DCDanceBlog

So, I was at a dance workshop in NYC last weekend (eventhough I don’t dance and can never hope to) and during the post-performance roundtable I said something about one of the presenting choreographer’s work, noting enthusiastically that it “introduced movements derivative of Merce.” I knew this was somewhat of a faux-pas (nobody wants to hear that their work is derivative, especially of such a household name) but I decided not to censor myself. I meant it as a compliment, of course, given my worship of ole’ Merce, but the moderator of the discussion broke in and said, “well, everything is derivative of Merce.”

Below is an email exchange I had later with the choreographer:

CHOREOGRAPHER: I had a conversation last night about dance/art, and there was an echo of a comment spoken by the post-show moderator, in that everything is derivative at this point, as there has been so much that has gone before that we know about, and the human body can only move in so many ways (unless, of course the specific mutations which allow for more range of movement in this or that joint).
ME: Yeah, I’ve had that “everything is derivative” conversation regarding music, and I think it’s kind of a pointless debate. Of course everything is derivative if you reduce it back far enough. For instance, I could say that Radiohead is derivative of bird song because they both involve the same notes. Modern dance is largely derivative of ballet too in many ways, if you break down much of the movement. To say something is derivative, in my mind then, is only practical if you can draw an immediately indentifiable connection between two styles/techniques/whatever. I.e., Brahms is derivative of Beethoven, while KISS is “derivative” of Beethoven only if you strip it down to its bare elements — both use Western major/minor scales, harmony, etc. So I don’t think the moderator’s point was really relevant to my comment about your dance being derivative of Merce, because I did see an instant similarity, whereas she was just adding “of course it is, because so is everything nowadays.” Two different things.

END email exchange. . .

I also take issue with the idea that “all is derivative because so much has already been done”. This reminds me of something Steven Jay Gould said in trying to answer the question of why there aren’t any modern day Beethovens. He said that perhaps Beethoven’s work maxed out the available supply of notes and combinations so that there was nothing more for future geniuses to create. Everything had already been done. After all there are only 12 notes and a handful of harmonies to work with (until you spill over into atonal music which gets messy) and the rhythms constructed out of these notes are constrained by that which is discernible. This nonsense perfectly illustrates why biologists should stick to biology; actually, had Gould used a bit of math he would have realized how nearly infinite the number of musical combinations is, and how there should never be a cap on new expressions of genius in music. I think his point merely betrays his lack of expertise, and thus the relative inaccessibility of the new “genius” music that is produced every day in underground, submarket arenas.

The same point applies to dance, yet with more force. While western music is, in fact, confined to 12 notes, dance is confined to an almost limitless number of “notes”. True, there are only as many notes as one’s joints can accomodate, but that is alot of notes! Even if there is a theoretical limit upon the number of “notes” the human body can produce, I imagine it will be a very long time until choreographers have reached that limit. New “words” are entered into the dance vocabulary every day, and there is no reason to think that dance is at an invention-impasse for lack of raw materials.

John Lanou