What is the difference between Choreography and Interpretation?

[Mathman]

...I would expect to see higher CH and lower IN some of the time, but I would not expect to see lower CH and higher IN very often.

That's what I expected, too. But at the top levels, I found (slightly) the opposite.

Of the top twelve ladies at Worlds, only two (Ando and Meissner) had higher Choreograpy scores than Interpretation, one had the same (Kim), and nine had higher Interpretation than Choreograpy (significantly so in the case of Asada, Meier and Korpi).

For the men, out of 23 entries in the LP, only four had higher CH than IN (Buttle!, Sandhu!!, Macypura and Wu), three had the same, and a whopping 16 had it the "wrong" way around.

 

[Mathman]

And as a BTW, USFSA clubs are starting to experiment with using IJS below the Juvenile level, in which case three PCs are recommended for use (SS & TR, PE, CH & IN).

Is this (three categories instead of five) because the skaters are not as nuanced at this level, or is it to make the judges' burden a little lighter?

 

[gsrossano]

That's what I expected, too. But at the top levels, I found (slightly) the opposite.

By "expected" I mean based on first principles and common sense. As to what shows up in the actual marks, anything that is counter-intuitive I take to say the judges are not using the marks correctly. And anything less than 0.25 points I would not consider all that mathematically significant.

Is this (three categories instead of five) because the skaters are not as nuanced at this level, or is it to make the judges' burden a little lighter?

Several reasons to go to fewer marks in the lower levels.

1. It is felt (by those of us playing with it) that all of the criteria can be captured adequately in three marks.
2. It eases the burden on the judges a little.
3. It will speed up the process, saving time and money.
4. At the very lowest levels the emphasis should be on skating skills, technique and quality of skating, and less on the purely artistic. At the very very lowest levels the recommendation is two components (SS & TR, PE). Basically the two current 6.0 marks plus scoring a few elements.

 

[kandidy]

:thumbsup:I must thank you to mathman to start this thread since I was always thinking about this topic.

Thank you for pointing out the very important points how to distinguish between them.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That is the exact question I am trying to raise on this thread. By the same token, should Mao Asada get 8.18 points (her highest program component score) for Lori Nichol's work?

She does a 3A gets the roar of the crowd and that means she's the best interpreter of music and the best choreographer to the music.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

:thumbsup:I must thank you to mathman to start this thread since I was always thinking about this topic.

Thank you for pointing out the very important points how to distinguish between them.

Thanks for the compliment. But the posters that deserve our thanks for their insights and observations on this thread are Joesitz, Kypma, Ladskater and Dr. R. :agree:

She does a 3A gets the roar of the crowd and that means she's the best interpreter of music and the best choreographer to the music.

The funny thing about it is that there actually is a place where "the roar of the crowd" is taken into account in the PCSs. One of the criteria under "Performance/Execution" is

"The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience."

 

[Mathman]

PE is significantly different from choreography and I would consider combining choreography with it a very bad idea.

To me, there seems to be quite a bit of overlap. Among the criteria for PE are

"Definition: (? it is not stated in the document exactly what word is being "defined" here -- from the context I assume it is "Performance"): is the involvement of the skater/couples/teams physically, emotionally, and intellectually as they translate the intent of the music and choreography."

"Style and individuality/personality: Style is the distinctive use of line and movement as inspired by the music."

"Variety and contrast: Varied use of tempo, rhythm, force, size [size? -- I'm not sure how skaters care vary their size], level, movement shapes, angles and body parts as well as the use of contrast."

So now we have three things that relate to the skaters response to the music. The choreography (CH), the skater's interpretation of the choreography (IN), and the skater actually carrying out his/her interpretation of the choreography (PE).

It seems to me that the other items listed under PE -- good posture, "sincere emotion" (? when Irina as Tosca grabs her head and hurls herself off the parapet, is that "sincere" or is she just pretending?), etc. -- these serve as the technical vehicle for the artistic interpretation.

 

[Kypma]

Thanks for the compliment. But the posters that deserve our thanks for their insights and observations on this thread are Joesitz, Kypma, Ladskater and Dr. R. :agree:The funny thing about it is that there actually is a place where "the roar of the crowd" is taken into account in the PCSs. One of the criteria under "Performance/Execution" is

"The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience."

I'm flattered you think I actually contributed in a positive manner to this thread, Mathman I was just making a simple definition last time...

Okay, as for Performance & Execution having the crowd's roar included... I don't know. I'm not crazy about this, because the 3A already has its own value, and seems to inflate Skating Skills, but I'm not there is an invisible connection to the actual program. The crowd was just knowledgeable and happy to see Mao's long awaited 3A. To me, an invisible connection would be what drags the spectator in, kind of like Jeff Buttle's Long Program at Nationals this year.
I haven't ever read the ISU regulations (because I get lost midway at the latest, because they have too many details and in general their explanations are too complex and too long to hold my attention), but I'd say Performance and Execution would be the way the skater connects with the audience, kind of like ah exhibition program, but now I'm confused because I'd put that in Interpretation.
Could someone please un-confuse me?

Kypma

 

[Kypma]

So now we have three things that relate to the skaters response to the music. The choreography (CH), the skater's interpretation of the choreography (IN), and the skater actually carrying out his/her interpretation of the choreography (PE).

It seems to me that the other items listed under PE -- good posture, "sincere emotion" (? when Irina as Tosca grabs her head and hurls herself off the parapet, is that "sincere" or is she just pretending?), etc. -- these serve as the technical vehicle for the artistic interpretation.

Thanks Mathman for the explanation. I still don't get the difference between 'interpreting the choreography' and 'the skater's actual carrying out of the choreography'. To me, either you interpret the program/music/theme/choreography/whatever or you don't, there aren't two components to this aspect...

Kypma

 

[Mathman]

Thanks Mathman for the explanation. I still don't get the difference between 'interpreting the choreography' and 'the skater's actual carrying out of the choreography'. To me, either you interpret the program/music/theme/choreography/whatever or you don't, there aren't two components to this aspect...

I, too, think these two ideas are two aspects of the same thing.

But Dr. Rossano (a Renaissance man who is both an active figure skating judge/journalist/photographer and (quite literally) a rocket scientist)) says no, Performance/Execution is quite different and should not be combined with Interpretation/Choreography/Composition.

So I was wondering aloud about this.

I haven't ever read the ISU regulations (because I get lost midway at the latest, because they have too many details and in general their explanations are too complex and too long to hold my attention).

Try this one. It's quite succinct, I believe.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152086-169302-64121-0-file,00.pdf

 

[Mathman]

Okay, as for Performance & Execution having the crowd's roar included... I don't know. I'm not crazy about this, because the 3A already has its own value, and seems to inflate Skating Skills, but I'm not there is an invisible connection to the actual program. The crowd was just knowledgeable and happy to see Mao's long awaited 3A. To me, an invisible connection would be what drags the spectator in, kind of like Jeff Buttle's Long Program at Nationals this year.

Yes, I think that is the intent of the "roar of the crowd" thing, that it applies to the performance as a whole rather than attaching itself to one specific element.

And in fact, in Mao's LP performance at Worlds, her first couple of elements, including the triple Axel, were kind of skaky. What got the crowd on it's feet was the way the program built from element to element at the end.

IMHO there are two ways to grab the audience. One is when the skater reaches into the audience's heart and transports them to a new and better world, like Shen and Zhao's Turandot at 2003 Worlds.

The other is YEE-HAW! like Liz Manley at the 1988 Olympics.

 

[emma]

great thread - I remember that sometime last year (for the life of me I can't remember when), we were discussing a similiar issue and some of us agreed that the 'choreography' mark really is one mark that reflects the knowledge/decisions of others (choreographer and perhaps coach) as distinct from performance/execution or interpretation.

AT that time, I kind of thought: heck - part of being a top 10 (or top whatever - elite) figure skater is 'the right team' - you must have a good coach, with good working relationships with good choreographers - and you all must collaborate to create programs and work with the costume makers to create a total package. Meaning, at that time I didn't mind that this mark is not so much about the skater as it is about the skater's team. In a way I still don't mind but then reviewing this thread and seeing that Buttle, for example got higher choreo marks than interpretation makes me think about the connection between the actual choreography and its execution. What I am trying to think about is how the heck do we separate these two and judge them? For example, the best best best cheoreographer in the world is bound to some extent by the skater who will perform the piece - Buttle CAN clearer perform Wilson's intricate choreography, so Wilson gets to pour it on with Buttle's choreography in ways that PERHAPS he can't quite do (yet?) with say, Rochette. Another example is with Mao's program that MM mentioned - where people noticed great choreo but she couldn't quite keep up with it - again, a connection between choreo and execution (in these cases we could clearly see the two - what I'm trying to get at is what about all the cases where we can't? how do we judge that? or, do others feel the two are always separable?).

 

[gsrossano]

Some quick comments relevant to the posts since yesterday.

Interpretation is about interpreting the music not interpreting the choreography.

---

PE is about the quality of the execution of the movements, and the success of the skater in communicating the purpose of the program to the audience.

Here is a stripped down version of the analogy I use in seminars on the PCs.

CH is the script of a play. Say Hamlet. Is it a good script?

PE is whether the actor can speak his lines understandably and clearly, whether he can follow the stage directions without looking like a klutz, whether the actor can move around the stage without tripping over his sword and the scenery. It is also about whether or not the actor is successful in making the audience understand the action of the story.

IN is the about whether the actor can make the audience get inside Hamlet's head and understand not only what happens but why it happens, to provide motivation and elaboration of the character beyond what is in the words at face value. One actor may interpret Hamlet's motivation and the meaning of the story one way, another may have a different interpretation of motivation and hidden meaning.

As another example of differences in IN. Take Swan Lake. You have the same music and the same basic choreography, but you can do it the standard way or you can do it homoerotic (Michael Bourne's modern interpretation). Same music, same story, but a vastly different interpretation.

----

So why not put SS and PE together?

In some ways they are similar. Both are about the quality of movements. But they are about different types of movements. SS is about the quality and skill of the skating movements -- blades on the ice. Part of PE is about the quality, carriage and control of all the other movements -- not blade on the ice. PE is also about communicating to the audience and whether the audience "gets it" -- very different for me from the ability to skate blade on the ice.

 

[Kypma]

Some quick comments relevant to the posts since yesterday.

Interpretation is about interpreting the music not interpreting the choreography.

---

PE is about the quality of the execution of the movements, and the success of the skater in communicating the purpose of the program to the audience.

Here is a stripped down version of the analogy I use in seminars on the PCs.

CH is the script of a play. Say Hamlet. Is it a good script?

PE is whether the actor can speak his lines understandably and clearly, whether he can follow the stage directions without looking like a klutz, whether the actor can move around the stage without tripping over his sword and the scenery. It is also about whether or not the actor is successful in making the audience understand the action of the story.

IN is the about whether the actor can make the audience get inside Hamlet's head and understand not only what happens but why it happens, to provide motivation and elaboration of the character beyond what is in the words at face value. One actor may interpret Hamlet's motivation and the meaning of the story one way, another may have a different interpretation of motivation and hidden meaning.

As another example of differences in IN. Take Swan Lake. You have the same music and the same basic choreography, but you can do it the standard way or you can do it homoerotic (Michael Bourne's modern interpretation). Same music, same story, but a vastly different interpretation.

----

So why not put SS and PE together?

In some ways they are similar. Both are about the quality of movements. But they are about different types of movements. SS is about the quality and skill of the skating movements -- blades on the ice. Part of PE is about the quality, carriage and control of all the other movements -- not blade on the ice. PE is also about communicating to the audience and whether the audience "gets it" -- very different for me from the ability to skate blade on the ice.

Finally, I somewhat get it! (Don't worry, I rarely really get stuff in the skating world!) Thanks for the explanation, gsrossano, I liked the comparison with Hamlet, and it worked!

Kypma

 

[emma]

great explanation grossano!!!!

So, now we just need the protocol analyst experts to show us how well (or not) the judges follow these distinctions in their actual scores!

 

[gkelly]

So, now we just need the protocol analyst experts to show us how well (or not) the judges follow these distinctions in their actual scores!

I don't think you can tell just from looking at protocols whether the judges used the PCS marks well or correctly or not, any more than you could look at a set of marks under the old system and say that some judges were marking (or ranking the skaters, which was the main purpose of marking under the 6.0 system) "correctly" and others incorrectly.

If you also look at the skating, you can form you own opinion about how you would have marked each program, and you might disagree with most or all of the official judges.

But, as with ranking under the old system, just because you disagree doesn't necessarily mean that you're right and the other person is wrong. It might mean that you're wrong and the other person is right. Or it may mean that you're both right in your use of the marks to reflect your perceptions of the skating, but you perceived the skating differently.

That's why I'm more interested in discussions like "This is how *I* would have marked it and here's why" rather than trying to judge whether the official judges are doing it "right" or not.

 

[emma]

I don't think you can tell just from looking at protocols whether the judges used the PCS marks well or correctly or not, any more than you could look at a set of marks under the old system and say that some judges were marking (or ranking the skaters, which was the main purpose of marking under the 6.0 system) "correctly" and others incorrectly.

If you also look at the skating, you can form you own opinion about how you would have marked each program, and you might disagree with most or all of the official judges.

But, as with ranking under the old system, just because you disagree doesn't necessarily mean that you're right and the other person is wrong. It might mean that you're wrong and the other person is right. Or it may mean that you're both right in your use of the marks to reflect your perceptions of the skating, but you perceived the skating differently.

That's why I'm more interested in discussions like "This is how *I* would have marked it and here's why" rather than trying to judge whether the official judges are doing it "right" or not.

I really agree - especially with the kinds of dicussions you would like to have per your last paragraph. The new system suggests to me NOT that subjectivity is gone and NOT that there won't be variation among judges judging; However, it does also (imo) suggest that YES there could and very well should be distinctions in scores among the various elements of the PCS by any one particular judge if, in fact, they (each PC) are as grossano explained. So, without doing the work of looking at the protocols - i'm wondering if the judges have a similiar understanding to grossano, how they implement that understanding and/or how it shows up in the marks. I'll end her by saying I'm still confused between the judges granting of GOE's and something like skating skills and performance execution (should they track, could they theoretically be different????).

 

[rain]

I think choreography is a legitimate component score, despite the fact that the skater (most often) does not do all of the work themselves.

It is important to note that choreographers do not just make up a program independent of the skater for which it is being made. If one were to do so, one is a crappy choreographer. The choreographer works with a skater, their strengths and weaknesses, to create a program for them. As skaters mature they often have more say in what they're going to do out on the ice (as they should).

But the important point is that more advanced skaters can, and should be doing more advanced choreography. A skate is more difficult with more choreography (which is why Plushenko should have been dinged for his front-loaded Olympic LP). It also cannot be ignored when determining the overall impact of the program on the audience. Therefore I find it legitimate for the judges to rate the construction of a program as it should be a reflection of what a skater can (and can't) do.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I can't believe choreography is a legitimate component score. It is an original arrangement (or should be) of a skater's program or skaters' programs as in SOI.

The choreographers in ballet, movies, stage works who devise choreography for a performance are billed as choreograplhers. Can you imagine if you saw West Side Story on stage, and thought the dancers did that all on their own including the principals. duh.
Where are you going with this? Why drag this Sport down further?

There is nothing wrong with a choreogapher getting credit for his/her creation, and I believe it is a discredit to have his/her work judged by the performance of the skater.

OK, when I see skaters start off with an opening phrase (which is soon forgot) as he/she goes into a series of at least 3 very cautious jumps with or without the music (doesn't matter for the purpose) I can't help but think THAT is BAD choreography. It is obvious that the skater tweaked the original choreographic concept to get those difficulties out-of-the way. If he raises a fist and she flaps her wings, I am not impressed.

So when speaking of 'bad choreography', I can understand that the skater went against his/her choreogapher and should be penalized unless, of course, it was the coach's doing for more points.

CHOREOGRAPHY - Is about the purpose of the program, the structure of the program (in time and space) used to achieve the purpose of the program (consistent with the structure of the music), and the originality shown in achieving the purpose.

The above has nothing to do with the skater except the skaters should ensure for him/herself that they have chosen the correct astute musical choreographer.

Joe

 

[gsrossano]

I think where the skater comes into the choreography mark is the following (which you see at all levels from Johnny Weir down through the beginners).

The skater/parent goes out and pays a ton of money for someone to set a program. If the skater actually did the program as choreographed then the choreography mark reflects the skill of the choreographer.

But the skater doesn't always do the program as it was set. They get behind, they make mistakes, and they start to leave stuff out. Sometimes they improvise and add stuff in, but usually they take stuff away. So the choreography you see is not necessarily what the choreographer put in the program in the first place. In that case, the choreography mark is a combination of the skill of the choreographer as the program was intended, and whatever mangled pieces of it actually got performed.