How Important is Music in Scoring CoP

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Oksana Baiul's showtunes long program and Evgeny Plyushenko's Carmen (among others) come to my mind as programs for which I thought the skater's interpretation was far superior to the choreography.

And would you not say that is personal opinion? Although I agree with the proviso that it's what the skater puts into the choreography which is also important.

I just think such types of skating is just a couple of kids trying to look like grownups: Cute.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Maybe Slutskaya, 2005-06 season?

At 2005 Worlds she got 8.43 in Performance/execution and deserved every point of it.

I didn't see anything to write home about in the choreography (but she still got 8.21)

Wasn't she still selling those 'Bielman' positions every where she could because at the time, they were the cat's meow for the judges. And those Bielman positions were incorrect as well - two hands not on the skate.

It is harder at the elite level to separate the choreography from the interpretation. But I would imagine that it is the rule not the exception at the lower levels that the coach/choreographer has a wonderful idea for a program that the tone-deaf skater doesn't have a clue about how to perform.

Depending on their outside training, vis-a-vis ballet, tap, jazz, character, spanish etc. both choreographer and skater may work out something together. For biblical types I just see copies of DeMille's movies. Authentic? hmm.

Personally, I would not put choreography in the classification of Muscicality.

I reiterate, I would like to see Musicality as a separate entity in the scoring but the defenders of the status quo will never give into that. Background music for whatever purpose is the way to go. maybe an arm movement to show interpretation. Don't worry if the beat of the music is lost.

 

[Mathman]

I reiterate, I would like to see Musicality as a separate entity in the scoring.

I think GKelly's point is that this is just what the Interpretation component is -- a separate musicality entity.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The Interpretation component is all about the skater's musicality. One whole program component out of the five. Rename it Musicality in your mind if that helps.

Far be it from me to disturb the status quo. The CoP is so perfect.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think GKelly's point is that this is just what the Interpretation component is -- a separate musicality entity.

Ok, if she is correct but then does it cover music beats and timing, variations of tempo, etc? That's what a dancer has to exceed in before interpreting anything.

It seems to me that interpretation is just one simple part of musicality. it is just the meaning of the piece of music. Musicality has many facets.

can you imagine a skater tearing his heart out with Palaccio, and there is no timing to the music, rhythm or beat of the music. Never mind variation. Is that what is meant by musicality? Just act the part and get a plus for interpretation.

I think they are afraid to call it musicality because it covers so much ability and the skaters are very young to know this unless it is inherent. But those who are musical should get credit for it.

 

[Mathman]

Ok, if she is correct but then does it cover music beats and timing, variations of tempo, etc? That's what a dancer has to exceed in before interpreting anything.

It seems to me that interpretation is just one simple part of musicality. it is just the meaning of the piece of music. Musicality has many facets.

I am usually not a big fan of the wording of the CoP rules in the various publications of the ISU. But in the case of the Interpretaion component, I think they have done a pretty decent job in the listing of the criteria for "musicality."
"Musicality," like "artistry" is a rather ephemeral term -- kind of hard to pin down in words. But, yes, the description of what the judges are looking for in the Interpretation category does specifically list timing and variation of rhythm, along with style, character, mood, intensity, dynamics, matching of movement to the music's "melody, harmony, rhythm, color, texture and form" -- and a bunch of other cool-sounding stuff.

Here is the document (scroll down to item 5.)

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

As to what the judges do with all this, that's not so clear. Some judges (just like some skaters) have a greater knowledge of music than others. Judge Joe Inman, for instance, has a reputation as a "music" judge. I believe that Mr. Inman is a professional musician or musicologist of some sort in "real life," and he consistently rewards those skaters who can "step in time" over those who can't (at least, he did under ordinal judging.)

 

[Bennett]

I am with Mathman in that looking at the definition is the first thing to do for meaningful discussions to happen.

I wonder how common the ISU definition of Interpretation is, compared to the broader usages of the two terms, Interpretation and Musicality, in the field of FS as well as in the fields of other dances, theatrical performing arts (like musicals), and music. I think that these two terms might be used differently across fields and by individuals.

I myself was trained in piano. Although my training wasn't in the English language, I feel that my teachers used the term "interpretation" to refer to the attempts to think of or feel the meanings and to express them in the way you feel/understand. What I learned was that you have to respect what's written in the scores and history and backgrounds of the piece of the music first. But the list of things such as style, character, mood, intensity, dynamics, color, texture etc sound to me relevant to Interpretation. Basically, something that allows you to subjectively think/feel while respecting the scores and the history and backgrounds of the piece of the music. I personally do not have trouble w/ the ISU "Interpretation"'s covering what it covers, although some of the things listed here sound to me rather too simplistic for the word "Interpretation" to cover.

I actually do not know the difference between "musicality" and "interpretation." I personally didn't hear the former term used throughout my piano training (though of course limited one). If I had been trained in the English language, I may have encountered that term though. I just consulted a dictionary, and wonder if it may mean something like musical talent in expressing the music. Interpretation sounds more like active engagement or conscious attempt to understand the music whereas the definition of musicality in the dictionary sounds more like it is a given talent.

In the field of FS, my vague understanding has been that musicality can cover timing, rythme etc that allow you to dance with that music. I also feel that I have heard the term "Interpretation" to be used in a little bit similar way as I have been used to in piano. But I have also had an impression that it is sometimes used to refer to the "acting" aspect of the performance. Yet, I also heard these terms used totally interchangeably.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I am usually not a big fan of the wording of the CoP rules in the various publications of the ISU. But in the case of the Interpretaion component, I think they have done a pretty decent job in the listing of the criteria for "musicality."
"Musicality," like "artistry" is a rather ephemeral term -- kind of hard to pin down in words. But, yes, the description of what the judges are looking for in the Interpretation category does specifically list timing and variation of rhythm, along with style, character, mood, intensity, dynamics, matching of movement to the music's "melody, harmony, rhythm, color, texture and form" -- and a bunch of other cool-sounding stuff.

Here is the document (scroll down to item 5.)

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

As to what the judges do with all this, that's not so clear. Some judges (just like some skaters) have a greater knowledge of music than others. Judge Joe Inman, for instance, has a reputation as a "music" judge. I believe that Mr. Inman is a professional musician or musicologist of some sort in "real life," and he consistently rewards those skaters who can "step in time" over those who can't (at least, he did under ordinal judging.)

I have no problem with judges like Joe Inman who know the difference between a concerto and a symphony but i can't expect judges in general to know the elements of music. When one learns how to play and instrument, one can then interpret music pieces and make them his own. One must show timing, beat, rhythm and whatever one learns in the schooling of music. Interpretation comes much later after all those elements show up.
We would be assuming the skater knows all about the parts that make up music and is now going to interpret it.

To use the term Interpret and show a skater committing hari kari in a routine of Un Bel Di, does not spell out good musical skating to me, nor does skating to a melody and using ballet-like arms show musical abiltiy to me. Those embellishments do show interpretation, but are they showing the Timing Rhythym, Beat, and VARIETY of music?

Does Carmen issue an invitation for pretending that the skater must perform as the characcter in the opera does? One can do Flamenco on it's own merit, if one has the necessary musical parts. Check out Lambiel. It's more than interpretation. It's dancing Flamenco as Flamenco should be danced.

 

[antmanb]

I have no problem with judges like Joe Inman who know the difference between a concerto and a symphony but i can't expect judges in general to know the elements of music. When one learns how to play and instrument, one can then interpret music pieces and make them his own. One must show timing, beat, rhythm and whatever one learns in the schooling of music. Interpretation comes much later after all those elements show up.
We would be assuming the skater knows all about the parts that make up music and is now going to interpret it.

To use the term Interpret and show a skater committing hari kari in a routine of Un Bel Di, does not spell out good musical skating to me, nor does skating to a melody and using ballet-like arms show musical abiltiy to me. Those embellishments do show interpretation, but are they showing the Timing Rhythym, Beat, and VARIETY of music?

Does Carmen issue an invitation for pretending that the skater must perform as the characcter in the opera does? One can do Flamenco on it's own merit, if one has the necessary musical parts. Check out Lambiel. It's more than interpretation. It's dancing Flamenco as Flamenco should be danced.

But maybe, just maybe, free skating isn't dance. Certainly musicality for a musician means different things compared to musicality for a dancer. So musicality could mean something different for figure skating.

If you want to see ballet - go to the ballet. If you want to see dancing go and see any number of shows/recitals or wherever you can see your chosen dance. The SPORT of figure skating is something completely different, it is not just art for the sake of art. Let's be realistic how many pieces of music can you think of that lend themselves to include seven/eight jumping passes and three spins? I can't imagine there are many. Skaters are rarely if ever going to be interpreting the music/being musical/being artisitc for 100% of their performances. They will also struggle to gain the speed/position/set up for those 8 jumping passes and 3 spins without breaking away from the music in some way unless it is a completely tailor-made piece composed for the skater and for that performance.

While i think comparisons and cross overs into other areas are worthwhile, and skaters definitely have a lot of things they can learn from various dance disciplines (as many posters have rightly noted) the one thing they won't learn is FIGURE SKATING, which is, afterall what they are doing on the ice in the first place.

Ant

 

[jyshin]

1> Coming back to the original question, 'How Important is Music in Scoring CoP'... Genre of the music should not matter, but the cut of the music might.
For instance, Jubert had a pause in his LP where he sort of leaned against fence before getting into the fancy footwork. Musically, the pause meant to maximize the suspense before the stormy rhythmic section, so it made sense for him to do what he did. One can argue that Jubert's program lacked transitions. I'd say he chose music that didn't really have a lot of content but a simple and bold character.
On the other hand, Daisuke's SP from last year used a similar tone of music based on the Swan Lake, which, like Jubert's, lacked variety of rhythm, melody, harmony, texture, etc. However, Dai was never criticized for lack of transitions or interpretation. I remember writing about how Morosov made a smart cut to incorporate jumps, foot works, and in-between movements.

2> About the difference between interpretation and musicality...
I think interpretation has a lot to do with choreography. It is an ability to conceptualize the music and transfer it into whatever form of execution.
If interpretation has to do with intellect and intelligence, musicality has to do with instinct. One can get away with 99% of the former, but it is the latter that gives the extra sparkle.

 

[gsrossano]

1> Coming back to the original question, 'How Important is Music in Scoring CoP'...

The glib answer, from my view is that if the PCs are used by a judge correctly, maybe 15-20% of the total points. If they are not used correctly, as little as zero. I say this from the view that if the skater performed with the music turned off, I think I could assign marks for 80-85% of what I am supposed to mark. However, many judges do not use all the PCs correctly from my observation -- particularly PE, CH and IN.

 

[gkelly]

However, many judges do not use all the PCs correctly from my observation -- particularly PE, CH and IN.

What would you say is using them correctly? Or incorrectly, if that's easier to define.

There are enough bullet points for each of the components that different judges with different backgrounds and areas of expertise and pet peeves are likely to use each of the components slightly differently. (As would also have been true of the whole second mark, or the whole first mark, for that matter, under the old system.)

How much difference between the ways different judges use the marks is normal variation and at what point does it become incorrect?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

"Musicality," like "artistry" is a rather ephemeral term -- kind of hard to pin down in words. But, yes, the description of what the judges are looking for in the Interpretation category does specifically list timing and variation of rhythm, along with style, character, mood, intensity, dynamics, matching of movement to the music's "melody, harmony, rhythm, color, texture and form" -- and a bunch of other cool-sounding stuff.

We differ. Musicality is a science with much mathematics in it. One has to learn it, although some people are born with some of it naturally. How many composers were also mathematicians?

Artistry is in the mind of the beholder and is subjective. Who dances Giselle the best? A favorite, I am sure.

Interpretation is what you do with the music when you are skating to a particular piece. of music. Emotion, is paramount in interpretation. Emotion is fleeting and also subjective.

 

[ColinR]

Music nowadays

What has happened to the music nowadays? I watched the Grand Prix finals on Eurosport last week and was totally bored. Monotonous, heavy music displaying little character and NOTHING to get the audience involved with. I blame the new scoring system for this. Programmes are now virtually identical with every element being scored separately. Skaters are tense and the old 'Artistic Impression' seems to have gone out of the window.
Remember: Boitiano's Napoleon routine/Stoijko's Bruce Lee/Yagudin's Man in the Iron Mask? These were fantastic routines where the audience could get involved. Ladies'favourites of the past: Witt - West Side Story/Carmen. Ito - 89+90 (fab). Where have all the characters gone? Bring back the old 6.0 system before skating dies a slow death.
This is my 1st time on here so I look forward to further posts.

 

[gsrossano]

What would you say is using them correctly? Or incorrectly, if that's easier to define.

Two things are at work here. First, what are the concepts that the criteria are trying to capture/summarize. Second, how do you convert observing those concepts as use on the ice to a repeatable absolute number.

In talking to a lot of judges of all levels it is obvious (to me at least) that there is not universal understanding of what the criteria mean. Beyond that there is a great deal of variety in how judges assign numbers based on the criteria. When I say the PCs are not used correctly I have in mind mainly the first thing, the lack of understanding of what the criteria mean and what is really supposed to be judged in each criterion. To a lesser extent I also have in mind the way numbers are assigned in an inconsistent way, and how some judges are still reluctant to spread the marks around.

If one judge tells me a certain criterion means "this" and another judge says is means "that" we have a problem. And if one judge gives 3.5 for transitions and another gives 6.5 we have a problem.

I agree there will always be some natural variation going from concept to a number for any one criterion, and even more variation (among the judges) because each PC has many criteria bundled together. But there should not be as much variation (IMO) as we frequently see in the marks, and in the explanations different judges give me for the marks.

On a seperate subject -- I cannot figure out yet what people mean by "musicality" as a criteria to be judged. Someone want to take a stab at defining it?

 

[jyshin]

Musicality... One has to learn it...

If it can be learned, I would call it musicianship.

Musicality is a science with much mathematics in it... How many composers were also mathematicians?

from Pitagoras... to Hába, Schoenberg... to Stockhausen, Babbitt... etc.
Also, set theory is currently taught to analyze atonal music at college.

Artistry is in the mind of the beholder and is subjective.

In addition, artistry involves craftsmanship, experience, taste, style, etc. It is everything in one due the mysterious chemistry.

 

[Mathman]

On a separate subject -- I cannot figure out yet what people mean by "musicality" as a criteria to be judged. Someone want to take a stab at defining it?

Musicality: The quality of being musical.

Musical: Skilled in music.

"The Beatles exhibited great musicality."

 

[gsrossano]

Musicality: The quality of being musical.

Musical: Skilled in music.

"The Beatles exhibited great musicality."

I found those too in the Yahoo dictionary. But it doesn't answer my question. What is the definition of the observable thing in a skating performance to be called "musicality" that one might want to judge.

How does skating show me if a skater is skilled in music? And what does skilled in music mean? Skilled in the ability to perform music? Compose music? Skilled in music theory?

(I do have in my own mind a definition of musicality, but my definition is not something that is judgable, IMO, and it's just my definition.)

Wikipedia defines musicality thus:

"Musicality refers to fitting a dance to the music being played, with the goal of relating the dance to the music's rhythm, melody, and mood. Dancers usually step on the beats of the music, and may vary the size of their movements with the volume of the music. This is especially true in choreography, where dancers plan a routine of dance moves, sometimes with a specific song in mind."

If that is what people here mean by musicality in skating, then I would say that musicality is most definitely captured by the PCs.

 

[Mathman]

"Musicality refers to fitting a dance to the music being played, with the goal of relating the dance to the music's rhythm, melody, and mood. Dancers usually step on the beats of the music...

As applied specifically to dance, this seems like kind of a silly concept. Of course dancers dance to the music. What else are they out there on stage for?

 

[gsrossano]

Another tidbit from the Internet (part of a larger exposition).

Musicality
Mark A. Sheldon and Didi von Deck

Music is what brings us to the dance floor. The very purpose of ballroom dancing is to give expression to the wonderful music we hear. Dancing musically is so much more beautiful and rewarding than moving with mechanical, metronomic, repetition. So why is it so infrequently discussed in our training?

1. Good musicality is thwarted by technical shortcomings. For example, a couple out of balance simply cannot control their timing. It is pointless, and may increase the couple's frustration, to discuss subtle uses of timing in this context. And there are almost always technical problems to fix!

2. Except at a very high level, musicality is not particularly rewarded with competitive success, partly because technical problems make it hard to pay attention to a couple's musical interpretation and partly because one cannot evaluate musicality in the 2–4 seconds a judge has to evaluate a couple.

3. As with most presentation issues, musicality is often seen as individual and not something to be dictated by a third party (though a coach's job should include pointing out where a couple is failing to achieve their desired effect).

One guiding principle of teaching, therefore, is to free the couple from the unattractive distortions, the unbalanced positions, the dynamic blocks, etc. that prevent them from expressing the music in their own way.

That said, it is possible to include musicality in our training quite early on, and it is very difficult to add it in later. So, we shall work on it today.

There are those who reject detailed analysis as a tool of artistry, expecting expression to emerge naturally and effortlessly. This is a fantasy of lay people, in part supported by the artistic goal of hiding effort. I have never met or heard or read about a really good artist (in any medium) who did not know in great detail what they were doing to achieve a desired effect. Someone who is not master of his/her medium can never be a truly good artist or, in our discipline, an effective competitor.

And who are these guys?

Mark and Didi's accomplishments include: 5-time US Senior Ballroom Champions (2000-2004); North American Senior Champions; US Northeast Regional Amateur and Senior Champions; Belgian Open Senior Champions; US Amateur finalists; British Open (Blackpool) Senior finalists (3 times); International (Elsa Wells Championships) Senior finalists; US Representatives to the World Amateur Championships, the World Senior Championships, and the 2001 World Games.

Mark teaches classes for the MIT and Boston University ballroom dance teams and at the SuperShag Dance Studio.

This is how dance professionals, coaches and champions view musicality (regardless of how silly Mathman thinks the concept).