The woman departs from Step 4 upwards and to the left more than backwards. Heather demonstrates this action nicely on the video. After all, the purpose of the NST is to turn and not to travel.

But you misunderstand the footwork directions for this step. HT in this case means that the woman must keep her weight on the ball of her foot for the pivot. You seem to think that the heel is raised on this step; it is not.


She does so only if she does the step incorrectly. The woman's Step 5 of the NST is not equivalent to the man's Step 2 of the Natural Turn.

Also, if she executes the step as you describe, she would have to have some pivoting action on her standing foot anyway during Step 4.


The Alignment direction for Step 5 for the man is "Facing LOD." End of discussion.

You apparently believe that the strength of a step is directly related to its length of stride, reflecting a very narrow - and incorrect - understanding of the Waltz. A strong step - or figure - is one that is danced correctly from head to toe. A wing or a back whisk can be as strong as any other figure.

Remember, the Waltz is rotational. Dancing the NST with the proper pivot produces a much more rotational display than doing it badly just for the sake of taking long steps (which I've noticed that poor dancers will often try to use as a substitute for good technique).

jj

"the woman departs from Step 4 upwards and to the left more than backwards."

If you don't overturn it she can do this. If you do overturn it, she can't, which weakens the action.

"After all, the purpose of the NST is to turn and not to travel."

Most real dancers would consider it a progressive step - especially given how much more popular the overturned version leading into a continuation such as a turning lock to right is than the underturned variety, and the degree to which variations such as a running spin turn nearly equal actual spin turns in popularity.

"But you misunderstand the footwork directions for this step. HT in this case means that the woman must keep her weight on the ball of her foot for the pivot. You seem to think that the heel is raised on this step; it is not."

It need only be raised slightly to avoid catching, but by completing the pivot she achieves a foot alignment where her strongest action would be to drive backwards off of her heel - as indeed she does do in the natural pivot turn. The written footwork of the spin turn prohibits her from taking advantage of that opportunity. Which strongly suggest that this is not how a spin turn should actually be danced. And indeed, common practice is... surprise! not to dance it with a complete pivot!

"She does so only if she does the step incorrectly. The woman's Step 5 of the NST is not equivalent to the man's Step 2 of the Natural Turn."

Nobody said it was. But her step four of the natural spin turn is a lot closer to her step four of the natural turn than you are ready to accept. Fortunately, your acceptance is not a requirement for real dancers to take advantage of this.

"Also, if she executes the step as you describe, she would have to have some pivoting action on her standing foot anyway during Step 4."

Some rotation, yes. But nowhere near 180 degrees.

""It is step 4 that is literally given as down the LOD, not step 5"

The Alignment direction for Step 5 for the man is "Facing LOD." End of discussion."

Alignment and direction are two different things. Further note that the alignment of one step is not necessarily the alignment or direction of the previous. In fact my foot alignment as my step five becomes a heel and takes weight is facing LOD. But it doesn't achieve that before hand.

"You apparently believe that the strength of a step is directly related to its length of stride, reflecting a very narrow - and incorrect - understanding of the Waltz. A strong step - or figure - is one that is danced correctly from head to toe. A wing or a back whisk can be as strong as any other figure."

There is a world of difference between choosing to make something smaller than you could because that better fits what you are trying to achieve, and being unable to make something as full as musicality and context demand. The former is called "looking competent". The latter is called "looking weak".

"Remember, the Waltz is rotational."

Only secondarily. The actual rotary waltz was supplanted before the invention of modern ballroom dancing. the ballroom waltz is composed of body rotations superimposed on what is in most cases a fairly linear travel from peak of rise to peak of rise.

"Dancing the NST with the proper pivot produces a much more rotational display than doing it badly just for the sake of taking long steps (which I've noticed that poor dancers will often try to use as a substitute for good technique)."

Well you are welcome to do whatever you like. The rest of us will do what's proved to work far better. Funny that those guys keep "reverting" to doing it the more naturally flowing way once they get out of artificial lecture mode and back to using their experience as dancers.

"Do you really lower your right toe all the way to the floor while mid-pivot, or are you just talking more about relaxing the foot in such a way that it might lower slightly toward the floor?"

On a spin turn I do lower so that the foot comes through on the inside edge of toe, because a spin turn is not a complete pivot but only partially pivot-like. (This difference between spin turns and true pivots is often overlooked, but it's actually present in the book - notice for example the difference in the lady's written footwork HT for the spin turn, HTH for the pivot turn).

On a true pivot, as in a repeated sequence of them, I do not.

Lady does not dance a pivot in either a Spin Turn or a Pivot Turn. In both cases they are a pivoting action.

But the spin turn is not the same action as in the more obvious pivot / pivoting action steps. And again, the difference is evident in that the lady's footwork is different from the steps with a true pivot / pivoting action combination.

Whenever one partner's footwork changes, it's certain that there are changes in the details of action in the other partner as well - even if those changes don't amount to a different footwork "code". Nothing in dancing occurs in isolation - it's all interdependent.

What a silly discussion.

A natural pivot is clearly described in standard technique, and there isn't more than one variety. A Spin Turn is a good example (Step 4, as man), but it is very often badly danced.

Man dances straight back (not side), with stong CBM and toe turned in, making 1/2 turn on the ball of foot (THT), before continuing to turn on RF, having stepped straight forward (not side) (HT). The RF is held in CBMP between those steps. There's not a lot more to say, except that there is a lot of hot air in here, and will someone please open a window.

"A natural pivot is clearly described in standard technique, and there isn't more than one variety. A Spin Turn is a good example (Step 4, as man), but it is very often badly danced."

Unfortunately for your theory, the given details of step four of the spin turn do not match the given details of step four of the natural pivot turn. The latter includes pivot in its name so it is obviously one. The former is related to the action of a pivot, but not exactly so.

"Man dances straight back (not side)"

In theory, but otherwise in practice. Often too far otherwise in my opinion, but necessarily somewhat.

"making 1/2 turn on the ball of foot"

less in practice

"having stepped straight forward (not side)"

Initially side as the rotation is not yet complete, but ending up in the direction that would have been forward had 180 degrees of turn actually been danced.

Just a few of the difference between oversimplified literalism and practical dance skills...

Not my theory: I'm talking about the standard technique of the teaching society of which I am a member.

As for Step 4 of a Pivot Turn: it is exactly the same (as man). Only the man has a pivot in either turn.

"Not my theory: I'm talking about the standard technique of the teaching society of which I am a member."

No, you are talking about a collection of historic mistakes and misunderstandings of your society's text.

"As for Step 4 of a Pivot Turn: it is exactly the same (as man). Only the man has a pivot in either turn."

Because it is substantially different for the lady in each case, the man's accommodation of her will necessarily make the detailed execution of his corresponding action different as well.

Your obstinate insistence that step four of both figures will be exactly the same as man is a perfect example of what happens when people let slavish adherence to an over-simplistic reading of the text take priority over essential dance skills such as listening to your body and accommodating your partner. Where you instead to employ those in your dancing, you would find that the actual execution as man of two things that look the same on the page turns out to be practically different.

Fortunately there are officials within the teaching societies who understand both the purpose and the limitation of the text, and are able to carry on enlightened discussions of how to do dancing that honors not only the fraction of the traditions represented by the ink on the page, but also the more complex demands of partnering and musicality at a level of sophistication which cannot be captured in a chart.

You are entitled to a view. My society, which has just completed a revision of all of its 'historic (sic) mistakes' has just repeated them.

As for the rest, I'll save my breath.