't. I won't say it's never done, but it is extremely, extremely rare,

"Both Mirko and Soale step on one on this tape."

Nope, you are simply wrong. Don't guess, MEASURE THE INTERVALS BETWEEN THEIR STEPS, and you will find that they take an entire measure of time to dance the SQQ. You simply get confused because they redistribute the timing within those three steps, and because the time period starts slightly after the beginning of the bar, and doesn't end until slightly after the begininng of the next bar.

"I think you will find that on an instruction tape they will all teach normal timing which is an introduction step on 3 4. and 1 2 on the first of the Feather."

They aren't going to screw up their dancing just to satisfy your odd idea of timing. Take a loot at their timing, frame by frame, and you will see that you are wrong.

Here's a nother bigshot for you: Sinkinson and Jorgensen at Blackpool 98. Slower music than Mirko, but same sequence figures:

Feather:
step one 21
step two 19
step three 30

Reverse:
step one 20
step two 17
step three 30

F. Finish:
step one 21
step two 17
step three 31

Notice that Sinkinson's second quick is even more drawn out than Gozzoli's. It's the BETTER PART OF TWO BEATS LONG!!
If his first quick lands on the third beat as everyone assumes it should be, that puts the second quick landing most of the way to beat one of the next measure!

So tell me, how much longer are you going to go on BLINDLY IGNORING THE FACTS IN UNIVERSAL EVIDENCE???????

Forget about frame by frame. Do we measure the speed of a racing car at Salt Lakes frame by frame. Of course we don't
If at 30 bars a minute we have two seconds for each bar, four beats. Then if I dance a Slow as two beats. There is something wrong if I can't get the next two Quicks on the remaining two beats. Anybody can do that walking or dancing. Can't they. But if I am a competitor my musical expression takes over.They do play around with the music to suit themselves. Don't they.
The original thread simply quoted from a lecture given by Irvine in which he taught to accentuate the first quick. Then suddenly there you are frame by frame. Later it was added that if we get the two quicks on the beat with the music the slows will look after themselves. Which they will.Which in its self is a good lesson and makes the pupil listen to the music.Isn't that right. Heaven knows what your theories are on a Quarter Turn and Progressive Chasse in the Quickstep. I think I might have difficulty not stepping on the beat.
Incidently Billy Irvines first quick and Len Scrivener's thoughts seem to compliment each other in the Foxtrot. Don't they.

"Forget about frame by frame. Do we measure the speed of a racing car at Salt Lakes frame by frame. Of course we don't"

Yes, actually you do - if you are for example trying to see who won.

You want to ignore the frame by frame analysis because it PROVES YOU WRONG.

"If at 30 bars a minute we have two seconds for each bar, four beats. Then if I dance a Slow as two beats. There is something wrong if I can't get the next two Quicks on the remaining two beats."
Anybody can do that walking or dancing. Can't they. But if I am a competitor my musical expression takes over.They do play around with the music to suit themselves. Don't they."

Which means that in fact, no skilled dancer does dance the slow as two beats. But they do dance the SQQ as precisely four beats.

And there is your mistake. You see Sinkinson or Gozzoli drawing out the prep step into the first measure. If you were to do that, you would still try to end your second quick at the end of the first measure - you would shortchange it and have danced the prep step plus the feather as QQQQ.

But that's not what the video proves them to be doing - instead, if you count the frames, you will find that they draw out the third step of the feather exactly as far into the second measure as the prep step carried over into the first measure.

They give the three steps of the feather step four whole beats, just not aligned with the barlines. But if you dance the same prep step they did, you would cut the feather's three steps short so as to still end on the barline - a very beginner mistake.

"The original thread simply quoted from a lecture given by Irvine in which he taught to accentuate the first quick. Then suddenly there you are frame by frame. Later it was added that if we get the two quicks on the beat with the music the slows will look after themselves."

Actually you are putting things out of order. You quote Irvine's comment, but you also added a wildly inaccurate guess about what it meant. You were correctd about that immediately

You then brought up the beginner idea of putting both quicks on the beat, and were corrected about that.

Only then did we get into the frame by frame analysis measurements - to PROVER WHY YOU ARE WRONG - they show that the time between the quicks is at least a beat and a half, and in some cases almost two beats.

"I think I might have difficulty not stepping on the beat."

I think so to - and it's clear this is why you still can't understand foxtrot. Foxtrot is not about stepping on the beat, it is not about stepping at all - it is about moving the BODY in time with the music. You have to stop thinking about the moving leg and start thinking about the BODY, or you will never get beyond the level at which you have so long been stuck.

"Incidently Billy Irvines first quick and Len Scrivener's thoughts seem to compliment each other in the Foxtrot. Don't they."

To a degree, yes.

If you'd give up on your mistaken desire to put the second quick on the beat, you might eventually learn this dance.

If you can tell me of any tape or teacher of dancing who teaches what you are writting then I will stand corrected.. I'll be waiting a long time wont I. At least you have got rid of that idea that the body is in front of the feet. Must have been when you watched frame by frame.Isn't that right.
Do you ever listen to yourself.
Here you are taking a class A bronze Medal Class. You explain that the music is four beats to a bar. The Feather step up to the third step takes one bar of music. Now class make sure you don't step on the beats. I mean do I need to go on.
I think you might have danced a lot without music. I could almost guarantee that you have difficulty staying in time with the music when it is playing.

I'm catching up with this posting. It's very interesting.
Even at my modest level of dancing i would not use the strict S-Q-Q (2 beats - 1 beat - 1 beat)structure for the foxtrot feather. I tend to dance it 1.5, 1.5, 1. I do this because it feels much nicer. I try to 'hover' a little on the second step (i.e. before i place my right foot in CBMP). This is expecially true for the reverse turn and definitely for the reverse wave. In a lecture, sinkinson explained that he almosat dances the reverse wave as Q, S, Q . This is probably because the second step is the showy one, and he wants to make it last as pong as he can.
I think i'm generally, but not exactly, with anonymous here when he wrote some time back
""No, the first step only gets about a beat and half. Actually even less than that. The second quick is the longest duration of the three steps.""
The preparation step (i assume this means the driving step off the left foot which would be done at the start of a routine going into a feather step - this is what we do)is most definitely taken on beat 4, with the first step of the feather with the right foot being on beat 1.

but i would like to clarify one thing. Especially about anonymous's figures, which are very interesting. These measurements (which are in frames but easily converted into beats) - how did you measure them exactly? I count the first 'slow' as the interval in time between placing my right foot on beat 1 and placing my left foot on ''beat 3'' (except it's not beat 3, but i hope you know what i mean). Applying this to your figures gives 1.5 beats for this first 'slow'. Is this how you did the measurements?

"but i would like to clarify one thing. Especially about anonymous's figures, which are very interesting. These measurements (which are in frames but easily converted into beats) - how did you measure them exactly? I count the first 'slow' as the interval in time between placing my right foot on beat 1 and placing my left foot on ''beat 3'' (except it's not beat 3, but i hope you know what i mean). Applying this to your figures gives 1.5 beats for this first 'slow'. Is this how you did the measurements?"

Actually I did it the other way.

First we need to recognize that when we measure to the placement of the feet, we are not measure the durations of the official steps at all, as those would have to be measured between the points when the feet pass.

What I measured was the time during which the foot which takes a step is the moving foot. So for example, for the first step, I measured the time between the weighting of the prep step (left foot) to the weighting of the first step (right foot).

That's of course a matter of choice. It doesn't really matter if you assign the intervals to the step that ends them or the step that starts them.

The whole reason I got into measuring intervals was to prove that the interval between the "quicks" is far longer than the one beat quickstep insists it should be.