It's not in the definition of interpretation.
The words "originality" and "creative" appear in the criteria for the Choreography/Composition component, not the Interpretation component.
"Interpretation" of Program Component Scores
- Thread starter Mathman
- Start date
It's not in the definition of interpretation.
The words "originality" and "creative" appear in the criteria for the Choreography/Composition component, not the Interpretation component.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
How about Wagner's leitmotif for Opera; Philip Glass for music.
Manet for introducing the Impressionist style. Sonia Henie for brining the Samba to ice skating.
All these were originals. Nothing was copying from some other presentations.
However, if you really like Cio Cio San stabbing herself on ice at the end of the Madama Buttfly cut music. It's ok, but for me it is not original and it is not creatve. We should agree to disagree.
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I would vote for Michelle's The Feeling Begins as an example of great interpretation.
BTW, although the words originality and creativity are not listed in the detailed criteria under "Interpretation," the word "creative" does appear twice in the defintion:
BTW, although the words originality and creativity are not listed in the detailed criteria under "Interpretation," the word "creative" does appear twice in the defintion:
(A few too many "creates" and "creative"'s, if you ask me, LOL.)
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Interesting! The word personal seems to me as what does the music of Tosca mean to you without that pot boiler of a story?
Kwan was exemplary in bringing out the viewer's feelings without a story.
Joe
Kwan was exemplary in bringing out the viewer's feelings without a story.
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
She is better this year
Another good example of why question how they score "interpretation." :agree: :agree:
Judging is always subjective, but I think FS could be more at the forefront of judging techniques that eliminate or lessen "personal / human subjectivity" to the degree more find trustable in the marks. All subjectivity to a individual having any impact on the outcome should really be the athlete and team - as I say that I realize it is an "of course, all sports SHOULD...but...." - yet so much it seems like it is in question.
I am thinking 2 Tech spc. and "instant replay" for ratifying jumps, flutz .... and eliminating things from the scoring that are subject to "preference" of any sort.
An expl... Alissa gets more points for her - maybe wrong name - catchfoot / candlestick spiral because her hips are turned and is facing and extenuation is maximum, NOT JUST BECAUSE it is a "preference of a judge." But it is "in the books." A scale to reference, not to prefer one to an other. JMO ?????
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
When the newer system was introduced, people expected that artistry (interpretation, choreography, transitions etc) would be more rewarded than before. Is it true, or actually getting less rewarded, relative to the technical scores?
I don't miss the older system in a sense that the newer system is much more precise. But in terms of artistry, I have had an impression that the older system rewarded artistry more significantly than the current system.
Yet, I also have a feeling that what's perceived to be important in figure skating wouldn't have changed that much, because members of judges and coaches wouldn't have dramatically changed during the last several years.
I don't miss the older system in a sense that the newer system is much more precise. But in terms of artistry, I have had an impression that the older system rewarded artistry more significantly than the current system.
Yet, I also have a feeling that what's perceived to be important in figure skating wouldn't have changed that much, because members of judges and coaches wouldn't have dramatically changed during the last several years.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
When I saw KIMMIE MEISSNER above Yu-Na Kim, the first thought that came to my mind was, "Somebody needs to get their eyes checked..."....
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think it's about the same. Under both systems, the technical scores and the presentation scores turn out to be about of equal weight.
In the new system they juggle the relative values to make it come out that way, on the average. For instance, for the ladies' short program the program component scores are multiplied by a factor of .8, while in the long program the factor is 1.6. The point of this is that in the LP you have an opportunity to get about twice as many technical points in the LP, so the multipliers guarantee that the same is true for the PCSs.
On the other hand, men can gain about 25% more points technically (eight jumping passes, the possibility of doing quads and triple Axels, etc.) So the multiplies for PCSs are also raised by 25% (to 1.00 in the SP and 2.00 in the LP).
So all of this is supposed to make the two parts come out about equal (which in practice they do).
The other thing is that in both systems the two scores, technical and presentation, mostly go along together. Under ordinal judging we never saw a skater get marks of 5.9, 5.1, even when such a disparity was justified. The same is true under the new system. I think that this is because, new or old, the judges are basically saying in their minds -- this guy skated the best, he deserves the highest score; this guy was second, he deserves the second highest score, etc.
Nevertheless, I am sort of encouraged when skaters like Johnny Weir and Jeff Buttle can get decent PCSs even when they bomb technically.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I wouldn't have put anyone above Lambiel for the LP in interpretation. I think in his Tokyo LP he fulfilled all of the promise he'd show since 2003 in the way he gained control over his upper body, and which he fulfilled in last year's SP. Sure he's had better jumping competitions, but he was superb in all of the criteria listed under Interpretation.
Mao Asada would have been lucky to have been top 10 on my list. It was an impossibly weak interpretation of a Czardas. In my opinion, she was pretty much skating to last year's Nutcracker music.
In the Euros SP this year, I would have given top interpretation marks to Idora Hegel, who, in each one of her non-jump elements, reflected the Blues for Klook music impeccably. Instead, she was marked lower than Elena Sokolova, who had one of the emptiest programs among the Ladies (and there's was plenty of competition for that distinction.) And poor cygnus, who sat next to me, had to listen to me mutter incessant complaints about this throughout the rest of the SP.
Mao Asada would have been lucky to have been top 10 on my list. It was an impossibly weak interpretation of a Czardas. In my opinion, she was pretty much skating to last year's Nutcracker music.
In the Euros SP this year, I would have given top interpretation marks to Idora Hegel, who, in each one of her non-jump elements, reflected the Blues for Klook music impeccably. Instead, she was marked lower than Elena Sokolova, who had one of the emptiest programs among the Ladies (and there's was plenty of competition for that distinction.) And poor cygnus, who sat next to me, had to listen to me mutter incessant complaints about this throughout the rest of the SP.
Similar threads
