What is the difference between Choreography and Interpretation?

[Mathman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMwXYdkSK4g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj62HfrfIfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXHdm4fGeYE

Three great programs. Thanks for finding them. (I noticed that the Stefanie Rosenthal clip was posted by our own Vietgrlterrifa :yes: )

 

[emma]

I can't wait to look at these 3 programs - I remember them but will review them to look at/for transitions.

I appreciate the explanation of the 5 dimensions to consider with transitions - very helpful!

I'm just wondering - back with choreography and intepretation as Seanibu reminded me - how many people (ok, particularly those with judging expertise) think the 'ch' mark should be eliminated?

 

[Mathman]

I'm just wondering - back with choreography and intepretation as Seanibu reminded me - how many people (ok, particularly those with judging expertise) think the 'ch' mark should be eliminated?

Well, my judging expertise is limited to, "aw, isn't that pretty" and "oh! he fell!" But I was intrigued by Gsrossano's mention above of the 60% thing.

That is, for whatever reason, the powers that be in the ISU decided to weight the Program Component Scores 40% on the Skating Skills/Transitions side, which is sort of like tech/GOE in that it rewards you for what you actually do and how well you do it.

And 60% for the Performance/Interpretation/Choreography complex.

If they simply got rid of choreography, or combined it with interpretation, that would throw that particular balance off and perhaps put too much emphasis on technical skill (which already has half of the score all by itself in TES) at the expense of the "performing art" aspect.

Even if all skaters automatically got almost identical scores in the triumvirate of PE, IN and CH, this gives a way of tripling the weight of this part of the score, which might otherwise get lost altogether. (?)

 

[gsrossano]

If they simply got rid of choreography, or combined it with interpretation, that would throw that particular balance off and perhaps put too much emphasis on technical skill (which already has half of the score all by itself in TES) at the expense of the "performing art" aspect.

Even if all skaters automatically got almost identical scores in the triumvirate of PE, IN and CH, this gives a way of tripling the weight of this part of the score, which might otherwise get lost altogether. (?)

That assumes if you combined CH with IN you kept the PC weights the same. You could always change the weights so that the new CH & IN was still 20% -- or whatever you wanted it to be

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think what they mean by the choreography score are the nuances that appear throughout the program together with the rhythm of movement, which basically are the skaters' contributions to it. One can tell if a skater turns her head that it was she who felt that and the choreographer did not tell her to do that.

Until these gals grow up, most skaters do exactly what the choreographer tells them. At 20, they know what to do.

Joe

 

[emma]

I'd forgotten about the weighting - thanks for remind MM; And I guess it could simply be as grossano suggests - re-weight the new categories to retain the balance. I appreciate to Joe's take on this too - that the judges are looking at what the skater adds or brings to the choreo, interesting. I guess in the end, from what I'm gathering - right now, ch, in, pe are judges more or less together as shades of each other (so whether it is two categories or three might be irrelevant).

 

[SeaniBu]

In appearing to disagree with me, I think you are in fact exactly making my point. The more frames of reference you have in the rink, or wherever, the better one's assessment will be. With only a few reference points you do worse. The person against a a white background is just an example of taking away most frames of reference to contrast with other more realistic situations.

:agree: Great point, I am glad you emphasized it.

I don't like the idea of making up a list of transitions and assigning a ranking to them. If you do that, you might as well have the Technical Panel call them and give them base marks and have the judges score the quality. What a nightmare that would be (IMO).

:agree: I am under the whole hearted hope things can at the very least SEEM more simplified. More toward "cut and dry", with the acknowledgment it can never be 100% "cut and dry." Like having the interpretation values there for considering marks, just that the values are under the PCS of Choreography instead of having the separate mark. Still a value just goes somewhere that is currently being used {as it would appear to some} as a mark for the person who came up with the sequence of elements with the transitions and....etc... anyway - not the actual skater.

That assumes if you combined CH with IN you kept the PC weights the same. You could always change the weights so that the new CH & IN was still 20% -- or whatever you wanted it to be

:agree::agree:

Would that be better for the Judges? To have the "now 10-14 values" under one mark in the PCS?

I guess in the end, from what I'm gathering - right now, ch, in, pe are judges more or less together as shades of each other (so whether it is two categories or three might be irrelevant).

:agree: That is what I am gathering also.
Don't know for sure if I am though