Garyecht

I’m not sure I can really identify when I “started” to watch ballet. Depends on how that is defined. I know my first sight of ballet was when I was young, perhaps 10-12 years old, seeing ballet on television. I don’t recall the programming, but I clearly remember being attracted to the jumps and turns, particularly those by males, like me. I have to admit to this day, I tend to watch male dancers more than females, perhaps because I’m male. I also recall later in life, again being exposed to ballet on television, reacting to those old romantic ballets. I hated them. I saw them as pointless relics from 100 years ago—museum pieces as they say. Today, though I wouldn’t say that I hated them, neither would I pay money to see them. My first live performance I do remember being attracted to the theatricality of the production as a whole and the connection between the movement and the music. The work was all contemporary, costuming grand for the major piece, and though I was just a beginning ballet student at the time, I thought the dancers were terrific (it was a regional company production).

Just returned from the library, where I picked up 3 books of short stories—one by Joyce Carol Oates, one by Thomas Wolfe, and the third a collection that, quite frankly, I can’t remember. In my old age I’m regressing back to childhood and have to have my bedtime story. Only problem is that I usually fall asleep before finishing. Just recently I realized how much my math and physics skills have deteriorated, so I’m starting to read some math and physics books, popular books rather than textbooks. Nothing really heavy duty. My mind needs the exercise. Every season I make it a point to read some dance related book. This fall, however, I have absolutely nothing in mind. I’m considering getting a Spanish dance how-to, history, or even dictionary because I’m going to take up Spanish dance next year. Thinking about reading Doris Humphrey’s autobiography too. Just scanning the Princeton Book Company catalogue, the following are possibilities: Moving Music: dialogues with music in twentieth century ballet; Inside Tap (want to do that also). I don’t know. To be honest, I’m not that enthusiastic about dance as a subject for reading. If I had to make a choice right now, I’d get Doris Humphrey’s autobiography. This last summer, I read quite a few art history books and will probably continue. Those I get from the library. I tend to bring home those with relatively many pictures and few words. For pure guilty pleasure, right now I’m hot for Perry Mason stories. Though I’m a slow reader, they are a fast read and once I get one home, I am glued to the couch until I finish.

I see a parallel between ballet and classical music in this regard. For some reason that I cannot fathom, many people seem to prefer the museum pieces to contemporary work. These same people often have a great deal of contempt for new work it seems. I know one of things I feel really good about is my “discovery” of contemporary classical music. I always knew I had no interest in the old Romantic ballets, and found only the more contemporary ballets held my interest. A similar thing has occurred for me with respect to classical music, though unlike ballet I do like the classical music museum pieces also. I was lucky I guess in that my classical music radio station does occasionally play contemporary classical music. I know they lead me to the Naxos label for recordings and they have many recordings of more contemporary composers (at least 20th century composers). Just last Monday on the St. Paul Orchestra radio concert, the program was entirely a John Taverner program with the debut of a new piece. I don’t know if it was a live or prerecorded concert, but I’m sure it was a 21st century concert nonetheless. Three cheers to my local classical station. It’s a treasure.

I think when you are a big record company, that 2% is so small you don’t consider it. And it shows in what they produce. But other companies emerge and find a way to produce something profitably that is really good. In classical music recordings, there is Naxos, for example. Yes, you have probably never hear of the performers or the music for that matter, but the quality is excellent and the price terrific. And there is a bonus—you learn there is a whole lot of really terrific music that you (well, I anyway) have never heard before.

A famous line--there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. As one who has a statistics background, I can tell you that 90% of statistics reported in the popular media have some major problem. Usually writers pick some number from some source that substantiates whatever message is being conveyed. For example, regarding the 11.6% of people who say they attended a classical event in 2002, the key is to know what is meant by a “classical event” and how they got the information. Is hearing Stars and Stripes forever at the Fourth of July fireworks attending a classical event? Is attending a classical event equivalent to buying a ticket to a symphony concert? And those 17,000 people “polled.” Are they a random sample? Personally, I believe classical music has become less popular (in terms of record sales and radio station formats) because of the growing segmentation of the entertainment market rather than as a result of anything that the classical music business is doing or not doing. There are just more things competing for entertainment dollars now than there used to be. With regard to ticket prices, I would love to see lower ticket prices and believe I would go to more performances if ticket prices were lower. But in general, ticket prices are almost mathematical. There are expenses that have to be paid and the goal of the company is to maximize revenue. Revenue is the product of ticket price and attendance. In general, higher prices decrease attendance and lower prices increase attendance. But for a concert, would lowering ticket prices increase attendance by enough to increase overall revenue? You don’t really know until you try. And what if it doesn’t? Very risky, which is why I don't think it is often tried.

I didn’t start dancing until age 50. I had competed in sports, often at a very high level, every year since age 10, and I have always enjoyed music, so I found the notion of moving to music very attractive. Started as a competitive ballroom dancer, which is a mixture of sport and dance, and at age 52 took my first ballet class. Took it because I knew I had no talent, and wanted to compensate for that by having as broad based experience in dance as possible. Clearly I have no professional aspirations. I both admire professionals and at the same time question their judgment. I mean from a long-term financial perspective, being a professional dancer is among the worst occupational choices one can make. Those who make that choice are to be admired for pursuing something they must love, throwing all practicality aside. I know I could not do that even if I were a talented teenager. With respect to the questions. >>Do they see themselves improve or do they stay at the same level? Just as an aside, with respect to developing physical skills, 90% of people have reached their maximum level of technical skill in any physical activity after about 8-10 years. The good thing about dance is that it is not just a physical skill. There is an esthetic side, emotional side, and musical side that I believe continues to develop throughout life. Personally, the only thing I have ever cared about, whether it be professional, sport, or dance is improvement and development. You cannot do anything about your status relative to other people. The only thing you can do is to try to be better. Also the dance world is huge. Ballet is just a very very small part of the dance world. There is more to learn about dance as a whole, both from a technical and mental point of view, than any one human can possible learn. >>I would like to know what they derive from the lessons. It is never constant and depends on the lesson. If I do unusually well in my mind, it feeds my ego and affirms my progress. Sometimes it is just a very pleasurable experience in itself. Other times, it lets me know what I have to work on. It gives me things I work on outside of class. At times it depresses me. At times I feel good that I leaned some technical or musical thing. >>Is it a "downer" to see the young students in the class move to a more advanced level? An advantage of being older is that you don’t compare yourself with those who are younger. In fact, I always go a little out of my way to say some nice things to younger male dancers. They need it a lot more than I do. >>Do they get tired of the classes? Tired, no. As I said sometimes depressed (how can I possibly be as bad as I am?), but I’ve learned to deal with that. And I do admit to being rigid—just keep going to class. >>Do they get bored? When you are struggling to remember the combinations, you are not bored. Frustrated occasionally, but not bored. And for some reason, ballet combinations are more difficult for me to learn than are jazz or modern combinations. I think that’s because compared with most jazz and modern movements, ballet movements are so unnatural, and I know my mind goes through the step of hearing the (odd because I don’t know French) names of the steps, then translating them into movements rather than simply seeing the steps and doing them. Fast petite allegro combinations take me about 10 tries to get I’ve learned. Makes no never mind if the combination is easy or difficult. >>Does it exhilarate them? Exhilarate, no. A good class just gives me a strong sense of satisfaction. >>It takes so much work; why do they do it? Life without challenges is pretty boring I would say. And things that come easy are not very self-satisfying either.

I admit I don’t care much for story ballets and especially story ballets where the story is well known. I also don’t care for dance productions that are specifically for film or television. Having said that I did enjoy Othello. Richardson made a great Othello though there were times, whether due to the choreography or the dancing, I thought he could have been stronger. Tan and Maynard were both excellent I thought. Sets were very good. The score didn’t bother me. I kinda liked it in fact. And contrary to Victoria, I thought the first Desdemona-Othello pas was one of the lesser moments. I remained awake and alert throughout despite having a physically challenging day, which for a story ballet is good for me. Not my favorite, but very entertaining.

As one who has spent a lifetime in the standardized testing business and the education world I can tell you that comparing things like literacy and ranking countries is like taking apples, pears, and oranges and ranking them as fruit. Makes no sense. Makes no sense with literacy because the tests and how the tests are administered are not comparable. Besides, the question is irrelevant anyway. The variation in reading ability and practice within a country is unbelievably huge in comparison to the variation between countries. Every country has both its literary elite and those who just don’t read very well and don’t like to read. Reading ability is something that people generally develop over time. It doesn’t happen just in school, but continues throughout life. Adults also love to wring their hands over inadequacies of the younger generations, apparently unaware that they themselves have continued to develop their abilities after leaving school. But the fact is that reading ability in the US as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (probably the most valid overall reading assessment) shows that reading ability of students has remained essentially the same ever since the assessments began in the 70s. If you want a contrary opinion or you are a Republican, you can even argue that because of Bush’s education program, students are reading better and better. In most states, scores on state reading tests are increasing. (So why doesn’t the most valid assessments confirm this the cynic in me asks.) I have the sneaking suspicion that kids are pretty much kids whether they are American, German, Finish, Japanese, Indian or whatever. Entrechat, tour l’air, and sissonne from my soap box.

We had both music and art classes from grades 4-8. If my recollection is correct we either had each one every day or they alternated days. That was a long time ago. Had a wonderful elementary school music teacher for grades 4, 5, and 6. She also taught arithmetic. She tried to encourage everyone to play an instrument. I remember really wanting to play the drums in 4th grade, but my mother wouldn’t let me. She didn’t want the noise in her house. Though my father had played the trombone in his youth, my family was essentially non-musical. My elementary school teacher was very good at recruiting musicians. I recall her school orchestra had three violin players and that was from a pool of about 150 students. Everyone was required to audition for the school chorus, a frightful experience for a male whose voice was changing. We read biographies of Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and a few other composers. Each year the local symphony orchestra would play a concert for elementary school kids. Our teacher made us practice listening to the music they would play. I think we probably heard each piece they would play 4-5 times before the concert. We always took great pride in knowing when to clap as I recall. Art and music in 7th and 8th grades were uninspiring. But then of course not much inspires 7th and 8th grade students. I do remember doing square dancing in 6th grade PE class. My recollection was that we either had PE and recess every day or they alternated. We also had social dance in PE in grades 7-9. What I find so interesting about all of this is that compared to students today, we had a lot more music, art and PE. I graduated from high school in 1962. You know the graduating class with the highest SAT scores ever was the class of 1963. We were just a tad behind them. I guess all the art, music, and PE didn’t hurt us much academically.

To address Mel’s point about 5-year olds on pointe, offering tap, hip hop as a means to get people into ballet, I think it really depends on the studio owner’s aim. Ignoring the obviously dangerous stuff like 5-year olds on pointe, no one can serve the whole market, and so the notion of “doing whatever any parent wants” isn’t an aim at all or is it really serving the market at all. An aim has to be more specific than that. For someone like Mel, it would seem that an appropriate aim might be created around simply providing a ballet education, for example. That could certainly have a recreational focus. And offering things like tap or hip hop might be inconsistent with an aim of providing a ballet education. Another studio owner might go for tap, hip hop, or something that is more popular. He or she might have a little introductory ballet class, but if that owner knows his or her aim, the most profitable part of the business will come from tap and hip hop, and most of his or her students will gravitate there. I see nothing wrong with that either. No single studio or school can do it all. Parents and students seem to learn that and they can change schools as they better understand what they are seeking in a dance experience.

Garnet’s point about financial incentives is a good one I think. In the business world, financial incentives seem to be the rage. I know one company I used to work for uses them extensively now (they had none when I was there). But I will argue that when they are as garnet quoted from the article, they actually harm the business in the long run whether the business is a dance studio or a factory. The problem with immediate financial rewards such as a bonus for reenrolled students is that it encourages the teacher or whomever to ignore the aim of the school and do anything to get the bonus. That is just dangerous to the long-term prospects, both professional and financial, of the studio. I’m not saying that all teachers would do that, but given a long enough time, it is almost sure that eventually one will harm the school as a result of the bonus policy.

Clearly, the intended audience for this article is the studio owner. And the aim of any school is going to determine approach and content of the education that goes on in the school. In fact, I would argue that the first task, and most important task, that any educational enterprise should engage in is to understand its aim, why it is in business. Most parents send their kids to dance, or martial arts for that matter, not because they think they are going to dance professionally, or get in a bunch of fistfights, but because the activity has intrinsic value in and of itself. So most of the market is recreational. Ignoring the market or competing in a market that is already over saturated (what percentage of students in pre-professional dance programs go on to have professional careers?) is not the way to survive for most people. And as others have said very well, just because a program is not aimed at developing professionals, it doesn’t mean that that professionalism in instruction is relaxed. No one intentionally provides schlock. Being a person who is in business for myself, I can attest that the financial side of any business is as important as the nature of the service you provide or the product you make. I thought fendrock and Treefrog’s comments were right on the money.

Thanks Grace. Some of us are so rigid, we think we can only use the music as specified on the CD.

I’m not a teacher but I have purchased several Ballet Class CDs for home practice. Every Ballet CD I have ever heard has significant deficiencies in my mind. But then we all don’t like the same music anyway and I certainly don’t qualify as a music critic. I would like to give a little commercial for one that I bought not too long ago. It is called Dance Class: New music for barre & center. It is produced by Antoinette Peloso (who is also a dancer), with the music played by Whit Kellogg. I bought it at Discount Dance for about $27 as I recall. It was their most expensive Ballet CD at the time. What I like about the CD is the length of the tracks and the order in which they appear. The tracks are long, with most between 2 and 4 minutes, which I like very much. I like the organization too. You can just about start the CD and let it play continuously if you are practicing at home and know the combinations you are going to use that session. The music is different and refreshing. It is all opera music, which I also like very much. And Kellogg is an excellent pianist. Superb in my judgment, better than any other I’ve heard on CD. Tempos are appropriate, though the music for plies is a bit slow and the first petit allegro is a little fast. But I’m an old, fat, slow guy anyway, so I really don’t hold that against the CD. The second petit allegro is much more to my liking. Meters and counts are given for each exercise. Some are repeated with a pause to change side, which is great. Others have the repeat as continuous, which isn’t so cool. My counts don’t all agree with theirs either. And some of the tracks are really really long. Take for example grand battements—128 counts. That is 64 per side with an immediate repeat. That’s just too long for the normal grand battements. But I’ve learned to work around this limitation. It turns out that there are 32 counts of what I’ll call traditional grand battements music and 32 counts of non-traditional grand battements music. What I have done is to do a traditional grand battements combination for the first 32 counts and then another combination that ends with turning to the second side for the next 32 counts. Generally I find ronds de jambre en L’air, petits battement, pirouettes, and balances work well with that second combination. Degage’s are long too—128 counts, a pause, then a repeat. For degage’s I’m pretty much repeating the combination just to fill out the music. Overall, I like this CD and recommend it to anyone. When I got it, first I would listen to each track and verify the counts. When you have a very long track, consider combining steps. I’ve found that I enjoy doing that, by the way.

I don’t think it is all that productive to compare ballet with other physical activities. My sense is we do that when we feel defensive, and I just don’t think we need to be defensive about anything. All physical pursuits have their demands and they are different. It is impossible to compare them. All you can say is that no matter what the activity, to perform at a very high level takes incredible talent, desire, and work. Actually, I don’t think suffering is necessarily a bad thing. I think most people who aspire to a high performance level have to endure a certain amount of suffering. How they suffer varies with the activity, but suffer they all do in some way. But just as taking steel and heating it until it glows, then plunging it in cold water, strengthens the steel, so too do I think a little suffering makes a stronger performer. A young male dancer may be teased about being a dancer. That may discourage a weaker willed dancer. But to really excel at dance, one has to be strong willed. Think of all of the effort it requires to learn good technique. Think of disappointment in not getting roles desired, audition parts, careers as desired. Those who are successful, you can bet are very strong willed, at least when it comes to dance. Personally, I think many of the battles a dancer fights and endures helps create that will.