Thus ART is demonstrated in points - or is it?

[Ladskater]

I would say there is interesting choreography - say a David Wilson program or a Christopher Dean program for example as opposed to "good" or "bad" choreography. It also depends on the skills of the skater. Some choreography is a little boring at times because there is not enough content or lacks in footwork and moves in the field. I don't know if there really is such a thing as "bad" choreography. Skaters like Jeff Buttle and Kurt Browning are masters at interpreting music so that helps when it comes to a challenging program.

Interesting discussion.

 

[gsrossano]

Yes it does. In the end, it's the same as if a skater "satisfied the criteria" or not.

Sorry, we are not even close on this I guess. If someone says my criteria for Choreography are the way the skater picks their nose while they skate and the style of their hairdo" and since they didn't didn't pick their nose and their hair is horrible they deserve a 0.25, that does not work for me.

The scoring definition for choreography is set by the criteria listed in the rule book, no more no less. If someone else has a different set of criteria for choreography, I do not care. It is not relevant to whether a skater got the marks they deserve from the judges. It serves no purpose to compare my marks for Choreography and the judges marks for Choreography if we are not using the same criteria for the definition of Choreography (and also the same standard for what good and bad examples of each criterion is).

WHAT is the intent of the music, though? It's whatever the judge says it is.

I would say the intent of the music is whatever the composer said was the intent of the music. The listener (judge) does not have unlimited latitude to assign any intent to the music. If a listener decides the intent of Tosca is a happy day at the park, and since the skater did Tosca tragic they did it wrong in the listener's view so they give it a 0.25, then that listener I would consider a dope who shouldn't be judging skating. (But I am pretty sure most every judge knows Tosca is a tragedy.)

To understand the intent of the music requires the judge know a great deal about music, at least in terms of what we will loosely describe as "music appreciation". Unfortunately, the overall level of music knowledge is not as high as it needs to be among the entire skating community (judges, coaches, skaters).

 

[GoldMedalist]

I would say the intent of the music is whatever the composer said was the intent of the music.

That's a horrible train of thought to use.

A director can tell you what his movie was supposed to mean or what it was supposed to evoke; that doesn't mean it's what YOU felt from the images and sounds that the end product resulted in. Similarly, people are going to have different thoughts about the choreography to a piece of music.

The listener (judge) does not have unlimited latitude to assign any intent to the music. If a listener decides the intent of Tosca is a happy day at the park, and since the skater did Tosca tragic they did it wrong in the listener's view so they give it a 0.25, then that listener I would consider a dope who shouldn't be judging skating. (But I am pretty sure most every judge knows Tosca is a tragedy.)

Whether Tosca, the Opera, is a tragedy or not is entirely beside the point. Skaters compete to music without lyrics for a few minutes. All that matters is how well the skater interprets the music being played.

Obviously, nobody will think Tosca music is a happy day at the park. But it's absolutely the judge's own opinion as to how well the skater is interpreting the music. They can think a given move does not fit the music for whatever reason they want to. In the end there ISN'T a "reason" anyway; there is only what the person's synapses tell them to feel.

The scoring definition for choreography is set by the criteria listed in the rule book, no more no less.

Well, first of all, you've just stated the the rules are infallible. Not wise. Aside from that:

Define what the color blue looks like to a blind person.

No matter what you do, it's impossible to "define" such things. They can only truly be experienced.

One criteria of the Choreography program component is "Purpose (idea, concept, vision)". The same idea can be good or bad for two different people. Happens all the time. There is no way to define if a certain figure skating program was the 100% best way to interpret the music. It's not a mathematical equation akin to figuring out the freezing point of a certain liquid. The best that can happen is a relative universality of shared opinion.

Thus, the very criteria for judging choreography is very much a grey area. I suppose the guidelines that the rules list are somewhat helpful as a reference point but in the end they are just that - guidelines. Not 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[gsrossano]

Stick to one concept at a time. "Intent" and "feel" are two different things. The composer has an intent. How I feel, is not the intent. How I feel is my reaction to the composers implementation of the intent. The composer may have one intent and fail to convey it to me. Or I may be stupid and just not get it. If I react in a way different from the intent, that does not alter the intent.

I do not claim the rules are infallible. I claim integrity demands one can only judge according to the criteria in the rules. I get to ***** and moan about whether I agree with the rules away from the competition. But when Judging, one can only judge according to the requirements as they are written, according to the standards set by the gurus who set the standards.

One criteria of the Choreography program component is "Purpose (idea, concept, vision)". The same idea can be good or bad for two different people. Happens all the time. There is no way to define if a certain figure skating program was the 100% best way to interpret the music. It's not a mathematical equation akin to figuring out the freezing point of a certain liquid. The best that can happen is a relative universality of shared opinion.

One is not judging if the purpose is good or bad. One is judging whether the purpose exists and is identifiable. Likewise one is not judging if the interpretation is 100% the best or not. If the purpose is identifiable, demonstrates proportion, unity, continuity, etc. then the the skaters gets a high score. If proportion, unity, etc is missing a low score.

As for not being able to reduce it to a formula, that is why some people think judging the artistic program components is futile and should not even be done.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

"Choreography/Composition" is defined as "an intentional, developed, and/or original arrangement of all movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure, and phrasing".
It mentions idea, concept, vision, mood, the intentional and quality design of a program, the aesthetic pursuit of the composition, originality, etc.
And the keyword that appears twice is "underlying vision" which is close to what the greek word "poesis" implies IMO.

But no movement to the music?

So in general, it seems safe to say that "Choreography/Composition" is after all SUPPOSED to deal with what we know as Art.

Who are the 'we' who know what about Art?

IMO to evaluate artistic achievements is neither entirely subjective nor securely objective, but would be a matter of collective subjectivity.

It's your IMO and that's fine.

Some people think Maria Calas was a great artist; others don't.

Joe

 

[GoldMedalist]

Stick to one concept at a time. "Intent" and "feel" are two different things. The composer has an intent. How I feel, is not the intent. How I feel is my reaction to the composers implementation of the intent. The composer may have one intent and fail to convey it to me. Or I may be stupid and just not get it. If I react in a way different from the intent, that does not alter the intent.

in·tent
–noun
1. something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.
2. the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.
3. Law. the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.
4. meaning or significance.

I believe that last part is fairly obviously what the word "intent" means here. Thus, the "meaning" of the music is whatever the judge feels it to be.

I do not claim the rules are infallible. I claim integrity demands one can only judge according to the criteria in the rules.

And I'm saying it's impossible to make exacting rules. They are guidelines.

Look at GOE values. There is no rule that says "Okay if you jump this many feet, it's worth this much +value". Or, on the other end, double-footing a jump is -2 GOE. But what about varying levels of how the jump was double-footed? Sometimes double-footing a jump means the free foot came down really hard, other times it's just a little brush against the ice. The -2 GOE is just a guideline.

One is not judging if the purpose is good or bad. One is judging whether the purpose exists and is identifiable. Likewise one is not judging if the interpretation is 100% the best or not. If the purpose is identifiable, demonstrates proportion, unity, continuity, etc. then the the skaters gets a high score. If proportion, unity, etc is missing a low score.

Yes, you most certainly are. That's why there is a sliding scale of values. It's about the degree to which something is successful not simply "oh, this program shows proportion! That is worth 1 point. Oh, this program shows unity - that's worth .5!"

Shades of grey, shades of grey.

 

[gsrossano]

in·tent
–noun
...

Since I can't find Intent in my rulebook, this has now become a tiresome point.

And I'm saying it's impossible to make exacting rules. They are guidelines.

Kind of like the pirate code?

Guidelines? Tell that to the JETS as they evaluate the judges!

Look at GOE values. There is no rule that says "Okay if you jump this many feet, it's worth this much +value". Or, on the other end, double-footing a jump is -2 GOE. But what about varying levels of how the jump was double-footed? Sometimes double-footing a jump means the free foot came down really hard, other times it's just a little brush against the ice. The -2 GOE is just a guideline.

The wording and reductions are : Landing on two feet is -2. Touch down with the free foot is -1. These are two different errors, with two different reductions. These are not guidelines. If the error is committed the reduction MUST be taken. Yes, touchdowns come in many degrees, but if the judge sees a touch down they MUST take the reduction specified in ISU 1445. (I am reminded of my time in the Navy dealing with the UCMJ, which for certain offenses reads "penetration no matter how slight is sufficient to commit the offense.")

You are correct. The requirements for GoEs only list tables of reductions for errors. Similar standards for the +s are absent, and I agree that is a problem. Which may be why the judges are so stingy with +s. (There actually are some requirements for the +s but they are not nearly as detailed as the -s.)

Yes, you most certainly are. That's why there is a sliding scale of values. It's about the degree to which something is successful not simply "oh, this program shows proportion! That is worth 1 point. Oh, this program shows unity - that's worth .5!"Shades of grey, shades of grey.

It's not a sliding scale. It is supposed to be an absolute scale -- though probably often isn't always used that way.

There are some criteria that are shades of gray or degree of accomplishment. There are others that are degree of difficulty, and there are still others that are based on the fraction of the program for which they were demonstrated. A few are basically binary. How all these different approaches get folded into a single number is an issue that needs a lot more work.

 

[sorcerer]

But no movement to the music?

It's written in the PDF files.

Who are the 'we' who know what about Art?

As long as there is the concept of Art, 'we' are those who are willing to share that concept.
It is not shared as a definite whole but that doesn't mean the concept can't be shared or dealt with or discussed about.
What's more, sometimes Logic is inspired by Art, and sometimes vice versa, interactive.

Some people think Maria Calas was a great artist; others don't.

That's fine too.
But to the collective subjectivity of the classical music field she probably is a great artist.
To the collective subjectivity of the jazz music field Miles Davis is no doubt a great artist. Some people hate jazz and that's fine. They are just missing some priceless joy and I can only hope they'll recognize the beauty of jazz one day.
......

Now about what feraina said about the home advantage.
In the Choreo/Compo marks there seems to be no "home advantage".
Just the "roar advantage".

 

[Mathman]

I don't agree that the choreography must reflect the composer's vision. (To me, that's sort of like the "intentional fallacy" in literary criticism. What the author intended to create is not necessarily what he or she in fact did create.)

I think that once the ink is dry on the page, the music belongs to everyone. Certainly different conductors will try to find unique, even idiosyncratic, interpretations of the most hoary classics.

The music for Michelle Kwan's Totentanz short program is a musical setting of a scary Halloween ghost story by Goethe. Tarasova morphed it into a program representing a bar-hopping good-time girl out on the town. That interpretation suited the cut of the music just fine.

Contrariwise, I do not necessarily give Slutskaya high choreo marks for grabbing her head in anguish as a suitably tragic Tosca. I can do without the Madame Buttleflies stabbing themselves in the final pose.

 

[cassieandcheetah]

I don't agree that the choreography must reflect the composer's vision. (To me, that's sort of like the "intentional fallacy" in literary criticism. What the author intended to create is not necessarily what he or she in fact did create.)

I think that once the ink is dry on the page, the music belongs to everyone. Certainly different conductors will try to find unique, even idiosyncratic, interpretations of the most hoary classics.

The music for Michelle Kwan's Totentanz short program is a musical setting of a scary Halloween ghost story by Goethe. Tarasova morphed it into a program representing a bar-hopping good-time girl out on the town. That interpretation suited the cut of the music just fine.

Contrariwise, I do not necessarily give Slutskaya high choreo marks for grabbing her head in anguish as a suitably tragic Tosca. I can do without the Madame Buttleflies stabbing themselves in the final pose.

Btw, what on earth was Michelle thinking when she chose that piece of music for 2006? Was she aware that Irina was using the same music? It just sounds nothing like the kinds of music she used to use....It's all power, no sublety. Maybe she was tired of being artistic and wanted to concentrate instead on the jumps since she was having greater difficulty landing them?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Btw, what on earth was Michelle thinking when she chose that piece of music for 2006? Was she aware that Irina was using the same music? It just sounds nothing like the kinds of music she used to use....It's all power, no sublety. Maybe she was tired of being artistic and wanted to concentrate instead on the jumps since she was having greater difficulty landing them?

What were you listening to in 2006? when Michelle had already skated to it in 2004. BTW, Michelle withdrew from Oly competition in 2006.

Michelle didn't interpret the character of the Opera. She is/was a Figure Skater and skated to selections of the music contained in the 3 hour opera.

With a Sport filled with tricks, it insists that participants do these tricks to music. There is no proviso that they interpret stories into their routines. The character of the music is what the 'rules' demand and not the character of a story of ballet or opera. The skater must find some sort of character of the music and interpret that to the viewer.

Much of Tosca's music (not all of it) is forebodingly dark. That character could be interpreted in a zillion ways. Why try the opera's story. That would be easy for the skater, and certainly not innovative.

Joe

 

[cassieandcheetah]

What were you listening to in 2006? when Michelle had already skated to it in 2004. BTW, Michelle withdrew from Oly competition in 2006.

Michelle didn't interpret the character of the Opera. She is/was a Figure Skater and skated to selections of the music contained in the 3 hour opera.

With a Sport filled with tricks, it insists that participants do these tricks to music. There is no proviso that they interpret stories into their routines. The character of the music is what the 'rules' demand and not the character of a story of ballet or opera. The skater must find some sort of character of the music and interpret that to the viewer.

Much of Tosca's music (not all of it) is forebodingly dark. That character could be interpreted in a zillion ways. Why try the opera's story. That would be easy for the skater, and certainly not innovative.

Joe

Um...I meant Totentanz...her sp in 2006. I believe she performed it once at Marshall's?

 

[Mathman]

Um...I meant Totentanz...her sp in 2006. I believe she performed it once at Marshall's?

Yeah, unfortunately by the time of the Marshall's phone-in event Michelle was so crippled up that she could hardly walk, much less skate.

About the frenzied music, I think the plan was to have the two pieces, Totentanz and the Rachmaninov prelude, to form a contrasting pair united by a single theme. The SP was a bunch of happy-go-lucky skeletons dancing around in their bones, while the LP was supposed to portray a thoughtful artist contemplating a picture of Death at a museam and reflecting on the meaning of life and death -- something like that, LOL.

It would be beyond cool if Michelle were to recover enough to be able to show us what the two programs were intended to be, maybe in an exhition somewhere.

 

[gsrossano]

With a Sport filled with tricks, it insists that participants do these tricks to music. There is no proviso that they interpret stories into their routines. The character of the music is what the 'rules' demand and not the character of a story of ballet or opera. The skater must find some sort of character of the music and interpret that to the viewer.

Much of Tosca's music (not all of it) is forebodingly dark. That character could be interpreted in a zillion ways. Why try the opera's story. That would be easy for the skater, and certainly not innovative.

I pretty much agree. The performance has to have a purpose, but the purpose does not have to be the composer's purpose in creating the music. Nevertheless, the program must also express the character of the music, so the purpose and movements the choreographer selects must be consistent with the character of the music.

So in using Tosca the skater does not have to tell the story of Tosca, or even try to be the character Tosca, but if they choose "forebodingly dark" pieces of that music then the purpose of the program and the movements in the program better be consistent with and express forebodingly dark, or the PCs will suffer.

 

[GoldMedalist]

So in using Tosca the skater does not have to tell the story of Tosca, or even try to be the character Tosca, but if they choose "forebodingly dark" pieces of that music then the purpose of the program and the movements in the program better be consistent with and express forebodingly dark, or the PCs will suffer.

I dislike that thinking. It devolves skating into "okay, this is what this music represents, so let's bring out our playbook of moves to match it". Why must music be translated literally?

Maybe a skater is using forebodingly dark music as the backdrop to tell a story of hope. Contrast.

 

[Mathman]

To me, the biggest problem is that by the time you work in 7 triple jumps, three in combination; 4 spins, each with the required number of changes of position; your forward, then backward, then Biellmann, then dog-and-hydrant spiral sequence -- what opportunity is there to tell any story at all?

 

[gsrossano]

Why must music be translated literally?

Maybe a skater is using forebodingly dark music as the backdrop to tell a story of hope. Contrast.

First, I don't think I am saying it must be transcribed literally. What I am saying is most pieces of music can accommodate a wide range of interpretations and themes, but this range is not unlimited, and eventually when the point is reached where the music does not support the theme of the dance the PCs are going to take a hit. I can not accept your view that any piece of music can support any theme.

Second, should there be absolutely no sense of hope to be discerned in the music then I would say a dance purely of hope does not express the character of the music, and the theme of the dance would be better served by a piece of music that includes both foreboding (or the like) and an element of hope.

If a performer wanted to present a dance whose theme was not supported by the music, purely as a matter of unjudged self expression, I would say give it a go. But as a matter of scoring a competition, the performer is playing with fire.

In order to score the presentation of a program in competition, the PCs were set up with a specific set of criteria to be evaluated. The criteria are not necessarily the best list, or only list, that one could come up with. And the whole question of whether creating such a list is even a reasonable way to evaluate presentation is open to question.

But the list of criteria in the rules is the list we judge to. If the skater shows things on the list they get points. If they show things that aren't on the list they don't get points for those things. If they omit things on the list they miss out on points. This is no different from the technical side. Some things get points in IJS, some things don't. If you want to win, you put in the program the things that earn points.

If someone were to respond that this ties the hands of the choreographer, I would agree. But the choreographer is not creating an unfettered artistic work for the ages under IJS, they are creating a work that will earn points.

 

[GoldMedalist]

I can not accept your view that any piece of music can support any theme.

I never said that.

If someone were to respond that this ties the hands of the choreographer, I would agree. But the choreographer is not creating an unfettered artistic work for the ages under IJS, they are creating a work that will earn points.

It would make more sense to argue about what needs to be changed if you feel that way. The rules are malleable and they serve the sport, not the other way around.

 

[gsrossano]

I never said that.

Seems to me you are. I say the latitude is not unlimited and you say I am wrong. What else is to be inferred?

It would make more sense to argue about what needs to be changed if you feel that way.

Never claimed I think what we have now is right or perfect. Only describing what currently is. Don't take describing what is as agreement with what is. There is plenty I think should be changed in the way the PCs are structured and judged. They are an in many respects an abomination.

The rules are malleable and they serve the sport, not the other way around.

If only some people at the ISU thought that way!

 

[GoldMedalist]

It gets boring going in circles so I'll just say this:

Only describing what currently is.

The "rules" for the Program Components are almost entirely up to the judges' own definitions. This is unavoidable and actually necessary for the sport to remain interesting.

What the ISU should focus on when training judges is (A.) turning them into amazingly adept savants of the technical aspects of figure skating; (B.) getting them to pay attention to the details of programs rather than telling them how to judge artistry; (C.) hammering it into their brains that all skaters should be judged solely upon what happened at the competition and that any pre-conceived notions should be kept out of the rink.

It would also be wise to create separate judging panels; teaching subjects A + C to panel #1 and then subjects B + C to panel #2. Or, teaching all subjects to all judges and then randomly assigning them to either panel #1 or #2 at competitions.