No, I agree with you, if we look at it from skater to skater. For example, if we compare Nathan's Nemesis and Yuzuru's Seimei (or even Wakaba's Skyfall), there's no doubt that Yuzuru's has more complex and multi-dimensional skating, because he is capable of doing more with his blades. What I'm getting at is that from what eppen provided, if we generalize something out from those patterns, Bourne stands out as a choreographer who happens to really include more multi-dimensional skating on her choreography, in general, compared to Wilson or Nichol. Although not as complex as Yuzuru's, Nathan's Nemesis has more multi-dimensional pattern in comparison to his Mao's Last Dancer, and that's why I am more inclined to believe that in this case, it's a particular quirk of Bourne's choreographic style. She can decrease the difficulty of steps and turns, yes, but I think as much as possible, she would still demand her skaters to follow her choreographic pattern.
Choreography
- Thread starter chopinskate
- Start date
No, I agree with you, if we look at it from skater to skater. For example, if we compare Nathan's Nemesis and Yuzuru's Seimei (or even Wakaba's Skyfall), there's no doubt that Yuzuru's has more complex and multi-dimensional skating, because he is capable of doing more with his blades. What I'm getting at is that from what eppen provided, if we generalize something out from those patterns, Bourne stands out as a choreographer who happens to really include more multi-dimensional skating on her choreography, in general, compared to Wilson or Nichol. Although not as complex as Yuzuru's, Nathan's Nemesis has more multi-dimensional pattern in comparison to his Mao's Last Dancer, and that's why I am more inclined to believe that in this case, it's a particular quirk of Bourne's choreographic style. She can decrease the difficulty of steps and turns, yes, but I think as much as possible, she would still demand her skaters to follow her choreographic pattern.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Yes, i just wanted to make a distinction between those two. Composition of the programme (the way ISU defined it) is maybe closer with what skaters were doing in Figures back then? Choreography in a broader sense (people are most common with) could not be applied here, it is specific kind of choreography because it is meant to happen on ice, in ice rink and on blades. I would say that choreographer job in FS is to made the best possible pattern on ice which can allow skater to show the best of a blades work in first place and then also of body movements and emotional and intelectual involvement in relation to the music and the audience. If someone knows specific responsibilities of choreographer in FS i would like to hear it (does it include design of L4 StSq for example)?
No, not at all. Compulsory figures were compulsory. Everyone did the exact same turns on the exact same place on the same two or three circles. They weren't programs. They were compulsory exercises that each took up only a small piece of ice.
Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2LwMId43uU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGvvgjTQDY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVo3u93Z-cY
Skaters did freeskating programs as well and those were choreographed specifically for each skater to show off his or her skills. To music, by the middle of the 20th century. But usually the coach put the program together for the skater, and older skaters who wanted to be more involved might have input in the decisions as well. Maybe they would bring in a dancer to give suggestions for arm movements etc. Primarily the goal was to showcase the skater's skills in an aesthetically pleasing way. And to show variety/versatility by using several contrasting pieces of music that might or might not have any relationship to each other.
The profession of "skating choreographer" for competitive programs started to gain ground in the 1970s.
Ricky Harris was a pioneer.
Sandra Bezic did a lot to develop the profession in the 1980s, among others.
Yes. With IJS "Purpose" is the first criterion for the (formerly Choreography) Composition component. So if there is a clear sense of mood or style, or theme or character or story, tying the program together, that is now rewarded. 40 years ago, that was not expected.
A skating choreographer who was also a skater and may now also be a coach would be able to design a step sequence for levels, especially if they make a point of keeping up with each year's ISU rules.
A floor/stage dance choreographer who is brought in to design a program that is stylistically/thematically coherent and creative would not have the skating knowledge to do that.
Some skating choreographers who honed their craft in the 1980s-90s and early 2000s under the 6.0 system might not be interested in choreographing by the numbers under IJS and don't do as much competitive choreography any more. When they do, they might leave the technical design of the leveled step sequences to the technical coach.
And I think there are some coaches/skating choreographers who do specialize in designing step sequences.
I really don't know how each well-known choreographer tends to work. But I think the job description is flexible depending on each choreographer's own strengths and on the needs of each skater or technical coach they work with.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Thanks. It make sense that a lot of skaters (with their coaches) go to different camps and consulting other coaches/dance choreographers to improve specific aspects of their programme, from jumps and spins to interpretation and specific body movements some type of music requires.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2016
Various Thoughts:
As far as scoring - we should be looking for choreographic purpose and quality of delivery. Some choreography you just won’t like or be interested in. That’s OK. But that is different from recognizing the choreographic purpose and quality of something. The most basic aspect is characterizing the mood or tone of a piece of music - any basic choreographer should be able to achieve this result. What I'm looking for is that every motion needs to be motivated. Even if I don’t care for a piece of choreography or transition or jump placement or spin - does the motion (or lack of) actually do anything? That doesn’t mean necessarily hitting every music accent in a correlated way (like I said). Sometimes using syncopation and highlighting off-beats (or missing notes) can be effective. Mentioned earlier was Chen’s Golden Pond SP. The piece is warm and comfortable, that comes in part that it’s typically played andante rubato, but couple that with its legato playing style and frequent fermata’s - and it has a lot of openness and space even if there isn’t silence. Chen’s choreography brackets that space and leaves it open. Rather than jamming a motion or performing through that space - she leaves it open, so the comfortability is retained. This is why the program is quite effective. An interesting contrast might be to Sui/Han’s Blues for Klook’s. Most of the notes are hit with an accent or a turn, with rapid pivots to highlight the disruptiveness of Blues for Klook in its musical construction. But she reconstituted the brokenness by inserting choreographic features in-between the notes. Nichol used a continuous choreographic line to bring unity to something disjoined. It’s engaging intellectually, but also brings intimacy to their performance. Then, of course, quality of delivery should be scored. Let me be clear - I don't think the judges care about any of this. There is certainly no evidence of this and the programs most rewarded seem to be the programs that have the "most" choreography rather than the choreography with the most purpose. There is certainly something athletically challenging about delivering a stuffed performance, but I, personally, don't believe we should value that abstractly.
Pattern and ice coverage. This in part is a viewing medium question. Honestly, if you are primarily engaged with a program on Youtube - varying ice coverage or particular patterns is going to be close to irrelevant to your viewing experience because of the way the camera follows a skater. I think this was part of the attempt to incorporate the overhead camera - but a bird’s eye view is still a very unnatural position. I think the judges care a lot about ice coverage. I think that can be limiting and can lead to excessive turns. But it will almost necessarily come with multi-directional skating. I think this can be somewhat good though because if you are just staying at the midline or are moving in straight lines or repeated diagonal entrances into jumps you aren’t using the entire canvas of the rink. So, in this sense, the demand for variety and ice coverage is probably indirectly contributing to choreographic purpose even if the judges are not really mechanically thinking if serpentine or circular would be better or if the elliptical pattern is appropriate.
Finally, it’s hard to say what “good” choreography is. I don’t believe in rules per-se, and think that adhering to classical dance standards would be too rigid. For example, I don’t need the movements to correlate with each musical phrase or nuance in an expected manner. That isn’t necessarily bad - there is a certain primal and universal pleasure in seeing it done well, but equal power (in a very different way) comes from divorcing the movement from the emotional impulse of a piece of music.
As far as scoring - we should be looking for choreographic purpose and quality of delivery. Some choreography you just won’t like or be interested in. That’s OK. But that is different from recognizing the choreographic purpose and quality of something. The most basic aspect is characterizing the mood or tone of a piece of music - any basic choreographer should be able to achieve this result. What I'm looking for is that every motion needs to be motivated. Even if I don’t care for a piece of choreography or transition or jump placement or spin - does the motion (or lack of) actually do anything? That doesn’t mean necessarily hitting every music accent in a correlated way (like I said). Sometimes using syncopation and highlighting off-beats (or missing notes) can be effective. Mentioned earlier was Chen’s Golden Pond SP. The piece is warm and comfortable, that comes in part that it’s typically played andante rubato, but couple that with its legato playing style and frequent fermata’s - and it has a lot of openness and space even if there isn’t silence. Chen’s choreography brackets that space and leaves it open. Rather than jamming a motion or performing through that space - she leaves it open, so the comfortability is retained. This is why the program is quite effective. An interesting contrast might be to Sui/Han’s Blues for Klook’s. Most of the notes are hit with an accent or a turn, with rapid pivots to highlight the disruptiveness of Blues for Klook in its musical construction. But she reconstituted the brokenness by inserting choreographic features in-between the notes. Nichol used a continuous choreographic line to bring unity to something disjoined. It’s engaging intellectually, but also brings intimacy to their performance. Then, of course, quality of delivery should be scored. Let me be clear - I don't think the judges care about any of this. There is certainly no evidence of this and the programs most rewarded seem to be the programs that have the "most" choreography rather than the choreography with the most purpose. There is certainly something athletically challenging about delivering a stuffed performance, but I, personally, don't believe we should value that abstractly.
Pattern and ice coverage. This in part is a viewing medium question. Honestly, if you are primarily engaged with a program on Youtube - varying ice coverage or particular patterns is going to be close to irrelevant to your viewing experience because of the way the camera follows a skater. I think this was part of the attempt to incorporate the overhead camera - but a bird’s eye view is still a very unnatural position. I think the judges care a lot about ice coverage. I think that can be limiting and can lead to excessive turns. But it will almost necessarily come with multi-directional skating. I think this can be somewhat good though because if you are just staying at the midline or are moving in straight lines or repeated diagonal entrances into jumps you aren’t using the entire canvas of the rink. So, in this sense, the demand for variety and ice coverage is probably indirectly contributing to choreographic purpose even if the judges are not really mechanically thinking if serpentine or circular would be better or if the elliptical pattern is appropriate.
Finally, it’s hard to say what “good” choreography is. I don’t believe in rules per-se, and think that adhering to classical dance standards would be too rigid. For example, I don’t need the movements to correlate with each musical phrase or nuance in an expected manner. That isn’t necessarily bad - there is a certain primal and universal pleasure in seeing it done well, but equal power (in a very different way) comes from divorcing the movement from the emotional impulse of a piece of music.
With regards to choreographic purpose, isn't this also part of criteria under Choreography/Composition? Specifically,
(I'm quoting USFSA's document back in 2004 which should still hold even to this day).
Which brings me back the "totality" of a program, and how a skater maintains a cohesive interpretation or purpose (by a clear articulation of their footwork, their spine, their torso, their arms and fingers) throughout the program that, as you've said, doesn't necessarily have to follow every bit, every change of register, every crescendo of the music, but to maintain a sense of rhythmic "feel" to the music (or groove as they call it). A quick lesson on ethnomusicology , groove is defined as "an unspecifiable but ordered sense of something that is sustained in a distinctive, regular and attractive way, working to draw the listener in." (I got this from wikipedia but whatever
) That's how I approach "unity" in a program but I don't know if you want to interchange it with "choreographic purpose."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2016
With regards to choreographic purpose, isn't this also part of criteria under Choreography/Composition? Specifically,
(I'm quoting USFSA's document back in 2004 which should still hold even to this day).
Which brings me back the "totality" of a program, and how a skater maintains a cohesive interpretation or purpose (by a clear articulation of their footwork, their spine, their torso, their arms and fingers) throughout the program that, as you've said, doesn't necessarily have to follow every bit, every change of register, every crescendo of the music, but to maintain a sense of rhythmic "feel" to the music (or groove as they call it). A quick lesson on etymology, groove is defined as "an unspecifiable but ordered sense of something that is sustained in a distinctive, regular and attractive way, working to draw the listener in." (I got this from wikipedia but whatever
I didn't really mean unity in the sense ISU talks about it (at least in the specific bold). What I meant was Nichol took the specific piece of music that was disjointed and united it together - took a deconstructed piece of music and reconstructed choreographically. This is actually, in some sense, the "opposite" of what the music calls for (at least naively). It's a choreographic purposefulness that it motivated beyond the demands for the music. I don't necessarily think Sui/Han should be rewarded substantially extra points for this (I don't think figure skating judging should nor can be reduced to art criticism). I do think that skater's should value performance and try to engage their programs in that type of conceptual manner though - to push beyond the naive demands of a piece - if only for the sake of us spectators and their legacy.
As for the IJS document, the other sense of unity being used, a pleasing and artistic whole, where each choreographic movement contributes to the overall vision - is an excellent way to judge choreography. If I were to nitpick, I am a little uncomfortable with phrases like "threading". I don't know if every motion should be "threaded" together, that could be limiting and disallow interesting juxtapositions or dissonance - at least if interpreted too literally. But overall I actually think the explanation documents give a very good metric for how we should judge choreography. But is it followed, even remotely? I don't really think so. I think it is worth asking though - it is even possible for the judges to do this though? Between constantly looking down at computer screens to input element scores while appraising element quality that finely (compared to 6.0) and the necessity of making split-second judgments about choreographic purpose. Maybe that Tech Panel / PCS Panel split is what we need.
After many years of no changes, there were finally some edits to the program component guidelines 2 years ago.
http://usfigureskating.org/content/ISU program-component-chart_sandp-and-id_08-16.pdf
The mention of "unity" and "threading" are gone from the Composition component (which also changed its name from Choreography at that time).
Under Transitions, "intricacy" was replaced with "Continuity of movements from one element to another," which is kind of the same idea as threading, but more about how the skater executes the movements than about how they were planned/choreographed.
I think if it's clearly done with Purpose, and Clarity of movement and Variety and contrasts of movements and energy, there would be plenty of places to reward that kind of choreography under Composition and Performance. And Interpretation, if they express the music's character/feeling and rhythm reflect details and nuances of the music with finesse.
The majority of competitive skaters will not have the interpretive skill or the technical skill to pull it off. But if someone can, there are plenty of places to reward them.
I think what the ISU wants to penalize is jerky skating because of lack of technical control, or breaking the continuity of movements to set up/telegraph elements -- by rewarding the opposite. Below the top elite levels, there's a lot more lack of continuity due to technical insufficiency than to conscious choice.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
^I’d always thought that “intricacy” and “continuity of movements” covered more or less the same thing, from watching the old ISU videos, except that intricacy was more explicitly about transitions into elements. I don’t get the impression that the new continuity criterion is really about how you do transitions so much as how they all link together (regardless of choreographic purpose or quality, which are handled elsewhere). But, I was more familiar with the old standards before they were revised, so I might just be projecting my old understanding.
While we’ve seen deliberately “choppy” or staccato choreography in the past get good scores, I do feel like the judges tend to show a preference time and again for very fluid, continuous choreography.
While we’ve seen deliberately “choppy” or staccato choreography in the past get good scores, I do feel like the judges tend to show a preference time and again for very fluid, continuous choreography.
- Joined
- May 17, 2017
Yulia Lipnitskaya's Shindler's List (by Averbukh)
https://whttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke0iusvydl8ww.youtube.com/watch?v=ke0iusvydl8
https://whttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke0iusvydl8ww.youtube.com/watch?v=ke0iusvydl8
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Country
-
Sorry to return to this so much later, but did not have time during the week… Now, this is indeed something to think about. And something that can be quantified also relatively easily – firstly, how many times does a skater change skating direction during a program? Secondly, how many times does a skater do turns, steps, little jumps etc. during those periods of skating to one direction, i.e., skates forwards, does a 360 turn in one way or another and returns to skating forwards?
To get a glimpse of the differences between choreographers, I decided to look at Hanyu and Chan who have both changed choreographers (Chan from Nichol to Wilson, Hanyu from Wilson to Bourne). And as an afterthought looked also a bit of Nathan Chen. My initial feeling was that not much could have changed particularly with Hanyu simply because the overall pattern did not change at all when the choreographer changed. With Chan the situation could have been different as his pattern changed quite a lot from Nichol to Wilson.
I watched some programs again from this point of view, but after a while had to skip counting the “rotational steps” simply because that would have required far too much time (maybe sometime later?). Something additional that emerged during this part was the time used for each jump pass and how that was divided in directions and in relation to crossovers (that are used to create speed for the jump). (No images here, go and watch programs yourselves with the questions in mind! Count!)
First Patrick Chan. With Nichol in 2011-2 he did 14 changes in direction in the FS and these were always between jumps. The time between jumps is usually 10-20 s – more with difficult jumps, less with easy ones. From the start to 4T it took 29 s, from that to 4T+3T 21 s, to 3A 19 s; in the second part 35 s from spin to 3Lz combo, 11 s to 3Lo, 14 s to 3F, after spin 12 s to 3Lz, 14 s to 2A. Each segment was divided into at least two by one change in direction. Chan ended up doing 14 altogether. The 3Lz combo was preceded by 3 changes, most had 2 (4T, 3Lo, 3F, 2A), some only 1 (4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz). For this one I counted the “rotational steps “(can they be called that??) inside each direction and got 23.
There was also a tendency for the time between the jumps to be divided according to where the crossovers were (6-10 s from the previous jump usually), the extra rotations tended to be before the crossovers. After the crossovers, more simple steps, if anything, before the jump.
With Wilson the next season, Chan did 16 changes in direction, but did not calculate the other figure for that one. In 2013-4 FS, Patrick did 15 changes in direction. For 2015-6, only 12.
Yuzuru Hanyu then. I also wanted to check for development over time and that’s why I started with 2012-3 Wilson program. 13 changes in direction and 21 “rotational steps” inside them. Hanyu’s timeline is also similar to Chan’s: 26 s for the 4T, 28 s for 4S, 12 s for 3A, 28 s for 3A combo after midway, 15 s for 3Lz combo, 15 s for the 2ns 3Lz combo, 12 s for 3Lo, 10 s for 3F. Each segment between the jumps was divided to 2 or 3 with 4 jumps in each. The tendency to place most rotational steps before the crossovers occurred here, too.
In 2013-4, with Wilson there were 17 changes in direction in Hanyu’s program. And in 2014-5 with Bourne, that figure was 16. Seimei 1.0 had 13 changes in direction. (There could be some changes in the number of rotational steps inside each direction and their placement, so when I have time, I might return to this.)
And as for Nathan Chen? He does not have exactly the same jumps in his SP and FS, but the 4Lz and 4F combos are kind of comparable. I looked at his Worlds programs first and then checked also the FS in the early part of the season.
In the SP (by Bourne), he uses 35 s to set up the 4Lz combo with 5 changes in direction. In the FS, by Nichol, he uses 30 s to set up the 4F combo with 5 changes in direction. In the SP, for the solo jump, 4F, 27 s and 1 change in direction. In the FS, the first 4Lz 25 s and 3 changes in direction. And the single 4F in the FS: 3 changes in direction and 22 s.
So, I’d say no clear differences between choreographers here in multidirectionality? But Chen does less “rotational steps” in the FS than in the SP – he does at least 3 before the crossovers for the 4Lz combo, another 3 before the 4F, but none before the 3A. And only one in the first part of the FS in the Worlds. Is this the difference between choreographers or demands of the program? I’m inclined to say the latter because when I looked at the FS at Cup of Russia in the fall, there were more “rotational steps” – details of the choreo had been dropped during the season probably to facilitate the jumps.
The sample discussed above is small, but I always prefer a few facts especially when the discussed matter can be quantified relatively quickly. Based on the above observations, multidirectionality seems to be more closely related to the skills and needs of the skater than to whatever the choreographer might have in mind.
The changes over time could also be tied to changing trends in how to construct and what to include in programs. The CoP has also guided the ways choreography is done, backloading and greater number of transitions just to mention two things that have emerged recently.
From what I have done now with the pattern, multidirectionality and timing elements, the work of the choreographer seems to be very technical indeed. A lot of what can be done is dictated by what the skater can do plus also masking the weaknesses and emphasizing the strengths. At one point I even started to wonder why choreographers are needed at all when so much of any program is controlled by the technical side. There is a reason why the PCS category was changed from Choreography to Composition?!
But I think the choreographer’s work is more about breathing life to the plain dusty elements and transitions, making them look like a meaningful whole with the music (and maybe lyrics), giving the skater the guidelines of how to interpret the music with their movement.
However, unlike in dance on the floor, IMO a choreographer on ice, particularly for making competition programs, can really have no clear style of their own. They tend to choreograph all kinds of music and themes and work with all kinds of skaters who have varying technical and performance abilities. I don’t think I have ever recognized even any of the most famous choreographer’s “style” when watching a program for the first time and having no idea who is behind it…
E
the rules should be phrased according to what they want to see in the elite ranks, not orientated on the problems of the lower ranks. Because what the lower ranks does is always orientated on what the winners are doing and there will always be jerky disconnected skating in the lower ranks no matter the rules. But if they see choreography-packed programs winning in PCS over meaningful intricate choreography (example: Tarasova/Morozovs Candy man got higher PCS at Nebelhorn than Savchenko/Massot's FS Masterpiece), then they won't put as much effort into intricate choreography than they otherwise would have.
Similar threads
