You have verbal diarrhoea, and I have nothing to add.

the five dollar word for "verbal diaharrhea" is "logorrhea."

However, given our friend's output, the images evoked by your wording are more appropriate.

As I stated previously, my only concern is that new visitors to the site might mistake something that they read for serious advice.

I guess we could argue about which of us has wasted more time with this exchange.

jj

"As I stated previously, my only concern is that new visitors to the site might mistake something that they read for serious advice."

Which is precisely the problem with the misunderstanding that leads to an obsession for dancing a completely rotated pivot.

Beginners would do well to make note that capable dancers have a lot easier time of the spin turn because they emphasize the swing and de-emphasize (as in underturn) the pivot.

That's what you'll see done in the videos here, and to one degree or another in just about any video of good dancers actually dancing.

You can't be 'in' CBM, but you can step 'with' CBM.



But I can agree with that!

"The lady moves the left foot back and leftwards on step five according to the book."

Actually, no, that's not what the official text says, but rather your misunderstanding of the organization and intent of its description.

What the book officially tells you is the position of the moving foot relative to the standing foot. But it does not literally tell you the direction of movement used to get there. Your mistake is in confusing the result with the method. As dancing has become more dynamic, it's become far more important to understand the critical difference between action and result.

During step five of a spin turn, the lady's direction of movement is still largely sideways, or even still forwards away from still underturned standing foot. Only as she arrives on the moving foot and the weight leaves the standing foot does her right foot complete the turn to the given alignment and create the appearance of a backwards step having been taken.

Contrast this to the natural pivot turn, where the rotation of the lady's right foot is completed early enough in the departure that she can drive backwards off of her heel rather than still sideways or forwards off of her toe.

... at the end of the step. That's why it makes a difference.

""What the book officially tells you is the position of the moving foot relative to the standing foot."

... at the end of the step. That's why it makes a difference."

Exactly. In the modern, dynamic execution, the direction of the step won't actually become backwards until quite late in the course of the step.

A study of the CBMP definition written by Howard and Moore is not the same.

On careful reading you will see that they are both right regarding step 5, as gent, of the natural spin turn.

"A study of the CBMP definition written by Howard and Moore is not the same.

On careful reading you will see that they are both right regarding step 5, as gent, of the natural spin turn."

Applying Moore's definition of CBMP, "A term used when the body is not turned, but the leg placed across the front or back of the body, so giving an appearance of Contrary Body Movement" would be quite problematic.

Consider that if we allow our leg to exit CBMP at all during whatever degree of pivot we choose to dance, then the re-establishment of the alleged CBMP "across the body" would be the result of subsequent body rotation after the foot is placed. Many such as Geoffrey Hearn explain it this way, but doing so absolutely flies in the face of the "when the body is not turned" portion of Moore definition, since it is explicitly the turn of the body that causes a leg position that was not originally across the body to subsequently become so.

Or do you plan to overturn the body beyond facing LOD, so that it is actually a little towards DW, before you take the forwards drive of step 5, so that you can claim that the allegedly resulting CBMP is a result of the direction of the step being across the body alignment (consistent with the definition) and not of the body rotating across the direction of the step (inconsistent with the definition). That would escape inconsistency, but do you really want to dance in such a pinched fashion?

The rational reader quickly realizes that the occasionally found notation of CBMP on step 5 (in something derived from Moore's work) is simply in error, most likely confusion resulting from the "held in CBMP" of any degree of pivot employed in step 4.

Hi to all,
I came across the following article about the definition of CBMP, written by the late Arthur Franks, UK, around 1940.

/*
There is still a considerable amount of controversy upon the position of CBMP among leading authorities; some assert that whenever one foot is placed across the body, irrespective of whether there is any turning movement or not, CBMP is attained; others claim that CBMP can take place only when there is no rotary movement whatsoever - for example, in the fourth step of the Cross Chasse when it is followed by a lock step, but not when it is followed by any turning movement

After considerable discussion with anatomist and a professor of dynamics the author has satisfied himself that the former school of thought is theoretically the correct one.
*/

It was awhile before Alex Moore agreed that CBM and CBMP could still be used at the same time on a step.

When the ISTD UK decided to adopt a technique of ballroom dancing, they had a choice of using the slim volume of Moore's (103 pages) technique book, or the book written by Henry Jacques (311 pages.)

The definition written by Henry Jacques on CBMP is as follows:
/*
A position arrived at by the placing of the moving leg slightly across and in front of, or behind, the supporting leg, with or without the use of body turn.
*/