These three styles seem very very similar to each other. Any one care to tell me the differences? Thanks. My studio calls it lyrical, but we don't really dance exactly to the lyrics. Thanks!!!!!

It depends on where you live. US or UK definitions?

Hmmm... I have a feeling that Panic will soon find this thread and supply his (correct) customary answer.

But, lyrical is something you apply to something. You can have lyrical jazz, lyrical hip-hop, lyrical ballet etc. but lyrical by itself is not a style - it's a way of doing something.

Lyrical is just dancing with emotion, as majere says it can be lyrical hip hop or lyrical jazz, you don't need to follow the lyrics with your choreography but you do portray the feeling of the music in your performance.

Modern and Contemporary are another kettle of fish.

In Europe Modern is Modern Stage, like Fosse style. In the US and here in Canada Modern is Cunningham, Graham, Limon and Horton techniques and others like that.

Contemporary, in Europe this is the Cunningham, Graham, Limon and Horton techniques and others like that, think London Contemporary Dance Theatre at The Place. In the US it's a mish mash of lyrically style dancing which is 'up to date' or Contemporary to now.

In short it's confusing!

I could be totally wrong but I thought modern and contemporary were pretty much the same (here in the States anyway). Some studios have both but there isn't a distinct differences between the two. And I thought lyrical was either a) dancing to the lyrics of the song or b) portraying the emotion of the song (which makes more sense then A). Like I said, I could be totally wrong.

**SA

There is no difference between the terminology in Europe and the US. If there were, we'd need different art history books for Europe and the US.

Modern is anything from like 1900-1970(ish) and contemporary is anything that came after that. That's the textbook definition that everyone on the planet agrees on.

But when you're talking about the names of dance classes and dance companies, all bets are off. Studios can call their classes whatever they want, and many studios and comps use the terms modern and contemporary interchangeably. As for the london contemporary dance theater, they performed original works choreographed in the 70s - which does make them contemporary. However the terms "contemporary art" and "contemporary dance" were very poorly defined (even worse than now) until the 80s.

Yeah, it's confusing. And worse, there is a lot of overlap. For example, hip-hop is technically a contemporary dance style because it was invented after 1970. No one disputes this. But most studios do not teach hip-hop in their contemporary classes. And strangely, the Graham school calls itself contemporary but the Graham company calls itself modern. Dunno how that happened.

I was going to refer you to the wikipedia page on contemporary dance (which used to be fairly informative), but now it sucks.

Having learnt at The Place I can tell you they where Graham and Cunningham based in the seventies and eighties, by your own definition that's Modern.

And the Modern Dance exams that everyone takes in Europe with the ISTD, IDTA, BBO, NATD and all of the other examination boards are not Graham or Cunningham or any other Modern or Post Modern technique, they are all Jazz or what is known as Modern Stage in Europe.

I've lived, danced and taught in both continents. There are language differences between the two continents and this is one of many many differences between European English and American.

The only definitions that are even remotely standardized are the ones that coincide with the Modern and Contemporary periods in Art History. And those definitions are universal. As I've said at least a BILLION times, the definitions of those words cannot be based on the names of dance classes or dance companies. They must be understood in the context of dance (and more generally art) history. This naming confusion has happened continually throughout history because artistic periods (which is what the terms modern and contemporary represent) are named retroactively.

Anyway, it is absurd to suggest that the terms "modern" and "contemporary" have a different meaning than when used to describe the rest of the art world. Frankly, it shows that most dancers (and dance teachers) know almost nothing about dance history and ABSOLUTELY nothing about art history. These are not dance terms. They apply to painting, literature, theater, sculpture, music, and every other form of art. But for some reason, my fine arts friends and my music friends all know exactly what the terms modern and contemporary mean. The fact that we have this same discussion OVER AND OVER again (even with dancers who have taught on two continents) really represents an appalling lack of historical context taught by our dance education programs.

I'm not disputing the dictionary definition of the words, but the colloquialisms that are used are a very real fact

www.istd.org . . .

www.idta.co.uk . . .

www.natd.org.uk . . .

and with the dictionary definition this style of dance also fits into the Modern category which is where the name, no doubt, has come from, because this style is also from after 1900 in Europe.

It has caused a lot of confusion on this board as I'm sure you will have noticed because people from Europe think this is the Modern Stage board. When girls post questions about their ISTD Grade Six Modern exam they are asking about a Jazz style, not a modern/contemporary style at all because that's what it's called there.

None of those links point to anything relevant to the discussion but whatevs. Except maybe the first one that says their modern theater syllabus was developed in the 1920s and 1930s. Which would indeed make it modern.

Yeah, my point is that these "colloquialisms" do not exist in fine arts, music, or theater. So that makes dancers look pretty stupid by comparison. To suggest that these terms have a concrete definition for all the fine and performing arts EXCEPT DANCE is absolutely ridiculous. And if you would read a British dance history book, you will find that the terms "modern" and "contemporary" are defined exactly as they are in a US dance history book. How many times do I have to say that I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NAMES OF DANCE CLASSES? Names of classes are arbitrary as are names of dance companies. I've said that at least 500 times.

Sorry for the highjack dancegirl300,

Panic, calling the rest of the dance world stupid isn't going to change the names of syllabi that have been established for 50 odd years or more. You are welcome to discuss this with the organisations involved, but you also have to accept that there are language differences.

You say hood, I say bonnet who's right or wrong?

Europe says Modern you say Jazz

If even the almighty Martha Graham company/school has their knickers in a knot over this one I think we all have to make our own minds up.

However it still won't change the fact that Europeans have Modern Stage and Contemporary and it will still cause confusions on this board.

You're just plain wrong. Find me any kind of art history book - NOT THE NAME OF A DANCE CLASS - to support your argument. You can't. And WOW, it's really weird that you're ok learning your dance history from the names of studio classes. You keep blaming this on colloquial differences, but that's simply not true. We have the same colloquial ambiguity in the US. You can find contemporary companies doing modern works and modern classes teaching contemporary dance. This has nothing to do with location. This has to do with lack of education.

And the fact that you bring up "the names of syllabi that have been established for 50 odd years or more" really tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Because (as I already said) the term "contemporary" did exist in the art world 50 years ago, but the current meaning (per art history books - not per names of dance classes) did not begin to emerge until the 1980s.

I'm just going to quote myself.

To suggest that these terms have a concrete definition for all the fine and performing arts EXCEPT DANCE is absolutely ridiculous.

Do you know anything about art history? Music history? And since I already know the answer to that question, how can dance teachers NOT know anything about music history? That blows my mind, since dance and music developed together and are performed together. Really, I'd love for you to explain how the terms "modern" and "contemporary" could have a different meaning in music and fine art than they do in dance. You can't because they don't.

Um...sorry to interrupt but I think the original post was asking about the differences in styles/classes not the differences between Europe and the States or time periods. (Although Panic did kind of relate the question by saying that studios call their classes whatever they want.) I think we kind of missed the point of this post here. But I'll just step back slowly now so no one bites my head off.

**SA

Oh please. The modern board is dead. Don't discourage people from posting.

Thank you for all of your discussing!!!! I think haha.

I'm just curious panic, what word (or words) would you use to describe the style of dance performed by companies such as Batsheva, DV8, La La La Human Steps, etc? I know you're not opposed to defining a dance style with a genre name. You did it in this thread with hip hop. I would say they are all contemporary companies and the genre of dance they perform is also contemporary. I use the word as both a period and a genre. Of course this is rather stupid, but we don't seem have a better word for the genre. I would hesitate to call a hip hop or jazz company contemporary, even if the work they were making was during the contemporary period. Although this would be largely to avoid confusing others.

You see, this is the issue with dance, it's a live art form, unlike painting or sculpture that once the art is completed, that's it, it will never change, it will always be in that time line. Dance is ever evolving and changing.

When we perform Swan Lake it might be based on the old, classical choreography, but it's a contemporary performance, performed in the present day and in the present style, not in anyway as Petipa visualised it.

When you see a Picasso, it is always a Picasso, a Modern piece of art. End of. He painted it, obviously, in his lifetime and if he didn't it's a fake. In performance art, it can be recreated after the lifetime of the creator and in different styles.

It's really only companies like The Graham Company that keep the pieces like a museum piece, exactly as they were visualised by the choreographer, with no contemporisation at all.

So where does that leave us? Do we need to close down all of the other forum's as most of the choreography discussed is contemporary or updated to a contemporary style, as in, no longer in the style of the choreographer?

^That is pure, unrefined snobbery. But let's just assume we can't compare dance to the fine arts. As I already said, music uses the terms modern and contemporary. Are you going to say we can't compare dance to music either? pfft.

As I've said a million times, contemporary ballet isn't contemporary. It's neo-classical.

Tamarin, as you can see in this thread, the terms modern and contemporary are ambiguous when used to describe a genre instead of a period. Actually, modern is fairly well-defined, but contemporary is a complete free-for-all.

Contemporary- It like ballet but more free, and emotional. It is newer then modern (LOL )

Modern- I dont really know its like contemporary but a bit older.

Lyrical- Dancing to the emotion and lyrics of the music

Hope that helps

I always thought, over the years, it was along the lines of this...


Lyrical - More balletic, fluid and gentle

Modern - More powerful, "jagged", with deep passion

Contemporary - Mesh of lyrical/ballet, modern and jazz. Sort of like a branching of the overall modern aspect of dance, unclassified, free for all, working with the current and the new. Since the term contemporary also apples to fashion, household design, art and so forth, I sort of see it that way. Hope that made sense!

Granted, of course I could be totally incorrect regardless lol I reckon many would disagree, so don't take any of that as pure fact. Just based on observation and experience with various dance schools (Plus I am also a History major)

On a side note, I find a reasonably big influence on this matter was So You Think You Can Dance. I remember the very early years, they defined each dance more intently. They categorized individual dancers within the fields of "Lyrical" and "Jazz" and so forth.


Since then, they brought everything together and just call it contemporary. Soon afterward, I noticed this question of dance differences appear much more frequently. Personally I wish they would go back to differentiating for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I would enjoy the uniqueness...


It's true that each studio calls it different anyway. The classes at my university call it Jazz/Modern, another school has seperate classes of modern and lyrical and defines them differently, and again another school at another town I drive by regularly only has contemporary. Could go on forever!


This is one of those topics that would hang around for a long time, for sure.

Ahh! This topic!! This is what I was originally writing my thesis on, and quit because I feel that it is a useless battle and dance really does not have the sufficient language to create such categories, which I was trying to define. Plus I have this internal battle with having to categorize everything, makes it all seem so arbitrary. But it is also in human nature to categorize. Contemporary is not even the correct word in my definition, as it implies the here and now. And just after I typed that the here and now is over. There are so many sides to this battle, and no one can be completely correct. You can't go into this discussion without defining all dance, and should dance be defined into little niches? Can it be defined? What happens in a world where everything begins to blend together and influence through things like the internet and youtube?

A colleague and I were having this discussion the other day. I am sure a purist in the post modern world would not like to have their work called "modern" as they were trying to move against modern dance, and we have in turn moved along from the post modern period. But then Sally Banes ("Terpsichore in Sneakers") has had to redefine what post modern is, and she has done the most eloquent job in my opinion. But it is still constantly shifting. What we say today may not be true in a month from now. What if we look at the early modern pioneers? What did they set out to do? Push boundaries, to create something new. What did the post modernists do? Push boundaries. What are we continuing to do today? Push boundaries. In that sense then it is all modern dance.

But then in contradiction I also think that modern dance was a very specific time period in dance. Cunningham is in a category all to himself. And since "contemporary" happened in the 70s and 80s, which looking at that type of dance style is completely different than looking at the dance that is happening now, what do we call today? Avant Garde? Grassroots? A la mode? A Mashup?

I don't know if this furthered the discussion at all, since really I have just talked myself in circles. But really, I don't think there is a right answer either way. Also what size company are we looking at? Because defining a small company vs defining a large company is different. Defining what your local studio calls something is different than defining what a large company does. When Pacific Northwest Ballet performs a Mark Morris piece, to the audience seeing the piece it is ballet. But what does Morris call himself as a choreographer?

Oh and Music and the Fine Arts most certainly have specific time periods and styles. One can play in a certain style of music, like classical like one does classical dance. Same with Jazz. And Pop Art? Cubism? Surrealism? Those are specific genres. In the Western since of the words.

Cubism, surrealism, and pop art are all MOVEMENTS that occurred during the modern PERIOD.

Contemporary is not even the correct word in my definition, as it implies the here and now.

So true. It was a stupid choice of words. But you can say the same for modern (which is no longer modern in the normal sense).

Haha, you are right. I really should sleep. I know modern is not the right word either. That is where the whole thing turns silly.

It is really hard to define the difference and go to any eisteddfod and see the confusion in terminology between dance schools.

In Australia, we don't typically use the word lyrical. We use Contemporary, Modern and Neo Classical.