Talk:Liquid and digits

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)

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)