What is the difference between Choreography and Interpretation?

[Joesitz (RIP)]

grossanno - Isn't that interpretation, and skating abilities? Johnny had before Torino beautiful interpretation with exquiste skating skills. He lost some of that later not because of choreography because he just lost some skating skills.

I think his choreographer gave him a fine workable scenario. He just wasn't up to it inTokyo. It was not the fault of choreography. It was the fault of skating skills.

Joe

 

[gsrossano]

grossanno - Isn't that interpretation, and skating abilities? Johnny had before Torino beautiful interpretation with exquisite skating skills. He lost some of that later not because of choreography because he just lost some skating skills.

I think his choreographer gave him a fine workable scenario. He just wasn't up to it inTokyo. It was not the fault of choreography. It was the fault of skating skills.

Joe

What I was referring to is that during last season, he very often left out little pieces here and there from one competition to another. (And I am told it drove Anissina nuts.)

The point was, even the best skaters do not include every step and every movement set in the choreography in every competition. They too will leave stuff out from time to time. And of course, the choreography evolves during the season by choice of the choreographer -- another reason why every performance is not exactly the same from one competition to the next. No other larger comment on his performances was intended.

 

[Mathman]

That's a great point regarding the distinction between the choreography as it exists in the choreographer's notebook and the choreography that the skater actually presents on the ice in a particular performance. The judges must judge the latter.

 

[passion]

This thread was inspired by SeaniBu’s observations/questions on the “French” thread. Under the new judging system, how exactly are the judges supposed to evaluate these two program components?

Let’s say a skater goes to Lori Nichol for a program. Nichol says, OK, we’ll do Beethoven’s Fifth. On the four beat of pum-pum-pum-PUM, you do a triple Lutz in the far corner. Then you do a figure eight pattern back to the center into a layback combo, be sure to skate from the center of your body outward and don’t forget to point your toe.

The judges say, wow, Lori totally nailed old Ludwig Van on that one. Lori’s “original arrangement of all movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure, and phrasing” was awesome (quote is from the ISU document, “Components with Explanations”).

I’ll give the skater an 8.75 for “Choreography/Construction.”

Now we turn to the program component “Interpretation.”

How well did the skater interpret Lori Nichol’s interpretation of Beethoven’s interpretation of whatever inspired him to compose this piece in the first place? Did the skater “(maintain) the character and style of the music throughout the entire program by use of body and skating techniques to depict a mood, style, shape, or thematic idea as motivated by the structure of the music: melody, harmony, rhythm, color, texture, and form?”

Well, maybe so on the set-up to her triple Flip, but I wasn’t really feeling Beethoven on her flying camel. I’ll say a 7.50.

Is this the intention of these two program component scores?

Can you think of examples of recent programs that had good choreography but bad interpretation, or vice versa?

Here is the relevant ISU document, with point by point explanations (pages four and five).

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152086-169302-64121-0-file,00.pdf

Mira Leung had a good choreograhy for her long program which was done by Mark Pillay. It really worked for her, however, whether she was able to put something in it of herself rather than skating it flat was a bit of an issue.

 

[passion]

You can have amazing top level choreography, but the skater doesn't do it justice. Or you can have a mediocre choreography, but the skater who is naturally musically inclined can do the best with what she's got given the choreography. She may be limited by the choreography and it may not showcase what she has the potential to do.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Finally, I somewhat get it! (Don't worry, I rarely really get stuff in the skating world!) Thanks for the explanation, gsrossano, I liked the comparison with Hamlet, and it worked!

Kypma

Sorry. I disagree. I've seen at least, without exageration, 30 Swan Lakes in my lifetime and from around the globe. I will mention two perfect examples:

From the Kirov (Maryinski) known for it's approach to ballet in the Cecceti mode, meaning very lyrical and the Bolshoi which is the more virtuostic mode.

The Kirov Swan Queen plays up the role as a fragile figure of circumstance and her frailty is shown throughout the ballet. The Bolshoi Swan Queen is definant that she is at the mercy of Rothbart but she is nervous of his power.

That's two different Swan Queens with the same choreography to the same music and both interpretations are different and both are valid. The audience, of course, decides which interpretation they like best

Is it Ulanova or Plitsetskaya?

Joe

 

[SeaniBu]

Fortunately this thread did "kinda" go the way I was hoping, for the original "question" was acutely what is the difference to validate inturp from chore giving different marks?
This I TOTALLY disagree with - eta of eta... or agree with depending on what Joe meant. But as a stand alone quote, ieh.

There is nothing wrong with a choreogapher getting credit for his/her creation, and I believe it is a discredit to have his/her work judged by the performance of the skater.

Why is the choreographer getting marks? This is about the skater and them getting marks. The coach gets a set of marks too????
And if they didn't want their "work " to be judged based on the performance of the skater, why would they put it together for them. It is their job. Is a coach evaluated for their "input" in a game? The team lost but the coach beat the other coach??? what. Come on now. :: I could probably go off on the last sentence in that quote for a long time. It is obviously a "unconnected with the reality of the world of TEAM" as possible.
This all sounds INCREDIBLY wrong to me.

Now the POINT being, the ONLY reason for the choreography is to show the interpretation of the music. It is a unnecessary mark AS WELL AS being a "subject to judges personal feelings" to have a interpretive mark. IMO, not fair. Yes I have read the judges comments on this topic and the make perfict sence - and so do Joe's, etc... - but as far as a point made to JUSTIFY what all ready is the approach. There is NO acknowledgment of the possibility is it again in need of adjusting the sys. It sounds more like there is a "sick of change and conformist" attitude prevailing in this topic and I see people buying right in to the propaganda.

Again I profess - Now the POINT being, the ONLY reason for the choreography is to show the interpretation of the music. Maybe the definition provided in the "rules" is not where one should be looking for the answers when one is questioning the rules themselves. Try the definition first, then see if the rules make sense.

Now if Choreographers are supposed to be getting a set of marks too, well I have issue with that for even Mom and Dad raised the child so they better get marks too. Are we going to throw in the costume marks now as well????

Basically, is it about the skaters performance or is it about everyone involved getting marks. Yes they all helped and wouldn't be possible with out, but hey, see the comment about Mom and Dad getting marks also.


Yes I read the rules prior to asking, and no MM did not "really" ask the question I was asking, but it seemed to go that way by nature of the topic. Which so even more validity in questioning this set of "personally impressionable marks provided by the PCS which seems to do NOTHING except provide an ability for the judges to inflate their favorite skaters marks.

Good example for me is the comments of Ira being to technical yet she won in 2005 due to... well now I don't know, for Kimmie gets slammed in this area (even in her home crowd). And would it really be a SeaniBu post if I didn't say how utterly moronic it sounds to have marks like Fumie gets when she is CLEARLY the most "interpretive" skater there is. I love Ira, but look at the end of her LP at 06 Olys and compare it to Fumie's. Give me a break, Ira was not even into her programme NEARLY as much as Fumie or Sasha for example in the last 3rd of the pro. *cough*

To me "interpretation" is nothing more than a loophole that judges can use to have the skater "they think should even prior to the event" win. EOS.

 

[Mathman]

Sean, I think you misunderstood (I almost wrote, mis-interpreted, LOL) Joe's remarks. I believe you and Joe are on the same side.

That is, if I am not mistaken Joe is saying that it is OK for there to be a prize at the end of the season for "choreographer of the year" (actually, I think there is such an award). But choregraphy per se is NOT part of what the skater should be judged on:

I can't believe choreography is a legitimate component score.

IMHO, I thought that Rain made an excelent point on the other side of the issue.

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=254739&postcount=38

 

[SeaniBu]

Sean, I think you misunderstood (I almost wrote, mis-interpreted, LOL) Joe's remarks. I believe you and Joe are on the same side.

Glad you pointed that out for that is a comment I do agree with and feel that is a fair place to "acknowledge" the choreographer. But the comment I quoted by it's self I do not agree with. Now if there were question marks in it I may have understood it a different way, but as the quote is, I don't agree - although the quote you provided of the post I would.

I also agree with Rain, but that is considering I DON"T think there should be a mark of inturp, and the said valid reasoning for inturp clearly falls under choreography.

So let me make myself clear, yes to choreography being judged as the skaters performance of said choreography and git rid of interpretation from the marks. It is a "wish washy" and extremely subjective mark that has NO place in anything "claiming" to be a sport - be that half and half or not - or anything wanting to be deemed as "fair."

 

[Mathman]

Again (Joe can correct me if I am wrong here ), if you look at Joe's statement that you quoted in post 47 in it's full context, what I think Joe means is simply that if the skater messes up, don't blame the choreographer.

 

[SeaniBu]

Again (Joe can correct me if I am wrong here ), if you look at Joe's statement that you quoted in post 47 in it's full context, what I think Joe means is simply that if the skater messes up, don't blame the choreographer.

I did, and in that respect, why not? Did the choreographer make a programme the skater was not capable of skating to? I can't disagree or agee with that for it could be the choreographer's fault. ??? That is another great reason to not have the choreographer getting their own marks during comps.

Why didn't Fumie get that second half bonus for her jump in the GP LP, is it because the choreographer put it 10 seconds early in the programme? etc....

 

[Mathman]

Yes I have read the judges comments on this topic and the make perfict sense - and so do Joe's, etc... -- but as far as a point made to JUSTIFY what all ready is the approach. There is NO acknowledgment of the possibility is it again in need of adjusting the sys. It sounds more like there is a "sick of change and conformist" attitude prevailing in this topic and I see people buying right in to the propaganda.

This is a great post!

But I would feel bad if someone didn't mention this. The only judge (as far as I know -- is anyone else out there a fs judge?) who commented extensively on this thread is well known as an inveterate thorn in the side of the ISU. From the begining he believed that the whole CoP judging system is crap and, indeed, maintains a whole web site dedicated to showing why, LOL.

(Oh, well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. If we're stuck with it, at least we can work within the system to make sure the judges really apply the criteria in the proper way.)

 

[Mathman]

To me "interpretation" is nothing more than a loophole that judges can use to have the skater "they think should even prior to the event" win. EOS.

I would say the same thing about all of the Program Component Scores, and also the "Second Mark" in the 6.0 system.

The only thing I disagree with is the part about "prior to the event." That would be crooked, dishonest and despicible (not to say it doesn't happen from time to time).

I believe rather that the judges look at the performances, decide who they thought skated best, second best, etc., and adjust the PCSs accordingly.

JMO.

 

[Hikaru]

That is the exact question I am trying to raise on this thread. By the same token, should Mao Asada get 8.18 points (her highest program component score) for Lori Nichol's work?

I am not so much trying to understand the dictionary definition of the words "choreography" and "interpretation," but rather I am tying to penetrate the intent of the ISU judging system as to how it uses these scores to determine the winner of a skating contest.

It seems like they are giving the oscar for best screen play to the actor.

What an interesting topic! I don't have my mind yet set on one thing or the other, but you are right that in choreography section the judges are basically grading the choreographer rather than the skater. I have heard qhen skaters comment that at the begining of the season their choreography is still at works, and as the season goes on, either they are used to it or they still make changes to it. It would be interesting to see how that mark changes throughout the season.

You made me think on something else: if a skater has a very complicated choreography, but a dull interpretation, does that makes the choreography look boring, and so, deserving a lower grade? Should that mark be eliminated from the PCS? or maybe moved to the technical merit, and have a base score depending on the elements executed and how they were connected (although, isn't there already a mark that covers that, transitions maybe?)

 

[gsrossano]

What was the intent of the PCs in determining the results? What a good question. Here's my guess.

Skating always has been judged both for its athletic content and artistic content (formerly Technical Merit and Presentation). In setting up IJS the goal was to make the marking of presentation less subjective, and less dependant on the tastes of the judges. Further, it was recognized that usually the presentation mark was not judged separate from the TM mark and was not really being used as an independent mark. In creating IJS the idea was to create a mark (or marks) for presentation that really were about presentation only, that would stand on their own. In setting the various mathematical factors in the process, they decided that presentation would make up 30% of the score. (They also put 20% into SS and TR, but these are basically technical skill marks.)

To do that the ISU drew up a list of criteria drawn from theories of dance choreography and music theory, and grouped them together into several program components. The idea was to break presentation down into several parts that judges could get a handle on. What they came up with was what is being discussed in this thread -- PE, CH, IN. Although these are marked separately, the idea is that together they include everything that goes into presentation.

Whether the whole is the sum of it's parts is open to question. Also open to question is whether the list of criteria is complete (IMO, no), whether the list is redundant (IMO, yes), whether the criteria are grouped together in a way that makes sense (IMO, sort of but could be done better), or even whether the PC are appropriately named.

If you want the art part of the program to be judged (and some fans don't), then you have to judge at least some aspects of the choreography. I don't see how one can judge interpretation without considering at some level the choreography that supports the interpretation.

Unfortunately, in most cases the skaters are not the source of the choreography and so the result is in part due to the skill of a third party. Although in my mind I have a clear distinction between choreography and interpretation and am perfectly comfortable giving two marks, I do feel they are so interrelated that they should be combined into a single PC.

Instead of discussing whether Choreography or Interpretation as a PC should be marked, a different way y'all might look at this is to look at the individual criteria within CH and IN and ponder which criteria you might keep and which you might change -- or how you might reorganize them.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

On skating favorites who have a bad skate​

When a skater messes up in a performance (SP or FP) it is not the fault of the choreographer or coach. The skater, if you didn't notice was being judged.
The skater accepted the choreography and coaching details.

If you haven't noticed in the forum, when Johnny or Sasha do not do well, their fans blame it on the coaching or the choreography. duh.

Joe

 

[emma]

grossano -

Once again, fanstastic explanation - when I read these posts by you, I suddenly feel like I get it!! What you address in your last post really gets at what I was trying - obviously not very clearly - to ask in post #37 (i.e., the connection between choreography and interpretation).

Let me be very, very, very clear here that my questions are in no way meant to sound like "oh the judges suck, they don't judge, or they don't follow the rules...". I really am awed by the level of expertise skating judges develop. They take in so much information so quickly and respond (judge) almost immediately, and do that over the course of an event (which takes brain dicipline/stamina)...not easy at all imo. So my questions are not reactions to judges - they are me trying to get beyond first grade with my understanding of how competitions are judged.

I am also not criticizing the architects of the NJS either, although I find thinking about what the intentions were/are very interesting and helpful for understanding what is being looked at/judged.

I really am just trying to - in a very amateur way and I will admit, somewhat lazy way (as I don't have time/energy to study this myself) - to get a (second grade?) sense of the pieces of the NJS/COP and how they fit together; I am sincerely just curious to know whether the interconnectedness of these various PCS (Ch, In, Pe) SHOULD or DOES mean that xx skater's marks hover together or whether actually the opposite SHOULD be or IS true (that the various components clearly differ and are so marked)...or some combination of both depending on the actual skate, and I'm just wondering what the variation in PCS marks per skater have been like as I haven't examined this. Then I'm trying to piece together how SS and TR fit in - not just with the other PCs but also with the tech marks. These discussions and commentary like grossano's, gkelly's etc. really do help a slow brain like mine begin to understand this. Like any student though, I need to hear/read it many times...

 

[Mathman]

I think the most common response to an analysis of the PCSs from the protocols comprises these two conculsions:

(a) Yes, all 5 PCSs tend to be bunched up together, and

(b) This shows that the judges are not applying the written criteria correctly.

I personally am not so critical.

(a) The best skaters are the best skaters. I am not surprised that a skater can be good at many different things.

(b) The ISU has worked hard to string together a lot of words intended to capture various nuances of just what we mean when we say that one skater's artistic artistry is more artsy than another's. But however you slice it, it comes down to judgement. That's why we have judges instead of referees to evaluate the second mark.

Plus, there is an inescapable overlap no matter how we slice up the categries. When Shizuka Arakawa does her Ina Bauer, that demonstrates great Skating Skills, it serves as a spectacular Transition between scored elements, it wows the audience (Performance/Execution), she does it right on the musical crescendo (Interpretation/Choreography). (This is the majority view -- a minority of critics just think it's scary-contortionist).

About the overlap between Performance/Execution and the others -- if Hamlet trips comically over his sword in the middle of his soliloquy (Performance/Execution), that also detracts form the actor's communication of the character's mental anguish (Interpretation).

 

[Mathman]

(Sorry for the double post...)

My absolute favorite of all the PCS rules is this one, under Performance/Execution.

Projection: The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience.

To me, this really puts the spotlight on the nature of competitive figure skating and of figure skating judging.

Judge #1: Well, I didn’t see any invisible connection.

Judge #2: What, are you blind?

In sports, umpires’ calls must be independent of which side has the more vocal fans in attendance. Does Michelle Kwan deserve 9.75 in this category when she skates in the U.S. and 4.50 when she skates somewhere else?

But if figure skating is performance art, ah, that’s another thing altogether. In the performing arts, if you have the audience up screaming “Bravo” two-thirds of the way through your act, and then they call you back for 14 curtain calls – you win!

(Here is my solution for how to credit the choreographer separately for his/her work. After the applause subsides for the performance, the audience should take up the chant, “Choreopgrapher! Choreographer!” until that person comes out and takes a bow.) :yes:

 

[gkelly]

Emma asks:

I really am just trying to - in a very amateur way and I will admit, somewhat lazy way (as I don't have time/energy to study this myself) - to get a (second grade?) sense of the pieces of the NJS/COP and how they fit together; I am sincerely just curious to know whether the interconnectedness of these various PCS (Ch, In, Pe) SHOULD or DOES mean that xx skater's marks hover together or whether actually the opposite SHOULD be or IS true (that the various components clearly differ and are so marked)...or some combination of both depending on the actual skate, and I'm just wondering what the variation in PCS marks per skater have been like as I haven't examined this.

And Mathman replies in part:

I think the most common response to an analysis of the PCSs from the protocols comprises these two conculsions:

(a) Yes, all 5 PCSs tend to be bunched up together, and

(b) This shows that the judges are not applying the written criteria correctly.

I personally am not so critical.

I think it does depend largely on the specific skaters and specific performances.

I also think that in MOST cases the PCS for a performance will be fairly close together. There is overlap among them, so usually a skater who is particularly strong or weak in one component will be comparably strong or weak in other components that overlap with it. And most skaters are more or less well balanced in terms of their overall skills (leaving aside the difficulty and execution of the elements, which are covered in the technical scores). There may be some skaters who are noticeably above average for their level at some skills and well below average at others, but those skaters are rare and they're still almost always going to be within the general range for their level. You're not going to see skaters who look like world medal contenders in some areas and like beginners in others.

Some pairs of components have less natural overlap (e.g., Skating Skills and Interpretation), so it's a lot more likely that a skater whose skills *are* unbalanced would have a large gap between those less related components than between components that have a lot of overlap.

For example, I recently saw a program by a preliminary-level freeskater whose basic skating skills were on the low end of the spectrum for preliminary level but who was very committed to her choreography and using her whole body to express the music. It stood out because she was so much better in one area than in another.

If that program were to be judged under the new system (which is not usually used at those lowest levels yet, so I'm just approximating what the appropriate numbers would be), I would expect it to get low scores for skating skills, maybe about 1.5, and high scores *for a preliminary skater* for interpretation, maybe as high as 3.0, with her other components somewhere in between.

Meanwhile the rest of the skaters in the event might be more well balanced and deserve scores that average in the 2.0 to 2.5 range. That still leaves room to distinguish between skaters who are generally on the low end of average at that level with mostly 2.0 or a little lower on all components, those who are generally on the high end with mostly 2.5 or a little higher on all, and those who are low-average on their weakest areas and high-average on their strongest with a difference of 0.5, 0.75, or even 1.0 between their highest and lowest PCS.

The skater who deserves a larger gap because her skills are unbalanced is the exception, not the rule.