Response to Sandra Aberkalns' and Ann Hutchinson Guest's Comments [Natural Movement]

Submitted by Ray Cook - March 13, 2000

Pedestrian equals "unschooled."

I agree with Sandra's March 2 comments concerning folk dancing. I would like to add that although not learned in a studio, folk dancing is consciously passed on from one person to another and therefore may be considered "schooled."

I think that just as a Balanchine work looks different when danced by the Royal Ballet, so will pedestrian movement look different depending on the nationality of the mover. We do not expect the Royal Ballet to give an impersonation of the New York City Ballet. Therefore, we should not expect an impersonation of pedestrian movement as done by a New Yorker.

For example, in "Legacy" choreographed in Teipai, dancers perform in the "Graham" style. The dance ends and the men begin to horse around - pushing and pulling one another - tossing the groom into the air. This is done as an unschooled, pedestrian section - no turnout, no pull up, etc. If New York dancers were doing the dance, they would push and pull each other as New Yorkers; they would not try to impersonate the dancers from Teipai. In other words, the key I am suggesting says to do whatever seems "natural" to you, regardless of your cultural back round or movement training.

On Feb 10 Ann wrote that my idea for a new key (Ex. 1 here, RC1f in Ann's posting) "ties the idea to directions, the place symbol has its own in-built meaning of the vertical line, hence not open enough." I had the same feeling about her symbol for "traveling," which is shown in Ex. 2 here (example A4 in Ann's Feb 10 posting for the Bulletin Board traveling discussion.)

Continuing the Conversation With Ann Hutchinson Guest and Ray Cook on the Term "Natural"

Continuing the Conversation With Ann Hutchinson Guest and Ray Cook on the Term "Natural"
Submitted by Sandra Aberkalns - March 2, 2000

You still need to know what "natural" means within the context of the work. The problem is not only one of choreographic style/technique but also a cultural and temporal one.

We cannot create symbols in a vacuum. In this era of globalization, notators must address a wide range of situations and cultures when creating new symbols, so the symbols will be universally useful.

In AHG's submission on Feb. 10, 2000 she uses the term "village folk dancer" to describe untrained, natural movement. My question to AHG is who's village is she referring to -- the British Isles, Manhattan, an African, an Indian (both American and India), a Japanese, an Aborigine, etc. Today's younger generation of choreographers acknowledge the need to seek inspiration from a multitude of cultures as the basis for their works. Therefore, you still have the same problem. Unless you are familiar with what is meant by "natural," you must define the term.

If a work that is shared by nationalities allows each culture to do what is "natural," then you have no problem. However, if a work originally created on Highlanders is recreated in Japan, and requires the Japanese assume the "naturalness" of a Highlander, then you have a problem if "natural" is not defined.

Another more personal example: I just returned from 5 weeks in India and my "natural" carriage when walking and sitting was very different from the Indian women. This was not only pointed out to me by my brother, but several Indian men as well, and yet all the women involved were being "natural."

AHG found Ray Cook's term "pedestrian" useful. On the surface I agree that pedestrian would be a better word than "natural." However, it does not address the root of the problem since the word "pedestrian" still implies "natural," and we are back to the beginning of this conversation -- what is "natural"?

I also believe that until this issue is resolved and there is a general consensus concerning the concept of "natural", we should put the brakes on creating a new symbol. The symbol should evolve out of understanding the concept and not vice versus i.e. creating a symbol and then attaching the meaning.

Please, we would like other people's thoughts on this topic, so don't be shy and jump in at anytime!!!

A New Key - 'Normal, Natural' Movement

A New Key - 'Normal, Natural' Movement
Submitted by Ann Hutchinson Guest - February 10, 2000

Ray Cook's Aug.17, '99 discussion points out a definite need. I read his suggestions and his further thoughts with interest. But first I must go to Sandra Aberkaln's Oct. 5, '99 discussion on what is `normal', `natural' movement. It seems to me that she is talking about inherent style in a technique or in choreography, such as ballet. I would say that, like ballet, none of the choreographer's movement styles which she mention is natural or normal. As I understand it, Ray is after the untrained, natural style of the village folk dancer; for example, his word `pedestrian' (used in his Nov. 10, '99 letter) is quite useful, it gives an un-dancey image. An argument in favor of an indication based on the `back to normal' sign is that it is used to indicate the standard state or placement of a body part, and this is not based on any style.

To continue with Ray's Nov. 10 letter. The basic sign for back to normal, A1, (which I invented) is an indication of the movement, just as an X represents that movement. Each can be given time value with a duration line, A2. Note, this duration line is not an isolated action stroke, it is in context. To please the KIN people, we should tie it to the symbol it follows, such linking would make sense, A3. Note that in Motif Notation the duration line is attached to the flexion or extension signs, A4. Body part signs are nouns and cannot be compared with verbs, the signs for movement.

The question of how quick the return to normal should be, if there is no duration line added, is another discussion on which Ray and I do not agree. I remember a discussion with Knust where he advocated that movement indications not lengthened and not given a duration line should occur at the moment indicated, but not be interpreted as sharp, sudden, i.e. any active quickness featured, rather a passive brief event. It has seemed to me that this is a functional idea; the intention of suddenness can be added by an accent sign (slight or marked) or by an Effort sign. I see it as a briefer version of Ray's Ex. RCj). I would not encourage use of his Ex. RCi).

To go back to Ray's Aug. 17th paper: Ex. RC1a) from there looks like a system of reference key; this is not a solution as we are not dealing with how directions are to be interpreted. Ex. RC1f) ties the idea to directions, the place symbol has its own in-built meaning of the vertical line, hence not open enough. Re his Further Thoughts (same date?), Ex. RC1a states the duration of a return to normal. I had the same idea as Charlotte, Aug. 16, '99, Ex. CW here, but have since come up with what I think is a better one, a statement placed between double horizontal lines at the start of a score to indicate what features are to be applied to the whole score, an established usage, my Ex. A5 here.

Response to Ray Cook's "A New Key"

Response to Ray Cook's "A New Key"

Submitted by Sandra Aberkalns - Oct 5, 1999

I was interested to read what you are trying to propose since I have also come across this dilemma in my scores. However, the problem is to define what is "normal" or "natural."

For example, what may be "normal" in a Taylor work is not necessarily "normal" in David Parson's work. Similarly, a "natural' walk in Anton Dolin's Snow Pas would be considered quite stylized in Edward Stierle's Lacrymosa.

So, the question that needs to be addressed is what is "natural" or "normal" for any given work. These terms cannot be standardized to mean one thing for every score; the issue needs to be defined specifically for each work.

In your August 17th discussion you write, " The indication in 1a) is better for a Key as it says the action is normal." Are you saying that 1a) should have a new meaning, i.e. that the symbol should mean something different than current understood usage? If this is your intention, then what can/will we use to indicate body parts returning to what has been defined as normal carriage/placement.

From our previous discussions it is my understanding that you do not approve of any given symbol having more than one meaning. Since the return to normal already has standardized meaning, I would recommend that more discussion/research be conducted to find a completely new symbol that does not conflict with established symbols and usage.
I also feel that Charlotte Wile's idea/recommendation in her Aug. 17th discussion has similar problems. The symbol is too close to current usage and could easily be misread.

Another idea for the "natural movement" key

Another idea for the "natural movement" key
Submitted by Charlotte Wile - August 16, 1999

Maybe the key could consist of a "back to normal" sign drawn on top of an action stroke, as shown below.

A New Key, Further Thoughts on "Natural Movement" Key

A New Key, Further Thoughts on "Natural Movement" Key
Submitted by Ray Cook, August 16, 1999

Here are some further thoughts on the sign for "read movement as normal."

• The indication in 1a) is better for a Key as it says the action is normal.
• The indication in 1b) is best for cancellation unless another key is required.

A New Key

A New Key
Submitted by Ray Cook - August 16, 1999

I have many instances where the movement goes from natural to dance.

I need a key to show that the movement is to be read as natural.

 I like 1a, except that doing the movement naturally is not based on the cross of axis.

If while doing natural movement you have to read it with another key, you could add a hold sign, as in 1b).


The hold sign would be canceled by:
1. The "disappear" sign in 1c);
2. Another key in the same column.

The sign in 1d) is an alternative.

Suggestions welcomed.