Open Right Turn in American Style

[DanceMentor]

We were having a discussion today at the studio, and someone mentioned that the syllabus (not sure if it is DVIDA or FADS or both) shows "right side leading" on step 6 of the Open Right Turn. First, can anyone pull out their manual and confirm this?

[NielsenE]

Both my USISTD and DVIDA manuals say
6. R.F. Back, R side leading

[cantskiforlife]

Possibly a silly question, but wouldn't the technique (not timing) of the 4-6 of the open natural be the same as a running finish?

I was working on this today and if I have my L/R correct, am under the impression that this isn't exactly the case. Could someone help clarify this?

See video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf6xj2q1jvw

Time 0:14 to 0:16

[DL]

Possibly a silly question, but wouldn't the technique (not timing) of the 4-6 of the open natural be the same as a running finish?

I was working on this today and if I have my L/R correct, am under the impression that this isn't exactly the case. Could someone help clarify this?

I thought 1-3 was a twinkle, 4-6 reminding me more, now that I think of it, of 1-3 of a natural weave from PP (I started to except the timing, but danged if SQQ doesn't seem right, actually). But a running finish could be next, and whoa, that's a weird collection of American and International steps and dances to juxtapose.

[DanceMentor]

Both my USISTD and DVIDA manuals say
6. R.F. Back, R side leading

Ok, thanks for the confirmation. Let me move this forward now.

There were some people discussing the possibility of petitioning to have this changed. While there is certainly sway to the right, "right side leading" is not such a good idea in my opinion (as well as the others who found this discrepancy). Since an impetus type action follows, the man is going to both dump on the lady, and also have a terrible time dancing a heel pull. Right?

Can anyone give any reason why right side leading would be a good thing?
(I can't)

[DL]

Ok, thanks for the confirmation. Let me move this forward now.

There were some people discussing the possibility of petitioning to have this changed. While there is certainly sway to the right, "right side leading" is not such a good idea in my opinion (as well as the others who found this discrepancy). Since an impetus type action follows, the man is going to both dump on the lady, and also have a terrible time dancing a heel pull. Right?

Can anyone give any reason why right side leading would be a good thing?
(I can't)

I once had a teacher point out to me in a group class that there's a shaping subtlety during the transition from the right side leading position to the impetus action that lets this work. I remember having felt convinced of this but,
a) What do I know?
b) I don't know enough to explain my recollection here with detail.
c) Wait, must it always be an impetus action that comes next?

[Chris Stratton]

It''s right side leading when it appears in the international foxtrot syllabus, too. And in that context (well, the lady's part) an additional clue is given - preparing to step outside partner. That is, I suspect the reason.

What is not stated though is exactly at what point in the passing-to-passing duration of the step this side leading must be achieved. So I think there's room for some exploration there, if you want to apply a bit of the 'have a side left to swing' idea. To the extent that you take the sixth step still in an opposite side lead, you will tend to make the step smaller, and that may prove the limiting factor.

Generally speaking, while trying to develop clean technique steps which commence outside partner do not have as much windup or side left to swing as their inline counterparts. Later on, once the subtleties of leading the outside partner or partner outside position are really secure, there's some ability to hold or even create opposite side lead windup in the upper body longer into the initiation of the outside partner step, and still have it slip to outside partner in the lower body body the time it really needs to. You can play with this in the chasse from pp to (outside partner) natural turn transition in international waltz, for example.

But at the same time, it's important to learn how to create a full swing even in the more linear/less rotary situation where you already have a same side lead as you commence the figure. Many of the English coaches will speak of the feeling of drawing your right knee and left shoulder together when executing the forward (natural) version of this.

[DL]

I once had a teacher point out to me in a group class that there's a shaping subtlety during the transition from the right side leading position to the impetus action that lets this work. I remember having felt convinced of this but,
a) What do I know?
b) I don't know enough to explain my recollection here with detail.
c) Wait, must it always be an impetus action that comes next?

...but I wonder whether the description in the manual about the next step in the figure, or the next figure (as the case may be), wouldn't indicate something useful?

[DanceMentor]

Steps 4 thru 6 are what is known as an "open natural turn" in Standard. Now step 5 is very much like step 5 of a (closed) Natural Turn, except on step 6 we "open" it. In order to do that, I can only see two ways to do that and have a "right side leading" position:
1. Open the right foot so that it is almost point center
2. Continue back on the right foot down LOD, but open the frame to an almost Promenade position.

In #1 the 7th step is going to go toward wall or diagonal wall if we are going to expect to do a heel turn (or pull), and it will be next to impossible to move to diagonal center at that point (as given in the manual).

In #2 this is the lead for fallaway position, and will not produce the impetus type action that is traditional in the Open Right Turn.

Therefore, I conclude this is a mistake in the manual, unless there is some explanation that has yet to be given.

[DanceMentor]

It''s right side leading when it appears in the international foxtrot syllabus, too. And in that context (well, the lady's part) an additional clue is given - preparing to step outside partner. That is, I suspect the reason.


I assume you are referring to the Open Natural that precedes the Outside Swivel, in which case the couple actually travels toward diagonal wall, which sets up a promenade position (not an impetus).

[DL]

Would you call me nuts if I said I thought the beginning of the heel pull from there (right side leading and all) felt to me like the beginning of a slip pivot?

[Chris Stratton]

Hmm, I usually commence a slip pivot from an opposite side lead, and that's a same side lead?

[Chris Stratton]

I assume you are referring to the Open Natural that precedes the Outside Swivel, in which case the couple actually travels toward diagonal wall, which sets up a promenade position (not an impetus).

The next step after the open natural action in both cases is for the lady to step forwards outside partner. Only after that step is taken and the swivel executed is a promenade position achieved in the international foxtrot syllabus figure.

(If comparing given directions in the room, make sure to take the starting direction into account - the international figure is coming from an open telemark, rather than a twinkle telemark)

[DanceMentor]

Would you call me nuts if I said I thought the beginning of the heel pull from there (right side leading and all) felt to me like the beginning of a slip pivot?

I see what you mean. The position would almost be similar (except we are turning right, not left). It would be almost like we overcooked our CBMP as a result of the right side lead. There is almost no choice.

[DL]

Hmm, I usually commence a slip pivot from an opposite side lead, and that's a same side lead?

Isn't there a same-side-lead slip pivot in a variant of the quick open reverse in gold QS?

(Perhaps I'm just confused.)

[DanceMentor]

The next step after the open natural action in both cases is for the lady to step forwards outside partner. Only after that step is taken and the swivel executed is a promenade position achieved in the international foxtrot syllabus figure.

Yes, but the right side leading is not necessary to prepare for OP.

[Chris Stratton]

Yes, but the right side leading is not necessary to prepare for OP.

I alluded to this in an edit to my earlier post, but basically, in Champ you can hold or even create an opposite side lead up to the last possible moment, but in Syllabus (ie, learning) you initially want the clarity of purpose of having the same side lead in the whole body before you commence the outside partner step, rather than sneaking it in in the hips only at the instant it is absolutely needed.

The book documents syllabus dancing, not champ dancing of course.

(now if you were a syllabus dancer dancing with a partner who has no doubts because she never steps inline... well, you should consider cross training your smooth partner)

[DanceMentor]

I alluded to this in an edit to my earlier post, but basically, in Champ you can hold or even create an opposite side lead up to the last possible moment, but in Syllabus (ie, learning) you initially want the clarity of purpose of having the same side lead in the whole body before you commence the outside partner step, rather than sneaking it in in the hips only at the instant it is absolutely needed.

The book documents syllabus dancing, not champ dancing of course.

(now if you were a syllabus dancer dancing with a partner who has no doubts because she never steps inline... well, you should consider cross training your smooth partner)

If you take out the swing, and dance it flat, it can make a little more sense. I can certainly agree with you there.
We tried it in the living room and just walking it with no shape we needed the right side lead.

I do wish that they would clarify this though...
If you are dancing your foxtrot with no swing, then you will need a right side lead.

This is an example of another American style step where the assumption is made that the student is not ready to learn the step correctly (the characteristic swing of the foxtrot is removed), and the syllabus is written to assume the student will not be able to dance the step with swing. Is this the way our teachers should be thinking?

[Chris Stratton]

The other key lesson is that already having a same side lead can not be allowed to preclude executing a full swing... You had a same side lead on step 4, too...

Very often we think of swing in the rotary sense since it's easy throw our bodies rotationally. It's harder to figure out how to get a big swing on a consistently linear diagonal - it requires using leg and foot muscles in a way that often hasn't been explored. But it's worth learning because a moderately large linear swing from same side lead start then becomes a truly gigantic one if you apply those methods in the undercarriage in a situation where you also get to add the rotary throw from a wound-up opposite side start.

(The challenge is of course for the forwards or outside of turn partner - their progress in meeting it is going to determine what the couple can do)

[DanceMentor]

Chris, we do agree that we could not have a right side lead in Standard when following the Open Natural with an impetus, right?

[Warren J. Dew]

Both my USISTD and DVIDA manuals say
6. R.F. Back, R side leading

Do they also match the International style version in having no sway in any of steps 3 through 7 and in having a change in direction between steps 5 and 6?

Edit: and is the same technique given for both foxtrot and waltz?

[Chris Stratton]

Chris, we do agree that we could not have a right side lead in Standard when following the Open Natural with an impetus, right?

Strongly disagree.

Having a same side lead already simply makes it safer, clearer, and less dramatic.

The syllabus descriptions of figures are basically that - clean, clear, calm. This is also characteristic of the dancing of not too long ago. Since then things have gotten very down in the legs, dramatic, full, earthy, and more risk-taking. That's an embellishment, not something that's going to end up in book technique. First you learn the basic idea, then you find the limits.

[Chris Stratton]

This is an example of another American style step where the assumption is made that the student is not ready to learn the step correctly (the characteristic swing of the foxtrot is removed), and the syllabus is written to assume the student will not be able to dance the step with swing.

The problem is the mistaken belief that no rotation means no swing.

Most dancers today go many years only knowing how to do rotary swings, but until they learn how to do linear ones, there's a key element in the foot and leg usage that will be missing in both cases - meaning no swing in the linear case, and weaker than desired swing in the rotary one.

The syllabus figures actually expose many of the most lasting eternal challenges in dancing - in effect, they give you the hard cases, as the easier options and variations are obviously going to be encountered in real life.

[NielsenE]

Do they also match the International style version in having no sway in any of steps 3 through 7 and in having a change in direction between steps 5 and 6?

Just to make sure, everyone is clear. Both these syllabi include an Open Twinkle as part of the Open Right.. Ie its a 4 bar figure: Open Twinkle, Open Right, Continuity Finish)... Many people would only call the middle two bars an Open Right Turn)

Sway:
DVIDA: 3-7: LSRRS
USISTD: 3-7: SSRRS

(S= straight) in case it wasn't clear

Alignment/Amount of turn
DVIDA:
5 Backing LOD
6 Backing DW
1/8 turn between 5 & 6

USISTD
5. Backing BC
6 Backing LOD
1/8 turn between 5 & 6

Personally, I feel that the right side lead is actual an important aspect for creating larger shapes and/or momentum redirects for entering other (non closed) patterns out of the open right, but not necessarily needed in the book version.

[Chris Stratton]

5: open mouth
6: right foot across in CBMP (inside mouth)

[DL]

That's got to be a mistake... as given it's unwinding the turn!



What are the turns and alignments, etc., for step 7?

[DanceMentor]

Just to make sure, everyone is clear. Both these syllabi include an Open Twinkle as part of the Open Right.. Ie its a 4 bar figure: Open Twinkle, Open Right, Continuity Finish)... Many people would only call the middle two bars an Open Right Turn)

Sway:
DVIDA: 3-7: LSRRS
USISTD: 3-7: SSRRS

(S= straight) in case it wasn't clear

Alignment/Amount of turn
DVIDA:
5 Backing LOD
6 Backing DW
1/8 turn between 5 & 6

USISTD
5. Backing BC
6 Backing LOD
1/8 turn between 5 & 6

Personally, I feel that the right side lead is actual an important aspect for creating larger shapes and/or momentum redirects for entering other (non closed) patterns out of the open right, but not necessarily needed in the book version.

Thanks for the additional info.

As far as a bigger shape, but not turning to the right so soon, it allows us to have the characteristic effect of the promenade taking (seemingly) forever to develop, and a shape that goes on and on.

If we open the right side early, the ability to have that hovering effect is severely limited in my opinion.

When we dance an Open Natural to Open Impetus (4-9 of the Open Right Turn in American) I actually have the left elbow well in advance of the right as I step onto step 6. Might right side begins to "lead" as I close the feet for the heel turn. Then I still have lots of left side left to develop the promenade.

[NielsenE]

That's got to be a mistake... as given it's unwinding the turn!


Well its not a typo my part.. Though I do have first edition manuals dated 2001, which I've been told have had some changes....

The same alignment/amount of turn are listed for both Foxtrot and Waltz so they are consistent (possibly cut & paste). USISTD only charts it in Waltz and directs you there from teh foxtrot section, giving an override for the R&F, but otherwise not adapting it.

But I dont think its unwinding... Backing LOD ->Backing DW versus Backing DC->Backing LOD are both same sense of turn...

The DVIDA way overturns step 4->5, while underturning the heel turn relative to the USISTD way.

[Warren J. Dew]

Thanks, Eric. That's interesting, because they match the International style version in amounts of turn - and in the case of DVIDA, in alignment, though I question whether that alignment is very useful in American style - but differ in sway.

Sway:

International: 3-7: SSSSS

Your answer seems to have crossed with my edit, but given the answer, I'm betting they don't differentiate between waltz and foxtrot.

[Chris Stratton]

As far as a bigger shape, but not turning to the right so soon, it allows us to have the characteristic effect of the promenade taking (seemingly) forever to develop, and a shape that goes on and on.

If we open the right side early, the ability to have that hovering effect is severely limited in my opinion.

This is the rotary-swing approach to the concept.

The linear-sing approach is to make the step into the impetus larger, and achieve the hover and delayed promenade by essentially dancing something that feels like a closed impetus almost until you are actually moving on the step out in PP. (This will probably require that the man delay his rise until the 2nd step of the impetus as traditionally given - rising too early would be especially likely to result in overspinning if the entry is linear)

[DanceMentor]

Thanks, Eric. That's interesting, because they match the International style version in amounts of turn - and in the case of DVIDA, in alignment, though I question whether that alignment is very useful in American style - but differ in sway.

Sway:

International: 3-7: SSSSS

Your answer seems to have crossed with my edit, but given the answer, I'm betting they don't differentiate between waltz and foxtrot.

I definitely have a slight sway to the right on steps 5 and 6, just as I would in the (Closed) Natural Turn, but less pronounced.

[Chris Stratton]

That's interesting, because they match the International style version in amounts of turn.........but differ in sway.

I noticed that too, but it could be as simple as different authorship. There are many places in the international syllabus where someone "going for it" would use plenty of sway, but none is given in the book. With the smooth books being more recent works by those dancing somewhat more dynamically than the original authors of the standard books, this could be more a case of documenting what is done rather than what was once considered useful pedagogy. But I bet they did look at the corresponding international figures to some degree.

[DanceMentor]

Sway:
DVIDA: 3-7: LSRRS
USISTD: 3-7: SSRRS


So DVIDA is saying we sway to the left to dance into promenade?
As they say on SNL, "Really?!"

[Chris Stratton]

So DVIDA is saying we sway to the left to dance into promenade?
As they say on SNL, "Really?!"

Really YES, officially (in standard) no.

That's speaking as man. The really interesting question is what the lady's sway is on the step out in PP. If that's is given as right, I would indeed have to take issue with it.

[NielsenE]

So DVIDA is saying we sway to the left to dance into promenade?
As they say on SNL, "Really?!"

Yeah... Though I would want to confirm with someone with a more recent manual. The second (and current according to thei website) is dated July 15, 2002, to my Jan 2000 first edition.

[NielsenE]

Really YES, officially (in standard) no.

That's speaking as man. The really interesting question is what the lady's sway is on the step out in PP. If that's is given as right, I would indeed have to take issue with it.

It is in fact listed as R sway for the lady on step 3...

[DanceMentor]

Really YES, officially (in standard) no.

That's speaking as man. The really interesting question is what the lady's sway is on the step out in PP. If that's is given as right, I would indeed have to take issue with it.

Wow, that is interesting. Obviously, there is plenty here that question, but I am always willing to listen to explanations, and will see what I can find out at the studio, etc. Thanks for discussing this with me.

I will say this ...
I know that the case of the right side lead on step 6 is something that is likely to be discussed for the next syllabus revision. Whether they change it or not, I think it is healthy to look at things like this, and I hope they will give it some thought, even if a change is not made.

[Chris Stratton]

It is in fact listed as R sway for the lady on step 3...

I'll take her hip, but she better keep her head weight to herself...

[DanceMentor]

It is in fact listed as R sway for the lady on step 3...

Very interesting. Now let's look at the basic ISTD explanation...

"Sway is normally the inclination of the body away from the moving foot and towards the inside of the turn."

There are exceptions, but lowering in PP is not a situation that comes to mind. And when you think about it, students tend to have a problem with dropping their elbows on step 3 of the open twinkle, so this does not seem like a good time to think of swaying, but again, maybe there is a good explanation for this in social dancing.

[NielsenE]

DVIDA="The inclination of the body away from the moving foot and towards the inside of the turn. Broken sway from the waist should be avoided."

[Chris Stratton]

Wow, that is interesting.

On the "left sway" in promenade as man, I wouldn't usually name it as a left sway, but there is a resemblance to sway. Getting a first hand presentation of the right knee - left shoulder thing for PP & outside partner steps could illustrate this. It sort of feels like your left shoulder dips, but that's not exactly what happens. Also just if you look at creating a lot of head-to-head space in PP, that's going to put the man in something resembling leftsway (but not the lady in a right sway).

I will say this ...
I know that the case of the right side lead on step 6 is something that is likely to be discussed for the next syllabus revision. Whether they change it or not, I think it is healthy to look at things like this, and I hope they will give it some thought, even if a change is not made.

This is the kind of thing that worries me. I already suspect that the current books have been piecemeal edited without a full understanding of why things were quite the way they were. The problem isn't that this brings the book closer in line with what is danced, instead it's that some important but obscure lessons get lost, and more importantly because the edits don't get applied to all related and contrasting situations, it starts to break the ability to gain insight by contrasting the given details for various figures.

In essence, I don't see the books as descriptive of all-out dancing by the average dancer - instead I see them as presenting some lessons that are important both initially and eternally. In contrast, finding a day-to-day compromise technique is a live exercise in the studio.

[Larinda McRaven]

It''s right side leading when it appears in the international foxtrot syllabus, too. And in that context (well, the lady's part) an additional clue is given - preparing to step outside partner. That is, I suspect the reason.

This is correct. Or at least this is answer I was trained to give to this very question in my ISTD exams.

This is not how I teach or dance it however. International coaches always chastized us for dancing it our way. Our American coaches chastized us for following the book.

[DanceMentor]

DVIDA="The inclination of the body away from the moving foot and towards the inside of the turn. Broken sway from the waist should be avoided."
Right so telling the lady to sway right and the man to sway left on step 3 of the open twinkle is in direct opposition to this statement. Normally, one would expect at least some explanation when it comes to exceptions.

[DanceMentor]

This is correct. Or at least this is answer I was trained to give to this very question in my ISTD exams.

This is not how I teach or dance it however. International coaches always chastized us for dancing it our way. Our American coaches chastized us for following the book.

Interesting, so even the ISTD goes along with this for exams, yet it is not how you or I would dance it.

[Chris Stratton]

One problem here is that we all have an idea of what it looks like when the rotations are optimized for rotary swing. What we don't have ready at our shared fingertips is a world-class demonstration of an open natural "fully danced" with the given side lead. Generally speaking, it's hard to understand something when we can't picture it (or experience it) as a means of approaching understanding.

[Warren J. Dew]

Going back to the open right turn, in my opinion there are three good ways to dance it.

The first way is strictly as documented in the International style technique book:

Sway 3-7: SSSSS
right side lead on step 6

Straight means straight: no body swing or sway. This is the style that stays entirely on the toes from steps 2-5 of the International style foxtrot weave. In the weave, there is sway to facilitate the outside partner actions, even with no lowering at all, but in the open right turn, the preparation for the outside partner action is accomplished through rotation, so no sway is necessary.

The second way is this:

Sway 3-7: SSRRS
strong CBM on 7

In this case, we are taking a strong normal body swing on 4-6, which feels much like steps 4-6 of an International style reverse wave with a promenade entry. The right side, far from leading, is actually trailing somewhat entering step 6. Preparation for the outside partner step happens in the lowering at the end of step 6.

The third way is probably not relevant to a syllabus discussion.

To me, the first way might be fine for foxtrot, but would look rather flat in waltz. I believe the second way works for both dances, but perhaps better for the waltz, and I believe it is the way most American style dancers dance the figure.

It appears to me that the DVIDA and ISTD American style syllabi are compromises between these two techniques - compromises that do not really work, as they attempt to combine incompatable elements of two different ways of executing the step.

There are many places in the international syllabus where someone "going for it" would use plenty of sway, but none is given in the book. With the smooth books being more recent works by those dancing somewhat more dynamically than the original authors of the standard books, this could be more a case of documenting what is done rather than what was once considered useful pedagogy.

I have a hard time believing that anyone good is regularly dancing it as quoted in Eric's posts. Let's think about what it would require for a moment.

The step 5 sway to the right is a normal sway - away from the direction of movement. It's a side step to the left, so the left side is implicitly leading, and the right sway is away from that side.

However, the step 6 sway to the right, in combination with a right side lead, is a tipple type sway, into the direction of movement rather than away from it. It isn't a continuation of the step 5 sway; it points almost in the opposite direction. How would you make that transition while maintaining smooth, continuous movement - and why would you do it?

[Chris Stratton]

However, the step 6 sway to the right, in combination with a right side lead, is a tipple type sway, into the direction of movement rather than away from it. It isn't a continuation of the step 5 sway; it points almost in the opposite direction. How would you make that transition while maintaining smooth, continuous movement - and why would you do it?

My first thought on that was that they cribbed the directions from the international book, but replaced the sways with what they danced - the kind of partial "re-write" that I was warning can generate inconsistencies.

Another possibility is that both right sway and right side lead could exist on step 6, but perhaps not during the same parts of step 6. The given sway is usually that which is present early in the step (consider classic SRR closed natural sway - it actually develops before the end of step 1, and dissolves before the end of step 3), while the side lead is more descriptive of the situation at the end of the step.

[etp777]

Generally speaking, it's hard to understand something when we can't picture it (or experience it) as a means of approaching understanding.

Exactly what I was saying in my oversway thread. Course, now I've seen it, and gotten as far as I can that way, have to actually experience it.

Sorry, BOT. :)

[Chris Stratton]

After logging off last night, I was thinking about the overall situation more, and it occurred to me that the promenade version of this movement is basically short on rotation to allocate across the steps, compared to a closed version. If we want to get a big rotary swing in the impetus, we have to forgo one in the natural in order to preserve the side left to swing. Likewise, if we want a rotary swing in the natural, we don't have much of one left for the start of the impetus. It's possible a quite advanced couple could do some kind of double-action rewind in the middle and sell that convincingly, but in general terms we have to make a compromise in distributing the side swing between the two actions.

[DanceMentor]

My first thought on that was that they cribbed the directions from the international book, but replaced the sways with what they danced - the kind of partial "re-write" that I was warning can generate inconsistencies.

Another possibility is that both right sway and right side lead could exist on step 6, but perhaps not during the same parts of step 6. The given sway is usually that which is present early in the step (consider classic SRR closed natural sway - it actually develops before the end of step 1, and dissolves before the end of step 3), while the side lead is more descriptive of the situation at the end of the step.

Well, they certainly leave plenty open to discussion as evidenced by this thread. :)

Warren, that was a good catch about the sway and side lead (as characteristic in the tipple, and referenced in the ISTD manual).

The best answer that I have been able to come up with is the side leading is made for people that are dancing the step almost flat, so in other words, beginning to intermediate bronze level technique.

Trying to do this with silver level technique (this IS a silver step) is going to be vicious. :)

[Chris Stratton]

The best answer that I have been able to come up with is the side leading is made for people that are dancing the step almost flat, so in other words, beginning to intermediate bronze level technique.

Trying to do this with silver level technique (this IS a silver step) is going to be vicious. :)

In a word, no.

You can still swing the middle of the open natural, it's just that you then bring the side through to more clearly prepare the following partner outside step, instead of only when actually taking the partner outside step.

The comparison to the natural weave was made by someone earlier - this would be similar, only you would be lowering there instead of staying at weave height.

[DanceMentor]

In a word, no.

You can still swing the middle of the open natural, it's just that you then bring the side through to more clearly prepare the following partner outside step, instead of only when actually taking the partner outside step.

The comparison to the natural weave was made by someone earlier - this would be similar, only you would be lowering there instead of staying at weave height.

We tried it just now with a Natural Weave type action. It "sort of" works if there is a sway to left on step 5. I never see anyone dance it that way though.

[DanceMentor]

Here is a somewhat "normal" example of what you see people do.
This couple clearly does not have a right side lead:
8DubB2FqJAc

I saw some other videos, and the only place I could see the right side lead was if preceding the underarm turn right, which ends up being a tipple chasse action for the man.

This couple looks pretty decent here and around 0:38 you can see they also do not have a right side lead:
_xtFOjF0vho

Then on this one
-s9eQAtm0Xw
You can see there is no right side lead, UNLESS they are doing an undertarm turn.

I would love to see a visual example of the right side lead on step 6. I haven't found one as yet.

[Chris Stratton]

This couple clearly does not have a right side lead:


Actually I would say that they do. Not a huge one, but they are on that side of neutral. Look at the turn the lady has made over the three steps of the open natural action.

[DanceMentor]

Actually I would say that they do. Not a huge one, but they are on that side of neutral. Look at the turn the lady has made over the three steps of the open natural action.

She may have turned a little more than him inside the frame, but look at his left elbow.
Now at 0:21 he actually does open up a little more (right side IS leading). And in that instance you can see their promenade position opens up far too much, and much more than the first one they dance. They are almost in a side by side position, and I would venture to say this is a result of him turning right far too early (right side leading). They are definitely not doing a Natural Weave type action either.

[DL]

In a word, no.

You can still swing the middle of the open natural, it's just that you then bring the side through to more clearly prepare the following partner outside step, instead of only when actually taking the partner outside step.

The comparison to the natural weave was made by someone earlier - this would be similar, only you would be lowering there instead of staying at weave height.

That was me. I can't participate in this discussion at quite the level you guys are having it, but learning the details of this step at the syllabus level -- right side leading and all -- has not seemed "vicious" to me. (I do not claim that I could dance it in such a manner as to impress anyone here!) Also, I think my description of what feels to me like a slip pivot -like action is somewhat like what Chris mentioned here:


It's possible a quite advanced couple could do some kind of double-action rewind in the middle and sell that convincingly, but in general terms we have to make a compromise
.

Perhaps it would take a quite advanced couple to sell it convincingly, but it doesn't seem -- to me -- too hard to understand in principle at the syllabus level. Lots of syllabus steps seem to have that property, from my perspective.

[cantskiforlife]

I don't think these videos are good examples as the couples are creating unnecessary actions (breaking sides, rotation off eachother, out of position within the frame) and these are preventing the opportunity to develop either a right or left shape.

Can we find some videos of say Toni and Michael, etc..?

I uploaded a 1/2 speed version of mine from a while ago. Seems typical of what is most syllabus dancers do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiEqA4OUBVI

[cantskiforlife]

Just realized with my last post that it sounded kinda rash. In case anyone was thinking that way, I meant that I would like to see some of the pro's dance this move so that we could actually see the correct movement. AND then as an after thought, I added my own version (at 1/2 speed) to further show why it would be best to watch video of a pro dancing it.

[Larinda McRaven]

Problem is most pros are NOT doing an open natural from pp to an open impetus. It is rather "studenty". Unless you can find some syllabus teaching videos or a professional basics competition, you won't see a pro finalist using this pattern.

[DL]

... AND then as an after thought, I added my own version (at 1/2 speed) to further show why it would be best to watch video of a pro dancing it.

Putting all that aside... can you get couple 560 to move out of the way at the very end, there? :)

[DL]

Problem is most pros are NOT doing an open natural from pp to an open impetus. It is rather "studenty". Unless you can find some syllabus teaching videos or a professional basics competition, you won't see a pro finalist using this pattern.

Perhaps it's off topic (but maybe not considering that a syllabus change proposal has been mentioned), but in light of this and previous threads mentioning that e.g. closed position has become scarcer in smooth finals lately, I have another question:

Are syllabus steps proportionately less often seen in pro smooth finals, compared to pro finals of other styles?

Put another way, in view of some of the other comments on this thread about how different manuals give different indications, and how a championship dancer might and such-and-such (disallowed in syllabus) to a syllabus technique: does syllabus have a different meaning/purpose/place in smooth than in other styles?

[Larinda McRaven]

No. Not in my opinion. But I was always one of the few smooth pros that actually took a boat load of closed work training, and actually had lots of closed work in our choreography. Much to the consternation of some of the judges and our critics.

The only thing is we used fallaway reverse slip pivot, or big top, or curving feathers, contra checks etc, still syllabus... but not quite a twinkle to prom to open natural to open impetus.

[cantskiforlife]

Putting all that aside... can you get couple 560 to move out of the way at the very end, there? :)

::Prod Prod::

[Angel HI]

I know that the case of the right side lead on step 6 is something that is likely to be discussed for the next syllabus revision.
I, of course, haven't been around, but I have read this thread twice, and I just can't see how this step would work without the man's right side leading...that is to say moving back on the LOD. In preparation for the lady's O.P. step, we are actually taught to slow the man's movement so that her forward step #6 sort of leads his right side to open before her lower. I have danced it fairly similarly in both amer and int'l....or, am I really missing something in this thread?

[Warren J. Dew]

My first thought on that was that they cribbed the directions from the international book, but replaced the sways with what they danced - the kind of partial "re-write" that I was warning can generate inconsistencies.

That's my guess.

Another possibility is that both right sway and right side lead could exist on step 6, but perhaps not during the same parts of step 6. The given sway is usually that which is present early in the step (consider classic SRR closed natural sway - it actually develops before the end of step 1, and dissolves before the end of step 3), while the side lead is more descriptive of the situation at the end of the step.

I think that usually the directions on sway can accurately be interpreted as being when the step is placed, which to me is roughly the middle of the step.

DVIDA might be an exception; if they have SLL sway on the twinkle, they might be using SRR on 4-6 of the open right turn where I would use SRS.

The best answer that I have been able to come up with is the side leading is made for people that are dancing the step almost flat

I agree with that with respect to the version in the International syllabus.

so in other words, beginning to intermediate bronze level technique.

Trying to do this with silver level technique (this IS a silver step) is going to be vicious. :)

I don't necessarily agree with that. Done well, the International foxtrot basic weave can look beautiful danced flat. I'm not sure that's true of the open natural, but I'd certainly be open to the possibility.

[Warren J. Dew]

Are syllabus steps proportionately less often seen in pro smooth finals, compared to pro finals of other styles?

I would say yes, at least as compared to Standard. In Standard, you'll see a lot of syllabus figures at any level in foxtrot and tango; not so much, I think, in Smooth.

Put another way, in view of some of the other comments on this thread about how different manuals give different indications, and how a championship dancer might and such-and-such (disallowed in syllabus) to a syllabus technique: does syllabus have a different meaning/purpose/place in smooth than in other styles?

I don't think it should.

Whether or not it actually does, though, I'm not sure. A top level dancer will get nothing but respect for a well performed basic in Standard; I'm not sure the same is true of Smooth.

[cantskiforlife]

A top level dancer will get nothing but respect for a well performed basic in Standard; I'm not sure the same is true of Smooth.

IMO, if a smooth couple cannot perform the basic underlying technique for movement, then their dancing needs much improvement. I think this is key to why people think smooth is such a weak and sad style today.

For anyone attempting this step, I would expect the 4-6 of the open natural (just after the twinkle) to look the way Mirko performs it in this video:

Watch between times 1:05 and 1:07.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve82-LCzXFI

[Larinda McRaven]

Definitley not being dance with a right side lead!!!

http://ballroom.to/picts/mirkoalessia.jpg

[cantskiforlife]

Ooh, screenshot, didn't think of that.:headwall:

[Larinda McRaven]

:eyebrow:

[Chris Stratton]

Definitley not being dance with a right side lead!!!

No, but if you align the body with the separation between the feet, you would have a right side lead. Holding this almost opposite-side character in the body contrasting the feet is a bit more advanced interpretation.

As a point of interest, not the left-sway-like character of the promenade at 18 seconds in.

The turning lock to left group at 35 seconds just re-established my interest in that figure.

[cantskiforlife]

No, but if you align the body with the separation between the feet, you would have a right side lead.

Would you not then be falling backward as your posture would back weighted and you would have no use of your standing leg to move from 5 to 6. Plus would this additional rotation not distort the woman so that she would be unable to remain connected to her partner without falling over?

Could you find a screen shot of the position you are referring to? I am not sure I understand it without the visual.

[Chris Stratton]

Would you not then be falling backward as your posture would back weighted

No. Your body simply rotates tracking the separation between the feet as they separate.

and you would have no use of your standing leg to move from 5 to 6.

You probably do not want to be using it muscularly there in either case - step 6 is a descent, so your movement comes from gravity. In fact though, if you keep your body turned contrary to your feet, you are fairly limited there. If the body orientation tracks the foot separation then you can put the center of mass behind the left toe and judiciously use your weight to extend the step - but not too far of course. (were it a natural weave, then you would push up from the ball of the left foot to prevent a descent from occurring, and quite likely sway to the left as well)

Plus would this additional rotation not distort the woman so that she would be unable to remain connected to her partner without falling over?

No, if anything it lets her take more of a rotary swing over 4-6. She ends up in a conventional pre-outside-partner position - ie, a left side lead. Plenty of examples of that.

Could you find a screen shot of the position you are referring to? I am not sure I understand it without the visual.

Imagine a chasse to right or back lock followed by an impetus. Same idea.

The first video example DM posted does it - it's not a huge right side lead (no real need for that), but it is one.

[Warren J. Dew]

IMO, if a smooth couple cannot perform the basic underlying technique for movement, then their dancing needs much improvement. I think this is key to why people think smooth is such a weak and sad style today.

I agree completely with that opinion. I just don't think that's the way Smooth gets judged. If basics can be dismissed as "studenty", no one is going to put the work in to perfect the technique needed to make them look good.

Watch between times 1:05 and 1:07.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve82-LCzXFI

A bit better than that, I hope. While they have nice swing and sway on step 5 - to the right, correctly opposite the direction of movement, which is to the left at that point in the video - I'd prefer to see it maintained until the foot places in step 6. He allows his upper body to go over backwards a bit in step 6, making it look to me like he's pulling the lady over on top of him a bit, something I'd prefer to see avoided by the top Smooth dancers.

Granted, he's an International style dancer, so he has an excuse.

[Larinda McRaven]

I agree completely with that opinion. I just don't think that's the way Smooth gets judged. If basics can be dismissed as "studenty", no one is going to put the work in to perfect the technique needed to make them look good.
Well I would assume that anyone dancing in the final would have already spent time on the basics in order to get there. I only said we would not be putting a twinkle and open right turn in our choreography. But I also said we worked on it a lot and our coaches bickered about how we were to dance it. Just because smooth people are not competing in the open final with it doesn't mean we don't spend probably the vast majority of our working lives doing it... that is basically what most teachers teach throughout the week... those of us lucky enough to work on othr choreography have already spent our time in the trenches.

You also don't see Rhythm finalists doing a box with a six walk underarm turn. And you don't see Latin finalists doing 3 New Yorks to an Alemana. We are all using the elements that make up syllabus routines, but we are not going to go out and dance like a presilver routine.

Granted, he's an International style dancer, so he has an excuse.
Yes, we will forgive him.

[Chris Stratton]

but we are not going to go out and dance like a presilver routine.

I think Warren's point is that if you look at someone like Sinkson at Blackpool in 1998, his first circuit in foxtrot is very close to being a "presilver" routine, if you add license to do some figures backwards.

If you are that good, you can win a standard dance this way - but it's harder to find an example of someone winning a smooth one with that approach.

I'm not sure I agree with Warren that this is still practical for standard tango (or at least don't have an example in mind) - it may be limited to foxtrot.

[Larinda McRaven]

Or waltz, where a silver/gold routine is actually quite nice.

[DL]

(never mind)

I thought I saw an analagous situation in the hairpin, but now I think not, because one has a case of preparing to go PO, and the other is actually PO.

[Chris Stratton]

Or waltz, where a silver/gold routine is actually quite nice.

Yes, but the lack of picture lines would probably leave it feeling incomplete, more so than leaving them out of a technically sublime foxtrot.

[Chris Stratton]

(never mind)

I thought I saw an analagous situation in the hairpin, but now I think not, because one has a case of preparing to go PO, and the other is actually PO.

Interesting you mention this... trying to dance the subject group last night, I kept instinctively doing a hairpin instead of an impetus. A hairpin (or at least, heel pull curved feather) tends to be able to absorb more movement energy than a strict impetus easily can.

[Warren J. Dew]

I guess I have a little different view about what the trenches are and what's enjoyable to work on, perhaps shaped by my own history.

In my first competitive American style partnership - really the only one where I spent any appreciable amount of time on American - we took the normal approach to American Smooth. We had a lot of open choreography, which we practiced until we could do it in our sleep, refined until we could stay together from half way across the room, and polished until we were about as good as we were going to get. While we knew how to do basics and used them in social dancing, we found that our dance placements were directly related to how much open work we used; in competition, I think our waltz, which was our best dance competitively, had about one bar in closed dance position. A typical shot of one of the other 59 bars was something like this:

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/american_20090123/waltz_1_1993_typical.png

Now, while there are technical errors there, they aren't glaring, and that dancing was good enough to win pretty reliably east of the Mississippi, and place second at Nationals. However, I think it's instructive to take a closer look at the technical level of the dancing we were doing. To strip away the obscuring effect of open choreography, here's the one bar of closed dance position - as it turns out, an open right turn:

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/american_20090123/waltz_2_1993_open_right.png

This picture really doesn't look so good. Not only does it have the "man pulling the lady over" look I remarked on upthread, it has a number of other faults: my arm line is limp, we have feet coming off the floor, and there's no shape or poise to speak of. Sure, the toes and heels were going down in the right order, but it's still not the kind of picture one would normally show people. As you can imagine, we did not get marked as well by the judge looking at us in this picture as by the judge in the first picture.

The thing to realize, though, is that the level of technique is the same in both the pictures above; only the choreography is different. Really the judges should be marking both, or neither.

By the time of these pictures, we had realized that our technique, or lack thereof, was limiting us. Unfortunately, it's not easy to find and fix technique problems in open material, because open material is designed to hide those problems - and no one was really interested in examining the basics of what was, by competition results, a championship level couple. We tried focusing on International style instead, but by that time it was really too late.

Now, over the next decade, I eventually did manage to spend a couple of years focusing on my technique - building upward from the basics, on things like the effective use of pressure through the standing foot, clear arm lines, maybe a little on use of the sides of the body. I found working on technique every bit as enjoyable as refining choreography. And getting back to the open right turn, I think a more recent picture will show the difference:

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/american_20090123/waltz_3_2004_open_right.png

Comparing this to the picture above, I'm no longer pulling the lady over by dropping my shoulders back, the arm line and hold are noticeably clearer, and the action of the feet is considerably cleaner. Obviously there's room for further improvement, but it's not as if the work on basic technique is wasted.

Nor are the benefits limited to basic material, as illustrated by this comparison:

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/american_20090123/waltz_6_standing_spins.png

Again, this is an open figure where the choreography hides a multitude of sins, and plenty of judges liked the version on the left just fine. If you look carefully, though, you can see that the technique differences in the open right turn are mirrored here in the standing spin: in the picture on the right, I'm not leaning back as much, my foot positions are cleaner, and the arm lines and body positioning are clearer. The payoff can be seen in the swoosh of the skirt, reflecting the fact that my rotation rate in the dancing on the right is about twice as fast as on the left.

I really didn't work on the open figures at all in the interim; the only instruction I've ever had on the standing spin was part of a lecture with David Kloss and five minutes with Eddie Norman, years before any of these pictures. It was just improvements in basic technique - or rather in more advanced technique developed in basic figures. I really wish I'd done that work ten years earlier.

I'm of the opinion that continued improvement in technique, even in basic figures, is not something that one ever finishes, and is something that can benefit dancers of any level. I think if we're going to get rid of the negative image many people have of American style, we need for top level pros to be willing to show their technique where it is obvious - in the basic figures - and for judges to be willing to mark it there.

[DanceMentor]

Thanks for the story. It's really nice to have pics and videos where you can see the improvement you have made.

[Warren J. Dew]

I'm not sure I agree with Warren that this is still practical for standard tango (or at least don't have an example in mind)

Howson & Bolton did pretty well with basics in tango, though not as well as they did with basics in foxtrot.

[Warren J. Dew]

Thanks for the story. It's really nice to have pics and videos where you can see the improvement you have made.

It was nice for the 2 years when I was making progress, but not so much for the rest of the 11 years in between. Perhaps this will help others do better.

No right side leads in the open right turns any event, though. I almost want to make a video illustrating the alternative with the right side leads (but without the double right sways).