Holding and Cancelling Supports, part 1

Holding and Cancelling Supports, part 1
Submitted by Lu et al. – November 9, 2009

[Following is a reprint of a private e-mail correspondence between Mei-Chen Lu, Ann Hutchinson Guest, Leslie Rottman, and Lucy Venable.]

E-mail #1 - Mei-Chen Lu
October 22, 2009

Rose Anne Thom asked us to clarify the hold sign cancellation rule. Her students asked her why the big hold sign is needed in example a). If neither a step nor a gesture occurs, the hold sign in the left should be valid as shown in b).

My initial instinct is that reader can get confused if the hold sign is only placed in the right support column. Example a) has been the conventional way to retain the weight on both feet to avoid the confusion on which foot holds the weight. However, Rose Anne's students did bring up this interesting topic that is worth of theory discussions.

Do you think a) and b) are the same?

Is my rational of using the big hold sign (to avoid the confusion) correct?

What do you think Ray's idea of applying the release sign in example d)? 

E-mail # 2 - Lucy Venable
October 22, 2009

I wouldn't say that b) is "incorrect". It is just harder to understand/read because you have to look backward to see that you are on two feet. With a) you know right away that you are on two feet - no questions asked. So I say that a and b are the same end result but I prefer a). c) says there is either a specific forward low gesture or a gesture of your choice - any level, any direction, any flexion, etc. This gesture of choice cancels the hold weight for the left foot. In d) I would just release the left foot which would mean to shift my weight a little forward so I was only on the right leg then I would step left on count 3. But if the idea was to keep shifting the weight throughout count 2 then I would write a shift of weight forward. Using just the release sign makes me think this is something special to do like just release the left leg and then shift forward onto the left leg at the last minute, thus making more of the pause.

Will be interested in what others say.

E-mail #3, Ann Hutchinson Guest
October 22, 2009

Here is my understanding of the questions in hand:

Ex. b) correctly indicates that on count 2 weight is on both legs. Nothing has occurred to cancel the hold sign on the left foot.

Ex.a) visually reinforces this fact; it is not wrong, it could be said to be redundant, but it is visually helpful for the person in doubt.

Ex. c) shows the left leg making a gesture on count 2 before the step on count 3.

Ex. d) states that exactly at the start of count 2 the left foot is picked up enough to clear the floor, this swiftly shifts the weight completely onto the right foot. The release sign shows the moment of release; it could occur slightly later during count 2. If it needs slower timing, then a duration line is needed. I won't go into that here as it is really another topic.

Thank you, Rose Anne, Ray and Mei, I enjoy these brief discussions. When they are short, it is possible to reply to them right away.

Happy Labanotating everyone!

E-mail #4 - Leslie Rottman
October 23, 2009

I agree with Ann and Lucy. The large hold sign is equivalent to two small holds, one in each column. a) and b) are the same but a) is preferable, as already stated. As for Ray's suggestion, I agree with Ann. But, in practice, there will be some sort of leg gesture which I would choose to write. Even if the leg is relaxed and unimportant, the dancer holds it in some specific way. Within the context of a score, it is important to include these details which all add up to "style".

Holding and Cancelling Supports, part 2

Holding and Cancelling Supports, part 2
Submitted by Lu et al. – November 9, 2009

[Following is a continuation of the “Holding and Cancelling Supports” correspondence. This part of the discussion was written by Mei-Chen Lu, Ray Cook, Lucy Venable, and Charlotte Wile.]

E-mail #1 – Mei-Chen Lu
October 22, 2009

Mira [Kim] and I are wondering about Lucy's comment in d) which I colored in red below. I show three examples in notation here.

In d1 the weight shifts to the right foot, yet Mira points out that d1 does not cancel the hold sign. A gesture, air stroke, or release sign is still needed to cancel it

d2 it shows a release to cancel the hold sign.

d3 does not have the cancellation problem.

 

E-mail #2 – Charlotte Wile
October 23, 2009

I'm confused. In Mei's e-mail it says in 1d the hold sign is not canceled. However, in Labanotation, 4th edition, page 63 (4th paragraph) it says “Note that the caret always refers to a previous indication. In shifts of weight it shows that a previous partial support becomes a total support or vice versa.” (Also, see the second paragraph.)

Wouldn't this mean that in Ex. d1 the left foot no longer supports in count 2? In other words, the hold sign is canceled.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue. Or is there some other rule that applies to the situation in d1? I couldn't find a situation just like it in Labanotation, 4th.

E-mail #3 – Ray Cook
October 23, 2009

A few more thoughts.

A hold sign in the support column is canceled by a step on either foot or a gesture of the held foot.

d1 is a shift of weight. In this example it is a complete weight transfer, the same end result as it would be if you had stepped. Do theory examples say anywhere that the end result of a shift of weight and a step may sometimes or always end with the same result? Would a partial shift of weight cancel the hold sign? No because to have a partial shift of weight the weight has to be on more than one support.

d2, Starts as d1, but is more specific as to when the left foot releases.

d3, By writing the first movement this way you do not know which foot stepped so it is not another way for writing what is the first step in the two other examples.

a and b and d. b is correct - you end on 2 feet. a is also correct and gives a clearer picture of what is happening. d is also correct but I would say over writing. In all three examples the final step on the left cancels the hold signs. In d the left hold sign is obviously canceled and right hold sign is cancelled because a step on either foot cancels the right hold sign.

Here the problem is that if a reader finds these three ways of writing in different scores they may think that b ends on one foot while a and d obviously end on two feet. The reader may think that there is a difference, especially if the clear rule is not applied.

c. This is clear.

I think I was taught that nothing in both support column i.e., without hold signs - you would go into the air landing in a high position.

Hope that I am clear.

E-mail #4 – Mei-Chen Lu
October 28, 2009

I am really grateful to have many of you responded to Rose Anne's initial hold sign cancellation rule question. It is a simple question but a very interesting one. I agree with Ann that the release sign in example d does have a timing issue, and perhaps we can discuss this when Ann is in town. However, I am interested in having further discussion since Ray, in response to my second posting, said,

“d1 is a shift of weight. In this example it is a complete weight transfer, the same end result as it would be if you had stepped. Do theory examples say anywhere that the end result of a shift of weight and a step may sometimes or always end with the same result? Would a partial shift of weight cancel the hold sign? No because to have a partial shift of weight the weight has to be on more than one support.”

Can someone answer Ray's questions? I need clarification on whether a shift of weight can cancel the hold sign. What if I do not want to write a gesture? For example, in many folk dance forms the gesture leg is not emphasized.

I found an example in Ann's Labanotation 4th edition, page 63, ex 81e:

Ann wrote: "Where a space occurs between a caret reference and the previous support, the caret is not elongated but attached to the new indication where its message is required. This is illustrated in 81e in which there is a pause between the second position and the shift of weight to the left foot." Yet, Ann did not specify the right left gesture here. Are we supposed to "assume" the hold sign is cancelled, so the end result is shifting the weight to left side middle? Then, I think we need to add one more rule to hold sign cancellation rule.

Furthermore, what if the level is not changed? Is the hold sign cancelled after the shift of weight?

E-mail #5 – Ann Hutchinson Guest
October 29, 2009

Rule: A new support takes all the weight, unless indicated otherwise. See page 49 in the 1977 LN text, or page 121 in the 2005 edition. This is true also for a shift of weight onto one foot from a previous situation with weight on both feet.

Note: we are not talking here about walking on all fours, acrobatics, floor work, etc. Refer to these volumes of Advanced Labanotation to find the specific rules that need to be applied in less usual circumstances.

I hope this helps.

E-mail #6 – Lucy Venable
October 29, 2009

A very good reference and examples for this are in the 2005 edition pp.62-64 under Shift of Weight. (A step is modified by a caret and tells that foot to stay where it is when the weight shifts. My explanation.)

Back to Normal

Back to Normal
Submitted by Ann Hutchinson Guest and Sheila Marion -- February 16, 2006

[Following is a reprint of correspondence between Sheila Marion and Ann Hutchinson Guest. Examples cited in red refer to examples in this posting. Examples cited with a plain number can be found in Ann Hutchinson Guest, Labanotation: The System of Analyzing and Labanotation, 2005.]

[Sheila Marion wrote]:

A question has come up about cancellation for rotations, and I thought I would ask you what you think.

Recently, I heard that a “back to normal” sign should not be used to cancel both a tilt and rotation, instead one should use an “unrotate” sign (Ex. 1 below) to cancel the rotation (along with a “back to normal” sign to cancel the tilt.

 

It’s my understanding that a back to normal sign returns the head, torso and its parts to the upright, unrotated, unbent position. It’s also my understanding that for rotations of the limbs, a back to normal sign is not appropriate to cancel a rotated state, though it may be used to cancel a palm or thumb facing that causes a temporary rotation.

I started to look for information in your revised Labanotation, and found what might possibly seem like conflicting statements if read out of context of the whole:

• Page 214, paragraph 2: … “A rotation or twist of the limbs, the head and whole torso, has in the past been cancelled by a back to normal sign, 384h; however, it is now appropriately cancelled by the composite turn sign (Ex. 2 below), which for gestures means rotated/twisted neither inward or outward, 348i. It should be noted that a back to normal sign is often used to indicate the normal, upright body alignment for the torso and head, 348 j.” [348 j, however, does not include a rotation to be cancelled.]

• On page 230, first paragraph, the text states: “Because the return to normal sign will also cancel any accompanying twist, it may not always be suitable [as a cancellation of a tilt]"

• Page 263, heading “Cancellation of Simple Rotations” in the Chapter Rotations of the Torso and Head, states: “A rotation or twist in one direction is valid until cancelled. A return to the normal untwisted state is shown by the composite turn sign, written as in Ex. 3 or Ex. 4 below; by the back to normal sign (Ex. 5 below); or by the ‘away’ sign (Ex. 6 below). Because the back to normal sign will also cancel any accompanying tilt or shift, if only the rotation is to be cancelled and the tilt or shift is to remain, the back to normal sign is not an appropriate choice.”

• Pages 269 and 270, examples 450b and 452a & b show the back to normal sign canceling rotations of the pelvis and the whole torso.

• Page 245, heading at the bottom of the page “Cancellation of Rotations” in the Chapter on Turning (Rotation) of the limbs, states that “A specifically stated rotation remains in effect until cancelled by another rotation or by the indication of the parallel state.”

All this would seem to confirm my understanding that a back to normal sign returns the head, torso and its parts to the upright, unrotated, unbent position, but that for rotations of the limbs, a back to normal sign is not appropriate to cancel a specifically stated rotation. Would you agree?

---

[Following is Ann Hutchinson Guest’s response]:

Thank you [Sheila] for bringing these details to my attention.

If one is concerned with motivation and expression, the following can be said, although I know not everyone is into this kind of detail:

Canceling a torso tilt:

• a back-to-normal sign returns the torso to the normal (upright) state.
• a place high sign focuses on the directional destination.

The back-to-normal may be performed in a more relaxed, "The tilt is over" manner.
The place high sign can be performed with a more deliberate sense of directional destination.

The back-to-normal sign will cancel both a tilt and a rotation/twist. Thus, if only the twist is to be cancelled, the unrotated sign needs to be used. If only the tilt is to be cancelled, then the place high sign needs to be used.
There has been a tendency recently to use the unrotated sign to cancel twists/rotations for the limbs, it gives the destination, there is no question as to what is being cancelled. It is also used by KIN as they have no back-to-normal sign.

There are instances where I would like the back-to-normal sign for rotations to mean "what is natural for that person." But there we are getting sophisticated! On the other hand, the need can arise.

General Cancellation Sign

General Cancellation Sign
Submitted by Ann Hunchinson Guest - December 2, 2002

Cancellations are indicated by:

a) another similar movement of that part of the body.
b) a back to normal sign when there is an understood normal situation or condition for that part of the body.
c) a composite turn sign for rotations, twists of parts of the body.
d) the inverted V sign when none of the above is applicable and when the result of a previous indication should no longer be in effect. (Ex. 1)

The idea in adopting the general cancellation sign is to provide a meaning that had not previously existed.


The idea of “No longer in existence,” “Forget about it,” “It has disappeared,” “The previous has gone away” says nothing about what the state of that part of the body should be. It cancels the result of a previous indication, it results in no new position, situation, etc.


It is important that we do not have redundancy by making use of the inverted V to mean a total return to normal.



Usage in KIN


When Knust decided against using the back to normal sign, already used by Leeder and the DNB notators (thereby missing an opportunity for unification), he chose the ‘away’ sign, the inverted V to mean a complete return to normal for that part. It was Maria Szentpal who questioned this, as the sign gives no indication of how far ‘away’ the movement should go.


The sign has been taken up by Labanotators as being valuable. I am, however, uncertain as to how each individual notator is understanding it, how each is using it.


This is the time for this matter to be made very clear. In revising the basic Labanotation textbook I need to be quite clear about this sign and its usage. I therefore welcome hearing from each of you. To what extent do you agree with the above presentation of the meaning and use of this sign?


It appears that some Labanotators are using this sign for that meaning.