How Important is Music in Scoring CoP

[Bennett]

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.

I think that my personal understanding of interpretation in the field of music seems similar to your saying it is about intellectual conceptualization of the music and its translation into execution. I also may add emotional aspects or "feelings".

I agree that choreography already involves a lot of interpretation of the music. I would say that the choreographer has already done much of the interpretation of the music for you. For the skater, however, choreography may be more like scores in music, whereas the interpretation takes one step forward from having music and choreos prepared for you. You have to enrich expressions of these choreos using your own interpretations.

I also understand your distinction between musicality and interpretation. I would perhaps say "She has great musicality" versus "Her interpretation of this piece was great."

On the other hand, in the fields of FS and dancing, I also feel that the meanings of musicality and interpretation can include something simpler and broader (e.g., simply hitting the beat at the right timing). I am still not clear about the usages of these words in these fields.

 

[Bennett]

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.

I like this quote. I totally agree. That's why I am frustrated by PCs clustered all together, which seems to suggest a paucity of analytical evaluation using each criterion, as mentioned by gsrossano in his/her previous post that I cite below.

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.....

 

[Mathman]

Well, I quite agree that it is better to step in time to the music than to gallumph around the stage, ballroom floor, or ice surface like charging rhinos.

What I don't see is, why isn't this obvious? Do we need ballroom champions to explain to us that "Dancing musically is so much more beautiful and rewarding than moving with mechanical, metronomic repetition?" And that dancing musically requires solid technique and extensive early training?

 

[Bennett]

Well, I quite agree that it is better to step in time to the music than to gallumph around the stage, ballroom floor, or ice surface like charging rhinos.

What I don't see is, why isn't this obvious? Do we need ballroom champions to explain to us that "Dancing musically is so much more beautiful and rewarding than moving with mechanical, metronomic repetition?" And that dancing musically requires solid technique and extensive early training?

Hmmm, it's true that these champions themselves may not be providing detailed analyses here. But couldn't it be included in other parts of the text that was not cited? I think that they make a great point that detailed analyses are important. So I naturally think that they do that themselves elsewhere.

 

[antmanb]

Well, I quite agree that it is better to step in time to the music than to gallumph around the stage, ballroom floor, or ice surface like charging rhinos.

What I don't see is, why isn't this obvious? Do we need ballroom champions to explain to us that "Dancing musically is so much more beautiful and rewarding than moving with mechanical, metronomic repetition?" And that dancing musically requires solid technique and extensive early training?

Just because it's obvious it doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about it, or repeat it so that everyone is crystal clear about it. Is the above statement obvious to children? Or people learning to dance?

Equally you could say isn't it obvious that moves in skating should be executed with pointed toes and nice stretch because it looks nicer? While it is obvious to the spectator - does everyone do it? Are there some instances when it might be a nice cnotrast to not do it?

I suppose obvious conversations and statements come about when people debate it.

Ant

 

[Mathman]

I think that they make a great point that detailed analyses are important. So I naturally think that they do that themselves elsewhere.

Well...yes...again, why isn't this obvious? Who is arguing on the other side?

 

[Bennett]

Well...yes...again, why isn't this obvious? Who is arguing on the other side?

You mean arguing against detailed analyses? Well, it seems to be one of the most prevalent opinions that PCS may be used as a mere placeholder rather than based on more detailed analyses.

The alledged paucity of detailed analyses seems to be backed up by gsrossano's personal communications with judges that I cited in the previous post. Without having a common understanding the ISU definitions, it would be difficult to conduct detailed analyses based on each criterion.

So yes, they have the PCS criteria that require detailed analyses, but the system may not be practiced in the way it is intended.

Besides, there are indeed many people who think that artistic presentation comes just "naturally," which is a myth, as the authors say. If a person sees it that way, having the five different component marks wouldn't mean much.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Quote: Gsrossano:

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

Is that clear to the whole audience? or is it clear to some enthusiatic fans?

If one sees clear musical skating such as following the beat and timing of a simple Waltz, regardless of what and how the music is interpreted then there is musicality there. The character of the music is set before the skater takes the ice. He then shows he can skate musically and show the character of it. If there is heavy drama or comedy then that's just an added feature.

It's probably me, that does not often see the musical aspects of the skater when he is using a waltz, a tango, a cha cha, a gavotte, interludes etc. I do see the attempt at drama, and I use the word attempt.

I can not understand the rationale of using Interpretation as the overall statement that means music. It's acting, yes.

How can anyone not see the musicality in Curry and Browning? It doesn't mean they will win (except for me) because the CoP credits high level elements as the winner, imo.

 

[Bennett]

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?

I wonder if you read the ISU definition of Interpretation. They do include the elements that you say are lacking.

Effortless Movements in Time to the Music (Timing)
Note: Timing is a separate component in Compulsory Dances.

The ability to translate music through sureness of rhythm, tempo, effective movement,and effortless flow over the ice surface by: rhythmic continuity, awareness of all tempo/rhythm changes in a variety of ways.

That said, I personally would not to include these rather simplistic elements when I use the term, "Interpretation."

But the document does say that "Timing" is a separate component in Compulsory Dances. Thus, they do acknowledge that this is a distinct category from the other elements listed in Interpretation. Yet, perhaps they didn't want to have too many PCS criteria for the other disciplines?

 

[gkelly]

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.

In theory, the Technical Elements Score is supposed to be worth approximately half of the total score, and Program Components worth approximately half.

Interpretation is one of five components, so that would be 10% that's all about the music. Choreography is another one of the five, and probably at least half of it relates to the music in one way or another. So, yeah, 15-20% sounds about right.

Heh, here's an example of skaters who are doing very simple skating skills (almost all on two feet) fairly well but with better musicality than many advanced skaters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRzaqfs14D4

I think this is the kind of thing you'd need to see for the Interpretation component to be 4.0 or more higher than the Skating Skills on the 10.0 scale.

More often in actual skating competition, especially at the elite levels, we might see the opposite -- good skating skills and poor interpretation.

 

[Mathman]

Heh, here's an example of skaters who are doing very simple skating skills (almost all on two feet) fairly well but with better musicality than many advanced skaters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRzaqfs14D4

Now, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!

(Delobel and Schoenfelder, eat your hearts out. )

 

[gsrossano]

Well, I quite agree that it is better to step in time to the music than to galumph around the stage, ballroom floor, or ice surface like charging rhinos.

What I don't see is, why isn't this obvious? Do we need ballroom champions to explain to us that "Dancing musically is so much more beautiful and rewarding than moving with mechanical, metronomic repetition?" And that dancing musically requires solid technique and extensive early training?

Yes we do, considering the number of skaters who galumph around the ice and never seem to get the message they are expected to do more than that. Or the skaters who completely ignore their music while they skate.

Plus, the definitions of words that are "obvious" turn out to be not so obvious when you ask many people what they mean and you end up getting many different shades of meaning. Plus, the engineering side of me says, when I am judging I want to know exactly what each criteria means (even if it might be simple or obvious) so I can assign a mark that means something, and I want everybody else on the panel using the exact same understanding. Repeating my comment from earlier, one reason (IMO) there is so much variation from judge to judge in the marks is that the judges do not all have the same understanding of what the criteria mean, even for the obvious ones.

 

[Mathman]

Plus, the engineering side of me says, when I am judging I want to know exactly what each criteria means (even if it might be simple or obvious) so I can assign a mark that means something, and I want everybody else on the panel using the exact same understanding.

I am not sure that this can be achieved. I think there is a reason why the people who give marks to figure skaters are called judges instead of measurers. We ask them to give their expert judgment about the quality of the performance.

This is really my main problem the CoP. Never mind tweaking the base values or adding more bullets for levels. I am concerned that the whole concept of the CoP confuses the distinction between quantity and quality.

Adding up numbers and computing means and totals -- that's measuring quantity. Ordinals -- this skater is best, that one is second best -- that's judging quality.

Who has greater musicality, Mozart or Beethoven? Michelle or Kristi? I don't think a tighter definition of what "musicality" means will help us decide.

 

[dlarry1]

Heh, here's an example of skaters who are doing very simple skating skills (almost all on two feet) fairly well but with better musicality than many advanced skaters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRzaqfs14D4

I don't post much, but thank you from the bottom of my heart for leading me to this. I think my life is much more complete.

 

[gsrossano]

I don't think a tighter definition of what "musicality" means will help us decide.

Sure it will (help). Certainly we get a better decision than if we have no definition at all. No, it won't result in a perfect decision, but it will still be a better decision if we know exactly what we are trying to judge.

I reject the view that some have, that because the artistic part of it is subjective and somewhat inexact, the system specifications and requirements do not have to be exact.

 

[abaka]

The disjoints between music, choreography, and technical elements in modern skating obviously are a fault of the CoP judging. What is more interesting, though, is that CoP is really just the ISU purists' revenge for being forced to drop compulsory figures in 1990.

Before then, the fine technical points were severely judged beforehand, and then the two musical programmes showed how the skater put it all together.

Maybe it's time to reintroduce compusory figures, and to augment them with required jumps, spins, etc., which can be scored with the help of replay. Then let the skaters go through a short (required) and a long (free) skate and judge it with a single overall mark, without a mathematical formula to put everything together. There are many different ways to achieve a great performance. Each skater should be able to find their own way, depending on their personality and abilities; but the weight system imposes a single way, really.

I guess I reveal my age in all this -- I've been watching skating since the mid-seventies. Sigh.

 

[Mathman]

Sure it will (help). Certainly we get a better decision than if we have no definition at all. No, it won't result in a perfect decision, but it will still be a better decision if we know exactly what we are trying to judge.

I guess the question I am wrestling with is this.

Suppose the ISU comes up with some additional words to add to the present explanation of the Interpretation component. Would that make you and your colleagues better judges of this component than you are now?

Suppose they made you go to some extra seminars to hear lectures about what it means to be "musical" in the context of dance. Will that help you be more consistent and confident the next time out?

What about the kind of thing that Joesitz is talking about? Would it help to know more details about the difference in carriage, step and rhythm between a samba and a cha-cha? (Len Goodman told Kristi her head was slightly too far forward in her Viennese waltz hold.)

Personally, I am not upset about the fact that different judges weigh certain aspects of a performnace more heavily than others. As Abaka puts it above, "There are many different ways to achieve a great performance." It does not seem so terrible to me if this spirit is reflected in a disparity among the judges' marks.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Deleted After special agreement with the party concerned.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Now, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!

(Delobel and Schoenfelder, eat your hearts out. )

The Osmunds are on skates and they move to the music. I believe they are interpreting that Christmas music. No? A high score should be given. If they had no timing, then what would be the interpretatiion?

 

[Mathman]

The Osmunds are on skates and they move to the music. I believe they are interpreting that Christmas music. No? A high score should be given.

I absolutely agree. "Skating Skills," not so much. But timing, skating to the beat of the music -- yes indeed!

And for interpreting the spirit of old Saint Nick, second only to Kristi Yamaguchi's "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer" in her holiday special (the red Santa Claus dress with white fur, not the white one with brown fur that she also used for that number. )