"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 ...

"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.