Comments to Motif Theory Discussion, June 8, 2008 at DNB
Submitted by Janos Fugedi - August 7, 2008

Dear Colleagues,

It is very honoring that so much and at so many forums you deal with the subject of Unit Timing, which I raised at the last ICKL conference (2007, Mexico City).

I think we all strive to make notation research as objective as possible. Therefore if you, top experts of the subject disagree with a statement, namely (I cite: “passing touches are not possible”), the disagreement has to have serious reasons. But your reasoning is that the group (I cite again) “felt there can be passing touches”. Well, it doesn’t really seem factual.

The question, whether a transient touch exists or not, can easily be answered: demonstrate one. (Actually I propose using the term “transient touch” instead of “passing touch”, since “passing touch” could be used as a synonym for “passing sliding”, a well identified movement phenomenon.) As I asked in a former letter the DNB representatives to make some simple video recordings of a transient touch, I ask you too, since with present day technology it is not difficult at all.

Citing the discussing again: “Ann said they have to come at an angle so they can go off at an angle.” What does “an angle” mean here? A momentary (not sliding) touch can be performed only if this angle is “steep”, therefore the movement to the spot of the touch and away from there have opposite components (if you may forgive me to cite Laban), that is two, though attacca movements happen. In case the touch is performed during one continuous movement, the angle must be a kind of “flat” one, and the touch will (must) be passing sliding.

But that’s “only” physics. For us it is more important - I think in this we all agree - what is the intention of the movement. Even if physically a touch is passing sliding, the intention can be the sense of a transient touch, such as in case of tap dancing. If we are aware of both, the physical fact and the intention, we can find the right solution for notation. E.g. I like Sheila Marion’s solution in her book Tap Dance, where she indicated passing sliding but called attention that the sliding should be performed quickly. It seems, that time Ann Hutchinson, Muriel Topaz, Ray Cook, Judy van Zile and Lucy Venable all agreed with her way of notation. But I really like and can accept Billie Mahoney’s way of tap notation, a simple hook at the beginning of a direction symbol, but only with a right explanation based on right movement analysis.

We’re getting to notation philosophical issues, but I think when we know the intention of the movement, we should write the intention rather than what physically happens. In my practice it is not always possible because I notate from films and most of the times I can not keep contact with the performer, so I can’t ask what the real intention was. I’m also aware that there are notators who do not agree with notating intentions instead of what actually happens. The notion of the intention of movement will play part in the next part of my comments

On the subject of “spring point”

I’m discussing now Ann’s example in the Report, repeated at the bottom of the page as Ex.AHG-1. Ann’s right, I did not discuss it in my Unit Timing paper since this phenomenon has nothing to do with UT or ST way of writing touching gestures. It is about the timing relation between support and gesture, more exactly, how to understand their simultaneity. The subject is not new, already Maria Szentpal told me she had some discussion on it with Ann, and Ann also mentioned this problem to me.

It is unclear from Ex. AHG-1, whether she means the timing interpretation of support-touch simultaneity problematic generally, or only in this specific case, when: the spring is on the spot (I suppose an up-down spring is performed), the arriving from the air happens in an understood way, that is rolling from toes to the palm of the foot, and the leg touches in a forward direction.

I investigated the question briefly on a film recording, made from professional, well trained dancers. The spring was an up-down one, the dancer arrived to the floor with an understood rolling, the touch was performed forward, the only difference compared to Ex. AHG-1 was, that the touching leg rolled from toe to half ball. The reason of rolling is that the dancer did not kept the ankle of her touching leg rigid but soft, as the style required.

I found that there was a time-delay between the first moment of touch with the supporting leg and contacting the ground with the gesturing leg. The time delay was about the musical value of sixth of a (quarter note), in other words less than a (sixteenth note), about a dotted 1/32. The tempo was = 120, that is a most general, normal dancing tempo. Interesting enough, the main beat was between the very first contact of the supporting leg with the ground and the gesturing leg contacting the floor, though the “sense” of support was on the main beat.

The dotted 1/32 time delay cannot be regarded as a rhythmical value. The intention of the dance was not to express a time delay but performing the contact and the support at the same time. It means that even if there is a time delay in that specific case what Ex. AHG-1 represents, it does not matter, it comes from performing tradition and the reason that there is one foot distance between the supporting and the contacting leg.

Let me remark, that according to what type of spring is performed (e.g. keep level or up) and how far the contacting leg is from the supporting leg, the timing difference between support and contact may disappear, or even change, that is the contact happens prior support, e.g. when the supporting leg moves into a direction and the contacting leg stays about the same place.

The conclusion is, that even if the problem represented by Ex.AHG-1 exists, it does not influence UT usage. If a specific rhythm needs to be expressed, with UT it can be written as in Ex.JF-1 (support-gesture rhythm is: Ex.JF-2 (support-gesture rhythm is or in Ex.JF-3 (support-gesture rhythm is No matter, we use UT or ST, in this case our primary aid to recognize rhythm is support. Therefore UT represents rhythm much clearer than ST.