NYCB Notation?
Edmond Chibeau
to explain the work I do videotaping dance companies. So I went
about describing archival dance videography and its various uses,
one of which was that it serves as sheet music for dance. I said
that while there are some systems of notating dance, mentioning
Benesh & Laban, that unlike with trained musicians who all can
read music notation, it was the rare dancer who could read dance
notation; and that while many choreographers had their own methods,
I had heard many complain that years later they were unable to
decipher their own notes.
At this point, my host, a retired singer/actor, disagreed strongly.
He said that he had dated Diana Adams of the City Center Ballet
(I'm not sure whether he meant NYCB's predecessor or NYCB itself),
and that they had had a system of notation that all the dancers
could read. He said she would go into a studio with pages of
notation, read a few phrases, go dance them, return to her notes
for the next phrase, dance that, and so on.
Does anyone know anything of this? Perhaps I am mistaken in
my thinking, and there are many many dancers out there who can
read notation. I know it's a required course in many Dance Departments'
curriculum, but I've always been under the impression that it takes
several years to master and that most dancers in major companies (read
enough contractual weeks to qualify for unemployment) would be
unable to decipher dance notation. How about it cyber-readers?
Amy Reusch
Dance Videographer
c/o Edmond Chibeau
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
chi...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Boniface Lau
Edmond> Over a Christmas dinner with old family friends, I was asked
Edmond> to explain the work I do videotaping dance companies. So I
Edmond> went about describing archival dance videography and its
Edmond> various uses, one of which was that it serves as sheet music
Edmond> for dance. I said that while there are some systems of
Edmond> notating dance, mentioning Benesh & Laban, that unlike with
Edmond> trained musicians who all can read music notation, it was the
Edmond> rare dancer who could read dance notation; and that while many
Edmond> choreographers had their own methods, I had heard many
Edmond> complain that years later they were unable to decipher their
Edmond> own notes.
Edmond> At this point, my host, a retired singer/actor, disagreed
Edmond> strongly. He said that he had dated Diana Adams of the City
Edmond> Center Ballet (I'm not sure whether he meant NYCB's
Edmond> predecessor or NYCB itself), and that they had had a system of
Edmond> notation that all the dancers could read. He said she would
Edmond> go into a studio with pages of notation, read a few phrases,
Edmond> go dance them, return to her notes for the next phrase, dance
Edmond> that, and so on.
Edmond> Does anyone know anything of this?
I have seen the Labanotation score of Balanchine ballets such as Stars
and Stripes, Serenade, and Allegro Brillante. People like Ann
Hutchinson Guest was once a notator with the NYCB for more than ten
years. Thus, I would not view the above scenario as unusual.
Of course, nothing beat learning from the dancers who had danced the
original role and would be even better if the original choreographer
is there to show you.
IMHO, learning to dance a particular role by watching the video is
like learning the violin part by listening to the recording of a
symphony. It is probably the most inaccurate way and therefore often
the last resort.
--
Boniface Lau
(speaking for myself)
Jim Williams
>Amy Reusch
It wouldn't surprise me if Diana Adams could read some notation, but it's
true that the vast majority of dancers and choreographers can't. Even
people who have taken a class in Labanotation (often required for college
dance majors, especially programs with a modern emphasis) can't usually
do more than "spell out" a few basic phrases. That's why a certified
Labanotator is required to do authorized reconstructions of pieces (such
as a lot of Doris Humphrey's repertory) that are available in notated
form -- it is NOT a do-it-yourself project even if you know a bit of Laban.
Benesh notation is supposed to be easier to read, but I don't think it's
as commonly used in the U.S. A third form of movement notation is Sutton
Movement Writing -- it was invented by a woman named Valerie Sutton, who
transcribed many of the traditional Bournonville day-of-the-week classes
and brought them to the U.S.; she invented her form of notation for this
purpose. Later, Sutton got interested in sign languages for the
hearing-impaired, and adapted Sutton Movement Writing for recording the
different "dialects" of sign language. I believe it's now used more for
this purpose than dance notation, although she says it's suitable for
notating any form of movement.
So basically, I think you're quite right in saying that the ability to
translate from notation is quite rare among dancers. There are also some
philosophical issues that I think are important:
--Notation isn't a "text" for dance in the same sense that a script is a
text for a play or a score is a text for a musical composition. A
composer might create a whole symphony by sitting down and writing out
the music, and playwrights certainly write plays by writing them out --
but you almost NEVER encounter a choreographer who creates a dance by
writing out a Laban score. Dance HAS to be created interactively, with
the help of the dancers; a notated version is an after-the-fact record.
--This is a constant source of argument with my Laban-trained friends
(Labanotation does take on a certain religious quality with some of the
people who study it intensively) but I feel strongly that notation can
only record *choreography* -- it can't record *performance*, which (in my
opinion, at least) is the most interesting thing about dance. After all,
that's what the audience sees, what evokes the emotions, etc. A
Labanotated score can be very useful for "directing traffic" in a dance
piece -- it tells you who goes where, what foot you start on, etc. But
you can't look at a Labanotated score and know how Giselle is supposed to
*feel* when Myrtha condemns Albrecht to dance until death, for example.
But a dancer who studies a good videotape, notes, scenario, etc. can get
an insight into how others have *performed* this characterization, and
use that as a basis for refining her own performance.
Sean James
>That's why a certified >Labanotator is required to do authorized
>reconstructions of pieces (such as a lot of Doris Humphrey's repertory)
>that are available in notated form -- it is NOT a do-it-yourself
>project even if you know a bit of Laban.
We were taught a Doris Humphrey piece (Nightspell) while I was at the
NZSD, by a notator who came out here specially from the US. However,
most of it didn't make any sense at all until (even with reading all the
background info I could find) until someone who had actually _performed_
the piece took us for several rehearsals some months later.
--
Sean James: Principal Dancer for Southern Ballet, Christchurch, NZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
se...@barre.equinox.gen.nz : s.j...@mcbbs.gen.nz : Fido 3:770/140.42
Wendy Brookes
>He said that he had dated Diana Adams of the City Center Ballet
>(I'm not sure whether he meant NYCB's predecessor or NYCB itself),
>and that they had had a system of notation that all the dancers
>could read. He said she would go into a studio with pages of
>notation, read a few phrases, go dance them, return to her notes
>for the next phrase, dance that, and so on.
>
>Does anyone know anything of this? Perhaps I am mistaken in
>my thinking, and there are many many dancers out there who can
>read notation. I know it's a required course in many Dance Departments'
>curriculum, but I've always been under the impression that it takes
>several years to master and that most dancers in major companies (read
>enough contractual weeks to qualify for unemployment) would be
>unable to decipher dance notation. How about it cyber-readers?
I took one year of Labanotation in school. After playing the piano for
twelve years, and sight-reading for at least four, I can definitely say
that Labanotation is _much_ more difficult than reading music! I have been
dancing since I was six, and after one year of notation, my "sight-reading"
level was at the same level as a beginner at the piano.
Perhaps NYCB has their own system based sole
Labanotation is a powerful language because it can notate any kind of
movement, but there is no need for the kind of detail of the fingers and
face in ballet that there is in Indian dance forms, for example.
*************************
Wendy Brookes
bro...@sybase.com
*************************
Edmond Chibeau
>I have seen the Labanotation score of Balanchine ballets such as Stars
>and Stripes, Serenade, and Allegro Brillante. People like Ann
>Hutchinson Guest was once a notator with the NYCB for more than ten
>years. Thus, I would not view the above scenario as unusual.
In other words, you think many of the principals
could read notation?
>Of course, nothing beat learning from the dancers who had danced the
>original role and would be even better if the original choreographer
>is there to show you.
Probably no would disagree with you here, although I've seen
many works suffer in restaging, even when rehearsed by the
original choreographer, even if only after a year or so, even
on most of the same dancers.
I think restaging, like teaching, is a gift. For some
choreographers, perhaps the inspiration that was there
during conception of the piece has faded.
>IMHO, learning to dance a particular role by watching the video is
>like learning the violin part by listening to the recording of a
>symphony. It is probably the most inaccurate way and therefore often
>the last resort.
Well, you know I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
Archival videographer is after all my life's work and I go
to great effort (at great personal expense) to get the
best record possible of both the choreography and the interpretation.
I know Suzanne Farrell & Anna Kisselgoff share your views. Suzanne
said at a lecture last year or so that she thinks ballets recreated
from videotape look like videotapes in performance (life-less I presume).
Anna Kisselgoff (sp?) has said on videotape somewhere that she thinks
videos set in stone one performance's interpretation of the choreography.
I'd be the last person to say a piece restaged without inspiration
- either from one of the original dancers or the choreographer - would
be lacking (not that ballet's greatest classics from the nineteenth
century are restaged that way). However...
The last two years of my work with Pennsylvania Ballet, we videotaped
every performance of every production except Nutcracker. We did wide
shots for the floor patterns & spacing, we also did close-ups so that
you could see the steps & the individuals' interpretation (lost in the
wide shot). After hours of shooting & studying the tape, we would frame
the choreography in the manner best suited it's message,
pulling out & zooming in when appropriate, to the best of our ability
to understand the work from repeated viewings. In doing so, we shot
several casts' interpretations, thereby, I believe, eliminating
Anna Kisselgoff's objection. As for Suzanne Farrell's objection,
I wonder if perhaps she was thinking of wide-shot videos. Yes, alot
of choreography loses something of it's vitality on video, but then
again, there is other choreography that is better set off by the
smaller frame the camera affords over the proscenium. But again,
I think restaging work requires talent & an ability to inspire
the performers. Very probably second-hand contact with Balanchine's
intentions as expressed in person by his dancers can supply that
inspiration.
I'm not saying any videotape is a good record. But one conscientiously
done can be a treasure.
If I didn't believe this, I'd do something that paid better.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
----------
Amy Reusch
Dance Videographer
c/o Edmond Chibeau
Northwester University, Evanston, IL. USA
chi...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Barry Suttin
Archives for the company. I am responsible for seeing that all ballets are
properly recorded for restaging purposes.
We are constantly debating how much taping one has to do to get a proper
record of the ballet. We do Close-ups & Full Shots.
My feeling is that a videotape is only a "snapshot" of one performance, and
how that work was performed by a group of dancers at that one performance.
A Videotape needs to be used as one of many tools to set a ballet. It does
show the steps. it does show relationships of where a dancer is
standing in relation to scenery and other dancers. It of course shows the
technical effects, lighting, etc. But, you can't set a ballet without a
person who "knows" the work, whether it's a dancer who has danced the piece,
or someone brought in to restage it.
I believe that dance is one medium that still works best when it is passed
down from one dancer to another. The videotape only helps to maintain the
accuracy of the work.
Barry Suttin
Anne Savitt
valuable issues, and I think that a major advantage of videotaping is being
overlooked - that is, that videotaping performances gives future
generations the opportunity to see some of the great dancers of previous
generations in performance. I love to watch videotapes of Maya Plisetskaya
and Ekaterina Maximova, Suzanne Farrell, Gelsey Kirkland, etc., etc. Of
course, it's not the same thing as being in orchestra seats to watch a
performance, but then, given the choice of not ever seeing them dance. . .
Williams>--Notation isn't a "text" for dance in the same sense that a
Williams> script is a text for a play or a score is a text for a musical
Williams> composition. A composer might create a whole symphony by
Williams> sitting down and writing out the music, and playwrights
Williams> certainly write plays by writing them out -- but you almost
Williams> NEVER encounter a choreographer who creates a dance by
Williams> writing out a Laban score. Dance HAS to be created interactively,
Williams> with the help of the dancers; a notated version is an
Williams> after-the-fact record.
I have to disagree with you here. I think that notation is a nearly exact
analogy for a musical score or a play. If that were not so, there would be
no need for conductors or directors to explain interpretation. And like a
ballet master/mistress, there is no guarantee that the conductor's or
director's interpretation is going to match that of the composer or
playwright's. Anything written on paper is only two-dimensional - you need
performers (dancers, musicians, actors) and direction to make it breathe.
By the way, a notable exception to the statement that choreographers have
to work interactively was Ninette de Valois, who did all of her
choreography on paper and then went into the studio and taught it to her
dancers.
Reusch> I know Suzanne Farrell & Anna Kisselgoff share your views. Suzanne
Reusch> said at a lecture last year or so that she thinks ballets recreated
Reusch> from videotape look like videotapes in performance (life-less I
Reusch> presume). Anna Kisselgoff (sp?) has said on videotape somewhere
Reusch> that she thinks videos set in stone one performance's
Reusch> interpretation of the choreography.
Reusch> I'd be the last person to say a piece restaged without inspiration
Reusch> - either from one of the original dancers or the choreographer -
Reusch> would be lacking (not that ballet's greatest classics from the
Reusch> nineteenth century are restaged that way).
I wonder how many people there are who can restage a ballet in a way that
satisfies everyone from the dancers to the choreographer to the audience.
For example, I wonder how many Balanchine dancers who understood what he
expected of their bodies would be able to demonstrate and draw that out of
other dancers in a way that would satisfy him if he were watching.
Similarly, how many people could play a Chopin waltz in his exact style?
Of course, no one living now has heard Chopin play, so how would we know?
Now, if there had been videotapes in his time, or even audio tapes. . .
So keep videotaping, Amy. I, for one, will be watching!
Happy New Year, all.
======================================================================
| Anne Savitt <asa...@sunysb.edu> |
| Dept. of Microbiology (516) 632-8789 |
| State University of New York at Stony Brook |
| Stony Brook, NY 11794 |
======================================================================
Marjorie S. Perry
Amy
I read your posting questioning this new information that
*most* dancers can read, and do use, some form of notation....
I tend to think your assumption is correct, and that your host
generalized from a relatively isolated instance....
I don't know exactly what has gone on recently, but I do know what
was happening during the time frame your friend mentioned...
I have been very interested in Balanchine for many years, and
have read almost everything written by and about him, by critics
and his dancers , alike. I have also seen , maybe two thirds, of his
work, mostly on film! thanks to people like you :-)
There have been some wonderful film retrospectives since his death
that included footage of Balanchine speaking of his craft.
If Diana Adams was using notation to practiceduring the time that your
host was dating her, it was very likely that this was during the period
that she was working on broadway... before her marriage to Hugh Laing,
also a dancer. Balanchine was also doing broadway at that time, as
well as freelancing for Ballet Theater (Alicia Alonso days) Balanchine
had a company that danced off and on at City Center, but it was not yet
NYCB, though many of the dancers of those days hung on to be the early
principals of the eventual NYCB of city center, later of Lincoln Center..
Anyway, Balanchine did not use notation. Some of his ballets were lost
because no one could remember all of the pieces...(Figure in the Carpet
was one of those) He did use some of the pieces of that in a later work
Union Jack.....
Nobody was notating at that time...considerably after the era your friend mentioned...
Not in the formal, paid sense, at least....
Many dancers use their own personal notetaking system . When someone shows
them a difficult part, a lot of them leave the rehearsal, scribble something
down to jog their memories, and then refer to it later when they do a personal
studio practice. I think that it would be extremely rare for any choreographer
to hand a bunch of notes to a dancer, and expect anything acceptable to come
of it.....
Other than that, I think Nijinsky and his sister used some form of notation.
The regisseur of Diaghilev's Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo apparently had notes
of many ballets....I have a friend who is distantly related to him and has
made a deal with Harvard for his papers, some of which included his personal
memory jogging notes of various ballets..... Unfortunately, I have not seen them,
so I can't say what form they take....
I tend to think that the kind of stuff Diana Adams was doing on Broadway was
pretty simple....Maybe all she had to indicate was something very simple, the pattern
of steps, not so much position in relation to others, manner of dancing....
? Not much nuance in broadway ballet
chore ography, and a lot of rehashing of classic solos, stolen straight off
of Russian expatriate versions of Petipa....
Of this I am sure.... there is no *universally* standardized classical ballet
notation, not then, and not now. Laban is kind of like Esperanto. It never got
into common usage with great choreographers. Maybe broadway hacked something
up for some of its productions.... but I doubt that it had common usage, even
on broadway......
The problem is, and was, that a great choreographer, or a great dancer, is
kinesthetically oriented to the extent that their bodies are their memories.
The great drama, and maybe the great truth of dancing, is that dance is *right
now*, and that the nuance and subtledies are untranslatable, in written, and
*perhaps*, even in film media. Lots of Balanchine changed when the dancers
changed. He made his choreography on the dancer, for the body he saw right
there, then, and so the dance was wonderfully personal, and right, and could
only happen *then*. He was truly a choreographer of *Now*. When times were hard,
he did choreography for elephants, and it was very effective!
He rechoreographed many works so that they would film effectively....
He could choreograph for cameras, as well as women....
Have you seen ":Slaughter on Tenth Avenue"?. He did the camera work for his dancers
in the filming of that musical.....It's great.....Of course, we're talking
about a genius.....Hard for him to do something bad.....
I'm rambling. Sorry. I think you are right. I think your friend surmised
something from a small bit of information he personally observed. If he was
dating Diana Adams, he was probably too unhinged to be a good observer!
Historically, I don't think it holds water, let alone choreography...:-)
I'd love to be proven wrong....so if you find that
his observation is
correct, and mine wrong, I'd love to know!
Kinesics, and the expression of meaning through movement, is very interesting to me.
Film is equally subtle, and mysterious, and perhaps the two are linked.
Why did you get into the field?
Marge Perry
Boniface Lau
Edmond> In article <BONIFACE.94...@bcarh201.bnr.ca>, boni...@bcarh201.bnr.ca (Boniface Lau) says:
Edmond> >I have seen the Labanotation score of Balanchine ballets such
Edmond> >as Stars and Stripes, Serenade, and Allegro Brillante. People
Edmond> >like Ann Hutchinson Guest was once a notator with the NYCB
Edmond> >for more than ten years. Thus, I would not view the above
Edmond> >scenario as unusual.
Edmond> In other words, you think many of the principals
Edmond> could read notation?
No, that was not what I meant. All I said was that given the
contextual information I have regarding the NYCB, I wouldn't be
surprised if many of the NYCB dancers can read the dance notation.
Edmond> >Of course, nothing beat learning from the dancers who had
Edmond> >danced the original role and would be even better if the
Edmond> >original choreographer is there to show you.
Edmond> Probably no would disagree with you here, although I've seen
Edmond> many works suffer in restaging, even when rehearsed by the
Edmond> original choreographer, even if only after a year or so, even
Edmond> on most of the same dancers. I think restaging, like
Edmond> teaching, is a gift. For some choreographers, perhaps the
Edmond> inspiration that was there during conception of the piece has
Edmond> faded.
Agreed. There is no guarantee. Just like Mozart conducting
the performance of his own music. Sometime the performance was great.
Other time even Mozart himself was not satisfied.
[...]
Edmond> I'd be the last person to say a piece restaged without
Edmond> inspiration - either from one of the original dancers or the
Edmond> choreographer - would be lacking (not that ballet's greatest
Edmond> classics from the nineteenth century are restaged that way).
Edmond> However...
Could you kindly explain what you meant by "inspiration"?
Happy New Year!
Edmond Chibeau
> I'd be the last person to say a piece restaged without inspiration
> - either from one of the original dancers or the choreographer - would
> be lacking (not that ballet's greatest classics from the nineteenth
> century are restaged that way). However...
God, what's worse than a typo that reverses your meaning!@#$!
Should have read: WOULD NOT BE LACKING!
Amy Reusch
Dance Videographer
c/o Edmond Chibeau
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
chi...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Edmond Chibeau
>
<Snip> Anything written on paper is only two-dimensional - you need
>performers (dancers, musicians, actors) and direction to make it breathe.
>By the way, a notable exception to the statement that choreographers have
>to work interactively was Ninette de Valois, who did all of her
>choreography on paper and then went into the studio and taught it to her
>dancers.
I once had the opportunity with some other people to interview
Antony Tudor for a latenight television show. It was perhaps a
year before his death, at the time ABT performed a tribute to
his work & just before he won the Kennedy Center award (or
whatever those annual awards are called that the President
gives out). I wondered if he still caught himself choreographing
in his head, "armchair choreography" if you will, and wondered
if so, what ideas he was playing with. He responded that once,
early in his career he had done "armchair choreography". He
had been in, I believe, the city of Varona, and felt inspired to
choreograph while imbibing the spirit of the place. I seem to
remember it was Romeo & Juliet, or at least something with a
Shakespearian theme. When he got back to England he found he
had to throw everything out, he thought it was no good. Since
then he would never choreograph without dancers and the ability
to dance the movement himself. He was no longer able to dance
hence he had stopped choreographing.
<If anyone is interested, I still have the videotape & would
be willing to dig it out & post a transcription of his actual
answer.>
One pre-studio choreographer was Petipa, who was famous for
having some sort of chessboard setup with figures that he
arranged all of his corps work on before coming to the studio.
But maybe that counts as 3-dimensional rather than 2-dimensional :-).
Edmond Chibeau
>
>j...@gonix.com (Jim Williams) writes:
>
>>That's why a certified >Labanotator is required to do authorized
>>reconstructions of pieces (such as a lot of Doris Humphrey's repertory)
>>that are available in notated form -- it is NOT a do-it-yourself
>>project even if you know a bit of Laban.
>
>We were taught a Doris Humphrey piece (Nightspell) while I was at the
>NZSD, by a notator who came out here specially from the US. However,
>most of it didn't make any sense at all until (even with reading all the
>background info I could find) until someone who had actually _performed_
>the piece took us for several rehearsals some months later.
For those Doris Humphrey fans among you...
I'm currently in production on a project with Ernestine Stodelle
and the Doris Humphrey Society to produce a videotape of
her coaching "Air for the G String" and "Shakers". We thought
it would be a good resource to accompany the notated score
for those restaging the work. Ernestine was in Humphrey's
company and wrote the material that accompanies the scores that
the Dance Notation Bureau sends out. Her coaching is perhaps
the most inspired & inspiring I've ever witnessed.
When the tape is ready for distribution I will post a notice here.
Unfortunately the work is poorly funded. We were passed over for
a National Initiative to Preserve American Dance (NIPAD), (a Pew
Charitable Trust program overseen by Kennedy Center) at the last
level of elimination in favor of among other projects the
production to archive Cambodian court dance in Cambodia for
deposit in an archive in Phnom Penh, [and Cornell University /
Jacobs Pilow]. The dollar amount of the grant to record the
Cambodian dance was slightly more than we were asking for our
work -- rather a lot, but then we were trying to do it in
the highest quality practical, Betacam all the way. Ernestine
Stodelle is an octagenerian & we should preserve our resources
while they still exist.
Edmond Chibeau
>
>Edmond> I'd be the last person to say a piece restaged without
>Edmond> inspiration - either from one of the original dancers or the
>Edmond> choreographer - would be
[typo correction: WOULD NOT BE]
< lacking (not that ballet's greatest
>Edmond> classics from the nineteenth century are restaged that way).
>Edmond> However...
>
>Could you kindly explain what you meant by "inspiration"?
Well, I'm not sure I'm up to that task. Seems it might be
akin to trying to define the work "art"! :-)
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Jim Williams
>Williams>--Notation isn't a "text" for dance in the same sense that a
>Williams> script is a text for a play or a score is a text for a musical
>Williams> composition. A composer might create a whole symphony by
>Williams> sitting down and writing out the music, and playwrights
>Williams> certainly write plays by writing them out -- but you almost
>Williams> NEVER encounter a choreographer who creates a dance by
>Williams> writing out a Laban score. Dance HAS to be created interactively,
>Williams> with the help of the dancers; a notated version is an
>Williams> after-the-fact record.
>I have to disagree with you here. I think that notation is a nearly exact
>analogy for a musical score or a play. If that were not so, there would be
>no need for conductors or directors to explain interpretation. And like a
>ballet master/mistress, there is no guarantee that the conductor's or
>director's interpretation is going to match that of the composer or
>playwright's. Anything written on paper is only two-dimensional - you need
>performers (dancers, musicians, actors) and direction to make it breathe.
True, a conductor or director is (at the very least) helpful in
interpreting music or drama. But I still feel these are philosophically
different from dance notation. Always in the case of playwrighting, and
often in the case of music, the "text" is the ORIGINAL "creation" --
*every* performance represents an interpretation of what was created. In
dance, I think, the ORIGINAL creation is what the dancer does with the
material given to him/her by the choreographer, and any notated score is
simply an after-the-fact record.
A very approximate analogy might be that of a traditional composer vs. an
improvisational jazz musician. The composer might well sit at the piano
and finger out lines of his/her score, but I feel that's mostly an aid to
structuring thought. The real act of "composition" comes when the
composer, having decided what the piece is, writes out the notes.
Improvisational jazz, on the other hand, is traditionally a spontaneous
response to the conditions of the moment -- what the other musicians are
playing, the response of the crowd, how the musician feels, etc. True,
someone might sit down afterward and transcribe what the jazz musician
played that particular evening -- but I think jazz purists would feel
that the performance itself was the actual "creation," and the notation
was simply a record of what happened on that particular occasion.
Or think about theater for a moment. I remember in my high school senior
English class that, having clawed our way through Greek drama, "The Song
of Roland," etc., we finally reached Chaucer, our teacher told us we had
reached a milestone. For the first time, he said, we were going to be
able to read the words that the author himself had actually written --
not a translation, not a reconstruction. Same with Shakespeare. Yes,
there are a lot of different stagings of Shakespeare's plays, and a lot
of controversy over the authenticity of this bit or that. But controversy
aside, everyone agrees that somewhere there IS an "authoritative text" --
when actors and directors are struggling to find an interpretation, it is
this authoritative text that they're trying to interpret. They can always
go back to what Shakespeare actually wrote.
You can see this in your own experience. When you read "The Rivals" or
"The Importance of Being Earnest," you "get it." You laugh (if you enjoy
that sort of humor); you can envision the scenes, you can envision Mrs.
Malaprop as anyone you like. If you read music and play the piano, you
can stare at the sheet music and pick out a Chopin waltz -- you might not
play it expertly, but at least you know what notes you SHOULD be playing.
These sources are authoritative because they're what the creator actually
created, not just an intermediate recording medium.
In dance, on the other hand, the choreographer did not bring an
"authoritative text" into being at the moment of creation. NOTHING about
the dance existed until the choreographer set the movement on a dancer.
(de Valois aside, I feel this is almost always an interactive act. One
textbook example is the 32 fouette turns in the Black Swan's variation in
"Swan Lake" -- Petipa put them in because, yes, they were spectacular,
and, yes, they were a metaphor for Odile's enchantment of the Prince --
but he also put them in because *Legnani could do them!* If he had been
working with another dancer, he would have used a different metaphor!)
And I'm sure that virtually *nobody* choreographs by sitting down with a
pad of paper ruled with movement staffs or by booting up LabanWriter on a
Macintosh!
I don't want to take away from the value of notation or the historical
interest inherent in a notated score. As I said in my first post, it's a
philosophical difference -- one, I suspect, that goes back to my
conviction that choreography is NOT dance, only a component of dance.
"The map is not the territory," as the saying goes. I feel that much of
the unexamined reverence for "original" choreography and "authentic"
notated scores is actually part of the (legitimate) desire by people in
dance to have their own place at the academic dinner table: to fit in
with the musicologists and drama historians, we feel we need OUR own
mythic "creator figure" (the choreographer) and our own "authentic text"
to study and analyze. We're uncomfortable with the idea of dance as
something that flashes into existence as the dancer lives it, then
vanishes again when the curtain falls -- until next time, when it
reappears, like springtime, familiar but not exactly the same. Yet, that
is the uniqueness and magic of our art.
Wendy Brookes
<snip>
>>IMHO, learning to dance a particular role by watching the video is
>>like learning the violin part by listening to the recording of a
>>symphony. It is probably the most inaccurate way and therefore often
>>the last resort.
>
> Well, you know I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
> Archival videographer is after all my life's work...<snip>
> I'm not saying any videotape is a good record. But one conscientiously
> done can be a treasure.
>
> If I didn't believe this, I'd do something that paid better.
What a lovely and elegant defense of dance videography! I wish there were
more dance videographers like you.
- wendy
Eugenia Horne
[Editing due to systems limitations...]
[Basically: Is notation "text" "original creation" or
"after-the-fact record"?....]
>Or think about theater for a moment. I remember in my high school senior
>English class that, having clawed our way through Greek drama, "The Song
>of Roland," etc., we finally reached Chaucer, our teacher told us we had
>reached a milestone. For the first time, he said, we were going to be
>able to read the words that the author himself had actually written --
>not a translation, not a reconstruction. Same with Shakespeare. Yes,
>there are a lot of different stagings of Shakespeare's plays, and a lot
>of controversy over the authenticity of this bit or that. But controversy
>aside, everyone agrees that somewhere there IS an "authoritative text" --
>when actors and directors are struggling to find an interpretation, it is
>this authoritative text that they're trying to interpret. They can always
>go back to what Shakespeare actually wrote.
Just some other items that may or may not be of
interest...
Shakespeare wrote for a company of men that he was
associated with. In other words, he had a pretty good
idea of who his actors were going to be when he wrote his
plays and most likely utilized their peculiar talents.
He didn't write them in isolation.
And in the original production, he most certainly had a
say in how the play was staged, blocked, and interpreted.
(There are actually very few stage directions in the
"authoritative text". There are some "prompt books" from
early, if not original productions, which people argue
over.)
And with most plays, the author himself changed aspects
of dialogue, staging, etc that weren't working, or could
be improved, which may or may not have been recorded.
Now what is authoritative? The "original" or the "revised"?
Most people don't realize that the Gilbert & Sullivan
operettas where done in a similar manner. They had an
established company that they wrote for. When the specialist
in patter songs retired, they didn't write anymore patter
songs. If they had a soprano they could handle something
complicated, they put it in.
>You can see this in your own experience. When you read "The Rivals" or
>"The Importance of Being Earnest," you "get it." You laugh (if you enjoy
[More Editing...]
I saw 3 productions of "Earnest" this year. One of the
stumbling blocks to a modern production is that the director
and actors have very little comprehension of the culture
that the play is utilizing. They say the lines without
realizing what was so amusing about "metaphysics" to the
original audience. Basically, they can't understand some
of what the author intended because they do not have the
necessary background. In a way it doesn't matter if they
had an "authoritative text" or not, the author's interpretation
is gone or severly diluted. The words are still said, but
the actor is just saying them (rather woodenly at times).
>In dance, on the other hand, the choreographer did not bring an
>"authoritative text" into being at the moment of creation. NOTHING about
>the dance existed until the choreographer set the movement on a dancer.
>(de Valois aside, I feel this is almost always an interactive act. One
>textbook example is the 32 fouette turns in the Black Swan's variation in
>"Swan Lake" -- Petipa put them in because, yes, they were spectacular,
>and, yes, they were a metaphor for Odile's enchantment of the Prince --
>but he also put them in because *Legnani could do them!* If he had been
>working with another dancer, he would have used a different metaphor!)
>And I'm sure that virtually *nobody* choreographs by sitting down with a
>pad of paper ruled with movement staffs or by booting up LabanWriter on a
>Macintosh!
Actually, the infamous 32 fouette turns where originally
something like "jete sautes en tournant" and where performed
be Legnani. The fouettes came a little later. Also, the
music now called the Black Swan Pas de Deux was originally
in Act I to be performed by an romantic couple. (I think
the composer's intention was to highlight the Prince's
lonely state by displaying a madly in love couple in
direct contrast. The music originally written for Odile's
seduction scene is much more sinister and fits better
musically.) But Petipa changed all the music around.
Most choreographers that I've been around usually have
some idea of what steps they would like done to a certain
phrase of music irregardless of who the dancer is. They
don't have them written down, but the do have a plan.
Most composers sit and bang at a piano until they get what
sounds right to them, BEFORE they write it down. Is
choreography any different? The choreographer seeing what
it actually LOOKS like before setting it?
>I don't want to take away from the value of notation or the historical
>interest inherent in a notated score. As I said in my first post, it's a
>philosophical difference -- one, I suspect, that goes back to my
>conviction that choreography is NOT dance, only a component of dance.
>"The map is not the territory," as the saying goes. I feel that much of
>the unexamined reverence for "original" choreography and "authentic"
>notated scores is actually part of the (legitimate) desire by people in
>dance to have their own place at the academic dinner table: to fit in
>with the musicologists and drama historians, we feel we need OUR own
>mythic "creator figure" (the choreographer) and our own "authentic text"
>to study and analyze. We're uncomfortable with the idea of dance as
>something that flashes into existence as the dancer lives it, then
>vanishes again when the curtain falls -- until next time, when it
>reappears, like springtime, familiar but not exactly the same. Yet, that
>is the uniqueness and magic of our art.
Actually there is always a debate as to who is going
to dominate. Will it be the creator (choreographer, author,
composer, etc.) or will it be the artist (dancer, actor,
musician)? At the moment, it's a little in favour of the
creator. In the last century is was not uncommon for an
actor to ad-lib, a singer to alter notes, and a ballerina
to "import" her favourite variation into an unrelated
ballet. And knowing this, the creator allowed spaces for
just such practices. Thus Gilbert and Sullivan have a few
passages where the lead soprano is told to "ad-lib", Petipa
let dancers bring in variations (or do their own), etc.
--
"It would be quite different if one of us were returning from a
campaign or had done something great,...but Ernst has walzed at one or
two Court balls and I have eaten macaroni, neither of them feats that
would justify a triumphal procession" - Prince Albert
RCHoff
Labanotator, and I can say pretty confidently that presently most (but not
all) ballet dancers do not read Labanotation or any other dance notation.
It took me about four years of study, including one leave of absence year
from the company I was then with, to achieve professional Notator status,
but I learned to read quite a bit in my first 2 week course.
To the best of my knowledge I am the only working ballet dancer who is
also a notator.
Let me add that notation is something I encourage everyone to study, it is
a great joy to be able to read and write movement. For me it has also
expanded my career opportunities (besides dancing for the Joffrey, I am
notating the Arpino ballets one per year as part of my position there),
and I have my profession in place once I retire from performing.
It is rare for a dancer who didn't come out of acadamia to take the time
to study and learn this language during his or her performing days;I got
into it because a choreographer friend of mine died suddenly and very
young, and I just got hooked. I am very glad I did, though, it sure has
proven an advantage as well as provided much intellectual stimulation!
Robin Hoffman
RCHoff
reconstruction and a desire for both notation and a GOOD video! Preserving
the choreography in detail is one thing, and preserving a performance is
another.
Then too, neither was ever meant to take the place of coaching, talent, or
technique!!!
We in notation appreciate you videographers who know what you are doing
and do it well.
Estelle Souche
>
> I am a dancer with the Joffrey Ballet currently and also a certified
> Labanotator, and I can say pretty confidently that presently most (but not
> all) ballet dancers do not read Labanotation or any other dance notation.
> It took me about four years of study, including one leave of absence year
> from the company I was then with, to achieve professional Notator status,
> but I learned to read quite a bit in my first 2 week course.
> To the best of my knowledge I am the only working ballet dancer who is
> also a notator.
> Let me add that notation is something I encourage everyone to study, it is
> a great joy to be able to read and write movement. (...)
I have read several times that it's impossible to learn choreographic
notation if you're not a dancer (or a former dancer), is it true?
Concerning notation, an interesting event happened in the last
dance festival of Chateauvallon (south of France), last summer:
a group of 4 dancers, called "quatuor Albrecht Knust" (I don't know
the origin of the name) have danced ballets of Doris Humphrey and Kurt
Jooss they had studied through notation, being dance notators too
(I thimk it was Labanotation, but I'm not sure)
I haven't seen these ballets, but all the reviews I've read about
it were very positive- and especially all the more positive as
it's very rare to have opportunities to see ballets of these 2
choreographers in France...
There are also a few modern French choreographers, who use
notations, sometimes Laban or Benesh, sometimes their own system.
>I got
>into it because a choreographer friend of mine died suddenly and very
>young, and I just got hooked.
Among the French choreographers using a personal system of notation
was Dominique Bagouet, who died from AIDS at the end 0f 1992, he
was a very popular choreographer here, and it was a great loss
for French dance. Now his company has disappeared, and there's only
one of his dancers who's able to understand his notation... Sad,
really.
By the way, still on the topic of notation, around 1993 there had been
an exposition at the Paris Opera concerning the various systems of
notation. I had only seen articles about it, it was interesting to
compare the graphic aspect of notations, with squares, lines, curves...
It's not a recent subject since the first systems were for baroque (?)
dances in the 17th century (but only the movements of the feet
were mentioned)!
Estelle
Kurtz
On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, Estelle Souche wrote:
> I have read several times that it's impossible to learn choreographic
> notation if you're not a dancer (or a former dancer), is it true?
It would be difficult, but certainly not impossible. It would depend a
great deal on the notation system you were learning and your background
in other forms of movement.
>
> Concerning notation, an interesting event happened in the last
> dance festival of Chateauvallon (south of France), last summer:
> a group of 4 dancers, called "quatuor Albrecht Knust" (I don't know
> the origin of the name) have danced ballets of Doris Humphrey and Kurt
> Jooss they had studied through notation, being dance notators too
> (I thimk it was Labanotation, but I'm not sure)
> I haven't seen these ballets, but all the reviews I've read about
> it were very positive- and especially all the more positive as
> it's very rare to have opportunities to see ballets of these 2
> choreographers in France...
Kunust was a colleague of Laban and a major contributor/developer of
Labanotation. I believe there is a notation archive in the Channel
Islands associated with his work. It would be approporate and charming
for a company that performed reconstructions to use his name.
I am almost positive that the Humphrey and Jooss reconstructions would
have to be Labanotation. The Humphrey repertory is frequently
reconstructed from LN, and much of the Jooss work is also notated with
that system, though it has only been recently that Jooss' daughter Anna
Markard allowed stagings of his work from notation alone.
> > There are
also a few modern French choreographers, who use
> notations, sometimes Laban or Benesh, sometimes their own system.
I know of at least one French system, Conte, that is somewhat based on
music notation, and of course there are several historic systems.
> > >I got
> >into it because a choreographer friend of mine died suddenly and very
> >young, and I just got hooked.
>
> Among the French choreographers using a personal system of notation
> was Dominique Bagouet, who died from AIDS at the end 0f 1992, he
> was a very popular choreographer here, and it was a great loss
> for French dance. Now his company has disappeared, and there's only
> one of his dancers who's able to understand his notation... Sad,
> really.
Very sad, and unfortunately not uncommon. It's an argument for learning and
using a more mainstream system of notation.
>
> By the way, still on the topic of notation, around 1993 there had been
> an exposition at the Paris Opera concerning the various systems of
> notation. I had only seen articles about it, it was interesting to
> compare the graphic aspect of notations, with squares, lines, curves...
> It's not a recent subject since the first systems were for baroque (?)
> dances in the 17th century (but only the movements of the feet
> were mentioned)!
>
> Estelle
>
There have been several such exhibits in the US, some with good
catalogues. If you're interested in comparing systems, find a copy of
Ann Hutchison Guest's "Dance Notation" (published by Dance Horiszons. It
contains rofiles of several defunct systems, as well as ones currently in
use. She is a leading authority on Labanotation, but doesn't shortchange
other systems.
sandi kurtz