Contra Body Movement Position

etp777

Active Member
#41
Hey, I thought I recognized that description of CBM--that's the description I added to wikipedia over two years ago! A bit simplified but I suppose it does the trick...
Heh, always interesting when stuff like that shows up Josh. :) Actually, annoyed at an internet phenomenon lik ethat right now. I've been looking for a wine recipe I used years ago, and thought I found it, as I found websit ethat indexed old usenet posts, and had one with recipe attributed to me. But on reading it, wasn't really me, looks like they grabbed my name from one post on usenet thread, and gabbed text of anoother. Sadly, don't have recipe I was really looking for (and it's been years, so don' thave it now).
 

Josh

Active Member
#42
So, am I right or wrong about the following?

Using waltz, whisk - chasse from PP, for example.

As you go into the whisk ending, step 3, that is CBM. That is, for the man, left shoulder forward while left foot is back.
Not quite wg--step 3 is neither CBM nor CBMP.

It's not CBM because even though the torso does have a rightward rotation to it to keep the body line correct and the left foot is going back, there's nothing really special happening. Something similar happens on step 3 of an open reverse turn (like in tango), and in step 3 of a fallaway reverse and slip pivot. The torso rotates to the right to keep a good body line and make the CBMP step more comfortable, but CBM is really only used by definition to

(1) initiate rotation (as in step 4 of both of those figures), (note: when there is only sympathetic rotation because of natural swing, as in step 1 of the whisk and step 1 of closed changes, it's called "slight CBM")
(2) create a side lead to allow for OP position (as in step 1 of a feather, step 4 of natural turn and back lock in quickstep), or
(3) maintain a good body line when stepping across in CBMP (as in step 1 of the chasse from PP, see below). This is also "slight CBM."

It's not CBMP because while the L foot is placed on/across the line of the R foot, it's a "crossing" action, and does not really have the characteristics or true flavor of a CBMP step, namely, that it must be a "step." Other examples of this in waltz would be the turning lock, turning lock to the right, and the left whisk, all which feature the man crossing but not "stepping."

As you exit the whisk and proceed into the chasse from PP, that is CBMP. That is, for the man, right foot steps out and across into the left portion of the body, since the body remains torqued to allow this to happen naturally.

Yes?
Yes! :) But the CBMP isn't really about the "left portion of the body"--the question is whether the right foot is placed on/across the line of the left foot, and it does, so it's CBMP. Also, although the man does not rotate here, he applies what's called "slight CBM" on step 1 of the chasse from promenade, since he's stepping forward and across in CBMP. If he fails to do this, he will lose a good body line with the lady and will risk pulling her to his left and either turning her too soon or just flat out losing the position.
 

Josh

Active Member
#44
Good stuff, Josh. Still trying to digest it.
Cool--but don't try too hard. All that technical stuff is important on some levels, but the most important thing is the dancing... as long as it keeps improving, it really doesn't matter if you know what step CBM happens on! :)
 

tangotime

Well-Known Member
#46
Cool--but don't try too hard. All that technical stuff is important on some levels, but the most important thing is the dancing... as long as it keeps improving, it really doesn't matter if you know what step CBM happens on!


:)
I know Scrivener would be diametrically opposed to that philosophy .

To paraphrase, he believed that one could NEVER achieve establishing basic fundamentals by excluding and not knowing where, why and when to apply CBM .
He also used to say it should be primarily a " natural " action that can be implemented as may be necessary.

Oddly enough, he felt "its" one of greatest assets , was the ability to bring the 2 bodies into " balance " when commencing to move back LIL after stepping O/side partner .
 

tangotime

Well-Known Member
#49
I know Scrivener would be diametrically opposed to that philosophy .

To paraphrase, he believed that one could NEVER achieve establishing basic fundamentals by excluding and not knowing where, why and when to apply CBM .
He also used to say it should be primarily a " natural " action that can be implemented as may be necessary.

Oddly enough, he felt "its" one of greatest assets , was the ability to bring the 2 bodies into " balance " when commencing to move back LIL after stepping O/side partner .


One important thing to add.. the "degree " of CBM should vary dependant on its need . He like to use the word. " Complimentary " .
 

Josh

Active Member
#52
To paraphrase, he believed that one could NEVER achieve establishing basic fundamentals by excluding and not knowing where, why and when to apply CBM .
Well then I'd have to say that if you're paraphrasing him correctly, he ignores the basic concept that everyone is different, and that what may be necessary for one person may not be necessary for another. While I do agree it can be important, if the purpose of knowing about CBM supports good dancing of the couple, then that's a good thing--but if it's not particularly helpful for that couple, why bother?

Oddly enough, he felt "its" one of greatest assets , was the ability to bring the 2 bodies into " balance " when commencing to move back LIL after stepping O/side partner .
Could you elaborate on this a little, tt?
 

tangotime

Well-Known Member
#53
Well then I'd have to say that if you're paraphrasing him correctly, he ignores the basic concept that everyone is different, and that what may be necessary for one person may not be necessary for another. While I do agree it can be important, if the purpose of knowing about CBM supports good dancing of the couple, then that's a good thing-

-but if it's not particularly helpful for that couple, why bother?



Could you elaborate on this a little, tt?


Actually , nearly verbatim , his point , as I stated ( which I and others were made abundantly clear ) was that if one chose to ignore the concept, then ones dancing would never achieve the level that most top prof. strived for and most all succeded .

He also said that CBM, in his view, that the " gliding or " skimming " action that should be present in the " walk " is only enhanced by the use of CBM .

Your last sentence confuses me ?.. why would it not be helpful ? surely the whole point of the exercise is to facilitate ?.
I would add and concede, that it was probably not administered to the " absolute " beginner couple . ( Nellie taught them, not that she would have ignored it ).

Your comment about " different " is one frequently commented on.
He believed that many competitors spent far too much time on seeking the perfect partner . His philosophy was simplythis ,make " adjustments" wherever possible, in obvious differences like height, stride pattern.. things that would or should not hinder a partnership .

To my thinking, which he "shaped ", is that all actions should be of a natural and voluntary nature , that are occasionally enhanced thru additional body shaping .


Reading all the posts, there is a wealth of info, and ideas, and one should take from them, the things that you believe will enhance your prowess as a dancer .

N.B..... to the novice, may I suggest you seek the advice from a prof. who can place these comments in perspective .


Will share this experience that happened to me many yrs ago with a VERY prominent examiner . The topic in a lecture was 1.2.3 of a natural moving into the Spin turn.. 4th step . as we know know, it is diplayed as for man " toe turned in. At this time the techn. had not been formalised to that alignment . I made the mistake of injecting ( as a Question )what Len had been advocating for many moons, and I was quickly rebuked !!
 

Dance Ads