>Has anyone compared Labanotation and >Sutton DanceWriting? There's quite a >comprehensive site about Sutton at > >http://www.dancewriting.org/ > >which brings up a couple of issues: > >1. Is Labanotation a dying language >with limited usability in the modern >world? As a Labanotation teacher I'm obviously biased, but no, I don't agree with this characterization. > >2. Does it make sense to come up with >a new notational system that takes the >best from different notation systems >so that it is supports a full range >of movement applications? People design new notation systems all the time, to various levels of detail. One of the difficulties with combining existing systems is that they are often created from a specific theoretical/analytical base and these reference points don't always mesh. Having said that, aspects of earlier systems are everywhere in current notations systems. (for example, the floor plans of Laban and Benesh owe a great deal to Feuillet) > >The Sutton system includes 5 sections: >Dance, Signing (for the deaf), Mime, >Sports, and Science. What does >Labanotation have that Sutton doesn't? If you're looking for information on Labanotation, you might post to the LN listserv (LabanTalk@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu). I don't know Sutton Movement Writing well enough to make a detailed comparison, but you could also refer to "Dance Notation: the process of recording movement on paper" by Ann Hutchinson for a brief discussion of Sutton notation, as well as several other systems in current use. (One of the things I feel LN does particularly well is the representation of timing, which I don't feel is dealt with as specifically in Ms Sutton's work, based on my limited understanding) sandi kurtz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/28/01 CST