This is good advice. Your teacher will introduce these important technique concepts when you are ready to benefit from their application. Be aware of CBMP, by all means, but don't worry about it. CBM, particularly, will naturally develop as you attain the ability to move freely, and you learn to let your body movement determine where you are going, rather than be moved by your feet (it might sound unlikely to an inexperienced dancer, but one of the key reasons we move our feet at all while we dance, is simply that we would fall over if we didn't).

One of the easiest figures in which to see CBMP at work is a chasse from promenade position following a whisk (waltz). Both man and lady are facing each other, and yet both step forward (and across) in CBMP, but don't collide. This is CBMP (and, of course, promenade position) at work. There are lots of basic dance movements/actions which have to be learned; but once you have started to develop as a dancer, you come to realise that you have quietly assimilated them without effort, or even being aware of what is happening.

Find a good teacher. Be guided by their experience and your constant practice.

"You can't make sense of CBMP until you have got the hang of CBM, because CBMP is"

I would strongly disagree.

You need to understand both to understand the derivation of the terms and why they are linked in naming but independent in usage, but you don't need to bother with that to use them.

In simple practical terms:

CBM = rotating your body "into" the moving leg

CBMP = swinging your moving leg diagonally across your body

=



What do you disagree with?

"What do you disagree with?"

I disagree with the idea presented in what I quoted, which in its entirety was:

"You can't make sense of CBMP until you have got the hang of CBM, because CBMP is"

The disagreement is specifically with this idea that you can only understand CBMP in relation to CBM.

It's false - they are seperate concepts and it's easier to learn what each really means on its own, than to worry about why some dance teachers once, perhaps unwisely, named one in allusion to the other.

CBMP is the moving foot placed diagonally across the body.

CBM is rotating the body into the moving leg.

No, that won't do - it's an inadequate definition of CBMP, and it is important to add the rest:



I wouldn't advocate anyone getting hangups about understanding concepts that they are not "ready" for, but if you/we/anyone is going to offer an explanation or definition, it should be correct.

I am happy to agree to disagree: I can't see there is anything I can usefully add to my previous posts.

"No, that won't do - it's an inadequate definition of CBMP"

I was not attempting to define the term, I was explaining it's practical impact in an accessible way.

"and it is important to add the rest:

giving the appearance of CBM having been used, but without turning the body."

No, THAT is where you start confusing people.

Practically speaking, when a step is described as in CBMP, it means that it is placed diagonally across your body to the other side.

The other paramaters of the step description will tell you if you should, or should not be rotating.

And the reason it is important to treat those seperately is that your insistence on using the formal definition would lead one to believe that CBMP and rotating cannot coincide when in fact they can. Then we have to explain that the coinciding rotation must not be the source of the CBMP. And we get into arguments with quite established teachers who never managed to understand that particular aspect of the formal definition.

Which is why I revert the the practical explanation, NOT the formal definition, because it is something that should be approachable by all dancers from the start:

CBMP is the moving foot placed diagonally across the body.

CBM is rotating the body into the moving leg.

Let's just disagree. The established technique is what it is, and I continue to think that your simplified description misses an important element (that, without doubt, an examiner would expect to be correctly explained).

I'm not confusing anyone: or at least no one has said that they are confused by anything that I have written.

"Let's just disagree. The established technique is what it is, and I continue to think that your simplified description misses an important element (that, without doubt, an examiner would expect to be correctly explained)."

The target audience was not examiners, but dance students.

If you are writing a textbook you need to understand exactly when to use one term vs. another.

But if you are reading a book as a beginner in the subject, you first need a clear understanding of what to do when you read each term (that some expert has already decided applies to the step you are reading about).

CBMP tells you where to put your foot, across your body towards the other side.

Seeing that it says CBMP cannot tell you anything about about the presence or absence of body rotation, because that is a fully independent factor. You can have CBMP with rotation or CBMP without rotating, so bringing rotation into an attempt to explain CBMP causes confusion, not clarity.

I see no reason whatsoever that what you call the formal definition "would lead one to believe" that CBMP and rotational movement are mutually exclusive.



Not only does the second quotation contradict the first one but you're the first person to use the words "rotating" and "rotation" in this thread.

Odd.

jj

To change topic, a bit, I'm a bit disappointed that no one took the bait:



We could have had some fun with that ...