So you think they can break-dance?
Ignore the terrible headline. This article, by Jeff Chang, is by far and away the best article about breaking I have ever read in a mainstream publication. On the whole, it gets it right, and describes the dance and surrounding culture well.
But still, the passages where Chang actually describes the dance are terrible. The prose is awkward*, and worse than this, his use of terminology is incorrect throughout. One particular example: “The Russian takes a wide berth, flings off his light blue shirt, does a six-step, then launches into a spectacular one-armed move known as an air chair.” This doesn’t even come close to describing what is performed**.
Considering Chang’s bona fides, this is bizarre and, as a b-boy, it’s infuriating to read, especially bearing in mind that—as I mentioned—this is the absolute pinnacle of the way our art-form is portrayed in the media.
(via More Than A Stance)
* Although in his defense, I have never read any that isn’t. I’m not sure if it’s even possible to describe such intricate body movements elegantly.
** Six-step is footwork, one of the first things you’d learn in a beginners’ breaking class. An air chair is a freeze. What Flying Buddha actually does is some basic toprock, followed by a couple of power combos. I’m not just being overly picky here. Imagine if you were to read an article about football where every goal were described as a “tackle”, or an article about public transport which called buses “trains” throughout. Chang’s description of breaking is literally that bad.
