Technique or vocabulary or style

[amitava]

I attended two Graham events during their last visit in Austin. One was a Masters class (I was only observing) by a company member teaching aspects of the Graham technique to the U.T. Dance students. The next event was a performance followed by a QA session.

One of the major topics that was discussed during the QA was the Graham Technique. It was made abundantly clear at the Masters session and various other sources that the dances came first followed by the technique.

Not being a dancer, but being very familiar with music, I am aware of the concept of technique. My observation is that technique seems to enforce vocabulary, and create strict boundaries within which variation is permitted.

Watching the dances after the Masters class, I noticed that a lot of "techniques" turned out to be movements/poses that were being practiced as a part of the training.

So I am a little confused as to what the differences would be between X's technique...X's vocabulary...and X's style. Are they the same thing on some level? X can be Tharp, Graham, Limon, etc. etc.

Eagerly awaiting some slaps.

[Alexandra]

Good question! I think it's a matter of common parlance. Modern dancers often referred to their "technique" in the sense of being a unique way of moving -- not just vocabulary (steps) but also the impetus for movement. The early Moderns would debate these things -- for Isadora, movement started in the solar plexus. For Doris Humphrey, dance was about fall and recovery. For Graham, contraction and release.

Ballet has a technique too, of course. The technique is what the dancer learns. And "style" is a word that watchers use to differentiate the technique that Bolshoi dancers learn from that which Paris Opera, Royal Ballet, or New York City Ballet dancers learn. Sometimes if you read discussions about "style" it sounds as though style is decorative -- in Vaganova, arms en couronne are held slightly forward; in Cecchetti, they're square over the ears -- hope I have that right! -- but it's not; it's intrinsic to the way ballet is taught in that place.

Back to modern dance, Paul Taylor was a Graham dancer and his vocabulary is mostly Graham. He didn't develop a "technique," and so people will refer to a Taylor style -- his favorite movements that developed into the language which he uses in choreographing his dances.

That's my understanding of the terms and issues, at any rate.

[amitava]

Back to modern dance,  Paul Taylor was a Graham dancer and his vocabulary is mostly Graham. He didn't develop a "technique," and so people will refer to a Taylor style -- his favorite movements that developed into the language which he uses in choreographing his dances.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the somewhat lucid descriptions. The point with Paul Taylor is very clear. I was referring to that idea as "vocabulary" i.e. specific poses, movements, transitions.

Style still is a bit of mystery - since you mentioned that it is the way that dance is taught...which I would think of as technique.

I personally like to see the same piece of choreography danced by different dancers, especially if they are trained in the same manner, and see how they compare. I assume that "interpretation" will make the dance seem different as will a dancer's abilities. I was watching the Prix de Lausanne competition web cast, to try and figure out the style mystery. It has not helped much. I think I may have to see a substantial number of dances and dance companies to unravel the subtleties of style.

Would the preference or a approach to choreography, in terms of the way movements, poses, and pacing are sequenced be considered an aspect of style as well?

[Alexandra]

Style still is a bit of mystery - since you mentioned that it is the way that dance is taught...which I would think of as technique.

Yes, it IS technique, when you are learning it. It's "style" when I'm looking at what you learned and comparing it to what Ekaterina X learned.

Would the preference or a approach to choreography, in terms of the way movements, poses, and pacing are sequenced be considered an aspect of style as well?

Good point -- yes, I would think, in terms of choreography. And here the difference between modern dance and ballet comes in again. We talk of Ashton style and Balanchine style. But not Graham style and Limon style (again, they had their own codified language). But yes, the exception, Taylor style.

[carbro]

I think I may have to see a substantial number of dances and dance companies to unravel the subtleties of style.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You probably do have to see quite a bit, but you better hurry! Company styles are quickly bleeding into each other. It is becoming much more difficult to differentiate one company from another than it was even 20 years ago! NYCB no longer has the extreme speed or distinctive attack it once did. ABT looks more Russian than it used to. The RB is not much more delicate than other companies, as it once was. They and the Russians have the high extensions that were once NYCB's hallmark . . . . :rolleyes:

You might do better renting old videos. I know, video isn't the same, but the individual styles are better preserved there than on today's stages.

[Hans]

One thing that complicates the issue in terms of modern dance is that not all modern dance is based on the same movements. For example, in ballet, everyone does a movement that is recognizable as battement tendu, although people differ as to the exact details of what should happen during that movement. In modern dance, there isn't a common vocabulary and technique from which all choreographers work.

Hence, one could theoretically speak of two Graham teachers teaching Graham's technique but differing in certain slight details as having different styles of the same technique (in practice, as far as I know, Graham was too specific about what she wanted to allow for that sort of variation), whereas Graham and Limon didn't have different styles of modern dance--they had two completely different movement "vocabularies" so to speak.

For another discussion of the differences between ballet and modern dance, go to this thread on Ballet Talk for Dancers.

[amitava]

Thanks Hans. Will track it.

[bart]

It's always revelatory to get the dancer's point of view. Great postings on the BT for Dancers thread. Thanks, Hans. I appreciate your point, in defense of ballet's ability to encompass and express feeling -- and that individual ballet teachers who emphasize only the externals (line, position, etc.) are leaving out a great deal.