Ok, so from Mirror Together, you show one of 4 phase relationships for the staffs. You show iso vs + antispin. There is also iso vs X antispin, perpendicular iso vs + antispin, and pependicular iso vs X antispin.
What would you call those in your naming system. They are all specific moves, with specific transition points to other things, no?
Is this in LAB 2 or in this video above? In LAB2 I show a bunch of different box variaitons, including hybrids. The one you talk about below is like a quartertime box isolation.
In mirror together, in the video above, I show all the normal variations. It's not a video about perpendicular spinning. It's about four basic hybrids, that all the other hybrids will obey the same rules.
iso vs perpendicular anti-spin you mean now? It's hard to tell. Or did you want to call it rocket?
They are all specific moves, but they are also all hybrid variations, so why not name them after the hybrid variant they are closest to?
You know I was never one for bullshit shortened names where a long one will do and be more accurate. So guess what i would call them, bearing in mind that I would use perpendicular anti-spin instead of X.
Why do the 4 basic hybrids count as the basics, and the others count as variations of those? You could just as easily have listed perpendicular iso vs perpendicular antispin hybrids as the basics, and say the other ones are variations... in fact every single hybrid we are talking about is a variation of every single other one. I'm just trying to sort understand why you've picked certain ones to use as the base.
By the fact that you didn't know what perpendicular spinning was called, or how it related to anti-spin, why do you think I call the normal ones the normal ones? And use them as a base? Isn't it obvious?
Meg, I didn't learn this stuff from watching your vids. I learned through my own simulations in 3ds MAX. My focus was poi, but once I set up a system in MAX, it was no problem to explore all this other shit too, in a full-featured 3d animation prog. Just because I don't know your names, doesn't mean I don't understand the underlying relationships. But the way I am viewing the relationships does't make it obvious to that one should be chosen as the base. I would prefer something more extensible.
Yes but you have done some staff, I've seen you. Didn't you learn any of the names then?
Well if extensible means confusing then I don't prefer it. I prefer something with a history that is easy for people to understand, learn and then build upon. There's no point overwhelming people with possibilities before they even know the framework.
This must be a very incoherent conversation for others to read.
Nope, I haven't really spent much time learning staff from people. The little snippets of stuff I've picked up form people, just got integrated into how I was thinking about it and my own internal system.
When I was a kid (maybe 9 or 10) I unscrewed a mop handle and spent many hours in the woods swinging it around, hitting stuff, playing ninja. Same goes for putting balls in socks. I just wasn't thinking staff or poi the way I do now. I was thinking make believe ninja.
I've been spinning devil stix for almost 15 years. Sooner or later of course I held on to the things and spun them around like little staves. That is why I got into poi cuz I already had played with a stick my whole life.
Most of this stuff I've done in seclusion. Of course I was looking for new ideas and inspiration where I could find it. But it used to be that I would just take what I saw and integrate it into my own exploration. Out of the 10 years I've spun poi, it is only the last several years that I've become actively involved in the spinning community.
Since then I really started getting deeper into the geometry of spinning props, simulate it, etc. That is why I don't really know the names of these things, because I've been coming from my own internal emphasis, instead of the legacy of group development. So it is an interesting shift.
I'm not saying I want to step up and demand a change in staff terminology. I'm simply trying to convey my particular point of view. If my point of view, or anyone else's, ends up being useful to people and catches on that is what would change terminology, not me.
"without having learnt any of it" is an over simplification, and is not what I was trying to convey. I shouldn't have been so short as to just say "Nope". Sorry.
The more I've been involved in the spinning community the more my learning and discoveries have accelerated. I have heard the same things being called several different things. Some names are the same ones you use, many are not. That is more clearly what I meant instead of just "nope".
The bottom line, is that there isn't one standard terminology, and even when people are saying the same word, they often don't mean the same thing or have the same understanding.
You are right this conversation is likely confusing to other, in part thanks to youtube's wanky threading that doesn't always thread, and in part because it is some confusing subject matter.
How about this: let me reiterate that I am not in any way trying to argue that Meg is wrong. I'm sorry if I came off that way. What would be better for me I think is #1: sleep, #2 talking to you at length through a medium better than youtube comments, about your underlying understanding of how this stuff fits together. The understanding that is more verbose than a few names. Do you have a google wave account yet. If you do, that could be a nice medium.
So if you are down for it, I would really appreciate it, as it would probably clarify a lot of things for me. I'd be better able to see where our understandings share common ground, and if/where they differ. Hopefully that would prevent more confusing ramblings.
One of the many things I'm curious about is how your concept of staff hybrids relates to Andy's original "hybrid weave". How did you get from there to here?
Oh yeah, and the term variation wouldn't be so useful here. They're not variations, they're the same pattern, but with the staffs doing slightly different things. The term variation would imply more difference, if you ask me...
( back to Vulcan Crew terms for a sec) "by they're the same pattern" you mean the "timing & direction" of the arm-arm relation and the porp-prop relation are the same. But the prop What I'm saying is that when the prop phase is different, it both looks different and has completely different meeting points where you would change from one move to another.
So if you tell me to do "Parallel Horizontal" If I default to your basic version, then my arms will come together on the horizon and my staffs will be oriented horizontally at that time. From that moment, I can transition into any other move that shares that meeting point. But I could just as easily have done it with both props in a 90 degree phase shift. Then as my hands meet on the horizon , my staffs are vertical: totally different moves to switch to.
You've argued against yourself here. Of course they are vertical and have a lovely array of perpendicular moves to transition to, the same array as the basic hybrid.
If you want to transition to basic hybrids out of perpendicular ones, you can't. Sorry. you have to go through an intermediate stage to get back the 90 degree shift.
LOL, I think we are trying to tell each other mostly the same things as the other is trying to get at, there are just a few things we feel differently about.
I'd say each change from one hybrid to the next, within that array of radial or that array of perpendicular, IS a transition, just like the transition to something else you might not personally class as hybrid, is to me a transition, and then that transition, might allow me to shift phase from radial to perpendicular, if I like, and go do some of those transitions.
What I'm saying is: It's a cosmetic change to the basic hybrids, not a change that requires new transition points or creates new patterns. All the old patterns can be done with perpendicular spinning, and the same transitions. The only thing that has changed is that it's perpendicular now. So the theory remains the same, perpendicular spinning adds nothing to it. It can be as pretty as a picture, but it doesn't change anything.
No, the points that it changes are the same, almost exactly. The cross in half perpendicular spinning only comes back at certain points, the same points as in the basic versions, and that's where you'd transition. Same with both being perpendicular, the transition points are the same. you just transition to perpendicular moves.
If you want to tilt your grid to 45 degrees, then the transition points change. But really, transition points are as arbitrary as any of the theory. Try telling a begin
nah, apart makes no sense, cos it could be three different timings. It's alright as a shortened form for hybrids, because there are only four basic ones and the names would be overly long with a systematic naming: hands: mirror split-time, staffs: parallel and obviously the timing of the staffs makes no difference to the hybrid pattern, so leaving it out makes sense.
If you actually have to hold a staff, you need to know the timing, so you can't just say mirror.
ok, I'm slightly more awake, in less of a peculiar mood, and more serious now. How long have staff spinners been using terms like mirror, parallel, etc, etc. I've been blissfully unaware, so it is new to me. I like the idea of finding names abstracted from all this Timing & Direction stuff that has been used by a lot of people for a but now. I like names that have to do with rotational and mirror symmetries which is actually what we are dealing with here.
In my mind "direction" is better used to describe the rotational direction: ie a props with rotational symmetry could be said to spin clockwise, anti-clockwise, forward, reverse, etc. Props with mirror symmetry could be said to spin up, down, left, right, inward, outward, etc.
When people talk timing & direction, they are really talking about phase & symmetry, in a plane (It's not even taking into account the timing/phase/whatever in the depth dimension yet).
How come I never see you do any staff patterns changing the prop-phase 90 degrees (not hand phase) of your isolation, so that it is always tangnet to the hand circle. I feel like I heard someone call this a "rocket", and I think I mentioned this to you at Fire Drums. What do you call the movement that is 90 degrees out of prop-phase form an iso?
I told you this already, it's called perpendicular spinning. Usually perpendicular isolation in that particular case.
And you do see it, it's just harder to spot when it's not an iso. All crosses use it, box isolations use it, figure of eights can use it, malaman loves it. So does rif. It's in one of the old LAB's also I think.
Simian thought it up yonks ago, when he still spun staffs, and he strangely used the term 90 degree phase shifted too.
box isolation refers to one staff. There are as many ways of relating the props in that form of spinning as there are in normal spinning. Go watch LAB 2 again.
Most of the names I use don't describe the same thing as yours, they descrbe relationships between the props. So given a name you can do the exact move, not one of many.
erm, my names describe relationships between the props too. I think we just put them together a little different. I think they are actually closer than one might think at 1st glance... and of course You tend to think staff-centric and I tend to think poi-centric.
You would think, but you don't seem to consider the difference between the props doing same-time and split-time at all, and that's a lot more obvious for poi than it is for staff.
Yeah, I felt like you where omitting it because it's less noticeable with staffs, and so I decide to play along for a sec. But that is what the other post I just made is about.... and if you are working with staffs that have 2 different colored ends, and that is important ot you, then you multiply all the phase configurations by 2 to handle the end configurations.
Er, the staffs always have different ends, that's why you'll often hear thumb end and pinky end. Especially for spinning. All this new school fingerspinning thou, not exactly required.
Old school anti-spin, even with one staff, has like 8 different variations not based on direction.
it used to be parallel and butterfly, but butterfly isn't descriptive, so I changed it to mirror. Plus butterfly is a poi term. I've pretty much been using them since I started spinning doubles.
I like names you don't have to describe, and that are not ambiguous.
Great video! One question..... The 'mirror together', 'mirror apart', 'parallel horizontal' and 'parallel vertical' patterns all have a strinikingly similar poi counterpart. Can we use the same "full", "half", or "quarter" terms with poi too? I honestly prefer this simple nomenclature over previously produced methods for naming.
This helps me tons with how im gonna go about making organized vids of tech-poi elements for glowsticking, & i will porobably be using this terminalogy. Thank you :)
u make ur isolations very very cleans, congrats!!!!!!!!
apocalypsedarkangel 2 months ago
Might of been the doobie. BUT YOU ARE TRIPPIN! Loves it!
TheDaveMai 5 months ago
what leagth are those?
DragonDancerss 6 months ago
Mesmerising
synndarella 1 year ago
They look great. Did you buy those or make them yourself?
WesternWheels 1 year ago
It's a girl but thanks for playing.
MCP Megan Claire Pike, look her up
JakDRipa 1 year ago
i love this guy :) so clean moves.
RajaJayasinghe 1 year ago
i absolutely love your work.. I have learned so much from your videos!!
joeferno1 2 years ago
more stuff to learn thankyou
papazooth 2 years ago
Ok, so from Mirror Together, you show one of 4 phase relationships for the staffs. You show iso vs + antispin. There is also iso vs X antispin, perpendicular iso vs + antispin, and pependicular iso vs X antispin.
What would you call those in your naming system. They are all specific moves, with specific transition points to other things, no?
AlienJon 2 years ago
Is this in LAB 2 or in this video above? In LAB2 I show a bunch of different box variaitons, including hybrids. The one you talk about below is like a quartertime box isolation.
In mirror together, in the video above, I show all the normal variations. It's not a video about perpendicular spinning. It's about four basic hybrids, that all the other hybrids will obey the same rules.
iso vs perpendicular anti-spin you mean now? It's hard to tell. Or did you want to call it rocket?
11mcp11 2 years ago
They are all specific moves, but they are also all hybrid variations, so why not name them after the hybrid variant they are closest to?
You know I was never one for bullshit shortened names where a long one will do and be more accurate. So guess what i would call them, bearing in mind that I would use perpendicular anti-spin instead of X.
11mcp11 2 years ago
Why do the 4 basic hybrids count as the basics, and the others count as variations of those? You could just as easily have listed perpendicular iso vs perpendicular antispin hybrids as the basics, and say the other ones are variations... in fact every single hybrid we are talking about is a variation of every single other one. I'm just trying to sort understand why you've picked certain ones to use as the base.
AlienJon 2 years ago
I'm also carrying on at 3 on the morning, and in a peculiar mood, so please don't take my questioning too seriously.
AlienJon 2 years ago
By the fact that you didn't know what perpendicular spinning was called, or how it related to anti-spin, why do you think I call the normal ones the normal ones? And use them as a base? Isn't it obvious?
11mcp11 2 years ago
Meg, I didn't learn this stuff from watching your vids. I learned through my own simulations in 3ds MAX. My focus was poi, but once I set up a system in MAX, it was no problem to explore all this other shit too, in a full-featured 3d animation prog. Just because I don't know your names, doesn't mean I don't understand the underlying relationships. But the way I am viewing the relationships does't make it obvious to that one should be chosen as the base. I would prefer something more extensible.
AlienJon 2 years ago
Yes but you have done some staff, I've seen you. Didn't you learn any of the names then?
Well if extensible means confusing then I don't prefer it. I prefer something with a history that is easy for people to understand, learn and then build upon. There's no point overwhelming people with possibilities before they even know the framework.
This must be a very incoherent conversation for others to read.
11mcp11 2 years ago
Nope, I haven't really spent much time learning staff from people. The little snippets of stuff I've picked up form people, just got integrated into how I was thinking about it and my own internal system.
AlienJon 2 years ago
When I was a kid (maybe 9 or 10) I unscrewed a mop handle and spent many hours in the woods swinging it around, hitting stuff, playing ninja. Same goes for putting balls in socks. I just wasn't thinking staff or poi the way I do now. I was thinking make believe ninja.
I've been spinning devil stix for almost 15 years. Sooner or later of course I held on to the things and spun them around like little staves. That is why I got into poi cuz I already had played with a stick my whole life.
AlienJon 2 years ago
Most of this stuff I've done in seclusion. Of course I was looking for new ideas and inspiration where I could find it. But it used to be that I would just take what I saw and integrate it into my own exploration. Out of the 10 years I've spun poi, it is only the last several years that I've become actively involved in the spinning community.
AlienJon 2 years ago
Since then I really started getting deeper into the geometry of spinning props, simulate it, etc. That is why I don't really know the names of these things, because I've been coming from my own internal emphasis, instead of the legacy of group development. So it is an interesting shift.
AlienJon 2 years ago
So you're telling me, you want to change staff terminology without having learnt any of it? How does that make any sense?
11mcp11 2 years ago
I'm not saying I want to step up and demand a change in staff terminology. I'm simply trying to convey my particular point of view. If my point of view, or anyone else's, ends up being useful to people and catches on that is what would change terminology, not me.
AlienJon 2 years ago
"without having learnt any of it" is an over simplification, and is not what I was trying to convey. I shouldn't have been so short as to just say "Nope". Sorry.
The more I've been involved in the spinning community the more my learning and discoveries have accelerated. I have heard the same things being called several different things. Some names are the same ones you use, many are not. That is more clearly what I meant instead of just "nope".
AlienJon 2 years ago
The bottom line, is that there isn't one standard terminology, and even when people are saying the same word, they often don't mean the same thing or have the same understanding.
You are right this conversation is likely confusing to other, in part thanks to youtube's wanky threading that doesn't always thread, and in part because it is some confusing subject matter.
AlienJon 2 years ago
How about this: let me reiterate that I am not in any way trying to argue that Meg is wrong. I'm sorry if I came off that way. What would be better for me I think is #1: sleep, #2 talking to you at length through a medium better than youtube comments, about your underlying understanding of how this stuff fits together. The understanding that is more verbose than a few names. Do you have a google wave account yet. If you do, that could be a nice medium.
AlienJon 2 years ago
So if you are down for it, I would really appreciate it, as it would probably clarify a lot of things for me. I'd be better able to see where our understandings share common ground, and if/where they differ. Hopefully that would prevent more confusing ramblings.
One of the many things I'm curious about is how your concept of staff hybrids relates to Andy's original "hybrid weave". How did you get from there to here?
AlienJon 2 years ago
Oh yeah, and the term variation wouldn't be so useful here. They're not variations, they're the same pattern, but with the staffs doing slightly different things. The term variation would imply more difference, if you ask me...
11mcp11 2 years ago
( back to Vulcan Crew terms for a sec) "by they're the same pattern" you mean the "timing & direction" of the arm-arm relation and the porp-prop relation are the same. But the prop What I'm saying is that when the prop phase is different, it both looks different and has completely different meeting points where you would change from one move to another.
AlienJon 2 years ago
So if you tell me to do "Parallel Horizontal" If I default to your basic version, then my arms will come together on the horizon and my staffs will be oriented horizontally at that time. From that moment, I can transition into any other move that shares that meeting point. But I could just as easily have done it with both props in a 90 degree phase shift. Then as my hands meet on the horizon , my staffs are vertical: totally different moves to switch to.
AlienJon 2 years ago
-- try telling a beginner that.
You've argued against yourself here. Of course they are vertical and have a lovely array of perpendicular moves to transition to, the same array as the basic hybrid.
If you want to transition to basic hybrids out of perpendicular ones, you can't. Sorry. you have to go through an intermediate stage to get back the 90 degree shift.
11mcp11 2 years ago
LOL, I think we are trying to tell each other mostly the same things as the other is trying to get at, there are just a few things we feel differently about.
AlienJon 2 years ago
I'd say each change from one hybrid to the next, within that array of radial or that array of perpendicular, IS a transition, just like the transition to something else you might not personally class as hybrid, is to me a transition, and then that transition, might allow me to shift phase from radial to perpendicular, if I like, and go do some of those transitions.
AlienJon 2 years ago
What I'm saying is: It's a cosmetic change to the basic hybrids, not a change that requires new transition points or creates new patterns. All the old patterns can be done with perpendicular spinning, and the same transitions. The only thing that has changed is that it's perpendicular now. So the theory remains the same, perpendicular spinning adds nothing to it. It can be as pretty as a picture, but it doesn't change anything.
11mcp11 2 years ago
No, the points that it changes are the same, almost exactly. The cross in half perpendicular spinning only comes back at certain points, the same points as in the basic versions, and that's where you'd transition. Same with both being perpendicular, the transition points are the same. you just transition to perpendicular moves.
If you want to tilt your grid to 45 degrees, then the transition points change. But really, transition points are as arbitrary as any of the theory. Try telling a begin
11mcp11 2 years ago
AlienJon 2 years ago
nah, apart makes no sense, cos it could be three different timings. It's alright as a shortened form for hybrids, because there are only four basic ones and the names would be overly long with a systematic naming: hands: mirror split-time, staffs: parallel and obviously the timing of the staffs makes no difference to the hybrid pattern, so leaving it out makes sense.
If you actually have to hold a staff, you need to know the timing, so you can't just say mirror.
11mcp11 2 years ago
Well, instead of all these silly names then how about: hands: 0π, 0.5π, 1π, 1.5π
When we actually pronounce "1π" for instance we will say: "the planar timing & direction formerly known as split-time same-direction"
:-P
AlienJon 2 years ago
or we can use words people know already, instead of trying to redefine terms for no apparant reason.
11mcp11 2 years ago
ok, I'm slightly more awake, in less of a peculiar mood, and more serious now. How long have staff spinners been using terms like mirror, parallel, etc, etc. I've been blissfully unaware, so it is new to me. I like the idea of finding names abstracted from all this Timing & Direction stuff that has been used by a lot of people for a but now. I like names that have to do with rotational and mirror symmetries which is actually what we are dealing with here.
AlienJon 2 years ago
In my mind "direction" is better used to describe the rotational direction: ie a props with rotational symmetry could be said to spin clockwise, anti-clockwise, forward, reverse, etc. Props with mirror symmetry could be said to spin up, down, left, right, inward, outward, etc.
AlienJon 2 years ago
When people talk timing & direction, they are really talking about phase & symmetry, in a plane (It's not even taking into account the timing/phase/whatever in the depth dimension yet).
AlienJon 2 years ago
How come I never see you do any staff patterns changing the prop-phase 90 degrees (not hand phase) of your isolation, so that it is always tangnet to the hand circle. I feel like I heard someone call this a "rocket", and I think I mentioned this to you at Fire Drums. What do you call the movement that is 90 degrees out of prop-phase form an iso?
AlienJon 2 years ago
I told you this already, it's called perpendicular spinning. Usually perpendicular isolation in that particular case.
And you do see it, it's just harder to spot when it's not an iso. All crosses use it, box isolations use it, figure of eights can use it, malaman loves it. So does rif. It's in one of the old LAB's also I think.
Simian thought it up yonks ago, when he still spun staffs, and he strangely used the term 90 degree phase shifted too.
11mcp11 2 years ago
Oh, yeah I remember you saying that now. I do it too. I was just asking how come I never see MCP doing it. I'm probably not paying enough attention.
When you say box iso what do you mean?
AlienJon 2 years ago
Oh, box iso is each staff doing a perpendicular iso, hands chase, a quarter out of phase?
AlienJon 2 years ago
box isolation refers to one staff. There are as many ways of relating the props in that form of spinning as there are in normal spinning. Go watch LAB 2 again.
11mcp11 2 years ago
also, 'diagonal' anti-spin is actually perpendicular spinning as well. Just perpendicular anti-spin this time.
11mcp11 2 years ago
Your talking about "THE LAB v2.0", right? Not "L.A.B. 02 - Complete and Utter..."?
AlienJon 2 years ago
Yes, I am. THE LAB, is different to L.A.B. reports... and whatever that acronym means. THE LAB and THE LAB 2 stand apart from the other reports.
11mcp11 2 years ago
Most of the names I use don't describe the same thing as yours, they descrbe relationships between the props. So given a name you can do the exact move, not one of many.
11mcp11 2 years ago
erm, my names describe relationships between the props too. I think we just put them together a little different. I think they are actually closer than one might think at 1st glance... and of course You tend to think staff-centric and I tend to think poi-centric.
AlienJon 2 years ago
You would think, but you don't seem to consider the difference between the props doing same-time and split-time at all, and that's a lot more obvious for poi than it is for staff.
11mcp11 2 years ago
Yeah, I felt like you where omitting it because it's less noticeable with staffs, and so I decide to play along for a sec. But that is what the other post I just made is about.... and if you are working with staffs that have 2 different colored ends, and that is important ot you, then you multiply all the phase configurations by 2 to handle the end configurations.
AlienJon 2 years ago
Er, the staffs always have different ends, that's why you'll often hear thumb end and pinky end. Especially for spinning. All this new school fingerspinning thou, not exactly required.
Old school anti-spin, even with one staff, has like 8 different variations not based on direction.
11mcp11 2 years ago
it used to be parallel and butterfly, but butterfly isn't descriptive, so I changed it to mirror. Plus butterfly is a poi term. I've pretty much been using them since I started spinning doubles.
I like names you don't have to describe, and that are not ambiguous.
11mcp11 2 years ago
excellent !!
master meg
alpaciko 2 years ago
amazazing.
TonyC911 2 years ago
thanks meg! well done, as usual.
climbingchristopher 2 years ago
get'm meg! props!
stickynono 2 years ago
Great video! One question..... The 'mirror together', 'mirror apart', 'parallel horizontal' and 'parallel vertical' patterns all have a strinikingly similar poi counterpart. Can we use the same "full", "half", or "quarter" terms with poi too? I honestly prefer this simple nomenclature over previously produced methods for naming.
This helps me tons with how im gonna go about making organized vids of tech-poi elements for glowsticking, & i will porobably be using this terminalogy. Thank you :)
JaviAirhead 2 years ago
you probably can...
11mcp11 2 years ago
excellent and lovely gotta try them!
diarkon 2 years ago
U make me wanna make myself some cheap practice staffs :D
globalj420 2 years ago
You should make some double staff tutorials. :)
18lilpyro 2 years ago
i was wondering where my hat went
ryan041493 2 years ago
muy bueno...¡¡¡gracias!!!!
clavepablito 2 years ago
very strong meg
samyetgui 2 years ago