[edudobay]

I think the analogy is clear when I think of it as: - Orchestration brings the idea of a conductor, who is the main reference for "what should we do" among orchestra players. - Choreography brings the idea of dancers in sync without the need of a central conductor.

[thaumasiotes]

> Choreography brings the idea of dancers in sync without the need of a central conductor.

Try that and let me know how it works.

In reality, the dancers are of course synced by the music, dependent on the same conductor as the orchestra.

And on top of that, orchestration isn't the conductor's job. It's the composer's (or arranger's) job, putting it exactly parallel to choreography. The orchestrator, like the choreographer, determines who does what and when they do it, and he does it in advance. Most typically, years or centuries in advance. The conductor determines how fast the clock runs.

[seadan83]

Interesting. A counter example, WWE (wrestling) is choreographed. The wrestlers react to the cues of the other wrestlers. It's not necessarily based on time or music, but instead a pre-agreed sequence.

I think the catch is that not all cues need to be time based and that is the distinction. In orchestration, there is one source for cues - the orchestrator.

The difference I think speaks to orchestration where the players get their cues from one source, while choreography has different source(s) for cues (time/tempo perhaps being one of them)

[thaumasiotes]

> In orchestration, there is one source for cues - the orchestrator.

Just to be clear, everyone's talking about the conductor, who keeps time for the orchestra, but conductors don't do orchestration. The orchestrator is the person who wrote the score.

[seadan83]

Good point, for the analogy, I should have written conductor instead of orchestrator. The point remains though that the difference is in the source of synchronization.