Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, October 8, 2008

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, October 8, 2008
Submitted by DNB Staff - April 13, 2009

[Following are minutes for the Open Theory Meeting held at the Dance Notation Bureau, October 2008.]

Present: Sandra Aberkalns, Mira Kim, Mei-Chen Lu, Charlotte Wile.

TOPICS:
1. Agenda for the November 4, 2008 meeting.
2. Support bows.

Topic #1 - Agenda for the November 4, 2008 Meeting

On November 4 there will be a theory meeting with Ann Hutchinson Guest. The group discussed a possible agenda for the meeting. Ann may have items that she wants to discuss. If there is time, we could also talk about other issues. The group made a list of some topics they felt might be of interest. Page numbers in the list are from Guest, Labanotation, 4th edition.

1) Page 154. The use of an “x” inside a diamond to show distance of the leg gesture from the floor.

2) Page 236. Cancelation of a body hold when the limbs are carried during torso tilts.

3) Page 436, Ex. 780a, 780b. Is there still a use for 780a that is different from 780b?

4) Page 435, Ex. 774b. Should the inclusion bow be drawn longer, i.e., so it is the same length of the as the stretch and forward signs combined? Similarly, on page 353, “Forward Fall,” measure two, should the first bow in the sliding indication for the leg be drawn next to the stretching sign? (See the end of topic #2 below.)

5) What is the history of the support bow that has one slanted line going up and one going down (See topic #2 below)?

Topic #2 - Support Bows

Charlotte asked for clarification on timing for support bows. What part of the indication shows when the support occurs? For instance, in 1a the placement of the hand sign (the supported part) shows the timing of the support. Does this mean that the bird in 1b shows the timing since it is the supported part?

Sandra said timing can sometimes be problematic with the type of support bow shown in 1a. For this reason, the bow in 1c is often used. In 1c the signs for the relaters would be on the same level in the notation, so there is no timing issue. On the other hand, 1a has the advantage of showing visually what is being supported and what is supporting. Each bow has its advantages and disadvantages, depending upon the circumstances. 

Sandra: To show which relater is active, the bow can be modified, as in 1d. For instance, 1d would show that the boy's hand is below, and the girl's hand is above.

Charlotte asked if thickening one side of the bow, as in 1e, could be used to show the active relater.

Sandra said she feels 1e should not be used in Labanotation. Rather, other information on the bows and the staff should be used instead to show what is active. [Addendum from Charlotte: The thickened support bow in 1e is given in Guest, Labanotation, 4th edition, page 295.] 

 

Charlotte said that in Motif Notation thickening the bow to show an active part is useful when other information is not relevant and therefore should not be in the notation.

Charlotte: In 1e the thickened end of the bow depicts what is “active” in the relationship. Does “active” mean the part that is supported or supporting?

Mira: In touching relationships the part that moves to do the touching is the “active” part. In support relationships the “active” part could be the part that is supporting or supported, depending upon the context of the movement.

Charlotte pointed that in Labanotation, 4th edition, page 295, it says, “If there is doubt as to the active, i.e., the supporting part, the end of the angular bow can be thickened on that side.” This statement seems to be saying that the supporting part is the active part.

At this point in the discussion there seemed to be a consensus that this rule is not what is always practiced in LN. Rather, the active part in a support can be determined from the context of the movement.

Mei reiterated what had been said previously, that pins or other modifiers in the bow would always tell which is the active part.

Mira said that placement on the staff could help show what is active, e.g., the symbol for the active relater is put inside the staff.

Sandra said 1f would be a way to show which part is above in a touch. Mira said someone told her that 1f is an old way of writing. Shouldn't the pin be inside the bow, as in 1g? Sandra replied that she feels the pin can be put wherever there is room.

Charlotte asked if it is the sign for the relater that shows the timing of the support (rather than the end of the bow).

Sandra replied that it is the end of the bow that shows the timing.

Charlotte: But doesn't this present a problem because the bow can be placed in different places in relation to the bow, e.g., as in 1h-j?

Sandra: Ex. 1h is what one would usually write. Ex. 1i is “messy writing.” Ex. 1j would never be used.

Mei wondered why 1h would be preferable. Sandra said because one writes from the bottom up, and the bow in 1h visually shows that the support happens at the end.

Mira pointed out that freedom in placement of the bows is sometimes necessary, as in 1k.

In starting positions placement does not matter since there is no timing in starting positions. However, as a side issue, Sandra pointed out that Lucy Venable feels that facing signs should be written in line with the bottom of starting position signs, whereas Sandra likes to place them just before the initial double bar line. Everyone felt that placement of indications in the starting position can vary depending upon what makes the notation clear.

Sandra said the problem of timing for the type of support bow in 1a has not been addressed in the texts because it is “such a can of worms.” She said there are almost no examples of the bow in Knust, and it has not been specifically discussed in ICKL. Mei found one example in Knust, Dictionary of Kinetography Laban, 1979, Ex. 457b-d (shown here in 1l). 

When did idea for the support bow in1a come into use? Perhaps Ann will be able to give a history of the sign when she is here in November.

Charlotte pointed out that in Motif Notation the support bow in 1a is used to show unspecified weight transference, as in 1m (i.e., a movement that ends in a support). Perhaps the same idea could be written as in 1n, but that looks too much like the sign for stepping on the right foot (1o).

The discussion returned to the issue of the “active part” showing the timing of the support. At this point in the discussion some people in the group felt that the active part is the one that is “supporting.” They defined “supporting” as the part that takes weight and does the holding. Charlotte said that that rule and definition would not always work. For instance, 1p does follow that rule; the shoulder is the supporting part, so it shows the timing. However, in 1q, isn't the chair the supporting part? Following the rule, does this mean the timing in 1q should be taken from the chair sign? No! The hips (the supported part) show the timing. The rest of the group did not agree with Charlotte's reasoning. They felt that there is no inconsistency between the two examples, and they would be read correctly. [Addendum from Charlotte: After watching the DVD of the meeting, I think the other people in the group thought I was confused about which part of the indication shows what is supported, and which part shows what is supporting. That is clear to me. What I don't understand is why the supporting part (the shoulder) shows timing in 1p, whereas the supported part (the hips) shows timing in 1q].

The use of the bows in Labanotation and Motif Notation was discussed. Everyone agreed that the rules of usage for bows may need to be different in the two subscripts. For instance, as stated above, the use of pins and other details that are used in Labanotation to show the active part might make a Motif Notation score too detailed. Thus, there is a need for the thickened bow in Motif Notation.

As a related side issue, Mira said that in Labanotation, 4th edition, the placement of sliding bows does not always seem correct. For instance, sliding is sometimes drawn as exemplified here in 1r. Does this mean the sliding does not refer to the whole movement (i.e., there is some stretching before the sliding begins)? Similarly, sometimes inclusion bows are drawn as exemplified here in 1s. Shouldn't the inclusion bow be longer, [as in 1t]? 

Note from Charlotte: We continued to discuss bows a little longer, however the DVD I used to help write the minutes did not record the end of the meeting. I can't remember what we talked about very well, so I am not including that part of the meeting in the minutes.

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, July 14, 2008

Minutes for the Open Theory Meeting, July 14, 2008
Submitted by DNB Staff - April 2, 2009

[Following are minutes for the Open Theory Meeting held at the Dance Notation Bureau, July 4, 2008.]

Present: Sandra Aberkalns, Ray Cook, Mira Kim, Mei-Chen Lu, Charlotte Wile.

TOPICS:
1. Janos's response to the June 8, 2008 discussion of unit timing.
2. The unfolding sign vs. the back to normal sign.
3. Distance indications.
4. Flexion and extension indications.

TOPIC #1 - JANOS'S RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 8 DISCUSSION OF UNIT TIMING

On June 8 Ann Hutchinson Guest and other members of the Laban community met to discuss notation theory. A report of that meeting see Susan Gingrasso, “Minutes for the Motif Theory Discussion, June 8, 2008”. The meeting began with a discussion of Janos Fugedi's paper, “Unit Timing of Touching Gestures,” which he presented at ICKL 2008. In Susan's report she summarized that discussion as follows:

“Unit timing: Ann presented the example shown below. She emphasized that on this type of “spring point,” the actual landing occurs a moment before the count and the touch occurs on the count. Janos did not discuss this issue in his paper. In addition, one important premise in his paper is that passing touches are not possible. This group disagreed with that idea. They felt there can be passing touches. Ann said they have to come at an angle so they can go off at an angle.”

 

Janos e-mailed the response to that discussion: see J. Fugedi's Commets on the June 8, 2008 Meeting.

At this meeting (July 14) there was the following discussion about Janos's response:

Re. Transient touches.

Everyone seems to agree that there is an angular path in a transient touch. The group disagreed with Janos's idea that such movement should always be seen as containing two units.

As the group sees it, the movement could be perceived in different ways. Yes, it may be seen as consisting of the two “opposite components” that Janos describes. This perception can be written with indications for terminating touches, as in Ex. 1a below.

However, the group felt that the movement, even if it contains a steep angle, can also be seen or experienced as one continuous movement. Transient touch indications, as in 1b, are conventions which allow this interpretation to be notated.

The group discussed the differences between 1a and 1b. First, they express different intents. Ex. 1a says touch right forward, then go forward low. It tells the mover to think of two separate, relatively small movements. In contrast, 1b says tells the mover to think of one continuous movement that touches along the way.

Also, in 1a the location of the touch is exactly right-forward and the timing of the movement is exactly half way. In 1b the location and timing of the touch is left more open. The notation just says touch somewhere along the way. The placement of the hook gives relative timing, e.g., when it is in the middle it says the touch occurs more or less midway in the movement. This more general notation allows the movement to vary from person to person, according to their leg lengths, the way they time the movement, etc.

The notators in the group have found the intent, general timing, and location conveyed in the 1b convention is very useful for notating ballet and modern dance. In their experience, for most scores, breaking the movement down as in 1a would probably result in “over writing.”
Ex. 1d is different from 1a and 1b because it depicts a curved path in which there is a sliding touch in the middle.

 

 

Ray: In Ex. 1a and 1b the foot touches only one point on the floor, as illustrated in 1e. In 1d the foot touches in more than one point, as in 1f. Like 1e, 1f can be thought of as one path or two paths. For instance, it could seen as one part of one circular path going in one direction. However, one could also think of it as containing two quarter paths. Again, it depends on the intent of the movement.

Sandra: The perception of the movement will change depending upon the type of movement one is notating. For example, the intent conveyed in 1b would be easier in point shoes than in bare feet or in boots.

Re: Spring Points

The group explored various movements to see if it is possible to touch and land at the same time in “spring point” movements. Ray wondered if it can be done if the supporting leg is bent before it touches the floor. Sandra said it can happen when a person is supported in partner work, as in Giselle.

At any rate, even if one cannot touch and land at the same time, the group agreed with Janos that the amount of time between the landing and the touch is so small as to be inconsequential for most situations. Therefore, they agreed with Janos that using unit timing works for writing spring points. Writing the movement as though the touching and landing occur simultaneously (even if they don't) conveys the impression and intent of the movement. Writing it with specific timing would usually be cumbersome and unnecessary.

Sandra and Ray questioned why Janos seems to be accepting the use of a convention for writing spring points, but he does not accept the use of a convention for writing one continuous movement with a transient touch indication.

Note: Janos's also replied to the group's April, 2008 discussion of his paper (see J. Fugedi's Comments on the April 7, 2008 Meeting). Discussion of that reply was deferred to a future meeting.

Topic #2. Unfolding Signs Vs. Back to Normal Signs

Ray asked a question about Mira's score for Peter Quanz's Kaleidoscope, which Ray is checking. He wondered why in one case Mira used an unfolding sign to cancel folding, and in other cases she used cancelation signs. Mira explained that she used the unfolding sign in a situation in which the torso is folded and twisted; then the torso unfolds but remains twisted. Using a cancelation sign would have canceled both the twist and the fold.

Ray said the meaning of the back to normal sign needs to be clarified throughout the system. In the Labanotation text it gives at least three different ways the sign can be interpreted.

Topic #3. Distance Indications

In the November 26, 2007 and January 7, 2008 meetings the group explored ideas for indicating distance. In the January meeting the group concluded that of the ideas presented up until then, the signs shown here below might work best: any distance (3a), near distance (3b), moderate distance (3c), far distance (3d). Charlotte said she has been trying out those signs in Motif sequences, but has found them too cumbersome, especially when they are modified to show penetrating or surrounding, as in 3e. Also, she finds it troublesome that the sign for near (3b) is different from the plain dashed sign for near that is so well established in the system (3f). 

Charlotte has been exploring a new idea. In Advanced Labanotation: Spatial Variations, Issue 9, p. 256, Ann Guest uses a straight line with arrows on both ends to indicate distance, as shown here in 3g. The sign is derived from the sign for distance used in architectural blueprints. Charlotte suggested that it could form the bases of a family of distance signs. The straight line would be changed to a curve so the symbols would fit in with other relationship indications. A curved broken line (3i) would indicate a near distance (i.e., the same as the established sign for near). A curved broken line with arrows on each end (3j) would indicate moderate distance. A curved solid line with arrows on the end would indicate far distance (3k). [Addendum from Charlotte: Any distance could be indicated as in 3h].

The signs could be modified as in other relationship indications to show surrounding or penetrating (for instance, as in 3l). [Addendum from Charlotte: Passing could be shown as exemplified in 3m, and the active part as exemplified in 3n.]

The signs could also be modified to show a precise distance, for instance, somewhat near (3o) or very near (3p). Note: 3i could be interpreted as somewhat near or very near. Likewise, 3k could be interpreted as somewhat far or very far.

A sequence containing the basic signs is shown in 3q).

Ray liked Charlotte's proposal.

Sandra had reservations about it. For example, she said that the solid line in far (3k) does not work because a solid curve means a contact relationship.

Ray and Charlotte: There are many instances in the system where signs have more than one meaning, e.g., circles can mean upper body part (3r), retention (3s), or body aspect (3t). Likewise dots have different meanings (3u).

[Addendum from Charlotte: There is already a precedent for curved lines having a meaning besides contact, as in the path sign in 3v. In the relationship family a dashed line is used to indicate near (3w), but it is also used to indicate awareness (3x) (see Guest and Curran, Your Move, p. 268). Dashed lines also signify a “passive” movement (3y).] 

Sandra wondered if 3z could be written as in 3aa. If not, she felt there may be a problem with Charlotte's proposed symbol for a far relationship.

Charlotte: Ex. 3cc is not used as another way to write 3bb. This does not invalidate the use of the curved broken bow in other contexts. The same would be true for the proposed far bow.

Ray: The relationship bows are used to show an association between body parts, objects, people, etc.; not an association in relation to space as in 3aa and 3cc.

Charlotte: Maybe you could have a relationship between the right eye and the left eye (everyone laughed).

Sandra felt that having arrows in the bows did not fit in with the rest of the family of relationship bows.

Charlotte said that when her 6 year old students were shown several relationship bows and asked to identify them, they immediately said that the sign with arrows (3k here) means “far.”

Mira agreed that 3k visually connotes “far.”

Sandra asked why arrows are needed at both ends of the bow. Perhaps an arrow at one end could show the active part.

Charlotte: That is an interesting idea. However, in deciding how to depict the active relater(s), it probably would be better to follow the pattern that has been established with other relationship bows, e.g., 3dd would indicate either foot is active, 3ee would indicate the left foot is active, 3ff would indicate the right foot is active, and 3gg would indicate both feet are active. 

Ray wondered what 3hh might mean (everyone laughed). 

As in the January meeting, Sandra questioned whether an indication for far is really needed since farness can be shown on a floor plan. She said that in Labanotation an indication for “near” is needed much more than one for “far.” As an example, in partner work quantifying nearness is more important. She feels it is usually sufficient to show farness through other symbols. For instance, direction signs that show the position of the arms would denote how far the arms are from each other.

Charlotte replied that floor plans are only put in Motif Notation scores when they are salient aspects of the movement. Floor plans specify where movers are located in the movement site, as well as their distance from each other. The far sign would be useful in Motif Notation when one wants to indicate the movers' distance without showing their location. As for Sandra's other example, an indication for far would specifically convey the intent of distance that is not inherently implied by indications for arm directions. (See the January 2008 minutes for further discussion of these issues.)

Topic #4. Flexion and Extension Indications.

Charlotte has a new idea for the flexion/extension family of indications.
Charlotte gave a definition of terms: Flexion is the general term for movement that may contract, fold, or join. Extension is the general term for movements that may elongate, unfold, or separate.

[Addendum from Charlotte: Here is a more complete definition. Flexion and extension are generic terms for body-oriented actions in which the emphasis is on moving a joint or joints.

Flexing actions cause the body or a body part to occupy less space. Such movements include bending, folding, joining, arching, narrowing, contracting, shrinking, curving, curling, closing in, and adducting.

Extending actions cause the body or a body part to occupy more space. Such movements include stretching, unfolding, widening, elongating, growing, broadening, separating, opening out, and abducting.]

Charlotte said 4a-4f below show the established indications for flexion and extension. [See Curran and Guest, Your Move, p. 172.] The horizontal ad lib. sign in the indications say that the signs indicate any of the forms of movement given in the definitions above. The small vertical ad lib. sign signifies “any amount.” It is derived from the placement of dots that specify degree in contraction and elongation signs.

The indications for flexion can be interpreted as contracting, folding, or joining. However, they only contain the signs for contracting and folding (and an ad lib. sign). Likewise, the indications for extension can be interpreted as elongating, unfolding, and separating, but they only contain the signs for elongating and unfolding (and an ad lib. sign).

Charlotte thinks the signs would be clearer if they included all variables. For example, the signs for flexion could contain the signs for contracting, folding, and joining, as in 4g, 4i, 4j. The signs for extension could contain the signs for elongating, unfolding, and separating, as in 4h, 4l, 4m.

Mira suggested drawing the signs for marked flexion extension as in 4n, 4o. Charlotte liked that idea.

Ray wondered if it is necessary for the generic symbols to visually contain all aspects of what they represent.

Ray pointed out that in the flexion signs contraction and joining are easy to see, but he didn't see the folding sign.

Charlotte: The top of the established consists of the sign in 4o. The top of the proposed sign consists of the sign in 4p. 

The group wondered what the “neither joined nor separated” aspect of 4k would mean. In other words, where would the arms go if they are neither joined nor separated? Would they hang downward in a neutral position?

Charlotte also thought it might be useful to have a symbol that indicates either flexion or extension. Maybe it could be indicated as in 4q. The sign is derived from the signs for joining (separating), elongating, and an abbreviated sign for flexion, as shown in 4q. It is related to the sign discussed in previous meetings for unspecified altitude (4r).

Mira asked if the difference between 4s and 4t could be clarified.

Charlotte: Ex. 4s means either flex or extend. Ex. 4t means neither flex nor extend. 

Mira wondered if direction (e.g., contracting over the front of the body, folding over the side of the body) is shown in the indications.

Charlotte: As far as I know, in the established and proposed symbols 4a-4o, the direction of the movement is not specified; it is left open to interpretation. It can be specified with the specific signs for contraction, folding, etc.

Ray: The idea underlying these signs could also be indicated with distance signs. For instance, in an arm flexion the hand might get nearer the shoulder.

Sandra had reservations about the proposed signs (4g-4n) because said she would interpret them as meaning all aspects of the sign must be performed. She felt that 4a-4f make a clearer statement because they contain an ad lib. sign.

Charlotte: Not all generic signs contain an ad lib. sign, [Addendum from Charlotte: e.g., any turn (4u), any design drawing (4v), any weight transference (4w), any Effort (4x), any altitude (4y). There are also several composite generic signs that do not contain an ad lib. sign. One example is the sign for “any relationship” (4z), which combines attributes of the signs for addressing, supporting, and touching. That sign does not say do all of those relationships. Rather it says do any one of them; the choice is open. Another example is the sign for any body part (4aa).] 

Mira: Perhaps the proposed signs could be drawn so they have an ad lib. component, e.g., as in 4bb. 

Janos Fugedi's Comments on the June 8, 2008 Meeting

Janos Fugedi's Comments on the June 8, 2008 Open Theory Meeting
Submitted by Janos Fugedi - August 7, 2008

Please click here to see J. Fugedi's comments.

Minutes for the Motif Theory Meeting, June 8, 2008

Minutes for the Motif Theory Meeting, June 8, 2008
Submitted by Susan Gingrasso - July 17, 2008

[Following is a summary of a Motif Notation theory meeting at the Dance Notation Bureau, June 8, 2008. The summary was written by Susan Gingrasso]

Present: Tina Curran, Ilene Fox, Susan Gingrasso, Ann Hutchinson Guest, Lynne Weber, Charlotte Wile

ICKL MOTIF FELLOWS PROPOSAL DISCUSSION
Tina began the meeting with a short discussion on the ICKL Motif Fellows proposal included in its draft form in Appendix A: ICKL Motif Fellows Proposal, August 8, 2008, ICKL, Mexico City. The discussion centered around:

1) issues surrounding what criteria would be used to identify Motif Fellows (see those proposed under the application process in Appendix A); and

2) how the differences in the way Motif has been defined and used will be dealt with as the LOD and LMA communities have different definitions of Motif.

A few years ago Jimmyle Listenbee, Ilene Fox and Tina Curran organized a series of meetings in which the issues of similarities and differences were examined by various members of the Laban community. Tina proposed that the question of, “What is Motif”, will start to emerge out of these and other conversations. The Motif Fellows is an opportunity to recognize the work and bring thoughtful conversation to the table.

MOTIF THEORY DISCUSSION

Of the 18 topics proposed, those in blue below were discussed (not in numerical order). Ann began with a discussion of Unit Timing as presented by Janos Fugedi in his paper, “Unit Timing of Touching Gestures” at ICKL 2008 in Mexico City.

Unit timing: Ann presented the example shown below. She emphasized that on this type of “spring point,” the actual landing occurs a moment before the count and the touch occurs on the count. Janos did not discuss this issue in his paper. In addition, one important premise in his paper is that passing touches are not possible. This group disagreed with that idea. They felt there can be passing touches. Ann said they have to come at an angle so they can go off at an angle. [Janos's response to this topic will be posted soon on the Theory Bulletin Board].

 

1. Discussion of the theme symbols: inner/outer, mobility/stability, etc. NOT DISCUSSED

2. Modification of the “phrasing bow” (Charlotte Wile)

Discussion: Charlotte noted that this issue is that the phrasing bow we use now can be confusing because plain bows have other meanings. She inquired about how to differentiate a linking bow from a phrasing bow. However, the discussion revealed that the real issue revolved around the use of the linking bow, which gradually got resolved so that the linking bow would continue in its “standard usage” so it would not be confused with the “phrasing bow”.

Ann did present the phrasing bow she proposed in Example 2a and noted that she had thought about this problem long ago.

At the end of the discussion, Charlotte asked if the phrasing bow were to be modified, which one of the several she had proposed would better signify that idea. Those of us present preferred Example 2b, the one with the “dot” at the top. 

 

3. Indication of the “same” and “different” (Charlotte Wile)

Discussion: Refer to Appendix B: Proposal for Indicating “Same” and “Different”. Charlotte explained that the issue arises when using generic indications for distinguishing “the same,” “different,” or “either the same or different” for 1) body parts; 2) sequence of repeating actions; i.e. two or more, and 3) qualities or dynamics.

Summary: Should the idea of same and different have its own symbology or should we adapt existing symbology such as the caret? The general consensus was that the larger concept of “same and different” needs its own symbolic representation. Motif already uses an equals sign to mean “the same'” and an equals sign with a slash through it to mean “not the same”. Examples 3a-e demonstrate this concept.

Examples 3a and 3b show the “same” and “not the same” with regard to aspects of space.

Examples 3c and 3d show the “same” and “not the same” with regard to aspects of the body.

Example 3e was proposed to indicate using the “equals” sign to indicate that the second rotation should be the as the first.

As the caret is already used in four different ways, it should not be modified to mean “not the same” as was suggested by Charlotte in her paper in Appendix B. The symbology needs to address the concepts of “the same” and “not the same” or either for 1) body parts; 2) sequence of repeating actions; i.e. two or more and 3) qualities or dynamics.

In current practice, the caret (see below) has four different usages: 1) same body part; 2) shift of weight 3) continue this/these movement(s) on the next staff; 4) open and closed positions. 

Examples 3f (open and closed positions), 3g (shift of center of gravity) were provided on the board to show two of the uses.

Example 3h shows how the “not equals” sign in parentheses (the “equals” and “not equals” signs enclosed in parentheses were proposed by Charlotte) could be used in an addition bracket to indicate that each of the three directional actions used a different body part. 

4. What is the difference between the hand moving on a path and an arm moving on a path, (e.g., does the hand movement always involve movement in the wrist)?

Summary: In many cases, context influences our choices. The more specific we need to be in the movement, the more structured the notation needs to be.

5. Indication for “top of the head.” If the top of the head is a surface, shouldn't it be indicated like the other surface of the head signs, i.e., with an area sign, as well as a head sign and pin?

Summary: The head is a limb. The symbols in 5a and 5b are used to indicate the top of the head.

6. Indicating a “swing-like” movement (Charlotte Wile) NOT DISCUSSED.

7. Diagonal pathways (Charlotte Wile). Clarification provided by Ann Guest.

Summary: The diagonal pathway symbols, as shown in 7a and 7b, relate to the adjacent diagonal direction symbols.

Example 7a indicates circling forward over the right-forward and left-backward diagonals. The symbol is based on the right forward diagonal direction sign.

Example 7b indicates circling backward over the right-forward and left-backward diagonals. The symbol is based on the left backward diagonal direction sign.

Example 7c indicates circling either forward or backward over the right-forward and left-backward diagonals.

8. A sign for “any circular path” (Charlotte Wile). This concept relates to Ann's paper on gestural paths. It would be useful when one wants to indicate a path using axis pins without stating that the path is a deflection of a particular path such as vertical, horizontal, etc.

Summary:

We agreed that there is a need for an “any circular” path symbol. Could Example 8a become the symbol for any circular path? If so, would it provide the opportunity to write various paths as in Example 8b without having to say that these are deflections from particular path signs?” In contrast, Example 8c denotes deflection from a specific path.

Note from Susan Gingrasso. I took the liberty of using Example 8d to teach the concept of “any circular gestural” pathway to my ten composition students in the UW Madison Summer Intensive last week. They grasped the concept/symbol of any circular gestural pathway quite well and easily made the transference to the concepts/symbols for the specific gestural pathways. They related them to “any rotation” and the specific rotation symbols and the concept/symbol for “any pathway” and the specific pathway symbols. 

9. Indication of distance; e.g. “far, near, “neither near nor far.” (Charlotte Wile) Charlotte had a new idea (not discussed at the Open Theory Meetings) based on a sign she had found in “Advanced Labanotation.” NOT DISCUSSED.

10. Symbols for flexion and extension signs that contain all three forms as the present signs don't contain spreading and closing, and adding a generic indication for “flexing or extending” to the family of signs. (Charlotte Wile) NOT DISCUSSED.

11. Indicating scattering or gathering related to the above idea of generic sign for flexing or extending. (Charlotte Wile) NOT DISCUSSED.

12. Does a “motion toward” indication always mean going toward, without arriving at, the given location, state, etc.? Or can the movement arrive there? See examples in item #13.

13. Related to #11 and #12, see comparisons presented in examples 13a, 13b, and 13c.

Example 13a shows a movement of flexion lasting the amount of time of the duration line.

Example 13b shows an action that achieves flexion because the action is linked to flexion. In motif, when we have an action stroke, it can be replaced by a specific choice (as it is being taught in LOD). Example 13b could but does not have to be a flexing action. The action achieves flexion. The difficulty occurs in differentiating between when the action stroke is used as an action and when it is used as duration line as they are the same symbol.

Example 13c shows an action that moves toward but does not achieve flexion.

Summary: The discussion focused on Examples 13a and 13b.

Example 13a clearly is that the straight line represents duration because it is connected to the flexion symbol. Flexion occurs during entire duration of the symbol.

Example 13b brought up a few varying understandings.

1) Interpretation of the duration of the flexion; i.e. another way to write 13a connected to the logic of Kinetography and Labanotation;
2) In Motif Notation, the straight line representing an action could be replaced by a more specific choice so that flexion in Example 13b is a destination.

In Motif Notation, 13a and 13b can be different in their meaning, unlike in Labanotation and Kinetography. In 13b, Motif Notation uses the line as an “action stroke” rather than a “duration” line. In Example 13c, there was consensus that approaching whatever is inside of the symbol is motion and not destination; i.e. one doesn't actually arrive. Actually arriving would need to stated as in Example 13d. 

14. Using “stillness” before the double bar line as a starting position. (Charlotte Wile)

Summary: We were in consensus that a stillness sign can be used before the double bar line. It supports the DEL [Dance Education Laboratory at the 92nd street Y in New York City] movement sentence that starts and ends in stillness.

15. Can a "central fall" go just downward, or must it always go downward and then another direction (e.g., downward and then end to the right)? NOT DISCUSSED

16. The notation in the Example 16 says to maintain the forward position of the arm during the step. However, does it specify that the arm stops moving? For example, could the arm turn during the step? If so, how could one specify that the arm does not move at all during the step?

Ann clarified this issue. If moving means body change then yes, the arm stops moving. If moving means that the arm is carried with the step, then no. This discussion needs to be continued.

17. Indications for Tempo. (Ilene Fox): Ilene explained that she uses the “time signs” for fast and slow when she wants her students to explore speed/tempo. In her work she discovered that just elongating, for example, a turn sign, does not place the focus on the concept of speed. Ilene wants her students to focus on speed/tempo; i.e. on the idea of fast and slow, and not duration. She presented Examples 17a-e that those present liked.

Example 17a shows a very little amount of speed; i.e. that the tempo is very slow-super slow, i.e. slow motion (markedly slow).

Example 17b shows little amount of speed; i.e. that the tempo is slow, (slightly slow).

Example 17c shows a moderate speed; i.e. that the tempo is medium, andante.

Example 17d shows that the tempo is fast, (slightly fast).

Example 17e shows that the tempo is very fast (markedly fast)

Note the difference between the symbols for speed and duration in Examples 17f Speed/tempo and 71g Duration.

Note from Susan Gingrasso. I refer readers to the following papers.

Hutchinson, Ann. Motif Description-Time Signs. Presented April 1985 at ICKL.
Hutchinson Guest, Ann and Ann Rodiger. Time Signs. Presented 1991 at ICKL.

Appendix B: Proposal for Indicating “Same” and “Different”
By Charlotte Wile - June, 2008

Same or Different Body Portions

1a) Same or different body parts
1b) Same body parts
1c,d) Different body parts

Same or Different Movements

2a) Same or different direction
2b,c) Same direction
2d,e) Different direction

(Note: 2f indicates that the directions are shifts)

Combining Indications

4a,b) Same direction, different body parts
4c) Different drawing, same body parts
4d) Different body shape, different body parts

Janos Fugedi's Comments on the April 7, 2008 Open Theory Meeting

Submitted by János Fügedi - written June 21, 2008, posted March 24, 2009

First of all I thank all of you to devote your time and energy dealing with the points I raised in my 2007 ICKL paper on Unit Timing of Touching Gestures. Your practice of discussing notation and movement analytical subjects is an exceptional example for our community how we should work and make research. I follow your activity with great interest, even if your area is different from my practice. Your meeting inspires me to initiate something similar in our region and in our specific field dealing with notating European traditional dances.

In the following I copied here some of your points from the Minutes which I reply or comment. Your text is highlighted green, mine blue to make it easier to identify “who's speaking”. A third color (purple) is used to cite other sources.

Tina: János' context seems mainly to be teaching notation to beginning students.
Reply: 1.) Not really. My primary goal is to make notation simpler to be used by many instead of a handful highly trained experts. Most of dance representatives (dancers, choreographers, teachers) reject notation because of the complexity they don't need and can't acquire. How about a slogan: Simple notation for simple needs?
2.) My teaching experience is that in the mind of students the touching gestures are represented the same way as a not touching gestures, mainly because there is no difference in the rhythm of a touching and a not touching gesture. Both arrives on the same moment to the desired destination. Only a long and tedious training can change this understanding in students' mind.

Tina: In other words, is this a theory issue or a pedagogy issue?
Lucy: Or is it an “understandable” issue.
Reply: Exactly, this is primarily and basically an issue of movement understanding. All the other come next.

Lucy: Do the rules for what is written make the notation more understandable?
Reply: I think so. Symbols and rules form the system. But there is a third component, the understood (learned) interpretation of a written movement. It lies in the “style”. Even a simple step notated would be performed very differently by a ballet and folk dancer.

Ray: One issue is the visual aspect. Is what you see on the page what you get? If you use specific timing you may be writing what is there, but does that make the notation more confusing?
Reply: Definitely an important aspect. Especially when UT and ST are used mixed in a notation, as we usually do: UT for not touching gestures and ST for touching ones in the same score.

Ray: A person familiar Hungarian Folk dance would not have problems with a “simplified” score, but a person not familiar with that style of movement may find such a score difficult to read.
Reply: Everybody who is not familiar with Hungarian traditional dance may find such a score difficult to read, just as a jazz pianist a Bach score, if s/he's never been trained in classical music. This is the “third component” I mentioned above.

Ray: When you simplify you leave out things. What is not said is what often is important. In unit timing, details about the movement are left out that may be important to recording the style of the movement.
Reply: I'm afraid not really. The way I propose using UT is a question of understanding notation and movement, and no information is left out. See more about later.

Tina: Maybe we need manuals for notating different movement techniques and styles.
Comment: Sort of. Just have a look at the 10 page glossary of “The Bournonville School” by AHG.

Sandra: The discussion of unit timing versus specific timing has been going on for decades. Conventions are used to solve problems associated with this issue. When choosing between unit or specific timing, the notator needs to go by the conventions that are built into the type of movement that is being notated. For instance, in ballet, if one writes a port de bras and supports with detailed timing, it could be very confusing because then it would look like there are many things going on with different timings. Writing exactly with great detail can give too much information and make the score very difficult to read. Conventions pull everything together; then the reader's mind fills in all the miniscule blanks so that there will be three dimensional movement.
Comment: JF deeply agrees.

Lucy: Perhaps we should have keys for certain abbreviations and conventions.
Comment: Mária Szentpál compiled one for the Hungarian “subdialect” which I once distributed in ICKL.

Charlotte felt that one of the main issues in János' paper can be summarized as follows: In standard notation, gestural touching is written as shown here below in Ex. 3, and gestural touching with clapping is written as in Ex. 4.
Reply: I'm really sorry, but it is not so. In “standard notation” (meaning structured LN) currently we use ST for touching gestures. Ex. 3 is a way of notation in consequent UT, which is not introduced into the system “officially”. But the paper should be visited how the whole subject was deduced.

Charlotte (continuation): János feels Ex. 4 is visually confusing because the hook and clap do not coincide. János proposes the touching should be written as in Ex. 5.
Comment: It is not really the visual aspect, what bothers me, but the understanding of a movement type depending on the timing of a hook on a direction symbol.

Charlotte (continuation): That way the hook would coincide with clapping indications, as in Ex. 6. This would not work using standard rules because Ex. 5 would be interpreted as a transient touch. However, János opines that this is really not a problem because, as he sees it, there is no such thing as a transient touch. (He says “transient touches” are actually sliding movements and should be notated as such).
Comment: Now yes.

The group was not sure if János' premise is correct. They physically demonstrated examples that they felt could be considered transient touches (without sliding).
Reply: A KEY POINT. Let me cite now a part of a former mail between Judy van Zile and me (September 13, 2007 - accentuation by underline is made by me):

I think your proposal for how to notate Hungarian dance, and to use UT with placement of the hook anywhere on a gesture, relies entirely on your belief that there is no such thing as a transient touch. If there is no such thing as a transient touch, then a single hook on a gesture can ONLY mean a terminating touch, and then accepting UT becomes easier.

Therefore if anyone can demonstrate that “transient touches (without sliding)” exist, the concept outlined in my paper can be easily and immediately contradicted. To judge that demonstrations at the meeting really represent the so called “transient touches” I would welcome a video of that (not impossible nowadays). But let me call your attention that now we are talking of touching a passive object (the floor) with an active body part (e.g. a part of the foot), where this approach works (see the “movement analytical axiom” in the paper).

I experienced at the conference that we might have a different understanding of a “transient touch”. Billie Mahoney demonstrated tap examples of “transient touches”. She also showed us her notation where a single foot hook was placed at the beginning of a direction symbol meaning a “transient touch”, you can see examples in AHG's Labanotation (Guest 2005, 193-194). In my understand all the demonstrated examples were passing sliding. Actually in European traditional dances passing sliding gestures happen frequently (and tap stems straight from a type of a well known European traditional dance), therefore we, Hungarian notators are quite familiar with this movement phenomenon, since it is an important part of our dance “language”. But I am not alone with this understanding of tap movement. If you have a look at Sheila Marion's tap notations (Tap Dance: A Dictionary of Steps in Labanotation, Labanotation checked by Ann Hutchinson, Muriel Topaz, Ray Cook, Judy van Zile, Lucy Venable) you can find that Sheila also understood those “transient touches” as passing sliding gestures - very consequently. Compare e.g. the notation of Time Step, Cramproll, (Marion 1986, p.35) with the first measure of Time Step Single Buck in the last edition of Labanotation (Guest 2005, 193), a notation contributed by Billie Mahoney - I suppose the two movement sequences should be performed the same way, but their notations definitely differ in this specific point.

Let's continue with Judy, and I think her next point exposes a difference in our movement understanding. Her point of “fluid motion” did not come into my mind at all, and perhaps it helps clarifying the difference in approaches.

And here I think there is a problem with the "definition" of "transient touch," and with "fluid motion." If I start with my right leg right side low and move it to forward low, I can do this action without stopping, and on a continuous (that is, undeviating) pathway. But if I decide to touch the floor somewhere along the way, I think I can still do it without stopping (that is, with continuous action), but the pathway must deviate momentarily in order to make the touch. I'm not convinced that the action cannot still be fluid, while having the pathway "break" momentarily. And I think this is a key issue in accepting what you are proposing.

Sandra said that in Ex. 4 (see above), in order to have the gesture and support coincide with the clapping, she would make the direction symbols shorter.
Reply: The same was proposed by Billie Mahoney at ICKL 2007. While it might takes us to a common platform, I'm not really enthusiastic about this solution because it makes the rhythm recognition a bit complicated again. But perhaps the difference in our approach to movement can be discovered here: traditional dances are very rhythm centered, we might say, rhythm is equally important to spatial aspects.

Charlotte: But shortening the symbols changes the length of the gap between symbols, thereby making it look like the pauses between movements are longer than they really are (see Ray's comment for Ex. 2 above).
Comment: Exactly it is why I would be happy to avoid such a solution.

Charlotte: Another thing to consider is resultant touches, which are not discussed in János' paper. For instance, Ex. 8 shows the standard way to write a resultant touch. János' rule is that hooks should be written using specific timing. Therefore, the notation would be written as in Ex. 9. In this case, which example is clearer? 

Reply: A very important question again. My basic approach is, what Judy van Zile pointed out, and which I have not stressed enough in the paper (only verbally at the conference): I would welcome indicating the MOVEMENT TYPE (here: type of touch) which includes its timing, simply because that type cannot be performed in any other way. Therefore: a resultant touch is dependent of how fast the weight is transferred from one leg to the other, and it is indicated by the support symbol, so all the same, where the foot hook is placed within the time frame defined by the support sign. (Am I clear enough? Sometimes I'm not sure…)

Sandra: Often in ICKL papers, notation examples make sense only because they are given out of context. It is important to show how proposed indications would look in complex scores that contain a variety of situations.
Comment: Sure, sometimes it happens. What's worse than that, even in textbooks we can find the same problems.

Sandra: For instance, for the topic under discussion perhaps it would be instructive to show longer notation sequences or even whole dances.
Reply: There were “longer” sequences at the end of the paper. Actually long enough to demonstrate and compare the difference between usages. Even if a whole score was appended, the notation situation would have not changed.

Sandra: What happens when János' ideas are applied to other types of movement besides Hungarian Folk dance? Would János' proposals work when there are more complex arm indications, gesturing of other body parts or the torso, variation in tempo, body part initiations, resultant touches, palm facings, etc.?
Reply: We should try. I gave my examples where the proposal works (at our last meeting the Hungarian notators all agreed the tool is useful). Perhaps next time one can create notation situations where UT of touching gestures is problematic. In Sandra's list I can see only one which is about touches, and even that (resultant touches) was answered above. But let me call your attention, that the main conflict is not among gestures, but between corresponding support and gesture indications. I think I do not have say, why.

Charlotte: At the end of his paper János says, “Exploring the ways and conventions of UT notation needs further, thorough investigation- the present paper can be regarded only a step into this direction. Certain further questions (such as understanding of touching gestures longer than a time unit, sliding gestures, ending in a hit, and perhaps the most important one, the result-centered description of, e.g. rotations) were intentionally taken out of the scope of the paper.”

The group felt it would be useful to know if János' proposal is intended just for Hungarian dance, where perhaps the items Sandra listed would not be in the score. Or is his paper intended as a proposal for standard notation that is the default for all styles?
Reply: Definitely not “a proposal for standard notation that is the default for all styles”, but not “just for Hungarian dance”. The “style” I am familiar with more or less is the traditional dances of our Central European region, though I think the “nature” of movement creation is not very much different in other regions of the European traditional dances.

ST is a good and precise analytical tool to notate movement in high details and definitely it would be a loss not having it. All I wanted was to prove, if we use a simpler solution we loose no information while notation is easier to read, rhythm is easier to recognize.

Thank you very much again for your attention!

János Fegedi

References

• Guest, Ann Hutchinson (1979): The Bournonville School. Part 4 Labanotation (Ralov, Kirsten. ed.) Audience Arts, a division of Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel
• Guest, Ann Hutchinson (2005): Labanotation. Fourth edition. Routhledge, London and New York
• Marion, Sheila: Tap Dance: A Dictionary of Steps in Labanotation. A Ray Cook Publication, New York, 1986

Ann Hutchinson Guest's Comments on the April 7, 2008 Open Theory Meeting

Ann Hutchinson Guest's Comments on the April 7, 2008 Open Theory Meeting
Submitted by Ann Hutchinson Guest - March 10, 2009

[Editor's note: The following is Ann Hutchinson Guest's response to the minutes of the April 7, 2008 Open Theory Meeting. Ex. 1, Ex. 5, Ex. 7, Ex. 8, and Ex. 9 are examples from the minutes.]

Timing for Supports Ex. 1, I would be happier if a bar line had been added.

I would like to clarify the timing of support symbols. AH 1a): The contact with the floor is shown by the beginning of the symbol, (i), the length indicates how long there is a settling into the centered weight placement, (ii). When traveling has taken place, contact with the floor often occurs before the center of weight is centered over the new support, thus the length of the support symbol is important. When springs in place occur, AH 1b), the length of the support symbol shows the cushioning, the bending of the leg. In AH 1c) this cushioning barely takes place. Thus the length of this symbol does not affect when the moment of landing occurs. Ray's ex 2 shows a more abrupt landing.

Remaining over the center of weight: In AH 1d) the left leg remains under the body, the traveling is shown outside the staff and the landing is 'in place' as far as the relationship of the new support to the body is concerned. It is not unusual to show traveling this way, but for this special kind of movement, it is an appropriate way.

Timing of Touching Gestures: Terminating Touches must have the hook at the end of the gesture symbol. In Ex 5, the heel would touch the floor (a passing touch) as the leg moves to forward low, off the floor.

Passing, Transient Touch: These do happen, AH 5a), though more often they are quick brushes, rather than a single touch, AH 5b). The release sign could be used, as in Ex. 7, to spell out clearly the momentary touch. Theoretically it should not be needed.

Resultant Touches. Ex. 8 is correct. Ex. 9 is not. The touch comes into effect at the end of the transference of weight, not at the start. Normally the foot would release from the floor at this point, the hook states that it does not and what kind of resultant touch takes place, in this case the toe.

Lollipop Symbols Maybe it is time to consider this idea. Here is how the idea started: In LN we state the action, contraction in this case. Ex. 1a) and the end of the duration line indicates when you have arrived at the stated degree (the destination), here indicated as count 1. Advantage: you see at the beginning what kind of movement it is. In KIN, Ex. 1b), the state to be arrived at is written at the end and the duration line shows when you start moving to that destination. The line needs to be linked to the flexion sign with a bow to state it is all one indication. Advantage: the contraction sign is written on count 1, the time of arrival, the destination.

Ex. 2a) shows how we all write a gesture that starts in the measure before and ends on the next count 1. If the device of 1b were used, then it would be written as in 2b), or perhaps with the linking bow of 2c). The same would be applied to all directions, 2d), 2e), etc.

The length of the line (duration line - whatever you want to call it) will state how soon the action is begun. The small direction symbol is always written at the time of arrival as shown in 3a) - 3e). With no line attached, the action would be very swift.

Is the linking bow needed? If the line can be attached to the symbol, as in 4a), there should be no need, it would follow the rule established for Motif Notation. If, however, the indication is more complex, as in 4b), where a dot needs to be seen, then clearly, the linking bow is needed.

A few times over the past decades I have brought up this idea, but never too seriously. Now I am wondering if it will not solve the problem that is being discussed at present. The touching leg gesture can be written exactly when the touch occurs, and will coincide with the accompanying clap. To make the leg gesture less abrupt, the line of an appropriate length is added, producing the notation of 5a).