Talk:Popping

Someone should make entries for boxing, waving, and liquid.

Yes, they should. Waving is kind of done, I thought liquid was the same as waving, if that's the case it should be said of course. Many of these terms are extremely fuzzy, it really helps to sort out the lingo. For instance, I think I know most techniques only not their names (I've learned mostly from videos or other people who don't know the names either) so given rough definitions I could probably fill them in. Anyone? Arru 16:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet phenomenon

The keyword "electric boogaloo" originally linked to Breakin' 2, which clearly is by the meaning of the internet meme. Since the meme/movie title comes from the dance I naturally think the "electric boogaloo" should link to popping, but also that someone looking for the basis of the meme should be able to find it. Arru 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-lock

There's no article for popping and locking, which this basically is. there needs to be some locking in this here poping article.

Hi!

I don't agree. Popping and locking are two different dance styles, and though they evolved in the same era and were both traditionally danced to funk music, there's a clear distinction in their appearance and feeling. The term pop-lock is generally used just like the term funk styles, as a way to group these styles together, but they're still different dances. What we need is a separate article on locking, placed at locking (dance), that deals only with locking. Of course both the popping and locking articles could link to each other.

- Wintran 09:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wintran's right. "Pop-locking" is a misconception if referring to a dance style. Regarding liquid dancing however, I have suggested that it be merged with popping because these styles are extremely alike. Unfortunately the expressions "liquid" and "popping" have different cultural origins so this might be difficult. As a next-best solution we should at least make clear in both articles that they are basically the same.

Arru 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popping and locking are two different styles that is correct, also a good deal of the history being posted in this (popping) article is quite innacurrate and misleading. Liquid dance is a popping tyle not a different type of dance or style it is a popping style. waving, tutting, ticking, diming, sinbad, ect are all poppign styles. Popping is merely the art of nongymnastic body manipulation and altering the viewers perception of reality through this. popping is not a style which is restrickted to hard and arbupt movments which seem stiff and robotic or jarring. Put Liquid in its position as a section of the article under styles.

Liquid and popping

I have suggested that the close relation between popping and liquid dancing be made more clear, preferably by merging their articles. Quote from Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages , reasons to merge pages:

"There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability."

The point is that:

Liquid originated conveniently at the same time as popping went underground (around 1990), so it having originated on its own is a dubious claim at best
When you are actually dancing, as opposed to talking about it, you really do the same moves in either one. Liquid has a few more moves which suggests that it perhaps should be used as title for the merged page. On the other hand, liquid as a name is more specific than popping.
While the two dances may have different origins, nowadays dancers combine the two. Breakdancers attend rave parties and even the musical boundaries are blurring.
When the descriptions of moves become more elaborated, it will be all the sillier to write the same descriptions in two places.

The phenomenon of liquid dancing is a bit new to me (unlike popping) and I may be missing something here. But I don't think the different cultural attachments are enough to pretend the dances are unrelated too.

Arru 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Suggestions: either[reply]

Merge popping and liquid into "Mime dances" or something similar. There may be others to include to, strobing has a very short individual article at the moment.
Maintain the separate articles but move the move descriptions to a common "List of popping and liquid moves".

Arru 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, and I agree that this is a very complex subject, which we need to sort out as fair as possible, taking all aspects into concern. I also know more about popping than liquiding, but let me share with you my most recent observations:

As far as I've understood, popping can refer to two things:

An umbrella term for a number of different dance styles, effects and moves, such as hitting/popping (see number two below), boogalooing, botting, gliding, waving, strobing and so on.
The specific effect of popping (a.k.a. hitting), i.e. contracting and relaxing groups of muscles of your body in a controlled manner.

Liquiding is an umbrella term as well but focuses on styles that give a fluid-like effect, such as waving and gliding, but also moves not normally seen in popping, such as "waves" only in the hands and fingers, such as the hand flows and splits.

Even though popping and luquiding as umbrella terms share many dance styles and techniques, they have also grown into two different dance cultures. In these cultures, popping is primarily danced to funk music, though it's getting increasingly accepted to dance it to hip-hop and electronica as well. The main focus lies on the effect of popping different parts of your body to the emphasized beats of the music, though the other styles such as waving are used to create variation and contrast to the pops.

Liquiding, however, has its roots in the rave culture and is normally danced to rave music and trance, to build on the fluid-like feeling that is the main focus in liquiding, with waving and similar styles as the main techniques. Liquiding seldom utilizes the effect of popping at all.

Though, like you say, many people mix all styles of dance and music of today, there are still some who take this very seriously, not the least those who came up with many of these dance forms and umbrella terms in the beginning. Many of those wish to keep these cultures separated.

I think I'd prefer we keep the articles popping (dance) and liquid dancing separated, and work on describing these umbrella terms much more clear, and how they are by some considered to be unique dance cultures even though they share many elements in the dance itself. We can also work on all the articles about sub-styles and effects, and maybe merge some of these with each other or with the popping and liquiding articles.

I agree that we should avoid duplication, but I would say that instead of describing waving in both the popping and liquiding article we can link to waving (dance) or similar. This article would explain both "armwave" and "bodywave" as well, as these specific moves on the contrary do not need their own articles. I don't believe that this use really goes against Wikipedia's principles, or that additional articles that actually fill a purpose are harmful.

- Wintran 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess the umbrella term strategy could work. I myself consider the separation of the styles kind of fundamentalist, and would like the wikipedia entries not encouraging this. I'm sure we can find some balace though.

Arru 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you from the perspective of a dedicated and educated popper, that in your adoption of this strategy you are doing a disservice to those who are learnign about the art and it's history and are being highly innacurate as well. Liquid is a PART/style of Popping. Popping is a Dance style period, through miseducation the terms hitting and popping have come to be "interchangable" in the description of the muscle contractions which are integral to the art of popping. In correction of this mistake I inform you, that in the dedicated and most knowledgable community of poppers(those whom are currently in their 40's, have families and have been popping since their youth, such as Shabadoo, Boogaloo Shrimp, Boogaloo Sam, Mr Flattop ect.), here is only one term applicable, Hitting. Popping is the art form Hitting is ONLY the technique and Liquid is ONLY a style (albeit a well developed one), such as are Animal, Sinbad, Tut (Mr. Wiggles), Dime, Electric Boogaloo, and Robot/Mechanic. Hand splits and fingerwaves occur in popping as well. Tutting concentrates on the geometric movement of bodeparts in similarity to images an dfigures seen in egyptian glyphs, hence the name Tuttuing. In a diciplione of tutting which is necessry to know to become a well rounded performer and dancer, with a strong vocabulary in the art, one focuses on the synchronised movement and replacement of body parts in ausggested area of space creating the illusion of flows or sways, particularly in the fingers and hands. This technique is not only used by Tutters but by others at times in limited capacities due to the cross pollination that aoccurs in the popping world. poppers may often take affinity to and concentrate on a specific style and attempt to master and innovate it, the occurance of this does not isolate or sepaprate them from popping, into a different dance styel it merely broadens their specific corner of popping and thusly increases the variety of popping technique. Bring liquid and liquid dancers back home in education and unification ....we are all poppers.

While I personally lean towards your point of view, this is not the consensus. Dancers rooted in the Rave culture contend that liquid is unique, originated on its own and just happens to be similar to popping. They would certainly not agree that liquid is just a part of popping, referring, just as you do, to its history.

I don't understand how the umbrella (mime dance) strategy would do those who want to learn the popping a disservice. On the contrary, the whole point is to open them to very similar dances. It sounds more like you agree, but would like the umbrella term to be...popping. Of course wikipedia should be accurate on the history, and I believe you are right in that regarding those facts. But don't confuse history with the present! Arru 12:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of poppers

The Notable poppers section is an obvious target for self-promotion. A few of these I've heard of, but of course that's no reliable way of assessing notability. I'm going to remove any entry for whom I can't find a booking at some dance show/event, for lack of better criteria. Arru 10:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thechamelon 17:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following have been removed because I don't know them being notable.

Feel free to find a citation of their notability and re-add. As expected, sources are hard to find even for rather well-known dancers. I believe third-person sources (i.e. not dancer's own website), interviews, show booking and movie credits are acceptable (weighed with the credibility of the source itself), ordered in increasing proof value.

Sam "Boogaloo Sam" Solomon
Danny"blitz"hogan.
Lonnie "PopTart"
Lawrence "Funkmaster" Bower
"Harry Berry"
Ralph "Dr.Plik Plok" Montejo
Chuco Flores
"Mr.Animation"
"Mr.Re"
"The Rothwell"
Paul "Cool Pockets" Guzman-Sanchez
"Poppin'" Nam Hyun Joon
"Pringlz"

Note: this is not because I believe your particular favorite popper is not notable, we just have to do a re-add with sources! Arru 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I feel might be famous enough to be re-added is Boogaloo Sam, as he is credited as the creator of popping itself and electric boogaloo (the style and the group). However, I'm sceptic to this section at all, as it'll be a nightmare to maintain. Wintran 11:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are right about maintainability, but I also see the usefulness of a short list of famous poppers. Let's try for just a little while. Arru 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

Do we have any sources that can support the current history section? Most other sources, except a few comments on various discussion forums, regard the Electric Boogaloo's story (that Boogaloo Sam created popping), as true. Wintran 21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the difficulties just to get straight moves descriptions, I think history sources will be hard to come by. Worse, most may be of the 80s nostalgica style, mixing together breakdancing, moonwalk and the robot in one made-up mess. The current history at least sounds reasonable, I would be sceptical of claims that any individual (or group) created a dance from scratch ;-) The influences of mime needs some mention though. Arru 01:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we cannot rely on standard media sources, as they usually call everything breakdancing anyway, but the only true knowledge we have from the old days are from respected old generation poppers. The most well-reputabled and oldest popping group that we know for a fact are the Electric Boogaloos, and most major pop icons of today, including those listed as our notable poppers, agree with their story of Boogaloo Sam being the oldest pioneer of popping (the technique, not all its sub-styles). There are some exceptions to this, but as the vast majority of serious articles and inteviews I've read state this, I believe it should be the main view of this article. We could include other views as well, but in that case we need to find respectable sources. Wintran 03:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some major changes to the history section using a lot of source citing. Feel free to check it out. Wintran 01:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]