Strength

How much is strength a part of your dancing? I believe your dancing should be equally divided between strength and technique. 50/50. Right down the middle.

I've been focusing, recently, on why some people turn well, while others don't. "I'm not a turner" you say. Okay, why not? I'm going to suggest it's because you're not strong enough. I'll bet you could teach someone the mechanics of turning. You could take one of the young students at your school and teach them the basics of turning. What your legs do, what your arms do and so on. so, you know what to do, and are probably diligent about trying to do it properly, but it still doesn't work.

You know that if you want to do 32 fouettés, you'd better be able to do 32 relevés on one leg, or it just ain't happening. A lot of times, you have the technique to do 32, but your leg gives out after, say, 16. When that happens there is nothing you can do about it. If your leg can't hold you up, you sure as heck are not going to turn on it.

I tell my students to watch videos of the Vaganova classes on YouTube. One of the things you'll notice is how slow a lot of their class work is. The reason you do things slowly is to build strength. The real test of your strength is how slowly you can do something. Ask those guys at the gym who are throwing the weights around, or bouncing them off the floor, to do the exercise slowly, and watch the fun! Most of them can't do it, which is why they're throwing the weight around in the first place. You do want to do things fast, of course, but to build strength, you have to do things slowly.

Doing basic exercises slowly, tendu, fondu, developé, plié (the most basic!), is the best way to not only build strength, but to also really understand the movement. You also have the time to work on proper placement,  protect your knees and back, and to blend the strength and the technique.

So, back to turning. You need to be strong, physically strong, to be able to hold your position, to lead with your knee (in a simple pirouette in retiré), to keep your relevé active, and to control the force you take. Most dancers need to take less force to turn, especially on pointe, but a lot of dancers simply aren't strong enough to deal with the force they do take. That force bends and twists their body, instead of going into the turn. If your core isn't strong, if you're not using the trailing side of your back to turn, then whatever force you take is going to be wasted.

One of the exercises I have my students do is to face the barre, and take a position on relevé in retiré, and improve it. Drive your standing leg into the floor, keep turning out your raised leg with your glutes, expend the chest, lift the sternum. It's a living growing, active position. Most dancers let the position deteriorate as they turn. As Matthew Dibble says, "Improve the position!" The great turners are amazingly solid in their turns. That only can come from great strength.

See you in class!

What is core strength?

So, here's another technique blog that will probably piss some teachers off.

You have to use your glute muscles. Yes, that means your butt. 

The glute/hamstring complex is the most powerful muscle group in the body. It's designed to bring your torso, 3/5ths of your body weight, to an upright position. It is also designed, like most of the muscle groups in your body, to be used in concert, not in isolation.

Many teachers will tell you to use your hamstrings at one time or another. It is very difficult to use your hamstrings (3 muscles), without using your glutes. Even if you are concentrating on using your hamstrings to lift your foot to retire, you'll still be using your glutes to turn out (more on that later).

Once, when I was injured, I was watching class like a good student. I decided to focus on the big jumpers to see what I could learn from them. Up till that point, I thought that the last step before a big jump in grand allegro was your deepest plié, since that was your takeoff. It seemed logical. Imagine my surprise when I saw that the actual knee bend on that last step, was minimal. Where did the power for the jump come from?

Now, in petit allegro, you use a lot more plié than in grand; it's a different kind of jumping. The force from grand allegro comes from the calf- the angle of the foot to the lower leg is greater than 90 degrees (or less, depending on which way you measure it, but the bend is substantial, either way)- the extension of the leg upon the hip, and the ballistic throwing of the leg and arms. The most powerful of those three components is the extension of the leg, or, the glute/ham complex. Look at the glutes of any good jumper; they're well-defined and powerful. Some dancers are blessed with that, naturally, others have to work for it, all can improve it. You have to use your glutes, properly, in ballet, or not only will you not have the power in your jump that you could have, you won't be turning your leg out. I think I went through this in another blog, but it bears repeating.

You can not turn your leg out using your inner thigh muscles.

There. I have just alienated about 90% of ballet teachers.

I don't care. I'm right.

Go learn anatomy. The muscles on the inside of the thigh can not turn your leg out. Sure the sartorius has some lateral rotational ability- very little, actually- but you can't isolate it and you wouldn't want to; it's not strong enough to work by itself. All the other inner thigh muscles, the pectineus, the adductor brevis, the adductor magnus, the gracilis, and two of the hamstring muscles medially rotate the leg, turn it in. In fact the adductor muscles, by their very name, tell you what they do; they adduct, they draw inward toward the median axis of the body. They turn you in.

The deep lateral femoral rotators turn you out. Their name says it. They are deep in your butt. Your gluteus maximus, the large surface muscle, also turns you out. Yes, the gluteus medius and gluteus minimus have some medial rotational ability, but they are over shadowed by the maximus and the rotators. They also are lateral hip stabilizers when you're standing. Your glutes also lift your leg to arabesque. Don't believe me? Lift your leg to arabesque. Now, have someone hold your leg while you relax your glutes. All relaxed back there? Good. Now, don't use them and have that person let go of your leg.

Yeah...

What has all this to do with core strength? Most people think core strength means your abs. I mentioned core strength in class and several of my students smiled and started mimicking crunches  or twisting exercises. When I told them that core strength means EVERYTHING AROUND YOUR 
CORE, they actually were surprised, then got that I've been doing it wrong look on their faces. They 
realized that they hadn't thought that their glutes were part of their core! If you only have strong abs, but your butt is flabby and weak, you do not have core strength.

You must train your glutes, you must use your butt. No, it won't get bigger- you're not using heavy weights or doing barbell squats- it will get stronger and more defined, and you'll get that "pocket" right where the line of your leotard is that says, I know how to use my hip muscles properly. You'll be able to turn out safely, and your jump will improve.

And you'll have real core strength.

See you in class.

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.

Frappe

When I first started studying ballet, I was told to do frappe by striking the floor with the ball of my foot. One teacher said to imagine you are stomping on the face of someone you don't like.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Anyway, I did what I was told, and it hurt. So I tried to do it less violently. Then I thought, why am I doing this violently, at all? What am I actually trying to accomplish with this exercise?

I have the feeling that many teachers do not ask this question about the various ballet exercises. Frappe is one of them, as many teachers still teach it in this old, violent manner. What is frappe for? It is an isolation exercise, to work the quads and the hamstrings and, if you do flex/point, the calf muscles.Where in all that is the necessity of slamming one's foot into the floor? What does that accomplish? It momentarily stops the motion of your leg, it shakes your body, it shocks your ankle, knee, hip and back, AND, if you continually slam the ball of your foot into the floor, I'm gonna bet on the floor, 'cause the floor will win: You WILL break your foot.

I have seen it happen.

There is no reason to do frappe in this old way. If you lightly graze the floor with your toes, you can do frappes forever, and you will never injure yourself because of how you contact the floor. If you are in pointe shoes, and you do it the old way, it will sound like a gunshot. WHY?! No reason.

Further thoughts on frappe: If your entire body shakes as you SNAP your knee straight, you are doing it wrong. You have to do the movement as sharply and quickly as possible for 99% of the range of motion, then STRETCH the final 1%. You must NEVER snap any joint, ever! In addition, frappes are not even. It's not in-out-in-out; it's and-OUT, and-OUT, accent OUT. Last, but not least, when you are doing frappe to the front, don't forget to bring the knee back and maintain turnout; don't do the first one, and then leave your knee there, doing all remaining frappes turned in.

I have probably pissed off a lot of teachers who still believe in teaching frappe the old, violent way. I ask them all this: what's the point? You are making your students risk bruising the ball of their foot, getting stone bruises and worse.

How is that going to help? If you say, it will toughen them up, there are far, far better and safer ways.

See you in class.

Ballet and Cross Training

Do you need to do other forms of exercise to be a good ballet dancer? Yes and no. Thanks for clarifying that, Jerry, that was a lot of help.

It's not an easy answer. Everything you need for classical ballet is in classical ballet; well almost. If you want to get really specific, ballet does not train your anterior calf muscles sufficiently, so you do need to do other stuff to completely train the lower leg. However, proper and thorough training, in class, will make you a good dancer. When I was with Joffrey, I danced, ran, biked, swam, worked out with weights- wow, where did all that energy go?- and felt it enhanced my dancing, but I came from a sport background, so it was natural for me to continue all those things.

In sports (yes, ballet is a sport, but let's just use "sports" to mean other than dance for right now), you have your sport-specific training, and then you have weight work in the gym, plyometrics, cardio, etc. Gone are the days when you just did your sport, and nothing else. It has been proven, time and again, that a complete athlete needs to do many things, as there is no one perfect exercise. When someone wants to get into better physical condition, they should do a variety of physical activity, not only for the body, but for the mind as well.

That being said (one says that when one is about to apparently contradict one's self), if you want to be great at any one thing, you have to concentrate on that one thing. The great cyclist, Eddy Merckx, 5 time winner of the Tour de France, was once asked, "Eddy; how do I become a great bike rider?" His answer: "Ride... a lot." This is true of anything. If you want to be a great painter, you paint. A great violinist, you play the violin, a great dancer, dance. It's not simply for the technical requirements that must be mastered, the craft part of any endeavor; it's what takes the good technician and makes him/her an artist. It's what makes a Michael Jordan, a Baryshnikov, a Picasso, a Beverly Sills, a Meryl Streep.

I firmly believe young people should do everything, go everywhere, experience life to its fullest extent (without doing stupid crap like drugs or texting while riding a bike). If you want to be great at something, you have to prioritize. Great artists are constantly learning, and the only way you can learn about your art is to do it, a lot. It's the tiny, seemingly insignificant details that only surface when you explore and delved into the deepest parts of whatever you're doing. It's what happens when you've done a variation a thousand times and you find something new, when you throw that slider just a little differently because you've thrown in a million times and something tells you to do it this way, now.

I was lucky enough to study with the great Stanley Williams. His classes sometimes bordered on the simplistic; we would do the same simple exercises over and over and over. Often our grande allegros were ludicrously plain, even boring. He kept telling us that if we just kept doing these exercises, properly, our bodies would be able to do whatever we told them to, because we were training them in the right way for ballet. One day, after class, I was so frustrated by not doing all the different big jumps I wanted to do, I just went for a double saut de basque... and did it. I stopped and looked around. All the other guys were looking at me. I pointed to a friend, David Keary, and said, "You try it." He did and it worked. We hadn't practiced saut de basque in weeks and yet, we could do them better... That's when we realized that Stanley was a genius.

Ballet is in the training. Sure, do other things to keep yourself mentally sharp and to avoid burnout, but if you want to dance, dance. A friend of mine mused on why some dancers today were retiring earlier than dancers of bygone days. In my Father's day, dancers just danced, and many had very long careers and were healthy all their lives. Yes, technique has improved, and multi-sport athletes are amazing physical specimens, but maybe dancers should just dance, more.

So, Jerry, how do become a great dancer?

Dance... a lot.

Thanks, Eddy.

See you in class.

Taking care of yourself

I danced for 18 years and didn't have a knee injury. Oh, I had other various minor hurts, but never a knee injury, one of the most common in ballet.

I have students who are told by non-ballet people ("civilians" as Meredith Bayliss called them), that ballet is bad for your knees. No exercise, done properly, is dangerous; every physical activity, done improperly, is dangerous. As evidence, I present Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from typing. (If I've said any of this before, it's good to say it again).

Take care of yourself. Take care of yourself by being aware of what you're doing. Well, duh, Jerry, of course I'm aware. Well, duh, probably not. You have to be so in tune with your body to be a dancer (or any kind of athlete), you have to have a mind-body connection that allows you to know what's happening when you move, otherwise you risk injury.

You must also take care of yourself by keeping yourself in shape. Now, most of my students are in class every day, either ballet or some other form of dance, but some dancers I know do not take class on a regular basis.

WHAT?!?! Whenever I hear something like, "Oh, I haven't been in class in months.", I want to strangle the person who said it! Do you want to get injured? A teacher my Mother used to take class from would ask performers, "What show are you rotting in, now?" If you're in a show, you should still be in class on a regular basis. No, you're not keeping yourself in shape by doing the show, not real shape. You're doing the same thing, over and over, overusing some parts of your body and under-using others. You need the balance of class to keep you healthy. It would be like going to the gym and only working one side.

What's prompted this, Jerry? I'm glad you asked. I know this marvelously talented dancer who I did a show with several years ago. She was in her early 20's, then, and was amazing. The problem was, she had stopped taking class. She was choreographing stuff, doing shows, teaching (I think), but wasn't in class, wasn't taking care of herself. Apparently, now, she is going through some rough times, being injured. She isn't even 30, and her complaints sound like she's in her 60's. She said she woke up one morning, lifted her head and felt her neck go crunch! This is sad. I took class every day (with a day off every week) up until the day I retired at age 37. I couldn't imagine rehearsing or performing without taking class or warming up, thoroughly, yet I know many dancers who did it all the time. Many of them, younger than I, are in horrible shape because they didn't take care of themselves.

Take care of yourself. Take class. Get sleep. Eat a variety of food and a good amount. My God, this all sounds so simple to me, why is it so hard for other people to get?

Oy...

See you in class.


J