The following question came up amongst some colleagues: “Is it possible to teach ballet lines to a student with less than the ideal body to achieve those lines.” This is one of those topics on which I have a lot to say. I thought I would share my thoughts with you here, in an attempt to start a discussion and perhaps hear some other opinions on this topic.
So to address the question: Is it possible to produce a “ballet line” without a “ballet body type” (and I’m not trying to be “smart” or funny here) would depend on what your definition of what a “ballet line” is. If your definition includes a 180 degree turn-out, a 135 degree extension and a retire knee that is perfectly to the side (and many people believe this to be the definition), then the answer is “No, you can not create a ballet line without a ballet body.” However, that is NOT my definition of a ballet line and I have never taught ballet from the standpoint of trying to achieve those perfect positions; even when I have a student with excellent physical equipment. I have never believed that ballet is about shapes or positions or lines. Ballet is about MOVEMENT.

So of course there are textbook lines. I never studied with Maggie Black (I wish I had) but I have taken class from Griff Braun, Kim Abel and Lisa Lockwood (whose class I take a few times a week) and they are all disciples of Ms. Black. She taught how to work with the body that you have, and I believe that this was somewhat revolutionary at the time she started teaching. My mentor in Jazz, Luigi, always said “Dance within the limits of your body” and that has always stayed with me. Text books, on the whole, are designed to show teachers how to take a 9 year old with perfect genetics and fabricate a ballet dancer. So the drawings and photos are of the “ideal”. As professionals, it is our job to asses our students physical capabilities and limitations and teach them to dance within the limits of their body (to quote Luigi). So the line that the less than perfect body will make, when executed properly, is a PERFECT BALLET LINE, for that body. In my opinion, each body has its own perfect ballet line.

Each “line” or “shape” or “position” in the ballet vocabulary is not a static pose. It is a growing, expanding, living, vibrating package of energy. As an example: It isn’t the height of the leg that makes for a “ballet Ecarte” “line” (to use the language of this post) in my opinion. It isn’t the amount of turn-out in the standing leg, or how far to the side the raised leg Is positioned. What makes for a beautiful BALLET Ecarte line (in my opinion) is a standing leg that properly uses the amount of turn-out available. Hips and shoulders correctly and squarely facing the corner. A torso this is both lifted and pulled down simultaneously (the subject of another post all together). A “down stage” leg that is lifted to the side- as far side as the student’s rotation will allow. (The height of the lifted leg is not important to me in the least). Not only is the leg lifted to the side, but it energetically grows, spirals, lengthens and reaches away from the body while the hip resists the lengthening. The toes point and lengthen (not hook), as much as they can. Energy originating in the spine courses through that raised leg, through the toes, shooting out into the audience. The downstage arm is raised over the head-reaching as far away from the body as possible while the shoulcers actively pull down onto the back. The upstage arm, connected to the back, extends to the side and presses down onto the space around it. Energy from the back courses through the arms and out the fingers. The neck lengthens and the head angles up into the raised hand. And all the while, the whole body, with all its parts connected in this position, pulses, expands, explodes – on the inside; while on the outside, the dancer is daringly still. And that, in my opinion, regardless of the amount of rotation and height of the leg, makes for a beautiful ballet line.

Will that dancer, with less than perfect genetics, working this way get a job? Maybe. Will the dancer with perfect genetics and textbook lines get a job? Maybe. From what I have seen, great genetics and “perfect line” helps, but it isn’t the whole picture. I have seen many ARTISTS, with less than perfect genetics, do just fine.I have built my career on teaching that kind of “ballet line” to students with less than perfect bodies. The results can be thrilling. The study of ballet is the relentless pursuit of an unachievable perfection.

A recent Facebook post about conventions only being interested in “fun choreography” prompted me to write this:

Apparently, some of my colleagues have been engaged by dance conventions, only to discover that the organization was only interested in having the teacher present “fun choreography”; especially if the dancers are “already warm”. I have taught at conventions, and luckily I have never found myself in this position.

As You probably know, I was trained by Luigi. I spent nearly 30 years studying his technique directly under him. After being certified by Luigi, I now teach the Luigi jazz technique at the Joffrey ballet school in New York City. The Luigi method divides the class in half. The first 45 minutes is devoted to the technique exercises/warm up. The second 45 minutes is spent on a combination. (Luigi believed that there was no need to do “across the floor” exercises; he felt that anything that could be done across the floor could also be inserted into the combination. I’ve always followed Luigi’s model for teaching Jazz with no “across the floor”, but I do see the value in across the floor combinations/exercises.)

With respect to the Luigi technique exercises and warm up: the warm up is so much more than just a means of warming up the body. I would never entertain the idea of skipping the warm-up simply because the dancers are already warm… Especially at a convention. Don’t dancers come to conventions to learn to DANCE? They can learn STEPS on YouTube. They do not need me to teach them steps. The majority of the teaching of Jazz occurs during the warm-up. If we are going to teach jazz as a technique, we have to TEACH Jazz. Real jazz has a look, A style, A feeling, a sense of musicality and rhythm, a deep connection to the ground that is also lifted and pulled up. The truly great Jazz dancers: Cyd Charisse, Bob Fosse, Carol Haney, Gwen Verdon, Gene Kelly, Ben Vereen, Chita Rivera exemplified this “look” this “style”. It brings to mind the idea that “Ballet defies gravity, Modern Dance plays with gravity, and Jazz acknowledges gravity…BUT IT GOES DOWN FIGHTING”. That look of being lifted and pulled down into the ground simultaneously must be TAUGHT and STUDIED. Jazz teaches us how to use the BODY- not just the arms and legs. Jazz teaches how the rib cage is held, how epaulment works, how the arms and legs connect to the back, How the pelvis is placed, and how to feel everything from the inside. How to feel and interpret the music. Mr. Fosse said “Don’t dance the steps, dance the MEANING of the steps. The warm up TRAINS the dancer and TEACHES the TECHNIQUE that is Jazz.

When I teach at conventions, whether the dancers are warm or not, the warm up-technique exercises is the most important part of my class. And when taught right…the warm up can be incredibly exciting as dancers find a new way to work. They find things they never felt before and by working this way, one day they will find a REAL DANCER looking back at them in the mirror as their body acquires real Jazz technique. Yes…there will be a combination; the point of which is to work on the TECHNIQUE that makes JAZZ the great American art form that it is. Jazz is not about steps or choreography. It is about style, look, musicality and feeling. If we present kids with work that is of REAL QUALITY they will know it, they will embrace it and they will GROW. Isn’t that the point of a CLASS?

Being a dancer, and for that matter, a dance teacher in New York City can be brutal. We all come to this industry for different reasons, and we all stay in this industry for different reasons. But for many of us (regardless of where we are working) there comes a time when we come to a cross-roads, and we ask ourselves: “Is it time to hang up my pointe shoes?”. One of my much younger colleagues has been asking this question a lot lately. He has found himself not getting jobs that he thought he should have gotten (both as a dancer and as a teacher). He has found himself loosing some jobs. He has seen younger dancers with less experience having skyrocketing careers. He has seen his students surpass him. And worst of all, he feels unappreciated. All of which he has found frustrating, disheartening and troubling. He is considering “hanging up his pointe shoes”.

For all of you at this point in your career, I would like to offer some perspective on this topic.  This perspective comes someone old enough to be the father of this “dancer at the cross-roads”. I went through exactly the same thing, the same feelings, asking the same questions, more than two decades ago. I was 34 and my career wasn’t going the way I wanted it to, or thought it could, or thought it should. Friends were getting jobs in Paul Taylor’s company; Friends were getting Broadway Shows; I was getting down on dance, down on my friends, down on myself. I quit. I quit completely. I gained 60 pounds (as many of you know I’m only 5’5″), I threw myself into a non-dance career, I met my “other half” and I thought I was happy. When I was in my late 40’s a friend who was visiting New York insisted I take a class with her. So I bought a pair of sweat pants and put on a big T shirt and I went with her to Steps to take class; my first class in about 10 years. It was magical. Of course I was fat, horribly out of shape, and could hardly do anything…but I loved every minute of it. The energy, the excitement, the artistry, even the smell of the room…it was all magic! And at the end of the class I stood in the corner and sobbed; because I let all those years go by; because never again would I dance like I did when I was young; because I could never get those years back, and because I thought I had ruined my life. But I started taking class again; just two or three classes a week. And then, when I was in my 50’s, I started teaching ballet to children and adult beginners at two little neighborhood studios. And gradually I built a teaching career. I am very grateful to the schools that hire me; to the programs that embrace what I have to offer (Like The Joffrey Ballet School, Broadway Dance Center, CAP21, NY Film Academy). But there are also schools, good schools, big and famous schools that wouldn’t hire me; and that is just fine. So now I teach where I teach…and every day there is yet another struggle; as I loose classes to low attendance, or to schools closing (both have happened to me in the last year). But other jobs – better jobs – do seem to pop up. And they may not be at the BEST schools, or the MOST FAMOUS schools. But I get to teach people to dance. So in addition to the famous and prestigious schools at which I teach, and the amazing competition schools and fantastic conventions that invite me, I teach in neighborhood studios-which I adore. And is teaching adult beginners on Church Avenue in Brooklyn any less valid than teaching professionals at Steps? Is teaching children in Greenpoint any less valuable than teaching the exciting new sensation at BDC? I love teaching and I am always GRATEFUL: for every moment in the studio is a gift. I get to make a difference in these people’s lives. And whether they thank me, or seem to appreciate it, or even come back- I know the impact that I have made by seeing the looks on their faces and the results of their work.

So for those who are facing this decision: I implore you to consider very carefully what you are about to do and the decision you are about to make. Years go by fast. REALLY FAST. And you can’t get them back. I know from personal experience because I have been there. And the pain of wondering what might have been if you hadn’t quit is much worse than what you are going through now. Again, I know because I have been there. Trying not to compare yourself to others is hard (I know how hard that is, again, because I have been there). And if you decide to quit, I completely understand because, sadly, I have been there. To quote Mikhail Baryshnikov “I never try to dance better than anyone else. I only try to dance better than myself”.

I did “hang up my pointe shoes” in my 30’s. And they hung on that hook, quietly waiting. Until one day, quite by accident, I found myself wearing them again, and they danced me into the next thrilling, exciting, surprising chapter of my life.

I recently read a post where a very young teacher proclaimed “I am a Master Teacher in ALL DISCIPLINES.” I’m sorry, but this teacher wasn’t really old enough to have mastered a grand plié in second position. I have always had a bit of difficulty with the terms “Master Teacher” and “Master Class”. It seems that today the terms “Master Class” and “Master Teacher” are synonymous with “Special Class” and “Guest Teacher”. It seems that any young and talented dancer who can choreograph an exciting combination that students will find appealing is called a Master Teacher. I believe that the term Master Teacher should not only be reserved for those teachers with many years of experience but for those teachers who have also been INNOVATORS in their field and have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of producing SUPERIOR results. I was lucky to have trained almost exclusively with this kind of teacher; with teachers that were considered “Master Teachers” by the dance community at large: Luigi, Madame Gabriella Darvash, David Howard, Frank Hatchett, Lynn Simonson, Christopher Chadman…the list goes on. None of these brilliant teachers ever, in my memory, referred to themselves as “Master Teachers”. That was a term that their colleagues bestowed upon them…not something that was self proclaimed. Now in my 50’s, after spending many many years in the studio and on the stage, I look at my teaching very differently. I still take class, three to five times a week. I see what works and what doesn’t work. I am always looking for methods of passing on these teachings in a way that is relevant to a young dancer working and dancing now; today. Have I experienced age discrimination? Absolutely. Do I complain about it? No. What would be the point? The best way to change someone’s opinion is to SHOW THEM. The Joffrey Ballet School, New York Film Academy and CAP21 have embraced what I do. Studio owners, program directors and conventions are interested in what I bring to the classroom; my personal viewpoint; my methods of teaching. I feel a little humility can go a long way and I am frequently invited to teach guest classes and workshops. Every time I walk into a studio and face a new group of students I get to pull back the curtain and show them new ways to work; new approaches. And as I strive to get better, find new and more effective ways to teach, making the beautiful traditions of our glorious artistic past relevant to today’s dancers, perhaps one day I may earn the respect of my colleagues in a way that they will consider me a Master Teacher. But regardless of titles and accolades, I have devoted my professional life to educating dancers; every moment in the studio is a gift.

In my last post I discussed the cultivation of artistry in students. This topic will very often segue into a discussion of the steps that are commonly referred to (both in a positive and in a negative way) as “Tricks”. I am not a teacher who hates tricks. I can be thrilled by a stunning technical feat. But not when it is just a vulgar display of prowess. So here’s my question: “Why does it have to be either or?”  Why do we have to abandon artistry when the technical level gets higher? Why can’t we teach our students to be growing, evolving expressive artists AND have a brilliant technique? And why are teachers and choreographers building numbers around the tricks? It is so obvious to me when a piece is constructed in this way. These steps can really ENHANCE a beautiful piece of choreography, when they are used to highlight or underline a moment or emotion in the piece, or express something in the music, rather than displaying some nicely done fouetté turns. Has anyone ever seen a piece of professional choreography from a respected choreographer (other than a coda in a 19th Century Pas de Duex) where fouetté turns are performed for their own sake? So why are giving this sort of choreography to our students? Even at the recreational level, we all hope that some of our students will progress and go on to careers. Why aren’t we preparing them for that career? Because fouetté turns, over split grand jetes, scissor leaps and scorpions WILL NOT, on their own, get these dancers a job. And that’s a simple fact. So while we are teaching higher level technical steps, we should be helping to mold artists and teach them how and when to use these tricks to IMPROVE a piece of choreography rather then building a number around them. Many teachers tell me that if they don’t teach a class,that is heavy on “tricks” the students will be bored. They feel compelled to give the students what they want to keep them engaged, to keep them excited about coming to class and the “keep numbers up” (business is business).

I have a friend who produces the European tours of many shows running on Broadway. He also,teaches acting to teens. One of the things he once said to me as I started my teaching career was “If you bring something to the classroom that is of REAL QUALITY, the kids will know it, and they will get it and they will embrace it. About three months ago I was at Steps in NYC taking class (yes, I still take class) and there was a boy next to me at the barre (he was about 16 years old). At the end of the barre, as we were carrying the barres out of the way, he said to me: “Wow, I’ve never seen presence lake that during the BARRE”. And that is because no one ever taught it to him. We shouldn’t be giving kids and their families what they want. We should be opening a door and SHOWING them what they want. We are TEACHERS.

I still take class. In fact I try to get in four or five classes a week, when possible. And I’m always interested in watching the other older dancers that I see in “higher level” open classes. A few days ago I took an open class with Lisa Lockwood at Steps on Broadway. Miss Lockwood teaches a beautifully constructed, very intelligent, intermediate ballet class that I have been taking regularly for the past few years and she attracts a wide range of students. I very much admire her work as a teacher; I have learned so much from her, both in how she teaches technique and how she relates to her students. As I took my place at the barre, I noticed a woman across the room. Like myself, she was well past 50; and like myself, carrying a few extra pounds. Yet something about her caught my eye. I noticed it the moment she placed her hand on the barre. There was an incredible reverence in the centuries-old tradition of starting class by gently grasping the barre with the left hand. I could feel her connection to the past; to all the beautiful dancers that came before her. And then the music started. I saw the music inhabit her body. I saw an exquisitely nuanced port de bras that takes a lifetime to achieve. I saw a majestic grand plié in second position- supple, musical, perfectly timed and powerful in its intention. As the class progressed, through the barre and into the centre, I saw this “older dancer” work. She was listening to the teacher intently, studying herself in the mirror, making tiny adjustments. She had exquisite feet and legs, full command of her technique, innate musicality, presence and style. The high extensions, dizzying turns and soaring, buoyant jumps of a younger dancer were no longer there. But what was there was a DANCER. A dancer that has spent a lifetime improving, polishing, and honing her instrument; a dancer both regal and humble. A dancer poetic in her simplicity. Her name, Jonette Swider.

I also recently attended a performance of Noor. A 45 minute solo, written and directed/choreographed by Sasha Spielvogel. The work,was created in collaboration with and danced by Felicia Norton. Dance is a physical art form. And traditionally, A youthful, athletic, fit Artist is necessary to fully convey the choreographer’s intentions. Now clearly there have always been older dancers who have been able to captivate an audience. But watching the radiant Felicia Norton command the stage completely on her own for 45 minutes shed some new light for me on the older dancer. I have been lucky enough to partner Felicia Norton. I have no idea how old she is (nor is it any of my business) but we can say that she is (like myself) past the age of when most professional dancers would retire. But what I saw this afternoon was a brilliant artist at the height of her powers. Her exquisite port de bras, her attention to detail, her style, her carefully nuanced use of epaulment, her dramatic intention, her line, her connection to the sound score, her interpretative skills and her crystalline storytelling could only be achieved through a LIFETIME of work. Like myself, I know that she still takes class regularly. Although I rarely perform, I notice that even at 55 years old, I’m still finding things to work on. And although there are clearly many things that I can no longer do as well as when I was younger (and many things that I can no longer do it all) I have noticed, as I watch myself in the mirror, certain things are still getting better. A younger dancer may have many gifts to share with her audience and will certainly have a rich artistic vision. But the kind of performance that Ms. Norton delivered today; the deep, multi-layered, many-faceted, richly touching, riveting experience that I had in that theater that afternoon takes decades of careful study and work.

I wanted to share these two experiences with you. These two examples of older dancers. Dancers who no longer have some of the gifts and abilities associated with youth. Dancers who have replaced these gifts and abilities with something deep, personal and beautiful. So let’s take a moment to celebrate the older dancer and the older dancer’s unique gifts to the studio and stage.

I would like to address the issue of dancers and class levels. I have had countless conversations with students, their parents, and dancers, regarding what level of class would best suit the dancers’ needs.

With respect to children: Studio owners and teachers take great care in evaluating a student’s talent, ability, progress and work ethic, and will place the student in the level where they will receive the training that they need in order to grow as a dancer and as an artist. And very often parents are not happy. It seems as if being placed in a higher level class is a badge of honor. It seems as if being placed in a lower level class is an insult. It seems as if many parents think that they know better than the teacher. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard The following statement: “I know my child, and I know that my child will thrive when she is challenged. Besides, she is very mature for her age and she always does better with older children.” Well this parent may know his or her child, but what this parent doesn’t know is how to train a dancer. I would like to assume that this same parent would not tell their physician how to remove their child’s appendix. That doctor trained many years to learn the science and art of medicine and knows things that that parent couldn’t possibly know. Well I happen to know for a fact that as a ballet dancer and teacher who has trained as long and as hard as I have, with the finest teachers available in New York, I have clocked more hours of training than a physician. So why would you presume to tell me how to teach your child? (I do realize that what I’m doing isn’t life or death.) I have been told by tennis players that if someone plays tennis against a player who is more advanced than they are, they will typically improve. But ballet is not a sport. And if a student trains in a class that is too advanced for them, what ends up happening is the student learns nothing. Actually that’s not true. The student will learn steps; not how to dance. Building a dance technique requires rigorous training in a methodical way. You have to build the foundation for the house to stand. Similarly, a dance technique must be built from the foundation up. Many parents have said: “But she isn’t going to be a professional dancer”. And my answer to that is: “Anything worth doing, is worth doing right”.

For young adults who are training in open classes, the situation is somewhat different. In this setting the student has the freedom to take any class they choose; and this is very often a recipe for disaster. Everybody wants to be in the hard class. Everybody wants to dance with the really good dancers. Nobody wants to be thought of as a beginner. Well here’s a big surprise: every professional dancer started as a beginner. As most of you know I studied with Luigi for nearly 30 years. Luigi had many brilliant ideas. And one of those ideas was creating something called “style class”. “Style” met every morning, Monday through Saturday, at 11 AM. All the professional dancers that Luigi taught took his style class. What was this class? It was essentially a slow advanced beginner class. It was filled with professionals because he called it “STYLE”. He taught it slowly, and methodically, with a lot of discussion of DETAILS OF TECHNIQUE. I took that style class as well as his technique class and advanced beginner class for years. I also took a very slow basic ballet class with a marvelous teacher named Debbie Cruz (AKA Diane Bryant). I built a foundation upon which my technique now sits. And even after My technique grew to the point of being ready for professional classes, I still took the Luigi’s style class and basic beginner ballet classes a few times a week to keep my technique clean. I continued to take these classes throughout my entire career. I notice today in open classes in New York, that if an older teen or young adult beginner, who is serious about dancing, has a lot of natural ability, they jump right into intermediate and advanced classes without ever building a proper technique. I see them taking two or three classes a day. I see them in the most challenging classes. I see them doing steps (and doing them badly). What I don’t see them doing is dancing. Not really DANCING. And they continue on this path for years, spending thousands of dollars on classes, dedicating their life to their training and making no improvement. I see them in these classes and they are working hard. And they think they are dancing well. And the mirror lies. And year after year they go to audition after audition, and they never book a job. I know one young student who wanted to dance more than anything. Who took multiple classes a day. Who had REAL TALENT that was never properly developed. He is now in Law School.

We don’t choose to be dancers. Dance chooses us. And for those who have been chosen, we are only happy when we are dancing. Don’t sabotage your training and development for the vanity of being in an advanced class. Don’t sabotage your children’s development to satisfy your need to have a child that is “mature”, “advanced for her age”, “special”. Be smart, listen to your teachers, take your time, and STUDY.

“When the student finds the joy in the process, the dancer is born“

There has been a lot of discussion in our industry about Hyper-mobility/hyper-flexibility in ballet: Great? Good? Bad? Indifferent? For me, it comes down to what we are trying to do, and why we are doing it. These only are my OPINIONS… They aren’t right or wrong…they are opinions.

For me, ballet is an ART FORM. We study, train and work relentlessly to develop our bodies into an instrument that will serve the choreographer’s ARTISTIC
vision. In ballet, just as in athletics, as we continue to train over the years, dancers (and athletes) develop the skills and abilities to do MORE. MORE pirouettes, HIGHER extensions, SPECTACULAR leaps…and every year a dancer shows up who can do just a little bit more than what came before. If a choreographer’s vision includes these extreme hyper-mobile positions; if the choreographer is using these positions to say something, to communicate a feeling, to set a mood, or to make a dramatic point…then these hyper-mobile/flexible positions are essential. In fact, when used correctly, in an intelligent way, they can be incredibly exciting. However, 19th century and early 20th century choreographers, for the most part, did not have dancers who could achieve these positions, so they didn’t choreograph for them. Imposing these positions onto choreography that wasn’t set on a body that could achieve these positions, in my OPINION, interferes with the choreographer’s intentions. What we end up with is a break in the choreographic vision; as if the dancer stops and says: “Look what I can do”. It becomes a display of technical prowess. And, in a tutu, in the middle of Swan Lake, it simply looks ridiculous.

So…if a contemporary ballet choreographer is using these hyper-mobile positions for a reason-I’m all for it. And we need to train dancers to be able to do it, because during their careers they will encounter choreographers who demand it. But imposing these positions on choreography that doesn’t call for them…is just, in my OPINION, bad taste.