In an article in the New York Times this morning, Diane Solway takes a look at how dancers manage to remember all of their steps. Particularly in the cases of ABT or NYCB (for this article Diane watched ABT dancers - our own Mr. Hallberg included - learning parts), it really is a major part of the job. In the article she says that ABT will rotate through 21 works this season, by choreographers of varying styles, and I know NYCB usually falls in the 30-50 work range for an eight week season.
This article really interested me, as it touched upon a lot of things I’ve been curious about for a while. Personally, when I read about studies on the brain and then think about how it may apply to how my dancer brain learns, retains, and then spits out choreography, it totally fascinates me. I remember reading an article a few years ago (I think it was in the Times magazine) about mirror neurons, and how when we are watching a movie, or watching anything for that matter, there is a part of our brain that actually mirrors the actions we are seeing and thinks, in some respect, that our body is actually doing them. This is something that sounds so familiar to dancers. You know… You are watching someone else perform a piece of choreography that you know, and sometimes your muscles actually twitch in reaction to recognizing the movement. And the fact that you can be sitting down, watching someone perform a series of steps, while at the same time thinking about how your body would dance those particular steps, and then stand up and repeat them.
Dr. Daniel Glaser talks about dancers basically learning the choreography in chunks (he calls it “chunking” - a term I’m sure ballet dancers will love) and that they form these chunks based on things like rhythm or imagery, spatially, or even from an inner monologue. These chunks or phrases are what then become strung together to make one long movement.
Dance is a language. Once you learn the language, you can begin to predict what steps could come next based on combinations that have become familiar to you. This is obviously very useful when it comes to ballet, where when someone says “tombé pas de bourrée glissade assemblé” you aren’t thinking of each individual step on it’s own, because it’s a recognized sequence in your ballet vocabulary. For the most part, in classical dance, there are only so many steps that can physically link to other steps based on where your body, your weight, and your momentum are at that moment. The fact that you can predict, to some extent, a handful of next possible steps, greatly cuts the amount of time it takes to learn a full sequence of steps.
I started thinking more about the whole predicting thing when I read an article in Wired about Numenta, a new company formed by Jeff Hawkins based on theories from his book On Intelligence. One of the first things Numenta has created is a software that attempts to mimic the process of human thought, based on what they are calling Hierarchical Temporal Memory (or HTM). They describe HTM as “a new computing paradigm that replicates the structure and function of the human neocortex”.. If you feel compelled to read more about it, you can click here, but really, the way the process was described in the Wired article reminded me a lot of why it’s so much easier for a dancer to learn choreography than a non-dancer.
But that’s even with the music element stripped out. The second you add music, that’s’ just another layer that helps us immensely. It’s amazing how your boss can say, “So-and-so is out… I need someone for the first movement of Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet tonight. You did it at some point over the years… Do you remember any of it?” And at first you try to think of the steps, and you think. “No I definitely have no recollection of a single step in the entire piece.” But then you hear the music, and it’s all right there, like magic. In the NY Times article Ms. Solway mentioned Frederic Franklin, who while watching a pas de deux that he had performed at some point during his 93 years, says, “It’s all in here, when I’m watching them, I can feel my muscles doing it.”
Ok, so after all that blabbing on, while I was looking for links to all these things… I found on NOVA’s website, a study by Dr. Glaser (who I mentioned above and who is in the current Times article), where he did MRI’s of ballet dancers and capoeira dancers (as well as non-dancers, or “native subjects” as he calls them) while they watched ballet and capoeira. He basically found that the dancers’ mirror neurons where working most when viewing their known style of dance, but still worked more than a non-dancer while viewing the unfamiliar dance style. Any dancer could have predicted that outcome, but it’s still interesting that they chose to test dancers to explore their theories on mirror neurons. Glaser explains it well in an audio clip on NOVA’s website.
jennifer
i loved the NYTimes article…however, i thought it made David look bad because he needed to be shown the steps more than once to know all the steps (unlike Angel Corella). The author failed to mention how difficult it is to remember all those steps!
May 29, 2007 @ 19:48
sloan
yeah. everyone learns differently! sometimes the way something is presented to you initially can make all the difference.
i know that for me, if someone is not clear in presenting the steps on the first few go arounds, it makes it hard for those steps to ever sink in, even if they are clarified later on.
and if you are working on a new piece, and the choreographer changes one part repeatedly, it is always a bit muddy. more so then if your mind had been fresh when you learned the final version.
May 29, 2007 @ 19:52
sandi
SO interesting. Last year when we were learning the opening of Dr. Dolittle (not ballet by any means, but kinda complex choreography) we did a drastically different version every day… and of course being good little professionals, we practiced each night at home to get it into our muscles.. so then our bodies would revert to yesterday’s version automatically! It was most distressing.
May 29, 2007 @ 21:19
mbb
As a former child ballet student and the mother of a former child ballet (male) student I take offense that we “non-dancers” don’t activate our brains as well. I know that dancers must concentrate more seriously when they are learning a new piece but I’m sure the researchers didn’t take into account that learning any difficult piece of anything (such as a new language or computer program) helps activate a part of the brain not previously used. “They” (however, they are) say that learning anything new at any age will help to keep your brain active longer than “you” normally would have. As the child of an Alzheimer’s parent I can attest that even that is not always true. But , carry on, and learn all you can, for as long as you can!!! and dance on!!
May 29, 2007 @ 23:54
sloan
thanks mmb,
i totally agree, there are a myriad of things that engage our minds just as well or even BETTER than dance, whatever kind of dance it may be, i was just trying to discuss the articles and findings in how they related to my experiences as a dancer.
also, i guess maybe i wasn’t clear enough, i don’t think the illustrations meant that “non-dancers” minds weren’t activating as well in general, it was just illustrating those particular neurons that recreate movements in our brains and how those neurons reacted while viewing different dance styles.
i mean for me, if i am watching a football game, or watching someone write out mathematical equations, i know that that part of my brain probably isn’t reacting in the same way as someone who actually physically does those things all the time. not that it’s not active in some other way, it’s just that those mirror neurons probably wouldn’t be as stimulated because i don’t have memory of physically doing those actions myself. it’s just so interesting to me in general. sorry if i wasn’t really clear about that. didn’t mean it to be understood that way.
and yes, learning totally new things is always so rejuvenating. makes me feel a little less guilty about spending so much time on the computer
May 30, 2007 @ 00:33
jolene
I’m going to put a little bit of input as a ballet-dancing neuroscience grad student.
One of the questions that I have is, how is muscle memory different from other memories? Kristin, I love your example of “tombé pas de bourrée glissade assemblé” (is that sequence ingrained in every dancer’s brain?), but how is muscle memory different from let’s say, smelling gingerbread and being transported in your mind back to grandma’s house? These two differing processes must use similar processes, but how similar are they? And how much of this processing is really occuring in higher brain areas, and how much of it is “reflex”? I’m sure many dancers will argue that certain dance sequences are more reflexive, as Sandi mentioned above that relearning a new sequence can be like overriding a previously learned reflex.
This reminds me of experiments where they found in mammals with cervical spinal injuries (thus severing their pathways from the brain to the spinal cord), if you put a mammal on a treadmill, it will “reflexively” walk. Christopher Reeve knew about these experiments and was hoping to use these results to help him to walk again with his cervical spinal cord injury. With this, how much of the input from the brain contribute to dance (perhaps the emotion that the article talks about), and how much input from the spinal cord is needed (perhaps more the reflexive component of dance)?
There are so many questions to be answered! A lot of research still needs to be done on the pathways involved, and the processing involved in motor movement. Glaser’s experiments are a great start. (Although there’s one pet peeve of mine - there are no units on his graph!!)
And of course, it makes sense for a dancer’s brain to specialize, as everyone’s brain does. A surgeon is going to have a lot harder time learning The Dream than David did. Thus, it makes sense that there is an increased brain response in these areas when watching dance for dancers than “native” subjects. The bigger question would be, how does this synaptic plasticity occur in development/learning? (It’s these questions, which are more at the cellular level, that I’m interested in). And is there anything that can be done, to help us learn “faster”?
Mirror neurons are very very cool, and unfortunately like most of neuroscience, very little is known about them. If you record from neurons in a mammal, as the Ramachandran article suggests, scientists have found that “doing” a movement, and “thinking” about doing a movement, and watching someone else do a movement, often have very similar firing patterns in the brain. These neurons are also called “empathy neurons” for the reason that if you watch someone else do a movement, these neurons fire as well. No one knows what triggers its firing, or what its purpose is.
And in response to your comment, Kristin - there are some schools of thought that believe that during the initial learning, there is a “template” that is placed in your brain, and what you learn on top of that either strengthens this template, or weakens it. It’s up to debate whether or not this template can be abolished completely, or is merely changed and can never be unlearned. This idea could support your theory that if you don’t learn something cleanly the first time, then it’s just harder to maintain over time because your initial template was faulty.
Admittedly I’m more a molecular/cellular neuroscientist, so if there are any systems or cognitive neuroscientists out there, please feel free to clarify any of my points. Fun! I love how one side of my life can be applied to another.
Thanks Kristin, for starting this discussion.
May 30, 2007 @ 00:51
Larry
If this is a duplicate post, apologies. I tried submitting it and it didn’t appear; then when I tried again it thought I was submitting a duplicate. So I’m trying to fool it by making a few changes. Kristin wrote:
>
As an amateur musician, I find this very interesting. One thing I have always wondered is to what degree dancers study music and musical notation. And if so, do they ever use the musical score as a way of learning the steps in a ballet? If not, do dancers concentrate primarily on counting the number of beats related to a set of steps, or do they rely to some degree on the melodic and harmonic patterns as well?
This issue becomes more complicated with ballets written in difficult modern rhythms, as in much of Stravinsky and the set of Webern pieces Balanchine chose for Episodes. The opening of Agon is a perfect example. One hears an opening fanfare in the trumpets, and to the unaided ear, the first note will probably be heard as a downbeat. But it’s not, it’s an offbeat to beat 3 in a 4/8 measure - and that’s only one measure out of several hundred. How do dancers learn these intricate rhythms, and do they pick up the patterns mainly by ear? I would imagine Agon must be more of a challenge than something like Tea or Candy Cane in Nutcracker, where all the patterns are grouped in patterns of fours.
May 30, 2007 @ 01:21
Larry
Interesting. My post went through, but the passage I quoted from Kristin was dropped. It was the penultimate paragraph from her opening post.
May 30, 2007 @ 01:39
mbb
lol, oh kristen, please don’t take personal offense to my statement. I meant that the nova show sometimes (as much as I love PBS) and other research sometimes generalize people and situations. I so agree that anything that stimulates our brain to learn something new is good. And that the more talented a person is in whatever that talent is must be more brain stimulating then a person who takes for life for granted. And you, above all, with all your talents, in dance and computers, have probably a better insight than most of us. I, personally, taken my parental situation, try to learn new things every chance i get, even if just trying it once. Like most of our parents have told us, “try it once, if you don’t like it, its ok, at least you tried”.
May 30, 2007 @ 02:09
delirium tremens
Larry,
im not a professsional dancer (at least not of a type where i memorize steps as does a ballet dancer) but regarding your question about music. I would guess very few dancers look at the score. I doubt that many actually can read music (though im sure some can!) and even those who do…well i cant hear it from reading it…
As far as counting or following the melody. I believe that depends both on the dancer and the piece. I never count. except sometimes at barre exercises which are a rather different thing. I know dancers who definitely do count.
I would imagine that for most dancers with most pieces counting is more a part of the initial learning process (if they count at all) than it is of ones more finished knowledge of a piece.
I do imagine that for some pieces–the Robbins with no music perhaps?–counting is necessary for probably any dancer.
Thanks for an incredibly interesting post Kristen!
May 30, 2007 @ 03:10
sloan
this is so fun!
larry, it’s funny how one of the biggest aspects of learning a ballet is how the music is broken down with the steps. for some reason this isn’t talked about very often, but is such a big deal, especially in instances, like you said, where we’re dancing to music with much more complicated rhythms.
in stravinsky ballets for instance, usually the choreographer (or the person who is setting the ballet) will decide on a way of breaking down, or counting the piece. this may or may not be the way the composer structured the music… sometimes the counts will make more sense within the structure of the choreography if they go against the music, or sometimes the choreographer will create counts purely based on how the music sounds.
in symphony in three movements for example, you can have a couple of sevens, a nine, a twenty-one, a slow three… this sequence of numbers also has to be memorized in relation to the music, since they’re not predictable eight count sequences. after practice though, and if you have a really good choreographer or ballet mistress (rosemary dunleavy is AMAZING at teaching in a fast and efficient way) sometimes you end up actually singing (in your head) the particular counts that go with the music. and if there are accents on certain counts, that is very helpful as well.
then there are even more complicated ballets, like Episodes, where there are some sections that just cannot be counted in a way that makes sense to dance to. in this case, we often rehearse to a video of the conductor conducting the piece. we can see the cues that he gives the orchestra (which also become our cues). instead of counting, it’s watching for the conductors cues, and listening for musical cues.
like ’start the step with the conductors down beat. then wait until you hear the honk-honk-plink, wait two more beats, then start the next step.’ through practice you get a feeling for how long each sequence and each pause should generally be (which is never the same anyway because of the live orchestra) and it really becomes an intense dialogue between the dancers on stage and the pit.
so unfortunately, i’ve never seen the dancers use the actual score itself to learn ballets (i really wish i could) although i am sure many choreographers do, so they have already broken it down for us. we really do everything by rhythms, by ear, and by how the steps and score have already been dissected. i guess it’s important to have a consistency since ballets are often taught to so many different people in so many different places.
hope that answers some of your questions.
mbb, no offense taken. just felt bad in thinking maybe i had been unclear and offended someone else. i know what you mean about the nova stuff, as much as i do love the show
jolene, thanks so much for all your expert input. it’s all so fascinating to me!
May 30, 2007 @ 03:10
SanderO
I think of dance and the dancer’s body as a musical instrument… played by the dancer. Sounds don’t come out of this instrument, but movement does… form does. Visual music.
What a choreographer does, in my conception, is score the music for dancing instruments…. Watching played instruments is usually not interesting… unless you have an emotional player… the instrument itself only emits sounds… who likes to watch a piano?
When you learn a dance… or a dance is “set” on you… you are memorizing your part… You don’t have the luxury of following a written score (although someone has notated it all). But then again.. many soloist like violinists don’t use a score and memorize an entire piece.
Patterns or templates become embedded in our brains and enable us to do things without thinking about them… everyone is familiar with walking and we don’t think about it… but it a rather complex activity of controlled falling or something… which we have memorized.
Dancers are the geniuses who not only can remember complex movements, but have trained their bodies to do what ordinary people simply can’t… like balance en pointe… or extend. Dancers are musicians and living moving sculptures… miracles they are. My jaw drops at almost every performance… fine self created instruments… and they play so well together too.
May 30, 2007 @ 23:58
Larry
Actually, I love to watch musical instruments - either as works of art (it’s not for nothing that the Met has a gallery of musical instruments, as does MFA in Boston, and there are even museums devoted to musical instruments such as http://www.mim.fgov.be/ in Brussels) or being played.
But I was primarily going to respond to Kristin. As someone trained in classical piano and composition, it’s difficult for me to conceive of learning a musical work without going through the notated score; but quite obviously dancers do just that. Obviously if choreographers and dance teachers considered it advantageous for dancers to learn their steps with the help of a score, they would insist upon that as part of the dancers’ training, and that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I brought up Stravinsky and Webern because they’re among the more challenging composers rhythmically, and I would suspect dancing to them presents challenges that are not present when a dancer prepares a role in a Ludwig Minkus ballet. But thinking about it some more, I can see how the use of a score would not be practical even when a dancer studies a work by Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev. Scores are expensive, not always readily available (e.g., you cannot purchase a complete score to Prokofiev’s Romeo, though you can buy miniature orchestral scores of the three suites), and you don’t know whether the score you’re looking at hasn’t been arranged, cut, or otherwise modified by the choreographer.
I do find it altogether remarkable that dancers can memorize a series of steps to a complex work like the Stravinsky Symphony in Three Movements or the Webern Concerto. By contrast, although a pianist in recital is expected to memorize standard tonal repertoire such as Beethoven and Chopin, nobody minds a bit if they play from a score when doing Webern or Boulez. Quite the contrary - it would be a rare pianist who would tackle a Boulez sonata from memory.
More practically speaking, however, since *recordings* of the Stravinsky or Webern scores I mentioned are readily available, is there any benefit to a dancer in listening to CDs of these pieces? or would that be just a pointless exercise if you’re not performing the steps in the studio?
May 31, 2007 @ 01:03
Larry
SanderO writes: “When you learn a dance… or a dance is “set” on you… you are memorizing your part… You don’t have the luxury of following a written score (although someone has notated it all). But then again.. many soloist like violinists don’t use a score and memorize an entire piece.”
In response to your final sentence, I think there’s a distinction. The dancer apparently learns steps in relation to the music by following the breakdown the choreographer or ballet master/mistress has set up, and does not work directly with the score. In general, the violinist or pianist learns a work directly from the score, but the rituals of concert performance dictate that a soloist is to play from memory (and conductors too often direct orchestras without score). The idea is presumably that by freeing one’s eyes from being immersed in the notes, the performer is more likely to generate a spontaneous performance. Whether this is actually true is open to debate, and nothing is more devastating to a musician than having a memory lapse. I’ve seen this happen even with world-class pianists in solo recital.
Actors of course sometimes forget their lines too. Do dancers ever have memory slips?
May 31, 2007 @ 01:19
SanderO
Larry,
I did not mean to disrespect the exquisite artistry of musical instruments as sculptural objects. The Met Museum’s collection proves how stunningly visual they are. But their purpose is to emit musical notes… not to be “read” as forms of visual art.
Not only is memory of movement a fascinating notion… but getting a corp to move in perfect unison is yet another remarkable thing to behold. I consider them all geniuses of movement.
May 31, 2007 @ 09:37
sloan
yes, most definitely!
listening to a recording is one of the most helpful things. you never physically have to be in a studio to “work” on a piece. by listening to the music, if it’s a more complicated piece, you can get closer to not really having to count as literally in your head. it’s all way more familiar.
also, speaking of working without being in the studio… one of the most powerful and beneficial things, i find, is visualization. you could be taking a break, lying down with your eyes closed, but be able to go through an entire ballet. this is good for memorizing choreography, and even for “getting it into your body”.
it also gives you the ability to think about HOW you want to do each step, reminding yourself of things you saw in rehearsal (like bend more on this step, or travel more, or whatever it is), and mentally apply those corrections or those ideas to the steps in the piece, at a pace where you can both make a “mental note” and visualize yourself doing the steps. then the next time you go to physically dance the piece in a studio, it’s so much different!
May 31, 2007 @ 12:36
SanderO
Kristin,
Is the type of visualization you do (with eyes closed) something which is actually “taught” or suggested to dancers by teachers? Is this done usually with the music or in a silent setting? I would curious to see the brain’s activity during one of these visualizations as compared with the actual dance…
May 31, 2007 @ 18:49
sloan
no, it’s not something that’s taught, at least not that i know of. i guess it’s just a instinctual/natural thing?
i prefer no music, as you can set your own speed, repeat things, make more of a point of an idea on certain things….
May 31, 2007 @ 18:57
kathy
This is all so interesting! When preparing my young ballet students for recital, I have them sit or lay on the floor and listen to the music while imagining themselves doing the steps. I’ve used this primarily as a means of having them be aware of the music and integrate it with the steps. Don’t you find that the music itself aids in the memorization of steps? There are ballets I’ve seen but never danced; when I hear the music I can feel the movement that goes with it. (ie: Four Temperments).
May 31, 2007 @ 20:51
sandi
What a great discussion. So fascinating. Kristin, I also love doing visualizations- and I often find they make their way into my dreams…. which can make it hard to sleep during rehearsal periods! Do you find that you can remember a piece better after a night’s sleep? I’m often amazed at that in myself… when a sequence that seemed very difficult yesterday suddenly makes sense and becomes do-able the next day after dreaming of it. I’d love to understand that phenomenon more! I also end up singing counts in my head when music is difficult to count with the steps.. in Camelot- where I don’t dance at all, I DO play a tambourine (lol) in a strange rhythm which was really hard to learn during rehearsals- while singing the normal melody/rhythm. Drove me nuts.
I remember being amazed at the mezzo singing Carmen at the met (her name escapes me at the moment) playing castinets in a different rhythm while singing an aria- Amazing!
Jun 01, 2007 @ 18:19
Larry
Sandi said: “I remember being amazed at the mezzo singing Carmen at the met (her name escapes me at the moment) playing castinets in a different rhythm while singing an aria- Amazing!”
If I may - The castanet part is explicitly notated in Bizet’s score and the singer performing Carmen would be expected to accompany herself using that instrument. (I would not be surprised, however, if some Carmens can’t master the castanets or the coordination, in which case the part would be picked up by a percussionist in the orchestra.) You can see the rhythms Bizet wrote here if you scroll to page 190. The rhythm is indeed different from the voice part, but the meter is identical, so I think it’s not quite so difficult as you imply:
http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/aaz2552/large/index.html
What definitely is difficult, from the musical point of view, is the castanets part in the Bransle Gay from Agon. Here the castanets play in an even 3/8 pattern throughout, which the two boys clap as the girl dances her variation. But all the surrounding orchestral parts - flutes, strings, etc. - are notated in assymetrical meters like 5/16, 7/16, and the like. That section must be absolutely murder for the conductor.
Jun 01, 2007 @ 19:07
sandi
Eek! Thanks Larry.
Jun 01, 2007 @ 19:32
mbb
oh my, how interesting this subject has grown!! don’t you love articles that get people thinking and communicating..and all the different views (such as right brain vs left brain).. dancers, musicians, writers, etc are definately using their talents to the fullest..but even we ordinary people have talents of our own , we just can’t put it out there as these talented people can. keep posting interesting things that keep the discussion going as this one did…kutos to sloan!!!
Jun 02, 2007 @ 17:22
Alexandra
Thanks so much for posting this! I love neurology stuff like this, especially because I’m always trying to pick apart my own dance struggles. I am AWFUL at picking up choreography, but I used to be good at it when I was younger, so it drives me wild trying to figure out why this is. You are so right about dance being a language, complete with its grammar. I am hoping that someday, my “vocabulary” will just click and I’ll be able to deal with class combinations better. It takes years!
Jun 03, 2007 @ 03:02
Alexandra
Oh, also, check out this link about memory. It seems that after you spend time learning something new, your brain rewinds everything and settles the information into a more permanent form. It’s a lot like what you describe doing in between dancing at rehearsal, except your brain does it on its own, even when you’re vegging out.
http://www.livescience.com/health/060212_brain_reverse.html
Jun 03, 2007 @ 03:13
Kayla
This is really interesting. It is amazing how the brain works.
Nov 25, 2007 @ 00:18
Joshua
Wow!!! Just read an amazing book called “The Body Has a Mind of Its Own: How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do (Almost) Everything Better.” (Here’s the Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Body-Has-Mind-Its-Own/dp/1400064694/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195998301&sr=8-1 )
It will amaze everyone out there. As a former dancer myself I can appreciate this brilliant discussion and the book. I now teach Pilates and am doubly interested in the mapping of the body parts and the brain.
To answer the neuroscience grad students “can we learn faster?” The answer is a technical no. It takes the plasicity of the brain 14 days to “learn” something new. Case in hand in the book, a researcher was trying to teach a chimpanze how to use a rake to collect raisins. It didn’t matter how intense he worked with the mammal, it would always take 14 days for the brain to change to having “learned” how to use a rake. In essence for the body map of its hand to change. (Once you get into the book, you’ll go further with it.)
I also briefly read above that someone thought it made David look bad, becuase it took Angel Corella less time to learn the steps. That again comes down the body maps on their brain. Scientifically one shouldn’t look as at David in a bad way because it took him longer, look at his initial childhood training style, (note the style is key here. he obviously had great training in his youth, but it comes down to the styles of which he learned) could have made all of the difference in him, what one may percieve, to have learned slower.
My question is, “Does David consider his technique to be more Russian based, especiallly from his younger days?” And how diversely different was Angel’s training in Spain from when he was younger?”
Case in point, they are working with two different ways at approaching the information. Think of it simply as Angel’s brain runs on Apple’s Safari and David’s on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Both appear to do the same thing, collect and process information, but ultimately are wired differently and run on different platforms.
Meaning the different levels of information their brain takes in processes differently. Angel’s is also smoother maybe because he doesn’t have anything getting in his way. David may have simply been “overthinking.” He may have been getting in his own way. Working too hard. (Once you read the book and discover yips, which golfers develop and it ruins their career, you’ll grasp the “overthinking.” Chapter 5 - Plasticity Gone Awry, or When Body Maps Go Blurry.)
Another amazing story in this book which is pertinent for dancers and which I would have had during my career but now use in my Pilates training, is the story about ten stroke patients who all lost the ability to use their left arm. They separated the ten into two groups. Five of them went through your regular rehabiliation to rebuild their strength for the use of their left arm. The other group sat in front of a computer and watched a video clip of a hand moving in space on the motor. They would then “practice” what the hand or arm was doing in their mind for 25 minutes, 5 minutes at a time. The computer group would also use a mirror box. Which is a box in which the good hand goes into and the bad goes into and a mirror divides the two. The bad hand is blocked, while the good hand is visible. They would then move the right hand and in effect with the mirror “see” the left hand doing the same action. The amazing thing is, at the end of four weeks, both groups could pick up a cup and place in on a shelf. Note to self, the one group did nothing physical with their “bad” muscles, but where still able to pick up a cup. If that isn’t mind blowing, I don’t know what is. (Chapter 5 - p96 - 97.)
How does that relate to dancers? It justifies the use of the mirror at certain times. Feeling a straight arabesque and seeing one are two very important aspects to dance as we all know. The mirror helps us find what we need to feel. Then there is the imagery. The importance of seeing steps and practicing them. This is why I think rehearsals should always be recorded and available to watch and mentally review. The mental practice after the fact will take the “muscle” work that much further. Why do you think they do it in the NFL? As soon as play is over and somethings gone wrong, they are reviewing what happened with a physical picture of the field to help the mental spacial picture of the mind for next time.
Overall, you have to get this book. It is amazing. And will change the way you approach dance, rehearsals, physical and mental, marking your steps, and breathing the music. Read the story about the darts. I’m gonna leave this one out so you at least go to Barnes and Noble and read this chapter. It is Ch. 4 - The Houmunculus in the Game, or When Thinking Is as Good as Doing.
Since this discussion started off the enjoyment of mirror neurons, which are the candy of this book when it comes down to it, that is Ch. 9 - Mirror, Mirror, or Why Yawning is Contagious. The story about the monkey will amaze you and scientifically explain why the 93 year old man above still feels the dance. And why when were not onstage anymore, we still feel the dance and always will.
(Authors of the book are Sandra Blakeslee and Matthew Blakeslee.)
http://www.thebodyhasamindofitsown.com
Nov 25, 2007 @ 14:35
thewinger.com » The Magic of Clara
[...] Joshua on This is Your Brain on Dance [...]
Nov 25, 2007 @ 18:33