"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."

Really? Perhaps you need to reread that definition where it says (in the version posted here)

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

I think it's quite counterintuitive that you can rotate while doing something that has "without turning" in it's definition. The issue is not the difference between rotating and turn, the issue is that CBMP is define to not be a result of rotation during the step, however rotation can also occur as long as it is not the cause of the CBMP.

"Not only does the second quotation contradict the first"

It does not in anyway contradict it!

"one but you're the first person to use the words "rotating" and "rotation" in this thread."

The issue is not between the loose usage of "turn" and my choice of the more precise "rotate" but that the issue of lack of rotation (or turn if you prefer) is part of the definition of CBMP as an element, but does not restrict it's application.

CBMP is independent of turn and rotation, because CBMP is defined not to be the result of them.

But the inexperienced person trying to puzzle out dancing from the definitions would mistakenly conclude that CBMP is incompatible with rotation.

CBMP and CBM are fundamentally independent - the connection is in the historic derivation of their names, not in their execution or application.

Your problem in this matter lies in your refusal to understand that the entire sentence is the definition of CBMP, not just the final phrase on which you keep focusing.

From Telemark above: "The placing of the stepping foot, forward or back, onto or across the line of the other foot, giving the appearance of CBM having been used, but without turning the body."

In simple, CBMP is a placement of the foot. The only reference to CBM is to make the point that this step resembles action in the CBM, the only mention of turning is to clarify the visual effect.

Yes, we all know that you can have rotation and CBMP in the same movement. When you do so, the result is known as CBM.



jj

"Yes, we all know that you can have rotation and CBMP in the same movement. When you do so, the result is known as CBM. "

Which is true, but not at all what you'd expect after reading:

"The placing of the stepping foot, forward or back, onto or across the line of the other foot, giving the appearance of CBM having been used, but without turning the body."

For proof of the frequent confusion this causes, you need only look at past discussions right here - we've regularly had people mistakenly insisting based on that that CBMP steps cannot also have CBM.

But more importantly, the reason I maintain it's unecessary to bring this into the answer to a beginner question is that a beginner dancer does not need to know when to say a step can or cannot be considered to be be placed CBMP, they need to know what to do when an expert has written that it should be placed in CBMP.

They don't need to know what does and does not qualify for the term, they need to know what they should do when they read it. What they should do is place their foot across to the other side of their body. To find out if they should or shouldn't be turning (rotating) their body, they will have to look to other parts of the step description.

And the difference would be . . . ?

Oh, and CBMP HAS NO STEPS! It is a position of the body and feet.

And yes, the quotation used by Telemark fits nicely with my observation. There are no contradictions between the two phrases.



jj

"Oh, and CBMP HAS NO STEPS! It is a position of the body and feet."

CBMP is a position into which a given step can be placed, which comes in two flavors indicating how far across to the other side of the body it the foot lands.

Going circularly around the standing foot, the front half choices for step placement are:

side
side and slightly forward
diagonally forward
forward
forward in CBMP
forward and across in CBMP (and PP)


As a matter of definition placements are relative to the standing foot not to the body, so "across" refers to the moving foot landing across the standing foot - both "forward in CBMP" and "forward and across in CBMP" are placed across the body, while the first lands in front of the standing foot and only the second is across it.

The original poster probably could have learned all he or she needed to know by going into this site's learning center and clicking on the diagonal movements section. The CBMP is illustrated in a manner that shows a beginner all they would need to know at this point.
If you did a search of "Contra Body Movement in the Waltz" it would probably be several pages of explanation. In other words, you'd have information overload.

Why did you even make that response? You said absolutely nothing! Are you trying to claim that CBMP DOES have steps? ANY position on the dance floor is one "into which a given step can be placed, . . ."

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.

jj

I don't think any of you have mentioned that on all steps taken outside your partner either forward or back must be in CBMP. If you do not you will come apart Alex Moore only needed 57 words to explain CBMP which is a lot less than most of you writting.
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.

All steps OP must be in CBMP? What, even step 3 of a Fishtail in QS?

BTW, Howard (as quoted verbatim) uses 31 words to Moore's 57. Buy a technique book, Polished.

Perfectly good descriptions of CBM and CBMP have been provided in this thread. Some people have chosen to take issue with those descriptions for reasons which no one else would imagine.

jj