jj, you are a humorous fellow, I'll give you that. Look at the original poster's question, and I would bet my house that the learning center's diagonal directions info would have answered her question sufficiently, along with explaining that it meant Contra Body Movement Position (which of course would mean nothing to her if she didn't know what Contra Body Movement was). If that's crazy, then I guess I just joined in with everyone else who made it more complicated than it needed to be. But yes, I would agree that, throughout the bevy of answers, solid information was offered. You still have a penchant for not letting the original poster read responses and decide for themselves what sinks in and what doesn't. But I'm OK with that. You're really not a bad cop in that regard -- and you know your stuff, which is of vital importance and helpful to others, and you've improved my knowledge and dancing often.

"One other thing that is related is that every first step of any figure you can find is straight without any turn untill the end of."

Not true.

In classic technique the direction of travel is unaltered during step one, but there are steps in which official "turn" (which specifically means turn of the moving foot) occurs as step one is placed, which is quite a bit before the end of step one. We just had a go on that recently with the weave from promenade after a whisk, surely you have not forgotten already?

"You still have not explained the difference between a student's ability to identify a step and the same student's ability to execute it when told to do so. Guess what? There is none."

The subject is not a step, but a property of a step.

There is a substantial difference between understanding an idea enough to apply it when instructed to (which is what we'd be aiming for with a beginner - when it says CBMP, place the moving leg across your body), vs. being able to figure out when in a sequence of movements such a technique should be used based on an in-depth understanding of its definition and the mechanics of the piece of dancing being attempted.

It is, as I said before, the difference between being qualified to read a book, and being qualified to write one.

The concept of CBMP hardly qualifies as "in-depth" knowledge. It's impossible to teach the bronze Standard syllabus without it.

Any instructor who teaches CBMP without also explaining its purpose isn't much of an instructor.

Finally, you are incorrect to claim that CBM and CBMP have nothing in commmon except nomenclature.



Both the movement and the position (which is part of the movement) are taught for the same reason.

jj

"The concept of CBMP hardly qualifies as "in-depth" knowledge."

We'll get to that in a minute.

"It's impossible to teach the bronze Standard syllabus without it."

Indeed, but it does not need to be presented in a way as arcane as it's definition. It can instead be presented as its practical impact: step diagonally across your body.

"Any instructor who teaches CBMP without also explaining its purpose isn't much of an instructor."

Generally agree, however the definition says absolutely nothing about purpose. I'd much favor explanation of the practical impact and the purpose to messing about with a definition that confuses a fair fraction of even the professionals.

Now as for the utility of the definition itself, I'll ask your opinion on the following statement by a professional dance teacher. Do you agree with it? Do you find it demonstrates understanding of the definition of CBMP, or misunderstanding?

"For example, if your first step is forward on the right foot with the turn to the right, you would first wind up by turning the body to the left before you begin. As you take your first step forward, you start turning right so as to unwind. You want to turn so that when the step is complete, your body is squared off to the feet. If you overturn, you'll be in CBMP, which is wrong."

Would you agree with this author, who seems to hold the belief that if your CBM body turn results in an opposite side lead, you have achieved CBMP during that step?

If the body is square to the feet then you do not have a leading side.

jj

"If the body is square to the feet then you do not have a leading side."

That was not the question. Please take a look at the last two sentences of the quote again:

"You want to turn so that when the step is complete, your body is squared off to the feet. If you overturn, you'll be in CBMP, which is wrong."

Do you agree with this author's belief that if CBM turn goes beyond body square to feet and results in an opposite side lead, then CBMP has been achieved?

Do you find that idea to be in keeping with the definition of CBMP, or in contradiction to it?

First of all, we don't know that your inference is indeed this author's belief. The author may simply have written the sentence poorly.

However, I will respond to your supposition.

We can assume that the phrase "squared off to the feet" means that the shoulders are perpendicular to the direction of the feet at the end of the step. We must also assume that the feet have identical alignments.

One reason that I say that the sentence may be poorly written is the lack of clarity created by the use of the word "step," which can mean one relocation of one foot or a pattern of steps, what I usually call a figure.

If we further assume that the feet are together then obviously there could be no CBMP.

If, however, we assume that the feet are not together then the question of CBMP would depend on the relative position of the feet to each other.

jj

"However, I will respond to your supposition."

The question is really much more fundamental than you are making it out to be:

Can body turn (CBM) result in CBMP on that same step?

Or does that conflict with the part of the definition of CBMP ("but without turning the body") that some were considering so critical?

Note that I am not talking about CBM and CBMP occuring on the same step (we should all know that is frequent), I am talking specifically about CBMP that is caused by CBM body turn on that same step.

If you believe this is possible, then what is the meaning of "but without turning the body" in the definition?

If you believe it's not possible, then how can the subject of CBMP be simple when even the pros are getting it wrong?

Unfortunately, the original author was not a very good writer, especially with regard to punctuation. The last comma is unnecessary and actually distorts the clarity of the phrase.

Therefore, the last part of the text should read: "giving the appearance of CBM having been used but without turning the body."

Clearly - at least to myself - the author is trying to say that a dancer in CBMP appears to have just executed CBM except that the body is not turned.



Your question is a bit ambiguous. If by "result in CBMP" you mean that the step ends in CBMP then the answer is obviously "no." If, however, you mean that CBMP is approximated at some point during the movement then the answer would be "yes."

jj