Labanotation Discusions

Labanotation Discussions

Presented by Ann Hutchinson Guest - March 4, 2009

Distance of Leg Gestures from the Floor

Reference: Labanotation Textbook, 2005, page 154.

The question has been asked: why is the X or double X placed in a diamond? In the past this distance indication was just placed in the support column next to the gesture it modified, it was not placed in a diamond.

A Direct Statement

Students' learning difficulties have shown that the differences between the meaning of indicators in the support column and in the gesture columns have been a basic problem:

1. A black symbol in the support column means a bent leg; a black symbol in a gesture column (leg or arm) does not.

2. An X in the support column means distance of step; in a gesture column it means a bent limb. These facts need to be understood and learned.

3. The placement of an X in the support column next to a low leg gesture is another transference of meaning that people question and then take on board. Can we make this process easier? I believe it is better to add a clear statement rather than have rules or applications that have to be learned.

A Bit of History

Many years ago, when we had opportunities to meet between ICKL conferences, Maria Szentpal pointed out that our (then) use of the X in the support column to mean both distance from the floor and the legs being closer together than standard, did not make sense. She drew diagrams to illustrate her point.

First, the distance from the floor: 

 

1a. A standard height of jump, both legs gesturing side low.
1b. The legs the same distance from each other, but closer to the floor.
1c. The legs the same distance apart, but very close to the floor.

The next set of diagrams indicated a standard height of jump but with the legs getting closer together:

2a. A standard height of jump, both legs gesturing side low (the same as 1a).
2b. The legs are slightly closer together, the jump is at the same height.
2c. The legs are definitely closer together, the jump is at the same height.

During the development of the system, we have seen general indications serving the general purpose, but with deeper movement analysis and the desire for more specific description, the need grew to be more exact in the use of signs. We now recognized that distance from the floor and distance between the legs were two quite different matters.

The distance sign. The use of a diamond (stating spatial aspects) with a narrow or wide sign to show spatial size, space measurement, spatial scale, has long existed in our system. See Knust 689a-d. Thus it made sense to add the diamond placed in the support column to indicate distance from the floor. Of course wide signs could also be used if the distance is to be greater than standard. The need, however, seems to have been to show a lesser distance.

The Lateral Closing (Joining) or Separating. These signs are used more frequently in the movement exploration undertaken in the Language of Dance movement investigation. They were, however, used by Knust (1979) in ex. 687a and b. They were also given in the LN Text (2005) on page 455, although no examples of their use were included in the book. If separation or closing in of the legs is the focus, then these signs immediately give the desired message. Thus 2b would be written as 2d below, and 2c as 2e.

Sagittal Closing (Joining) or Separating. Also applicable are the signs for sagittal opening (separating), 3a, or closing (joining), 3b, when forward and backward leg gestures are used. These sagittal signs have been developed for movement exploration needs and are included in Motif Notation. Ex. 3c shows increased sagittal separating, while 3d indicates sagittal closing in.

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, June 28, 2009

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, June 28, 2009

Submitted by DNB Staff- October 9, 2009

Following are minutes for the Open Theory Meeting held at the Dance Notation Bureau, June 28, 2009. The minutes were written by Charlotte Wile. The meeting was moderated by Tina Curran and Ilene Fox.

Present: Ray Cook, Tina Curran, Ilene Fox, Ann Hutchinson Guest, Susan Gingrasso, Oona Haaranen, Teresa Heiland, Maryann Peterson, Emily Polizzotto, and Charlotte Wile.

Photos of the meeting can be found here:

TOPICS
1) ICKL Motif Fellows Proposal
2) “Any Prime Action” vs. “Any Movement”
3) Tempo Signs
4) Addendum - Revised Agbadza score

1.1 TOPIC #1. ICKL MOTIF FELLOWS PROPOSAL

1.2 The group discussed the proposal for ICKL Motif Fellows, which will be considered at the August, 2009 ICKL conference in Thailand. The proposal is in the June 8, 2008 Open Theory Meeting minutes.

2.1 TOPIC #2 - "ANY PRIME ACTION" VS. "ANY MOVEMENT"

2.2 Charlotte: In Motif Notation, what is the meaning of the vertical the line in 2a? Does it indicate “any prime action” or “any movement”?

  

2.3 For instance, 2b and 2c show two paradigms for movement components. [Note from Charlotte: Since a sign for “any Dynamics” has not been established, I just indicated it with a dashed blue circle. For a discussion of generic Dynamic signs, see the September 10, 2007 Open Theory Meeting minutes.]

2.4 In 2b the vertical line says do “any movement,” i.e., a prime action, or a direction, or qualities (Effort etc.), or a Shape variable. What should be the indication that says do “any prime action” (i.e., turning, or falling, etc.)?

2.5 In contrast, in 2c the vertical line says do “any prime action.” Using that paradigm, what should be the sign for “any movement”?

2.6 In other words, if the notation contains a series of lines (2d), what would those lines indicate? Would they say do “any unspecified movement”? Or would they just say do an unspecified “prime action”?

 

2.7 What is “movement”?

2.8 The group began by discussing the concept of “movement.”

2.9 Charlotte suggested that “movement” can be divided into four categories: actions, directions, qualitative aspects (Effort and dynamics), and Shape distinctions. Assume that a vertical line (2a) indicates “any movement.” The line could be interpreted doing anything from those four categories. As an example, 2d could be interpreted as turning, then moving with Light Effort, then pausing, then going forward.

2.10 Ann said that Language of Dance uses a different paradigm. The category of “prime actions” includes directions, as well as flexing, extending, turning, etc. Only those prime actions are considered “movements.” Effort and dynamics are in a different category. They are not movements by themselves; rather they state how the movement is to be performed. [In other words, the “basic actions” are verbs, whereas Effort and dynamics are adverbs. See Guest and Curran, Your Move, xxxix -xli].

2.11 Furthermore, Ann went on to say that the Shape distinctions in 2b and 2c could be considered movements. However, one of the things that she learned from Knust is that a relationship is not movement. Rather it is the result of movement.

2.12 Charlotte said she feels the LOD paradigm does not always work because it implies that qualitative aspects cannot be written by themselves. They can only be written as modifications of an action, as in 2e. In 2e the reader is told to focus on another aspect of the movement (e.g., such as an action or a direction) as well as the quality of the movement. But what if the quality of the movement is all that is important, e.g., the mover should just focus on moving with the given Effort qualities. This would be best expressed just using Effort indications, as in 2f. In other words, the Effort and other dynamic indications are not just subsidiary modifications of something else; rather they are by themselves “movement events.” 

 

2.13 Ann said that the term “manner of moving” might be better than “movement events.” Charlotte liked this idea.

2.14 Ann conceded that it might be OK as a convention to write just the Effort indications, as in 2f. It may not matter that the verb is missing in the statement. The notation in 2f could be read as “be Light' etc.

2.15 Charlotte: Another way to think about the definition of movement is to consider two possibilities: pausing vs. motion. In pausing there is no change. In motion some change takes place. That change might be an action, a direction, a quality, etc. Any such change can be considered “movement.”

2.16 Ann wondered why Charlotte had listed direction as a separate category in 2b, and 2c. In Your Move direction is considered a prime action. Charlotte's LMA background may make her see direction in space as category by itself. Teresa concurred that in LMA movement is sometimes categorized as “What,” “To Where,” and “How.”

2.17 Tina pointed out that in Your Move actions are divided into categories, one of which is Spatial aspects [see page xxxix].

2.18 Charlotte wondered if the reason direction in L/N might be associated with the action category is because direction signs are the basis of the system and are imbued with the idea of verbs and actions.

2.19 Ann said that it was Laban's idea to make direction signs the basis of the system. He said that the system described “movement” (progression). However, later people realized that direction signs actually describe destination. That was why the signs for progression in a direction were later developed.

2.20 Terms and Indications

2.21 Terms and indications for the generic indications in the paradigms were discussed.

2.22 Charlotte said the vertical line in 2a is usually called an “action stroke.” She feels that term should not be used for the most generic indication (the one at the top of the paradigms) because in LMA the term “action” connotes “body actions.” The body actions are a subcategory that just includes movements such as turning, falling, aerial movement, etc. (i.e., as in 2c).

2.23 Ann said the term “action stroke” came from Laban.

2.24 Susan agreed that the term “action” has a more specific meaning than what is needed for the overall indication. She suggested the term “movement event.” Ilene suggested the term “do something.”

2.25 In the 2004-2005 Motif Notation meetings participants had various definitions for 2a, including “do something,” “any action,” “an action,” “action, verb, or adverb,” “action appropriate with context,” and “something happens.” [A summary of all the indications discussed at those meetings will be posted on the Bulletin Board sometime in the future].

2.26 Ilene suggested using the plain line (2a) as the generic indication for the prime actions. It would be called an “action stroke,” since that is the established term for the sign. A vertical line with an ad lib. sign at the bottom (2g) could be used for the “do something” sign. [The paradigm would be 2h if prime actions and directions are considered separate categories. It would be 2i if direction is included in the prime action category].

2.27 Charlotte wondered how this relates to the meaning of symbols in Your Move. On pages 2-3 it explains that the line with an ad lib. sign indicates “any movement,” while the plain line indicates an “appropriate movement.” [Addendum from Charlotte; In other words, wouldn't that mean the “prime action” signs in 2h and 2i indicate “any appropriate prime action”?]

2.28 Ann talked about the derivation of 2g. She explained that the ad lib. sign was added to the action stroke to connect Motif Notation with Labanotation. As an example, in Labanotation suppose you are in first position with the feet on the ground. You jump into second position. You wait. Then you want to jump back, so you cancel the hold sign by two action strokes. How do you know how to interpret the action strokes? What if you want them to mean “do anything” [as opposed to doing what is appropriate in the context of the movement]? Ann's solution was to add the ad lib. sign at the bottom of the action strokes. [Addendum from Charlotte. I think this may have been discussed at ICKL in 1989.]

2.29 Ray felt the “appropriate” indication is too ambiguous. How would the reader know what is “appropriate”? If a sign is to be read as “do what is appropriate,” that could be stipulated in a glossary.

2.30 Ann said she has found that in certain scores it is useful to have both the sign for “do the appropriate action” as well as “do any action.”

2.31 Ilene: In L/N, when the plain lines (2a) are used for an aerial movement, the reader would automatically do appropriate leg gestures.

2.32 Ray disagreed. He said that the reader would not necessarily know what is appropriate unless he is familiar with the style of the movement in the score. What is “appropriate” depends upon ones training.

2.33 Tina said that Ann's Labanotation jump example probably wouldn't come up in Motif Notation. This may be one of those situations in which we should look at Motif Notation across the larger spectrum, e.g., in relation to the LMA work as well as Labanotation. Keeping that in mind, she liked Ilene's idea of using 2g for “do anything” and 2a for “any prime action.”

2.34 Charlotte asked if what is being proposed would change the meaning of 2g from what has been established in Your Move.

2.35 Tina said she did not feel that using 2g to mean “do anything” is really a change in the system. Rather it is expanding on what is already there.

2.36 Charlotte asked what 2g could be called. The group had various ideas: “event sign”, “do anything sign,” “do something” sign.

2.37 Ilene felt the name of the sign should not include the word “movement” because of what Ann had said earlier about the definition of “movement.”

2.38 Other suggestions were given for the sign in 2g.

2.39 Susan suggested 2j. The group felt that sign wouldn't work because it looks like the sign for “either” [as in “either the right or left arm” (2k)].

 

2.40 Ann suggested 2l. Knust used that sign for “any timing.” However, now that we have the free timing sign [2m] perhaps 2l could be used instead to mean “do anything.”

2.41 Side Issues

2.42 As a side issue, Ray pointed out that the sign for “any Effort' in the paradigms (2b, 2c, 2h, 2i) could be confusing because it looks like the slash that is used in LN and Motif Notation to mean “don't,” or “not.”

2.43 Ray also brought up the issue of standardization. Symbols have various meanings depending upon when the score was written and which text or other material (ICKL) is used as the standard. This would seem to place a heavy burden on readers to know all the various changes that have taken place in the system.

2.44 Teresa said people who study literature often need to have glossaries for the English used in a given period. For instance, the word “nunnery” in Shakespeare needs to be clarified for today's readers. It is the nature of language to evolve. Since we are trying to communicate, we need to be responsible and make glossaries.

2.45 Also, as an addendum after the meeting, Ray said the discussion of terms made him think of others that may need to be clarified, such as “any timing” vs. “free timing.” Also, “structured improvisation” (involving consciously made decisions), vs. “free improvisation” (involving unconscious decisions in which there is no thinking).

2.46 Summary

2.47 At the end of the discussion the group concurred that the sign in 2g would be good for “do anything” and the sign in 2a would be good for “any prime action.” The issue of whether “prime actions” would include directions [see 2.16-2.18 above] was left to be decided at another time.

3.1 TOPIC #3 - TEMPO SIGNS

3.2 At the June 8, 2008 meeting Ilene proposed an idea for tempo signs: 3a) very slow, 3b) slow, 3c) fast, 3d) very fast.

3.3 Ilene asked if anyone was using those signs in their teaching. Several people in the group said they have been using the signs and like them.

3.4 Charlotte likes the signs, but suggested having the measurement signs touch the time sign, as in 3e.That way the linking bow would not be necessary and the sign would be less cumbersome. In an addendum Ilene said she feels 3a-3d are clearer and easier to read.

3.5 Ann said she thought the top of the hour glass in the sign should be black, as in 3f.

 

4.1 TOPIC #4 - REVISION OF AGBADZA

4.2 On September 14 Doris Green e-mailed a revision of her score for Agbadza, which had been discussed in previous meetings (e.g., see March 3, 2008 Open Theory Meeting minutes).

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, April 20, 2008

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, April 20, 2008
Submitted by DNB Staff - July 6, 2009

[Following are minutes for the Open Theory Meeting held at the Dance Notation Bureau, April 2008.]

Present: Tina Curran, Ann Hutchinson Guest, Oona Haaranen (via Skype), Kristin Jackson, Mira Kim, Dawn Lille, Mei-Chen Lu, Maryann Peterson, Vickie Watts, Lynne Weber, Charlotte Wile.

For photos of the meeting, click here.

TOPICS
1. Revolving on Straight Path.
2. Unit Timing.
3. Zed Caret with a Dot.
4. Focal Point.

1.1 TOPIC #1. REVOLVING ON A STRAIGHT PATH

1.2 The group discussed Ann's paper “Revolving on a Straight Path.”

1.3 Sandra felt Ann's proposed sign for a swivelling path (shown here as 1a) is problematic because two foot hooks mean sliding, and there is no sliding in the movement.

1.4 Ann replied that swivelling is a sliding action.

1.5 Sandra said that sliding always involves going from one place to another, whereas in this case the foot is stationary during the turn.

1.6 Others in the group disagreed. They felt the stationary swivelling foot is sliding.

1.7 Sandra said that two foot hooks are not necessary because one foot hook would automatically show the turn has friction. In a turn on 1/8 ball of the foot there will always be friction. Consequently, there should only be one foot hook on the proposed sign.

1.8 Lynne pointed out that if there was only one hook on a 1/8 turn sign, the movement might be read as a blind turn.

1.9 Ann said the two foot hooks tell the reader to focus on the sliding in the swivel. For example, this might be important in jazz movement.

1.10 Charlotte asked if the proposal should include both single and double hooked signs. The single hook sign would state there is swivelling, but the mover would not necessarily be thinking about that aspect of the movement. The double hooked sign would state that the mover should focus on the friction in the turn.

1.11 Ann concurred with this idea. However, she said Charlotte should not have used the term “friction.” There are two kind of friction: non-sliding pressure and sliding pressure. Therefore, it has been decided that the terms “swivelling” and “non-swivelling” should be used instead.

1.12 Kristin said that in one of Laura Dean's dances there is a turn in which swivelling is important. In the turn both feet are connected to the ground, with no relevé. However, in order to produce the correct movement the performer needs to focus on the swivelling action in one of the feet (e.g., the right foot in a turn to the right).

1.13 Ann noted that it is very difficult to swivel on the whole foot. Even if the whole foot is on the floor, usually the weight is either on the front or the back of the foot.

1.14 Sandra returned to the idea of having two hooks in the proposed sign. She felt it would present a timing issue. For example, depending upon how close the hooks are, you would be saying there is a change from thinking about swivelling and not thinking about it.

1.15 Charlotte said she likes Ann's proposal because it provides a way to indicate revolving on a straight path without stating whether or not there is swivelling. This generic statement is not available in the present system.

1.16 Charlotte had one suggestion for the proposed non-swivelling sign. Perhaps, the space signs should be attached to the turn sign [Ex 1b]. Otherwise, especially in Motif Notation, it might look like space signs refer to other indications in columns adjacent to the path sign.

1.17 Tina asked for further clarification on how swivelling and non-swivelling on a straight path are currently indicated.

1.18 Ann said that in Labanotation the current interpretation of 1c [shown below] is that you swivel. In 1d you don't swivel. 

 

1.19 In Guest and Curran, Your Move (2008) the issue is not discussed.

1.20 Charlotte said she recalled that proposals for generic and specific indications were discussed at ICKL [date?], but apparently none of these ideas took hold.

1.21 The group discussed blind turns in a pirouette.

1.22 Sandra: In ballet technique, a pirouette starting in fourth position would be done with swivelling.

1.23 Ann said that years ago [Joanne Neeland?] took slow motion films of professional ballet dancers that showed that a pirouette begins in the body, with foot remaining where it is. Then the heal releases. There is torsion, and then you let go.

1.24 Sandra: But is this what we want to write?

1.25 Ann: No. But understanding that this is what happens could be useful in teaching the movement.

1.26 Mira asked about turning _ way in a blind turn. Ann said that in such movement the knee would be twisted.

1.27 Tina and Ann gave examples in which a choreographer may want that movement.

2.1 TOPIC #2 - UNIT TIMING

2.2 The group discussed Ann's paper “Unit Timing - Further Thoughts.”

2.3 Notation from the paper is shown here in 2a and 2b.

 

2.4 Charlotte: This is a continuation of the many discussions we have had that grew out of János Fügedi's ICKL paper on unit timing. [See, “Open Theory Meeting Minutes for April 7, 2008”; “A. H. Guest's Comments on the April 7th, 2008 Meeting”; “Minutes for the Motif Theory Meeting, June 8, 2008”; “J. Fugedi's Comments on the June 8, 2008 Meeting”; “Open Theory Meeting Minutes for July 14, 2008”; “The Report on the Second Symposium on Dance Notation in Hungary.”]

2.5 Ann began the discussion of her paper by talking about “spring points.” Even though the landing in such movement usually occurs before the gesturing touch, the timing is so close that the convention is to notate the movement with the touch and the landing happening at the same time, as shown here in example 2a, counts 1-2. In other words, the landing on “u” before count one is assumed. In contrast, the 'u' subdivision before the gallops in 2a must be written.

2.6 Ann said that in the unit timing example 2a, claps are written so they line up with the touch. This makes the notation easier to read. The clap and the touch both occur at the same time on count 1. The stamps occur on counts 3 and 4. The claps also occur on counts 3 and 4, but they do not look on the page like they coincide with the stamps.

2.7 Charlotte said that she thought the established rule is that only the touches should be read with unit timing, whereas the accents (in this case claps and stamps) are always read with exact timing. If this is so, wouldn't one read the claps and stamps in 2a as occurring off the beat?

2.8 Lynne said that 2a could be confusing since one would need to guess how to interpret it. She prefers exact timing because she feels it is clearer and easier to read.

2.9 Tina: It would be useful to have a key that would to state how the unit timing should be read. Without that explanation, the notation in 2a might be misinterpreted. What parts of it should be read with unit timing and what parts should be read with exact timing? For instance, should asterisks be added to the hand claps if they are to be read with exact timing?

2.10 Charlotte: In 2a the claps and touch are written with unit timing, but the stamps are written with exact timing.

2.11 Ann: Knust and early teachers at the Bureau always taught unit timing to beginning students. However, later when students write in more detail, they need to learn about exact timing.

2.12 Ann demonstrated how in an ordinary step the foot strikes the ground before the arms reach their destination. If the step is written exactly as it is performed, the indications for the arms and the supports will be “jagged” on the page.

2.13 As in her paper, Ann discussed the conversation she had with Rhonda Ryman concerning the way ballet teachers perceive timing. Ballet teachers understand unit timing, but have difficulties with specific timing. Perhaps this should be taken into consideration in writing scores. Ann said that she prefers exact timing, but she understands how unit timing is preferable for some readers.

2.14 Tina said she believes that one of Janos's motivations in writing his unit timing ICKL papers was to find ways to make scores of folk dances more accessible to beginning students.

2.15 Charlotte: Both unit timing and exact timing can be useful, depending upon the context and purpose of the notation.

2.16 Tina elaborated on that idea. There is the “theory” and then there is “context.” For instance, what is the genre of the movement? Is it a teaching situation or is it a documentation ethnographic situation?

2.17 Dawn said that both unit timing and exact timing might be useful for a given score. Most of the score might be written with unit timing. However, at some places in the score exact timing might be needed as a clarification.

2.18 Sandra: In Western theatrical dance most of the movement is dictated by the music, so there is no reason not to use unit timing. The music says when to move and when not to move, so you don't need to analyze, for example, that the arms move before the feet. Anatomically the body will do what it needs to do to be on the music. I may analyze the exact timing of the movement, but I don't write it, because it doesn't serve any practical purpose in the end. Making the reader think in exact timing overwhelms the reader with too much detail. It slows the reader down.

2.19 Mei agreed that one intuitively knows what the timing should be when one physically does the movement. The deep analysis we have done to determine exact timing is not appropriate for elementary students.

2.20 Ann: Usually when you look at a score you can tell whether unit timing or specific timing is being used because there are cues in the notation.

2.21 As a related issue Charlotte brought up transient touches, which play a role in Janos's unit timing ideas. Charlotte asked Ann if she thinks transient touches without any sliding are possible. Ann said they are.

2.22 Charlotte said that Janos had challenged the group to make a video tape that contains a transient touch (without sliding). Perhaps we could try to do that at a future meeting.

2.23 Maryann, returning to the issue of exact vs. unit timing, wondered if exact timing shouldn't be used for styles such as Eastern dance, where there is a lot of precise timing in the use of hands, props, etc. Perhaps this precise timing information would be necessary for students not familiar with those styles, and so the dances could be accurately read many years from now. Unit timing for those scores might be confusing, especially if the conventions for their music is not known.

2.24 Ann said that in the work she did with Carl Wolz on the handling of the Japanese fan, she found that the timing had to be very precise.

2.25 Mei felt there can be problems with notation of Eastern dance written with the established LN timing rules. For her graduation project at OSU she reconstructed a Chinese dance from Labanotation. She is very familiar with authentic Chinese dance, having studied it for many years, but she found it very difficult to read the score because there is so much variation in the way timing is indicated for the feet, hands, scarves and other props, etc. Some aspects of the movement were recorded in exact timing (e.g., props), while others (supports) were written with unit timing. Like “mixing apples and oranges.” Also, her Chinese dance teachers used unit timing, so this was what she internalized. Switching to exact timing when she read the Labanotation score was very confusing.

2.26 Sandra said that there should be consistency in the way the movement is written. Columns in the score should either be all written in unit timing or all written in exact timing. There shouldn't be one perception given to the bottom of the body and a different perception given for the top of the body. It's analogous to “movement writing” vs. “position writing.” If you alternate them you can confuse the reader.

2.27 Vicki: Most of a score might use either unit timing or specific timing. However, there may be places in the score, perhaps a measure or two, where it is clearer to switch from what is predominately used.

2.28 Sandra agreed with Vicki. An enlargement could be used when there is a change from the type of timing that is being used for most of the score.

2.29 Ann said keys can be used to show that different types of timing are being used.

2.30 Charlotte wondered if the consistent use of timing type might need to be glossarized because in the established rules (e.g., as in Guest, Labanotation, 4th edition) there is not consistency. E.g., touches are by default written with unit timing, while accents are by default written with exact timing.

2.31 This lead to a discussion of standardization and the need for rules.

2.32 Sandra said that rules are needed, even in Motif Notation.

2.33 Ann said she is for having only the rules that are necessary. The notation should “spell out” the movement. For instance, if you have a clap and you want it to hold, say so. If you have a clap and you want it to release, say so. If it isn't important if the clap holds or releases, don't say anything; leave it open to interpretation. Many of the built-in rules in LN were adopted from Knust. Some are good, but some were a mistake.

2.34 Returning to her paper, Ann briefly discussed the exact timing example (2b). She wondered if it would have been visually better to make the place middle support before the first bar line shorter.

2.35 Ann said she feels it should be up to each notator to decide if unit timing or specific timing would more practical and suitable for the readership.

2.36 Returning to Mei's earlier comments, Dawn was curious to know how our Chinese notation colleagues would respond to the unit vs. specific timing issue.

2.37 Charlotte: Perhaps specific vs. unit timing is related to the issue of whether or not a score should include information about the technique of a dance. For instance, perhaps the notator could assume that the reader knows the technique of a Chinese dance, so it would be unnecessary to give details about its specific timing. On the other hand, if I don't know the technique of a dance could I perform it without that information? If I don't know Graham, could I know how to perform it by reading a score that doesn't indicate the specifics of a Graham contraction?

2.38 Sandra: Such information would go in the introduction to the score.

2.39 Mei: Folk dance may have different needs from modern and ballet. This is why the established methods for showing timing became problematic for Janos.

2.40 Charlotte thought that Janos has the same problem that Mei had when she read the score for Chinese dance: the “apples and oranges” inconsistency in established timing rules.

2.41 Sandra responded to Dawn's question about how Chinese notators might feel about the issue. They notated their dances using the established rules, so they must feel that the present system of writing works OK for that style of movement.

2.42 Tina: We should be careful about making assumptions about what the Chinese notators would say. Perhaps they felt the rules are fine and worked well. Or they might say that they used them, but with great difficulty. We don't know.

2.43 Charlotte: I've always assumed that the LN rules were designed for what works best in notating Western theatrical dance. However, I've often wondered if they work as well for other dance styles or movement.

2.44 Ann said she this is why she favours having a system that does not have so many built-in rules or assumptions. Even though there are differences between the movement of people around the word, there is enough commonality to make it possible to have a universal system. There is no question that in the beginning the system adhered to Western theatrical dance. However, we have done a lot to try to change that. For instance, we used to take it for granted that two place middle level symbols in the support columns means the legs are turned out. Then someone asked, “Why”? What about ballroom or modern dance? So that was changed. Now those indications by themselves say that the feet are together, but the degree of turn-out is not stated.

2.45 Kristen said that in the Philippines dances are taught very differently from the way Western theatrical dances are usually taught. Filipino's do not break their dances down and teach them in sections the way we do. Rather, the students just learn the dances by following their teacher as she performs the whole dance. This works because the Filipinos students start learning the dances when they are young children, and keep studying and practicing them for many years.

2.46 Lynne said the same was true in her son's Qwan Ki Do class. He found it difficult to learn the movement that way, so she notated the movement and broke it down for him.

2.47 Sandra said that is why it is important to have native notators who already know the style of the dance. For instance, you wouldn't send a Filipino dancer into the Paris Opera to notate a ballet. And vice versa.

2.48 Ann described her experience helping Azuka Tuburu incorporate Labanotation of African dances into Azuca's PHD thesis. They would discuss various options for recording a given movement, and then Axuca would tell her which notation best expressed the movement.

2.49 Vickie said Labanotation's descriptive framework is flexible, but it has a point of view which breaks the movement into discrete units. One would need to consider what changes occur if one breaks Qwan Ki Do or the Filipino dance into bits, rather than perceiving them as a whole.

2.50 Sandra: Scores of Qwan Ki Do and the Filipino dance may need to be very different from traditional scores.

2.51 Charlotte: In notating the different perception that Kristen described, perhaps it would be useful to use indications that show larger “chunks” of time than is usual in traditional LN scores. The unit of time that one talks about in the notation influences the way that we think about the movement. Perhaps Labanotation students should be taught from the beginning that the progression of time can be divided into different size units. For instance, the movement of the arm going upward, right, downward, left (four movements) can be written as the larger unit of a cartwheel path. An even larger unit that includes a series of arm movements could be indicated with a thematic bracket.

2.52 Vickie wondered if this might open up pedagogical difficulties that could confuse the beginning student. There is something to be said for letting the students get something solid to begin with, and then opening up complexity later.

2.53 Charlotte: How can we make our notation studies from the beginning be as much as possible about the way we think about the movement, e.g., as is done in Your Move?

2.54 Tina said she feels this relates to discussions at earlier meetings about pedagogy. She described a method of teaching in which students are first given a Motif score of a sequence from set choreography. The Motif score shows the main actions in the movement. This is then layered over with a progression of scores that give more and more detail, leading into the specificity of a LN score.

3.1 TOPIC #3 - ZED CARET WITH A DOT

3.2 At the November 4, 2008 meeting (paragraph 4.45) participants said it would be very useful to list and, where necessary, clarify differences between the 3rd and 4th editions of Labanotation.

3.3 One such difference is the “Zed carets with a dot” on page 401 of Labanotation, 4th edition, shown here in 3a. The dot is not in other editions of Labanotation. What is its history? Has the use of the dot been discussed previously (e.g., at ICKL), or was it just an innovation for the 4th edition?

3.4 Ann said the use of the dot was put forward before the 4th edition, but she couldn't remember when. It is derived from a spot hold sign, which says something is on the same spot [Ex. 3b]. This is divided in half to create the caret with a spot [3c].

3.5 Ann: In 3e the caret with a dot shows that a support releases and then steps on the same spot. (Without the caret the foot may step forward beyond that spot.) The zed caret with a dot is used when a gesture is tied to a support. For instance, in 3f the right gesture releases and the steps on the same spot. 

3.6 Maryann: If 3e and 3f were written without the carets, would one move more forward in the step?

3.7 Ann said that without the carets there is a tendency to go more forward. The dot says to stay on the same spot that you were before.

3.8 Vicki: Last year I was looking for an example for regular zed carets (without the dot, as in 3d) in Labanotation, 4th edition. There aren't any. I wasn't sure if that means the regular zed caret has been replaced with the dotted one, or if they are both are in use.

3.9 Sandra asked what the difference is between a zed caret with a dot [3a] and one without a dot [3d]. Also, what is the difference between a regular caret with a dot [3c] and a zed caret with a dot [3a]? She pointed out that in ICKL (1989) the dot wasn't used. The un-dotted zed caret [3d] was used to indicate any permeation involving a step on the same spot, whether it was support to support, gesture to support, or one support to another support. The plain caret was used for shifting (as in 3g above).

3.10 Ann said that since the 1989 ICKL we have found that there is a need for more specific signs.

3.11 Tina: The new signs may not have been documented at ICKL. How do we document, disseminate, and make accessible these discussions about them so that the community as a whole advances?

3.12 Ann said the DNB Theory Bulletin Board is one place where the discussions can be disseminated and others can join in.

3.13 Oona suggested putting videos of meetings on line.

3.14 Tina said that putting ICKL theory meetings on Skype might be useful.

3.15 Sandra: Mediums such as the LN text and the Theory BB are useful. However, unless there is a unifying body, there will be a free-for-all with everyone using symbols in whatever way and context they want.

3.16 Tina: It is challenging for ICKL to be that body now because some of the key people are unable to attend its conferences. Also, having a meeting that only happens every two years may not be enough anymore.

3.17 Sandra: Returning to the caret conundrum, some notators want to use the zed caret to emphasize that a gesture is being pulled forward into the next support, as in a ballet “step, développé” that is pulled forward and tied into a step, i.e., you gesture in order to go into the step. This use can be clarified in a glossary.

3.18 Dawn: Could a phrasing bow be used for that?

3.19 Sandra: No, because that starts to look like simultaneous actions.

3.20 [Note from Charlotte: At this point Ann wrote another suggestion for the movement Sandra was describing. Unfortunately, I didn't take a photo of Ann's notation and I can't remember what it was, so I won't be able to show it in these minutes.]

3.21 Vicki said that she likes the dot in the signs because it clarifies that the signs are related to a spot hold.

4.1 TOPIC #4 - FOCAL POINT ORIENTATION

4.2 Charlotte: In Labanotation, 4th edition, page 435 it says: “Focal point orientation was formerly indicated using a turn sign. The meeting line is now used to make this statement”

4.3 The book gives examples, shown here in 4a-4d.

4.4 Charlotte: The wording for that statement is confusing because someone might think that 4a and 4c should never be used. However, on page 95 it shows that they are indeed used, inside the staff. Perhaps the statement on page 435 could be reworded slightly to clarify this, e.g., by adding that the turn sign with the dot is not used outside the staff.

4.5 Ann explained that Knust used the turn sign with the black dot as a Front sign. Front signs should just state orientation; they should not depict movement. However, a turn sign does depict movement. Consequently, it was felt that Knust's sign did not work.

4.6 Vicki said that the statement on page 435 would probably not be a problem because most of the time the information at the back of the book is used in a context, such as, for example, reading a score that contains old symbols. If the material at the back of the book was written for someone trying to study LN out of context, then every footnote in the book would need to be pages long.

4.7 Charlotte agreed that in texts or other material one should not get carried away with writing complex explanations that would cause more confusion. However, whenever possible, we should be as clear as possible. Sometimes that means writing less, sometimes it means writing more. In this case just a bit of editing could make the statement clearer.

Ann Hutchinson Guest Papers for the April 20, 2008 Open Theory Meeting

Ann Hutchinson Guest Papers for the April 20, 2008 Open Theory Meeting
Submitted by DNB Staff - May 26, 2008

At the April 20, 2008 Open Theory Meeting we discussed two papers by Ann Hutchinson Guest: “Unit Timing” and “Revolving on a Straight Path.”

The minutes containing the discussion of the papers will be posted at a future date.

A Report on the Second Symposium on Dance Notation in Hungary, November 30, 2008

A Report on the Second Symposium on Dance Notation in Hungary, November 30, 2008
 
Submitted by János Fügedi - December 22, 2008
For a report on the Second Symposium on Dance Notation in Hungary, December 18, 2008, please click here.

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, December 8, 2008

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, December 8, 2008
Submitted by DNB Staff - June 8, 2009

[Following are minutes for the Open Theory Meeting held at the Dance Notation Bureau, December 2008.]

Present: Zack Brown, Oona Haaranen, Mira Kim, Mei-Chen Lu, Charlotte Wile.

TOPICS
1. Addenda for the Nov. 4 Meeting.
2. Zack's ICKL proposal.

1.1 TOPIC #1. ADDENDA FOR THE NOV. 4 MEETING.

1.2 Ann Guest's addenda

1.3 The group discussed Ann's addenda for the November 4, 2008 meeting. [Since Ann's addenda cover various topics, looking at the November 4 minutes as you read these December 8 minutes may be helpful.)

1.4 Note: In example labels, “Nov.” refers to the November 4 meeting, and “Dec.” refers to this (December 8) meeting. Blue is used for excerpts from the November 4 minutes, Red is used for the addenda, and Black is used for comments at this meeting.

1.5 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 1.6 it said:
Charlotte pointed out that in Labanotation, 4th edition, page 295, it says, “If there is doubt as to the active, i.e., the supporting part, the end of the angular bow can be thickened on that side.” This statement seems to be saying that the supporting part is the active part. She felt that could be confusing, since the supporting part is not always the part that produces the relationship (e.g., Nov. 1b). Ann agreed that the wording of that sentence may need to be changed to make it clearer. 

 

1.6 Addendum from Ann:
The timing is not taken from the shoulder. If the bird flies to the shoulder (or a ball drops into the hand), it should be the end of the bow for the parrot (or ball), not shoulder (or hand). The wording should be "...i.e., the supported part," (not supporting).

1.7 In responding to this addendum, the group reiterated some of what had been discussed at previous meetings. For instance, Charlotte said that at the last meeting Ann had clarified that timing in a relationship is taken from what establishes a relationship. This means that in a support relationship the timing may be taken from either the supported part (as in Dec.1a) or the supporting part (as in Dec.1b). 

1.8 To clarify how Dec. 1a should be interpreted, Mira wrote Dec. 1c. In this case the hand catches a bird at the end of arm movement (i.e., the timing is taken from the “bird end” of the bow). [Addendum from Mira and Charlotte: After the meeting we realized that the timing in1c is actually ambiguous. It could be read as the bird flies into the hand, in which case the bird produces the relationship and its end of the bow determines the timing. However, the notation might also be read as the hand grasps a bird (perhaps sitting in a tree). In that case the hand would produce the relationship, and its end of the bow determines the timing, i.e., the grasp occurs before the end of the arm movement upward. Or perhaps both the hand and the bird produce the relationship. We agreed that probably the best thing to do in this situation would be to just use the flat support bow.]

1.9 As at previous meetings, the pros and cons of the bow in Dec. 1a were discussed. For instance, Zack felt that even though there is a rule for interpreting the timing of Dec. 1b, the notation is confusing because it goes against the overall rule in Labanotation that says symbol's placement on the page determines its timing. Other people in the group agreed that there sometimes is a timing issue with the bow, however, they feel the bow is useful because it shows visually what is supporting and what is supported.

1.10 Mei asked if the timing in Dec.1d and Dec.1e is the same. 

1.11 Charlotte: According to what Ann said at the last meeting, timing is taken from what establishes the relationship. In Dec. 1d and 1e the hips establish the relationship, therefore the timing for Dec. 1d and 1e is the same.

1.12 Mei asked if timing for the relationship bows is different in Labanotation and Motif Notation.

1.13 Charlotte said she feels the timing of the bows in Motif Notation is usually more general than in L/N. [For instance, in Your Move (2008), page 533, it says the examples shown here in Dec. 1f and 1g give the same message. In the November meeting there seemed to be some disagreement about how placement of a bow would affect timing in L/N.]

1.14 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 1.19 it said:
Charlotte: Janos's examples point out an issue that occurs when either unit timing or exact timing is used. This has to do with where the bow is placed. For instance, in Janos's Ex. 2 it is placed above the knee sign. In Ex. 3 it is below the knee sign. 

1.15 Addendum from Ann:
The hand gives the timing, so it does not matter where the bow ends at the knee sign.

1.16 Charlotte: Yes, my statement was confusing. For a discussion of placement of the bows I should have used different examples.

1.17 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 1.28 it said:
Charlotte wondered if Janos's Ex. 2 might be preferable because the bow comes at the end of the knee sign, i.e., it more clearly shows that the support occurs at the end of the movement

1.18 Addendum from Ann:
There is no support involved, (just a typing slip?)

1.19 Charlotte: Yes, Ann is correct. The sentence should say… “the touch occurs at the end of the movement.”

1.20 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 1.35 it said:
Leslie: However, we teach that the timing comes from the ends of the bow. Ann illustrated this with dashed lines, as in Nov. 1l, 1n, 1m.

1.21 Mei showed another way the issue could be handled, by drawing the hand sign in a different place, as in 1o, 1p, 1q. 

1.22 Addendum from Ann:
How are Exs. 1o) - 1q) different from 1l) - 1n)? I expect the drawings should be different for 1o) - 1q).

1.23 To show the difference, at this (December 8) meeting, Charlotte put the examples in staffs. In Dec.1h-j the hand sign is in the same location on the staff. In Dec.1k-1m the hand signs have been moved; the bow is in same place on the staff.

1.24 Mira pointed out that Dec.1j is the same as Dec. 1k, 1l, and 1m.

1.25 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 2.3 it said:
Ann said that one could make a case for both ways of writing. On the one hand, one could say that the forward direction is the movement, and the stretch sign is the modifier, so the inclusion bow only needs to be the length of the forward sign, as in Ex. 2a. However, if one sees the forward sign and the stretching sign as one indication, then the inclusion bow should be written as in 2b. [See Nov. 2a and Nov. 2b below.]

1.26 Addendum from Ann:
"Ann said ........the stretch sign is the modifier included in the timing, (add) so the inclusion bow only needs to be the length of the forward sign." One could argue that way, but I agree with the longer inclusion bow.

1.27 Everyone at this (December 8) meeting felt the longer bow should be used.

1.28 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 2.14 it said:
Sandra: Vertical bows denote timing, so 2a and 2b make different statements. Also, earlier in the meeting we said that pre-signs are included in the timing of an indication [see 1r above]. Therefore, in 2a the the inclusion starts a split second after the movement going forward and stretching begins.

1.29 Addendum from Ann:
Sandra's wording for 2a): "....the inclusion starts slightly after the movement forward..." "A split second" is too quick for the notation drawn.

1.30 Ann's addendum for Par. 2.14 was not discussed.

1.31 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 3.10 it said:
Leslie explained the rule. Body holds last until they are specifically cancelled, whereas space holds only apply to the symbol they modify.

1.32 Addendum from Ann:
What people need to realize is that, if a body hold is used it is physically possible to maintain it while other movement is happening. Whereas this is not true of a space hold. This is why its validity applies to the symbol that it is modifying. Take as an example a backward tilt of the head, retain it as you bend this way and that, maybe uncomfortable, but possible. Put a space hold on that backward tilt and it soon becomes impossible for the head to retain that spatial direction as the torso make large tilting movements. For me this is a good reason to keep the original "carry along" rule.

1.33 Ann's addendum for Nov. 4, Par. 3.10 was not discussed.

1.34 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 4.1 it said:
Topic #4 - Use of space signs with diamonds to show distance of leg gestures from the floor.

1.35 Addendum from Ann:
A question of terminology: the diamond is the space indication, it refers to spatial aspects. The X and N (wide) signs are measurement (distance) signs. A change in terminology seems to have crept in, this can be confusing, perhaps you can find out how this happened?

1.36 Mira said she thinks most people call the X and N signs “distance” signs. Charlotte agreed that she had made a mistake when she called them space signs.

1.37 Zack said he thinks a lot of terms in Labanotation are arbitrary. He does not feel that terminology is really a part of Labanotation. It just is what people use when they are talking about L/N concepts. Terminology can change, but the score will remain the same. However, it might make sense to change terms when it would L/N clearer.

1.38 Charlotte said she feels it is important to try to use correct terms when one writes or talks about L/N. For instance, in this case the concepts of “space” and “distance” (measurement) may overlap, but they are not the same thing. Words can be very powerful and can cause problems when they are unclear or not used properly. E.g., the terms for Effort have connotations that are sometimes confusing [e.g., “Indirect Effort”]. Some terms used in LMA have a different meaning in L/N and Motif Notation. Take the word “directional.” In LMA it is used for a type of Shape Mode. In L/N it is often used when talking about a direction (see for example, p.12 in Labanotation, 4th edition).

1.39 Mei gave another example: the use of the terms “facing pin” and “front sign.”

1.40 Mira said the L/N texts are not consistent in the use of those terms.

1.41 Everyone felt it would be very useful to identify where there are inconsistencies and misuse of terminology.

1.42 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 4.21 - 4.23 it said:
Mei: Does 4i mean the legs are close to each other or the jump is close to the ground?
Sandra: Would this relate to the height of the jump or the distance of the legs from place?
Ann: If you want the distance of the legs from place, then you could use the lateral signs (4j).

1.43 Addendum from Ann:
In Ex. 4i) the x signs should be in a diamond. The wording above should refer to "...the lateral spreading or closing in signs, 4j) shows closing in.

1.44 Ex. 4i) and 4j) do NOT say the same thing, or they should not. Because - we need two separate, distinct descriptions: distance of a gesture from the floor; and distance of separation. Maria Szentpal pointed out years ago that we had only one usage, ex. 4e) to take care of both, whereas in different configurations, different movements, one or the other may be needed. Describing the height of a jump (a spring) does not tell the reader what the aim is.

1.45 In response to Ann's “diamond” addendum, the group went over some of the same material that had been discussed at the Nov. 4 meeting. There continued to be some disagreement about whether the measurement sign inside a diamond is needed. For instance, Mira said the problem of how to show that the legs are close to the ground in a jump can be solved by using a path sign to show the height of the jump.

1.46 [Addendum from Charlotte: I feel that using a path sign would not always convey the intent of the movement. There is a difference between stating that the body goes up in the air a short distance (Dec.1n), and the legs are close to the ground (Dec.4o).]

1.47 Mei wondered if such close attention to intent isn't more important for Motif Notation than Labanotation.

1.48 Oona said she liked that what Ann had said in the November meeting about the importance of paying attention to intent. Oona feels it is important to think about what is being expressed by the movement, rather than just focusing on its quantitative content. When we a teaching Labanotation, how can we make the leap between teaching Labanotation theory and conveying it is about expression and movement?

1.49 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 5.7, it said:
Ann said Knust did not conceive of the indication as nonswiveling, he just used it to show the pattern of the movement. She isn't sure when the idea of swiveling and nonswiveling came into the picture. At any rate, Ann has never been happy with having the distinction made through the signs in 5a and 5b. She feels the swiveling and nonswiveling aspects of the movement should be handled in some other manner. If it matters that the movement is nonswiveling, then something could be added to the notation. She has suggested some ideas, but none of them have stuck. [Addendum from Charlotte: I would be interested in hearing more about those ideas. Perhaps Ann could share them at a future meeting. I also would be curious to see examples in scores or elsewhere where it is necessary to indicate the path is nonswiveling].

1.50 Addendum from Ann:
This question of swivel or non-swivel needs to be gone into thoroughly. What is the best description for the basic action taking place? When is swivel or non-swivel important? When it is important then an additional indication can be used. The question is: how are these additional indications shown? I went into this quite some time ago and need to look up what was put forward then. Work for the future!

1.51 Ann's addendum for Nov. Par. 5.7 was not discussed.

1.52 In the Nov. 4 minutes, Par. 5.9, it said:
Charlotte asked if there was a consensus about whether 5a should be in the system. Should it be discarded and never used? If 5b is used, does it need to be glossarized?

 

1.53 Addendum from Ann:
5b is a logical combination of existing signs, already in use; there should be no need to glossarize.

1.54 Ann's addendum for Nov. 5.9 was not discussed.

1.55 Sheila's addendum.

1.56 Sheila Marion also sent the following addendum. Unfortunately, it was not received in time for it to be discussed at this (Dec 8) meeting.

1.57 In the November 4 minutes, Par. 3.4, it said,
"In other words, in Labanotation, if nothing was written it was assumed that there was a body hold and the arms would move with the body. In Kinetography, if nothing was written it was assumed that there was a space hold and the arms would retain their direction in space."

1.58 Sheila's addendum:
“It's my understanding that KIN doesn't assume a space hold; rather that a direction written according to the standard cross is retained according to the standard cross. A conceptual difference that doesn't really affect the outcome, but important to acknowledge the thinking, I think.”

2.1 TOPIC #2. ZACK'S ICKL PROPOSAL

2.2 Following up on the discussion of standardization at the November 4 meeting, Zack presented his idea for a new organization for ICKL. His chart outlining his proposal is shown below.

2.3 Zack said ICKL would remain basically the same as it is now. People would go to ICKL conferences and present their papers and suggestions. However, they would be presenting to a much smaller 8 person standards body that would makes its own deliberations. The standards body would consist of top notation experts.

2.4 Anyone in the world could participate, and anyone who attended could submit their own comments about papers. After the presentations, all papers and comments would be submitted to the standards body. The standards body, using their greater expertise, would probe deeper into the material to see what needs are being identified by the papers and presentations. They may decide that there is a better or more elegant way to address the needs being expressed by the larger body. Periodically the standards body would produce a full, written description of the system that would be the standard until the next standard came out.

2.5 Each time a new version of the standard came out, it would be the result of all of the ideas that had been presented by everyone at the conference. Anyone in the world writing a score would know what ways they would be deviating from a given version of the standard. People would be free to follow the standard or not. After a time, the standards body would be able to see what deviations and new developments were taking place in scores, and that would provide them with information in writing the next standard.

2.6 Zack feels that this model would enhance the development of the system because it would consider overall trends in the system, in contrast to the present structure which produces piecemeal changes.

2.7 Mei wondered what ways Zack's model differs from the present structure. For instance, isn't the ICKL research committee equivalent to the standard's body in his model?

2.8 Zack replied that the present ICKL and his idea for ICKL are indeed very similar. However, in his model there is no voting, and the standards body would periodically produce a full description of the system.

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, November 4, 2008

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, November 4, 2008
Submitted by DNB Staff - June 2, 2009

Following are minutes for the Open Theory Meeting held at the Dance Notation Bureau, November 4, 2008. After reading a first draft of the minutes, Ann Guest and Sheila Marion e-mailed addenda. The addenda are shown in red.

Present: Sandra Aberkalns, Tina Curran, Ann Hutchinson Guest, Zack Brown, Ray Cook, Oona Haaranen, Mira Kim, Dawn Lille, Mei-Chen Lu, Loren Odynocki, Leslie Rotman, Lynne Weber Charlotte Wile.

TOPICS:
1. Relationship bows.
2. Length of modifying bows.
3. Cancelation of a body hold sign when the limbs are carried during torso tilts.
4. Use of space signs with diamonds to show distance of leg gestures from the floor.
5. Signs for turning on a straight path.

1.1 Topic #1 - Relationship bows.

1.2 Charlotte: Relationship bows, especially the timing of support bows, were discussed at the October 8, 2008 meeting. One question the group had concerned the history of the bow shown here in 1a. Where did it come from?

1.3 Ann: The bow appears first in Knust, Abriss der Kinetographie Laban, 1956, Ex. 540.

1.4 Ann: The timing of the bow is taken from the “active” part, i.e., what produces the relationship. For instance, in kneeling on the floor, the active part would be the knee since it moved to make the relationship.

1.5 Charlotte gave an example in which this rule may not work. In 1b the bird is the active part (it moves to produce the relationship). However, the timing is taken from the shoulder.

1.6 Charlotte pointed out that in Labanotation, 4th edition, page 295, it says, “If there is doubt as to the active, i.e., the supporting part, the end of the angular bow can be thickened on that side.” This statement seems to be saying that the supporting part is the active part. Charlotte felt that could be confusing, since the supporting part is not always the part that produces the relationship (e.g., 1b). Ann agreed that the wording of that sentence may need to be changed to make it clearer.

1.7 Addendum from Ann: The timing is not taken from the shoulder. If the bird flies to the shoulder (or a ball drops into the hand), it should be the end of the bow for the parrot (or ball), not shoulder (or hand). The wording should be "...i.e., the supported part," (not supporting).

1.8 Ray thought drawing the bow as in 1a might have been put into use because sometimes that makes it easier to keep the bow from interfering with other symbols on the staff. But then problems started to arise with timing, as in 1b.

1.9 Ann said she likes 1a because it shows what is being supported and what is supporting. However, it does sometimes have timing problems. When timing might be an issue, the flat bow (1c above) can be used.

1.10 The flat bow can be modified to show the active part [e.g., with thickening, as in 1d, or with other modifiers, as in 1e]. 

1.11 Leslie recalled that when Jane Marriett was teaching she would encourage her students to use the flat bow to avoid the timing problems associated with 1a. With the flat bow the supporter and supportee are on the same level on the page, so there isn't any question about when the relationship occurs.

1.12 Leslie said she prefers using 1a before the initial double bar line. She also sometimes uses it within the staff when timing is not an issue.

1.13 Sandra: In practice most people will not look that closely at the timing. What they want to see is what is supporting and what is supported. Most people are not aware of the timing issues being discussed here and consequently will not have a problem with reading 1a.

1.14 Ray: When symbols are given different meanings in different scores it can be very confusing. One cannot assume that the reader will know how to interpret the symbol unless it has a standardized meaning.

1.15 Following is an excerpt from an e-mail Janos Fugedi's sent Charlotte concerning the October 2008 minutes:

1.16 “You [Charlotte] pointed out a real and important problem of the system. I use the support bow very, very rarely, and somehow I solve the timing issue, usually as in your Fig. 1c (shown here as Ex. 1).

1.17 But we very frequently face a similar problem to the one you raised for a contact bow, when it indicates a leg hit, as in example 2 (I used specific or exact timing). The right hand slaps on the right leg below the knee. The touch is indicated by the bow, the force by an accent sign (we use a straight one, like Knust, not a curved one as AHG), and the "uneven" bow arrives on the joint sign. Our convention (introduced by Maria Szenpal) is that the hand end always shows the timing - the hit is performed on count 2 (the dotted line is just for guiding the eye). The movement could be written as in example 3, where the bow clearly shows the timing. But somehow this usage was dropped, perhaps because in the case of short timing there were problems in placing the joint sign.”

1.18 Sandra pointed out that Janos was using exact timing in his examples, which may influence how the bows are drawn. She felt that writing the notation with conventional unit timing would make it unnecessary to draw the bow as in Ex. 2.

1.19 Charlotte: Janos's examples point out an issue that occurs when either unit timing or exact timing is used. This has to do with where the bow is placed. For instance, in Janos's Ex. 2 it is placed above the knee sign. In Ex. 3 it is below the knee sign.

1.20 Addendum from Ann: The hand gives the timing, so it does not matter where the bow ends at the knee sign.

1.21 Ann: Janos's Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 both say the same thing. Both methods of writing would be acceptable.

1.22 Leslie said she has never seen the bow drawn as in Janos's Ex. 2 or come across a situation in which it would be needed.

1.23 Ray: Perhaps the method of drawing the support bow as in 1a could be used for touch bows, e.g., as in 1f. If there is a rule for one symbol, it should be applicable for other symbols.

1.24 Ann: Ex. 1f might be useful if the other symbols on the staff make it difficult to clearly draw the standard touch bow.

1.25 Ray: Maybe the same idea could be applied to the address bow, as in 1g.

1.26 Ann replied that the flat support bow (1c) does not show what is supporting and what is supported. In contrast, the standard addressing bow [1h] shows what is addressing (the sign by line) and what is addressed (the sign in the curve). Therefore, 1g is not needed.

1.27 Sandra: To get around the problem of crowded staffs, the staff can be expanded so bows can be drawn beyond other symbols where they will be clearly seen.

1.28 Charlotte wondered if Janos's Ex. 2 might be preferable because the bow comes at the end of the knee sign, i.e., it more clearly shows that the support occurs at the end of the movement.

1.29 Addendum from Ann: There is no support involved, (just a typing slip?)

1.30 Addendum from Charlotte: Ann is correct. The sentence should say… “the touch occurs at the end of the movement.”

1.31 Sandra: On the other hand, in Janos's Ex. 2 we don't know what comes after the touch. It's possible that the subsequent notation might make Ex. 2 harder to read than Ex. 3. Decisions about placement and drawing the bow come down to expedience and context. This is why we need flexibility for these symbols.

1.32 The discussion of bow placement continued. Is there a difference in timing in 1i, 1j, or 1k?

1.33 Ray pointed out that joint signs by themselves have no timing. Consequently, there is no difference in timing for 1i, 1j, and 1k. The relationship bow can be next to any part of the hand sign.

1.34 Leslie: However, we teach that the timing comes from the ends of the bow. Ann illustrated this with dashed lines, as in 1l, 1n, 1m. 

 

1.35 Mei showed another way the issue could be handled, by drawing the hand sign in a different place, as in 1o, 1p, 1q.

1.36 Addendum from Ann: How are Exs. 1o) - 1q) different from 1l) - 1n)? I expect the drawings should be different for 1o) - 1q).

1.37 Addendum from Charlotte: The examples below show 1l-1q placed on staffs. I hope this shows the difference between the examples. 

1.38 Dawn wasn't sure if Mei's idea would always work. If the touching occurs exactly on count 2, but the hand sign is drawn before count 2, wouldn't that be confusing?

1.39 Sandra: In reality the hand sign is so small (one square, or 1/32 of an inch) that its placement won't make any difference. Context will make the timing clear.

1.40 Zack: In 1r the movement begins at the bottom of the hand sign. So shouldn't the timing begin at the bottom of the hand sign in indications such as 1l-1q?

1.41 Lynne: In Ex. 1r, the hand acts as a pre-sign. The hand and forward sign together constitute the indication. In the relationship inductions the hand sign by itself does not have timing.

1.42 Charlotte: The relationship indication shows what happens at the end of a movement, e.g., as in 1s.

1.43 Charlotte: Last meeting Mira gave an example, shown here in 1t, in which bow placement varies. (The staffs represent two different movers.). How does this affect what we have been saying about timing, since the ends of the bows are in different places?

1.44 Ann said the timing would be clear if the bows were drawn with the ends on the same level [as in 1u].

1.45 Mira: Ex. 1t came up last week because the group was considering whether in 1t it is actually the body part signs that show where the timing occurs.

1.46 At this meeting Ann and Sandra said that having the body part signs show the timing would just bring up other problems.

1.47 Leslie: If you want the notation to be very exact and specific, then you would need to line up the end of the bows, because that is the rule [1u]. However, in reality, when the notation is being read, it probably doesn't matter.

1.48 Ann said that if one is using unit timing, which is more general, then 1t would be OK. If specific timing is used, then 1u would be what should be written.

1.49 Leslie said when she was taught the concept of unit timing, it was not applied to bows. Rather, it was just used with direction signs. As she understands it, the ends of bows denote specific timing.

1.50 Sandra: However, in writing scores the rules do not have to always be applied so exactly. There is a rule that says the bow has timing, but there are minor deviations from that rule that can be taken in a score. When everything else in the score comes together, you will not misread it.

1.51 Ann: In the old days, when we attached a foot hook to a leg gesture symbol, it didn't matter where you put the hook. It could be put at the beginning, middle, or end, and the indication was read as “one thing.” Then we took over Knust's idea of placement, which we felt gave the notation much more specificity. The placement of the hook gives the timing. This lead to the idea of having specific timing for relationship bows.

1.52 Dawn said she felt there are two things at stake in terms of the rule. One is what written or read in a score. The other is how you teach it. When the rule is taught, there needs to be an explanation for it. What explanation would one give for how relationships are notated?

1.53 This led to a discussion of standardization.

1.54 Charlotte said she was concerned that too much freedom in deviating from “rules” could be confusing. Fifty or one hundred years from now people will go to the Labanotation text to learn how to interpret scores. They will probably assume that scores are written according to the rules given in the text. If the notator deviates from a rule and didn't say that in a glossary, it is possible that the notation will be misinterpreted. How does one balance the need for standardization with the need in some scores for freedom in writing?

1.55 Zack said that sometimes people think of standardization as something that locks the system. In other words, there is a standard, and no deviation is allowed. Zack has a different idea about standardization. He comes from the “open source” world where people write software that adheres, to a greater or lesser extent, to a standard that exits. The standards are modified over time to accommodate what is happening in the world. He feels that standards are not something that lock the system. Rather, standards provide a point of deviation for “unlocking” the system. As he sees it, currently the only real points of deviation in Labanotation are the textbooks. ICKL materials state changes that have been made in the system, but Zack does not feel they give the type of information needed for a person who wants to learn Labanotation.

1.56 Ray: The American constitution is an example of how to think about standardization. The constitution and the way it is interpreted have evolved over time.

1.57 Charlotte: Likewise, as dance evolves or changes, our notation system may need to evolve to accommodate those changes.

1.58 Tina said that as notation evolves, context needs to be considered. For instance, what is the purpose of the notation? Is it for students learning notation, is it to document a dance to preserve it, etc.?

1.59 Ray: When we teach elementary notation we often do not teach the “true rules” for a given concept, because that would be too difficult for the students to understand. We teach the basic idea, but leave out the exceptions to that idea. Then as we go on to more advanced levels, we revise and enlarge upon what was taught, and fill in with the “truth” about the rules.

1.60 Ann: If necessary, one can always clarify how a score should be interpreted, e.g., one could state whether precise or general timing is being used.

1.61 Charlotte: Thank goodness for glossaries. In past theory meetings Ann suggested that we should put together a book of glossaries from various scores. Others in the group said this would be a good idea.

1.62 Ray: Glossaries often have solutions that can't be found in the textbooks.

1.63 Lynne: The upcoming manual of requirements for scores will contain many examples from glossaries.

1.64 [Note: The manual is still being edited and is not yet ready for publication.]

2.1 Topic # 2- Length of modifying bows.

2.2 Charlotte: This topic came up at the last meeting. Labanotation, 4th edition gives the example shown here in 2a. The group at that meeting wondered what timing should be given to the inclusion bow. If the inclusion refers to the whole movement, shouldn't it be drawn as in 2b?

2.3 Ann said that one could make a case for both ways of writing. On the one hand, one could say that the forward direction is the movement, and the stretch sign is the modifier, so the inclusion bow only needs to be the length of the forward sign, as in Ex. 2a. However, if one sees the forward sign and the stretching sign as one indication, then the inclusion bow should be written as in 2b.

2.4 Addendum from Ann: "Ann said ........the stretch sign is the modifier included in the timing, (add) so the inclusion bow only needs to be the length of the forward sign." One could argue that way, but I agree with the longer inclusion bow.

2.5 Ray: The movement starts at the beginning of the indication, i.e., at the bottom of the stretch sign.

2.6 Leslie: As Mickey [Muriel Topez] would say, “Get up and do it.” You need to understand what is happening physically. I understand the logic of 2a, but I would write it as 2b.

2.7 Charlotte: Why not write it as 2b? It is so clear.

2.8 Ray: 2a raises a question. Couldn't it be read with the inclusion occurring a moment after the movement forward begins?

2.9 Charlotte: The argument for 2a is based on the idea that stretching is a modification of the forwardness. Is that true? As I see it, both the stretching and going forward are integral aspects of the movement. They are equally important.

2.10 Everyone agreed that in 2c the inclusion begins _ way through the movement. In 2d both the inclusion and the stretching begin _ way through the movement.

2.11 Do the arguments Ann gave for the inclusion bow apply to sliding indications (2e, 2f)?

 

2.12 Ann: Yes, except that since the contact bows denote timing, a stronger case can be made for 2f.

2.13 Ray wanted to clarify if 2a and 2b actually say the same thing.

2.14 Sandra: Vertical bows denote timing, so 2a and 2b make different statements. Also, earlier in the meeting we said that pre-signs are included in the timing of an indication [see 1r above]. Therefore, in 2a the inclusion starts a split second after the movement going forward and stretching begins.

2.15 Addendum from Ann: Sandra's wording for 2a), "....the inclusion starts slightly after the movement forward..." "A split second" is too quick for the notation drawn.

2.16 Returning to the sliding issue: Ann wondered if it is visually easier to understand 2e, even though the “law” says to write 2f. In 2f the hook seems to “float” since it is not attached to a sign.

2.17 Others in the group did not feel the hook in 2f looks wrong. For instance, Sandra pointed out that hooks on a side symbol the hooks would also float (2g). [See Labanotation, 4th edition, page 440.]

2.18 Ray said that he did not feel that rules should be changed to make symbols look better.

2.19 Zack: However, sometimes a line one wants to draw may have to go through a completely black area.

2.20 Ray: If the line goes through the black area it will be OK. But if the stops inside the middle of the black area there will be a problem.

2.21 Sandra: The eye has the ability to fill in gaps, so it doesn't matter if lines are going through black symbols. The eye will “connect the dots.”

2.22 At the end of the discussion the group concurred that 2b is the preferred way to show that the inclusion has the same time value as the movement going forward and stretching. Likewise, they preferred 2f.

3.1 Topic #3 - Cancelation of a body hold when the limbs are carried during torso tilts.

3.2 In Labanotation, 4th edition, page 236, it says, “Rule: when no directional change is written for the limbs (arms, leg, or head) and a torso tilt occurs, the torso carries the limbs with it. Logically a body hold sign is not needed, but for Kinetography readers, the body hold is added as a reminder.”

3.3 Mei said this is confusing because she was taught that the body hold signs should always be written. However, in the text it seems to be saying that the body hold is not always necessary, but can be added as a
reminder.

3.4 Ann said this issue is due to the different rules in Kinetography and Labanotation. In the Labanotation analysis of movement, when the body tilts, the arms will naturally go with the body. [See the illustrations for 235a and 235b in Labanotation, 4th edition, page 236.] Because of this perception, previously the rule for Labanotation was that the hold signs would not be necessary, but they could be added if desired. In contrast, according to Kin, unless indicated otherwise, when the body tilts the arms are not carried with the body. Rather, they stay in the previously established direction. [In other words, in Labanotation, if nothing was written it was assumed that there was a body hold and the arms would move with the body. In Kinetography, if nothing was written it was assumed that there was a space hold and the arms would retain their direction in space.]

3.5 Addendum from Sheila Marion: It's my understanding that KIN doesn't assume a space hold; rather that a direction written according to the standard cross is retained according to the standard cross. A conceptual difference that doesn't really affect the outcome, but important to acknowledge the thinking, I think.

3.6 Leslie: To help with unification of Kinetography and Labanotation, ICKL established a rule that said that in Labanotation the hold signs must be written.

3.7 Addendum from Ann: Leslie said, "To help.........add at the end "and in KIN space holds should be written." Of course they never bother.

3.8 Sandra said that in Benish it is understood that the arms are carried along with the tilt. Ann said that this is true for all other notation systems as well.

3.9 As a related issue Ray wondered why there is a different rule for canceling space holds and body holds.

3.10 Leslie explained the rule. Body holds last until they are specifically cancelled, whereas space holds only apply to the symbol they modify.

3.11 Addendum from Ann: What people need to realize is that, if a body hold is used it is physically possible to maintain it while other movement is happening. Whereas this is not true of a space hold. This is why its validity applies to the symbol that it is modifying. Take as an example a backward tilt of the head, retain it as you bend this way and that, maybe uncomfortable, but possible. Put a space hold on that backward tilt and it soon becomes impossible for the head to retain that spatial direction as the torso make large tilting movements. For me this is a good reason to keep the original "carry along" rule.

3.12 Sandra: There are “tiers” of symbols, and some are thought of as beings “stronger” than others, so they will hang on longer until they are specifically canceled.

3.13 Ann said that a space hold very obviously pertains just to the symbol for which it is written. Usually when the symbol is finished, the space hold is no longer needed, except in the rare occasion when you need the space hold to continue over a series of movements. In that case the space hold would be held with a retention (hold) sign.

3.14 Returning to the main topic, Mei asked about the present rule for writing body holds. Would it be all right to leave them out if this is done consistently throughout the score, or do they need to be written?

3.15 Leslie: According to present ICKL rules, whenever the body tilts, either a body hold or a space sign needs to be written.

3.16 Ray: The ICKL rules keep changing over the years. In the future, how will the reader know which rules were being followed in a given score?

3.17 Leslie: You follow the rules that are in affect when the score is being written. One hundred years from now, the reader will need to review what the ICKL rules were during the time that a score was written.

4.1 Topic #4 - Use of space signs with diamonds to show distance of leg gestures from the floor.

4.2 The use of the diamond containing a space sign (e.g., 4a) is presented in Labanotation, 4th edition. In the previous editions, a plain space sign was used (e.g., 4b). What was the reason for this change?

4.3 Addendum from Ann: A question of terminology: the diamond is the space indication, it refers to spatial aspects. The X and N (wide) signs are measurement (distance) signs. A change in terminology seems to have crept in, this can be confusing, perhaps you [Charlotte] can find out how this happened?

4.4 Addendum from Charlotte: Ann is correct. I should have called them distance signs.

4.5 Ann: In the past the use of the plain sign, e.g., an “x,” could sometimes be confusing. In the support column the “x” would indicate the length of the next step (4c). In the gesture column it conveys the flexed state of the limb (4d). To show the distance of the leg to the floor, the “x” would be placed in the support column (4e and 4f).

4.6 Ann said that putting the sign in a diamond to show distance from the floor clarifies the notation and makes it easier to read (4g).

4.7 Dawn: How would one show the distance between the gesturing leg and the supporting leg?

4.8 Ann pointed out that the distance from the floor and distance from the support are two different ideas. For instance, the gesturing foot could be close to the floor, but not close to the other leg. She suggested using the sign for lateral closing to show a short distance between legs, as in 4h. The sign for lateral opening could be used to show the gesture leg is further away from the supporting leg.

4.9 Sandra: Maybe both methods of writing [e.g., 4f or 4g] could be in the system. The choice would depend on the intent of the movement. If the diamond sign (4a) is used, it would need to be glossarized.

4.10 Charlotte: Would it need to be glossarized since it is in Labanotation, 4th edition?

4.11 Ann said 4a is an established sign. Its use for this application is new.

4.12 Ray gave an example of the use of the diamond sign in the score for Brandenburg Concerto, where it is used in design drawing.

4.13 As a side issue, Ray said the first time he teaches a sign which contains an “x,” he shows all the other signs that contain an “x” and explains they all convey distance in some way.

4.14 Ann said that in LOD they emphasize that flexion and extension are about a physical sensation rather than just about measurement.

4.15 Returning to the main topic, Charlotte recalled that in a previous theory meeting there had been a question about the placement of 4a. The group had discussed the idea of putting the sign in a subsidiary gesture column rather than the support column, because the sign is related to the gesture doing something, rather than the support doing something.

4.16 Leslie: In the original method of writing, to show distance from the floor, the “x” is in the support column. To maintain consistency, when the diamond symbol is used to show distance from the floor, it should also be in the support column.

4.17 Sandra: This also would leave room for writing other aspects of the gesture in the subsidiary gesture column.

4.18 Ray said an “x” showing distance of a step can logically have the same meaning as when the “x” is applied to gestures. One support can be thought of as the fixed end, and the other support can be thought of as the free end. The “x” says the distance of the free end and fixed end gets smaller.

4.19 Sandra pointed out that when one is standing on point, the gesturing leg cannot come close to the floor. If the gesturing leg goes downward, it is comes closer to the supporting leg.

4.20 Ann said that may be true in Sandra's example, but in other contexts the foot could be closer to the floor or closer to the support. For instance, in a demi plie there might be the possibility of the gesturing foot going either close to the floor or close to the other foot.

4.21 Mei: Does 4i mean the legs are close to each other or the jump is close to the ground?

4.22 Sandra: Would this relate to the height of the jump or the distance of the legs from place?

4.23 Ann: If you want the distance of the legs from place, then you could use the lateral signs (4j).

4.24 Addendum from Ann: The x signs should be in a diamond. The wording above should refer to "...the lateral spreading or closing in signs, 4j) shows closing in.

Ex. 4i) and 4j) do NOT say the same thing, or they should not. Because - we need two separate, distinct descriptions: distance of a gesture from the floor; and distance of separation. Maria Szentpal pointed out years ago that we had only one usage, ex. 4e) to take care of both, whereas in different configurations, different movements, one or the other may be needed. Describing the height of a jump (a spring) does not tell the reader what the aim is.

4.25 Ann said that this use of lateral spreading was developed through the movement exploration being done in Motif Notation and LOD. It was not used previously in Labanotation.

4.26 Sandra: The height of the movement in the jump would be determined by how much time you have to do the movement.

4.27 The group agreed that 4i and 4j say the same thing: The legs are close to each other.

4.28 Distance from the floor in an aerial movement can be indicated with a path sign [4k]. Another way would be 4l.

4.29 Ann: This would be useful in partner work, where the girl might be off the ground with her legs near the floor.

4.30 Sandra: In partnering there could be other information that shows this, e.g., the position of the man's arms would show how high he lifted the girl.

4.31 Ann said that the intent of the movement might be for the girl to have her legs close to the floor. Why not write that intent, rather than write what the man does to make the intent possible?

4.32 At this point the issue of standardization came up once again. There is a difference between the way movements discussed above are indicated in Labanotation, 3rd edition (1977) and Labanotation 4th edition (2005).

4.33 [For example, in Labanotation, 3rd edition (page 177), the distance of a leg gesture from the floor is as shown here in 4m. The legs close together in a jump is shown as in 4n.

4.34 In Labanotation 4th edition (page 154), the distance of a leg gesture from the floor is as shown here in 4o. The distance of low leg gestures from the ground is shown as in 4p.]

4.35 Sandra said that trying to decide which edition to follow presents notators with a conundrum. Labanotation 3rd edition is based on ICKL rules. Consequently, some notators writing today use that edition as the standard. Others feel the 4th edition is better and use it as the standard. How will people one hundred years from now know which source was used for a score that is written today? Will they think it was ICKL and the 3rd edition? Or will they assume it was the 4th edition because that was the most up to date text when the score was written?

4.36 Sandra said that in order to avoid confusion, in all her scores she says in the glossary which technical references were used as the standard.

4.37 Ray: New ideas and symbols in the 4th edition can be used before they are approved at ICKL, but eventually they should be presented to ICKL.

4.38 Sandra: Meanwhile, all new symbols should be glossarized.

4.39 Ann discussed why she did not go through ICKL for some of the changes in the 4th edition. She said that getting approval at ICKL for every single new development would take too long. It often takes at least three meetings (six years) to get an idea approved. She pointed out that there is a long list of items in Labanotation 3rd edition that did not go through ICKL.

4.40 Sandra: How much of Labanotation 3rd edition was based on Knust, Kinetography Laban?

4.41 Ann: After ICKL was established, Knust made many changes without going through ICKL.

4.42 Ann talked further about the process of writing Labanotation 4th edition. She said it included consultation with a committee of top Labanotation experts. It was written keeping just Labanotation needs in mind, rather than seeking to accommodate both Labanotation and Kinetography concerns as is done at ICKL.

4.43 The group discussed which resources are available for learning Labanotation. Zack said that the sources that he has found most helpful and available for studying Labanotation, which he has been doing on his own for many years, are the texts written by Ann and Knust. For this reason he feels that they should be used to establish standards for the system.

4.44 Ann said that she feels it is important to know in what ways Labanotation deviates from Kinetography, and the reasons for those changes.

4.45 The group felt that the same is true for the 3rd and 4th editions of Labanotation. Everyone felt it would to be illuminating to have a list of the differences between the two publications. It would also be wonderful if the rational for changes were documented. Some of this information is given in Appendix B in the 4th edition, but a fuller listing and discussion of the differences would extremely helpful.

4.46 Ray said there should also be clarification for what is not said in the texts. It is the exceptions to the rules that often can cause problems.

4.47 The group felt that solutions to some of these exceptions can be found in glossaries. These solutions should be discussed and disseminated, e.g., at ICKL, in theory meetings, and on the DNB Theory Bulletin Board.

5.1 Topic #5 - Signs for turning on a straight path.

5.2 What is the meaning of 5a and 5b? 

5.3 Ann said that Ex. 5a was Knust's usage to show revolving while traveling on a straight path. The indication says you are traveling forward and doing a full circle to the right. The movement is analyzed as a circular path which is straightened out to lie on a straight path. As you walk on the straight path you change your Front, gradually revolving around yourself. Ann felt the movement should be indicated more directly, as in 5b. If you are doing it in place, revolving around yourself is a turn. Furthermore, the path is straight, so it should be written as such.

5.4 Leslie: I was taught that 5a was the way one wrote the movement if there is no swiveling (no friction) on the feet; in 5b there is swiveling [see Labanotation, 3rd edition, page 196].

5.5 Charlotte: This is an example of where the differences in the two editions can be confusing. In Labanotation, 3rd edition, page 196 it says that both indications can be used. In Labanotation, 4th edition, page 355 it says the indication shown here in 5a is “old.” Does that mean it should no longer be used?

5.6 Leslie felt that it might have been better to use a different term instead of “old.” She usually uses 5b because most of the time there is some swiveling going on. She also uses it when it doesn't matter whether there is swiveling or not.

5.7 Ann said Knust did not conceive of the indication as nonswiveling, he just used it to show the pattern of the movement. She isn't sure when the idea of swiveling and nonswiveling came into the picture. At any rate, Ann has never been happy with having the distinction made through the signs in 5a and 5b. She feels the swiveling and nonswiveling aspects of the movement should be handled in some other manner. If it matters that the movement is nonswiveling, then something could be added to the notation. She has suggested some ideas, but none of them have stuck.

5.8 Addendum from Ann: This question of swivel or non-swivel needs to be gone into thoroughly. What is the best description for the basic action taking place? When is swivel or non-swivel important? When it is important then an additional indication can be used. The question is: how are these additional indications shown? I went into this quite some time ago and need to look up what was put forward then. Work for the future!

5.9 Charlotte asked if there is a consensus about whether 5a should be in the system. Should it be discarded and never used? If 5b is used, does it need to be glossarized?

5.10 Addendum from Ann: 5b is a logical combination of existing signs, already in use; there should be no need to glossarize.

5.11 Tina said she didn't feel this requires a yes or no answer. If something has been created, why throw it out when in a particular context it may be just what you need? It's like Howard Gardner saying, “Are you smart or are you not smart?' What he would say instead is, “When are you smart?” In other words, we should be saying, “When would the symbol be valuable?” In the evolution of notation, after a symbol has been created there may be more refined reflection about how, when, and where a symbol should be used. As needs have come up the theory has changed to accommodate those needs.

5.12 Sandra said there are still issues that have not been resolved. For instance, through motion capture work and because of dancers' training today, the “step gesture rule” is being questioned. Dancers sometimes begin the gesture earlier than _ way through the step.

5.13 Ann: We used to separate the step and the gesture completely. We made a film at Juilliard to analyze basic steps in slow motion, and saw there is an overlap in the step and gesture. [In Labanotation, 4th edition, page 127, the gesture occurs _ way after the beginning of the step.] Maria Szenpal put the gesture 1/3 of the way after the beginning of the step.

5.14 Ray: When I am reading a score, how do I know which rules to follow? I might try to read the score using the rules I learned, but the notator may be using different rules created at a different time.

5.15 Tina said that Ray's comment speaks to the evolution of notation as a scholarly field. It may be important for every score to contain a literature review and to state which theoretical references are being used.

5.16 Sandra: One way the reader will know which rules are being used is to see when the score was written. We can still figure out how to read most of the notation in Knust's scores, even thought there have been many changes since then.

5.17 Ray: It is the word “most” that is worrisome. And how does one know that what one has figured out is
correct?

5.18 Ann: I think you will know because the human body has a certain way of moving, and unless you are forcing it into very odd or artificial patterns, which wasn't part of the dance style Knust was notating, you will be able to read his scores.

5.19 Leslie pointed out that understanding the technique of the dance helps in reading a score. That is part of the context of the notation. For example, in ballet certain things are pretty established.

5.20 Ray: However, this assumes one knows the style or technique of what has been notated. For instance, in past meetings we worked on writing and reading Doris Green's notation for African dance. We found the task extremely difficult because no one besides Doris knew the style of the movement.

5.21 Zack said he thought Labanotation is supposed to record movement independent of style.

5.22 Charlotte: It depends on the purpose of the score. For instance, a score for a Balanchine ballet that is written for people who are familiar with Balanchine technique will be different from one that is written for people who do not know it. Also, the introductory material can state if the notator is assuming that the reader knows the technique of the dance. Or information about the technique could be given in a glossary. The standard being used (e.g., ICKL rules, or a particular edition of Labanotation) can also be given.

5.23 Zack said he doesn't have a dance background. Having the score give information about technique and style of the movement is important to someone like him.

5.24 Sandra said that having a score contain too much information can make it very difficult to read.

5.25 Charlotte: Music scores contain some information about style, but they usually don't contain information about the technique that should be used to interpret the score. There are a few Labanotation publications that give information about technique, e.g., Ann's Bournonville book, and the Limon technique book.

5.26 Ray said that while it is possible to notate technique, knowing what the technique is can be difficult. For instance, when the Bureau was notating Balanchine, a group of Balanchine experts were brought in to discuss his technique. None of those experts could agree what the technique is. Ray also pointed out that the choreography for a dance, as well as the technique used in performing it, often changes over time.

5.27 Sandra said there will always be an aspect of oral history involved in preserving dance. This is part of the tradition of all of the performing arts.

5.28 Ray said he feels that writing a score involves two things: the notation of the movement and the
research needed for the introductory material. It is too much to expect that the notator can do both. Doing the research can be very time consuming and is often beyond the expertise of the notator.

5.29 Lynne: The requirements for introductory material in a score have varied over time. In the past the main emphasis was on the notation, and if you wanted you could include information about context, background material, etc. Today it is felt that such information should be included in the score.

5.30 Ann said that notators are trained to notate. They are not trained to do research about the choreographer's biography, history of the dance, etc.

5.31 Sandra felt that it is important to include the introductory material if we want our scores to be taken seriously.

5.32 Mei said that the DNB library often has requests for supplemental material that is not in scores or elsewhere in the library.

5.33 Tina: Maybe we shouldn't be trying to decide when a score is complete. Rather, we should be considering when it is complete for a particular purpose. For instance, if the purpose of a score is to document the movement in a dance, then the score is done when the notation of the movement is done. However, if the score is being written so the dance can be reconstructed in a way that brings as much authenticity alive as possible, then other elements will need to be there. Likewise, if the purpose of the score is to pass on our legacy in an educational setting, it may have different components.

5.34 Leslie: The idea of what is necessary for these various purposes has changed completely in the past twenty or thirty years.

5.35 Charlotte: It is useful to think about what is ideal in creating our scores. However, we also need to think about what is possible and “doable,” given financial and manpower limitations.

5.36 Sandra: It is important to keep in mind that some choreographers now expect and demand that the score include good introductory information. This is what is pushing the requirement for scores to contain that material.

5.37 Tina: In our discussions we need to be clear what we are referring to when we talk about a “score.” Are we talking about the notation, or are we talking about the final publication with all of the support material.

5.38 Leslie: The word “publication” rings a bell. In the past, we were told at the Bureau not to aim at producing a “publication.” Our goal mainly was to write the notation for the score. We didn't have the resources, the time, or the money to do more.