Submitted by Bradley Roquette – May 30, 2003
I have been reading the discussions on Labanotation on the DNB website and am very interested in various forms of movement notation.
I am a third year architecture student and am researching for my dissertation on music and architecture. I have been looking at forms of notation in both these fields and how their relevance has been shifted with the development of new technologies. I am trying to find out if there have been any uses for Labanotation outside of dance, or projects that have involved similar forms of notation for describing day to day ritual movements as well as that of performativity.
Does anyone perhaps know a particular form of notation that would best describe someone moving through a house for example? Otherwise where could I find out more about this subject?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Dance Notation: Tells Nothing About Body Organization
Submitted by Oliver Bandel et al - January 10, 2003
[Following are excerpts from a discussion originally posted on the LabanTalk listserv in December, 2002.]
Posting 1, Oliver Bandel, December 11, 2002
I have been thinking about dance notation and what really is notated with these notation systems.
Imho such a system notates which part of the body will be moved into what direction. For people who are familiar with notation as well as dancing a lot, this may automatically be translated into bodily organizations (spatial intent, triggering of muscle chains and so on).
But that does not necessarily mean that all people are performing the movement in this way.
Some weeks ago I mentioned [in another LabanTalk posting] that it may be necessary (especially when writing computer programs for which dance-animation is intended) to use a muscle-activation based internal "muscle activation/description language", so that the computer may use these internals and translate it into intersubjective/observable movement and its notation.
Today (in dance class, while having some problems with the crosslateral connections) I first thought: Notation could help to clarify it, but then I suddenly was alarmed and thought: What we are notating with any of the dance notation systems (insert your favorite notation system here) is: We notate what limb is turned into what position, or what kind of movement a body part has to do. This is notating the outer form/shape/movement.
This is how the most teachers are teaching: You have to move so that you create this or that shape (move your head, arms, feet, body in this or that position... then into this/that position, and hold your ... always ...).
But this is teaching (and notating) the outer form. It's not how the body should be activated.
It's not often that teachers teach in a way that you can feel what has to be done in the body for gaining a certain movement. And the notation does it the same way: It does not tell you anything about how to organize your body.
Isn't there a contradiction between notating only outer forms/shapes/movements in Laban's (or other) notation system, and advocating to teach dance in a more "inner" way, as is emphasized in Bartenieff Fundamentals classes?!
Wouldn't it be better to have a notation system which reflects the bodily organization, so that the movement is "more natural" to what it should look like, because it is described in how it has to be performed?!
Maybe a computer internal muscle-activation-description language can be a solid base for a (more human readable, because less detailed) notation system which reflects the bodily organization too?!
Posting 2, Tara Stepenberg, December 11, 2002
Perhaps I am incorrect - but I have long believed that notation assumed that its readers knew how to move/dance (i.e., body organization) and that the dance notation was not written to TEACH this -- just like in music notation, the notation assumed that the instrumentalist knows how to create excellent tone/pitch, color a phrase etc.
Smilingly, Tara.
Posting 3, Oliver Bandel, December 11, 2002
[Responding to Tara Stepenberg’s comments in Posting 2]
Well, aren't there different ways of performing a movement?
What are Bartenieff Fundamentals classes good for? They are good for coordination of the body. Is it for dancers not necessary to go into such classes, because they know their "instrument"?
What about different styles?
It's for example possible to move an arm isolated, as well as it is possible to move it as a part of the crosslateral connection.
Well, if the observer is good, he may see the difference. And as a notator he may notate it. Is this how it works? And if the movement should be performed differently, maybe totally non-dancer like? How is this described in a notation that only uses shape-description? Could this be described as bodily organization instead?
And aren't there different styles of moving (in respect to body organization) as well as different dancing styles?!
Does notation cover this? (Maybe in its very detailed forms it does).
And if it does, is it the right approach to notate purely by shape/movement?
Does it makes sense to describe only the outer forms/shapes? Does it make sense to let the body organization totally be unwritten and only a "mouth to ear" approach? Or a "the dance-teacher shows it and student looks to it" approach?
If the "talk about dance", what researchers are performing in books, papers, scores, mailing lists should be named "scientific", and when scientific is to write down our bias (presumptions), then we should write down the bodily organization onto the score too (at least, if the score is intended for detailed analysis, not only for "remembering some steps of the classes").
If we don't write it down, we have presumptions that are not explicitly written down. And that may cause many problems. At least this may be called non-scientific.
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
By the way: You say that dance notation is for teachers (for people who know to use their instrument), and they should know how to dance. And the students are learning from the teacher.... well. Why is notation not intended for dance students?
I think that students are learning better when they use notation. You mentioned music notation.
Normally it's intended to let the students use notation very early. Why do you think that in dance, notation is a teachers-only tool?
Btw: How to create an excellent tone is not what every musician is able to produce. Or some musicians are good in classics but very bad in punk-rock music (and vice versa). Some are very good in all styles. And if music notation would be more detailed, adding further information than only "play this note and that", and maybe even adding bodily organization for musicians, this IMHO could produce much better/flexible musicians.
So, I don't know why you are smiling.
(Maybe perfect teachers are doing that? :-> )
If I ask ten different teachers, I will get ten answers. They are similar, but not equal. Some are totally different.
P.S.: Some dance people say that it is absolutely crap to dance as a teacher and let the students try to do the same movement. And they prefer only using words in classes, so that the student has to "feel" it instead of looking how the teacher performs it.
=> "inner" vs. "outer"
P.P.S.: If I would have not mentioned my problems on the crosslateral connections, how would you have written your answer then?
Posting 4, Leslie Bishko, December 11, 2002
The Laban system goes well beyond simply notating which part rotates when, and patterns of organization are certainly included.
Posting 5, Neil Ellis Orts, December 11, 2002
Having only the vaguest of notions about Labanotation, it seems entirely possible that not every nuance will be picked up by every dancer, however advanced the notation. I think the musical score analogy is pertinent. I've heard music composers speak of the horror of hearing a bad performance of something they wrote. I think we have to just live with the same potential in dance notation. And just as a beginning musician will play something mechanically on the piano, so might a beginning notation reader perform the dance mechanically. I would think the ability or experience of the musician/dancer to interpret the piece has a huge role to play.
Since there were no sound recording instruments until a little more than a century ago, we really have no idea if what we hail as a great performance of Bach is at all what Bach intended . . . but thank goodness we have the scores to approximate something for our time. This may be all we can hope for in dance notation as well.
Posting 6, Greg Shenaut, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Tara Stepenberg’s comments in Posting 2]
I think the musical example is right on: I can play flute or violin music on my guitar; I can even play the same notes faster, softer, or jazzier. In each case, the sound is different, but the underlying composition is the same.
That is, both Labanotation and musical notation are “abstract” representations of movement/music, they aren't simple series of commands to tighten or loosen muscles rhythmically. For special purposes, it is possible to go well beyond the "normal" level of notation both for music (take a look an unquantized MIDI sometime) and LN--this will allow a great deal of precision, but it becomes almost impossible to read & write it and most people wouldn't want to anyway!
Posting 7, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Greg Shenaut’s comments in Posting 6]
[Greg wrote] I THINK THE MUSICAL EXAMPLE IS RIGHT ON: I CAN PLAY FLUTE OR VIOLIN MUSIC ON MY GUITAR; I CAN EVEN PLAY THE SAME NOTES FASTER, SOFTER, OR JAZZIER. IN EACH CASE, THE SOUND IS DIFFERENT, BUT THE UNDERLYING COMPOSITION IS THE SAME.
THAT IS, BOTH LABANOTATION AND MUSICAL NOTATION ARE “ABSTRACT” REPRESENTATIONS OF MOVEMENT/MUSIC, THEY AREN'T SIMPLE SERIES OF COMMANDS TO TIGHTEN OR LOOSEN MUSCLES RHYTHMICALLY.
[Oliver responds] Well, labanotation looks a lot like "straighten your right leg at count three and your left arm at count 4&e".
Music notation seems more abstract to me.
BTW: I think using symbols for body organization (patterns) is very powerful and abstract, even if it at the first view looks very near to the body and not very abstract.
Using a body half pattern is more abstract than saying: lifting your left arm and your left leg up or lifting your right arm and your right leg up (and I have to add the information that the muscles of the whole body have to support that movement...)
If notating a certain body half action, this may bloat up the score much more than using body-pattern indicating symbols.
If a pure gesture is done - without support of body core - this may be coded easily in a LN score. When there is a movement sequence from the arm through the core body into the leg, this may be very complicated to write down.
Using body pattern symbols, this may be done very easy.
Don't you think that such an indication of "how to use the body" could help to not only clarify a movement and how it is meant (and to write it down into the notation, and not necessarily have to know the style of the choreographer before reading the score)?
Don't you think that [by] coding with body organization patterns a laban score would be more clear and less bloated, because a lot of symbols could be thrown away?
[Greg wrote] FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES, IT IS POSSIBLE TO GO WELL BEYOND THE "NORMAL" LEVEL OF NOTATION BOTH FOR MUSIC (TAKE A LOOK AN UNQUANTIZED MIDI SOMETIME) AND LN--THIS WILL ALLOW A GREAT DEAL OF PRECISION,
[Oliver responds] Yes. A great deal of precision... coded with many symbols for each limb and body part... or?
Isn't it so, that LN in the way it is used right now is too much like these detailed descriptions. It's a detailed description of body parts movements. For being very detailed, it will be very complicated. And when substituting a lot of these symbols by some body organization symbols, the content may be the same, but less verbose notated?
[Greg wrote] BUT IT BECOMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO READ & WRITE IT AND MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T WANT TO ANYWAY!
[Oliver responds] Where can I find such extremely detailed LN-scores? And do they have bodily patterns added?
P.S.: Because Eshkol-Wachman uses numbers instead of graphical symbols, it seems to be more abstract than LN.
Posting 8, Greg Shenaut, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 7]
[Oliver wrote] WELL, LABANOTATION LOOKS A LOT LIKE "STRAIGHTEN YOUR RIGHT LEG AT COUNT THREE AND YOUR LEFT ARM AT COUNT 4&E".
MUSIC NOTATION SEEMS MORE ABSTRACT TO ME.
[Greg responds] I would have to agree that in terms of abstractness, LN is probably somewhere between standard music notation and instrument-specific tabulature notation.
Posting 9, Janet Descutner, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 1]
I'm sorry, I have been observing and suffering through your attempts to understand the use of notation in what appears to be a vacuum, recently filled by a lot of attempts to clarify in simple terms what is a very complex system at its most communicative levels. I finally can't stay out of this ongoing dialogue with you. My name is Janet Descutner. I am an Associate Professor Emerita at the University of Oregon and I have taught Labanotation and reconstructed many Labanotation scores over the past 30 years.
Music notation does not tell the musician how to play, it tells the musician what to play, with indications as to its emphasis (loud, soft, etc). Dance notation is the same. The dance in the notation is the same as the music in the notation, it is interpreted and brought to life artistically by the artistic interpreter, who has a lifetime (however currently long) of training and is assisted in learning the specific actions that bring the music to t [sic]
The notation is not the art. The art is the ability of the performer/reader/reconstructor to bring the notation back to the ear, the eye, the heart, by understanding its implications, not just reading its symbols. Just as one can hear the same musical score performed in different ways, depending on the "read' of the musician, the dance becomes what the artist makes it after reading its "facts" from a score. The exemplary score is one that provides the most pertinent information in the most detail--to reveal emphasis, energy/dynamics, all those things that make the dance more than just body parts moving in space to a beat.
Young pianists may be able to read the notes and hit the tones. Young dancers can strike the poses and make the shapes in time. Artistry is acquired over a period of time and deepens with familiarity. A reader of notation strives not only to get intimate with all of the details of a score, but to know as much as possible about renderings of that event (whether from score or the originals or the reconstructions prior to scores) in order to reveal its essence insofar as we can know it. And P.S., even reconstructions of a work under the original artist are frequently redirected in their emphases in order to use the special resonance of a particular performer. I have observed this happening with many guest artists and our students.
As an expressive mover, one cannot be operating in performance on a muscle-activator level, just as a pianist cannot be concerned with the physics of moving the cheeks, fingers, lungs. These are elementary levels of learning that are essential. But once one gets to the expression of more complex choreographic events, one know longer "sees the forward middle symbol" any more than one would "experience the contraction of bicep, release to extension". ETC. The action as a whole becomes a statement.
Advanced, professional artists in dance do not operate on that "computer internal muscle-activation-description language" system that you describe. I'd really like to know how such a system could be considered "more simple," since I know from observing the reports of our dance science students who do studies isolating certain muscular actions and their relationship to the results, that it is very complex, and the results don't necessarily flow out accurately from the intent. The learning is on a deeper level.
Actors do not declaim by the text's oral indications (there are none, for the most part). That is left to the artist, and, in the case of notated artistry (the script, the musical score, the notation of movement) the artistic history, ability, and training of the artist recreating the work and performing it.
The glorious thing about the performing arts that no "divine model" exists to say what the "acceptable translation" of the performed text must be. Juliet performed by a sensitive, talented and inspired actor is saying the same words as any other Juliet, but some are magical; others are not. Just as Clytemnestra either exhudes the strength essential to the role or does not. (in dance or in theatre). The script is not the responsible party for such differences.
Our efforts in notation have not been to provide the ideal model for the perfect performance which has no deviations, but to indicate the outline which provides the original material with its special emphases in space, time, dynamics, for the artist's exploration--and then let the spirit and experience of that artist fill it out. If one has seen and experienced a lot of dance, theatre or music, this process is not a foreign one.
Each generation/artist must find a way to fulfill the role and make the movement her/his own as well as that of the original. Many dancers have performed Cunningham's (name the favorite artist of your choice) actions but with their own (and their generation's) stamp on the activity. Please realize that absorbing a skill with all its accoutrements is a long-term task. One's understanding of simple indications (right high, left low forward) take on meaning in their context and complexity. Although learning to read notation is an integral part of music, it does not contain any instructions as to how to move the fingers. It symbolizes the intent; the resulting application is up to the artist.
Posting 10, Janet Descutner, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 3]
I now have read your other chain in this particular sequence. Of course, there are many different ways of performing a movement. We have made an attempt to get at this at this in many ways--with the introductory material in scores, by using Effort/Shape descriptors within a score to indicate energy use and spatial intent, as well as just directions and levels of arrival and pathways. Have you looked at any specific scores of specific dances? Some give an extensive Forward on the particular style. Balanchine scores indicate his specific uses of standard vocabulary in the explanatory materials as well as within the score itself. Pathways or classical positions may deviate from standard practices in ballet and so are indicated. Humphrey scores also elaborate on such elements as breath, inhalation, release, fall, etc., both in the forward and in the notation itself.
The reader must, of course, be advanced and experienced enough in both reading/interpreting notation and familiarity with the specific style of the choreographer to be able to reveal its essence as s/he turns the symbols into the recognizable style of a particular artist's movement.
The point is not that the "notator MAY notate it.” If it is part of the work, it is notated specifically, in order to render the underlying style as well as the general shapes that occur. The process of learning all of these notions as well as their symbolization takes more than a few weeks, just as reading Shakespeare with any depth of understanding requires more than just knowing how to pronounce the individual words.
Posting 11, Odette Blum, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner ’s comments in Posting 9 and Posting 10]
You have put it in a nutshell beautifully in both e-mails. Thank you.
Posting 12, Greg Halloran, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner’s comments in Posting 9]
I could not have stated this better. I am going to save this to help clarify the directing process for my students.
Posting 13, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner’s comments in Posting 9]
[JANET WROTE] MUSIC NOTATION DOES NOT TELL THE MUSICIAN HOW TO PLAY, IT TELLS THE MUSICIAN WHAT TO PLAY, WITH INDICATIONS AS TO ITS EMPHASIS (LOUD, SOFT, ETC). DANCE NOTATION IS THE SAME.
[Oliver responds] Well. Ok, that is a new view for me. I thought dance notation is what to play, but also can be used to indicate how to play.
And some answers of people in other threads seemed to be saying this: LN can be used to say how to perform a dance. And I thought that this is what was intended when notators are archiving dances: They do not only say what text, they also say how to say it - not the textbook, but the screenplay, with details in it, what the actor has to do and how.
If movement notation is intended to say the essence of a movement, then the next question comes up: How detailed is it necessary to notate it?
So, my attempt for notating a dance is: Write down the dance so that I can better remember what the choreography is all about (at least in: how to move (which directions and so on), and to perform it better next time I dance it, and to preserve the dance on later days. The "what the choreography is all about" in respect to "the theme is love and dead", or similar, is different from "what the choreography is all about" in purely "movements in space". But there may/will be connections between a movement and its meaning.
But it's often easier to ask the choreographer what he wants to express... (and if this is not notated, you need to ask him/her).
But then it maybe does not matter how I use LN.
I thought that LN - like notators use it – is always at a higher complexity level, because nearly everything is necessary when notating a dance from professional choreographers.
But if I interpret your answer correctly, a notation of such a dance could also be very simple? Only notating some basic movements and not the expressiveness of the dancer (or the intended expressiveness of the choreographer)?
I'm confused, because IMHO you say other things than other people on this list. Or maybe one day I can integrate both perspectives on a higher level.
Maybe there are a lot of things that I heard about movement notation. I heard things like:
- "LN is too complicated and it does not make sense to use it if the essence of a movement should be written down. If you want to have a notation system for your usage, use Motif, not LN."
- "Why use Motif? If you really want to write a notation, Motif will not help you. If you start notating, do it right and use LN: It's detailed and it's intended to use it detailed. Why use Motif? If you improvise, improvise. And if you notate a movement, do it perfectly and don't crap around with Motif."
- "Motif is good for choreographing, improvisation and remembering your own choreography. LN is not good for choreographing/improvisation. It's good for archiving dances: You can write down any nifty/sophisticated detail."
- "You can use LN for your own purposes. If you do not need further details, leave them out in your score. But don't [think] that a notator would accept this minimalistic score."
- "LN can be used detailed enough to even write down how to perform. So it's possible to read a dance style out of a score."
-"LN is intended to say what the dances’ movement is all about. It shows you what is danced, not how it was performed."
- (add many other things that IMHO are contradictory)
These (and many more) opinions about LN/Motif and dance notation as a whole, as well as few (very interesting/enlightening!) experiences with LN, are what is rumbling in my thoughts.
This is quite chaotic, and I have a lot of ideas which are going into different directions as well as I hear different things from other people.
I hope the picture will be clearer with more experience in dance notation.
(And I'm happy that you have written this mail, because it's necessary hear the voice of LN-experienced people.)
[Janet wrote] THE NOTATION IS NOT THE ART.
[Oliver responds] Well, sometimes I think LN is so complex that it's art to use it. ;-)
[Janet wrote] THE ART IS THE ABILITY OF THE PERFORMER/READER/RECONSTRUCTOR TO BRING THE NOTATION BACK TO THE EAR, THE EYE, THE HEART, BY UNDERSTANDING ITS IMPLICATIONS, NOT JUST READING ITS SYMBOLS.
[Oliver responds] So each dance archive with notation must necessarily be enriched by video material as well as historical and ethnological notes, if it is intended to preserve information of dances of other cultural regions or folk dances of local/family dance styles, or styles of subcultures.
Using notation only then may be sufficient for artists looking for a dance theme. But for cultural studies, notation alone is not complete.
Can you second this?
And a lot of dancing people think that notation is not necessary, because it does not bring any advantages and is a waist of time. Often they say, I use video. Dance notation is not worth learning.
I think you will completely disagree here.
[Janet wrote] AND P.S., EVEN RECONSTRUCTIONS OF A WORK UNDER THE ORIGINAL ARTIST ARE FREQUENTLY REDIRECTED IN THEIR EMPHASES IN ORDER TO USE THE SPECIAL RESONANCE OF A PARTICULAR PERFORMER. I HAVE OBSERVED THIS HAPPENING WITH MANY GUEST ARTISTS AND OUR STUDENTS.
[Oliver responds] This is very interesting. But then the question about "how necessary is so much detail" arises. ("Use Motif, not LN, it shows you the essence of a dance...", as people told me.)
[Janet wrote] AS AN EXPRESSIVE MOVER, ONE CANNOT BE OPERATING IN PERFORMANCE ON A MUSCLE-ACTIVATOR LEVEL, JUST AS A PIANIST CANNOT BE CONCERNED WITH THE PHYSICS OF MOVING THE CHEEKS, FINGERS, LUNGS.
[Oliver responds] No this was not intended as a notation for usage in dance classes. It can be an underlying notation system, on which many abstractions can be done: If you need only a score which shows change of support, you grab it out. If you need only a score indicating rotations or directions, it can be excerpted out of low-level descriptions. If you want to have only an indication on change of directions, or a diagram on coordination of hand-and-arm or on body-patterns, you can get it.
But at least on the body-pattern level (Body Half, Upper-Lower,...) IMHO this can be a nice add on in an LN score (as well as symbols, indicating shape could be added, or the indication of a view or a floor plan, and so on).
But maybe a sequence through the body in a crossconnected way can be written down in LN as a sequence of movement. If so, then LN is much more near to such a muscle-description language (!!!) than if many movement-details would be written on a higher-abstraction level (writing "Body Half" is more abstract than writing down the arm, leg, chest,...).
[Janet wrote] THESE ARE ELEMENTARY LEVELS OF LEARNING THAT ARE ESSENTIAL. BUT ONCE ONE GETS TO THE EXPRESSION OF MORE COMPLEX CHOROEOGRAPHIC EVENTS, ONE KNOW LONGER "SEES THE FORWARD MIDDLE SYMBOL" ANY MORE THAN ONE WOULD "EXPERIENCE THE CONTRACTION OF BICEP, RELEASE TO EXTENSION". ETC. THE ACTION AS A WHOLE BECOMES A STATEMENT.
[Oliver responds] And (IMHO) writing it on a level of body-patterns (bodily patterns in the sense of P. H.'s "Making Connections") this is much more abstract, and much more of "what is meant", than writing it in how I have seen LN until today.
(I first thought that LN is more abstract, but from that viewpoint I take here, it seems that bodily patterns are more abstract. Or -- if not more abstract, they are at least more complex.)
In physics movements are described by differential equations. In medicine muscle activation and muscle chain activation can be used. In dance often ballet terms are used.
For me, dance notation is located somewhere above muscle-activation and indicating directions. But maybe you use it completely different. But a laban score indicates directions and it says which limbs to use.
The problem here is, that dance is both: a theme for the physics (space, time, speed/velocity, acceleration, ...) as well as art (telling stories, evoking pictures in the audience, ...).
So I may look at it in the outer way (how it is taught in most classes). And that's not wrong. It's one way to look at it. It may also be interesting to measure frequencies in music..
And then there is the other side: How a music sounds, and a dance looks.
This is another viewpoint.
I'm looking for the linkage of these completely contradictory worlds (is light a wave or a particle?).
Dance notation - indicating directions and measuring it with "objective" time is linked to physics.
Dance notation - showing what is going on in a dance is linked to art.
I don't think that one perspective is more true than the other.
[Janet wrote] ADVANCED, PROFESSIONAL ARTISTS IN DANCE DO NOT OPERATE ON THAT "COMPUTER INTERNAL MUSCLE-ACTIVATION-DESCRIPTION LANGUAGE" SYSTEM THAT YOU DESCRIBE.
[Oliver responds] I have not intended it for usage of artists directly. It's the anatomically layer of dance – located between physics and art, directly linked to the body-terms.
(LN is also located between physics and art. This double linkage makes it complex.)
[Janet wrote] I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW HOW SUCH A SYSTEM COULD BE CONSIDERED "MORE SIMPLE," SINCE I KNOW FROM OBSERVING THE REPORTS OF OUR DANCE SCIENCE STUDENTS WHO DO STUDIES ISOLATING CERTAIN MUSCULAR ACTIONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESULTS, THAT IT IS VERY COMPLEX, AND THE RESULTS DON'T NECESSARILY FLOW OUT ACCURATELY FROM THE INTENT. THE LEARNING IS ON A DEEPER LEVEL.
[Oliver responds] It's simpler in how the rules for such a language could be described: There are not rules and exceptions, which needs more rules, and more exceptions, which adds much more rules.
Such a muscle-description language is flat. LN is complex.
(The result of such a language may be very verbose, but detailed. Because of its many detailed descriptions of movement, it may be difficult to survey, but it has no complex structure.)
OK, I will stop here!
I now conclude: LN is not intended to write down how a movement is performed. It only says which movement is performed.
But I don't know how to decide where the WHAT ends and the HOW begins (and vice versa).
IMHO there is no clear border.
Posting 14, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner’s comments in Posting 10]
[JANET WROTE] I NOW HAVE READ YOUR OTHER CHAIN IN THIS PARTICULAR SEQUENCE. OF COURSE, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS OF PERFORMING A MOVEMENT. WE HAVE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GET AT THIS AT THIS IN MANY WAYS--WITH THE INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL IN SCORES, BY USING EFFORT/SHAPE DESCRIPTORS WITHIN A SCORE TO INDICATE ENERGY USE AND SPATIAL INTENT, AS WELL AS JUST DIRECTIONS AND LEVELS OF ARRIVAL AND PATHWAYS. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ANY SPECIFIC SCORES OF SPECIFIC DANCES?
[Oliver responds] Some months ago I browsed through a book of an old dance. There were music notes, stage plans, the laban score and the beginning of the book contains texts and photos as documentation. I think it was a ballet. But I can't remember if there was one of body-specific symbols or comments.
[Janet wrote] SOME GIVE AN EXTENSIVE FORWARD ON THE PARTICULAR STYLE.BALANCHINE SCORES INDICATE HIS SPECIFIC USES OF STANDARD VOCABULARY IN THE EXPLANATORY MATERIALS AS WELL AS WITHIN THE SCORE ITSELF. PATHWAYS OR CLASSICAL POSITIONS MAY DEVIATE FROM STANDARD PRACTICES IN BALLET AND SO ARE INDICATED. HUMPHREY SCORES ALSO ELABORATE ON SUCH ELEMENTS AS BREATH, INHALATION, RELEASE, FALL, ETC., BOTH IN THE FORWARD AND IN THE NOTATION ITSELF.
[Oliver responds] How can I get a good overview on how are dances notated in different styles?
This labanotation material is not available in any bookstore and/or library. So a good overview on many different ways of real-world notations could help.
The simple beginner’s tutorials are not how it looks when a notator makes his staffs. And additionally, maybe each notator has his own style.
Here again, I think typographical issues and/or recommendations could help. Additionally I'm wondering if there are for labanotation what for programmers are so called coding rules. And, ok, these may change during the years. That complete staff that I've seen is many decades old. And so it will not be how dances/movements would be notated today...
... or is the way of how to create such a score even today completely dependent on how the choreographer/performer/notator is working?
How much (and what) of the notation is personal style?
Normally, when I read about labanotation, it looks like "all is done by certain rules". But when asking in this list, it seems that people say: "it depends."
So, is a labanotation staff art itself, or is it only a tool, like a ruler, a color-circle, a paintbrush?
When I look at music notation, they sometimes look ugly, and sometimes are well typeset. But normally they are written in a certain style.
How is that in labanotation? And: Where can I find examples of notations of different complexity and different usage of symbols?
[Janet wrote] THE READER MUST, OF COURSE, BE ADVANCED AND EXPERIENCED ENOUGH IN BOTH READING/INTERPRETING NOTATION AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE SPECIFIC STYLE OF THE CHOREOGRAPHER TO BE ABLE TO REVEAL ITS ESSENCE AS S/HE TURNS THE SYMBOLS INTO THE RECOGNIZABLE STYLE OF A PARTICULAR ARTIST'S MOVEMENT.
[Oliver responds] So then the notation (laban notation) alone is not detailed enough. That was a matter of discussion some weeks ago [on LabanTalk].
So, when I conclude this, I can say: There is no notation system that notates the style of a dance.
That means: When people in some hundred years find some papers with labanotation, and a complete description of how the system will be used, they will not be able to reproduce the dance if they do not have video-material or further information.
Especially because today’s dances and choreography can be performed in many different styles, and are not typically bound to a historical period (all styles of the last centuries will be danced today too, and additionally all newer styles), the historical view lacks precision.
Looked from this perspective, a labanotation score can not be used instead of a video-recording. It can only be added to it. Or, saying it in the other way: A laban score must be completed by video-material to have a "complete" description.
(But above you mentioned scores that were more detailed and even notating breath support......so. again I'm not sure, how it is.)
[Janet wrote] THE POINT IS NOT THAT THE "NOTATOR MAY NOTATE IT.” IF IT IS PART OF THE WORK, IT IS NOTATED SPECIFICALLY, IN ORDER TO RENDER THE UNDERLYING STYLE AS WELL AS THE GENERAL SHAPES THAT OCCUR.
[Oliver responds] So, this is possible?
Where can I find notation-examples?
[Janet wrote] THE PROCESS OF LEARNING ALL OF THESE NOTIONS AS WELL AS THEIR SYMBOLIZATION TAKES MORE THAN A FEW WEEKS, JUST AS READING SHAKESPEARE WITH ANY DEPTH OF UNDERSTANDING REQUIRES MORE THAN JUST KNOWING HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE INDIVIDUAL WORDS.
[Oliver responds] Yes, ok. I'm not patient. :-)
But if I don't see different scores and can see the common and the differences, I have the problem that I can't learn to work with that notation.
It would be nice if there were some examples or excerpts of complete scores available on web. Or a book explaining different styles of movement notation with many examples, and explaining good and bad ideas.
If I want to know something about good old book-typography, I look into Jan Tschicholds books about typography, or read newer (less strict) authors on that topic. In his books about typography, he shows examples and says: If you do it in this way, then the reader has this or that advantages, and if you design your book in another way, you will create a mess for the reader. And it begins with size and color of the paper, the fonts and its sizes, the change of fonts in documents, and a lot of more information.
But this is for books. In books, normally people think, only the text is essential. But even here the layout can't be ignored.
In laban-scores the layout itself is "the main thing". But it seems to me that there is no such thing like a typographical guide.
A notation rule (like coding rules for programmers) maybe could help here? And these notation rules could say which symbols, which layout, if colored or not, would be recommended. And it also could say when to add to notation symbols for body organization.
Well, Gutenberg is about 500 years ago... and Laban is too new...?!
Posting 15, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Leslie Bishko's comments in Posting 4]
[Leslie wrote] THE LABAN SYSTEM GOES WELL BEYOND SIMPLY NOTATING WHICH PART ROTATES WHEN, AND PATTERNS OF ORGANIZATION ARE CERTAINLY INCLUDED.
[Oliver responds] Where can I find examples?
Are there scores in the web?
It's not possible for me to order twenty different notation books in the USA in the hope of getting the information I need.
Isn't there a study comparing styles of LN scores?
Posting 16, Jack Clark, December 11, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 1]
This sounds like a noble ideal - but identifying the muscular co-ordination for dance is so personalized that even the ideal muscular performance of any given action is not negotiable by all bodies in so direct of approach. Some bodies already activate the "correct" muscular connective co-ordination response for certain movements, and to restate that may cause an over "contraction" over certain muscle groupings, which is not too desirable or functional. Others may need to "un-contract" or relax the involvement of other muscular patterns to allow the "ideal" grouping of contractions to take over. So much depends upon a person's personal imagery which supplies that person with the muscular co-ordination pattern that creates a movement, and that imagery may even be sub-conscious in nature. However, if you can identify the main muscle groups and the types of contraction (eccentric, concentric, fast twitch, etc.) which lead or follow the movement to its end point, that will produce an "ideal" muscular performance, then you can notate that information next to and as a part of the notation's spatial origins. But to think that all humanity share the same inner language for motional motivation may be too big a task for any researcher. You may have better luck finding the inner working of one localized group of movers who share all cultural re-conditionings, along with their dance teachers, and focus on that. That is what Laban was attempting in the beginnings of his research into the ideas that movement could be converted into symbols, but so many of the determining factors were dictated by regional influences of his time. His discoveries eventually led him to focus his notation on the objectivity of the visual elements, instead of motivation.
Posting 17, Janet Descutner, December 13, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 14]
You're certainly a thorough and persistent seeker of information. Apparently you are not in the vicinity of any Labanotation-stocked library. Many university libraries have copies of scores that have been made available for purchase--notations of Isadora Duncan style dances, Doris Humphrey's works, ballets notated by Ann Hutchinson, etc. I assume you are not in America, where you could, if a university student, have inter-library loan access to such scores. Others are available from the Dance Notation Bureau for purchase (Ann Rodiger's, Ray Cook's, others I can't remember right now without the catalogue).
Some of these are scored at the appropriate level of complexity to allow the dance to be more or less fully represented. Of course, the more "fleshed out" a score is, the higher the detail and subsequent level of comprehension of the symbols and their inter-relationships required to make sense of it. In this aspect, dance notation (Labanotation is the one I'm the most familiar with) is more complex than music notation. The need to show interrelationships between many body parts as well as between many dancers might be equated with a musical score for piano or orchestra, with many complex chords or instruments and specific fingering indicated. Just plain old experience and specific, incisive attention to detail are good requisites for a reader/reconstructor. These are not skills that develop in the first year of study, just as sentence structure in written languages doesn't get addressed until students have ease recognizing letters and the words that they make up. It's a long process, and needs to be accompanied by many and various experiences dancing and observing the myriad forms of dance.
Good luck on your journey.
Posting 18, Oliver Bandel, December 17, 2002
[Responding to Neil Ellis Orts’s comments in Posting 5]
[Neil wrote] HAVING ONLY THE VAGUEST OF NOTIONS ABOUT LABANOTATION, IT SEEMS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT NOT EVERY NUANCE WILL BE PICKED UP BY EVERY DANCER, HOWEVER ADVANCED THE NOTATION. I THINK THE MUSICAL SCORE ANALOGY IS PERTINENT.
SINCE THERE WERE NO SOUND RECORDING INSTRUMENTS UNTIL A LITTLE MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO, WE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA IF WHAT WE HAIL AS A GREAT PERFORMANCE OF BACH IS AT ALL WHAT BACH INTENDED. . .
[Oliver responds] Yes, and maybe he would cry if he hear what our best players perform today (like the composer, you mentioned, who had a horror hearing the piano player).
[Neil wrote] BUT THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE THE SCORES TO APPROXIMATE SOMETHING FOR OUR TIME. THIS MAY BE ALL WE CAN HOPE FOR IN DANCE NOTATION AS WELL.
[Oliver responds] Well, you mentioned Bach... as far as I know, organ players who lived many centuries before us played the melody with one hand. This melody was written down. With the other hand they played the bassline.
They played certain basslines, as it was "normal" in these days. It was obvious to them that nothing else could be played.
Today, the basslines are written down for the people of today, who have heard many more different music styles, and for whom it is not "normal" or "obvious" to play a certain bassline.
Is this because today’s organ players are not such good performers? Is it because some stupid/silly people were there who thought that it would be necessary to write down what every organ player of the old centuries had already known?
Or is it a "make it explicit" for the people who are living many centuries later and would – instead of an old bassline -- maybe add a jazz-bassline to a piece of Bach's melody?
Well, IMHO it makes no sense to rely on "well known" things (including mouth-to-ear history in such a fast changing world) like how to play a melody or how to move, because we may know how it has to be performed correctly.
At that moment, when we can find a new way to differentiate things (melody, movement, any other thing we can think about and do our research), we should explicitly write down what we can perceive. If we have a way to make a distinction, but do not use it - what sense does it make?
I think in Laban's days many things we know today were not invented. So, why should we rely on old models?
And since today dance researchers are able to put into words what they can see (e.g. bodily patterns/muscle activation), they should do it - and write it down.
Maybe it was obvious to use the body for a certain movement in a certain way some decades ago, but the world (and the dance world too) will be more and more pluralistic and differentiated.
So why can we say that it makes no sense to write down different ways of performing a dance, and that it's better to ignore on the score what we know?
Why not write down what is possible? If a score is too rigid, too strict for more modern times (say in 200 years our "wild" and "modern" dances may seem to be classic stuff and boring to newer people), then it's always possible to interpret them in a different way than they are written down.
But if information we can write down explicitly (because we can differentiate and therefore perceive it) is ignored on a score (because we think that it is obvious to use the body in this or that way, or because of any other reason), then we throw away the chances of more accurate dance-research/dance-history of future generations of dance researchers.
Posting 19, Oliver Bandel, December 17, 2002
[Responding to Jack Clark’s comments in Posting 16]
[Jack wrote] THIS SOUNDS LIKE A NOBLE IDEAL - BUT IDENITFYING THE MUSCULAR CO-ORDINATION FOR DANCE IS SO PERSONALIZED THAT EVEN THE IDEAL MUSULAR PERFORMANCE OF ANY GIVEN ACTION IS NOT NEGOIABLE BY ALL BODIES IN SO DIRECT OF APPROACH. SOME BODIES ALREADY ACTIVATE THE "CORRECT" MUSCULAR CONNECTIVE CO-ORDINATION RESPONCE FOR CERTAIN MOVEMENTS, AND TO RESTATE THAT MAY CAUSE AN OVER "CONTRACTION" OVER CERTAIN MUSCLE GROUPINGS, WHICH IS NOT TOO DESIREABLE OR FUNCTIONAL. OTHERS MAY NEED TO "UN-CONTRACT" OR RELAX THE INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER MUSCULAR PATTERNS TO ALLOW THE "IDEAL" GROUPING OF CONTRACTIONS TO TAKE OVER. SO MUCH DEPENDS UPON A PERSON'S PERSONAL IMAGRY WHICH SUPPLIES THAT PERSON WITH THE MUSCULAR CO-ORDINATION PATTERN THAT CREATES A MOVEMENT, AND THAT IMAGRY MAY EVEN BE SUB-CONSCIOUS IN NATURE.
[Oliver responds] But don't you think it can be learned to distinguish?
The problem of doing it right is there even when people are working with the "outer" images and the so called objective approach of "movements in space" controlled by looking.
Often people do not put their arms 90 degrees to the side when the teacher tells them "arm to the side" or "allongee". It's often that people put the arms beyond the area that is in the view-space. "Put arms to the side" often means "put them so much to the side, so that you can't see your fingers anymore". This is not "right" or "left", it is "right-backward"/"left-backward".
That's the same problem: Some people are not able to do the right movement, even if there is a so called "objective" approach to movement.
Normally people can learn this, but then they also can learn to recognize more fine grained movement observation. It's always amazing what dance teachers can see. Often dance teachers see body patterns and muscle activations that untrained people can't see, or that all the students don't do correctly. If there are activated muscles that must be inactivated, it is astounding that dance-teachers say to not activate them, even if the students were not aware of an activated muscle/(-group).
So why shouldn't it be possible to write such things down into notation? Some dance styles are using relaxed muscle groups more often, others are using activated muscle groups more often. And it additionally is what is called "personal style" that can be described with such muscle group activations.
If movement observation means describing a movement, and movement notation means notating it, why should such notators ignore such patterns? Is it too difficult? Then they may ask dance teachers - they often see, what is going on (but often have no standardized language and here can learn from notators as well as people who are well involved in medicine and anatomy).
[Jack wrote] HOWEVER, IF YOU CAN IDETIFY THE MAIN MUSCLE GROUPS AND THE TYPES OF CONTRACTION (ECENTRIC, CONCENTRIC, FAST TWITCH, ETC.) WHICH LEAD OR FOLLOW THE MOVEMENT TO IT'S END POINT, THAT WILL PRODUCE AN "IDEAL" MUSCULAR PERFORMANCE, THEN YOU CAN NOTATE THAT INFORMATION NEXT TO AND AS A PART OF THE NOTATION'S SPATIAL ORIGINS.
[Oliver responds] Writing it in words onto the score? Using symbols has advantages.
BUT TO THINK THAT ALL HUMANITY SHARE THE SAME INNER LANGUAGE FOR MOTIONAL MOTIVATION MAY BE TOO BIG A TASK FOR ANY RESEARCHER.
[Oliver responds] That's the point: many people use different words. And this has advantages as well as disadvantages. It is good to have "real world" descriptions, using "daily life terms" for describing movement. But it also is good to have a language into which can be translated, and on which can be recurred.
It's not necessary that dance teachers have studied medicine, but some anatomy terms are necessary and will help.
[Jack wrote] YOU MAY HAVE BETTER LUCK FINDING THE INNER WORKING OF ONE LOCACLIZED GROUP OF MOVERS WHO SHARE ALL CULTURAL RE-CONDITIONINGS, ALONG WITH THEIR DANCE TEACHERS, AND FOCUS ON THAT.
[Oliver responds] Well, ballet terms are used widely. I think they should be known. The problem is not that there are these terms. The problem is that I have seen a lot of teachers that are able to do it, to dance it, but explaining it? Well, and maybe a notator can write it down but not perform all of these amazingly things.
I'm looking for the linkage between these two sides. Describing in another language, with another approach, means to have one more system, on which people can rely as a possible way of learning it.
It's because there are so many different views that a common language can help. It does not necessarily mean to throw away localized languages and views. But it means to have one more (hopefully) widely used language.
It can be used as a translation of ballet (and other certain dance-specific) terms into localized terms/words/ views of the world.
I think it makes much more sense to tell a dancer that he/she should do a movement "more isolated" or "more flowing through the body", or "use crossconnection instead of isolation for your arm movement" than to say: "do it like the <dancer-xyz> in <choreographer-xyz> his <choreography-xyz>".
I think a more body oriented approach - even if it seems to be more subjective and less objective - may be more "objective" sometimes.
[Jack wrote] THAT IS WHAT LABAN WAS ATTEMPTING IN THE BEGINNINGS OF HIS RESEARCH INTO THE IDEAS THAT MOVEMENT COULD BE CONVERTED INTO SYMBOLS, BUT SO MANY OF THE DETERMINING FACTORS WERE DICTATED BY REGIONAL INFLUENCES OF HIS TIME.
[Oliver responds] Which factors of Laban's work do you mean to be so dedicated to the time and history? And: are they used today, or are they not used because they were so limited to a certain period/region?
[Jack wrote] HIS DISCOVERIES EVENTUALLY LED HIM TO FOCUS HIS NOTATION ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE VISUAL ELEMENTS, INSTEAD OF MOTIVATION.
[Oliver responds] Well, maybe he was not so body oriented as other dancers/dance-researchers. He was interested in architecture and mathematics, not in medicine.
And doing "research" often is looking for objective/positivts research in biology, chemistry, physics is done... this often leads to problems.
Dance research and movement observation is a wide field. This can be interesting as well as overwhelming.
You may use differential equations for describing movement; you may use sociological and psychological views; or you are a ethnological researcher; you can analyze it as an art-form, or in historical perspective; it's possible to analyze it as is done in sports, so you may look at optimizing force; or many other views.
But compared to that wide field of possible viewpoints onto dance, identifying body organizations seems to me to be very close to describing the movement directions of a limb.
There are already such terms in use (LIMS). But they are not widely used. IMHO describing a movement in body organizations makes a lot of sense. For me this should be more than only localized used (small people group) language.
Especially, because dance teachers already are able to detect muscle activation, even if they are not certified movement observers, it should be possible to identify such patterns for dance notators. And dance teachers IMHO should use these terms for describing it.
BTW: What are "objective visual elements"? Even the so called objective visual description is always problematic: It's subjective, even if we normally think of it as an objective approach. It's not only subjective, it also has a lot of problems: Perception always is non-perfect.
Some weeks ago I found an article on research of movement perception. Problem: Viewing a moved object; when it stops or disappears in the view, its last position will be estimated wrong by the viewing person. The reason is, that the eye's mechanical (movement!) properties leads to this over-estimation of last viewable position estimation.
So, how can - for example - a movement description be objective here? Some people are well trained with their eyes to have a more accurate estimation. Others are less well trained, or are tired at the time of the observation, and tired eye-muscles will lead to different estimations of the last position.
So, how is "writing down the outer form of the movement" more "objective" than writing down muscular activation (which, btw, also is detected by eye very often)?
So, why not accept this "we are always non-objective" and use additional helping descriptions?
I have been thinking about dance notation and what really is notated with these notation systems.
Imho such a system notates which part of the body will be moved into what direction. For people who are familiar with notation as well as dancing a lot, this may automatically be translated into bodily organizations (spatial intent, triggering of muscle chains and so on).
But that does not necessarily mean that all people are performing the movement in this way.
Some weeks ago I mentioned [in another LabanTalk posting] that it may be necessary (especially when writing computer programs for which dance-animation is intended) to use a muscle-activation based internal "muscle activation/description language", so that the computer may use these internals and translate it into intersubjective/observable movement and its notation.
Today (in dance class, while having some problems with the crosslateral connections) I first thought: Notation could help to clarify it, but then I suddenly was alarmed and thought: What we are notating with any of the dance notation systems (insert your favorite notation system here) is: We notate what limb is turned into what position, or what kind of movement a body part has to do. This is notating the outer form/shape/movement.
This is how the most teachers are teaching: You have to move so that you create this or that shape (move your head, arms, feet, body in this or that position... then into this/that position, and hold your ... always ...).
But this is teaching (and notating) the outer form. It's not how the body should be activated.
It's not often that teachers teach in a way that you can feel what has to be done in the body for gaining a certain movement. And the notation does it the same way: It does not tell you anything about how to organize your body.
Isn't there a contradiction between notating only outer forms/shapes/movements in Laban's (or other) notation system, and advocating to teach dance in a more "inner" way, as is emphasized in Bartenieff Fundamentals classes?!
Wouldn't it be better to have a notation system which reflects the bodily organization, so that the movement is "more natural" to what it should look like, because it is described in how it has to be performed?!
Maybe a computer internal muscle-activation-description language can be a solid base for a (more human readable, because less detailed) notation system which reflects the bodily organization too?!
Posting 2, Tara Stepenberg, December 11, 2002
Perhaps I am incorrect - but I have long believed that notation assumed that its readers knew how to move/dance (i.e., body organization) and that the dance notation was not written to TEACH this -- just like in music notation, the notation assumed that the instrumentalist knows how to create excellent tone/pitch, color a phrase etc.
Smilingly, Tara.
Posting 3, Oliver Bandel, December 11, 2002
[Responding to Tara Stepenberg’s comments in Posting 2]
Well, aren't there different ways of performing a movement?
What are Bartenieff Fundamentals classes good for? They are good for coordination of the body. Is it for dancers not necessary to go into such classes, because they know their "instrument"?
What about different styles?
It's for example possible to move an arm isolated, as well as it is possible to move it as a part of the crosslateral connection.
Well, if the observer is good, he may see the difference. And as a notator he may notate it. Is this how it works? And if the movement should be performed differently, maybe totally non-dancer like? How is this described in a notation that only uses shape-description? Could this be described as bodily organization instead?
And aren't there different styles of moving (in respect to body organization) as well as different dancing styles?!
Does notation cover this? (Maybe in its very detailed forms it does).
And if it does, is it the right approach to notate purely by shape/movement?
Does it makes sense to describe only the outer forms/shapes? Does it make sense to let the body organization totally be unwritten and only a "mouth to ear" approach? Or a "the dance-teacher shows it and student looks to it" approach?
If the "talk about dance", what researchers are performing in books, papers, scores, mailing lists should be named "scientific", and when scientific is to write down our bias (presumptions), then we should write down the bodily organization onto the score too (at least, if the score is intended for detailed analysis, not only for "remembering some steps of the classes").
If we don't write it down, we have presumptions that are not explicitly written down. And that may cause many problems. At least this may be called non-scientific.
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
By the way: You say that dance notation is for teachers (for people who know to use their instrument), and they should know how to dance. And the students are learning from the teacher.... well. Why is notation not intended for dance students?
I think that students are learning better when they use notation. You mentioned music notation.
Normally it's intended to let the students use notation very early. Why do you think that in dance, notation is a teachers-only tool?
Btw: How to create an excellent tone is not what every musician is able to produce. Or some musicians are good in classics but very bad in punk-rock music (and vice versa). Some are very good in all styles. And if music notation would be more detailed, adding further information than only "play this note and that", and maybe even adding bodily organization for musicians, this IMHO could produce much better/flexible musicians.
So, I don't know why you are smiling.
(Maybe perfect teachers are doing that? :-> )
If I ask ten different teachers, I will get ten answers. They are similar, but not equal. Some are totally different.
P.S.: Some dance people say that it is absolutely crap to dance as a teacher and let the students try to do the same movement. And they prefer only using words in classes, so that the student has to "feel" it instead of looking how the teacher performs it.
=> "inner" vs. "outer"
P.P.S.: If I would have not mentioned my problems on the crosslateral connections, how would you have written your answer then?
Posting 4, Leslie Bishko, December 11, 2002
The Laban system goes well beyond simply notating which part rotates when, and patterns of organization are certainly included.
Posting 5, Neil Ellis Orts, December 11, 2002
Having only the vaguest of notions about Labanotation, it seems entirely possible that not every nuance will be picked up by every dancer, however advanced the notation. I think the musical score analogy is pertinent. I've heard music composers speak of the horror of hearing a bad performance of something they wrote. I think we have to just live with the same potential in dance notation. And just as a beginning musician will play something mechanically on the piano, so might a beginning notation reader perform the dance mechanically. I would think the ability or experience of the musician/dancer to interpret the piece has a huge role to play.
Since there were no sound recording instruments until a little more than a century ago, we really have no idea if what we hail as a great performance of Bach is at all what Bach intended . . . but thank goodness we have the scores to approximate something for our time. This may be all we can hope for in dance notation as well.
Posting 6, Greg Shenaut, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Tara Stepenberg’s comments in Posting 2]
I think the musical example is right on: I can play flute or violin music on my guitar; I can even play the same notes faster, softer, or jazzier. In each case, the sound is different, but the underlying composition is the same.
That is, both Labanotation and musical notation are “abstract” representations of movement/music, they aren't simple series of commands to tighten or loosen muscles rhythmically. For special purposes, it is possible to go well beyond the "normal" level of notation both for music (take a look an unquantized MIDI sometime) and LN--this will allow a great deal of precision, but it becomes almost impossible to read & write it and most people wouldn't want to anyway!
Posting 7, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Greg Shenaut’s comments in Posting 6]
[Greg wrote] I THINK THE MUSICAL EXAMPLE IS RIGHT ON: I CAN PLAY FLUTE OR VIOLIN MUSIC ON MY GUITAR; I CAN EVEN PLAY THE SAME NOTES FASTER, SOFTER, OR JAZZIER. IN EACH CASE, THE SOUND IS DIFFERENT, BUT THE UNDERLYING COMPOSITION IS THE SAME.
THAT IS, BOTH LABANOTATION AND MUSICAL NOTATION ARE “ABSTRACT” REPRESENTATIONS OF MOVEMENT/MUSIC, THEY AREN'T SIMPLE SERIES OF COMMANDS TO TIGHTEN OR LOOSEN MUSCLES RHYTHMICALLY.
[Oliver responds] Well, labanotation looks a lot like "straighten your right leg at count three and your left arm at count 4&e".
Music notation seems more abstract to me.
BTW: I think using symbols for body organization (patterns) is very powerful and abstract, even if it at the first view looks very near to the body and not very abstract.
Using a body half pattern is more abstract than saying: lifting your left arm and your left leg up or lifting your right arm and your right leg up (and I have to add the information that the muscles of the whole body have to support that movement...)
If notating a certain body half action, this may bloat up the score much more than using body-pattern indicating symbols.
If a pure gesture is done - without support of body core - this may be coded easily in a LN score. When there is a movement sequence from the arm through the core body into the leg, this may be very complicated to write down.
Using body pattern symbols, this may be done very easy.
Don't you think that such an indication of "how to use the body" could help to not only clarify a movement and how it is meant (and to write it down into the notation, and not necessarily have to know the style of the choreographer before reading the score)?
Don't you think that [by] coding with body organization patterns a laban score would be more clear and less bloated, because a lot of symbols could be thrown away?
[Greg wrote] FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES, IT IS POSSIBLE TO GO WELL BEYOND THE "NORMAL" LEVEL OF NOTATION BOTH FOR MUSIC (TAKE A LOOK AN UNQUANTIZED MIDI SOMETIME) AND LN--THIS WILL ALLOW A GREAT DEAL OF PRECISION,
[Oliver responds] Yes. A great deal of precision... coded with many symbols for each limb and body part... or?
Isn't it so, that LN in the way it is used right now is too much like these detailed descriptions. It's a detailed description of body parts movements. For being very detailed, it will be very complicated. And when substituting a lot of these symbols by some body organization symbols, the content may be the same, but less verbose notated?
[Greg wrote] BUT IT BECOMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO READ & WRITE IT AND MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T WANT TO ANYWAY!
[Oliver responds] Where can I find such extremely detailed LN-scores? And do they have bodily patterns added?
P.S.: Because Eshkol-Wachman uses numbers instead of graphical symbols, it seems to be more abstract than LN.
Posting 8, Greg Shenaut, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 7]
[Oliver wrote] WELL, LABANOTATION LOOKS A LOT LIKE "STRAIGHTEN YOUR RIGHT LEG AT COUNT THREE AND YOUR LEFT ARM AT COUNT 4&E".
MUSIC NOTATION SEEMS MORE ABSTRACT TO ME.
[Greg responds] I would have to agree that in terms of abstractness, LN is probably somewhere between standard music notation and instrument-specific tabulature notation.
Posting 9, Janet Descutner, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 1]
I'm sorry, I have been observing and suffering through your attempts to understand the use of notation in what appears to be a vacuum, recently filled by a lot of attempts to clarify in simple terms what is a very complex system at its most communicative levels. I finally can't stay out of this ongoing dialogue with you. My name is Janet Descutner. I am an Associate Professor Emerita at the University of Oregon and I have taught Labanotation and reconstructed many Labanotation scores over the past 30 years.
Music notation does not tell the musician how to play, it tells the musician what to play, with indications as to its emphasis (loud, soft, etc). Dance notation is the same. The dance in the notation is the same as the music in the notation, it is interpreted and brought to life artistically by the artistic interpreter, who has a lifetime (however currently long) of training and is assisted in learning the specific actions that bring the music to t [sic]
The notation is not the art. The art is the ability of the performer/reader/reconstructor to bring the notation back to the ear, the eye, the heart, by understanding its implications, not just reading its symbols. Just as one can hear the same musical score performed in different ways, depending on the "read' of the musician, the dance becomes what the artist makes it after reading its "facts" from a score. The exemplary score is one that provides the most pertinent information in the most detail--to reveal emphasis, energy/dynamics, all those things that make the dance more than just body parts moving in space to a beat.
Young pianists may be able to read the notes and hit the tones. Young dancers can strike the poses and make the shapes in time. Artistry is acquired over a period of time and deepens with familiarity. A reader of notation strives not only to get intimate with all of the details of a score, but to know as much as possible about renderings of that event (whether from score or the originals or the reconstructions prior to scores) in order to reveal its essence insofar as we can know it. And P.S., even reconstructions of a work under the original artist are frequently redirected in their emphases in order to use the special resonance of a particular performer. I have observed this happening with many guest artists and our students.
As an expressive mover, one cannot be operating in performance on a muscle-activator level, just as a pianist cannot be concerned with the physics of moving the cheeks, fingers, lungs. These are elementary levels of learning that are essential. But once one gets to the expression of more complex choreographic events, one know longer "sees the forward middle symbol" any more than one would "experience the contraction of bicep, release to extension". ETC. The action as a whole becomes a statement.
Advanced, professional artists in dance do not operate on that "computer internal muscle-activation-description language" system that you describe. I'd really like to know how such a system could be considered "more simple," since I know from observing the reports of our dance science students who do studies isolating certain muscular actions and their relationship to the results, that it is very complex, and the results don't necessarily flow out accurately from the intent. The learning is on a deeper level.
Actors do not declaim by the text's oral indications (there are none, for the most part). That is left to the artist, and, in the case of notated artistry (the script, the musical score, the notation of movement) the artistic history, ability, and training of the artist recreating the work and performing it.
The glorious thing about the performing arts that no "divine model" exists to say what the "acceptable translation" of the performed text must be. Juliet performed by a sensitive, talented and inspired actor is saying the same words as any other Juliet, but some are magical; others are not. Just as Clytemnestra either exhudes the strength essential to the role or does not. (in dance or in theatre). The script is not the responsible party for such differences.
Our efforts in notation have not been to provide the ideal model for the perfect performance which has no deviations, but to indicate the outline which provides the original material with its special emphases in space, time, dynamics, for the artist's exploration--and then let the spirit and experience of that artist fill it out. If one has seen and experienced a lot of dance, theatre or music, this process is not a foreign one.
Each generation/artist must find a way to fulfill the role and make the movement her/his own as well as that of the original. Many dancers have performed Cunningham's (name the favorite artist of your choice) actions but with their own (and their generation's) stamp on the activity. Please realize that absorbing a skill with all its accoutrements is a long-term task. One's understanding of simple indications (right high, left low forward) take on meaning in their context and complexity. Although learning to read notation is an integral part of music, it does not contain any instructions as to how to move the fingers. It symbolizes the intent; the resulting application is up to the artist.
Posting 10, Janet Descutner, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 3]
I now have read your other chain in this particular sequence. Of course, there are many different ways of performing a movement. We have made an attempt to get at this at this in many ways--with the introductory material in scores, by using Effort/Shape descriptors within a score to indicate energy use and spatial intent, as well as just directions and levels of arrival and pathways. Have you looked at any specific scores of specific dances? Some give an extensive Forward on the particular style. Balanchine scores indicate his specific uses of standard vocabulary in the explanatory materials as well as within the score itself. Pathways or classical positions may deviate from standard practices in ballet and so are indicated. Humphrey scores also elaborate on such elements as breath, inhalation, release, fall, etc., both in the forward and in the notation itself.
The reader must, of course, be advanced and experienced enough in both reading/interpreting notation and familiarity with the specific style of the choreographer to be able to reveal its essence as s/he turns the symbols into the recognizable style of a particular artist's movement.
The point is not that the "notator MAY notate it.” If it is part of the work, it is notated specifically, in order to render the underlying style as well as the general shapes that occur. The process of learning all of these notions as well as their symbolization takes more than a few weeks, just as reading Shakespeare with any depth of understanding requires more than just knowing how to pronounce the individual words.
Posting 11, Odette Blum, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner ’s comments in Posting 9 and Posting 10]
You have put it in a nutshell beautifully in both e-mails. Thank you.
Posting 12, Greg Halloran, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner’s comments in Posting 9]
I could not have stated this better. I am going to save this to help clarify the directing process for my students.
Posting 13, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner’s comments in Posting 9]
[JANET WROTE] MUSIC NOTATION DOES NOT TELL THE MUSICIAN HOW TO PLAY, IT TELLS THE MUSICIAN WHAT TO PLAY, WITH INDICATIONS AS TO ITS EMPHASIS (LOUD, SOFT, ETC). DANCE NOTATION IS THE SAME.
[Oliver responds] Well. Ok, that is a new view for me. I thought dance notation is what to play, but also can be used to indicate how to play.
And some answers of people in other threads seemed to be saying this: LN can be used to say how to perform a dance. And I thought that this is what was intended when notators are archiving dances: They do not only say what text, they also say how to say it - not the textbook, but the screenplay, with details in it, what the actor has to do and how.
If movement notation is intended to say the essence of a movement, then the next question comes up: How detailed is it necessary to notate it?
So, my attempt for notating a dance is: Write down the dance so that I can better remember what the choreography is all about (at least in: how to move (which directions and so on), and to perform it better next time I dance it, and to preserve the dance on later days. The "what the choreography is all about" in respect to "the theme is love and dead", or similar, is different from "what the choreography is all about" in purely "movements in space". But there may/will be connections between a movement and its meaning.
But it's often easier to ask the choreographer what he wants to express... (and if this is not notated, you need to ask him/her).
But then it maybe does not matter how I use LN.
I thought that LN - like notators use it – is always at a higher complexity level, because nearly everything is necessary when notating a dance from professional choreographers.
But if I interpret your answer correctly, a notation of such a dance could also be very simple? Only notating some basic movements and not the expressiveness of the dancer (or the intended expressiveness of the choreographer)?
I'm confused, because IMHO you say other things than other people on this list. Or maybe one day I can integrate both perspectives on a higher level.
Maybe there are a lot of things that I heard about movement notation. I heard things like:
- "LN is too complicated and it does not make sense to use it if the essence of a movement should be written down. If you want to have a notation system for your usage, use Motif, not LN."
- "Why use Motif? If you really want to write a notation, Motif will not help you. If you start notating, do it right and use LN: It's detailed and it's intended to use it detailed. Why use Motif? If you improvise, improvise. And if you notate a movement, do it perfectly and don't crap around with Motif."
- "Motif is good for choreographing, improvisation and remembering your own choreography. LN is not good for choreographing/improvisation. It's good for archiving dances: You can write down any nifty/sophisticated detail."
- "You can use LN for your own purposes. If you do not need further details, leave them out in your score. But don't [think] that a notator would accept this minimalistic score."
- "LN can be used detailed enough to even write down how to perform. So it's possible to read a dance style out of a score."
-"LN is intended to say what the dances’ movement is all about. It shows you what is danced, not how it was performed."
- (add many other things that IMHO are contradictory)
These (and many more) opinions about LN/Motif and dance notation as a whole, as well as few (very interesting/enlightening!) experiences with LN, are what is rumbling in my thoughts.
This is quite chaotic, and I have a lot of ideas which are going into different directions as well as I hear different things from other people.
I hope the picture will be clearer with more experience in dance notation.
(And I'm happy that you have written this mail, because it's necessary hear the voice of LN-experienced people.)
[Janet wrote] THE NOTATION IS NOT THE ART.
[Oliver responds] Well, sometimes I think LN is so complex that it's art to use it. ;-)
[Janet wrote] THE ART IS THE ABILITY OF THE PERFORMER/READER/RECONSTRUCTOR TO BRING THE NOTATION BACK TO THE EAR, THE EYE, THE HEART, BY UNDERSTANDING ITS IMPLICATIONS, NOT JUST READING ITS SYMBOLS.
[Oliver responds] So each dance archive with notation must necessarily be enriched by video material as well as historical and ethnological notes, if it is intended to preserve information of dances of other cultural regions or folk dances of local/family dance styles, or styles of subcultures.
Using notation only then may be sufficient for artists looking for a dance theme. But for cultural studies, notation alone is not complete.
Can you second this?
And a lot of dancing people think that notation is not necessary, because it does not bring any advantages and is a waist of time. Often they say, I use video. Dance notation is not worth learning.
I think you will completely disagree here.
[Janet wrote] AND P.S., EVEN RECONSTRUCTIONS OF A WORK UNDER THE ORIGINAL ARTIST ARE FREQUENTLY REDIRECTED IN THEIR EMPHASES IN ORDER TO USE THE SPECIAL RESONANCE OF A PARTICULAR PERFORMER. I HAVE OBSERVED THIS HAPPENING WITH MANY GUEST ARTISTS AND OUR STUDENTS.
[Oliver responds] This is very interesting. But then the question about "how necessary is so much detail" arises. ("Use Motif, not LN, it shows you the essence of a dance...", as people told me.)
[Janet wrote] AS AN EXPRESSIVE MOVER, ONE CANNOT BE OPERATING IN PERFORMANCE ON A MUSCLE-ACTIVATOR LEVEL, JUST AS A PIANIST CANNOT BE CONCERNED WITH THE PHYSICS OF MOVING THE CHEEKS, FINGERS, LUNGS.
[Oliver responds] No this was not intended as a notation for usage in dance classes. It can be an underlying notation system, on which many abstractions can be done: If you need only a score which shows change of support, you grab it out. If you need only a score indicating rotations or directions, it can be excerpted out of low-level descriptions. If you want to have only an indication on change of directions, or a diagram on coordination of hand-and-arm or on body-patterns, you can get it.
But at least on the body-pattern level (Body Half, Upper-Lower,...) IMHO this can be a nice add on in an LN score (as well as symbols, indicating shape could be added, or the indication of a view or a floor plan, and so on).
But maybe a sequence through the body in a crossconnected way can be written down in LN as a sequence of movement. If so, then LN is much more near to such a muscle-description language (!!!) than if many movement-details would be written on a higher-abstraction level (writing "Body Half" is more abstract than writing down the arm, leg, chest,...).
[Janet wrote] THESE ARE ELEMENTARY LEVELS OF LEARNING THAT ARE ESSENTIAL. BUT ONCE ONE GETS TO THE EXPRESSION OF MORE COMPLEX CHOROEOGRAPHIC EVENTS, ONE KNOW LONGER "SEES THE FORWARD MIDDLE SYMBOL" ANY MORE THAN ONE WOULD "EXPERIENCE THE CONTRACTION OF BICEP, RELEASE TO EXTENSION". ETC. THE ACTION AS A WHOLE BECOMES A STATEMENT.
[Oliver responds] And (IMHO) writing it on a level of body-patterns (bodily patterns in the sense of P. H.'s "Making Connections") this is much more abstract, and much more of "what is meant", than writing it in how I have seen LN until today.
(I first thought that LN is more abstract, but from that viewpoint I take here, it seems that bodily patterns are more abstract. Or -- if not more abstract, they are at least more complex.)
In physics movements are described by differential equations. In medicine muscle activation and muscle chain activation can be used. In dance often ballet terms are used.
For me, dance notation is located somewhere above muscle-activation and indicating directions. But maybe you use it completely different. But a laban score indicates directions and it says which limbs to use.
The problem here is, that dance is both: a theme for the physics (space, time, speed/velocity, acceleration, ...) as well as art (telling stories, evoking pictures in the audience, ...).
So I may look at it in the outer way (how it is taught in most classes). And that's not wrong. It's one way to look at it. It may also be interesting to measure frequencies in music..
And then there is the other side: How a music sounds, and a dance looks.
This is another viewpoint.
I'm looking for the linkage of these completely contradictory worlds (is light a wave or a particle?).
Dance notation - indicating directions and measuring it with "objective" time is linked to physics.
Dance notation - showing what is going on in a dance is linked to art.
I don't think that one perspective is more true than the other.
[Janet wrote] ADVANCED, PROFESSIONAL ARTISTS IN DANCE DO NOT OPERATE ON THAT "COMPUTER INTERNAL MUSCLE-ACTIVATION-DESCRIPTION LANGUAGE" SYSTEM THAT YOU DESCRIBE.
[Oliver responds] I have not intended it for usage of artists directly. It's the anatomically layer of dance – located between physics and art, directly linked to the body-terms.
(LN is also located between physics and art. This double linkage makes it complex.)
[Janet wrote] I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW HOW SUCH A SYSTEM COULD BE CONSIDERED "MORE SIMPLE," SINCE I KNOW FROM OBSERVING THE REPORTS OF OUR DANCE SCIENCE STUDENTS WHO DO STUDIES ISOLATING CERTAIN MUSCULAR ACTIONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESULTS, THAT IT IS VERY COMPLEX, AND THE RESULTS DON'T NECESSARILY FLOW OUT ACCURATELY FROM THE INTENT. THE LEARNING IS ON A DEEPER LEVEL.
[Oliver responds] It's simpler in how the rules for such a language could be described: There are not rules and exceptions, which needs more rules, and more exceptions, which adds much more rules.
Such a muscle-description language is flat. LN is complex.
(The result of such a language may be very verbose, but detailed. Because of its many detailed descriptions of movement, it may be difficult to survey, but it has no complex structure.)
OK, I will stop here!
I now conclude: LN is not intended to write down how a movement is performed. It only says which movement is performed.
But I don't know how to decide where the WHAT ends and the HOW begins (and vice versa).
IMHO there is no clear border.
Posting 14, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Janet Descutner’s comments in Posting 10]
[JANET WROTE] I NOW HAVE READ YOUR OTHER CHAIN IN THIS PARTICULAR SEQUENCE. OF COURSE, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS OF PERFORMING A MOVEMENT. WE HAVE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GET AT THIS AT THIS IN MANY WAYS--WITH THE INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL IN SCORES, BY USING EFFORT/SHAPE DESCRIPTORS WITHIN A SCORE TO INDICATE ENERGY USE AND SPATIAL INTENT, AS WELL AS JUST DIRECTIONS AND LEVELS OF ARRIVAL AND PATHWAYS. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ANY SPECIFIC SCORES OF SPECIFIC DANCES?
[Oliver responds] Some months ago I browsed through a book of an old dance. There were music notes, stage plans, the laban score and the beginning of the book contains texts and photos as documentation. I think it was a ballet. But I can't remember if there was one of body-specific symbols or comments.
[Janet wrote] SOME GIVE AN EXTENSIVE FORWARD ON THE PARTICULAR STYLE.BALANCHINE SCORES INDICATE HIS SPECIFIC USES OF STANDARD VOCABULARY IN THE EXPLANATORY MATERIALS AS WELL AS WITHIN THE SCORE ITSELF. PATHWAYS OR CLASSICAL POSITIONS MAY DEVIATE FROM STANDARD PRACTICES IN BALLET AND SO ARE INDICATED. HUMPHREY SCORES ALSO ELABORATE ON SUCH ELEMENTS AS BREATH, INHALATION, RELEASE, FALL, ETC., BOTH IN THE FORWARD AND IN THE NOTATION ITSELF.
[Oliver responds] How can I get a good overview on how are dances notated in different styles?
This labanotation material is not available in any bookstore and/or library. So a good overview on many different ways of real-world notations could help.
The simple beginner’s tutorials are not how it looks when a notator makes his staffs. And additionally, maybe each notator has his own style.
Here again, I think typographical issues and/or recommendations could help. Additionally I'm wondering if there are for labanotation what for programmers are so called coding rules. And, ok, these may change during the years. That complete staff that I've seen is many decades old. And so it will not be how dances/movements would be notated today...
... or is the way of how to create such a score even today completely dependent on how the choreographer/performer/notator is working?
How much (and what) of the notation is personal style?
Normally, when I read about labanotation, it looks like "all is done by certain rules". But when asking in this list, it seems that people say: "it depends."
So, is a labanotation staff art itself, or is it only a tool, like a ruler, a color-circle, a paintbrush?
When I look at music notation, they sometimes look ugly, and sometimes are well typeset. But normally they are written in a certain style.
How is that in labanotation? And: Where can I find examples of notations of different complexity and different usage of symbols?
[Janet wrote] THE READER MUST, OF COURSE, BE ADVANCED AND EXPERIENCED ENOUGH IN BOTH READING/INTERPRETING NOTATION AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE SPECIFIC STYLE OF THE CHOREOGRAPHER TO BE ABLE TO REVEAL ITS ESSENCE AS S/HE TURNS THE SYMBOLS INTO THE RECOGNIZABLE STYLE OF A PARTICULAR ARTIST'S MOVEMENT.
[Oliver responds] So then the notation (laban notation) alone is not detailed enough. That was a matter of discussion some weeks ago [on LabanTalk].
So, when I conclude this, I can say: There is no notation system that notates the style of a dance.
That means: When people in some hundred years find some papers with labanotation, and a complete description of how the system will be used, they will not be able to reproduce the dance if they do not have video-material or further information.
Especially because today’s dances and choreography can be performed in many different styles, and are not typically bound to a historical period (all styles of the last centuries will be danced today too, and additionally all newer styles), the historical view lacks precision.
Looked from this perspective, a labanotation score can not be used instead of a video-recording. It can only be added to it. Or, saying it in the other way: A laban score must be completed by video-material to have a "complete" description.
(But above you mentioned scores that were more detailed and even notating breath support......so. again I'm not sure, how it is.)
[Janet wrote] THE POINT IS NOT THAT THE "NOTATOR MAY NOTATE IT.” IF IT IS PART OF THE WORK, IT IS NOTATED SPECIFICALLY, IN ORDER TO RENDER THE UNDERLYING STYLE AS WELL AS THE GENERAL SHAPES THAT OCCUR.
[Oliver responds] So, this is possible?
Where can I find notation-examples?
[Janet wrote] THE PROCESS OF LEARNING ALL OF THESE NOTIONS AS WELL AS THEIR SYMBOLIZATION TAKES MORE THAN A FEW WEEKS, JUST AS READING SHAKESPEARE WITH ANY DEPTH OF UNDERSTANDING REQUIRES MORE THAN JUST KNOWING HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE INDIVIDUAL WORDS.
[Oliver responds] Yes, ok. I'm not patient. :-)
But if I don't see different scores and can see the common and the differences, I have the problem that I can't learn to work with that notation.
It would be nice if there were some examples or excerpts of complete scores available on web. Or a book explaining different styles of movement notation with many examples, and explaining good and bad ideas.
If I want to know something about good old book-typography, I look into Jan Tschicholds books about typography, or read newer (less strict) authors on that topic. In his books about typography, he shows examples and says: If you do it in this way, then the reader has this or that advantages, and if you design your book in another way, you will create a mess for the reader. And it begins with size and color of the paper, the fonts and its sizes, the change of fonts in documents, and a lot of more information.
But this is for books. In books, normally people think, only the text is essential. But even here the layout can't be ignored.
In laban-scores the layout itself is "the main thing". But it seems to me that there is no such thing like a typographical guide.
A notation rule (like coding rules for programmers) maybe could help here? And these notation rules could say which symbols, which layout, if colored or not, would be recommended. And it also could say when to add to notation symbols for body organization.
Well, Gutenberg is about 500 years ago... and Laban is too new...?!
Posting 15, Oliver Bandel, December 12, 2002
[Responding to Leslie Bishko's comments in Posting 4]
[Leslie wrote] THE LABAN SYSTEM GOES WELL BEYOND SIMPLY NOTATING WHICH PART ROTATES WHEN, AND PATTERNS OF ORGANIZATION ARE CERTAINLY INCLUDED.
[Oliver responds] Where can I find examples?
Are there scores in the web?
It's not possible for me to order twenty different notation books in the USA in the hope of getting the information I need.
Isn't there a study comparing styles of LN scores?
Posting 16, Jack Clark, December 11, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 1]
This sounds like a noble ideal - but identifying the muscular co-ordination for dance is so personalized that even the ideal muscular performance of any given action is not negotiable by all bodies in so direct of approach. Some bodies already activate the "correct" muscular connective co-ordination response for certain movements, and to restate that may cause an over "contraction" over certain muscle groupings, which is not too desirable or functional. Others may need to "un-contract" or relax the involvement of other muscular patterns to allow the "ideal" grouping of contractions to take over. So much depends upon a person's personal imagery which supplies that person with the muscular co-ordination pattern that creates a movement, and that imagery may even be sub-conscious in nature. However, if you can identify the main muscle groups and the types of contraction (eccentric, concentric, fast twitch, etc.) which lead or follow the movement to its end point, that will produce an "ideal" muscular performance, then you can notate that information next to and as a part of the notation's spatial origins. But to think that all humanity share the same inner language for motional motivation may be too big a task for any researcher. You may have better luck finding the inner working of one localized group of movers who share all cultural re-conditionings, along with their dance teachers, and focus on that. That is what Laban was attempting in the beginnings of his research into the ideas that movement could be converted into symbols, but so many of the determining factors were dictated by regional influences of his time. His discoveries eventually led him to focus his notation on the objectivity of the visual elements, instead of motivation.
Posting 17, Janet Descutner, December 13, 2002
[Responding to Oliver Bandel’s comments in Posting 14]
You're certainly a thorough and persistent seeker of information. Apparently you are not in the vicinity of any Labanotation-stocked library. Many university libraries have copies of scores that have been made available for purchase--notations of Isadora Duncan style dances, Doris Humphrey's works, ballets notated by Ann Hutchinson, etc. I assume you are not in America, where you could, if a university student, have inter-library loan access to such scores. Others are available from the Dance Notation Bureau for purchase (Ann Rodiger's, Ray Cook's, others I can't remember right now without the catalogue).
Some of these are scored at the appropriate level of complexity to allow the dance to be more or less fully represented. Of course, the more "fleshed out" a score is, the higher the detail and subsequent level of comprehension of the symbols and their inter-relationships required to make sense of it. In this aspect, dance notation (Labanotation is the one I'm the most familiar with) is more complex than music notation. The need to show interrelationships between many body parts as well as between many dancers might be equated with a musical score for piano or orchestra, with many complex chords or instruments and specific fingering indicated. Just plain old experience and specific, incisive attention to detail are good requisites for a reader/reconstructor. These are not skills that develop in the first year of study, just as sentence structure in written languages doesn't get addressed until students have ease recognizing letters and the words that they make up. It's a long process, and needs to be accompanied by many and various experiences dancing and observing the myriad forms of dance.
Good luck on your journey.
Posting 18, Oliver Bandel, December 17, 2002
[Responding to Neil Ellis Orts’s comments in Posting 5]
[Neil wrote] HAVING ONLY THE VAGUEST OF NOTIONS ABOUT LABANOTATION, IT SEEMS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT NOT EVERY NUANCE WILL BE PICKED UP BY EVERY DANCER, HOWEVER ADVANCED THE NOTATION. I THINK THE MUSICAL SCORE ANALOGY IS PERTINENT.
SINCE THERE WERE NO SOUND RECORDING INSTRUMENTS UNTIL A LITTLE MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO, WE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA IF WHAT WE HAIL AS A GREAT PERFORMANCE OF BACH IS AT ALL WHAT BACH INTENDED. . .
[Oliver responds] Yes, and maybe he would cry if he hear what our best players perform today (like the composer, you mentioned, who had a horror hearing the piano player).
[Neil wrote] BUT THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE THE SCORES TO APPROXIMATE SOMETHING FOR OUR TIME. THIS MAY BE ALL WE CAN HOPE FOR IN DANCE NOTATION AS WELL.
[Oliver responds] Well, you mentioned Bach... as far as I know, organ players who lived many centuries before us played the melody with one hand. This melody was written down. With the other hand they played the bassline.
They played certain basslines, as it was "normal" in these days. It was obvious to them that nothing else could be played.
Today, the basslines are written down for the people of today, who have heard many more different music styles, and for whom it is not "normal" or "obvious" to play a certain bassline.
Is this because today’s organ players are not such good performers? Is it because some stupid/silly people were there who thought that it would be necessary to write down what every organ player of the old centuries had already known?
Or is it a "make it explicit" for the people who are living many centuries later and would – instead of an old bassline -- maybe add a jazz-bassline to a piece of Bach's melody?
Well, IMHO it makes no sense to rely on "well known" things (including mouth-to-ear history in such a fast changing world) like how to play a melody or how to move, because we may know how it has to be performed correctly.
At that moment, when we can find a new way to differentiate things (melody, movement, any other thing we can think about and do our research), we should explicitly write down what we can perceive. If we have a way to make a distinction, but do not use it - what sense does it make?
I think in Laban's days many things we know today were not invented. So, why should we rely on old models?
And since today dance researchers are able to put into words what they can see (e.g. bodily patterns/muscle activation), they should do it - and write it down.
Maybe it was obvious to use the body for a certain movement in a certain way some decades ago, but the world (and the dance world too) will be more and more pluralistic and differentiated.
So why can we say that it makes no sense to write down different ways of performing a dance, and that it's better to ignore on the score what we know?
Why not write down what is possible? If a score is too rigid, too strict for more modern times (say in 200 years our "wild" and "modern" dances may seem to be classic stuff and boring to newer people), then it's always possible to interpret them in a different way than they are written down.
But if information we can write down explicitly (because we can differentiate and therefore perceive it) is ignored on a score (because we think that it is obvious to use the body in this or that way, or because of any other reason), then we throw away the chances of more accurate dance-research/dance-history of future generations of dance researchers.
Posting 19, Oliver Bandel, December 17, 2002
[Responding to Jack Clark’s comments in Posting 16]
[Jack wrote] THIS SOUNDS LIKE A NOBLE IDEAL - BUT IDENITFYING THE MUSCULAR CO-ORDINATION FOR DANCE IS SO PERSONALIZED THAT EVEN THE IDEAL MUSULAR PERFORMANCE OF ANY GIVEN ACTION IS NOT NEGOIABLE BY ALL BODIES IN SO DIRECT OF APPROACH. SOME BODIES ALREADY ACTIVATE THE "CORRECT" MUSCULAR CONNECTIVE CO-ORDINATION RESPONCE FOR CERTAIN MOVEMENTS, AND TO RESTATE THAT MAY CAUSE AN OVER "CONTRACTION" OVER CERTAIN MUSCLE GROUPINGS, WHICH IS NOT TOO DESIREABLE OR FUNCTIONAL. OTHERS MAY NEED TO "UN-CONTRACT" OR RELAX THE INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER MUSCULAR PATTERNS TO ALLOW THE "IDEAL" GROUPING OF CONTRACTIONS TO TAKE OVER. SO MUCH DEPENDS UPON A PERSON'S PERSONAL IMAGRY WHICH SUPPLIES THAT PERSON WITH THE MUSCULAR CO-ORDINATION PATTERN THAT CREATES A MOVEMENT, AND THAT IMAGRY MAY EVEN BE SUB-CONSCIOUS IN NATURE.
[Oliver responds] But don't you think it can be learned to distinguish?
The problem of doing it right is there even when people are working with the "outer" images and the so called objective approach of "movements in space" controlled by looking.
Often people do not put their arms 90 degrees to the side when the teacher tells them "arm to the side" or "allongee". It's often that people put the arms beyond the area that is in the view-space. "Put arms to the side" often means "put them so much to the side, so that you can't see your fingers anymore". This is not "right" or "left", it is "right-backward"/"left-backward".
That's the same problem: Some people are not able to do the right movement, even if there is a so called "objective" approach to movement.
Normally people can learn this, but then they also can learn to recognize more fine grained movement observation. It's always amazing what dance teachers can see. Often dance teachers see body patterns and muscle activations that untrained people can't see, or that all the students don't do correctly. If there are activated muscles that must be inactivated, it is astounding that dance-teachers say to not activate them, even if the students were not aware of an activated muscle/(-group).
So why shouldn't it be possible to write such things down into notation? Some dance styles are using relaxed muscle groups more often, others are using activated muscle groups more often. And it additionally is what is called "personal style" that can be described with such muscle group activations.
If movement observation means describing a movement, and movement notation means notating it, why should such notators ignore such patterns? Is it too difficult? Then they may ask dance teachers - they often see, what is going on (but often have no standardized language and here can learn from notators as well as people who are well involved in medicine and anatomy).
[Jack wrote] HOWEVER, IF YOU CAN IDETIFY THE MAIN MUSCLE GROUPS AND THE TYPES OF CONTRACTION (ECENTRIC, CONCENTRIC, FAST TWITCH, ETC.) WHICH LEAD OR FOLLOW THE MOVEMENT TO IT'S END POINT, THAT WILL PRODUCE AN "IDEAL" MUSCULAR PERFORMANCE, THEN YOU CAN NOTATE THAT INFORMATION NEXT TO AND AS A PART OF THE NOTATION'S SPATIAL ORIGINS.
[Oliver responds] Writing it in words onto the score? Using symbols has advantages.
BUT TO THINK THAT ALL HUMANITY SHARE THE SAME INNER LANGUAGE FOR MOTIONAL MOTIVATION MAY BE TOO BIG A TASK FOR ANY RESEARCHER.
[Oliver responds] That's the point: many people use different words. And this has advantages as well as disadvantages. It is good to have "real world" descriptions, using "daily life terms" for describing movement. But it also is good to have a language into which can be translated, and on which can be recurred.
It's not necessary that dance teachers have studied medicine, but some anatomy terms are necessary and will help.
[Jack wrote] YOU MAY HAVE BETTER LUCK FINDING THE INNER WORKING OF ONE LOCACLIZED GROUP OF MOVERS WHO SHARE ALL CULTURAL RE-CONDITIONINGS, ALONG WITH THEIR DANCE TEACHERS, AND FOCUS ON THAT.
[Oliver responds] Well, ballet terms are used widely. I think they should be known. The problem is not that there are these terms. The problem is that I have seen a lot of teachers that are able to do it, to dance it, but explaining it? Well, and maybe a notator can write it down but not perform all of these amazingly things.
I'm looking for the linkage between these two sides. Describing in another language, with another approach, means to have one more system, on which people can rely as a possible way of learning it.
It's because there are so many different views that a common language can help. It does not necessarily mean to throw away localized languages and views. But it means to have one more (hopefully) widely used language.
It can be used as a translation of ballet (and other certain dance-specific) terms into localized terms/words/ views of the world.
I think it makes much more sense to tell a dancer that he/she should do a movement "more isolated" or "more flowing through the body", or "use crossconnection instead of isolation for your arm movement" than to say: "do it like the <dancer-xyz> in <choreographer-xyz> his <choreography-xyz>".
I think a more body oriented approach - even if it seems to be more subjective and less objective - may be more "objective" sometimes.
[Jack wrote] THAT IS WHAT LABAN WAS ATTEMPTING IN THE BEGINNINGS OF HIS RESEARCH INTO THE IDEAS THAT MOVEMENT COULD BE CONVERTED INTO SYMBOLS, BUT SO MANY OF THE DETERMINING FACTORS WERE DICTATED BY REGIONAL INFLUENCES OF HIS TIME.
[Oliver responds] Which factors of Laban's work do you mean to be so dedicated to the time and history? And: are they used today, or are they not used because they were so limited to a certain period/region?
[Jack wrote] HIS DISCOVERIES EVENTUALLY LED HIM TO FOCUS HIS NOTATION ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE VISUAL ELEMENTS, INSTEAD OF MOTIVATION.
[Oliver responds] Well, maybe he was not so body oriented as other dancers/dance-researchers. He was interested in architecture and mathematics, not in medicine.
And doing "research" often is looking for objective/positivts research in biology, chemistry, physics is done... this often leads to problems.
Dance research and movement observation is a wide field. This can be interesting as well as overwhelming.
You may use differential equations for describing movement; you may use sociological and psychological views; or you are a ethnological researcher; you can analyze it as an art-form, or in historical perspective; it's possible to analyze it as is done in sports, so you may look at optimizing force; or many other views.
But compared to that wide field of possible viewpoints onto dance, identifying body organizations seems to me to be very close to describing the movement directions of a limb.
There are already such terms in use (LIMS). But they are not widely used. IMHO describing a movement in body organizations makes a lot of sense. For me this should be more than only localized used (small people group) language.
Especially, because dance teachers already are able to detect muscle activation, even if they are not certified movement observers, it should be possible to identify such patterns for dance notators. And dance teachers IMHO should use these terms for describing it.
BTW: What are "objective visual elements"? Even the so called objective visual description is always problematic: It's subjective, even if we normally think of it as an objective approach. It's not only subjective, it also has a lot of problems: Perception always is non-perfect.
Some weeks ago I found an article on research of movement perception. Problem: Viewing a moved object; when it stops or disappears in the view, its last position will be estimated wrong by the viewing person. The reason is, that the eye's mechanical (movement!) properties leads to this over-estimation of last viewable position estimation.
So, how can - for example - a movement description be objective here? Some people are well trained with their eyes to have a more accurate estimation. Others are less well trained, or are tired at the time of the observation, and tired eye-muscles will lead to different estimations of the last position.
So, how is "writing down the outer form of the movement" more "objective" than writing down muscular activation (which, btw, also is detected by eye very often)?
So, why not accept this "we are always non-objective" and use additional helping descriptions?
The Value of Notation: A Bridge Between Brains?
Naomi Isaacson pondering on potential...... - Submitted February 7, 2000
For me the value of notation goes way beyond the "mere" (!) recording of movement for posterity, or for restaging works. While the division of brain activity into "right" and "left" physical segments is still under question, it seems there are definitely at least two approaches to perception, to which I'll refer as "right brain mode" and "left brain mode". Artists tend to work mostly in right brain mode during the creative phase, and often have a resistance to using the left brain, analytical mode.
I think dancers fall roughly into three categories: Those who characteristically approach dance in a) Left mode, b) Right mode, and c) Right-Left, or Left-Right, mode (ie an equal use of each mode, with a tendency to begin with one side or the other). An illustration of this might be the (a) type who can easily learn a combination by watching it done on one side, but has difficulty in working it out for him/herself on the other side unless it is demonstrated, compared with the (b) type, who learns slowly when seeing the movement demonstrated, but very quickly once each action is given a name, ie an analytical approach, or the (c) type who learns equally well either way, but may tend to favour one or other mode when first approaching the movement.
I was always fascinated by the fact that people can do quite complex movements together with a demonstrator, but afterwards retain almost no detailed memory of the sequence, which needs to be broken down into smaller, named-for-reference components (section 1, pas de chat, etc), for the left brain to process and reconstruct. The information then has to be passed from mode to mode in order for the body to receive the right message and perform the required action.
The reverse of this is perhaps the "glazed-look, symbol-searching" way in which people sometimes start to perform movements learnt from a notated score, until the movement has been "internalised" and made more flowing. Until the transition has been made from the left-brain, symbol-reading mode, into right-brain shape-flow mode, the movement doesn't seem to gel as dance. The same syndrome seems to apply to many dancers highly accomplished in performing difficult technical movement, but lacking in the dynamics which make for a truly communicative performance - they never leave left-brain mode.
As the ideal dancer needs to combine both the analytical ability to learn and perform complex, detailed movement, and the sense of holistic shape, form and dynamics to convey meaning through movement, both modes need to be practiced. Training for this comes partly through our habit of doing all class exercises on both sides of the body (is there a word like "ambidextrous" for the whole body???), and partly through the analysis and visualisation required by notation.
Is notation a Bridge between the Brains?
So often one hears in rehearsal a dancer say, "but I don't feel it" - and the rehearsal director's response: "Don't feel it, think it". (Or the reverse approach from each). The result is usually an impasse, and the dancer can develop an emotional block against the particular movement which delays improvement for some time. This appears to stem from conflict between the dominant left and right brain preferences of the people concerned, so if the angles of perception could be bridged, the problem could be solved more easily.
We should also remember that there is often a vast difference between the way a movement feels to the performer, and the way it looks to the observer. (One has only to see oneself on screen to realise this - often it comes as quite a shock!).
An important feature of motivational and goal-setting training in business is the focus on writing down one's goals, as well as collecting pictures to illustrate them. This is not just to have a record, but in order to develop a clear, detailed understanding of the goal rather than an overall, hazy notion. In order to write down a goal, one needs to crystallise one's thinking; and while it is the crystallisation that is important, the actual writing down seems to help the visualisation process stay clear.
Do we want Intelligent Dancers/Students?
Notating, and reading, dance can similarly provide the performer and/or teacher with an in-depth understanding of both the underlying structure, and the overall pattern, of movement. Whilst this would appear to be a strictly left-brain activity, the act of visualising the movement from a score serves as a link to the right brain; conversely , the act of visualising a notation symbol from the movement serves as a link to the left brain. That is, the translation process from one mode to the other required by notation is a key to developing the ability to shift fluidly from one mode to another - maximal use of the whole brain. It should be superfluous to say that such a benefit is of value not only in producing better dance performance, but also in all spheres of life; but despite the incorporation of arts education into academic curricula, very little focus seems to be placed on this cross-over process - students are taught to work in one mode or another (and continue to use whichever mode is most natural to them in most cases), rather than to practice the bridging process. As this last process requires a good deal of effort, perhaps teachers are happy to settle for second-best rather than try for perfection (or perhaps they are a little afraid their students will end up better equipped than they? Sadly, many teachers seem afraid to push their students beyond their own level of capability, which limits the students' growth, rather than taking the more adventurous approach of pushing beyond known limits).
A very gifted graphic artist, who now has to produce computer-generated work, recently said to me he often finds the computer "gets in the way". I believe this is due to his now having to negotiate his way between his right-brain mode of generating art-work, and the left-brain activity of having to make the software technically produce the desired result on-screen. One brain mode knows how to "make the pictures", and the other understands the software - but communication between the modes is somehow blocked, and there is a constant struggle to bridge the gap - requiring a great deal of patience and often causing great frustration. With practice, however, he is gaining the ability to use each mode to help, rather than hinder, the other - and is producing very exciting artistic work with cutting-edge technology.
Music students who play easily by ear frequently dislike having to read music notation - again a case of right-brain talent vs left-brain reluctance.
Similarly with dancers/movement practitioners, once the notation stops "getting in the way" of the learning process, and translation becomes easy with practice, one is able to use the shift from one mode to another to get better results than the use of just one mode permits. I don't know if people will ever use both modes absolutely simultaneously - which would probably be the ultimate "aha!" experience! - but the concept is fascinating.
Although the arts provide a link between inner and outer space by means of symbols, perhaps we have underestimated the need for symbols as an internal translating link between brain modes. Notation, incorporating both the graphic, shape aspect of the right brain and the analytical aspect of the left brain, could provide just such a symbol…….perhaps??!
Anyone care to comment - or does the above seem totally brainless?
For me the value of notation goes way beyond the "mere" (!) recording of movement for posterity, or for restaging works. While the division of brain activity into "right" and "left" physical segments is still under question, it seems there are definitely at least two approaches to perception, to which I'll refer as "right brain mode" and "left brain mode". Artists tend to work mostly in right brain mode during the creative phase, and often have a resistance to using the left brain, analytical mode.
I think dancers fall roughly into three categories: Those who characteristically approach dance in a) Left mode, b) Right mode, and c) Right-Left, or Left-Right, mode (ie an equal use of each mode, with a tendency to begin with one side or the other). An illustration of this might be the (a) type who can easily learn a combination by watching it done on one side, but has difficulty in working it out for him/herself on the other side unless it is demonstrated, compared with the (b) type, who learns slowly when seeing the movement demonstrated, but very quickly once each action is given a name, ie an analytical approach, or the (c) type who learns equally well either way, but may tend to favour one or other mode when first approaching the movement.
I was always fascinated by the fact that people can do quite complex movements together with a demonstrator, but afterwards retain almost no detailed memory of the sequence, which needs to be broken down into smaller, named-for-reference components (section 1, pas de chat, etc), for the left brain to process and reconstruct. The information then has to be passed from mode to mode in order for the body to receive the right message and perform the required action.
The reverse of this is perhaps the "glazed-look, symbol-searching" way in which people sometimes start to perform movements learnt from a notated score, until the movement has been "internalised" and made more flowing. Until the transition has been made from the left-brain, symbol-reading mode, into right-brain shape-flow mode, the movement doesn't seem to gel as dance. The same syndrome seems to apply to many dancers highly accomplished in performing difficult technical movement, but lacking in the dynamics which make for a truly communicative performance - they never leave left-brain mode.
As the ideal dancer needs to combine both the analytical ability to learn and perform complex, detailed movement, and the sense of holistic shape, form and dynamics to convey meaning through movement, both modes need to be practiced. Training for this comes partly through our habit of doing all class exercises on both sides of the body (is there a word like "ambidextrous" for the whole body???), and partly through the analysis and visualisation required by notation.
Is notation a Bridge between the Brains?
So often one hears in rehearsal a dancer say, "but I don't feel it" - and the rehearsal director's response: "Don't feel it, think it". (Or the reverse approach from each). The result is usually an impasse, and the dancer can develop an emotional block against the particular movement which delays improvement for some time. This appears to stem from conflict between the dominant left and right brain preferences of the people concerned, so if the angles of perception could be bridged, the problem could be solved more easily.
We should also remember that there is often a vast difference between the way a movement feels to the performer, and the way it looks to the observer. (One has only to see oneself on screen to realise this - often it comes as quite a shock!).
An important feature of motivational and goal-setting training in business is the focus on writing down one's goals, as well as collecting pictures to illustrate them. This is not just to have a record, but in order to develop a clear, detailed understanding of the goal rather than an overall, hazy notion. In order to write down a goal, one needs to crystallise one's thinking; and while it is the crystallisation that is important, the actual writing down seems to help the visualisation process stay clear.
Do we want Intelligent Dancers/Students?
Notating, and reading, dance can similarly provide the performer and/or teacher with an in-depth understanding of both the underlying structure, and the overall pattern, of movement. Whilst this would appear to be a strictly left-brain activity, the act of visualising the movement from a score serves as a link to the right brain; conversely , the act of visualising a notation symbol from the movement serves as a link to the left brain. That is, the translation process from one mode to the other required by notation is a key to developing the ability to shift fluidly from one mode to another - maximal use of the whole brain. It should be superfluous to say that such a benefit is of value not only in producing better dance performance, but also in all spheres of life; but despite the incorporation of arts education into academic curricula, very little focus seems to be placed on this cross-over process - students are taught to work in one mode or another (and continue to use whichever mode is most natural to them in most cases), rather than to practice the bridging process. As this last process requires a good deal of effort, perhaps teachers are happy to settle for second-best rather than try for perfection (or perhaps they are a little afraid their students will end up better equipped than they? Sadly, many teachers seem afraid to push their students beyond their own level of capability, which limits the students' growth, rather than taking the more adventurous approach of pushing beyond known limits).
A very gifted graphic artist, who now has to produce computer-generated work, recently said to me he often finds the computer "gets in the way". I believe this is due to his now having to negotiate his way between his right-brain mode of generating art-work, and the left-brain activity of having to make the software technically produce the desired result on-screen. One brain mode knows how to "make the pictures", and the other understands the software - but communication between the modes is somehow blocked, and there is a constant struggle to bridge the gap - requiring a great deal of patience and often causing great frustration. With practice, however, he is gaining the ability to use each mode to help, rather than hinder, the other - and is producing very exciting artistic work with cutting-edge technology.
Music students who play easily by ear frequently dislike having to read music notation - again a case of right-brain talent vs left-brain reluctance.
Similarly with dancers/movement practitioners, once the notation stops "getting in the way" of the learning process, and translation becomes easy with practice, one is able to use the shift from one mode to another to get better results than the use of just one mode permits. I don't know if people will ever use both modes absolutely simultaneously - which would probably be the ultimate "aha!" experience! - but the concept is fascinating.
Although the arts provide a link between inner and outer space by means of symbols, perhaps we have underestimated the need for symbols as an internal translating link between brain modes. Notation, incorporating both the graphic, shape aspect of the right brain and the analytical aspect of the left brain, could provide just such a symbol…….perhaps??!
Anyone care to comment - or does the above seem totally brainless?
Is There a Future for Notation?
Submitted by Lucy J. Clenton - January 31, 2000
I am a third year dance student at the university of Wolverhampton in the Midlands (England).
I am just about to start my dissertation and am therefore keen to get lots of opinions on my chosen subject. I have chosen to research the topic of dance notation and whether there is a future for it. I feel quite strongly about it is as it has been studied for five centuries and should not just disappear into oblivion. However with changing technology, it is becoming a less important subject area as there are many people who prefer to use videos and such items. I shall be writing to many well-known companies for their views on notation and how important it is to them. I know that George Balanchine felt strongly about it and I hope there are many others. Could you please put a notice on the bulletin board asking people their views on the usefulness of notation and how they rate the importance of the subject for the future.
I am a third year dance student at the university of Wolverhampton in the Midlands (England).
I am just about to start my dissertation and am therefore keen to get lots of opinions on my chosen subject. I have chosen to research the topic of dance notation and whether there is a future for it. I feel quite strongly about it is as it has been studied for five centuries and should not just disappear into oblivion. However with changing technology, it is becoming a less important subject area as there are many people who prefer to use videos and such items. I shall be writing to many well-known companies for their views on notation and how important it is to them. I know that George Balanchine felt strongly about it and I hope there are many others. Could you please put a notice on the bulletin board asking people their views on the usefulness of notation and how they rate the importance of the subject for the future.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, October 20, 2009
Following are minutes for the Open Theory Meeting held at the Dance Notation Bureau, October 20, 2009.
Present: Susan Gingrasso (by telephone), Oona Haaranen, Mira Kim, Mei-Chen Lu, Lynne Weber, and Charlotte Wile.
TOPICS
1) ICKL Motif Fellows Proposal
2) Palm Facing; Reading of Pre-sign (from AHG “Miscellaneous Discussion Points”)
3) Phrasing Term (from AHG “Miscellaneous Discussion Points”)
4) AHG “Miscellaneous Discussion Points” (the whole paper)
1.1 TOPIC #1 - ICKL MOTIF FELLOWS PROPOSAL
1.2 Before the meeting Susan sent the following report on the ICKL discussion of the Motif Fellows proposal [Paragraph numbers have been added for these minutes].
1.3
Motif Fellows: Ways to begin a dialog about Motif Notation
Prepared by Tina Curran and Susan Gingrasso
Prepared by Tina Curran and Susan Gingrasso
1.4 Those who met at ICKL (Bangkok, 2009) about the concept of Motif Fellows and how to proceed recommended that those of us actively using Motif:
a. need to connect with other Motif practitioners;
b. ascertain if other practitioners are actually interested in developing a dialog about usage, meaning, etc.
1.5 If other practitioners are interested in a discussion and interchange of information (probably web based), then the dialog might eventually lead to something as formal as Motif Fellows.
1.6 Tina Curran and I [S. Gingrasso] have discussed how to proceed and have identified some possible steps:
1.6 Tina Curran and I [S. Gingrasso] have discussed how to proceed and have identified some possible steps:
a. Share history with Charlotte Wile, Lucy Venable and Odette Blum to see if they can add;
b. Review points one more time before making calls and/or sharing document;
c. Start calls and document summary of discussion and significant points at end of document (or within if felt important);
d. Write introduction to mapping of conversations from 2005-05 meetings for CW to post on DNB Theory Bulletin Board.
1.7 Professional exchanges about Motif have a history
1.9 The Opportunity
Creating a Motif Fellows or an organized Motif Group is an opportunity to bring practitioners from across the Laban community together to discuss theory, share pedagogy and applications and the integration of Laban-based work.
1.10 Need/Rationale
Need: To create a recognized and ongoing space for discussions to occur related to the theory, pedagogy and application of Motif-no such forum currently exists that encompasses practitioners from the various Laban-based practices.
Rationale for existence-some ideas to get us started:
Active dialog among Motif practitioners from diverse backgrounds and applications would facilitate the creation of a community at a practical level, promote visionary possibilities and encourage dance literacy through the use, application and development of Motif.
1.12 Possible Ojectives
1.16 Charlotte said such an interest has already been clearly demonstrated. For example, many of the over twenty DNB Open Theory Meetings from 2007 to the present have dealt with Motif theory. Those meetings have engaged many of the major voices in the Laban community, including a diverse group that included people from the DNB, Ohio State, LIMS, IMS, LODC, Southern Methodist University, and various other schools and institutions. The 2005-2007 LODC/DNB/LIMS Motif meetings, the 2002 Motif Symposium at Ohio State, and the 2004 Motif Symposium at Southern Illinois University were also largely concerned with theory. In addition, there have been numerous discussions about Motif issues on LabanTalk, CMAlist and the Theory Bulletin Board.
1.17 Charlotte asked if the people at the ICKL meeting were mainly LN practitioners. Susan said they were. Charlotte wondered if this may have influenced the discussion of the Motif Fellows proposal. Perhaps they aren't aware of all the work that has been going on to further develop Motif Notation.
1.18 The group had several ideas about what steps could be taken next to show the need for Motif Fellows at ICKL.
1.19 Charlotte: In recent years there have been many papers presented at ICKL about applications of Motif Notation, e.g., how it can be used to teach children or to choreograph a dance. However, there have not been any Motif theoretical papers, e.g., to clarify the meaning of established symbols and terminology, or that propose new symbols and terminology. Perhaps presenting such papers at ICKL will create a need for Motif Fellows to discuss and adjudicate them.
1.20 The expense of going to ICKL conferences may prevent people from being able to present such papers. Perhaps technology such as Skype could make it possible for people to participate without having to be there in person. In addition, this would open up the conferences to many more people in the worldwide Laban community. The DNB has been successfully experimenting with such technology.
1.21 Mei pointed out that if someone would like to present a paper but cannot attend an ICKL conference, they can have someone else present it.
1.22 Perhaps Susan or someone else could write an ICKL paper describing the conversation that is already going on about Motif issues. For instance, Open Theory Meeting minutes archived on the Theory Bulletin Board include many, many examples of rigorous, extensive Motif discussions by a wide cross-section of people in the Laban community. Sometimes people who cannot attend meetings respond to these online postings, thus continuing and expanding the dialogue. Some back and forth exchanges have taken place over several meetings. Other threads on the Bulletin Board contain compilations of Motif related discussions originally posted on LabanTalk and CMAlist.
1.23 Mei: Tina Curran has been working with the NYC public schools and the 92nd street Y DEL program to integrate Motif Notation into their curriculum. Perhaps students and teachers there could meet to share their ideas about the theory. This forum could be another resource for showing an ongoing interest in discussing Motif theory.
2.1 TOPIC #2 - PHRASING
2.2 Topics #2 and #3 concern Ann Hutchinson Guest's paper “Miscellaneous Discussion Points (see 4.1 below),” which contains her notes on minutes for various past Open Theory Meetings.
2.3 At the September 10, 2007 meeting there was a discussion about proposed indications for Even Phrasing (2a here), Decrease Phrasing (2b here), and Increase Phrasing (2c here). The signs indicate “Phrasing Patterns”, i.e., the maintaining or changing (decrease or increase) of an aspect of movement. Such patterns can be found in various movement components, such as Effort, the number of body parts that move, tempo, or the size of the kinesphere (reach space). For instance, the Effort loading and/or intensity in a unit of movement(s) can increase, decrease, or remain constant. Likewise, the size of the one's reach space might increase, decrease, or remain constant; the movement's tempo might increase, decrease, or remain constant; and so forth.
2.4 In “Miscellaneous Discussion Points (see 4.1 below)” Ann asked, “Is 'phrasing' the right word? If we come from usage in music, it is closer to sentence structure, the use in movement of a comma, a semi-colon, a period, etc. I need more explanation to understand how accumulation of parts of the body moving can be interpreted as Phrasing.”
2.5 At this (Oct 20, 2009) meeting Charlotte said she agrees that the term Phrasing does not seem suitable. What would be a better term? The group discussed various ideas:
2.6 Everyone felt the term should express three ideas:
2.8 Mira suggested “Amount Variations.” Everyone felt that term might work.
3.1 TOPIC # 3 - PALM FACING: READING OF PRE-SIGN
3.2 In response to the October 1, 2007 meeting Ann's wrote, “I want to pick up on Ex. 3d. According to long established LN usage, the action of flexing occurs all during the forward gesture. It is a pre-sign which is interpreted as taking the timing of the movement that follows. In Motif Notation this usage is not appropriate; it has to be written as 3e. If the movement of flexing is to occur before the movement to forward middle, then a very small duration line must be used, as in 3dd to separate it from the direction symbol.”
3.3 [Note: Examples 3d, 3e, and 3dd are labeled 2d, 2e, and 2dd in Ann's paper]
3.5 Lynne said that in LN the small double bar line can be used to make the flexion sign a pre-sign, as in 3g. No one else at the meeting had heard of this idea before.
3.7 “Ways of writing simultaneous contraction and rotation were discussed. Every¬one agreed that example 8.1 expresses a true statement. (Simultaneous contrac¬tion and gesturing can be written either way.) It was felt by the group that the same ought to be true for simultaneous contraction and rotation/twist. As with gesturing, the x should be treated as a presign which codifies the whole turn symbol. The group would like to see example 8.2 accepted as a true statement. If the movement wanted is a sudden contraction followed by a separate twisting, it could be written as in example 8.3. Many of us have been writing 8.4 to mean example 8.5. Does this need to be rethought? The issue of writing simultaneous contraction and rotation is touched on in the ICKL paper on in the Inner Subsidiary Column and say be discussed at the ICKL conference in August, 1981.”
4.2 From going over various old DNB Minutes of the Theory Meetings, I have made a note of a few points I would like to comment on. Note that AK refers to Knust's book.
4.3 Inclusion Bows (Aug. 6th, 2007)
The movement in Ex. la is of the right hand making a circular path (pattern) which includes inward, then outward rotation. The timing of the rotations is not given. During the main movement the arm is allowed to react passively. The sign for the area of the wrist should have a tick on the front of the box.
4.4 Ex. 2a: The inclusion bow goes into the arm column, thus the included part should be the arm. But I do not know how such inclusion might be performed. The arm could react passively to the chest tilt, but - an active inclusion? For this example I would not automatically understand the pelvis to be included in the chest tilt; it would need to be stated by placing the pelvis sign within the inclusion bracket, 2aa.
4.6 I find Ex. 4a acceptable because it incorporates the sign for either side (the horizontal ad lib. sign on a vertical stroke). The fact that some generic signs incorporate an ad lib. sign and many don't, does not bother me, however, if use or non-use of the ad lib. sign is a real problem, then perhaps we need to go back to the drawing board.
4.9 Accent, Emphasis My understanding, taken from music, has always been that an accent is sudden, it is always momentary. If it is lengthened in time it becomes a stress to be shown by other signs, not by an accent sign. It is true that Knust used an accent sign in a bracket to give it duration and express muscular tension, AK 732a here, because he had no other means. Knust once admitted to me that he was weak on the subject of dynamics. Seeing that his set of dynamic signs were not clearly thought out or sufficiently developed, we did not see any need to follow his usage. For us, an accent sign placed in an addition bracket indicates that the movement should include an accent, just when or where is left up to the performer.
4.10 Emphasis can have duration. In movement, as in speech, the manner of emphasis may involve force, slowing down or speeding up, etr,. aspects that can be analyzed and notated. A momentary emphasis (truly momentary) becomes an accent.
4.14 Note that, according to established Labanotation/Kinetography usage, 5t and 5u are the same. The small vertical linking bow in 5u states the aim, the destination of the action, it is not another movement instruction. Perhaps what Jen wants should be expressed as in 5uu: toward the end of the arm gesture there is a separate movement of flexing. My interpretation of 5z is that you are in near space at the start and do not move away from it; this is better expressed as 5zz. A comparable example might be 5zzz in which a placement on stage is shown at the start. If the action stroke might be interpreted as travelling, then spatial retention for that part of the room might be needed. I have not gone into the many previous Kinesphere discussions, so will leave this matter here.
4.18 On page 3, Charlotte stated "Addressing denotes awareness." Yes, it is the aim of an action. But 'awareness' is the weaker state, no active motion occurs, hence the dotted line of Ne.
4.19 Changing the size or shape of the dots is dangerous, people's handwritten notation varies too much. On the computer, can the notation programs handle such small differences? Degrees of distance should be indicated in a diamond, as Charlotte suggested, Ex. Ij - 1m. These are still relative degrees.
4.20 Comment on Ex. li, page 3: It would be better to have the left hand touching the right arm, more variation possible! After moving away, there should be an action that will result in the following nearness, given here as Hi.
1.8 Context for the current idea: The idea of Motif Fellows occurred at the International Council of Kinetography/Laban conference in Mexico City, August 2007. Discussions took place to create a forum of discussion for practitioners using Motif in recognition that the community of Motif practitioners had been growing internationally. If practitioners desired to pursue the idea, there should be a place where thoughtful and rigorous discussion of Motif theory, pedagogy and applications could take place.
1.9 The Opportunity
Creating a Motif Fellows or an organized Motif Group is an opportunity to bring practitioners from across the Laban community together to discuss theory, share pedagogy and applications and the integration of Laban-based work.
1.10 Need/Rationale
Need: To create a recognized and ongoing space for discussions to occur related to the theory, pedagogy and application of Motif-no such forum currently exists that encompasses practitioners from the various Laban-based practices.
Rationale for existence-some ideas to get us started:
- Involve constituents across the Laban community in a discussion about Motif Notation in and across applications;
- Build a larger base from diverse constituents;
- Cultivate international collaboration and community;
- Develop dance literacy through entry of Motif and nurture growing knowledge within Laban Studies (LMA, LN, LOD and...)
Active dialog among Motif practitioners from diverse backgrounds and applications would facilitate the creation of a community at a practical level, promote visionary possibilities and encourage dance literacy through the use, application and development of Motif.
1.12 Possible Ojectives
a. To share, investigate and develop Motif Notation use including the areas of:1.13 Questions for our constituents
b. To create a dedicated opportunity with structural support for ongoing dialogue;
- Theory questions, developments, proposals;
- Pedagogical concerns, needs, examples of best practice;
- Applications in practice, research, education, etc.
c. To make accessible, inviting and generative constituent participation across the Laban community globally; and
d. To structure guidelines for sharing, proposals, discussion documentation, dissemination and archiving.
a. What is your thought about this kind of group being formed?1.14 Considerations for forming the first group of Fellows
b. Would you be interested to participate?
c. How would this kind of a forum be useful/helpful to you?
d. What questions do you have?
a. Who is activity using Motif in their practice?1.15 Susan gave further information about her report and the ICKL meeting. About thirty people attended. Many people there felt that it is important to first find out if the wider Motif Notation community feels it would be useful to establish Motif Fellows. Are Motif practitioners interested in having a dialogue about Motif Notation theory?
b. Who is using Motif in a developmental way?
[End of Susan's report]
1.16 Charlotte said such an interest has already been clearly demonstrated. For example, many of the over twenty DNB Open Theory Meetings from 2007 to the present have dealt with Motif theory. Those meetings have engaged many of the major voices in the Laban community, including a diverse group that included people from the DNB, Ohio State, LIMS, IMS, LODC, Southern Methodist University, and various other schools and institutions. The 2005-2007 LODC/DNB/LIMS Motif meetings, the 2002 Motif Symposium at Ohio State, and the 2004 Motif Symposium at Southern Illinois University were also largely concerned with theory. In addition, there have been numerous discussions about Motif issues on LabanTalk, CMAlist and the Theory Bulletin Board.
1.17 Charlotte asked if the people at the ICKL meeting were mainly LN practitioners. Susan said they were. Charlotte wondered if this may have influenced the discussion of the Motif Fellows proposal. Perhaps they aren't aware of all the work that has been going on to further develop Motif Notation.
1.18 The group had several ideas about what steps could be taken next to show the need for Motif Fellows at ICKL.
1.19 Charlotte: In recent years there have been many papers presented at ICKL about applications of Motif Notation, e.g., how it can be used to teach children or to choreograph a dance. However, there have not been any Motif theoretical papers, e.g., to clarify the meaning of established symbols and terminology, or that propose new symbols and terminology. Perhaps presenting such papers at ICKL will create a need for Motif Fellows to discuss and adjudicate them.
1.20 The expense of going to ICKL conferences may prevent people from being able to present such papers. Perhaps technology such as Skype could make it possible for people to participate without having to be there in person. In addition, this would open up the conferences to many more people in the worldwide Laban community. The DNB has been successfully experimenting with such technology.
1.21 Mei pointed out that if someone would like to present a paper but cannot attend an ICKL conference, they can have someone else present it.
1.22 Perhaps Susan or someone else could write an ICKL paper describing the conversation that is already going on about Motif issues. For instance, Open Theory Meeting minutes archived on the Theory Bulletin Board include many, many examples of rigorous, extensive Motif discussions by a wide cross-section of people in the Laban community. Sometimes people who cannot attend meetings respond to these online postings, thus continuing and expanding the dialogue. Some back and forth exchanges have taken place over several meetings. Other threads on the Bulletin Board contain compilations of Motif related discussions originally posted on LabanTalk and CMAlist.
1.23 Mei: Tina Curran has been working with the NYC public schools and the 92nd street Y DEL program to integrate Motif Notation into their curriculum. Perhaps students and teachers there could meet to share their ideas about the theory. This forum could be another resource for showing an ongoing interest in discussing Motif theory.
2.1 TOPIC #2 - PHRASING
2.2 Topics #2 and #3 concern Ann Hutchinson Guest's paper “Miscellaneous Discussion Points (see 4.1 below),” which contains her notes on minutes for various past Open Theory Meetings.
2.3 At the September 10, 2007 meeting there was a discussion about proposed indications for Even Phrasing (2a here), Decrease Phrasing (2b here), and Increase Phrasing (2c here). The signs indicate “Phrasing Patterns”, i.e., the maintaining or changing (decrease or increase) of an aspect of movement. Such patterns can be found in various movement components, such as Effort, the number of body parts that move, tempo, or the size of the kinesphere (reach space). For instance, the Effort loading and/or intensity in a unit of movement(s) can increase, decrease, or remain constant. Likewise, the size of the one's reach space might increase, decrease, or remain constant; the movement's tempo might increase, decrease, or remain constant; and so forth.
2.4 In “Miscellaneous Discussion Points (see 4.1 below)” Ann asked, “Is 'phrasing' the right word? If we come from usage in music, it is closer to sentence structure, the use in movement of a comma, a semi-colon, a period, etc. I need more explanation to understand how accumulation of parts of the body moving can be interpreted as Phrasing.”
2.5 At this (Oct 20, 2009) meeting Charlotte said she agrees that the term Phrasing does not seem suitable. What would be a better term? The group discussed various ideas:
2.6 Everyone felt the term should express three ideas:
2.7 Charlotte suggested the term “Amount Pattern.” Lynne felt that “Pattern” doesn't work because it connotes repetition, which is not necessarily an aspect of the given indications. The word “velocity” was also considered, but also did not seem exactly right.a. amount;
b. unit;
c. change/maintain.
2.8 Mira suggested “Amount Variations.” Everyone felt that term might work.
3.1 TOPIC # 3 - PALM FACING: READING OF PRE-SIGN
3.2 In response to the October 1, 2007 meeting Ann's wrote, “I want to pick up on Ex. 3d. According to long established LN usage, the action of flexing occurs all during the forward gesture. It is a pre-sign which is interpreted as taking the timing of the movement that follows. In Motif Notation this usage is not appropriate; it has to be written as 3e. If the movement of flexing is to occur before the movement to forward middle, then a very small duration line must be used, as in 3dd to separate it from the direction symbol.”
3.3 [Note: Examples 3d, 3e, and 3dd are labeled 2d, 2e, and 2dd in Ann's paper]
3.4 The group discussed 3d, 3e, 3dd. Everyone agreed that in LN 3d and 3e say the same thing: flex while going forward (i.e., do one movement). Also, they felt that 3dd would not be used in LN. First of all, a line connected to the flexion sign would obscure the top dot if one were writing six degrees of contraction. In LN, two movements after the barline would be written as in 3f below. [Addendum from Charlotte: In Motif Notation, why can't fast flexion be written without the duration line, as in 3d? Also, if 3e is Motif Notation, shouldn't the duration line be connected to the flexion sign?]
3.5 Lynne said that in LN the small double bar line can be used to make the flexion sign a pre-sign, as in 3g. No one else at the meeting had heard of this idea before.
3.6 As an addendum, Mei said the issues in this topic have apparently been under discussion for a long time, as evidenced by the following excerpt from minutes for theory meetings held June 9-12, 1981. (Note in 8.3 the use of the small double bar lines that Lynne alluded to in our meeting.)
3.7 “Ways of writing simultaneous contraction and rotation were discussed. Every¬one agreed that example 8.1 expresses a true statement. (Simultaneous contrac¬tion and gesturing can be written either way.) It was felt by the group that the same ought to be true for simultaneous contraction and rotation/twist. As with gesturing, the x should be treated as a presign which codifies the whole turn symbol. The group would like to see example 8.2 accepted as a true statement. If the movement wanted is a sudden contraction followed by a separate twisting, it could be written as in example 8.3. Many of us have been writing 8.4 to mean example 8.5. Does this need to be rethought? The issue of writing simultaneous contraction and rotation is touched on in the ICKL paper on in the Inner Subsidiary Column and say be discussed at the ICKL conference in August, 1981.”
[End of excerpt from the 1981 minutes]
3.8 There was not enough time to discuss other items in Ann's paper. The group would like to discuss them at future meetings. The entire paper is below. In the original paper the examples were given on separate pages from the text. For these minutes the paper has been reformatted so that examples are placed below the appropriate text. In addition, paragraph numbers have been added for future reference.
4.2 From going over various old DNB Minutes of the Theory Meetings, I have made a note of a few points I would like to comment on. Note that AK refers to Knust's book.
4.3 Inclusion Bows (Aug. 6th, 2007)
The movement in Ex. la is of the right hand making a circular path (pattern) which includes inward, then outward rotation. The timing of the rotations is not given. During the main movement the arm is allowed to react passively. The sign for the area of the wrist should have a tick on the front of the box.
4.4 Ex. 2a: The inclusion bow goes into the arm column, thus the included part should be the arm. But I do not know how such inclusion might be performed. The arm could react passively to the chest tilt, but - an active inclusion? For this example I would not automatically understand the pelvis to be included in the chest tilt; it would need to be stated by placing the pelvis sign within the inclusion bracket, 2aa.
4.5 Generic Cartwheel Sign (Aug. 6th, 2007)
There can always be good new ideas in preference to the old. Because at the time we tried every kind of possibility in finding a clear, appropriate sign for a generic cartwheel, it was rather like seeing the wheel being reinvented to see this ground being covered again!
There can always be good new ideas in preference to the old. Because at the time we tried every kind of possibility in finding a clear, appropriate sign for a generic cartwheel, it was rather like seeing the wheel being reinvented to see this ground being covered again!
4.6 I find Ex. 4a acceptable because it incorporates the sign for either side (the horizontal ad lib. sign on a vertical stroke). The fact that some generic signs incorporate an ad lib. sign and many don't, does not bother me, however, if use or non-use of the ad lib. sign is a real problem, then perhaps we need to go back to the drawing board.
4.7 Touching Leg Gesture (Aug. 6th, 2007)
For examples such as these I would like to see the spelling out of what you want to happen, the movement intended. I agree with Ex. 8a. My 8g states a conscious sliding of the ball of the foot on the floor during the leg rotations. If a release should occur, it should be stated, Ex. 8h.
For examples such as these I would like to see the spelling out of what you want to happen, the movement intended. I agree with Ex. 8a. My 8g states a conscious sliding of the ball of the foot on the floor during the leg rotations. If a release should occur, it should be stated, Ex. 8h.
4.8 Generic Accent Sign (Sept. 10th, 2007, and Oct. 1st, 2007)
My solution for this is to have the ad lib. sign inside the plain white accent sign, Ex. 2aa. The logic is that it is the 'shading' (or lack of it) inside the sign that provides the difference. Degree for a strong accent sign has been indicated by using two or three strong accent signs, as in 2bb and 2cc (AK 717d, e). Note AK's use of a vertical accent sign to show that lifting into the air is to be stressed, AK 52Id'.
My solution for this is to have the ad lib. sign inside the plain white accent sign, Ex. 2aa. The logic is that it is the 'shading' (or lack of it) inside the sign that provides the difference. Degree for a strong accent sign has been indicated by using two or three strong accent signs, as in 2bb and 2cc (AK 717d, e). Note AK's use of a vertical accent sign to show that lifting into the air is to be stressed, AK 52Id'.
4.9 Accent, Emphasis My understanding, taken from music, has always been that an accent is sudden, it is always momentary. If it is lengthened in time it becomes a stress to be shown by other signs, not by an accent sign. It is true that Knust used an accent sign in a bracket to give it duration and express muscular tension, AK 732a here, because he had no other means. Knust once admitted to me that he was weak on the subject of dynamics. Seeing that his set of dynamic signs were not clearly thought out or sufficiently developed, we did not see any need to follow his usage. For us, an accent sign placed in an addition bracket indicates that the movement should include an accent, just when or where is left up to the performer.
4.10 Emphasis can have duration. In movement, as in speech, the manner of emphasis may involve force, slowing down or speeding up, etr,. aspects that can be analyzed and notated. A momentary emphasis (truly momentary) becomes an accent.
4.11 A Generic Dynamic Sign (Sept. 10th, 2007)
What an interesting discussion! Sorry I was not there. My first thought is that the sign for 'par', Ex. 31, might be a basic sign, perhaps add the ad lib. sign as in 3m. Because anything indicated in the middle of the bows refers to relationship to gravity, the Minutes report signs of 3f, 3g, 3h, 3i, and 3j would not be appropriate; they suggest only that the degree of relationship to gravity is left open. For any rise in energy, the sign of 3n would suggest open degree of energy and open degree of fighting gravity. Similarly, 3o would indicate open degree in loss of energy and open amount of use of gravity. If the white circle is used as the basic amount, then an ad lib. through it, as in 3p and 3q might give the message more visually. Or, perhaps, Ex. 3r might be more eye-catching, or would 3s get the message across?
What an interesting discussion! Sorry I was not there. My first thought is that the sign for 'par', Ex. 31, might be a basic sign, perhaps add the ad lib. sign as in 3m. Because anything indicated in the middle of the bows refers to relationship to gravity, the Minutes report signs of 3f, 3g, 3h, 3i, and 3j would not be appropriate; they suggest only that the degree of relationship to gravity is left open. For any rise in energy, the sign of 3n would suggest open degree of energy and open degree of fighting gravity. Similarly, 3o would indicate open degree in loss of energy and open amount of use of gravity. If the white circle is used as the basic amount, then an ad lib. through it, as in 3p and 3q might give the message more visually. Or, perhaps, Ex. 3r might be more eye-catching, or would 3s get the message across?
4.12 Phrasing (Sept. 10th, 2007)
Is 'phrasing' the right word? If we come from usage in music, it is closer to sentence structure, the use in movement of a comma, a semi-colon, a period, etc. I need more explanation to understand how accumulation of parts of the body moving can be interpreted as Phrasing. For Ex. 4h, I would like to change the explanation to "Go away from the forward direction." What does "Cancel the forward movement mean?" 
4.13 Kinesphere Sign (Sept. 10th, 2007)
The signs of 5g, 5h and 5i seem to provide possibilities. They are not movement signs, thus they cannot themselves indicate timing. An action stroke is needed to provide the 'verb'. Ex. 5r could mean an action that ends in near space. Ex. 5s is best to show duration.
The signs of 5g, 5h and 5i seem to provide possibilities. They are not movement signs, thus they cannot themselves indicate timing. An action stroke is needed to provide the 'verb'. Ex. 5r could mean an action that ends in near space. Ex. 5s is best to show duration.
4.14 Note that, according to established Labanotation/Kinetography usage, 5t and 5u are the same. The small vertical linking bow in 5u states the aim, the destination of the action, it is not another movement instruction. Perhaps what Jen wants should be expressed as in 5uu: toward the end of the arm gesture there is a separate movement of flexing. My interpretation of 5z is that you are in near space at the start and do not move away from it; this is better expressed as 5zz. A comparable example might be 5zzz in which a placement on stage is shown at the start. If the action stroke might be interpreted as travelling, then spatial retention for that part of the room might be needed. I have not gone into the many previous Kinesphere discussions, so will leave this matter here.
4.15 Palm Facing; Reading of Pre-sign (Oct. 1st, 2007)
For the palm facing indications of Exs. 2a - 2c, it is better to state what is wanted rather than to rely on establishing rules (my "keep rules to a minimum" crusade!) I want to pick up on Ex. 2d. According to long established LN usage, the action of flexing occurs all during the forward gesture. It is a pre-sign which is interpreted as taking the timing of the movement that follows. In Motif Notation this usage is not appropriate, it has to be written as 2e. If the movement of flexing is to occur before the movement to forward middle, then a very small duration line must be used, as in 2dd to separate it from the direction symbol.
For the palm facing indications of Exs. 2a - 2c, it is better to state what is wanted rather than to rely on establishing rules (my "keep rules to a minimum" crusade!) I want to pick up on Ex. 2d. According to long established LN usage, the action of flexing occurs all during the forward gesture. It is a pre-sign which is interpreted as taking the timing of the movement that follows. In Motif Notation this usage is not appropriate, it has to be written as 2e. If the movement of flexing is to occur before the movement to forward middle, then a very small duration line must be used, as in 2dd to separate it from the direction symbol.
4.16 Quality of Stillness (Oct. 1st, 2007)
I disagree with Ray, pausing and stillness are not the same thing. Cessation of movement is shown by a gap. This cessation may be brief, as in a pause, or of longer duration, a real stop, a holding of the arrival point of the previous movement. Such holding may be a held position, as in a statue. The idea of Stillness has been that there is no movement change but the point of arrival is alive. How that aliveness is expressed can vary. A whole discussion can center on this topic. In the examples 4e - 4h in the Oct. 1st, 2007 report, Charlotte indicated some ideas of what the stillness content might be. Visually, I think it would be better to have the direction symbols in the bracket smaller and thinner. I question Ex. 4f, why does the curved bracket extend down to the start of the place high symbol? Does the downward feeling start there?
I disagree with Ray, pausing and stillness are not the same thing. Cessation of movement is shown by a gap. This cessation may be brief, as in a pause, or of longer duration, a real stop, a holding of the arrival point of the previous movement. Such holding may be a held position, as in a statue. The idea of Stillness has been that there is no movement change but the point of arrival is alive. How that aliveness is expressed can vary. A whole discussion can center on this topic. In the examples 4e - 4h in the Oct. 1st, 2007 report, Charlotte indicated some ideas of what the stillness content might be. Visually, I think it would be better to have the direction symbols in the bracket smaller and thinner. I question Ex. 4f, why does the curved bracket extend down to the start of the place high symbol? Does the downward feeling start there?
4.17 Distance Indications (Nov. 26, 2007; January 7th, 2008; April 7, 2008)
In the following examples N stands for new. The origin of the bow for 'near', Na, came from the bow for contact, touching, Nb. The idea was that by using a dotted line it was 'weakened', making it 'nearly touching'. Dotted lines are used for passive, as in a passive path, Nc. In Nd the dotted lines indicate passive (not active) and so the arms react passively during the torso twists. The dotted lines in 'awareness', Ne, are a lesser degree of addressing, Nf, which is always an active occurrence.
In the following examples N stands for new. The origin of the bow for 'near', Na, came from the bow for contact, touching, Nb. The idea was that by using a dotted line it was 'weakened', making it 'nearly touching'. Dotted lines are used for passive, as in a passive path, Nc. In Nd the dotted lines indicate passive (not active) and so the arms react passively during the torso twists. The dotted lines in 'awareness', Ne, are a lesser degree of addressing, Nf, which is always an active occurrence.
4.18 On page 3, Charlotte stated "Addressing denotes awareness." Yes, it is the aim of an action. But 'awareness' is the weaker state, no active motion occurs, hence the dotted line of Ne.
4.19 Changing the size or shape of the dots is dangerous, people's handwritten notation varies too much. On the computer, can the notation programs handle such small differences? Degrees of distance should be indicated in a diamond, as Charlotte suggested, Ex. Ij - 1m. These are still relative degrees.
4.20 Comment on Ex. li, page 3: It would be better to have the left hand touching the right arm, more variation possible! After moving away, there should be an action that will result in the following nearness, given here as Hi.
4.21 Distance Indications (Nov. 26th, 2007, April 7th, 2008)
Indication of Far. My idea of the double arrowhead line, 3g, was to show distance between two parts, or two people. In Nh it shows the hands to be far apart. In Ni they are very far apart. Knust indicated distance in a square. He took the number to refer to step-lengths, but would also define what measure was being used -feet, meters, etc. In Nj two step-lengths is stated. The distance between performer A and B in Nk is three step-lengths, B is on A's right.
Indication of Far. My idea of the double arrowhead line, 3g, was to show distance between two parts, or two people. In Nh it shows the hands to be far apart. In Ni they are very far apart. Knust indicated distance in a square. He took the number to refer to step-lengths, but would also define what measure was being used -feet, meters, etc. In Nj two step-lengths is stated. The distance between performer A and B in Nk is three step-lengths, B is on A's right.
4.22 The applications of the double arrow line, illustrated in 3h - 3q seem quite inappropriate to me. They would involve additional learning of differences.
4.23 Transient Touch (April 7th, 2008)
My question for Ex. la: is Unit Timing being used? If so, there will be a pause between the diagonal touch and the forward low gesture. In Ib it is clearly one movement. For Id the hooks are very close together so the sliding will be very brief. Technically it will produce the path of Iff, not that shown in If, but in actual practice it would probably become a curve. If the hooks are farther apart, as in Ig, then the line of the path will be flatter in the middle (more time spent on sliding on the floor), Igg.
My question for Ex. la: is Unit Timing being used? If so, there will be a pause between the diagonal touch and the forward low gesture. In Ib it is clearly one movement. For Id the hooks are very close together so the sliding will be very brief. Technically it will produce the path of Iff, not that shown in If, but in actual practice it would probably become a curve. If the hooks are farther apart, as in Ig, then the line of the path will be flatter in the middle (more time spent on sliding on the floor), Igg.
4.24 Flexion, Extension Indications (April 7th, 2008)
Page 7: I had previously come up with Mira's Ex. 4n and 4o, so we have similar thinking! Note the correction that 4n is marked flexion, not extension.
Page 7: I had previously come up with Mira's Ex. 4n and 4o, so we have similar thinking! Note the correction that 4n is marked flexion, not extension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
