DNB Theory Bulletin Board: 2013

By Mei-Chen Lu et al.

Submitted by DNB Staff – June 30, 2013

On May 3, 2013 “Speaking with Choreographer Gemze De Lappe,” by Meg Moore, appeared in the online blog in the Chicago Sun-Times at http://blogs.suntimes.com/arts_entertainment/2013/05/_dance_perhaps_more_than.html

The article prompted the following discussions, which were originally posted on CMAlist and/or LabanTalk.

From Sandra Aberkalns - May 15, 2013

On May 7, the Dance Notation Bureau’s (DNB) Facebook curator came across an online blog in the Chicago Sun-Times. Unlike other articles regarding Labanotation this blog did not automatically pop-up on the DNB’s Google Alert because the author didn’t spell “Labanotation” correctly, which seems to indicate the lack of any research by the author and editorial oversight by the newspaper.

Many of you answered the call to respond to the newspaper and we thank you for doing so. One responder, Ann Hutchinson Guest, has given us permission to reproduce her reproduce her response to the Chicago Sun-Times.

We begin with Hutchinson Guest’s reply and, for those of you that are just joining us, we end this post with the inaccurate, ignorant, unprofessional, and unsubstantiated statement from the blog

“TRASHING A LANGUAGE [by Ann Hutchinson Guest]

Who would dare to criticize a language when they have no personal knowledge or ability in using it? How can a language be deemed clumsy and rarefied when the writer has no ability with that language? Or to say that it cannot fully capture the expressive subtleties of thought, of ideas?

Labanotation is a language. Like most languages it can express things in a very simple, basic way but, when desired, it can also provide a very detailed description of the qualities of a particular movement phrase. Meg Moore should know that, while western music notation is widely used, the system is no brilliantly refined. There are many musicians who are dissatisfied with the system, and attempts have been made to find a better method.

Labanotation may be my preferred movement language but I have also investigated 25 other systems and have studied and used seven other dance notation systems and, as a result, have a clear idea of the value and advantages of Labanotation.

[Ann included the following quote from the article]

Speaking with Choreographer Gemze De Lappe by Meg Moore on May 3, 2013

"Dance, perhaps more than any other art form, is transmitted from on artist to another, one generation to the next.

Unlike music, which has a brilliantly refined, widely known notation system, dance has only the useful but clumsy and rarified system know as Labanotation that cannot fully capture the expressive subtleties of choreography."

From Barbara Nordstrom-Loeb – May 14, 2013

Wonderfully stated…thank you. Barbara Nordstrom-Loeb

From Wada Ottes – May 15, 1013

Hi Mei-Chen Lu,

It is unbelievable and a shame that a dancer and choreographer talk about Labanotation in this way.

This shows us once again that Labanotation has to be promoted much more and world-wide, and that at least people concerned with whatever form of dance or movement must know about it...and even better and desirable, learn it!

I felt angry by reading, and I think they owe us a rectification...;-((

The article is an insult to everyone involved into the applying or developing of Labanotation, and particularly for Ann Hutchinson Guest. The words in her response are well chosen!

Thank you for sharing.

All the best,

wanda ottes

From Sandi Kurtz – May 15, 2013

I've been checking back in with the blog post -- up until today (Wednesday 15 May) there were no comments listed. Today there are four (from CMR, Mei Lu, Lynne Weber and Odette Blum). Ann HG's isn't there yet (nor is mine, and I don't know how many other people responded)

sandi kurtz

Seattle, WA

From Rose Anne Thom – May 15, 2013

Mine is not there either.

From Zack Brown – May 15, 2013

The recent thread of discussion attacking people who are critical of Labanotation, touches me sharply. As a layperson who spent over 30 years trying to understand Labanotation, I think there is plenty to criticize about it, without those criticisms being dismissed as merely ignorant.

I think having a little humility about other people's perception of Labanotation might be appropriate in general. The recent article that everyone seems to be so offended by, is actually not entirely an unfair statement. Labanotation is not a highly accessible system. It doesn't immediately strike everyone as a brilliant solution to the problem.

To that extent, maybe the people who do know the system, and who are in a position to actually explain things to people outside the Labanotation culture, should do a little more to communicate clear ideas, rather than just getting huffy about it.

Ann's response to the article, for example, defends Labanotation on the grounds that the person criticizing it hasn't yet learned it. That's the worst response I could imagine, short of just sticking out your tongue at the person, and sticking your thumbs in your ears while wiggling your fingers.

After my 30 years of experience trying to learn Labanotation, I've identified serious problems with the system, and with the prospect of continued growth over time. When I express those criticisms, am I just going to be ridiculed and attacked? Are people going to say that I have no right to say anything negative, just because my 30 years of effort failed to actually enable me to write my own choreography? Will I be accused of just being negative for ego's sake, because it's fun to make a 30 year attempt at something and still fail?

I resent that attitude towards criticism. I've made a sincere, decades-long effort to learn the system. But because I'm not a dancer, it's been virtually impossible to make any real headway. The books and teachers I've had, just can't convey the system to anyone who isn't already firmly ensconced in the dance world. What am I therefore to make of Ann's long-ago statement, that Labanotation "provides a universal understanding of movement and hence serves as a common 'language' through which workers in all fields and in all countries can communicate." When will Labanotation live up to that credo? At the moment, it certainly does not.

As Rudolf Laban himself wrote, "the manifestation of human spirituality which has made dance a sister art of poetry and music can survive only if its products are written, printed and read by a large circle of laymen and performers."

Prescient words. Labanotation, like everything else, needs the people outside of its own tight-knit community in order to survive. Unless I've misunderstood him, Laban is saying that laypeople such as myself, are not just desirable, but necessary to the Labanotation world; not just as consumers, but as participants in the creation, reading, and usage of Labanotation scores.

When the community is lucky enough to hear a negative review, it should inspire thoughtful discussion on this list, a consideration of what aspects of such criticism might be relevant, and an honest attempt to grasp whether there may actually be something that can be improved. I can tell you from my own personal experience that Labanotation is not a perfect system, and the methods of teaching it are also imperfect; and I have cogent arguments to back that up. But apparently, such feedback is considered offensive.

Zack

From Alice Helpern – May 16, 2013

I wrote a response via e mail to Hedy Weiss at the sun-times. Not nearly as good as the ones posted so I'm not sure I can find it. Your comments, Lynne and Odette, are terrific. I'm sure there are others and thanks for these.

Alice Helpern

From Nava Lotan – May 16, 2013

Hi to all

I would like to support Zack and invite him and others to speak up. Zack says "I think there is plenty to criticize about it" and I agree with him. If we want the field to stay alive we must be open for a constructive suggestions. Can you share your thoughts with us Zack? I promise to send mine very soon as well.

Yours

Nava Lotan

From Zack Brown – May 19, 2013

Hi,

Probably my most general criticism of Labanotation is its inconsistent nature.

I've been told many times by Ann and others, that Labanotation is a movement-centric system, rather than a symbol-centric system. In other words, the notator first selects the kind of movement they wish to express, and then, having made that selection, uses the appropriate Labanotation technique to write it down. For any given movement, there's an appropriate way to use the available symbols to express that movement. The argument in favor of this approach is that the different forms of movement have a clear organization, and so all you need to learn is which Labanotation techniques go along with which movement. No problem.

If, however, you turn the situation around, and try to access Labanotation from a symbol-centric approach (i.e. if you're a layperson), an entirely different story emerges. All of a sudden, the symbols are riddled with inconsistencies, special cases, and odd dependencies.

Take, for example, the 'place' symbol. One of the most apparently simple and basic aspects of Labanotation. How could it possibly be confusing or difficult?

The most immediate and obvious difficulty is that the 'place' symbol has a completely different meaning when used in the support columns, than it does when used in the gesture columns. In the support column, it refers to a spot on the ground. In the gesture column, it refers to a joint on the body. In fact it refers to many joints on the body, depending on which limb is gesturing. If you're dealing with objects and props, it presumably refers to something identified in the glossary.

Even just within the support column, the 'place' symbol has no consistent meaning. If you're only concerned with stepping on two feet, then the 'place' symbol can be interpreted relatively simply, as the spot on the floor that would be intersected by dropping a plumb-line down from the performer's center of gravity. Even then it's not quite that simple. If the performer steps into place, their feet don't end up on top of each other, but have to rest side by side. Neither one of them is exactly beneath the performer's center of gravity. Depending on the situation, the 'place' symbol may also refer to dropping a plumb-line down from where the performer is about to be, rather than where they are.

But the complexities don't end there. Depending on the context, the 'place' symbol may indicate that the performer's leg should raise up off the ground and lower again; or it may indicate that the leg should remain on the ground, but just change level. So, sometimes the 'place' symbol indicates a step, and sometimes it doesn't.

If the performer does just about anything other than walk around on two feet, then the 'place' symbol adopts a completely different meaning from what I've said above. When a performer is on all fours, for example, a step by one of their supporting limbs into 'place' does not bring that limb anywhere near the plumb-line of their center of gravity. Instead, for some but not all cases, Labanotation invokes the concept of 'tracks', which involve plumb-lines dropped down from the base joint of the stepping limb.

Or if the notator chooses, they can use one of two available split-body crosses of axes, each of which which creates two separate locations for 'place', neither of which are related to the plumb-line of the center of gravity.

Now consider extending this example to include more symbols. If we add the direction symbols into the equation, we discover a whole new set of complications.

First of all, once again, the direction symbols have a completely different meaning in the support columns than in the gesture columns. But let's leave that aside and consider just the support columns.

Suppose, for example, you were concerned only with a performer stepping on one or two legs, and you constrained yourself to using only direction symbols and 'place'. No pins or other symbols would be allowed on the staff, and the performer would only step with their legs and not any other limb. What categories of steps, stances, and transitions (including air-work) from stance to step and from step to stance would or would not be expressible in that case? If you actually try to write down all the possible combinations produced by this exercise, you'll see that the group of notatable steps under that constraint have no particular organization at all. Try it and see. It's a hodge-podge.

When taking a symbol-centric approach to Labanotation, this problem is ubiquitous. If you take virtually any Labanotation symbol, and try to catalog its various uses and meanings, you will find that it leads to a big mess of inconsistent cases. The only minor exceptions, such as the secret turn symbol, only prove that to actually find such exceptions, you have to look at relatively peripheral and little-used parts of the system.

When I've pointed this out to various people within the Labanotation community, I've been told that the solution is to avoid taking a symbol-centric approach, and to take a movement-centric approach instead.

But this doesn't solve the problem, it only avoids the problem for those people who already have a standard entry-way into the community. As a layperson without a dance background, I don't have a catalog of movement skills already present in my head and body to draw from. According to Ann Hutchinson and Rudolf Laban this should not prevent me from learning the system. Labanotation represents a universal language that brings workers of all fields together; and laypeople represent an essential component of Labanotation's survival, according to both of them.

Even without the ability to take a movement-centric approach to learning Labanotation, I do have the ability to learn what the symbols themselves mean, and the legal ways to use them. That's how the vast majority of interested laypeople must and will approach Labanotation. In the absence of a dance background, the symbols are all that remain to study. And that's how I came to discover the chaos that dominates virtually every Labanotation symbol. All of the above, and a lot more, I learned over the course of a long-term effort to actually document Labanotation from a symbol-centric perspective, in a way that might be useful to laypeople such as myself.

My constructive suggestion for how to deal with this problem is for ICKL, or some other group of concerned Labanotation people, to revise Labanotation, in order to introduce consistency and clarity at a symbol-centric level. I believe this would light the way for a much broader adoption of Labanotation in the non-dance world, and would make it easier for people within the dance world to learn the system as well.

From Ann Hutchinson Guest – May 20, 2013

AN OPEN LETTER TO ZACK BROWN

This is a reply to Zack’s letter of May 16^th, not to his more recent letter of May 19^th.

I can sincerely appreciate Zack’s frustration at not achieving his goal after 30 years of study. With his particular background I have welcomed his very different comments and criticisms. During the past year or so I have had many long and detailed discussions with him, all done on a friendly basis. I have found his point of view challenging and stimulating.

In his fourth paragraph Zack states: “Ann’s response to the article, for example, defends Labanotation on the grounds that the person criticizing it hasn’t yet learned it. That’s the worst response I could imagine, short of just sticking out your tongue at the person…….”

Whenever I have heard detrimental comments about Labanotation I have always asked the speaker “With whom did you study? How far did you get?” The response has always been that they had not studied it at all, they had no personal knowledge of the system, they were going by heresay. I believe that the writer of the recent negative statements belongs to that group.

As a person who has been intimately involved with Labanotation and also responsible, with other colleagues, for developments in the system, I have tried to explain to Zack how and why certain usages came into being. When a choreographer explained a movement in a particular way, we asked our selves “Why can’t we describe it in the same way on paper? Why put the description in ‘foreign words’? Can something be developed that will be faithful to the movement idea and, at the same time, be consistent with the rest of the system? On this basis appropriate symbology, usage and cancellation rules were developed. I have tried to explain to Zack that dancers performing on stage have particular needs. As an example I cited the need to establish a Front for orientation. On stage, the Front is already established – the audience. In a dance studio or other space, a particular wall may need to be established as Front. When performing outdoors it may be a feature in the landscape.

One does not need to be a dancer or movement specialist to grasp Labanotation. We have had musicians who have studied it and understood it. A notable case was Doris Dennison at Mills College, in Oakland, CA. As a pianist playing for dancers, she became so interested in the notation that she studied it to advanced level, taking her teaching certification and subsequently became the Labanotation teacher at Mills.

It is very much to Zack’s credit that he has attended notation discussions at the Dance Notation Bureau in New York. There he was welcomed, we are not a closed, ‘tight-knit Labanotation community’. When he expressed his criticisms, he was not ridiculed or attacked. His comments were not considered offensive. We recognized that he has honestly tried hard to understand the system as it is. But he is coming from a very different place – he wants a symbol-centric system in which one symbol always means the same thing. As a person not involved with movement, let alone dance, what he has not faced squarely are the problems brought on by the particular build of the human body and the strange way it is capable of movement; what one body part can do and another cannot. Without tackling these problems I do not see how he can make sense of a system that was developed to cope with the body build, its capability in different forms of movement and the needs derived from movement experiences. Of course it can be said that the Laban system “grew like Topsy.” If we were to start again, several things might be different. Over the years we have striven to be logical in describing movement, to use universally applicable terminology, and to gain the respect of scientific minds. The system is not perfect, but with all its faults, Labanotation has proved to be a very useful tool. Much has been achieved through its comparatively widespread use. The comparison can be made with music notation which is not considered perfect and musicians, particularly composers, complain about it. But it has proved to be such a useful tool that, perfect or not, it is widely used and the world recognizes the good results.

I can’t help thinking that perhaps Zack would have been better off if he had studied the Eshkol-Wachmann system. This is a more mathematical system which is highly respected. It deals with movement in a more abstract way.

To conclude, I think Zack wrote his first letter when very hot-under-the-collar; full of anger. It would have been wise to have calmed down and been more thoughtful about what he said. For instance, the times when he mis-quoted me.

From Jeffrey-Scott Longstaff – May 20, 2013

I'm adding my two cents worth to this discussion of Notation. My basic reply contribution is this: "Keep it practical" (not just a purely theoretical discussion)

When I try to consider the notation purely by trying to analyze it as a system.... it makes my head spin!

My advice, to anyone would be to keep everything practical: Pick something interesting and explore ways to notate it.

And then, this is what I find useful about the system - there are many ways to notate the same thing! - I like that about the system.

So the question is.... what do I want to know about the movement I am notating what am I interested in discovering or uncovering about the movement I am looking at.

So the various Laban methods of notating give lots of possibilities about what signs / symbols to use and how to use them.

Currently I have become very interested in "Right / Left handedness" and I'm exploring ways of notating the many different functional actions which might be considered to be either "right-handed" or "left-handed" (or right-bodied / left-bodied).

so, I'm exploring which signs / symbols are most useful for me to best illuminate the particular aspects that I feel I want to highlight when looking at this theme of "handedness".

Maybe this is more of a practical approach to the system – learning about it by actually using it in a particular application, with a particular question or intention.

Is this what is called "movement based approach"? (I don't know).

However, I think it is the best way to learn the "system" - and also the best way to assess its usefulness (or lack of usefulness).

When I read an analysis of Labanotation based on purely hypothetical examples of "what if" - It makes my head spin, and I can't even follow the discussions.

Maybe that is why, I noticed at ICKL meetings - that the approach seems to be: Notate some real movement, and then we will discuss how the system is (or is not) working.

for me, that is the "only" way to approach the system - that is to say, I think it is the best way and the most productive and most practical approach.

I would use the concept of "redundancy" to refer to a lot of Labanotation - there are many different ways to notate the same thing! Signs / symbols can mean different things depending on where / how they are used. --- this is something that I LOVE about the system, because I can create with it, explore with it to illuminate particular aspects of movement that I'm trying to discover, .... to document and record, ... and also to communicate to others.

So, that is my advice when discussing the merits or demerits of the system - keep it based on actual movement analysis – particular movements, and particular questions being probed. - -For me, that will help to "keep it real!"

Jeffrey Scott Longstaff

From Greg Shenaut – May 20, 2013

In terms of keeping it real, I wonder if anyone has yet notated

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo>. Given the overall weightlessness of the performance, it seems particularly LN-appropriate (e.g., 1:54-1:58, 4:28-4:40).

Cheers,

Greg Shenaut

From Zack Brown – May 21, 2013

Ann said:

> For instance, the times when he mis-quoted me.

What quote did I get wrong?

> coming from a very different place – he wants a symbol-centric system in which one

> symbol always means the same thing. As a person not involved with movement, let

> alone dance, what he has not faced squarely are the problems brought on by the

> particular build of the human body and the strange way it is capable of movement;

> what one body part can do and another cannot.

This misses the point. It's possible for Labanotation to remain an essentially movement-centric system, while still being consistent at a symbol-centric level. You're misinterpreting my issue. I don't want a system where everything only means one thing. I recognize that there has to be a lot of nuance as a result of the particular build of the human body and the strange way it is capable of movement. You're attributing an attitude to me that I don't have. And when you address that attitude, and not my real issue, you only avoid talking about the real problem.

In fact, no matter how much anyone wishes otherwise, Labanotation is a symbol system. The only question is whether those symbols have an orderly set of meanings or not. In the case of Labanotation, I've given clear examples (and can follow up with more) showing that they do not.

Just because you want the Labanotation symbol system to make sense from a movement-centric perspective, doesn't mean that it suddenly ceases to be a symbol system. But it's possible to have a symbol system whose primary purpose is to express ideas in a movement-centric way. The two are not mutually incompatible. As long as you present me as saying that the two are incompatible, you'll be missing my point.

You can have your movement-centric system. But until and unless the underlying inconsistencies, circular dependencies, and overloaded special cases are cleaned up, Labanotation will continue to be virtually unlearnable. Notwithstanding one-in-a-million piano players.

There are lots of good ideas in Labanotation. But all of those ideas should be reorganized, to accomplish the same notational abilities, but with a consistent underlying symbol system. We need Labanotation version 2.

Zack Brown

From Jeffrey Scott Longstaff – May 21. 2013

Hey Zack, are you notating anything?

It would help me if I could see any notation issues within a context of a particular thing you are working on notating.

What are you notating?
Jeffrey

From Zack Brown – May 21, 2013

Wish I could help. I'm not notating anything. I can't learn the system.

Be well,
Zack

From Katerina El Raheb – May 21, 2013

Dear Zack and Jeffrey,

Ι was I little bit hesitant to take part in this discussion, mainly because I’m not a Labanotation expert (I’m self-taught) , and my work on the system is not a very long time effort (yet J). I think this discussion is very similar with the one done here about LabanWriter on the question “ why it is difficult to move to a format which will be closer to the interpretation of the symbols, rather than having just numeric codes about the symbols”. Well I kind of deal with such of questions in my project very frequently. Part of my PhD (in the Department of Informatics, having also Dance background and practice) is to develop a semantic model based on the “concepts” of Labanotation to describe and search movement. Actually I chose to base my model on the concepts “under” Labanotation, I didn’t have to, but in no case I claim that my model is a semantic model (OWL) that represents the Labanotation system or (language) itself. From the information technology point of view, I needed a consistent model, with clear semantics, and as less disambiguities as possible. On the other hand, if we consider the score of movement a mean of communicating something, I needed a language with rich vocabulary, which is expressive, flexible and adoptable to different context and purposes.

I think that Labanotation is not the symbols themselves with a one-to-one definition, but a language, a framework- if you prefer, where the symbols are used to express this language on paper (or screen).

To my humble opinion, Labanotation is a language, and as any other language “has the right” to include some “inconsistencies” and therefore leave some space for different interpretations. Of course as a language and a communication system it has a written form (in this case symbols). But it is not a mathematical, or a technical language, fortunately, because logic and technical languages as you may know have more or less restricted exressivity. So I find greater similarity between Labanotation and any other physical language, rather than between Labanotation and a technical language. Because the first evolves and creates meaning through its usage, more than it creates meaning through the rules.

Please do not get me wrong, but I think trying to learn Labanotation without understanding the “concepts” behind it or experience them through moving (just to avoid the word dancing) is like trying to learn to write a foreign language without using or learning to speak this language. Every language has syntactic and grammary rules, but learning these rules, do not make you a fluent user, what makes you fluent is the usage of the language. The rules are necessary, but they will never tell you “what is the correct words” to express something. In all physical languages we can express the same things in different ways and also by using the same words and phrases, we can create different meanings. Isn’t this the way we get fluent in a language: “ by trying to find the correct words and syntax to express what we have in mind?”, “isn’t it sometimes very difficult even if we use our mother language?”

Just some thoughts…

I will gladly answer to any of your comments within the list or in personal email, if you prefer and continue this fruitful discussion.

Warmly,
Katerina El Raheb

From Jeffrey Scott Longstaff – May 21. 2013

Hi Katerina - wow, YES, very nicely put in many places (and I am not so technical as you in this area) - some things you wrote feel exactly correct and to the point, for example these things that you wrote:

.........................................................................

So I find greater similarity between Labanotation and any other physical language, rather than between Labanotation and a technical language. Because the first evolves and creates meaning through its usage, more than it creates meaning through the rules. . .

trying to learn Labanotation without understanding the “concepts” behind it or experience them through moving . . . is like trying to learn to write a foreign language without using or learning to speak this language.

.....................................................................

Both of these bits of writing I feel are so vital

-- I feel that the ONLY way to learn Labanotation is to learn it by reading notation and writing notation (starting from simple examples and gradually increasing complexity). That is how I learned it, and I expect that is how everyone learns it. I can't imagine any other way.

I'm sure there are many issues with Labanotation (personally I have particular issues with "shape" notations and concepts!) -- but the discussions and improvements need to "evolve through use" (as you put it).

In my experience, this is how the notations continue to evolve (as I have seen at ICKL conferences) - there are ALWAYS questions about certain signs and symbols, and the way to address these questions is to use the signs / symbols under question... then discuss how they worked, or didn't work, and how to make them work better (or discard the sign all together in favor of another way to notate a particular thing).

So yes... I think we need to notate (or read) and link the conversations to that. It is not so hard to do. I do believe the basics are quite easy. Walking and gesturing. I think most people can learn that in 1 or two lessons. Then go on from there!

Jeffrey

From Jeffrey Scott Longstaff – May 21. 2013

Oh come on Zack! From your descriptions you already know a lot about the system. You can notate a lot with just the basics. I don't know very much either, but I think I have a grasp of the general ideas. I'm sure you can notate some basic things!

My question for you, Zack: What do you want to use the notation for?

Personally, I am NOT a notator, but I like the signs and symbols. They help me to understand movement in a graphic way (rather than with lots of anatomical - kinesiological words). But I like to mix systems. I do NOT stick to "formal Labanotation" - for me that is boring (though others like it). I like to mix and match signs / symbols to use for my own particular interests (currently, my "right-left-handedness" personal exploration). Then, later, if I think I have discovered something interesting or useful, I will formalize it and share the project.

So Zack... that is what I want to know.... what do you want to use the notation for?

Jeffrey

From Greg Shenaut – May 21, 2-013

On May 21, 2013, Katerina Elraheb wrote:

“To my humble opinion, Labanotation is a language, and as any other language “has the right” to include some “inconsistencies” and therefore leave some space for different interpretations. Of course as a language and a communication system it has a written form (in this case symbols). But it is not a mathematical, or a technical language, fortunately, because logic and technical languages as you may know have more or less restricted exressivity. So I find greater similarity between Labanotation and any other physical language, rather than between Labanotation and a technical language. Because the first evolves and creates meaning through its usage, more than it creates meaning through the rules.”

I really, really hope that this is not the general view, or a correct view, of LN. If it were true, then for most purposes that I have ever contemplated, LN would be completely useless.

Instead, I see LN as a technical language created at a time when the palette available to create syntactically consistent technical languages (their grammar, if you will) or to describe them and to manipulate them (meta-grammar) was quite limited. Before computers, there was really no reason for technical languages not to contain shortcuts and internally inconsistent traditions of usage. As long as LN is used only by people who are willing to learn its shortcuts and traditions, no problem. Something very similar is true of music notation, and for similar reasons (although music notation does not have a single originator but evolved more or less willy-nilly and is still evolving, and has several quite different, more or less incompatible sets of traditions and shortcuts).

Imagine if you will that someone decided to create a system of movement notation today from scratch. How would they begin? Probably with XML or something like it, at least as the underlying representation of the movement. Why XML? Because of exactly what Zack is saying: you can express many different kinds of relations in XML by inventing tags and containers and specifying how they interact, but no matter how complex or even idiosyncratic your system is, its syntax will still be consistent and readily analyzable. Using a common base, movement sequences can be converted among different representations, even to and from LN or to another movement language. In effect, the traditions and shortcuts of LN could be represented in XML.

But in fact, no matter what syntactically consistent notation system was devised, some modern-day movement language designers would probably spend a lot more time in the beginning trying to specify a language that could describe the mover and the mover's environment. Things like bones and their properties (size, shape, weight, muscle attachment points), muscles (their weight, where they attach to bones, how fast, how much, and how strongly they contract and relax), skin, fat, and so on. What about gravity and the various physical laws related to it (see the video I posted recently)? A lot of facts about movement are due to physics and to the physical properties of movers and their environment, and so it would profit the designer of a movement description language to start there.

Once the designer was content with the description of the physical properties of movers and their environment, then he could concentrate on contracting those muscles to act against gravity or perhaps against some other resistance to raise the leg (which in turn is a structure composed of bones, joints, muscles, fat, skin, and so on). Perhaps the head and eyes would also be moved (i.e., certain muscles contracted) so that the eye could judge when the leg reached a certain point in space (composed of various kinds of structures, perhaps including other movers).

Other designers would not care about the physics and would create a system to describe the movements of weightless posable dolls whose joints can be positioned in “impossible” ways. But even then there would need to be a definition of the mover (i.e., two arms, two legs, elbows, hands, fingers), and an environment (i.e., the floor), and operators that would change their positions, all of which could be expressed in a syntactically consistent underlying language with one or more set of abbreviated/shortcut representations.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Microsoft Office. We all hate its inconsistencies, its agglomeration of traditions and bug-for-bug compatibilities with earlier, long-obsolete versions. Yet, Microsoft succeeded in creating a representation of all that in... XML. This means that under the surface, there is now a representation using a fairly simple and completely consistent syntax that has been applied to describe every aspect of what we interact with and eventually print out for others to read. I hope that someone, someday, does the same thing for movement and for music (in music, the Music XML project has been underway for quite some time). LN itself would be little changed, just as the user experience in Office changed but little between the pre-XML versions (i.e., .doc, .ppt) and the xml versions (.docx, .pptx), but the possibilities for its use would explode.

Cheers,

Greg Shenaut

P.S. I would never propose to create an underlying XML representation of a natural human language, or even of its written form. That problem is at a level completely different from that of analytic systems of notation such as LN.

From Zack Brown – May 21, 2013

Hi Jeff,

I do know a lot about the system. I've studied very hard for many years.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "just the basics". My approach to Labanotation is symbol-centric, because that's the only approach available to me. With that approach, the system is an ever-deepening mishmash of contradictory information. No matter how deeply I plumb, I simply can't be certain that my notation will correctly reflect the movement I'm trying to notate, or whether I'll find myself caught in one of the innumerable special cases, that would cause my notation to mean something completely different from what I'm trying to express.

I believe you when you express incredulity at my situation. I wouldn't have believed it myself. But the fact is, after 30 years of effort, I still can't rely on my knowledge of Labanotation, to write down movement. I just don't know enough to be able to trust that my notation would correctly express what I think it expresses.

And to answer your final question: I want to use notation to write down movement. I have dances in my head, that want to come out.

From Zack Brown – May 21, 2013

Katerina,

You said:

“But it is not a mathematical, or a technical language”

This is a perfect example of how misunderstood my position is. You, like Ann, seem to be making a host of assumptions about what I'm advocating. You seem to think that if you make Labanotation consistent at a symbol-centric level, that somehow the movement-centric aspects of the system would be harmed. Why do you make that assumption? Where have you seen me advocate a transition away from a sensitivity to the human body and the vicissitudes of human movement? I never have. That's not what this conversation is about. But the longer people keep attributing that attitude to me, the longer you will continue to not understand what I'm saying.

From Zack Brown – May 21. 2013

Here's another one that would be cool to notate, not for weightlessness, but for the generally non-balletic approach to movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXO-jKksQkM

From Katerina El Raheb - May 21, 2013 

[Katerina’s original comments are written in blue. Greg’s response to those comments are written in green. Katrina’s response to Greg are written in italics.]

Thank you for answering Gregory I’m including my answer inline.

Cheers!

[Katrina’s original comment]- To my humble opinion, Labanotation is a language, and as any other language “has the right” to inculde some “inconsistencies” and therefore leave some space for different interpetations . Of course as a language and a communication system it has a written form (in this case symbols). But it is not a mathematical, or a technical language, fortunately, because logic and technical languages as you may know have more or less restricted exressivity. So I find greater similarity between Labanotation and any other physical language, rather than between Labanotation and a technical language. Because the first evolves and creates meaning through its usage, more than it creates meaning through the rules.

[Greg’s response] I really, really hope that this is not the general view, or a correct view, of LN. If it were true, then for most purposes that I have ever contemplated, LN would be completely useless.

[Katrina’s response to Greg] Of course, I’m not saying that LN is an inconsistent, idiosyncratic language, and I think the fact that me and many other Information Technology and Computer Scientists are paying attention is that yes, it has some clear semantics, it is a structured language, there are some rules. I’m in no case, questioning the usefulness and the analytic power of LN. It’s kind of technical, but not by the means that you apply some rules to a machine or a computer and automatically generate a 100% useful LN score through an algorithm. I guess this is why these kind of applications are very challenging still.

[Greg’s comment] Instead, I see LN as a technical language created at a time when the palette available to create syntactically consistent technical languages (their grammar, if you will) or to describe them and to manipulate them (meta-grammar) was quite limited. Before computers, there was really no reason for technical languages not to contain shortcuts and internally inconsistent traditions of usage. As long as LN is used only by people who are willing to learn its shortcuts and traditions, no problem. Something very similar is true of music notation, and for similar reasons (although music notation does not have a single originator but evolved more or less willy-nilly and is still evolving, and has several quite different, more or less incompatible sets of traditions and shortcuts).

[Katrina’s response to Greg] I agree with you, however, music notation “community” is by far larger, and older and this system is applied to a specific kind of music (Eastern) . So in this case there is a lot of work done with the system, centuries ago, and many people used it before trying to develop technological applications and deal with the “soundness” of the LN . In addition, in the case of music many things are by nature easier, again please don’t get me wrong. Music is also complex, but human movement is even more.

[Greg’s comment] Imagine if you will that someone decided to create a system of movement notation today from scratch. How would they begin? Probably with XML or something like it, at least as the underlying representation of the movement. Why XML? Because of exactly what Zack is saying: you can express many different kinds of relations in XML by inventing tags and containers and specifying how they interact, but no matter how complex or even idiosyncratic your system is, its syntax will still be consistent and readily analyzable. Using a common base, movement sequences can be converted among different representations, even to and from LN or to another movement language. In effect, the traditions and shortcuts of LN could be represented in XML.

[Katrina’s response to Greg] Well depends what is the purpose of the application you build, but as I said before more and more developers are paying attention to LN and Laban Movement Analysis and this is important.

The research field is new, and there is a lot to experiment in this field.

[Greg’s comment] Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Microsoft Office. We all hate its inconsistencies, its agglomeration of traditions and bug-for-bug compatibilities with earlier, long-obsolete versions. Yet, Microsoft succeeded in creating a representation of all that in... XML. This means that under the surface, there is now a representation using a fairly simple and completely consistent syntax that has been applied to describe every aspect of what we interact with and eventually print out for others to read. I hope that someone, someday, does the same thing for movement and for music (in music, the MusicXML project has been underway for quite some time). LN itself would be little changed, just as the user experience in Office changed but little between the pre-XML versions (i.e., .doc, .ppt) and the xml versions (.docx, .pptx), but the possibilities for its use would explode.

[Katrina’s response to Greg] Exactly! Small “inconsistencies”, or “problems” or issues exist in most of very useful tools, or things we use. I think no one says that we should get rid of LN because it is “problematic”, but also its usefulness does not mean its perfection. I guess this is why these kind of discussions are good. It is very important to hear different point of views.

From Odette Blum – May 22, 2013

Hi, Zack,

After 30 years you say you can't learn the system. That is the saddest thing I have heard in a long time.

2-3 years ago you asked for a tutor and I responded by inviting you to Columbus OH for a weekend. I invite you again, in fact I challenge you to do so.

I would be interested to know who taught you the basics and what dances you read. Did you read (i.e perform) folk dances or line dances or simple jazz steps etc?. (That has nothing to do with being a dancer. Non-dance folk do a lot of that.). Like wise for writing: was it simple walks in different directions? turns? jumps? or …?

I am going away shortly but will be back in mid-July. I hope you accept my challenge. I have been teaching notation for more than 40 years so I think I may be able to help despite your skepticism. At the least you will certainly be reading simplified dances in whatever genre you enjoy - European? - (Scottish, Greek, Croatian, Dutch etc.), jazz? line dances? old ballroom dances? current dance, etc. or you can just do walking/traveling sequences. (You can look up my bio on the web site for the Dance Dept's faculty list at The Ohio State University: www.dance.osu.edu. Click on A-Z Directory then click on my name).

I look forward to seeing you in Columbus.

Odette

Some of you may be unaware of the thoughts that Balanchine and Tudor and Humphrey had about Labanotation since despite all these discussions, dance notation (there are two others - Benesh and Eshkol-Wachman) is after all, about developing a recorded dance history of scores (and all its implications for study), rather than having only eye witness accounts, paintings and other iconographic materials, and, more recently, films, videos, DVDs. ( A reminder/caution about the latter: a musician does not study Glen Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations but goes to the music score, nor does an actor learn Henry V from Branagh's film but goes to the script, however fine these performances may be). In addition, there is a need to record the dance of many cultures as urbanization and globalization affect traditional dances (which was the reason I was invited to Ghana to teach and notate).

George Balanchine (1904-1983) wrote in the preface to the 1954 edition of Labanotation by Ann Hutchinson " . . . I became . . . aware of a need for an accurate and workable method for notating my works. To me the prime requisite of such a notation system would be its ability to correlate faithfully the time values in the dance with the music, because my choreography either closely follows the line of the music or contrasts directly with it. When I heard of Laban's system of notation it seemed the most completely developed method evolved to meet this need. After studying the system and watching Ann Hutchinson, America's leading notator and teacher at work, I realized this was indeed the answer and I decided to embark immediately on the long-range project of having my ballets recorded. Symphony in C, Orpheus, Theme and Variations, Symphony Concertante, and Bourree Fantasque, are among those already completed. Thanks to these scores I am now assured that these ballets will be accurately performed in the future. . . . Labanotation records the structure of a dance, revealing with perfect clarity each of the specific movements of each performer. . Through Labanotation we can actually sit down and compare or analyze different styles of dance. Even the complicated techniques and studies take up little space and are easy to reconstruct intellectually through the notated patterns. There is no longer any need to wade through pages of verbal descriptions, which eventually become unintelligible." Twenty two of Balanchine's dances were notated in his lifetime, and twenty two more have been notated since his death.

Anthony Tudor (1908-1987) had 30 of his dances notated including Dark Elegies and Lilac Garden. In his will he specified that if a ballet had been notated the performance was to be based on the score. In a 1976 testimonial letter in support of the DNB he wrote:"This is to reaffirm my belief in the benefits that the dance, in general, and choreographers in particular, are deriving from the activities of the Dance Notation Bureau. The three small dance works that I made on Juilliard dancers several years ago with a grant from the National Endowment, which included a proviso that such works would be made accessible to any small company of sufficient technical capacity, have now been reproduced many times..... It is a good thought that the works of José Limón and Doris Humphrey, two of the most famous American choreographers, can survive because the Bureau is making it possible" (DNB Library Newsletter vol. 2, no. 2).

Doris Humphrey (1895-1958) was pleased to see the scores of her works and remarked that they would " no longer be legend, they are history" (confirmed in a conversation with Ann Hutchinson Guest in August 2011).

From Zack Brown – May 22, 2013

Hi Odette,

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Blum, Odette ‪<blum.1@osu.edu> wrote:

Hi, Zack,

After 30 years you say you can't learn the system. That is the saddest thing I have heard in a long time.

Thank you. It's been very frustrating.

2-3 years ago you asked for a tutor and I responded by inviting you to Columbus OH for a weekend. I invite you again, in fact I challenge you to do so.

Cool! :-)

I'd love to go. I'll email you privately about it.

I would be interested to know who taught you the basics and what dances you read. Did you read (i.e perform) folk dances or line dances or simple jazz steps etc?. (That has nothing to do with being a dancer. Non-dance folk do a lot of that.). Like wise for writing: was it simple walks in different directions? turns? jumps? or …?

It's hard to tell exactly what I know and don't know. Like I said in a different email, from my symbol-centric vantage point there are no 'basics' to Labanotation. In some ways, my knowledge goes very deep. For example, when I would bring questions to the DNB theory meetings, it never turned out that I had failed to grasp a simple concept. Typically my question would lead to lively discussions and disagreements between the much more knowledgeable people in the room. I think that's because even then I was identifying real problems with the system - just problems that everyone tended to ignore because there were no solutions.

I remember one time asking about examples 21z and 21aa in 'Hands, Fingers', because it showed a usage of the inclusion bow that I hadn't seen in any of the other texts. Everywhere else, the inclusion bow indicated a body part inclusion. But in this example, it used movement symbols within it. No one in the group could agree on what it meant. Later I asked Ann directly, and she tried to clear it up for me. She said, "it would be much more understandable if I had added 'led by the finger tips', it is accomplished by combined wrist flexion and hand (lower arm) rotation."

She also said, "The idea of the inclusion bow with movement symbols inside is that those actions are to be included in the main movement, but exact timing is not given. In the case of the hand circle, by placing the rotation signs within the inclusion bow, those actions should be included, but no exact timing is given. If they were placed alongside, without the bow, then the length of the rotation symbols would indicate just where each should start and end."

This seemed like a clear enough explanation, but it was completely new, and seemed unrelated to any of the other explanations of inclusion bows in the available texts.

I may have brought up this example before on this list. It's a good explanation of why I get frustrated. No matter how deeply I pursue my studies, it always seems as though something very arbitrary hits me in the face around the next corner. There's no way to say, "now I understand the inclusion bow." And unless I can say that, I can't trust my own notation to accurately describe a movement.

But to answer your question more directly, I suspect I would be able to write down the steps of a folk dance without too much of a problem. Or walking in different directions. Yes.

I am going away shortly but will be back in mid-July. I hope you accept my challenge. I have been teaching notation for more than 40 years so I think I may be able to help despite your skepticism. At the least you will certainly be reading simplified dances in whatever genre you enjoy - European? - (Scottish, Greek, Croatian, Dutch etc.), jazz? line dances? old ballroom dances? current dance, etc. or you can just do walking/traveling sequences. (You can look up my bio on the web site for the Dance Dept's faculty list at The Ohio State University: www.dance.osu.edu. Click on A-Z Directory then click on my name).

It sounds like a lot of fun. A very generous challenge. I'll email you privately about it.

Be well,

Zack

From Oona Haaranen – May 22, 2013

Dear Friends:

I submitted my response regarding misconceptions of music and dance notation to the blog at the Chigago Sun-Times this past Sunday.

They accepted my response. You can read my response below or you may go to the link and read other responses as well. My response is the fifth one.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/arts_entertainment/2013/05/_dance_perhaps_more_than.html

Best Wishes: Oona Haaranen

My response is below:

I think that whoever wrote this article seems to have misconceptions about both music and dance notation.

I read dance and music notation and I was a dance major and music minor at Juilliard. I have had many discussions with musicians with whom I have worked over the years and I strongly disagree that music notation is "brilliantly refined." I have heard many comments, especially from composers, that music notation is not "accurate" and that it does not capture and express every new technical aspect of music or emotional attitude or psychological content with any kind of completeness and this is also true with dance notation. Yet for centuries the musicians have striven to improve their notation system.

This is also the case with written text. The written book, story or play script does not have everything in it, either. The reader or actor must bring the text alive by a tone of voice and interpretation. Many dancers are not yet used to this idea and it is easier for them to learn steps by copying them from video or from a teacher than to study dance notation. Copying and imitating is the way dance has been learned for centuries.I learned to read music when I was nine years old, even though I started my dance studies at the age of six, and years later I fell in love with dance notation at Juilliard. Notation provides me independence and creativity as a dancer: I do not need somebody else to teach me the steps. In addition, dance notation allows me to learn from other choreographers directly, rather than just learn from what other writers have written about the works or from other dancers’ memories of how the dance was years ago. Each dancer has a different memory of how the dance was in the past. Notation adds a whole new facet to the dance literature: concrete facts and details about choreography.

The writer describes music notation as “brilliantly refined” and dance notation as “clumsy.” Just like a beginning piano student who does not know enough and is learning to read music and play piano can sound very clumsy, so is the case also with a dance student who is learning to read dance notation and who has not yet mastered enough reading skills.The writer also states that music notation is “widely known” and dance notation is “rarified.” It is true that dance notation has never reached similar popularity as music notation has. Nor has dance notation been a required subject in many dance-related programs, which is a shame, because of the knowledge it could provide for the dance field and potentially also to other movement-related fields, arts and sciences. Unfortunately many dancers (or dance audiences) do not have opportunities to understand the art of dance at a deeper level, because dance notation courses are not easily available.

I disagree with the writer’s implication that the popularity of an idea or practice is always related to its real value or usefulness. I am sure that everyone can think of instances of popular notions that serve no real value and other ideas that have not yet gained widespread acceptance yet would be very useful and can be useful for those who successfully use them.Dance notation has an important value that cannot be satisfied in any other way because dance scores provide us information about our culture and history and of how and why dance works. Dance notation can be used in many ways as a practical tool for teaching dance and dance theory and dance notation expands the potential for both learning dances from the past and creating new dances.

The current popular norm is that dance exists in the memories of many dancers who all remember it differently and in the end, the dance is gone into the grave. Most dancers do not see the value of preserving works, so notation seems worthless. But the details of a dance, if written down, remain in the dance score for future generations.I think the writer is ignorant of current and future possibilities of dance notation. Notation does not obviate the value of brilliant dance teachers and dance coaches. De Lappe certainly is a treasure, but that does not prove that dance notation is valueless.THE END......

Oona

From Katerina El Raheb - June 14, 2013

Dear Zack,

Sorry for my late answer. I’m not attributing this personally to you, in any way. The reason I referred to “mathematical, or a technical language” is because I have the impression it is sometimes misunderstood by computer scientists, when building similar applications. Actually I totally remember you writing about the “poetic” aspect of Labanotation and on the fact that one must always asks him self “ what the writer might thought of this movement” , and I totally agree with you on this. So, thank you for clarifying , however, it is still not very clear to me what you propose in this case.

Please let me add and again correct me if I ‘m wrong, that no matter how detailed a score is, you always need some “metadata” (what is this score about? Ballet? Greek Folk? Of which period? Is it accompanied by specific music? Is it of a specific choreographer? Etc) to read it and reproduce it correctly. Like in the theater no matter how perfect a written play is, to stage it properly one still needs a director to take decisions, about the context and “what is under the lines” based on knowledge and personal artistic view.

I do agree that Labanotation is a complex system, it is not the most straightforward language and yes it is very challenging to use it in cases where the movement is more peculiar as the one you posted (robot dancing), or oriental etc. I guess this is why most of the choreographers and practitioners I know never use it, or even dislike it. Usually for dancers and choreographers it is more practical, to use other means to write down their movement and ideas, (images, videos, sketches, metaphors, idiosyncratic vocabularies etc). Labanotation however is still an excellent tool for analyzing and documenting dance and movement in a complementary way, and there are many ways to use it in a more innovative way as Brenton proposes (http://www.motionfactor.org/one-year-later-and-four-to-go-til-2017/).

Thank you again for starting this thought-provoking conversation.

Best,
Katerina

From Zack Brown - June 14, 2013

Hi Katerina,

Yes, thank you for acknowledging that I'm not trying to shoe-horn Labanotation into some sort of overly technical, overly mathematical representation of human movement. The sooner everyone stops making that assumption about me, the sooner you can all start to understand what I'm actually talking about.

The problem with Labanotation is that it contradicts itself. A given rule of usage is only actually useful in the one single case to which it applies. Another case that uses all the same symbols, has a complete different rule governing that usage.

As a result, when someone tries to learn Labanotation, they can never be certain that the thing they are trying to notate, is being notated correctly. For all they know, they are violating some special case that they haven't learned about yet.

This is why I still don't know how to notate people walking around on the stage. Because I can't be certain that the kinds of steps, stances, and leaps that I want to notate, don't fall into a particular special case that requires an entirely different method of notation.

That's about as simple as I can boil it down. Labanotation has been designed as a vast, innumerable collection of special cases. It's a nightmare of confusion that even now, the people at the very top of the community refuse to acknowledge. But ignoring it won't make it go away.

Be well,

Zack

From Odette Blum – June 14, 2013

Hi, Zack,

I thought I would respond to this before going away.

You misunderstand "place". When upright: for supports it is where the plumb line (line of gravity) hits the floor.(so put an X there on the floor) It is a vertical line through the center of the body (along the spine through the pelvis) If you are on one support, such as a foot or knee or hand, it passes through the center of that part or joint (unless you choose to shift the weight away from the center of that body part ).

When on 2 supports place is between the supports. Equi-distant if weight is evenly divided whether on feet, hands or knees and whether together or apart; if on the feet and you bend one knee (a lunge) place will be closer towards the bent leg. If you are on the hands and one elbow bends the weight will presumably shift also. If you are standing on the knees you can shift the weight slightly (plumb line/LOG). Place will be wherever the plumb line hits the floor. When you walk on any body part place goes with you, it is always beneath your center of weight i.e the pelvis

As for levels of supports: Yes moving from place middle to place high is different on feet and knees. You would be happier if there was a joint between the hip and the knee and the movement could then be a vertical motion as on the feet!!! But that is not how the body works. There is only one way you can go from high level on the knees to middle or low (sitting on the heels). No one who understands the body has a problem with that.

You cannot have different levels when standing on the head or on the pelvis, each is a mass of bone. I look forward to seeing you try that!

The problem in all this is that if one does not understand movement in all its variety and how the body works one cannot understand a movement notation system. This is why the study of a movement element is ALWAYS taught before the symbol that represents that element. One has to gain a kinesthetic understanding of the movement.

Ann mentioned that you would be happier with the Eshkol system. I doubt it except for the fact that there is only one way of writing a movement, so that you would not have to deal with choices as exists in Labanotation. But before understanding the system you would have to learn to look at movement in a different way. Because of the way the body is formed (i.e. attached at one end of every body part) every movement you do is circular, whether rotary, arc-like or cone like. Until you saw all the complexities in doing and analyzing a movement from that point of view you could not understand the system. One could say the same about the Benesh. To make a generalisation, unless you learnt to see the peripherals of a movement i.e where the extremities are, you could not understand the system.

I look forward to our sessions which will deal with movement understanding and the way the body moves - the underpinning of any movement notation system, and only then to the symbols. See you soon.

Odette

Note from Theory Bulletin Board moderator:

At the end of Meg Moore’s article there were several ‘comments’, including those below that were not reprinted on CMAlist and/or Labantalk:

Lynne Weber, May 7, 2013

This article comments on "Labanotion;" however, I believe the author means to comment on "Labanotation," a system of writing dance that has been in use for more than 80 years and has been used to record more than 800 dances, as reflected in the archive of the Dance Notation Bureau. This lack of precision in spelling carries through in the article's unbalanced misrepresentation of Labanotation. The reason Labanotation is still in use today is the ease in which a dance can be read and its accuracy in recording movement. A trained dancer can be reading basic notation within an hour. New York Theatre Ballet dancers all learned to read notation in the time they learned Antony Tudor's "Soiree Musicale." (A video of the process is viewable on NYTB's website.) Also, Labanotation does have the capability to record nuances mentioned in the article. Mark Morris, a skeptic about the system, tested it when his work "All Fours" was notated and later staged by people not familiar with the dance or his work. He commented about "throwing in everything but the kitchen sink." He gave permission for the performance staged from the notation after seeing that the dance had been captured. (Other dances of his are currently being notated.)

If I use analogies in music and theater, the author confuses a music score or a script of a play with directing an orchestra or a play. We don't expect an orchestra or a theater company to take written music or words and produce a quality performance without someone giving artistic direction. The same is true in dance. The Labanotation score captures movement just as a music score captures music notes and a theater script captures words. It doesn't replace a director, and this is what Gemze de Lappe, an amazing dancer and stager, but not someone who has been trained in using notation comments on.

We wouldn't have works by Mozart or Shakespeare had they not been written down. A number of Balanchine's dances would have been lost had they not been notated, and nuances can easily be lost as memories fail. The Dance Notation Bureau is dedicated to making sure the dances survive, and it has Labanotation scores of more than 250 choreographers. It has been responsible for thousands of performances that have been contacted for dances that were recorded in Labanotation.

Mei Lu, May 7, 2013

The Dance Notation Bureau (DNB) whose mission is to advance the art of dance through the use of a symbol system – Labanotation (Note: the author in this article spelled the word incorrectly). Many people have this misunderstanding that the system does not work well in terms of reconstruction or staging; however, every year the DNB has assisted to stage 80-150 performances from Labanotation scores all over the world.

Since 1940, we have notated 804 scores from 287 choreographers in different styles and genres. Many choreographers, such as George Balanchine, Antony Tudor, Doris Humphrey, and Paul Taylor, have their works notated in Labanotation. "Mindy Aloff defends dance notation" was published in the February 2012 issue Dancing Times UK (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Q3wiYtY7OCa3VHcEt4Wkk4UGM/edit?pli=1) which showed the value of notation.

Having a work notated is expensive and it also requires special skill to read a score. Nevertheless, all musicians are literate of reading music notes; why cannot a dancer being literate of reading symbols that record dance legacy?

Odette Blum, May 7, 2013

Meg Moore, your ignorance of dance notation is remarkable (name misspelled by the way). I assume you have heard of Balanchine and Tudor? I will let them tell you a little about their thoughts on Labanotation:

George Balanchine (1904-1983) wrote in the preface to the 1954 edition of Labanotation by Ann Hutchinson " . . . I became . . . aware of a need for an accurate and workable method for notating my works. To me the prime requisite of such a notation system would be its ability to correlate faithfully the time values in the dance with the music, because my choreography either closely follows the line of the music or contrasts directly with it.

 "When I heard of Laban's system of notation it seemed the most completely developed method evolved to meet this need. After studying the system . . . I realized this was indeed the answer and I decided to embark immediately on the long-range project of having my ballets recorded. Symphony in C, Orpheus, Theme and Variations, Symphony Concertante, and Bourree Fantasque, are among those already completed. Thanks to these scores I am now assured that these ballets will be accurately performed in the future. . . . Labanotation records the structure of a dance, revealing with perfect clarity each of the specific movements of each performer. . Through Labanotaton we can actually sit down and compare or analyze different styles of dance. Even the complicated techniques and studies take up little space and are easy to reconstruct intellectually through the notated patterns. There is no longer any need to wade through pages of verbal descriptions, which eventually become unintelligible." Twenty two of Balanchine's dances were notated in his lifetime, and twenty two more have been notated since his death.

Anthony Tudor (1908-1987) had 30 of his dances notated including Dark Elegies and Lilac Garden. In his will he specified that if a ballet had been notated the performance was to be based on the score. In a 1976 testimonial letter in support of the DNB he wrote: "This is to reaffirm my belief in the benefits that the dance, in general, and choreographers in particular, are deriving from the activities of the Dance Notation Bureau. The three small dance works that I made on Juilliard dancers several years ago with a grant from the National Endowment, which included a proviso that such works would be made accessible to any small company of sufficient technical capacity, have now been reproduced many times..... It is a good thought that the works of José Limón and Doris Humphrey, two of the most famous American choreographers, can survive because the Bureau is making it possible" (DNB Library Newsletter vol. 2, no. 2).

DNB Theory Bulletin Board

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Black Symbols on a White Page Versus Colorful Moving Images

Friday, October 4, 2013

Journal of Movement Arts Literacy

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Labanotation Quiz Book, by Ray Cook

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, October 19, 2012

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Trashing a Language

Search This Blog

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

What's New at the DNB via FB

THREADS

BLOG ARCHIVE

Followers

DNB Theory Bulletin Board

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Black Symbols on a White Page Versus Colorful Moving Images

Friday, October 4, 2013

Journal of Movement Arts Literacy

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Labanotation Quiz Book, by Ray Cook

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, October 19, 2012

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Trashing a Language

Search This Blog

SUBSCRIBE TO THEORY BB

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

What's New at the DNB via FB

THREADS

BLOG ARCHIVE

Followers