Today I took a different type class, the classes at my studio more or less based on Cecchetti style, but today our teacher got a russian flair and taught a Vaganova type class. Wow, what a difference. I tend to get annoyed by the usual barre at my studio too much in the way of frills and not enough actual work. Today was a different story I thought I was going to die come frappes. Seems to me the Vaganova would be a good way to start serious training since you'd have ot be a strong dancer if brought up in this way. I've started teaching smaller kids, that will in 2 or 3 years be en pointe and though I'm a male and dont really understand what its like to be en pointe I know they have to be strong. The kind of no frills approach to barre leaves more focus on technique, in general it seems like a good idea to teach this type style younger students.<BR>any thoughts?<BR>~K~

Well, KyleS - the thoughts on this go both ways.<P>Some people feel that a syllabus type of class (RAD, Cecchetti) is better done earlier in a student's studies as a good foundation, and then onto other styles for other attributes. And some people feel as you do that a syllabus style is better after - as a "finishing".<P>And of course, there are those who feel a syllabus is an advantage all the way through. For myself, I prefer a syllabus as a good starting foundation and then onto other styles.<P>Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's the Russian ballerinas were sent to Italy to be "finished" - polished, so to speak. Which would follow your line of thought. So you can see your line of thought is very valid.<P>I am not sure that I would consider the syllabus style (my own experience is with Cecchetti) as "frilly".....I saw it as a good clean foundation. But now that I think about it I did have three years of Russian before I had Cecchetti. Both are valuable. I came to the Cecchetti class physically strong from my Russian teacher, so I never found the Cecchetti classes a challenge of stamina. Technique yes, stamina - no.<P>I think a lot of it would also depend on the teacher. Even a syllabus teacher who follows the syllabus closely, still inputs her/his own views/persona/teaching style.<P>As for men and pointe work. I came across many men in class who undertook pointe. They did it for many reasons - so that they could feel more competent teaching it, choreographing for it, partnering and just to strengthen their feet.

Thanks for answering Basheva, I was just kind of thinking about it and was stuck with no dance poeple to talk to. As far as me and pointe I dont forsee that happening, doesn't seem like a good idea to be to try to balance 160 lbs one little toe...<BR>~K~

LOL KyleS - I can certainly understand how you feel about pointe.....<P>There are a couple of roles that are danced by men on pointe - the role of Bottom in the ballet "The Dream" comes quickly to mind. And I do believe there was a production or Cinderella in which the stepsisters were danced by men on pointe. <P>And then of course, there is the Ballet Trockadero (sp.?) which is all men on pointe. They do it as comedy - but there is no doubt about their skill. They are very skilled, indeed. And some of them are large men, too. I knew one and he was football player size.

My mom told me about Trock a long time ago, apparently she saw them back when they were just starting cause she danced with one of the guys, I've wanted to see them ever since, go figure I just can't picture two guys doing the Swan Lake pas, followed by the 32 fouettes...I was just asked actually to perform en pointe for a "contemporary" version of Bayadere (sp?) no big surprise I declined the part.<BR>~K~<BR>~K~

I think going from one style to ANY other style is going to make you feel like you are working harder than before. Case in point....I have a student who trained with me for approximately four years. I teach primarily Cecchetti. She left to attend a prestigious US school which teaches only Vaganova. When she returned the next summer to take a few classes with me, she was frustrated by the lack of speed that she had in her center work. At her new school, she hadn't worked on any pirouettes, very little petit allegro, but had phenomenal adagio work. She found it very difficult to get through the center, because she wasn't used to the speed. Everything that she had been working at at her new school was very slow and methodical. Consequently, the class (and I wasn't teaching a really advanced class), literally wore her out!<BR>It seems to me that it's all what you get used to. Changing from one style to another is new to the body and therefore, causes the body to have to work differently.<P>

I think one of the most exhausting things of all is for an advanced dancer to take a beginner class. oy vey<P>But you are right Cherylb - going from one style to another is difficult - but well worthwhile, I think. It's like going to a different thought pattern - but a marvelous challenge.

Even from teacher to teacher, you find that your body is used differently in class. I think exposure to a variety of styles and teachers is a beneficial thing. And I agree with Basheva that a beginners' class can be a humbling experience after you get used to an advanced class!...<P>As for Ballet Trock, I saw them last spring. I laughed so hard I cried. They were very, very good. Some were football types who were extremely competent on pointe. But some of them had more streamlined bodies, and, except for a few "reminders" that they were male (e.g. hairy armpits...), their technique could have fooled you. <P>They were very spoofy. So even though they had the guys who could rattle off the 32 fouettes, and do them well, it would be in a tongue-in-cheek way. One piece I remember was a solo, "The Dying Swan." It started with the dancer doing the infamous bourrees, very seriously, but as he progressed across the stage, his tutu began shedding feathers. He molted profusely all over the stage. At the same time, he had to try to compensate for a wayward follow spot that kept wandering away from him. Get the picture? Lots of fun!