Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
You consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.
Allow cookies for
Necessary Cookies Necessary Cookies cannot be unchecked, because they are necessary for our website to function properly. They store your language, currency, shopping cart and login credentials.
Analytics Cookies We use google.com analytics and bing.com to monitor site usage and page statistics to help us improve our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Marketing Cookies Marketing Cookies do track personal data. Google and Bing monitor your page views and purchases for use in advertising and re-marketing on other websites. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Social Cookies These 3rd Party Cookies do track personal data. This allows Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest integration. eg. shows the Facebook 'LIKE' button. They will however be able to view what you do on our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Back in the day what was 'tech' is now beginner stuff. This has been covered in many discussions, so i'm not starting one of those*. Also, individual moves, and expertise have been discussed to death, so i'll moan miserably if this turns into a 'I can do an antispin butterfly hybrid - that means i'm tech' thread or a 'tech vs dance/experience/style' thread. ARGH!
anyway. back to the point. Old stuff is not hard, and new stuff therefore is....: Nowadays new concepts - or really hard variations of old concepts - come up very frequently (in every spin, i find at the moment, with several new things appearing in a session). Now, because they are new, people call them tech. but are they?
for example: (Not) 1.5s are relatively new, so are considered 'tech'. In fact they are very easy, and can be taught successfully to 25 people in under ten minutes (last workshop). So why are they 'tech'? Is it because durbs can do them?
This relates to an old argument in 'the worlds longest teaching moves thread' that peopl teach in different ways because of what they consider 'basic'... but I try to keep an open mind... and so consider (another example) airwraps to be much easier than a 3 beat weave. certainly i can make a group of beginners learn a consistent airwrap in about a tenth of the time i can get them all to understand the fairly complicated hand movements of a weave. It might seem harder, but in fact there is much less to do physically, and when explained as a physical action rather than a poi move anyone can do them.
So what defines technical spinning? (please, not just a list of moves, though that may come at a later date...) is it novelty? is it ingenuity? is it who invents it? is it how hard it is? is it how hard it is percieved to be? is it because it is not 'normal spinning' is it cause it LOOKS radically different (even if it is not) wow factor? is it because someone famous calls it tech? is it because it has a wierd and funky name (mmmm antispin olos hybrids )?
What on earth is this 'thing' that people either rail against it or support it or aspire to? And why do they? It makes some poeple incredibly upset/scornful/impressed! WTF?
Ond why, oh why, do people use it to describe stuff? 'oh, that's so tech' What does that mean? What if you're wrong (meg?)?
Discuss. hand in your essays by december 1st please, and they will be returned before christmas, marked.
*and will violently shout if it turns into one
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
newgabeSILVER Member what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls. 4,030 posts Location: Bali, Australia
Posted: Hi strugz!
Good to see you!
i dunno what they're all on about, I sorted this question pages ago
.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....
I don't know what I'd define as tech-y spinning (not thought about it until saw this)... but I have an idea about tech-y spinners
A few years ago, I overheard a conversation being had (by Coleman I think) about trying to do something crazy and cool with poi (like most spinning conversations). Someone suggested being able to transition from one part to the other part (I love how vague this sounds)... But Cole (we'll say it's him for now), said that doing so would change the pattern created which was not what he wanted to achieve by this thought/thing/move/whatever.
So, someone who plans what a move or sequence will look like, to me is pretty tech-y. That includes "simple" spinning choreography based on what it looks like rather than just showing your repertoire.
As someone who only has time to dabble nowadays (and never really read the poi sections on here, ever), when presented with someone saying can you do "X" move... I generallly look at them blankly until they show or describe what they mean. So there's a further degree of knowledge in what you're doing, which I see as tech-y to some degree. This knowledge may be terminology of "moves", how they relate to other "moves", physics, maths, etc...
And a third category... people I can walk up to at any point and say te(a)ch me something. And they show you one little thing that will keep you amused for hours/days/years to come.
You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?" George Bernard Shaw
Posted: Have learned some of the so called ' poi tech stuff'. But it only seems to impress other spinners. In my experience people like to see freedom and grace through dance and presentation, and of course, nice patterns. With the "tech stuff " presentation is often lost and the audience witnesses strange patterns and deep concentration, or is it arrogance-sometimes i'm not sure? All moves are difficult at first, but that's what's nice about learning. I think it's nice to explore as much as possible, and to have lot's of fun, not to rank ourselves and our abilties by defining what 'tech' is and is not.-coz' dancing is tech 2, and who care's anyway?
man who go bed with itchy bum wake up with smelly finger!