Based on your quoted passages, I think that you meant to respond to anymouse.

jj

"While competing pros - and amateurs dancing in the open levels - do use syllabus figures, they're free to do anything that they want as long as they do not betray the character of the dance (and maintain closed position, use proper footwork, etc.)."

They are certainly capable of variations, but they also execute the figures as described in the book much better than those who misunderstand the writing style of the book do. The book does not tell you how to dance. Instead, the book documents some figures you could do, but you must apply rules of movement that are not stated in the charts if you are to execute the actions of moving between the given positions correctly.

"As I noted earler (much, much earlier), pros teaching syllabus figures to amateurs observe proper technique. When they demonstrate, however, they slip into the "open" mode in which they're more comfortable."

It is those final demonstrations which show the dancer's experience-honed physical understanding of basic figures. The rather stilted things you may see in a broken down demonstration reflect an unfortunate trend of misunderstanding the writing style and goals of the book. Rather than saying one thing and then silently doing another, they would do much better to explain that the role of the book is to document an outline, not instruct in execution.

Dancing is not steps, rather it is the action in between them. It follows that a demonstration of individual steps in isolation is not dancing - it's a series of dots that have not yet been connected.

"There is no sideways component. Please don't try to put words into my mouth."

I quoted you exactly, when you said:

"but more like the lady's next step (back and slightly leftwards)."

So which of your conflicting posts was your mistake? Your denial of a sideways component? or your mention of a leftwards one?

"Relative to the body position, the foot moves directly back (back, not side). That's what I said: that's what I meant."

No, you said, and again I quote exactly, "(back and slightly leftwards)." You might also want to remember that basic principles of execution mean that the previous step is going to be turned notably less in the body than the foot alignment given in the outline - even a step directly down the LOD would in practice be somewhat sideways "relative to the body position" as you put it.

""The key realization is that an NST is primarily an inside of turn action, much more than it is a pivot action."

No, it's rather obviously a pivot & spin."

As anyone with any real experience of dancing is aware in their body if not their mind, it is a swinging change of places followed by a spinning one.

"Almost. To really understand the situation it is necessary to realize ..."

I don't think anyone agrees with you."

You might want to read up on footwork, as you clearly don't understand it's principles. A backwards step from a lowered position departs the standing foot via the heel, regardless if there is or isn't rise.

"At least I can agree that step 5 (as man) isn't taken in CBMP, although the Revised Technique does say otherwise. Howard is more accurate, and this is one of the small differences between ISTD & IDTA technique. He says (correctly, in my view) that the RF is held in CBMP while the man pivots on step 4. That CBMP is lost on the following step because of the nature of the spin that follows."

I rather firmly believe it to be an editor's error in the first place, not a difference of substance. The cbmp is actually lost well before the spin, as skilled dancers know to underturn the quasi-pivot (if they even do one at all) in order to enhance the swing into the spin.

"I don't think there's anything else to say about this figure: we aren't in a beginner's class."

Especially in a beginners class, one should not make the mistake of trying to complete 180 degrees of turn over the foot, but instead should be instructed in basic movement principles, such as the use of swing to connect the footprints with flow and musicality. Having a teacher with the knowledge and experience to explain such things is the primary differentiator between a situation where students will work hard while going nowhere, and where students will quickly graduate from beginner classes to ever more capable dancing.

You have verbal diarrhoea, and I have nothing to add.

the five dollar word for "verbal diaharrhea" is "logorrhea."

However, given our friend's output, the images evoked by your wording are more appropriate.

As I stated previously, my only concern is that new visitors to the site might mistake something that they read for serious advice.

I guess we could argue about which of us has wasted more time with this exchange.

jj

"As I stated previously, my only concern is that new visitors to the site might mistake something that they read for serious advice."

Which is precisely the problem with the misunderstanding that leads to an obsession for dancing a completely rotated pivot.

Beginners would do well to make note that capable dancers have a lot easier time of the spin turn because they emphasize the swing and de-emphasize (as in underturn) the pivot.

That's what you'll see done in the videos here, and to one degree or another in just about any video of good dancers actually dancing.

You can't be 'in' CBM, but you can step 'with' CBM.



But I can agree with that!

"The lady moves the left foot back and leftwards on step five according to the book."

Actually, no, that's not what the official text says, but rather your misunderstanding of the organization and intent of its description.

What the book officially tells you is the position of the moving foot relative to the standing foot. But it does not literally tell you the direction of movement used to get there. Your mistake is in confusing the result with the method. As dancing has become more dynamic, it's become far more important to understand the critical difference between action and result.

During step five of a spin turn, the lady's direction of movement is still largely sideways, or even still forwards away from still underturned standing foot. Only as she arrives on the moving foot and the weight leaves the standing foot does her right foot complete the turn to the given alignment and create the appearance of a backwards step having been taken.

Contrast this to the natural pivot turn, where the rotation of the lady's right foot is completed early enough in the departure that she can drive backwards off of her heel rather than still sideways or forwards off of her toe.

... at the end of the step. That's why it makes a difference.

""What the book officially tells you is the position of the moving foot relative to the standing foot."

... at the end of the step. That's why it makes a difference."

Exactly. In the modern, dynamic execution, the direction of the step won't actually become backwards until quite late in the course of the step.