adapting standardised figures - what's the correct technique

[interested]

I am currently trying to script some of my routines for my own records.

In doing so I have started to realise how many complex variables there are in the technique & how little I fully understand !

The problem comes in trying to adapt basic figures with precedes and follows for which they are not standardised. Only slight changes are required but question is how do the details pad out ?

Some examples:

(1) Waltz. preced ends LF to side in PP pointing DW moving along LOD. I want to do 123 of a weave from PP to end backing DW in preparation to do a back lock on that backing DW alignment.

I think that step 1 should be fwd & across pointing LOD body facing DW, then step 2 facing LOD. But what about step 3. Should the turn be split ? Does the lady need a pointing alignment ?

(2) Waltz. Similar situation but now with precede ending pointing LOD moving DC. How would the situation change ?

(3) Waltz. How to I do a chasse IN PP (staying in PP) moving DC following a normal open impetus on standard alignment. Is the first step fwd instead of fwd & across. And is the second step LF diag fwd in PP L shoulder leading or LF to side. What about a chair line following an open impetus. Would that need to be taken fwd as well as opposed to fwd & across ?

(4) What's the best way to do a chasse in PP moving DC following a whisk. Turn the whisk in the usual way and then take the first step fwd instead of fwd & across.

I wonder if Chris Stratton or one of the other expert technical contributors could help me out with some of these questions.

Sorry to give perhaps too many examples for one post. But I wanted to give an example of the kind of thing that is stumping me - at one level trivial and at another perplexing. A lot of the answers will I guess come down to spatial relationships in passing and in switching between the various promenade positions with differing degrees of turnout. I wish the technique books would expound more on the principles governing such things - it would then be a lot easier to extrapolate to slightly different situations !

 

[madmaximus]

As a general rule, when adapting figures, calculate the total amount of turn you need (whether less or more than the standard figure) and distribute the difference judiciously over each step of the figure.

Obviously, some steps may get modified more than others--depending upon the nature of the step.
Three basic rules:
Turning steps (like #2 of the Natural) will max out between 3/8 -1/2. (It's simply too difficult to turn more than that with a partner).
Forward/Backward steps don't really get modified as they will benefit from redirection on the preceding step.
Diagonals may get changed--by how much depends upon the position of the partner.

For instance, when modifying 1-3 of a natural to end backing DW (a 1/2 turn) instead of LOD (a 3/8 turn), you may "push" step 2 from 1/4 to 3/8, and keep step 3 to 1/8. or 5/16 and 3/16 respectively.






m

 

[interested]

Thanks. Imagine I have just done a turning whisk ending man facing DC and I'm about about to lead the lady to a wing that ends man facing DC. The total amount of turn for the lady's wing is different from all standardised descriptions of the wing (as is the degree of turnout in the starting PP). How do I split the turn ? I notice that the distribution of turn varies between the various wing figures that are standardised, but in a way that does not suggest any obvious underlying principle.

 

[madmaximus]

Thanks. Imagine I have just done a turning whisk ending man facing DC and I'm about about to lead the lady to a wing that ends man facing DC. The total amount of turn for the lady's wing is different from all standardised descriptions of the wing (as is the degree of turnout in the starting PP). How do I split the turn ? I notice that the distribution of turn varies between the various wing figures that are standardised, but in a way that does not suggest any obvious underlying principle.

Please see my modified post above.
There are three basic rules--taking into consideration the relative position of the lady

Let me know if it helps.





m

 

[Josh]

Some examples:

(1) Waltz. preced ends LF to side in PP pointing DW moving along LOD. I want to do 123 of a weave from PP to end backing DW in preparation to do a back lock on that backing DW alignment.

I think that step 1 should be fwd & across pointing LOD body facing DW, then step 2 facing LOD. But what about step 3. Should the turn be split ? Does the lady need a pointing alignment ?

If you follow the standard technique, step 3 would be backing wall, 1/4 between 2-3, and 4 would be backing DW, 1/8 between 3-4 (which means that effectively your R foot will finish turning by the time the LF commences to move back for step 4. And the lady would need a pointing alignment--seems that she would go fwd in PP and CBMP on 1, facing DC, 1/4 between 1-2, and 1/2 between 2 and 3, ended pointing DW. This seems pretty straightforward.

(2) Waltz. Similar situation but now with precede ending pointing LOD moving DC. How would the situation change ?

I think it would be similar, except that I would turn only 1/8 between 2-3. I would keep the 1/8 between 3-4.

(3) Waltz. How to I do a chasse IN PP (staying in PP) moving DC following a normal open impetus on standard alignment. Is the first step fwd instead of fwd & across. And is the second step LF diag fwd in PP L shoulder leading or LF to side. What about a chair line following an open impetus. Would that need to be taken fwd as well as opposed to fwd & across ?

First step seems that it would be fwd, not across, as in a weave from pp after an open impetus. Across would take it too much towards center. Step 2 would be LF diag fwd. LF to side would again, I think, take it too much to center, as we are pointing DC. I don't think a L side lead is necessary, however, as we have a left side lead already created by the impetus. Compare Foxtrot Open Telemark and Feather Ending step 5 with Open Tele Natural Turn Swivel, Feather Ending step 9.

All follows (that I can think of) to the Open Impetus have the man's RF fwd, not across. Let that be your guide.

(4) What's the best way to do a chasse in PP moving DC following a whisk. Turn the whisk in the usual way and then take the first step fwd instead of fwd & across.

I can't think of a follow for a whisk that wouldn't have the man stepping fwd and across. Promenade from a whisk position is different from a promenade from an impetus or telemark. See the third whisk option which ends facing LOD and moving DC on the next figure. The lady would also step fwd and across on 1 of the chasse.

I wonder if Chris Stratton or one of the other expert technical contributors could help me out with some of these questions.

Sorry to give perhaps too many examples for one post. But I wanted to give an example of the kind of thing that is stumping me - at one level trivial and at another perplexing. A lot of the answers will I guess come down to spatial relationships in passing and in switching between the various promenade positions with differing degrees of turnout. I wish the technique books would expound more on the principles governing such things - it would then be a lot easier to extrapolate to slightly different situations !

I think ultimately it really doesn't matter. I appreciate your wanting to understand and general curiosity, I have the same thing. But realize that it really doesn't matter much at all at the dancing level whether you standardize something as one way versus another. Dancing is so much more, and you obviously realize that, but I do think it's cool what you're doing. I've done the same many times for cases that are referred to in the technique but not explicitly stated. There are an unlimited number of variations, and if the authors were to list in great detail all cases, there would always be some left out... And again, the figures are often danced in such a different way than is written that it's not that big of a deal.

 

[interested]

Response to Madmaximus's latest:

Thanks - yes - it sems to be sensible that the second step isthe one where extra turn should go, still on toes, still lots of rotational momentum from the CBM on 1 etc.

 

[interested]

Response to Josh

Thanks.

I guess some of the details might not matter. But I'd just like to gain some understanding of which ones do and which ones don't.

Re the weaves. You suggest splitting the turn between 3 & 4 , and I agree all of the standardised weaves from PP do so, but in my second example the turn here is much less than any of the standrdised ones, and I was was wondering if there was some cut off point in which splitting the turn is disfavoured (in the sense that passing can be quite easily acheived just by tuning the relative step sizes, whilst stepping onto a different alignment from your partner's will lead to a temporary disruption in the lower body contact). I note that the turn is not split between step 6 of these weaves and step 1 of the follow (though that might be more to do with the nature of the follow), nor is is split on the tipple chasse to R along side of room (the latter having 1/4 turn), although it is split on the quarter turn to R.

What is the third whisk option ?