It’s easier to notate dance pieces with movements that have names. In my experience, some ballet and tap terms are easier to write than others because of their name. We discussed music notation versus dance notation in class. Modern musical composers use the same notes as Classical or Baroque or Romantic composers, but they use the notes in different ways, by augmenting chords, creating dissonance with certain intervals, etc. While modern dancers may modify some Classical or Baroque or Romantic dance steps, most of the movements they use are new, not augmented or arpeggiated Classical movements. Does this contribute to the lack of an established, universal dance notation?
Notation came to my mind today before the Africa piece. Sonya, the Africa Dance Choreographer was praying and she mentioned to all the dancers that the dance was a way to relate to one another and embody womanhood by supporting and helping each other. She said traditional dances are not written or notated, but are passed down from generation to generation and from culture to culture. She even said we should learn, work and pass it on.
ReplyDeleteI am not too sure I will be able to teach another person after attending a few rehearsals and learning the dance, but what I do understand is the meaning of this choreographed dance is what gets passed down from generation to generation.
Dance requires dancers to embrace emotion, meaning and build a relationship with choreographers and culture/mood. There is much more that needs to be notated, not just the music, movement of arms, feet... This might explain why there is a "lack of established, universal dance notation" (as mentioned above), because dance has more to it then movement, music, light or costumes.
-Eloisa A.
I agree very much with the ideas presented in this post. Music is easier to notate, even in modern styles, because it still consists of the same building blocks of notes on a staff. Ballet and tap can even be notated more easily than modern dance, because there are many terms with set meanings within the vocabularies of the style.
ReplyDeleteModern dance is much more difficult to notate because of the lack of one, set, codified notation or even definite terms for movements. Because modern dance is always pushing forward to new movement which has never been seen before, new terms would constantly have to be added. This clearly has simply been too tough to keep up with, for non-dancers and dancers alike.
Personally, I would choose this difficulty in notation over restricting dance to specific movements that can be definitely recorded. New movement is realized every day, and to limit that creation would be a very sad thing.
I definitely think that the lack of a codified vocabulary in modern dance makes it extremely hard to notate. Similar to TonyAtTheCopa, I agree that restricting modern movements to more specific vocabularies would ruin the charm modern dance has. Some modern dancers, such as Doris Humphrey or Martha Graham, developed their own vocabulary to fit their form of modern dance, but neither could be stretched to fit all innovations to come. I would prefer to leave dance without a specific notation, and have it be less recognized and understood by the general public, then make it impossible to invent new movement by locking choreographers into certain terms and moves.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that one of modern dance's incentives is to create new movements makes it more difficult to notate. It is obviously harder to notate new movements if they have not been created yet and therefore have not been previously notated. In both ballet and tap, languages have already been developed in order to describe and notate many movements. Modern dance is still being developed and does not have a set language, considering it is still changing and can differ from person to person. I agree that it is difficult to notate modern dance so that it can be recreated exactly, but I think this is one of the great aspects of modern dance. It is a highly personal form of dance and maybe everyone's interpretation of it is different. I think this comes through in the way that dancers attempt to notate their choreography, but I also don't see this as a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteUpdate: I talked to Brian Norcross in the music department about this idea. He reminded me that composers like Bach never expected anyone else to play their pieces; it would be unheard of to even play a piece without the composer there and conducting. It wasn't until people (Mendelssohn) wanted to recreate his work that it was written down. "If it wasn't for him Bach would have been a footnote in a textbook."
ReplyDeleteDo dancers now expect their work to be reconstructed? Do students who choreograph dances in the Spring Concert expect a reconstruction of that? It seems kind of pompous to expect that, but do you?
It seems odd to think that music notation only rose to prominence in light of demand for reconstruction, because it seems most natural to teach a piece of music using a notated score. With dance, the choreographer will not use the notation for didactic purposes. I feel like dance notation exists almost purely for creative purposes and/or for preservation; music notation, however, serves a much more practical purpose at the immediate time: teaching the musicians their work.
ReplyDeleteTo address your second question, I doubt many expect their works to be reconstructed for the primary reason that many of these concert works end up being more like an educational experience than an actual composition. While the end product is (usually) a fully developed piece, the process of creating often manifests itself as a time to learn about creating and teaching choreography effectively. Therefore, the choreographer tends to lose sight of the fact that they are creating a work of art. I may be applying my own experience to others too readily, but I do feel like the dance concert fosters an environment of humility that might not be conducive to the expectations of future reconstructions.