Deirdre of the Sorrows

Well... I think I enjoyed this. I don't really have much to compare it to, so I don't really know how I feel about it. The only other ballets I've been to were on elementry school field trips to big ballets in Denver. This was nothing like that.

I am not a fan of modern dance. Maybe it's cause I don't know anything about it, but I just don't get it. I felt that none of the dancers were together, like they were all doing the same thing, but didn't practice enough to get their timing and bodies to match. I think if it were a more traditional ballet, with more percise dancing, I would have enjoyed it more.

I felt that the story was interesting, but it felt like someone telling a story, not like we were actually experiencing it. I suppose this is because of the narrator. However, I think it's true because it seems the author tried to tell too much of the story. We didn't really need to endings? I think he should have picked one and used it because I feel it was really a bad way of ending the show. It seemed like it was all climatic and then it just died at the end. Rather than showing a seen and then telling us about it, the dances could be elabroated and the talking could go on at the same time to make it less chopy.

Also, the modern elements mixing like the slideshow mixed with the old time feel of the play in a way that didn't work for me. It was too much of a contrast and I didn't get the point of it.

The music was very good, I liked the style and compoisition and it was played very well.

I feel like, had I not known what was going to happen, I wouldn't have understood. My boyfriend went with me and he didn't get the ending at all. He didn't get that she dove off into a rock and killed herself.
All in all, I liked it, but there were a few things that didn't really work for me, such as the slideshow, the awkard ending, etc.

Wigman (LAST READING)

Well I don't know too much about dance, and I know very very little about writing dance, I feel I have learned enough in this class to make some connections to other things. First, I was immediately reminded of when we talked about inspiration and creative processes earler on. She says the idea of a creation arises within her. This idea, she says, already contains it's own ideas about development and such. I take this to ber her "inspiration" and ideas about a peice.

One of the other authours said the creation was the easy part, the idea was the hard part. I beleive this could be true for Wigman as well. The dance seems to flow once she starts.

Wighman says her dance is somewhere between abstract and concrete. I find it intersting she says it's not abstract becasue its orgin is not in he mind. I find, from my limited experience with dance, that a dancer's mind seems to work differently. To explain this, I want to use an example from the video we saw at the International Film Series. Lili, in the movie was a dancer. She worked threw things and solved them with her body, her dance. Rather than with her mind, like I would do. Along the same topic, she (wigman) also says that her idea is not to interpert emotions. These basic emotions are not descriptive enough to explain the dance, their not fluid enough.

She reiterates my idea that dancers minds work differntly when she says that it's always been the most natural way to express her ideas threw pure movement.

The next thing I want to bring up from Wignman's essay is slighly harder for me, not having a dance background. She says although she has written another dance to preexisting music. She writes her dance then creates the music around it, which to me seems much harder. I find it intersting that she would go about it this way, becasue to me, it would be hard to dance without music to dance to, and then to translate that music into dance would be nearly impossible for me.

The last thing I found to be interesting is the fact that she likes working with a group. I see artisits as individuals who find corraborating difficult. I think that would get in the way of an idea.

I also appriciate how she says theres no right way to do things and to try old and new ideas and be creative.

Suor Angelica and Gianni Schicchi

I had an interesting perspective on these operas because I sat between a young child (about 7) and an elderly couple. So I got to hear their comments as well as my own.

No complete thoughts tonight, its been a crazy horid weekend. But random ramboings and thoughts get the point across. More to come later.

I will start with Sour Angelica first.

• I am glad that I knew the plot because I had to crain my neck to read the translation which was painful after a few minutes.
• I thought it was a good story, though it wasn't terribly intersting.
• I thought it was a joke that there was only one guy, but its true...
• The lead was actually played by my old neighbor whom I didn't even know went to school here, so that was awesome as well.
• As far as the actual opera goes, I wouldn't say that I enjoyed it, though I didn't dislike it either.
• The acting and singing was very good.
• It reminded me so much of the beginning of the sound of music though.
• And there seemed to be quite a few random parts in the play that didn't need to be there. Like the sisters who came in late praying... Just seemed unessecary to the story.

I liked Gianni Schicchi much better.

• I felt like I could relate to it much more. perhaps because of the modern day elements they incorporated, or maybe due to the humor.
• It was interesting to see the things I found funny (such as the kid playing his game after his uncle just died) that the old couple next to me though was horrible, and the kid next to me didn't really notice.
• I personally think I would have enjoyed both of these more if they were in english, though I do think it would take away from the opera a lot.
• I loved how they mixed modern day with what is obviously a fairly old opera. It gave us a way to relate to the people, even though they weren't speaking english, and were fighting over a donkey (which most of us
• obviosly can't relate to...).
• It really didn't even seem like what I had in my mind as an "opera." because the singing wasn't the traditional "opera" high pitched style i imagine.

Turino

I want to preface this by saying, I feel like I will understand this much more after we discuss it tomorrow because right now I feel very lost. I can understand what he is saying but I guess I don't really get how it fits together, like seing the individual peices of a puzzle but not being able to get the whole picture yet.

The elements of semiosis are the sign, the object, and the interpretant. An expample given was a tree falling in the woods. The tree falling creates airwaves, a potential sign for a sound. So, I am guessing some other signs could be music (obviously, shown in writing), maybe things like a crying baby, an alarm, or maybe even the sound of someone familers voice?

AS far as the sign-object relations, there are many different kinds. If I'm thinking right, each time there is one thing drawn from each of the three catagories. Trichotomy I being the sign it self, T. II being the sign-object relationship (for example: the national anthem reminding people of events where the song is played or the smell of cookies reminding of home), and T. III is how the sign is interpreted.

From there it gets into almost a mathmatical thing. The order terms in each of the trichotomy's were introduced (as well as those other things) play an importance in how they effect eachother. They are seperated into firsts, seconds, and thirds. The firsts items generally cause other firsts and so on. Lower level signs pertain to emotions while higher level cause "language based" responces and reasoning. So the level's of the signs indicate how we will respond to them(?).

Iconic vs. indexical
Icons rely on a resemblance between sign and object, they are signs of identity. Iconic and indexical signs typically work together, though they are different. Indexical signs are emotion-producing and are grounded in personal experience.

How does this pertain to music? The text gives the example of Jimi Hendrix's Woodstock performance of "The Star Spangled Banner" and also talks about a work by Beethoven. Although I am not familer with either piece, (though I plan of googleing (is that a word now?) Jimi Hendrix's later) I can kind of get what hes talking about. The Hendrix peice used icons throughout in the form of sounds (bombs, ect). He uses these and other examples to show that all of the Peircian ideas stated above can be translated into the terms of music.

Composers Manifesto

When I started my peice I had no ideas about what to do or how to do it. After attending my sister's state winterguard composition, I decided to make my peice guard related. However, I went home to find that the good majority of my equipment had gotten returned. So I threw around some more ideas in my head, coming up with nothing else. At last, I decided to make do with the guard things that I had. I tried making different sounds with the riffle and flags. There was somthing I wanted to do with the riffle but I wouldn't have been able to teach anyone else to do what I was wanting, so more compromise ensued. Finally, I was okay with all my sounds and tried to peice everything together while experimenting with tempo and other things. In the end, I am very satisfied with my peice. The thing that would make it better would be to have an entire team of guard people who could do whatever I threw at them.