Posted:Hoping to get a general idea of how various people define a weave (for teaching purposes).
Some points that are in my definition (tho I'd love to hear yours) are: Each hand does circles on both sides of your body (whether infront and behind or onthe left and on the right) Both hands do exactly the same thing (as if a mirror image of eachother) The poi spin in split time The poi spin in the same direction The number of circles one hand does in one complete run-through of the move is the number of beats - eg 2 beat, 3 beat, 5 beat, 7 beat.
Of course weaves can be done not in split time and also with the poi spinning in opposite directions (one forwards and one backwards) but these might not strictly be called weaves anymore. Also the hands don't have to do exactly the same as eachother - as in the 4 beat weave - but I'm treating this as an exception to the rule (an afterword to the definition).
So how would you define it? Even if you define it as I do let me know - I'm trying to find out if there's a consesus here.
Posted:I take it you've already got Drew's opinion? He bought this up the other day and I'm not too sure. So I'll ramble a bit and try to look clever..
'Cross-Follow' may be a better name for all the classic weave type moves as the poi follow each other and the poi and hands cross over. Simple! But cross-follow is one subset of a larger family.
I see the 'Weave' part of the name refer to the hand movement of multi beat cross follows. In odd numbered cross follows the hands 'weave' around each other and the leading hand changes. Hence on possible definition of the weave. In a 2 beat cross follow the leading hand remains the same. This isn't really a weave as the hands don't 'weave'. The 4 beat cross follow is half a 5 beat and half a 3 beat, and the leading hand doesn't really change, so I don't think it's a proper weave move.
Then there's parallel weaves, which aren't cross-follow, they're cross-parallel. These seem to fit neater with even numbered beats.
On your 5 points of definition of a weave I agree with smiley 1,2 and 5. 3, I don't agree with because parallel weaves exist, although you can also bend the rules and say parallel weaves are follow time but follow a whole beat behind. 4, butterfly weaves can exist by the hand movement definition I use.
Maybe the family needs to be renamed 'crossovers' or something with a weave being a subset of that family along with the 4 timings.
Posted:When teaching I find it a lot easier to describe the motions with a set of poi in my hand (and one in theirs).
I usually explain the motion starting with one poi and get thenm to first listen to my explanation then watch me do the movements with my hands. Then I get them to mimic the motion and once they are happy with it ask them to try with the other hand.
With teaching I hae found that it is a lot easier for me to explain if I can break the moves down into the 2 seperate movements of the hands and then try and combine them.
3 no Butterfly and split time weaves (judith) and parallel weaves are members of the weave family. but if we just say "weave" we usually mean followtime weave.
(aww bollocks, just to confuse everyone, up until now when I've written split time I alway mean as in opposite directions, crossing L and R, not butterfly, now thats reall messed everything up for everyone. bloody words)
4 no ditto
nerd nerd nerd lalala read my exiting new book "all about weaves" comming out soon Its got the all new poi ladder notation. and alegebraically defines the coeffiecient of wrap factor- a all new poi variable... but it might never get finnished... eh michal
Posted:ta fellow nerds. Would yu like to see my stamp collection?
In book it seemed necessary to discuss weaves as everyone seems to use the term so much on HOP. When they do, they seem to use it as I set out - tho you aren't comfortable with the problems of parallel and opposite 'weaves'. I don't think we could resolve this - it's a naming preference - I feel that parallel and opp dir weaves don't need to be called weaves at all, despite that being the point of origin from where you folks worked them out.
Dom - like the cross-follow/cross-parallel stuff (definitely my prefered name for it all) and lead hand stuff.
Mark P - Ta! I also teach the weave one hand at a time and then together in steps. I was more after how to teach the concept of a weave. (In the book: seeing as it's such a popular term I felt it might be important for readers to know what the term applied to.) What are your thoughts on the definition of a weave?
Glass - so how are you defining a weave then? Is it anything that you've worked out from follow time weaves?
Perhaps I should abandon the page on weaves and put something fun there instead like a page from Barbie's holiday diary? (Dom I need access to your server!)
I keep coming across this - that every rule, definition or concept falls apart under closer scrutiny, as do the new rules we invent to account for the holes etc etc,
And yet we can live with this vertigo.
(Scuse me. Thoughts above my station. Closet Wittgenstien fan.)
I f we rename the super section 'cross-overs' within which there are the 4 rhythms/directions (we'd have to add the stipulation that arms cross eachother or we'd be talking about every move on the planet that is not just done on one side of your body) then the susection 'weaves' would refer to follow time (SAME DIRECTION) cross-overs, and would be defined as I originally did above, which is how I think most people are defining them at the moment anyway. Yes/No?
Posted:If crossovers was every move where the poi moved between 2 sides of the body then it is a large group. There would be lots of children within the group, follow time crossovers (e.g. your weave definition) would be one of them. Poi definitions are big, confusing venn diagrams!
There are no such things as definitive rules or concepts, which is what makes life fun!
Michal, feel free to email anything you want to rest on my server.