Lets get onto something interesting which may benifit us all.
See Gleave or Wood. The Waltz beats of which there are three is split into six half beats 1 and 2 and 3 and . These are the normal Basic Steps. As we close the feet on 2 and .Leaving the whole of the third beat to rise and lower. The third beat is no longer a step. It is a rise and fall but not a step.
This is my dilemma. I am told that in some countries this is how it is being done. With three steps and three beats. If the drawing up of the foot is a step. Then as the feet close we would have to be down and not up. If it wasn't we would never keep up with the music. Some may argue who don't get the picture, that I can be up and down. Not if the last beat has been used to close. There are no beats left to lower on. The closing has used all of the third beat arriving feet together on three. Now we are chasing the music. So is the whole of the third beat a rise and lower and not a step.

Q,

I'll go first, from an intermediate dancers' point of view, and welcome all corrections... Count 1 "and" begin to Rise. Count 2, continue to Rise; Count 2 "and" you are reaching the peak of your Rise while Closing with the other foot; Count 3, Together (Change Weight); Count 3 "and" Lower.

I do not believe that you use the "whole of the third beat to rise and lower" as you stated. That would make you "pop up" on 3. But I do agree that 3 is not a step, it is merely a change of weight (Together)... I'm not sure "chasing the music" is necessarily a bad thing in Waltz, if its doned correctly. I think you should be ever so slightly "behind" the music in Waltz.

Would those of you that know this dance please help us out? Thanks!

You could say that there are no steps, on any beats, following the same logic.

When I swing my foot into position on 1, it is moving on the preceding "3 and", and arrives on 1. All I'm doing is changing weight and preparing to take my other foot to the side (on the "1 and" beat).

My moving foot makes contact with the floor on each beat, and arguably isn't moving on ANY of them.

Todays dancers try to get the most that they can from the music. Step Step Step. went a long time ago. I bought a tape by Richard Gleave in 1990 which wasn't yesterday. He counts the Waltz splitting the three beats into six. This is where people misquote. Step 1 at the end of, on (and), the moving foot comes to a position under the body . There is your 1 (and). Commence to rise.. 2 is to the side continuing to rise.
The foot closes on an (and) count. So it becomes step side and close on 2 (and). We continue to rise on three. lower on an (and). When he arrives on two (and), the feet are together. He continues to rise on three and lowers. On three you are at your highest and your lowest on that one beat.
In the book the instructions are. Commence to rise at the end of one. Continue to rise on two and three. Lower at the end of three.
This is what all of the above is about.
You might like to see the difference in the rise and fall in the Foxtrot.What happens at the end of the first step. And is step three the same height as step two.
In the Waltz unless you are highly trained you will be at your highest on step two with no further rise. Is that what the book says. I think not.

" The foot closes on an (and) count."

No, the foot IS IN THE PROCESS OF CLOSING ON THE AND COUNT. When it actually arrives into a closed position, that is beat three. If you re going to place steps 1 and 2 on the beats as most people do, then to place step three before the beat would be to shortchange it.

You may have encountered another matchup of beats to steps on a TEACHING tape, intended to build the habit of fully practicing each element as an EXERCISE.
But that is not how ACTUAL DANCING is done.

Once your body is trained in all the actions with that artifical timing, you'll have to learn to dance a timing that is actually MUSICAL.

Try clicking through some waltz videos and counting frames between the actions. It will confirm that the foot doesn't get closed before beat three (you could start with Jonathan's waltz natural right here for example)

I will ask one question. Clicking through the frames of a video. How could you possibly know what beat is being played unless the music is being played.

"I will ask one question. Clicking through the frames of a video. How could you possibly know what beat is being played unless the music is being played."

By measuring the time since an event whose time in the music is well known.

It's quite easy to measue the amount of time from the landing of step one to the completion of the foot closure for step three.

If you believe that step one lands on beat one, then it's quite easy to determine on when in the music the foot has finished closing.

The answer of course is: on beat three, NOT BEFORE.

It's either that, or else step one was not in fact on beat one...

Lets try and get on the same wavelength here. Do you agree in something as simple as a Reverse Turn in the Waltz.. The the same dancer will not dance it exactly the same twice running. They are not robots. If there are differences how can anyone tell unless the music is playing. If there is no time signal to let you know when the step commenced how can you possibly measure it. Another example. A Hover Corte. I'll guarantee you would not be exactly the same two times running, or three on you exit.

"The the same dancer will not dance it exactly the same twice running."

While we want to leave room for intentional interpretive variation, being able to intentionally achieve a high degree of consistency is also an important dance skill, and something that often sets professionals apart from amatuers (even if they are wrong, they are consistent about it)

"If there are differences how can anyone tell unless the music is playing. If there is no time signal to let you know when the step commenced how can you possibly measure it."

You can measure the TIME BETWEEN STEPS. If that is at odds with your theory of how they are supposed to fit the beats, then obviously your theory cannot apply to the dancing being measured.

For example, if your measurement of the time between two steps is not a whole number of beats worth of time, then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that both steps can be falling on beats (unless the music itself is uneven). Either one is on a beat and the other isn't, or neither is actually on a beat.

You don't even need to turn on the sound in order to deteremine what the time value of a beat is - it's enough to measure the time between comparable steps in successive measures, and divide by the number of beats per measure. If the dancer is any good and the tempo unvarying, you'll get the same answer for many measures in a row and thus have a high confidence in your calculation for the amount of time per beat. That's how I can know exactly how long a beat is on Sinkinson's foxtrot video - because his timing is extremely consistent for FIVE succesive measures of SQQ material all captured by the same camera.

Or to return to waltz: if I watch Jonathan's video and I see that when his foot closed it is 1 beat worth of time since step 2 was placed, and 2 beats worth of time since step 1 was placed, I know that either:

1) Step three arrived closed only on beat three, NOT BEFORE

or

2) The first two steps were not on the corresponding beats. Which would be rather suprising!

Ok The Waltz is easy, only three beats and three steps. What about the Foxtrot where we have four beats and somtimes four steps and sometimes three steps over four beats. How can you possibly know which beat they started on without music. You might like to go to the Dancing Channel (See lluv2dance ). In the samples there is the Foxtrot final from last year. Watch Jonathon Crossley in the bottom left corner after he gets checked and tell me on what beats he does a Feather Step on. Then look at Chris Hawkins in the top right after he does several swivells into a Feather Step. Again what was his timing on the Feather Step. Also look at the very beginning and watch Timothy Howson do a conventional Intro and a Feather Step just as it is in the book. All can be seen without going to frame by frame which would tell you exactly nothing, and give nothing that can be of any use regards timing.