Thread: Muscular vs. Skeletal: Alternative terminology?

A lot of us use the terms Muscular and Skeletal to describe a certain quality of movement. I know, we've talked it to death in the past, but it's been a long time & there are lots of new Bhuzzers, so let's have at it again!

The first time my teacher told me to make my undulation 'more muscular, less skeletal' I understood that she wanted a more obvious, exaggerated muscular contraction and less movement of my spine, ribcage and pelvis. But some people don't think these terms are clear, since all movement originates with 'muscles' and there's clearly no other way to move the skeleton!

Here's how I use the terms
1) Skeletal movement: using the least amount of muscular energy to create the maximum amount of movement. Relaxed snake arms, big soft undulations that are primarily a spinal movement, and hip drops that are powered from the leg would be examples. This type of movement is often found in folkloric styles.

2) Muscular movement: uses far more muscular contraction than is required to move the body part in question. Examples: undulations that have a strong bellyroll component and little spinal movement, snake arms that use a great deal of muscular energy to move the arms only a tiny distance in space, omis that are primarily a movement of the lower abdominal muscles rather than the pelvic bone.

Anyone have ideas for a more accurate -- or at least a different -- terminology?

Skeletal= Relaxed
Muscle= Controlled

Sahra Saeeda's Arm video had a great example of this.

small and controlled seems like a straightforward way to explain the "muscular" concept.

The control comes from using various antagonistic muscles working in opposition to the muscles producing the movement to produce control. That's why it seems "muscular", because more muscles are engaged than in an easier ("skeletal") way.

Considering where the control comes from (antangonistic muscles), the term "isolated" is equally problematic. The more isolated a movement *looks*, the less isolated it is in reality in terms of how many muscles are involved.

Sedonia

I've never really given conscious thought to it, but now that you bring it up....I think I tend to use the terms "juicy" vs. "light" or "elegant"; "juicy" being the muscular and "light" being the skeletal, by your definitions. I think adding the element of something tangible in the terminology helps students understand what is trying to be achieved. I think it is easier for beginners especially to comprehend the difference between "juicy" and "light" for the specific reason you stated - muscles and skeleton are always involved in every movement. It helps describe the expression of the movement, as well as the quality of the origination of the movement.

.... just to throw in 2 cents from a medical transcriptionist's perspective ....
MD's often use the term "musculoskeletal" ........

Ooooooooooooo good subject Lauren. I don't know how I'd define it. Yours sounds good but if I were to show a difference I guess I would be saying something like.

skeletal movements uses the body's frame (bone structure) in the movement.

example, a Maya or taxsim using the skeletal frame would be generated by use of the legs and leg muscles to lift and lower the hips.

where as, muscular I would be using my Oblique muscles to generate the movement and the legs just follow along.

Then there is the lifting of the heal which really uses the skeletal frame to generate a larger movement of a Maya....

That's how I understand it. As for undulations I have a big question mark cause those moves and be controlled by either the abs or back muscles or both at the same time. So it is a toss-up for me which is muscular and or skeletal. I would guess to say they are both muscular.

Yes, this is a tricky one!

Like elljay, I would second a moving away from the semi-anatomical/medical terminology that is ultimately confusing (i.e., muscular vs. skeletal).

I haven't thought this through clearly, so just chucking it in - but, how about 'deep' and 'superficial' as alternatives for 'muscular' and 'skeletal' respectively? The only concern I have about this is the dual meaning of 'superficial' (i.e. people might think that superficial means 'not done properly').

D

How about internal vs. external?

This is a description of the energy of the movement - internal being more core-driven and smaller, the energy flow being created by the dancer circulating tightly in her core, and external describing the energy flow outward, away from the body, outward from the dancer into the space surrounding her.

This is a bit esoteric perhaps, but think of a dancer's movement energy as a ball of pink light emanating from her center. Internal movements have that ball condensed into a small, focused mass which circulates throughout her core. External movements have that ball as a less compacted mass, and the energy often shoots outward into space from the dancer's center with the movements...

Gah, it's early, does any of this make sense?

Tamrahennatx - that makes perfect sense! It's kind of what I was trying to get at with deep/superficial, but with the right words!
D

Great Info! I'll have to take some notes.

Originally Posted by tamrahennatx

How about internal vs. external?

This is a description of the energy of the movement - internal being more core-driven and smaller, the energy flow being created by the dancer circulating tightly in her core, and external describing the energy flow outward, away from the body, outward from the dancer into the space surrounding her.

This is a bit esoteric perhaps, but think of a dancer's movement energy as a ball of pink light emanating from her center. Internal movements have that ball condensed into a small, focused mass which circulates throughout her core. External movements have that ball as a less compacted mass, and the energy often shoots outward into space from the dancer's center with the movements...

Gah, it's early, does any of this make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me!

When we pull our hips up with the abdominals (obliques), it's completely different from pushing the hip up with the leg.

Internal: abdominal-based?
External: limb-based?

I dunno. I've only been thinking about this for about 30 years now . . .

Deborah

Like TH I try to explain it by talking about energy - outward energy and inwardly focussed energy.

There's no doubt that some students are natural 'givers' of energy - they really pump it out, others keep it in And you get quite different results in their bodies. The internal ones look much more 'Egyptian' in their moves whereas the pumpers-out look more Western in their dance style.

I like "internal" and "external" as well, but have lately been finding myself classifying moves as "islolation movements" and "weight shift movements."

Example:
"Weight shift movement"--A big or external hip circle: one pushes the hips around in a circle while constantly shifting weight. The muscles in the hip area are relaxed.

"Islolation movement"--A small or internal or umi hip circle: one contracts the muscles in the glutes, obliques and/or lower abs to create a smaller, islolated circle with no weight shift.

Doesn't work for everything, but it does work for many of the moves I teach.

Originally Posted by mihri

I like "internal" and "external" as well, but have lately been finding myself classifying moves as "islolation movements" and "weight shift movements."

Example:
"Weight shift movement"--A big or external hip circle: one pushes the hips around in a circle while constantly shifting weight. The muscles in the hip area are relaxed.

"Islolation movement"--A small or internal or umi hip circle: one contracts the muscles in the glutes, obliques and/or lower abs to create a smaller, islolated circle with no weight shift.

Doesn't work for everything, but it does work for many of the moves I teach.

Oooh, I like this way of talking about movement - I'm a big proponent of teaching students to mind where their weight is and this would fit nicely with my teaching style.

Originally Posted by mihri

I like "internal" and "external" as well, but have lately been finding myself classifying moves as "islolation movements" and "weight shift movements."

Example:
"Weight shift movement"--A big or external hip circle: one pushes the hips around in a circle while constantly shifting weight. The muscles in the hip area are relaxed.

"Islolation movement"--A small or internal or umi hip circle: one contracts the muscles in the glutes, obliques and/or lower abs to create a smaller, islolated circle with no weight shift.

Doesn't work for everything, but it does work for many of the moves I teach.

<Nods head vigorously in agreement>

Yes, excellent!

Deborah

I love Mihri's "isolation" versus "weight shift" distinction, but I don't think it's the same one Lauren's talking about.

To explain the "skeletal/muscular" distinction -- when I a beginner that seemed nonsensical to me too, though I understood from my teacher's demonstration what she wanted -- I'd say "loose and swingy" (THTX's "external") versus "against resistance" (THTX's "internal").

Please don't use the terms 'muscular' or 'skeletal', the term 'musculoskeletal' is a term commonly used in my work (pain management) and entails the musculoskeletal system - ie muscles, tendons, nerves, articular cartilate, joints etc etc.
Any movement involves the musculoskeletal system - the brain determining what should move, what should stay still.
I prefer weight shift vs isolation... or 'small' and 'large'??

Bobby Farrah used to use the concepts "inside" and "outside" to indicate whether a move like a figure 8 contained the energy (I would call this muscular) or let it flow out (combo of muscular and skeletal).