# So you think Kenpo is unique?



## Doc (Mar 10, 2004)

How's Choreography Recorded?

*Pirouette, port de bras, pliéis there a way to write it down? *

By Sean Rocha 

This year, the dance world is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of legendary choreographer George Balanchine, and companies from New York to Sydney to Seattle are staging performances of his work. But since many of his original dances were never filmed, how do we know what they looked like? 

Before the advent of visual technologies like video and film, dance was almost impossible to record. Music has scores and plays have scripts, but dance has always defied attempts to create a written system of symbolic representation. Obviously, it is difficult to use two-dimensional figures to indicate movements through time and space (although two 20th-century notation systems, Labanotation and Benesh, have achieved modest success). But for the most part, the adoption of a written system has been constrained by the dance community's *reliance on tradition. *

The history of Western classical dance begins with the founding of the first dancing academy by Louis XIV in 1661. From there, the fundamentals of ballet technique were built up over centuries and passed down through schools rather than by a literature of dance. Teachers trained students who, in turn, grew up to become dance teachers. Since ballet requires strict body control and clearly defined positions, these generations of teachers were able to develop a working vocabularyfor all those port de bras and pliés that still torment young studentsthat could be universally understood by practitioners. *This language, codified by Jean-Georges Noverre in the 18th century, created a way to talk about the mechanics of dance, but the art of it was still recorded primarily in the memories of the performers and their audience. *


*It is the choreographerpart creator, part teacherwho represents the human link to the works and traditions of the past and it is he who shapes, through instruction, the dancers of the future. *Indeed, the Russian-born Balanchine is regarded by many as the pivotal figure in 20th-century dance in large part because he founded and sustained the first American ballet company, creating the medium through which European traditions of classical ballet were brought to the New World. *But Balanchine was also an innovative choreographer, and he, like all choreographers, depended on his students to carry on his legacy. *We know what early Balanchine dances looked like not because there is archival footage of them but because a younger generation of dancers in his company learned his technique, soaked up his philosophy, and performed his worksand then went out and trained the next generation to perform Balanchine dances of their own.  

*Even today, despite the advent of video, a choreographer without disciples is in constant danger of having his work fade away after his death. Video can capture the external form and movement, and notation the positions, but the philosophy and technique of the great choreographers is impossible to get down. That is why so many of the giants of modern dance choreographyIsadora Duncan, Martha Graham, Merce Cunninghamfounded their own companies. It also explains why fierce battles can break out among students about how best to carry on the master's legacythe schisms resemble those that beset religious groups. The students may be disputing aspects of technique or interpretation, but what they're really arguing about is the memory of a dance performance they saw long ago. *

Sounds like something I've said a bunch before. You can insert the names you want but it's the same old Shasbath.


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 10, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> We know what early Balanchine dances looked like not because there is archival footage of them but because a younger generation of dancers in his company learned his technique, soaked up his philosophy, and performed his worksand then went out and trained the next generation to perform Balanchine dances of their own.



This could be said of american kenpo but the problem is we have so many different people saying that what they were taught is different than what someone else was taught. So how do we know which one is correct?


----------



## pete (Mar 10, 2004)

kenpo_cory said:
			
		

> ...we have so many different people saying that what they were taught is different than what someone else was taught. So how do we know which one is correct?



If you believe that everything Ed Parker taught was correct, then they are all correct.  Otherwise, none of 'em are correct.  Unfortunately, I didn't have the honor of training with Mr Parker or learning from him first, or even second hand, so I'll just respectfully summize that they are just "dif'rent".


----------



## Rainman (Mar 10, 2004)

kenpo_cory said:
			
		

> This could be said of american kenpo but the problem is we have so many different people saying that what they were taught is different than what someone else was taught. So how do we know which one is correct?



The one that shows you how to be conceptual if indeed that is your mindset.  There are a lot of Instructors out there that are right, some more right than others... that is the good.  The bad- the ones who are not teaching you to become self correcting.  Or the ones whose technique cannot work under pressure the way they have shown it to a student.  Once before I said there are those that are controlling the principles and there are those that the principles control.   How does that help you if you have not become conceptual?  It doesn't but this is information for you to sit on until it becomes valuable.  Really it is the luck of the draw as to who you pick to start your training with.  

I don't really know that some were taught differently but I think the volume is something to key on.  Some people are given different steps through the process and some people left before getting all the way through the process.  These are only some of the reasons for differences.  Some people interpret a concept one way and some know there are a multiple ways of using something.  There are some extremely close minded folk out there.  An example would be "some of the principles can be used for grappling", if some then all.   They (ctp) work together.  I think something similar would be stating a technique does not have marriage of gravity in it as a primary power enhancer.  This theory, this concept, this principle, this universal law, this master key,  is always working but the real question is...   Is it working you or are you working it? artyon:  artyon:  artyon:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 10, 2004)

kenpo_cory said:
			
		

> So how do we know which one is correct?



I'm correct.

 %-}


----------



## Rick Wade (Mar 11, 2004)

Wise old golden dragon is right again.

The only way to know if someone is correct or not is just ask them.  

 :idunno: 
Thanks


----------



## RCastillo (Mar 11, 2004)

A stud like me is in Kenpo, that makes it unique enough. Any more questions? :asian:


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 11, 2004)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> The only way to know if someone is correct or not is just ask them.



And I'm sure by their own account they are right. Exactly my point. And just for the record I'm right too.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 11, 2004)

Wow, that was a really great article Doc. 

Thanks.



-Rob


----------

