The Role of Core Strength in Jumping

Well, yeah, core strength is important for a lot of things, not just jumping, but let's just deal with launching one's self into the air for today, shall we?

I have had a number of gymnasts as students, and pretty much every one of them could jump, some spectacularly. Getting right to the point, it's because of their core strength. Twisting, flipping, all that, requires IMMENSE core strength. If your core is strong, solid, well-held, the force generated by your legs will go into lifting you off the floor, not in flexing your body.

Think of it this way: You can't push cooked spaghetti. 

If you stretch out a strand of cooked spaghetti (sauce optional) and push one end of it, the other end doesn't go very far. The whole thing bends, folds up, and your effort goes into that, instead of moving the spaghetti. Now, if you push the end of a strand of un-cooked spaghetti (put the sauce away), the whole thing is going to move, because none of your force went into bending it.

The same for jumping.

If some of the force of your legs goes into bending your body, it is lost as far as jumping is concerned. One of my former students, Megan Smith, took off like a rocket, because her core was so strong, none of the leg force was dissipated by her body bending.

If you strengthen your core by doing things like cambre really properly, some extra ab work, and by consciously holding your center, you'll jump higher.

See you in class.

I Hate Loud Noises, or, Why Do So Many People Hate Gaynor-Minden Pointe Shoes?

What do you think pointe shoes are for? To help you dance on pointe.

Why is a guy talking about pointe shoes? What does he think HE  knows about pointe shoes?

Okay, get over that prejudice, and let's move on to the prejudice in question, Gaynor-Minden pointe shoes.

Pointe shoe "technology" has pretty much remained unchanged sine the 1830's. Right there, everyone should take a step back (turned out, of course) and ask, how can we make these things better? Eliza Gaynor Minden did just that.

I first met her in NY in my chiropractor's office. I had heard about this woman who had designed an entirely new kind of pointe shoe. A couple of our ladies at the Joffrey were wearing them, and loved them. I said something to her like, "You're that woman! You're a genius! Why didn't someone think of this stuff before?!" Her new shoes were more comfortable than conventional pointe shoes, lasted FAR longer, and were quieter. There were enough different aspects to the shoe that 3,000 combinations of shank/box/vamp/heel could be made. The purists/diehards/old fogies screamed to all the ballet gods about how these were tanatmount to violating a religious icon. They were "plastic", they were "cheaters", they would ruin your technique. (Please go to http://dancer.com/profiles.php to see the dancers these shoes have ruined).

That was almost twenty years ago, GMs are worn around the globe by some amazing dancers, and STILL teachers, directors and dancers put them down.

This makes no sense to me.

I had one student who was having trouble with her pointe work. She went to The Dance Store, here in LA (best pointe shoe fitters in town), and was trying on several different pairs, when she put on some Gaynor-Mindens. She instantly liked them, and while she was doing some releves, a snooty dancer beside her said, those are such cheater shoes. My student turned to the fitter and said, defiantly, "I'll take these."

In the following weeks I watched as her leg shape changed, literally before my eyes. She got control of her turnout, she was able to get over the box of her shoe, her leg muscles lengthened because she wasn't gripping just to hold herself on pointe, all from these horrible cheater shoes.

Pointe shoes, by their very nature, are cheaters. They help you get on pointe and enable you to stay there. Shouldn't you be able to simply dance on your toes? Why do you need a shoe to help you? That's cheating! I'll just bet that when Marie Taglioni changed ballet forever, by going on pointe in those first very slightly reinforced pointe shoes, there were people who said, "See what weak feet she has? She needs help getting onto pointe! What a cheater!"

Yeah, just like wearing blades on your feet to skate, or skis to ski is cheating.

(If this begins to sound like a commercial for Gaynor Mindens, it's because I truly believe in them).

There are five shank strengths for GMs. The softest one will barely help you up; you have to have very strong feet to use it. Where's the cheating in that? The shoes are comfortable. What's so bad about that? They last incredibly long. For poor dancers, that's a great thing.

Conventional pointe shoes start to break down the moment you start wearing them. In fact, they have to be broken in to work properly, but then start to wear out right away. Here's the main problem with that. Every time you put on a conventional pointe shoe, it's slightly different. It is constantly breaking down, changing shape, losing strength, and forcing you to dance very slightly differently. This means you are not working on your technique the same way as you did or will. You have to do something 7,000-10,000 times correctly before your body really gets it. If you're doing different things every time you put your pointe shoes on, that is going to take a very long time.

Can you become a great dancer using conventional pointe shoes? Of course. Can you become a great dancer using Gaynor Mindens? Of course. What's the difference, then Jerry? I'm glad you asked. (Of course, I've already said why in this blog, but, I'm a teacher; repeating myself is part of my job. Repeating myself is part of my job. Repeating myself is part of my job. Shakespeare Rule of Three).

GMs are more comfortable (this, alone, might speed up the development of your point technique, simply because you're more likely to wear pointe shoes that are more comfortable more often and for longer periods of time, and the goal is to take all your ballet classes on pointe).

GMs are quieter. Your bourees won't wound like small arms fire, and no one will ask "Are their shoes made of wood?" Don't laugh; I have been asked that so many times I want to scream. There's one particular brand of pointe shoes that are so loud, the people at The Dance Store, if they find out you're my student, won't even show them to you.

GMs last for a long, long time. In fact, the only thing that really wears out is the satin. They are more expensive than regular pointe shoes, but they will last longer than many pairs of conventional shoes, saving money in the long run. (Parents, take note!)

Part two of the above: Since they don't wear out, they are the same every time you put them on, so you don't have to alter your training because your shoes are dying on you.

GMs allow the shoe to do its job, and you to do yours. You don't have to grip your leg muscles just to stay on pointe, you can use them to dance.

Are GMs for everybody? No, of course not. Dancers with long toes may have problems, even with the longer vamp, or you may simply not like the way they fit. That's cool. I tell my ladies that they must be the pickiest they have ever been about anything when trying on pointe shoes. If they don't feel as close to perfect as possible, move on to the next shoe. Pointe shoes are incredibly individual, that's why the dancer should be the one making the decision on what to wear, not the teacher. That bears repeating: The dancer should be the one making the decision on what to wear, not the teacher. Dancers should consult their teacher, by all means; we may be able to steer them to the right aspects of a shoe, three-quarter shank, longer wings, stronger or weaker shank strength, and so on, but the dancer has the final say. Some of my students actually wear the brand of pointe shoes I hate, (I gotta call The Dance Store and remind them) but I tell them, if they work for you, then I like them. I have to put earplugs in when they dance, but such is life, and no, their shoes are really not made of wood, they just sound that way.

I don't think everyone should wear GMs; I don't slavishly adhere to anything; each dancer is an individual, and must be treated as such. I do think every dancer should try GMs. You may love them or hate them, but do so because you have made an informed, personal decision, not because they have some stigma attached to them. I have seen how they have helped dancers dance better, and that is the hallmark of a good shoe. (Go look up prejudice, bigotry and related terms).

I just don't understand why some people are so against a shoe that could help the dancer dance better. If Mr. Joffrey and Mr. Balanchine were alive and someone asked them about GMs, I have a feeling they would both say, "If they make it easier for the dancers to dance on pointe, then why not use them? What do you think pointe shoes are for?"

Exactly.

See you in class.

J

Variations

Okay, there's a reason they're called "variations": pretty much every one is slightly different. Since most classical variations were choreographed before any form of video or film existed, no one really knows what the original steps were. Oh, some of what we see is very close, I'll bet. "Giselle", "Swan Lake", the big ones, are as close to the original choreography as we're going to get. "Variations" have crept in because dancers are different. Some are better turners, some better jumpers, some do one trick REALLY well.


That being said, if a variation has what you do well in it, go for it. If it doesn't, there are some alterations (can't use that "v" word too much) you can make, or contingency plans. I won't criticize any young lady for having a plan B in her tutu if the hops on pointe at the end of Giselle's first act variation don't go off exactly as planned.

What I will criticize is a dancer who keeps doing the same trick in every variation they do.

I was geeking out, watching ballet videos on YouTube, and clicked on one of my favorite male variations, Lankendem's in "Le Corsaire". It was being danced by this fantastic dancer who started with these gorgeous double back cabrioles-

SCREEEEEECCH!

...wait a minute...

If you aren't familiar with that particular variation, the opening jumps are different from other male variations; huge assembles, without beats, that land in grand plie in fifth position. Then the dancer explodes out of that grand plie into a big sissonne that turns so the step can be repeated to the other side. The movement compliments the music quite well. So, why did this dancer change the opening of this very stylized variation?

If you do something really well, like double back cabrioles, do Solor's variation from "La Bayadere". It starts with a series of cabrioles done en manege. Why change a variation when what you do well is in another? This dancer and his coach should be slapped upside the head! Just because you can do one thing really well, doesn't mean it should be in every variation you do. I've seen a number of variations danced by this guy, AND THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME!

SLAP!

Now, as ballet evolves, and technique improves, some steps can be expanded. The first time I saw Ivan Vasiliev do "Flames of Paris" he did a jump I'd never seen before. Well, not never seen, but I had only seen it done with one and a half revolutions; he did it with two full revolutions. That may not seem like much, but it was an revolution evolution (sorry, couldn't resist). This didn't change the choreography, it took it to a higher level. Had he changed the final diagonal to a manege just because he wanted to do a favorite step, then he and I would have to have a talk (yeah, right; I'm sure he's shaking in his ballet boots about that).

At the recent YAGP regionals, I had the opportunity to see many different variations of variations. Some were obviously done with respect to the abilities of the particular dancers, and that's fine; if you can't do two perfect outside attitude turns en pointe, but you can do one beautifully, rolling down through your foot with great control, it's not going to ruin "Black Swan". If you can't throw the 540, but you can nail those double tours to fourth, your "Don Q" is going to be great. If, however, you take out two thirds of the turns at the beginning of Swanhilda's variation from "Coppelia", and just toss in some ridiculously easy steps instead, WHY DO THAT VARIATION?!? DO YOU THINK NO ONE NOTICED?!?

This brings me to the other side of this argument. Up till now, I've been riffing on putting in a pet trick and how that is stupid; now, I'm going to get on my high horse about levels of technique.

For a competition, (or just to have a variation in your back pocket that you can do at a moment's notice should the need arise), you should, 1. Pick a variation you really like (one young man at the YAGP said he hated his variation. Guess what? He didn't do it very well, and he's a good dancer), and 2. Pick one you can do fairly well. Yes, you should always challenge yourself; that's not what I'm getting at. Let me be very specific.

I was watching a competition on YouTube (I told you I was a geek), and several guys were doing Albrecht's second act variation from "Giselle" (as opposed to Albrecht's second act variation from another ballet... a little ballet humor there...). It starts out with double front cabrioles across the stage. Double. Not single. Double. If you can't do double, there is another "variation" that is acceptable, six ouvert (a rose by any other name would come from another syllabus), which is easier than double cabriole, but only slightly less spectacular and, believe me, that opening diagonal has GOT to be spectacular. Albrecht is being forced by Myrtha to dance to his death; single cabrioles ain't gonna cut it.

Not one, but many guys were doing single cabrioles. NOOOOOOOOO! If you can't do doubles, DON'T DO A VARIATION THAT REQUIRES THEM! These guys were good dancers, and could probably have done a great job with the male variation from "Black Swan" for example, or Blue Bird, or ones from "Le Corsaire", but NOOOOOOOO, they had to do "Giselle". Guys, guys...

The Ancient Greeks said, "Know Thyself". Clint Eastwood said, "A man's got to know his limitations." He also asked, "Do you feel lucky?" Where am I going with that... Anyway, know what you can do. Push yourself, yes, but in a competition, or pressure situation, put your best (turned out) foot forward, and don't change the choreography to fit your tricks. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, the perfect variation for you already exists, and it's out there on YouTube. Join us geeks and you can find it!

See you in class.

J

Flat feet and questions

No, this isn't a blog about fallen arches, or high arches, or any arches at all, really. It's about what you do with those arches.

I was musing about ballet, the other day (I'm a geek), and came up with something that I think we all know, but sometimes don't really think about.

When dancing, your feet should be flat on the floor as much as possible.

Well, duh, Jerry.

Not so duh as you might think.

Whenever you plie, are you making sure you don't roll onto your big toe, every time? I wasn't the best dancer out there, but I tried to be very diligent about what little technique I had. One time, my sister and a friend had come backstage at the Kennedy Center (okay, so I drop names...) and were chatting with me as I was doing my warmup barre. My sister's friend looked at my feet and said, "Wow, you don't roll in at all." I also didn't have a knee injury in my 18 years as a dancer. You know when I got my first knee injury? Teaching. (Wasn't warmed up properly, did something I shouldn't. Don't worry; I'm better now).

I came to this conclusion about feet flat on the floor when re-reading a book on Balanchine technique (more on that, later).

I have a theory about teaching: Simple is better. I try to make things simple. Teachers (anyone) who make things overly complex are doing their students a disservice. The way I look at it, is this: Someone who tells you something is VERY complex and will take YEARS to understand is trying to take your money. I tell my students, ballet is simple. It really is. What it isn't, is easy. It is very difficult. That's why it takes years to get really good.

It's like chess. You can learn the moves of all the men in about 15 minutes, probably less. Get really good? A lifetime. True masters at anything are always learning, always evolving, always asking questions.

That brings me to my next point.

George Balanchine.

I was lucky enough to study at SAB.

Mr. B. was brought up in the old Russian school, but helped to lead ballet into the 20th century. He created Neo-Classical Ballet. He wasn't satisfied with what ballet was, felt there were better ways to learn, dance and teach, and questioned what he had been taught. He came up with whole new ways to do tendu, to shift weight, to dance. When he started his Neo style, he was criticized by many old teachers as being, simply, wrong. This did not stop him. He knew ballet must always be an art that grows, or it will die. It is performed by living, breathing artists, and they must always be growing. An actress on a set said a high school teacher of hers (whose name I, unfortunately, do not know) told her, "You're born, you learn, then you die."

Think about what that means.

When you stop learning, you die.

We should always be learning. That is why some of the things I learned at SAB I agree with whole-heartedly, and some I don't. I have one of the best ballet books ever written on Balanchine technique, by Suki Schorer, a brilliant dancer and teacher. It is amazingly detailed, and extensive. Every dancer should read it.

We should also question it.

I'm a Sagittarian, so I question a lot of things in my search for the truth. I do not question just for the sake of being a rebel; that doesn't make any sense to me. Do not be a rebel without a cause; that makes you a rebel without a brain. If something doesn't make sense, of course, ask. If your teacher, or whoever, cannot explain it, maybe you are the one who will find the truth about it, whatever it is. Maybe you will find a new way to teach pirouettes, or jumps. Who knows? Balanchine didn't when he was young, but it became his life's work.

Reading Ms. Schorer's book, I found some things that contradict each other, and some that simply don't make sense. I have taken these things and, in a tribute to Mr. B. and his quest for ballet truth, dissected them and found better ways to teach them.

BLASPHEMY! BURN HIM!

Let me say here that anyone who slavishly adheres to one syllabus, even Mr. B.'s, does an injustice to him. He questioned. Why can't we? Wasn't a quest for the truth behind what he was doing? Shouldn't ballet continue to grow into the 21st century? If we robotically teach only what Mr. B. said, we deny his work. Ballet stops, somewhere in the 1970's. When Stanley WIlliams came to NY to teach at SAB, his style was different from Mr. B.'s. After a while, Stanley started to teach more like Mr. B. and Mr. B. started to teach more like Stanley, so you see, Mr. B. was constantly adapting, constantly growing, constantly questioning, EVEN HIMSELF!

My teaching style has elements from every syllabus, because every syllabus has something important to say, and every syllabus has trained and will continue to train, fantastic dancers. I believe that every ballet dancer should explore every other ballet syllabus, just like they should explore every other type of dance. You don't have to like everything, but you should know something about other forms, if only so you can know what you don't like. You also never know what you'll be asked to do in your career. In "Rodeo" we all had to do a time-step, travelling in a circle, backwards, around another dancer. I really wish I had taken tap before that, so I wouldn't have had to fake it.

The whole point of this is that dancers, as all artists, should be constantly learning. I'm still learning (remember the whole flat feet thing?) Mr. Joffrey encouraged us to go see other forms of dance, to museums, poetry readings, anything that would help us grow as artists. Learn, explore, question, or, in Latin, Discere, Explorare, Quaestio.

Maybe that should be above the door to every ballet studio.

See you in class.

J

Ballet Competitions

Thank heaven my career did not hinge on my performance in a competition, or I would be writing a blog on archaeology or whatever field I would have gone into.

Or not.

No dancer's career hinges on their performance in a competition.

There, that's all I need to say.

Need to, but I want to say more.

I am currently co-coaching seven young ladies for the upcoming YAGP regionals. Each one of these wonderful students has learned a lot about themselves as dancers and people in the course of their preparation for the competition. They have all spent hours and hours working on their variations in the studio, and hours and hours stressing about their variations at home, in the car, in school and in their dreams. They've all improved because of the work they are doing, now; the actual competition is almost meaningless. I say "almost" because there is a definite point to the actual performance of their variations in the cauldron/gladiatorial arena of the YAGP. Setting a goal, prepping costumes, makeup, music, planning to "peak" for the performance, all these things are important for their careers. The meaningless part is the result of competing. If someone offers you a job because they saw you, awesome! If you place well and go to the finals in New York, fantastic! If you win, you get money AND a job!

So, what happens if none of that happens?

Nothing. Okay, there will be tears, frustration, maybe even throwing and breaking things. I have consoled some dancers who have not done well; they're dancing professionally now, and that had nothing to do with the competition.

Nothing. No one is going to see you in an audition in the future and say, "Oh, you didn't do well in the YAGP, so we don't want you." They won't know and won't care.

Every dancer who goes to the YAGP has already won. Every dancer. The time they've spent working on their variation has been well spent. The effort has been well worth it. They have learned, matured, gotten stronger and better.

In the competition, there are dancers who treat it like life or death. They're 15 going on 40. They look at other dancers like a hungry wolf looking at other predators who are going to steal their food. I'm not certain, but I think I've heard some of them growl. All the joy of dance has been drained from them. Before they dance, all the ladies in an age group are on stage at the same time. This is supposed to be time used to warm up, to prepare yourself, but with the stage packed with people, there really is nothing you can do. One of my former students, now dancing with Grand Rapids Ballet, Hannah Wilcox, had the perfect attitude for a competition. When all the other young ladies were trying to do fouettes, or trying to psych each other out, Hannah just stood in a corner of the stage, watching with a "You're kidding, right? You think you're intimidating me with your $2000 tutu?" expression on her face, then just turned and walked away. None of that silliness bothered her; she was very professional about it, just did her variations and had a great time.

My hope for our ladies is that they have fun, dance to the best of their abilities, and are proud of the work they've done to get to the competition. I don't care where they place; to me and their other coaches, they have already won.

See you in class.