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 16th, not to his more recent
letter of May 19th.
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?
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
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
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).
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.Just some thoughts…
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
[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,
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).
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 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
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 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
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
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.)
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?
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.
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
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,
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:
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).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment