Dániel Berzsenyi, a Hungarian romantic poet characterized traditional dance creation: “its secret laws can’t be mastered, it is ruled by itself, limited by enthusi-asm.” Ernő Pesovár, a leading personality of Hungarian traditional dance researcher, specialized in dance history and structural analysis, cited Berzsenyi frequently. In this paper I will follow György Martin’s and Ernő Pesovár’s analytical guidelines (1960, 1964), using notation to reveal the deep structure of the dance—without it the dance structure is difficult to recognize.
Pesovár planned a last synthesis of his lifetime work in the subject of ugrós dances, which was published recently with the title Old Hungarian Dance Style—The ugrós edited by János Fügedi and András Vavrinecz. Pesovár introduced his basic theory on the structure of kanásztánc-ugrós (swineherd-springing) style in 1992, he initiated a summary in 1995, but the actual work started only in 2005. I was honored to take part in the analytical works. After Ernő Pesovár death’s the work was contin-ued, however the tasks were shared. Ethnomusicologist Katalin Paksa published a separated volume on the music of the ugrós dances. The second volume—the above mentioned Old Hungarian Dance Style—included a selection of 70 dances notated.
The third part of the research aimed the analysis of dances, of which two volumes were released. One dealt with the dance tradition of a south Hungarian village, Hosszúhetény, and the analysis of three dances from there (Fügedi and Varga 2014). The other including my analysis of dances introduced the ethnographic area Mezőföld (Fügedi and Kovács 2014). Rich in ugrós dances, Mezőföld spreads between the Danube and Lake Balaton. I will present shortly the analysis of a solo ugrós from village Pákozd (marked with a black dot in figure 1).
Depths of Variations: a Notation-based Analysis
The subject of the present investigation is Pál Gál’s kanásztánc, a traditional dance with bottles on the ground.
The dancer uses only three basic motifs in his dexterity dance. Two of them are secondary motifs, one—the type 2—is considered dominant. Type 1 is formed by one leg support repetition in rhythm. The motifs called 1a, 1b, 1c are in the subtype category shown in figure 2–4.
The next secondary motif is type 3. It appears in the dance in or rhythm, and it contains double support usually on the second beat of the motif (figures 5–8).
These motifs fall under the category of variants, beyond the categories of type and subtype. I marked the variants with subscripted letters.
Fig. 1. Location of Pákozd
Fig. 2.
Motif 1a
Fig. 3.
Motif 1b
Fig. 4.
Motif 1c
The absolute dominant motif is type 2. Its rhythm is and contains usually supports on one leg. Let’s investigate this type more detailed. Some variants contain two supports in rhythm, and one gesture-like movement transforms its rhythm into
. This subtype is identified as 2a. Figures 9–11 show the three variants of 2a.
In subtype 2b the second is a partial support position (figures 12–13).
Motif 2c is the widely known “three-step” motif, called also as pas de basque or tripudium. Note that every movement of the motif is changing support.
Fig. 5.
Motif 3d2
Fig. 9.
Motif 2a1
Fig. 14.
Motif 2c1
Fig. 10.
Motif 2a2
Fig. 15.
Motif 2c2
Fig. 11.
Motif 2a3
Fig. 16.
Motif 2c3 Fig. 6.
Motif 3d1
Fig. 12.
Motif 2b1
Fig. 7.
Motif 3a3
Fig. 13.
Motif 2b2
Fig. 8.
Motif 3a1
Motif type 2 has three subtypes. This category appears in the dance only in variants (as it can be seen on the former figures) and subvariants. Subtype 2a has 3 variants (figures 9–11). Subtype 2b has 2 variants (figures 12–13). And subtype 2c has 3 variants (figures 14–16). In their subvariants the motifs get rich in genres of movements, such as touches, passing sliding, contacts diminished rhythmically, modification of movement categories (from spring to step) or rhythmi-cal augmentation. Subvariant 2a3v1, the first subvariant of the 2a3 is shown in figure 17. Motif 2a3v1 contains a vibrato-like rotation while touching the ground in the second . This motif (measure 1 and 3) appears always with the 3b motif (measure 2 and 4) in the dance. Furthermore Pál Gál creates mixed motifs, such as 2a1’+2a2 (the apostrophe denotes a shorter version of a motif.) He colors the motifs with claps several times (2a2v1t—t stands for clap). Altogether Pál Gál shows 8 variants (2a1, 2a2, 2a3, 2b1, 2b2, 2c1, 2c2, 2c3), 13 subvariants (2a1v1, 2a1v2,2a2v1, 2a2v2, 2a3v1, 2a3v2, ¾ 2a3, 2c1v, ¾ 2c1ritm, 2c2v, ¾ 2c2, 2c3v, ¾ 2c3), and 4 more mixed motifs (2a1’+2a2, 2a2v1t, 2c2t, ¾ 2c3-2), in other words he performs 25 different three-step motifs in a 2,5 minutes dance.
The 25 three-step variations are difficult to recognize without a detailed score of the dance. However, without the distinction of the three-step motifs, we can’t understand the structure of the dance. To outline the structure of the dance I follow Martin and Pesovár’s method for analysis and motif definition (1960). In this phase of the investigation it can be realized: tripudium variants have a serial, list-like pattern in the whole dance.
The basic structural illustration of the dance is shown in figure 18. The horizontal lines represent the 5 strophes of the accompanying music. The vertical lines below the horizontal lines mark the measures, a double line limits a sequence. A charac-teristic ugrós melody has usually 4 measures as half of a period (a “line” of a tune).
In this special tune the third line (the beginning of the second period) includes an extra measure which expands the number of measures to 5. The length of the motifs is shown above the horizontal line. Several times the measures and the motifs overlap each other, for example in the second part of strophe 1. It may happen that the duration of a motif corresponds to odd number of crotchets. As a result the boundar-ies of the motifs reach beyond a measure, as for instance it can be seen in the second part of strophe 3.
Fig. 17.
Motifs 2a3v1-3b1-2a3v1-3b2
The subtype’s pattern is shown in the figures 19–22. Two kind of patterns can be discovered: 1) when the variants follow each other (for example in figure 19 strophe 2; in figure 20 the end of strophe 1; in figure 21 the first part of strophe 4; and at the end of the dance); 2) when the variants don’t follow each other (for example in figure 19 several times in strophes 1 and 3; in figure 21 at end of the first and the second part of strophe 3). Figure 22 shows the pattern of all variants. In the first part of the dance Pál Gál introduces all of the 8 variants as a “prelude” which will appear again later in their variants. Furthermore he keeps on changing the variants in the sequence. After a longer repetition of motifs 2a and 2c1 the height of the three-step motifs is introduced. In the second part of strophe 3 there are fourteen measures all of main type 2 motifs sequentially while each one different from the other. The peak of performance begins with a longer 2c1 then is followed as: 2a2, 2a1, 2a3, 2c2, 2c1, 2a3, 2c3 2b1, 2c1, and closed with 2a2. After the height of the dance a longer period of 2c appears. At the final part of the tripudium motifs all the variations are danced as a closing frame of the structure.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fig. 18. The basic structure of the dance
2a1= 2a2= 2a3=
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2b1= 2b2=
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fig. 19. The pattern of motif subtype 2a
Fig. 20. The pattern of motif subtype 2b
2c1= 2c2= 2c3=
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2a1= 2a2= 2a3= 2b1= 2b2= 2c1= 2c2= 2c3=
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fig. 22. The pattern of motif subtype 2 Fig. 21. The pattern of motif subtype 2c
The appearance of pattern type 2 described above ruling the entire process can be summarized as follows:
x y X y x y x
The lower case x denotes the many variations within the appearance of a longer time, y is a variation through dancing also a longer period, while X is the performance of many variations in a very short time. Notice that the recurring portions include a wide variety of long and one short part as an intermediary. The longer diverse or homogenous parts periodically alternate.
The above investigation intended to present an analytical method to prove that notation is vital from the point of discovering dance creation approaches different from today’s revival practices. The research revealed another aspect from the point of notation: during the analysis we faced several difficult questions in the score, namely whether a notator could rely only on pure observation of the movements recorded on film. As we tried to understand what is performed, several times only the structural forms helped us to find the proper interpretation of motifs and their ways of notation.
Closing the article I cite my colleague János Fügedi’s words from his introduction to my analyses: “It was one of the most considerable moral of the common work beyond the cognition of the hidden world of the structure that notation of improvised dances, frequently difficult to observe for the lack of proper recording quality, may be published only after a thorough analysis. The exploration of the inner events and rules of the dance, the discovery of the ‘logic’ of the motions help the notator relied merely on the observation of the film at the start of work to get a clearer, more exact notion of the actual movements, the hidden intent of expression which cannot be discussed with the traditional dancers—to notate what can be formulated of dance by signs” (Fügedi 2014:11).
References
Fügedi, János. 2012. “LabanGraph 4P: An(other) Computer Editor for Labanotation.”
Proceedings of the 2011 ICKL Conference, edited by Marion Bastien, Richard Allan Ploch, and János Fügedi. S.l.: International Council of Kinetography Laban. 327-331.
Fügedi, János. 2014. “Az ugrós táncok elemzésének háttere” [The Background of Analyzing the Ugrós Dances]. Mezőföldi ugrósok: Táncelemzések, edited by János Fügedi, and Henrik Kovács. Budapest: L’Harmattan. 9-11.
Fügedi, János, and András Vavrinecz, editors. 2013a. Old Hungarian Dance Style:
The Ugrós. Anthology. Budapest: L’Harmattan.
Fügedi, János, and András Vavrinecz. 2013b. “Mezőföld.” Old Hungarian Dance Style: The Ugrós. Anthology, edited by János Fügedi, and András Vavrinecz.
Budapest: L’Harmattan. 205-254.
Fügedi, János, and Sándor Varga. 2014. Régi tánckultúra egy baranyai faluban [Old Dance Culture in a Baranya Village]. Budapest: L’Harmattan.
Fügedi, János, and Henrik Kovács eds. 2014. Mezőföldi ugrósok: Táncelemzések [Ugrós Dances from Mezőföld: Dance Analysis]. Budapest: L’Harmattan.
Martin, György. [1970–1972]. Magyar tánctípusok és táncdialektusok. I–III.
melléklettel [Hungarian Dance Types and Dialects. With Addenda I-III].
[Budapest]: Népművelési Propaganda Iroda.
Martin, György and Ernő Pesovár. 1960. “A magyar néptánc szerkezeti elemzése:
Módszertani vázlat” [A Structural Analysis of Hungarian Traditional Dances:
A Methodological Sketch]. Tánctudományi Tanulmányok 1959-1960, edited by Gedeon Dienes, and Péter Morvay. Budapest: Magyar Táncművészek Szövetsége Tudományos Bizottsága. 211–248.
Martin, György, and Ernő Pesovár. 1964. “A motívumtípus meghatározása a táncfolklórban” [The Determination of Motif Type in Dance Folklore].
Tánctudományi Tanulmányok 1963-1964, edited by Gedeon Dienes. Budapest:
Magyar Táncművészek Szövetsége Tudományos Bizottsága. 193–234.
Paksa, Katalin. 2010. Az ugrós táncok zenéje [The Music of Ugrós Dances]. Budapest:
L’Harmattan.
Pesovár, Ernő. 1992. “A régi magyar táncstílus” [The Old Hungarian Dance Style].
Tánctudományi Tanulmányok 1990–1991, edited by László Maácz. Budapest:
Magyar Táncművészek Szövetsége. 91-107.