Talk:Liquid and digits

LightShows

I feel that the difference between liquid and lightshows should be addressed. The two have diverged to the point that they are significantly different. By giving a light show you have one (possibly more) person very close to the area your hands will be. It is a very close up and somewhat personal event meant to fill that persons entire field of vision. There are entire websites and vendors dedicated to providing items for people who practice lightshows and the lights are no longer just "keychains" as mentioned in the article. I could go on but I'm sure someone else who knows of what I speak will eventually chime in :) Ciper (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent change

whoever made the major change to the article; you've added some invaluable information, but i have to ask that next time you please work your changes in with the existing material, rather than overwriting it, and b) that it is more desirable to write in a npov manner than it is in an op-ed style. i've given the article a refactor to merge in elements of the older version and to objectify the text --MilkMiruku 00:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Popping = liquiding?

Popping and Liquid are clearly related, the way I see it they are more or less the same, but popping includes mannequin and strobe, liquiding has got (better) names for the various moves. I actually think they should be merged into one more comprehensive article. This article would also be a great place to explain what separates the styles ;-) I am going to start by adding the obligatory references to each article, but I really think merging would be much better. Someone interested in popping would certainly want to learn about liquiding and vice versa. Arru 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've looked into this, liquid is closely tied to rave and popping to b-boying, right? So, it's basically the same thing (railing is called boxing in pop-ish, waves just the same, both have strong connections to mime etc.) They are different from a fundamentalist point of view because one is hiphop (though not really) the other is rave. Cultures are important and should be covered, but to pretend these two are altogether different (and historically separated) is just silly IMO. The obvious connection is mime, and perhaps the emergence of rave just when b-boying got out of fashion (hint) could be toned down a little. The important thing is, it is misleading for someone new to the subject to emphasize their differences. Both are part of electronic music culture, only liquid has trance and popping electro - and there are even crossovers of those! Arru 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

one can't really deny that liquiding came from popping and street dancing in general, but i'd argue that the styles (plus cultures surrounding the two) are different enough for them to warrent seperate articles. tbh, the liquid dancing article needs a whole lot more information regarding it's history (rave culture, spread, etc) --MilkMiruku 13:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Popping and liquid. Two different dance styles. Done to two different styles of music. Popping comes from funk. Liquid comes from electronic dance music, but was it's roots in the 1990's Rave Scene. The two both consist of illusionary movements but share no common foundations and as such are treated as separates. This has been established by many practioners including members of the Liquid Pop Collective. Liquid has been and will always be combined with Popping/Funk Style dancing. Substyles such as waving are closely related but were developed in different scenes at different times. The idea of waving may be common to liquid but it is itself a different style of dance. Members from the Electric Boogaloos have always supported the claim that Popping is a Funk Style and should stand on its Own. Mixing it with any other dance such as Bboying or Liquid or Locking will not embody the dance's true foundations, its true style, its true feeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.97.192 (talk • contribs)

The electronic/funk music argument is weak because these two genres have been cross-breeding since before most of today's dancers were born, of which the most obvious example is electro funk. What I'm interested in is how one sees a funny dancer and then decides to learn more about only, say, popping, but not liquid? (or the other way around of course). I'm much curious about what exactly it is that is done in liquid but never in popping or vice versa. I've heard this about different roots a million times, and I know they are different cultures. But, I also know people myself who are skilled at both, and it is evident that they have connections if you just look at the timeline for the development of liquid. And, you know, the dance itself. So sure, let's maintain different articles but not keep any similarities away from readers. Arru 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the most degrading things you can do to an art form is try to clump it all together into one defined term. If the idea of merging these two styles of dance is really something one is serious about- then you might as well consider merging popping into miming and breaking into kung-fu and capoeta.

The bottom line is that, no matter where its origin is, there is a unique difference in both form, technique, vocabulary and especially culture.

Those who lack the ability to recognize that art is nothing more than a manifestation of something else, and that all things influence others, should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.

No one has ever denied that popping influenced liquid. But that does not mean it is popping. Again I use the "call everything mime" analogy. Or better yet- it has been widely described that popping is like telling a story. Like acting. So if that is the case, we should all call dance acting.

My suggestion is to stop playing a hate game against an art you don’t understand. The only way to truly have any opinion on the matter is to engross yourself into both cultures, including all aspects involved, so that when you form an opinion such as that you are making a claim, you don’t sound like a kid upset that his lolli-pop was taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.73.245 (talk • contribs)

• I can tell you that, to write an encyclopedia, one must accept that esoteric matters like arts be brought down to a level where someone not familiar to the subject can get useful information out of the text. I am not forming an opinion, I'm just trying to get some factual material for this article as opposed to opinions. Arru 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Liquid was rooted stronger in a different culture then hip hop. Liquid is to the Ravers as popping is to the B-boys. Plus the dance technique of popping in volves contraction of the mussles as liquid requires relaxation with movement much like tai chi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.42.225 (talk • contribs)

• Now we're getting somewhere. Though, as an eclectic popper I would remark that a popping technique like fixation involves relaxation too. This is not a matter of hating, it is just a quest for knowledge and from the answers I've gotten thus far it appears as the cultural roots are much more important than the dance as for differences. But I'd like this not to be the case. Arru 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can toss up a few links to videos.

LPE arcade clip - One of the best known liquid clips around.

Poppin Pete and Skeeter Rabbit stageshow - Random popping clip off youtube.

It shouldn't be too hard to tell the styles apart. The poppers move in and out of stances/angles, popping for emphasis (gross simplification, i know). Liquid is an illusion through continuous movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.231.184 (talk • contribs)

Great clips! I was trying to leave the discussion behind but here we go: the most noticeable difference is the differing music and tempo of the two clips. This comparison actually strengthened my belief that the one big difference between liquid and popping is the music, culture and a few things that follow from those - not the dance itself. LPC Eric's dancing looks a little softer but he also goes in and out of stances. (he's a bad-ass dancer BTW!) Still, I am not saying they are all the same, I'm saying that the movements are some 70% the same, with different emphasis because of different music.

Citing Wikipedia:The perfect article:

...begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail.

...is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view.

...is precise and explicit; free of vague generalities and half-truths that may stem from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

...is well-documented; all facts are cited with reputable sources, especially those sources most accessible and up-to-date.

I am not an expert in the subject liquiding, which is why I am asking the questions. But the answers I am looking for the article is facts, not opinions. Arru 20:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible for anyone with an abstract view to gain a sense of understanding of both dance styles without experiencing them first hand, without learning from their original influences and creators.

The reason why culture is used as a means of defining the differences between the styles is because it provides some explanations as to how the movements came about. The music associated with these cultures also has a huge part to play in how these styles developed.

With that aside. When i am practing liquid, i am doing just that. There are a set of specific concepts and motions unique to liquid which run through my head. (The concepts located on the wikipedia site for liquid will outline these motions with a high level of abstraction. These can be further broken down into specific poses, movements, routines and general body positioning and control).

The same goes with popping. There is a specific technique and movement to the style being portraied which is UNIQUE to itself. (An abstract view would be the substyles: waving, hitting, animation, toyman, botting, tutting... etc. These can be further broken down into specific poses, movenments, routines and general body positioning and control.)

My point is this. The movements are not the same. You must stop looking abstractedly. Look at the specific techniques, concepts and movements to gain a better idea of how they differ. These are the FACTS you are looking for. If the written interpretation of these ideas does not meet your factual criteria then find more videos, better yet, meet someone who performs the styles.

- Justin

I'd love to look at the specific moves, but, funny enough, the article contains - as you say - only the abstract outlines of the style. Can't any of you (or is there only Justin?) anonymous people taking part in this discussion contribute a little material to the actual article, and then I don't mean mantras like "popping is funk style, liquid is electronic dance (sic)" - which is already there - but the specifics of liquid techniques? I'm not sure it would prove these styles are fundamentally different but it would be a great addition to the article for sure.

As for the culture part, the explanation I'm still seeing is: in the late 80s: popping got out of fashion, rave is the new thing. But, clubbers still want to dance and as a complete coincidence this mimetic dance pops...eh I mean flows out of nowhere: liquid dancing.

Fast forward to the 2000s when there are cross-overs between almost all dance music styles ever conceived. B-boys take part in rave parties. While it was important to separate the styles c:a 1990, it's an historic artifact now. I am not saying that liquid is popping with some rave makeup on, I see them both as roughly equal parts of a bigger, more important picture. Just out of curiosity:

1. Where were all liquid dancers before c:a 1988, or what were they doing?
2. Why is it called Liquid Pop Collective?
3. What are the origins and culture of electrofunk, tech house, breaks (look it up!)?

Arru 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Posting a detailed breakdown of the movement, substyles and concepts of liquid WOULD prove the differences between the styles liquid and popping. Unfortunately at this stage the style itself lies in human movement alone and is yet to be translated to a written document. This is also true for Popping, there are no complete & formal documentations in written media.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that the styles do not share some place in a "bigger picture". They are both fundementally done to dance music and thus existing in that broad context.

I can't directly comment much on the past of liquid, I was not apart of it. I stand for its future. All i know is from what has been passed onto me from others. The style emerged towards the late 80s early 90s, not specifically from one group of persons, but from a variety of people over different geographical locations. The fundemental movement of the style is handflow, all other concepts generally stem from this basic illusion. The creators of this dance were not poppers.

The Liquid 'Pop' Collective have acknowledeged that their name was actually decided in ignorance of the profound differences between the styles. As such they have stated on many occasions that the styles should be treated as separates. The reason why they called themselves this is because they combined aspects of both dance styles. Essentially performing liquid with elements of popping such as waving, tutting animation and glides. In one of their last video releases (Eikido .net) the only time you see them combining a funk style with liquid is when they combine liquid and waving. Perhaps this is a good indication of their maturity as dancers.

- Justin

I agree with your view that dances are hard to capture accurately in text. Still, Wikipedia is all text and anything that goes here must be an attempt to do that nonetheless, or there would be no point of having the article at all.

The bigger picture I'm talking about is the one that motivates dancers to combine liquid and popping more often than, say liquid and salsa, or liquid and karate... I'm sure an accurate description would show the many common elements, and as you say, make an accurate description of their differences. It is the result of such a description that we are debating, it seems. Arru 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think i jumped into this discussion without actually having a good look at the article posted here. The article should be deamed inaccurate. It should be re-written. There some facts especially in the first few paragraphs which need clarification. This is perhaps what started this debate, and confused the whole issue.

You have to forgive many of the people who posted here for taking such a hard-line on the subject. Liquid has come under attack numerous times over the last 5 or so years in regards to these issues. Hopefully a good Wiki article on it will help to change all this.

- Justin

• Yes, I've figured from the heated responses of some liquid culture proponents here that they have been challenged before on whether liquid is "just an" extension of popping. My personal view is not like that, but only going on the hardcore-inside view that pop and liq are by no means connected stylistically, will present an inaccurate picture to new readers. After all, if you like dancing but haven't devoted your life to either rave or hip hop, you might just enjoy them both?

The only way of resolving this (other than just stating that some say this, some say that as the article currently does) would be to present a factual account of the dance that both sides agree on, and use that as a base for any explanations about the characteristics of liquid dancing. I'm very happy we agree on this with the possibility of improving the quality of this (and the popping) article. Arru 11:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion here! I actually think we should try to go further in presenting both views of the debate, rather than trying to compromise. Kind of how I would like the popping article to mention that the term is used both for the specific style of popping (or hitting), and as an umbrella term for a group of illusionary dance styles, without taking sides for either use. I think this is what the Wikipedia guidelines recommend to resolve NPOV issues. Wintran 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you Arru that we cannot pretend that the two dances are never mixed. The Liquid Pop Collective is a good example that mixing them has been done and works. I actually see liquid dancing kind of like tutting, that is, a style often mixed with popping but with enough unique movements that it can be danced as a separate style. The fact that it was born in the electronica scene rather than funk scene could simply be explained in the history/origins section.

Wintran 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No one was pretending the dance style were not mixed. It happens all the time over a huge variety of dances. It's a good part of what make's a persons own style unique. That is their ability to take what they like from all styles and use that as a basis for their own dance.

I disagree when you say that it is kind of like tutting. Making these types of comparisons only confuses the debate once again. Tutting is it's own style (also a substyle under the umbrella term popping/funk-styles), consiting of right angle movements and often incorporates finger illusions and other elements of popping. Tutting has its own fluidity. But the style shouldnt be compared to liquid. It can however be mixed quite easily with liquid.

Also the suggestion that liquid has "enough unique movements that it can be danced as a separate style" tells me that there is still a belief that is a style of popping. It should be treated as a seperate style because it is one! Liquid was not founded from popping, it manifested on its own. It was only some time later when dancers started exploring both styles that they discovered that two could be mixed, with interesting results.

- Justin

Ah, I think you misunderstood me on this one. When I compared liquid to tutting I did not mean to compare its movements, but rather its relation to popping today, regardless of where it evolved from. I mean, there are other styles such as boogaloo that are never seen danced separated from popping, but both tutting and liquid have many enthusiasts that focus only on these styles, never mixing them with each other or popping. Maybe it wasn't such a good point, sorry about that. I agree with you that liquid is a separate style, and I also believe it originally evolved outside of the popping scene.

Something interesting I've noted regarding the relation between popping and liquid of today is that liquid has to some extent indirectly been incorporated into popping, but not openly accepted. Mentioning liquid dancing in some popping forums can get you banned, but some more experimental poppers of today, such as Salah, definitely mix the two. Using popping in liquid contexts, however, is much more accepted by the electronica scene. Nothing we need to mention, but I find it interesting.

Wintran 11:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

From these discussions I've realized that, while I've seen no cleancut reasoning why these dances are fundamentally different (again: the dances, judged by themselves) I've understood that the origins part is an extremely touchy subject. As with other underground culture there is really few or no reputable sources, so it's all about the consensus (what?) of the editors. Staying away from opinions or POVs for just once, this is what I would like this article to include:

• A comprehensive list of moves/techniques giving as good idea of what liquiding looks like as you could get from a text
• A well-written section on the origins, including the controversy about being/not being an extension of popping
• Stemming from above, the relevant characteristics of liquid dancing that separates it from popping (and, eventually, the same in the Popping article) Liquid/stiff is a good start but then we know they are both sides of popping, so, more is needed
• Some good outboard links to video clips and guides for learning liquiding
• Pictures!

Arru 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First, if popping is mentioned in the article, we should be clear whether we specifically mean popping, or the umbrella term that includes various funk styles. This distiction is paramount to getting anything accomplished. The Popping article does a good job of this, so should the Liquid article. I do think that liquid has some concepts that are closely related with certain funk styles, but not funk styles as a whole, and not popping as in the specific dance style.

As for this part: "Liquid dancing has many moves in common with popping, born out of 80s b-boy and funk style dance movements" -- let us try to rethink liquid's relation to funk styles.

Point one, I favor the term "concepts" over the term "moves." Yes, this is semantics, but "moves" often gives the impression of patented moves one has invented, whereas "concepts" are universal and easily demonstrated.

Waving, tracing, and threading are the concepts that have the most bearing on the subject of liquid. To my knowledge (again, history is somewhat sketchy because these styles were born in the underground), waving and tracing originated with funk music in the 70s, whereas threading grew out of breakdancing in the 80s. It's not necessarily imperative that we explain the origins of these styles/concepts in this article, this is more to get our history as straight as we can. Beyond these three, liquid has very little in common with popping (the specific dance style) or funk styles in general. They are not physically or historically related. This topic is only a touchy subject because there are so many misconceptions out there. This article presents an oppurtunity to set the record straight.

I think we can do away with the word popping in the liquid article altogether, unless we make a section devoted to Myths about liquid. My argument is that using the term popping only contributes to the chief misconception that liquid is related to popping, a la "liquid popping".

One more thing about the first paragraph, specifically "It is primarily the dancer's arms and hands which are the focus". This is a good start. I've always described liquid as simply, "a fluid interplay between the hands and arms." Do you think this works a little better? The bit about "though more advanced dancers work in a full range of body movements" is great as it is.

OK, moving on. The origins section starts off well, up until this point: While rave later stagnated, liquid dancing has become a standing part of club- and street dancing." Raves did not stagnate, though the culture has certainly changed a lot since the beginning, and liquid seems to have originated in both the rave and club scenes.

The next paragraph discussing the relation of liquid to popping has been discussed above. Once again, I recommend doing away with the term popping. The contention that liquid originated from waving, however, is good to mention because this is commonly stated by OGs in the funk styles community. Whether it's accurate or not is not for me to say, but this is where it gets tricky without citing sources.

Now onto techniques. The concepts listed in the article (except waves, traces, and threads) were "coined" by the LPC, though they do not claim to have invented them. Perhaps we should seperate the list into the LPC-coined and non-LPC-coined?

Finally, one last little nitpick: regarding the Gear section, Photons are a specific brand of LED lights. This is akin to calling inline skates "roller blades." Bitsmart0 10:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonyms?

I dance alot at "raves" and clubs, and I can safely say that they are complete antonyms. Popping is a form that is more linear and less free-flowing. Liquid however, is the exact opposite. The object of liquid is to flow around and NEVER pop or lock. Combining Popping (dance) with Liquid...is absurd, and if the page "Liquid" takes up too much space on the server (what?) and MUST be combined, you might as well combine them all and put them under dance. It'd be like mixing country and rock. Drums and guitars. It's simply different, and would be taking a step back in knowledge (to the unaware) if combined.

Also, I would like to add that "Liquid" dancing has a single "move" called the "figure-8". Popping however has many moves that have names and learning curves. As I stated, I do dance at these parties, and I liquid. I know how to "b-boy" and pop locks, but it simply doesn't flow enough for the high bpms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightbitpotion (talk • contribs)

• I do dance a lot with dancers who do liquid, popping or both. While I do take your concern seriously, calling liq and pop antonyms is close to ridiculous IMO. All dancers I have met agree that liquid and popping are basically variations of the same thing. Unfortunately like most discussions above, making these statements will get us nowhere without sources or other kinds of verifiable facts. Arru 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Also, I would like to add that "Liquid" dancing has a single "move" called the "figure-8"."

I disagree. Liquid is replete with many concepts, including the figure eight. In my experience, a "move" is something unique to a particular dancer, example: "That dude stole my move!" Bitsmart0 10:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I disagree that combining liquid and poppin' is absurd and frankly this is the 1st time I see such an opinion, but you're entitled to it. I have been popping and liquiding for years now and they are not mutually exclusive although I see a lot of differences, you can still hit and mix in liquid moves, in fact imho, Liquid can be used with a lot of styles that may not seem like they will mix well, like tutting or melbourne shuffling for example, yet it gives a great result and looks natural.

And mixing popping and liquid is very natural for most liquid dancers I have seen (beside LPE and his crew that is). Of course you can go all liquid or all popping if you want, but they DO mix well.

shoshenq 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Shoshenq 2:45AM Eastern TZ

Techniques and styles

Do the various techniques and styles really need to be subheadings with their own section listing in the TOC? A subheading is generally used only when there's a narrative section that contain two or more paras (or maybe one lengthy para). These seem like a list. Thoughts? Bookgrrl 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought about this a lot when working on the popping article. I ended up using definition lists, which I think works best for this type of listing. Check out the popping article to see it in action. - Wintran ^(talk) 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Liquiding is not necessarily better suited for fast paced "Trance Music". This is an opinion!

This Line should be Deleted:

This difference in focus is what makes liquiding better suited for fast-paced trance music and popping for the more distinct rhythms of, for example, electrofunk.

This is an OPINION, not fact. I am a dancer who practices Liquid and I mostly dance to Electro. I DO NOT LIKE TRANCE. I have been liquid dancing for 13 years and I have NEVER thought trance was the best music for liquiding. It's always been a cross between acid techno, acid house, techno bass, and electro for me. A lot of new school electrofunk is GREAT for liquiding.

I know Tiny Love and I have seen many video clips of him Liquiding to electrofunk. I'll dig them up and post links if anyone has doubts about this.

Starriebird 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please post the links ? I would love to watch them, thx ahead.

Shoshenq 2:49 am Eastern TZ.

Actually, I think UK Bassline and Dubstep would be worth a mention, I've also witnessed by personal account a blend of tecktonik and liquiding.

Trance appears to be perfectly in time with popping, musically (as is techno, house, electro, garage, speed garage, bassline, dubstep, IDM/Glitch, drum n bass, and even hip/electro hop). In retrospective, people online have been asking if 'Liquid Funk' is something to do with L&D. I don't feel it is, I may be wrong, it's certainly danceable. But like you pointed out as a dancer, you dislike Trance as your own personal tastes. This can be a sticky issue on sites like Wikipedia, since urban vernacular dances (such as club, rave and street styles) all evolved outside of dance studios, therefore there is no 'governing authority' of decision in this. Which is probably why this should either be skipped from use in the article, unchanged, or left to reference of third-parties. Like you said, you provided opinion, not fact. I must also point out liquiding, railing and digits do not work as well with certain genres (due to their speed, not beat), respectively. However, such a fact needs a citation, of course. FireWolf Flux (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

decade apostrophe removal

removed decade name apostrophes per Basic_copyediting --RichardMills65 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

References

There does not appear to be any reliable sources backing up this article, and most references are youtube videos and blogs. It seems like a candidate for deletion unless it can be improved. 79616gr (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)