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

"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.""

If by approximated you mean "looks like" then I would agree:

CBM body turn looks a lot like CBMP (or conversely CBMP looks a lot like strong CBM has been used), but it isn't.

Except that a number of professionals (including Jonathan who runs this site) are of the opinion that CBM which takes you beyond being square does mean that CBMP has been achieved...

...which gets back to my point that the subject is one complicated enough to confuse even the professionals, and a more directly application-oriented explanation is appropriate for introducing it to beginners.

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

Let's take as an example a step forward on the RF. A strong body turn to the right, accompanied by a natural turning of the trailing left foot, can result in a position where the RF is on or across the new line of the LF. If we had to name that overall position it would be reasonable to name it CBMP, and we would probably think of it as a 'body' position.

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

No, I don't think it conflicts with the definition of CBMP as a 'foot' position, where we are talking about achieving the same overall position by placing the foot relative to a body which has already turned.

In the first case we are turning _into a_ CBMP, and in the second we are stepping _in_ CBMP.




"If you believe this is possible, then what is the meaning of "but without turning the body" in the definition?"
and
"The text in question: ""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.""

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."



I believe the phrase is almost redundant, with or without the comma (which I also believe is correct).
How would CBM appear without turning the body?

If the comma is correct, we can remove the phrase between the commas and get: "The placing of the stepping foot, forward or back, onto or across the line of the other foot but without turning the body."
We probably do not need the part about not turning the body - if it is not mentioned, don't do it.

However it may actually help clarify the definition, and definitions are notoriously difficult to make accurate, concise and unambiguous.

The simple definition without reference to turn or CBM is not sufficient.
In the absence of any pre-conceptions, a person asked to stand with their feet slightly apart, then to place their RF in front and in line with their LF will most likely turn the body slightly to the left. They will have met the requirements of the simple definition but are not, and have not stepped, in CBMP. Adding the comment about not turning the body will result in a just recognisable CBMP. Adding "giving the appearance of CBM having been used" makes it unmissable.



As far as the original poster is concerned, it is probably simplest to forget about CBMP until your teacher explains and demonstrates it. Just keep your body facing your partner.

"The simple definition without reference to turn or CBM is not sufficient.
In the absence of any pre-conceptions, a person asked to stand with their feet slightly apart, then to place their RF in front and in line with their LF will most likely turn the body slightly to the left. "

I would guess, at least if they had any exposure to dance habits at all, they would be much more likely to turn their body to the right.

However the question itself is based on an unlikely premise: leaving aside the tango and a few unusual situations in the others, CBMP positions don't tend to come from nowhere, and they are not generally executed with the body square to the feet. Instead they are generally preceded by a same-side lead on the preceding step, which may be simply carried over without change to become an opposite side lead on the CBMP step.

In other words, CBMP features the result of body turn relative to the feet, but it's turn that happened sometime previously.

If this setup is satisfied, then the simple instruction to step across the body is likely to result in something approaching the desired result, at least to the degree to which the beginner is physically capable of finding comfort in a CBMP position.

"They will have met the requirements of the simple definition but are not, and have not stepped, in CBMP."

Nor in your example will they have stepped across their body as I had suggested we instruct them. I specifically did not choose to phrase it relative to the standing foot, because while the book is written that way, it's not how most people are used to thinking - instead of foot-relative, we tend to be body-relative. And while CBMP is defined with respect to the feet, the reasons for using it are mostly with regard to the body, or more exactly the fitting together of two bodies.