Mao's new SP!!

[CarneAsada]

I'm really curious, what kind of Yuna vibe are you getting from this program?

At first glance, I thought some of the motions reminded me of Yuna (ending pose, another point where she did some reaching-out motion). After seeing it a few more times I'm inclined to think it was just my first impression, because I'm not really seeing it anymore.

 

[Robeye]

I don't really have much time for this, but here goes.



I (very, very briefly) explained why I agreed with enzet's point. Why you felt the need to react like I've personally insulted you is completely beyond me. My post wasn't even addressed to you, btw. I heartily recommend a nice cup of tea and some relaxing music .

Why should I feel personally insulted? As you say, the post wasn't even addressed to me.

Rather, I was intellectually irritated by your seeming stance that simply declaring something to be true was sufficient, that it was patently self-evident. I would suggest to you that your assertion is nowhere near as self-evident as you seem to think. Perhaps you should join me in the tea and music .

So personal perception is not inherently subjective, then? Is it really necessary for me to explain this?

I will offer two critiques (among the many that are possible): 1) how do you know that the "personal perception" of one person is different from another? It sounds plausible, and it's certainly a theory, but what proof can you offer that makes you, once again, take the tone that what you say is self-evident? Have you, in fact, inhabited the body/mind of another person? Do you have experience with astral projection or reincarnation? 2) even if it were proven (which you have not) that the "personal perceptions" of individuals are different, it does not then automatically follow as a matter of logic that all perceptions are created equal, or that there is no such thing as correct/incorrect.

I didn't say or imply this in any way. Before laying on the snark, maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

To stick to the subject of the thread, someone disliking Mao's program for whatever reason (she waves her arms too much, she doesn't interpret the music the way somebody else thinks she should etc.) doesn't make her any less "artistic" under most of the criteria used by the ISU. That doesn't mean that people can't have a proper discussion about the program or that they can't exchange opinions and impressions. What I take issue with is the claim that there is only one possible way to interpret a piece of music and all other attempts are doomed to fail. Honestly, though, that is a discussion for another thread, one that you might consider starting.

I generally try to read posts very carefully, and think them through, before responding. Like all posters, I have seen my share of critiques, but lack of reading comprehension skills has never been one of them. But there's a first time for everything.

You made a point of distinguishing between artistry for the purposes of PCS, and artistry as perceived by the viewer, did you not? If, as you claim, the latter is entirely personal and subjective, then how can it correspond to the artistic standards of PCS in any logical and sensible way?

I do apologize if some snarkiness crept into my tone. It wasn't because of any sense of personal insult, but because of my exasperation with the quality of argument on a topic that I think is actually quite central to figure skating.

(There have been many threads on artistry. Given the, er, dead-end nature of the most recent squabbles on this thread, and the fact that the subjectivity issue figured so prominently in enzet's post, I was spurred to address that particular issue, in media res, as it were, rather than as yet another separate thread)

 

[Robeye]

When I was in college, on a dare I read all the way through the Critique of Pure Reason from first word to last, as through an obstacle course. That went so swimmingly that next I tried Hume's Treatise on Human Nature. The second section was devoted to proving that there is no such thing as free will. Then the third, on moral philosophy, began by saying, well, there cannot be a philosophy of morals without free will, so from no on we will pretend that free will exists after all.

I am a Pythagorean-Platonist myself. Pythagorus (his father was either Mercury or Apollo -- there is some confusion as to which) believed in transmigration of souls and could remember all of his previous lives including time spent in hell between incarnations. :thumbsup:

Well, I did say selected sections . And while you may think that nothing could be more tiresome than slogging through the entirety of Kant's Critique (for which I both congratulate you and commiserate ), I assure you that there are worse things (*cough* Hegel and Marx *cough*). But as someone once said, the royal road to wisdom is pain . (Come to think of it, it might have been my martial arts teacher when I was 12)

I share your leanings toward Plato. Not so much Pythagoras (what exactly does "All is Number" mean, exactly? )

 

[yuki]

.

 

[Robeye]

You seem to believe that a simple assertion on a forum thread is akin to presenting a master's thesis on the subject being discussed. It's not. (See what I did there? )
I suggest finding an intellectually stimulating hobby so that the quality of debate on forums causes you less stress.

You seem to believe that either offering an information-free sentence as intellectual gold, or presenting a master's thesis on the subject, are the only choices. They are not. (See what I did there?)

You are putting a lot of emphasis on finding evidence of my discomfort. Why? Are you not aware that transference and projection are in bad taste?

You are reading way too much into/deliberately misconstruing what I said. Since you managed to miss the point so completely, I will try to explain again:

- I was referring to "personal perception" in the context of viewing/assessing figure skating performances, so let's keep to that;
- personal perception is influenced by many factors (background & upbringing, personal beliefs, cultural bias, taste, general knowledge etc.) that one may not be entirely aware of when evaluating (in this case) a skating performance;
- nevertheless, as Mathman mentioned earlier, it is possible to (approximately) assess what good/mediocre/nonexistent choreography and interpretation are;
- beyond that and after we've all agreed that the choreography and interpretation are at least serviceable, it mostly boils down to a matter of taste (again, informed by what I called "personal perception");
- as to your point no. 2, no, it doesn't -"All things are equal" does not follow logically from "All things are different";
- as an aside, all opinions are valid as long as they are logically argued.

Try as I might to make sense of this laundry list, I have no idea what it all means. "Interpretation" is serviceable, but it boils down to mostly taste? What does that mean?

"All opinions are valid as long as they are logically argued"? Again, if this is so, then specifically as it has to do with skating, it means that the majority of the PCS components cannot possibly meet the criteria for competitive endeavors.

As a trivial example, I have witnessed people being moved to tears by performances that made me raise my shoulders and say "that was good, I guess". I have seen people calling one my favourite skaters, whom I consider a fantastic interpreter of music, "over the top". Which one of us is "right", in your opinion?

In my opinion, specific and detailed articulation is needed as to why that someone was moved to tears, and why you, on the other hand, shrugged your shoulders.

By "viewer" I specifically intended to refer to the casual spectator/figure skating fan watching a performance. Judges can and should be held to different standards.

Why should the "standards" by which general viewers and judges view performances be different? Sure, judges are trained, know more, and are experienced, but this should have nothing to do with conceptual standards. I may know very little about brain surgery, but if I ever had to perform such a procedure in a pinch (let's say, a zombie apocalypse), you can be sure I'd be reading the same standard textbooks like mad, and viewing the training videos, if at all possible.

 

[yuki]

.

 

[Robeye]

And this is not projection? How can you possibly know that I intended that sentence the way you interpret it?

That you offered it as intellectual gold? ("That is subjective, no matter how much one might try to rationalize it.") Well, the fact that the entire sentence was in bold, with the "is" additionally in italics, seemed fairly compelling indicators, but maybe that's just me.

English is not my first language; "serviceable" was not a good word to use. What I meant was that as long as we have agreed that the program is of good quality (of choreography, interpretation), what differentiates one good program from another for the viewer boils down (mostly) to personal taste & perception.
(Btw, if you are going to mock my use of language, you should probably know that "explicator" is not a word.)

My, you are full of interior tics. I had no issue with the word "serviceable" as a choice. It's a perfectly fine word, which I use myself. And your English, as far as I can see, is excellent, a lot more fluent, IMO, than many who call themselves native speakers.

It's the substantive cohesiveness of the ideas and the logic that I take issue with. For example, I did not understand how interpretation can be both serviceable (presumably for PCS purposes, which means for competitive purposes) and at the same time mostly comprised of "taste".

Re: "explicator": http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/explicator . Yes, it is a ginuwine word. It is true, though, that it isn't commonly used.

I was referring to using logic & argumentation theory here, not to jumping to conclusions however one seems fit.

In that case, if it's not about the evaluation of the artistic program components, I don't understand its relevance to the topic (that is, why it's there).

But aren't my reasons, as well as theirs, subjective?

Aha . This, in my view, is actually the heart of the issue. My answer is: not necessarily. Too bad we seemed to get off on the wrong foot. IMO, there was an interesting discussion to be had exploring this critical point, and the implications for figure skating.

Bad example. Reading books on brain surgery makes you a brain surgeon about as much as watching skating videos makes you a skater. Also, casual viewers are allowed to have an opinion about a program without thoroughly educating themselves on all matters skating (as long as that opinion is well argued etc.).

With respect, I believe you are misconstruing the analogy. To be sure, reading books on brain surgery will not immediately transform me into a board-certifiable specialist, just as trying to learn more about how skating performances are judged will not immediately qualify me to sit on a competition panel.

However, as indicated in my previous post, if, in some fantastic emergency scenario (e.g. a zombie apocalypse occurs and all medical infrastructure breaks down), I needed to perform an emergency trepanning myself, I would try to prepare myself as much as possible by reading any textbooks/viewing any videos on the subject.

Similarly, a general viewer may never reach the levels of expertise of a judge, but the principles of evaluation that a general viewer hopes to increasingly acquire should be the same as those applied by judging panels.

If that is not the case, then, in a very real sense, the general viewer and the judges are watching two very different things. An analogy that comes to mind: I may use a tennis ball for tennis, while a puppy may use it for a game of stalk-and-chase. If the general skating viewer is not using the same principles of evaluation as the judge, then, while the judge is manifestly watching a skating performance as currently defined, the general viewer is actually watching...something else.

Look, this has been mildly fun, but I'm sure it's tiresome for everyone else, especially people who open this thread hoping to find out about Mao's programs. If you really feel the need to respond to me, please use PM/ open another thread, whichever you see fit - I won't answer here on this subject anymore.

OK,why don't we call it a day.

 

[enzet]

1) I've made various arguments at various times. Let me try an angle I don't think I've tried before: do you believe that all skaters are congenital idiots?

If artistry in skating is truly subjective and impossible to communally define and verify, then what do these skaters think they're trying to accomplish, spending endless hours on "subjective" aspects? If figure skating artistry is subjective, then it would be logically impossible for skaters to know what changes will get them higher scores.

And, yet, in the main, and within certain limits of precision, skaters do know, and furthermore, we know they know. Otherwise, and assuming they are not idiots (at least, not congenitally), there would be absolutely no point in spending tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars on specialized training and choreography, now, would there?

They are athletes trying to score points! They spend hours working on those particular aspects they know the judges like and will score generously based largely on their own personal likes/dislikes and very often convention.
Why do you think the skaters for example use the same proven warhouses over and over again?
Why are they often encouraged to play it safe with their music choices in the Olympic year?
If everyone could recognize art when they saw it, why worry about the reaction of the judges who should ideally be experts in this field?

2) Do you consider yourself a figure skating fan? Those who push the subjectivity thesis always seem to be silent on the following question, though heaven knows I ask it every chance I get: if you really believe in subjectivity, why aren't you making a public and aggressive ruckus to get artistry removed from competitive figure skating? Since the overtly "subjective" (artistic) components of PCS make up roughly a third of the score, any results at the higher levels will fall within the margin the margin of error (e.g. in the ladies discipline, victories will usually be by less than 70 points), which, by your arguments, means that placements are meaningless and therefore skating has absolutely no claim to being a sport at all.

Yes, I am a longtime figure skating fan and a former competitive skater.
Why would I try to get artistry removed from competitive skating? I like the combination of athleticsm and the glimpses of artistry that some skaters demonstrate. As for whether skating is a sport or not, it is one of the sports that can NEVER possibly be judged objectively, meaning that everyone would agree with the results and the number of points awarded, if only they learned the rules.
I think there will always be a significant degree of subjectivity, not only when it comes to artistry or components but even to scoring jumps and other technical elements. Was it worth + 1 or 0? Was the jump underrotated or not? Was the take off of a slight outside edge or flatt?
(There are still great inconsistenices in juding these).
For this reason, I always take the placements with a grain of salt. Sometimes I agree, sometimes not at all, but that is not enough to ruin my enjoyment of the sport while it is still being recognized as one.

3) The fact that, despite the issues raised above, skating still exists, and is accepted as a competitive and Olympic sport, should lead us to an alternative explanation: your theory of figure skating artistry is incorrect.

It proves nothing of that kind. So, if from the next season it is not considered an Olympic sport anymore, does it suddenly make my “theory“ more acceptable?

It is more likely, I suggest, that your definition of what is being measured in the artistic components may not completely overlap with what is actually being measured in skating competitions.

Well, while I think my perception of artistry is not necessarily the same thing as PCS, I think both are subjective and can never be measured totally objectively without one‘s personal preferences or biases coming into play.

You can introduce as many bullet points you want, but how are expressions like Unity of purpose, Style, Expression of music’s character, Projection or Use of nuances not vague or not subjective?

What one considers subtle and tasteful may well be seen as insufficient, flatt or lacking impact to another, one‘s sexy can easily be another’s tacky, one’s “expressing every nuance of the music“ another’s “too literal“, one’s “heartfelt and genuine“ another’s “forced and rehearsed“ etc.
In short, something will always be too much, or not enough depending on a particular viewer ‘s perception.

There is nothing truly objective in the way Components are defined let alone scored, but that is for a different discussion altogether.
Let me just mention the most obvious cases when a skater’s PCS suddenly drop if they miss the final flight, skate poorly at the beginning of the season or how the scores for choreography could be all over the place despite the fact the program is the same the whole season etc.
If the Components were so easily measurable, things like that should have been sorted out ages ago.

Belief in The Subjectivity of Skating Artistry=Bad for Figure Skating, Very Bad.

Really? How so? I promise I’m not going to write a petition to the Olympic comittee to remove figure skating from the Olympics, despite keeping my belief that it is generally a very subjective sport.

At least until the time someone creates a system that would put an end to all the endless discusions of who was robbed or held up, and until we can all reach an agreement on what is a good artistic performance.

I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[TheCzar]

Dear moderators- I'm pretty certain the last three pages suit another thread altogether. It's getting tediously redundant now.

Thanks.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I agree, this thread has become more boring than Mao's new SP.

 

[yyyskate]

I agree, this thread has become more boring than Mao's new SP.

 

[OS]

Anyway, for those still interested in Mao's SP, The ICE youtube channel has uploaded another version of it.

Thanks for sharing this latest revelation... mmmm.....pfwahahaha... after all these 'Much Ado About Nothing' (12+ pages of Shakespearean farce ), turns out... I was EXACTLY RIGHT !!! What a vindication! What a Twelfth Right.

The original fan dubbed track was NOT the same choreographed version, for it clearly misses out the nuances and lyricism (the term implies interpretation of meaning, so how can there be accurate meaning when the track was clearly out of sync) therefore made little sense in interpretation. The live recording track featured on THE ICE clip however DOES match with the choreography as it SHOULD. Anything lesser I’d consider as a disaster in an Olympic standard program. Those who defended the original clip performance based on the wrong track? What can you say now? (Moving with every note…. Really?)

Based on the newly revealed correct music track, I am sticking to my original argument that the best way to project the fan dubbed version of the gentlest and romantic version of No.2 out of the three is to focus more on the emotional projection proportionate to the pianist’s interpretation that demands greater sensitivity and intensity to convey what is being heard and felt. Music intention is not merely about what is intended from the composer, the period, the context of which the music was conceived but is also based on what is heard and felt in the moment, a more visceral reaction as oppose to an academic and studied one. Though I think an educated visceral reaction works best in theory and in practice. For it respect the source to enable greater opportunity to develop an educated/quality opinion, then the higher learning would be develop an even more unique opinion. Otherwise the performer may neglect the obvious, and the work ends up being creative lazy and contrived that lacks in substance however you dress it up. Unfortunately, that was the reason why Mao’s Swan Lake did not work for me, even though it may satisfy some of the aesthetic tick list for some hard core fans. Its weakness cannot be overwhelmed by its strength.

Ultimately, it is about examining whether the performer understood the piece and whether he/she can convey his/her feeling to be accurately understood by the observer. Without one of the other, the whole exercise can fail.

I do want to add, my original descriptive analysis of the no.2 was trying to instigate the right degree of emotion and feeling for the general reader using imagination and storytelling to communicate similar emotion and feelings in laymen terms. It is no different than many of the techniques used to teach performance arts (Music performance, Stage/Theatre) in trying to draw out the intangible using whatever tools and techniques necessary. With one sided literal communication such as in forum posts, you don’t get to see my face, my eye contact, my gestures, the way I use my hands, the way I raise my voice, my body language trying to communicate what I mean, therefore these over exaggerated flowery use of imaginary stories/languages are useful. They are not meant to be taken literally but are merely by product of the process.

Communication in literal description of feelings and emotions is a tough undertaking even if English is not my 2nd language. Especially given the breadth of age, mixed culture and languages of the general readers I am expressing to. I believe even if I managed to be 35% successful, then I am doing a good job. Surely skater with far more room for projection, body language, musicality and beauty (and especially long ‘expressive’ arms) at their disposal can manage more than 10% even it is under the COP.

In any case isn’t it ironic how the biggest naysayer on this thread actually provided the most accurate defense on a faulty presentation?

Random things I learnt from this exercise

- Supporters/Loyalist will support however weak the presentation of their favourite skater, even to the point of creating cheering squad trying to bamboozle the naysayers based on a faulty premise.

- Rationality and Irrationality are not really far apart when the inmates are running the asylum. Yes, I consider figure skating forums are full of them. We are passionate, we are insane, we are opinionated, otherwise how else can you explain our interest in a dying sport that seems doomed to fail with a system that has so many problems that seems impossible to fix. It ultimately depends on which side of the fence you are on where it concerns subjectivity and objective. I may be wrong, but philosophy seems always to be won by the better debater (or the most stubborn and respected one), right or wrong has very little to do with it. History is written by the victor after all.

- Fans get very defensive even if their heart is in the right place but I don't blame them. I honestly believe under the figure skating fandom, we are all equals, even some just like to scream a bit louder than others.

- Viewers with decades of skating viewing experience remain supportive of a faulty presentation when it is done by one of the sentimental favs. (Or that majority of Golden skate members are simply far too nice to say something critical, nicer than me anyway.)

- My verdict on Mao’s latest SP (I say latest, because regardless of whatever happens at the Olympics she’s likely to skate many more version of this program on and on forever to rapturous applause on all her shows) :

It is good. Much better than my first impression now we have the right music track so the lack of syc factor doesn’t bother me that much anymore. It may lack the fresh sparkling appeal of the brisky 2006 version but that is to become expected.

Jump issues aside (critical competitive factor), choreographically she was a lovely vision that moves with ease with the music and this program is strong. It is clearly about sustain the same pleasant mood in her interpretation and nothing deeper than tha5; butI I won’t even bother to nit-pick (why ruin a good mood) since it is still early in the season. I am debating whether I like it more than her last Olympic short, because I am a natural progressive and generally prefer original work that’s are a bit fresher and riskier, however I figured Mao at this stage of her career should just do whatever works and most comfortable for her. I wish her joy and happiness, and who am I to say what is best when one has had as much success as Mao (judging issues aside, it is not her fault). One thing I do know, I’d never underestimate her. Though it must be said, my personal favourite will always be Yuna regardless of what happened in the end, objectively and subjectively.

Gosh… I can’t wait for everyone to release their programs soon, this is getting exciting! I like Carolina’s SP music choice too, and given what I just saw, my heart just beat a little faster.

 

[babyalligator]

Why don't we all resume after seeing the program in competition. This makes much more sense than trying to analyze the heck out of a sneak-peak performance of a program that is clearly still a work in progress.

 

[Mathman]

Thanks for sharing this latest revelation... mmmm.....pfwahahaha... after all these 'Much Ado About Nothing' (12+ pages of Shakespearean farce ), turns out... I was EXACTLY RIGHT !!!

You were! : I am officially impressed. :yes:

 

[yyyskate]

the first link to this new sp at 1:20s has a weird music cut. The second link of the new sp also has a weird music cut at around 1:40s.
Arms aside, I noticed more difficult transitions and some new footwork which is very nice. but apparently Mao at this moment was not very used to, I like the new spin position, very pretty, The sp is a work in progress indeed. I hope those awkward arm moves is not due to choreography and will get better once Mao gets more milage on this program.

 

[yyyskate]

I just watched this program 2007 WC version, except for that popped-3loop. All the other parts including camera position are just exquisite (perhaps, the best among other versions). That fan spiral, deep deep edge, and then change edge spiral, beautiful arms. Her arms in this version are much better than the new one. Simple balletic arms. MAO can not use her arms as expressive or versatile as Yuna。But in this 2007 NO。2 her arms are prefect.

 

[minze]

I just watched this program 2007 WC version, except for that popped-3loop. All the other parts including camera position are just exquisite (perhaps, the best among other versions). That fan spiral, deep deep edge, and then change edge spiral, beautiful arms. Her arms in this version are much better than the new one. Simple balletic arms. MAO can not use her arms as expressive or versatile as Yuna。But in this 2007 NO。2 her arms are prefect.

Why do you insist in comparing Mao to Yuna kim in a Mao thread. Do you enjoy starting fan wars? What does Yuna Kim have to do with Mao?

 

[yyyskate]

Why do you insist in comparing Mao to Yuna kim in a Mao thread. Do you enjoy starting fan wars? What does Yuna Kim have to do with Mao?

I do NOT wanna starting fan wars. And I am not the only one mentioned Yuna here. Also, Who says that in Mao OR Yuna's topic/thread, bring-up the other (or comparison) is absolutely banned. I am not starting fan war here. I am just stating my comments very domestically and being as objectively as I can. You can disagree. But the way/attitude how you accusing me is actually starting a fan war.
I do NOT enjoy starting fan wars, But I do like appreciating/analyzing skating and enjoy reading post with different opinion as long as it's legit.
"What does Yuna have to do with Mao?" --- Why bring all the great skaters together every year and compete? If somebody is afraid of comparison then do not come out to compete.
This being said, I will not reply your comments of this kind any more.

 

[prettykeys]

Thanks for sharing this latest revelation... mmmm.....pfwahahaha... after all these 'Much Ado About Nothing' (12+ pages of Shakespearean farce ), turns out... I was EXACTLY RIGHT !!! What a vindication! What a Twelfth Right.

The original fan dubbed track was NOT the same choreographed version, for it clearly misses out the nuances and lyricism (the term implies interpretation of meaning, so how can there be accurate meaning when the track was clearly out of sync) therefore made little sense in interpretation. The live recording track featured on THE ICE clip however DOES match with the choreography as it SHOULD. Anything lesser I’d consider as a disaster in an Olympic standard program. Those who defended the original clip performance based on the wrong track? What can you say now? (Moving with every note…. Really?)

B-b-b-but how can you declare yourself to be RIGHT when the "everything-in-figure-skating/art analysis-is-subjective" squad could NEVER be WRONG!?

I always find these pseudo-musical or scientific explanations of why one skater is undisputedly superior/inferior to another rather amusing.
In the end, what you are saying is simply „I like this skater better,“ only in a very round-about way that may lead some to believe that your opinion is somehow more valid, while in reality, you may just be more eloquent or have more time on your hands.

Going back to Mao’s Chopin, you may love it, hate it or be completely indifferent to it, but it is ultimately only your own personal perception, not a proof that her SP or her musical interpretation is somehow inferior to what we usually get from top figure skating competitors.

I think this is the best post in this entire thread!

And that post just shut it down.

this

:thumbsup: Agreed. enzet, thank you for saying most of what I wanted to say, only much more eloquently.

This is the single most hilarious turn of events I have witnessed on a figure skating forum as of yet.

Also guys, Nietzsche. Mini pet-peeve of mine.

 

[yuki]

Maybe some of us actually bothered to watch the proper program (besides the one I linked in this thread, there was also another, shortened version, uploaded on The ICE Youtube channel over a month ago, it's not that hard to find).