Two adjudicators disagree about stillness and pedestrian movement
At a regional secondary schools dance competition, two adjudicators give very different scores to the same six-minute work. The work opens with 40 seconds of near-stillness, includes a three-minute section of pedestrian walking and spoken text, and ends with a short burst of virtuosic turning. Adjudicator A scores technical execution 6/10 and writes that the work 'lacks sustained dance content'. Adjudicator B scores technical execution 9/10 and writes that the work shows 'excellent control and clarity of intent'. The published criteria are choreographic intent, performance quality, technical execution, and communication to audience. The choreographer's teacher wants to lodge an appeal, arguing that Adjudicator A misunderstood the work. The competition rules allow an appeal only on procedural grounds, not on disagreement with a judge's artistic judgement.
1. Analyse the source of the disagreement between the two adjudicators. Refer to the rubric criteria and the work's structure.
Read the worked answer
The disagreement is about what 'technical execution' means, not about the work's quality.
- Adjudicator A appears to read 'technical execution' as codified dance technique: turnout, extension, elevation, pirouettes. On that reading, 40 seconds of stillness and three minutes of walking score low because there is little to measure.
- Adjudicator B appears to read it as control and clarity across whatever movement is present: sustained focus, breath, ensemble timing, the ability to hold a still shape without fidgeting, and the precision of pedestrian timing. On that reading, the stillness and walking are technically demanding.
Why both can be defensible: the rubric separates technical execution from performance quality and communication, but stillness and pedestrian movement blur those categories. A dancer can be performing technically while doing very little, and the rubric does not say which reading is correct.
What this means for the choreographer: the work is not necessarily misunderstood; it is being read through a different technical lens. The 40 seconds of stillness will only read as technique if it is visibly active - breath, eye focus, micro-adjustments, and a clear start and end. If it reads as waiting, Adjudicator A's score is understandable.
2. Advise the teacher on whether to appeal. Justify your advice using the competition rules and the likely consequences.
Read the worked answer
Advice: do not appeal on the grounds that the judge misunderstood the work.
- The rules allow appeals only on procedural grounds. 'The judge interpreted the work differently from me' is a disagreement with artistic judgement, not a procedural error. An appeal would likely fail and could damage the school's relationship with the competition.
- A better use of the energy is to request feedback, if the rules allow it, and to read the written comments carefully. Adjudicator A's comment - 'lacks sustained dance content' - is useful information about how the work reads to one trained viewer. It does not have to be accepted as truth, but it should be taken seriously.
- Distinguish 'misunderstanding' from 'different interpretation'. The choreographer can argue that the stillness is intentional and technically active, but she cannot argue that the judge had no right to weigh it differently.
If there is a procedural issue - for example, the judge did not see the whole work, or the scores were added incorrectly - then an appeal is appropriate. Otherwise, the mature response is to use the feedback and strengthen the work for the next opportunity. The teacher should also protect the choreographer from the idea that a low score means the work has failed.
3. Propose how the choreographer could strengthen the work for future performance without compromising its concept. Explain how each change addresses the perceived weakness.
Read the worked answer
Strengthen the work without abandoning its concept:
- Make the stillness active. Give the 40 seconds a score: a shared breath count, a slow shift of weight, a focus point that changes. The audience should feel the dancers holding something, not waiting for the next section. This directly addresses 'lacks sustained dance content' without adding steps.
- Give the walking a clear structure. Pedestrian movement reads as technique when it has precision: exact tempo, spatial pattern, canon, or a rule that the dancers follow. If the walking is loose, it reads as filler; if it is scored, it reads as choreography.
- Time the text. Spoken text can be part of the choreographic rhythm - overlapping, cutting off, or landing on a movement accent. This strengthens communication to audience.
- Build a transition into the turning. The final virtuosic burst can feel like a separate add-on. Prepare it earlier with a motif that returns, so the turns read as release rather than a bid for technical marks.
Principle: the work should not become more conventional. It should become more legible. The concept stays; the craft of communicating it improves.