I meant to start this thread a while ago,but when or what is considered 'too old' to dance(for a dancer)? This is a carry over from threads 'when should a dancer stop' and from the Karen Kain thread.
When she/he gets wrinkles? When flesh is not AS firm as a 19 year olds? Or is it simply when he or she loses certain abilities :confused:
I know we all have strong opinions about this.

<small>[ 10-16-2002, 14:09: Message edited by: angela ]</small>

Angela, is this a very similar discussion to the current topic "When should a dancer stop!!"?

<small>[ 10-16-2002, 14:20: Message edited by: Stuart Sweeney ]</small>

There is no reason for a dancer to stop dancing simply because they are no longer "young" sheesh! If you really like to dance, keep doing it. Don't stop cause some prude says you look too "old" to be on stage. BAWH
(if you are breaking your body just to dancing you may want to consider at least a rest from it)

I like your attitude junkoplenty.
Yes Stuart,this is similiar--I just specifically put in the word 'old'. I dont know how to connect the threads-if anyone does be my guest or add your opinions to this one please.

I suppose there is not one and a single answer for this question. Because a "too something" supposes a "for something" or a "to something". So, when is a dancer too old... for what ?

Too old to enjoy dancing - that is, movement and expression ? never, I suppose.

Too old to dance flamenco ? to dance ballet ? to dance irish dances ? Again, it depends.

Too old to dance as a teacher ? to demonstrate ? see thread in the "studio" forum

<small>[ 10-17-2002, 13:39: Message edited by: AlinWond ]</small>

To be specific AlinWond,to old to perform or rather STAY in a dance company particularly a ballet or modern company.
It seems like some feel that once your getting close to 40,you should quit no matter how much dance prowess(sp)or ability is still with you.

<small>[ 10-17-2002, 13:42: Message edited by: angela ]</small>

I'm waiting to be "too old". I'm 38 and me and my 7 year old daughter just auditioned for the nutcracker and both got parts! I am dancing with people young enough to be my kids and am in better shape then most of them. It depends on how well you keep in shape. Sometimes you have to do more than dance to keep a firm body. It was akward dancing with people so much younger than me - but if you still "got it" - go for it. I feel so lucky to be able to do this still.

Ok I am going to be bold ( and likely destroyed ), but i think the transition should occur from about 35-40. I think it is necessary to give the younger dancers a chance to develop, I think that it generally makes the company more financially viable, and unfortunately there is that percived correlation between youth and beauty ( this is not necessarily my perception, but I think it is generally dominant in todays society ).
I believe this transition should be well planned for by the company up front, particularily financially, but also emotionally. There may be obvious exceptions, but I think this is the actual reality ( perhaps even shifted upwards a few years ).

It also depends on the professional quality of the company, don't you think? When I mean professional, I'm not of course referring to pick-up gigs (getting paid for a gig, like getting a stipend for jury duty) but companies whose dancers depend on this art form for their livelihood and who rehearse and perform 30+ hours a week.

With the degree of quality expected of highly professional companies, the age at which a dancer can perform for that company will be lower than the age for a dancer performing pick-up gigs for a community company. So wouldn't it vary depending on circumstance, very important factors being the expected quality of the dancing and the credibility of the company?

Absolutely. I am thinking about ABT/SFB/PNWB.... Even these dancers however, generally are not payed enough to tuck away for their future after dance, which REALLY bothers me and where I hope to put most of my personal energy.
Also, I have a sense that retired professional dancers have a lot to offer in other areas as well. That level of discipline and passion can hopefully be channelled to other areas of our community which really are in desperate need of it. And I am not strictly referring to the arts, but to other areas such as politics, teaching,....
I think that we owe it to these 'older' dancers to make their transition as painless as possible. Wee also owe it to ourselves not to lose these very exceptional individuals.

Matthew--WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE !
(LOLOLOLOL).
You made a good point-but I lean toward junkoplenty and Loretta's opinions.And I guess I feel that younger dancers have time for both parts/positions as well as development(even greater depth in their dancing as they mature).
LORETTA-you go woman!I'm excited for you;Tell us what part your playing and how it goes for you.

I have seen dancers on stage who are "older" and some have been successful and others have not. The biggest distinction was if they looked like they were in pain. If your body is so broken down by the art form that you can no longer perform without a great deal of pain (enough pain that it is visible to the audience) then you should not be onstage. If the audience is worried that you are going to break in half the next time you are lifted because you look so frail, then it is time to retire from performing.

However, a dancer is never too old to coach or teach or mentor or support the dancer world (or the regular world).

A dancer is too old when they loooose their attitude!

Men and women are never too old to dance: either professionally or just for pleasure. Whether they can find employment as a dancer when they are over 40 is another matter; this depends on the attitude and needs of any employer (company/production/choreographer).

To say a dancer should give up because they are over 35 or 40 is, with all due respect, an ageist attitude. Would anyone say, a writer should give up writing at 40? A musician stop playing at 50?

Dancing is physically demanding but there can be power and beauty in watching an older person perform. It is just a different sort and style of performance from someone younger. Quite a few years ago, I remember reading a review of Lynn Seymour, returning to dance in something in London, (unfortunately, I canot remember the production) but the words of the reviewer, Judith Mackrell, I more or less do: she said words to the effect that "the collective heads of English ballet should hang their heads in shame for neglecting such a magnificent artist for so long". She was neglected because she was seen as past it! Totally untrue.

It is great for Loretta that she has a part, and at 38, I hope she has many more ahead of her. The Japanese have a word, I believe: Shibui (the beauty of aging). An interesting word to contemplate, I think.

Young dancers can jump higher. And should. But let's not push older performers out because they no longer "look" (and this is what it is really about) young.

By the way, where are these productions with people crippled with pain on the stage? Are there medical teams with stretchers in the wings? Sorry. No offence. I had to say it.

<small>[ 10-23-2002, 13:14: Message edited by: Simon R B ]</small>

Loretta, thank you so much for inspiration! I'm 30 years old and started ballet last year (when I was 29). I passed my Chechetti Grade 4 in the Summer and am now starting a bit of pointe work, studying for Grade 5, along with dancing the role of the Prince in my Ballet School's (all-female!) production of Cinderella this year.

I really hope that in about 8 years or so I will be doing the same as you!!!