Sweating over Developes (that how you spell it?)

[Guest ckdancegirl7]

Recently I have been working VERY hard on my developes alecegone (sorry, I'm not very good with French spelling). My legs are flexible and I can pull my leg up to the side almost touching the side of my head, but there is no way that I can do a develope and bring my leg to the same high, turned-out position. Whenever I work really hard and develope to the side, I concentrate on keeping my hip down and getting my leg to it's full extension but it doesn't give the same line and turnout that it does when I hold it there. Often my hip feels tight in that position too and it is hard to acheive the correct line. I am also having a hard time building a higher extension, even though I do have fortunate flexibility. Am I maybe doing something wrong in my develope side that prevents me from turning out to my fullest and not being able to build strength the right way?

[Guest a bee blu 426]

a couple of weeks ago, i posted a question about developpe a la seconde and im glad to see that im not the only one who has difficulty. some of my developpe problems were slightly similar to yours. fortunately, Ms. Leigh gave me great advice and i am now able to execute this step with much greater ease after practicing every day.

 

here it is, for your convenience:

 

It sounds to me like you are not placed properly at the barre, and you are probably using too much rotation. Then, when you try to do the same thing in the center it doesn't work because in order to balance you need a center, and if you are not placed correctly and working within your own control zone at the barre, you do not develop a center. Work at the barre on your alignment and balance point, and do your developpés within that alignment and with your weight on your standing leg, hardly touching the barre. Do NOT take your leg to a side position that is beyond your control zone of rotation.

 

hope this helps!

[Victoria Leigh]

Thanks, a.b, you saved me having to answer the same thing all over again!

 

ck, before you post a new topic, you might check through the recent topics and find the same thing right there! It happens quite often. Oh, by the way, I really feel it's very important for a dancer to learn the terminology of their art form. There are lots of ways to do this, but the best is a simple and inexpensive book by Gail Grant, "Technical Manual and Dictionary of Classical Ballet". It is available through Amazon (click on the banner above, and this site gets a small percentage of orders), and at local bookstores and some dancewear stores. You can also check out ABT's website, as there is a video dictionary there, and the very best book, which is more expensive, is Gretchen Ward Warren's "Classical Ballet Technique". This one is big, and full of wonderful photos to describe everything.

 

The developpé you were describing is "à la seconde". To the side, or to the second.

[Mel Johnson]

Gail Grant is the best $5 a ballet person can spend. Anyway, it is a relief to see that at least terms are being pronounced pretty well out there! One of my jobs is to decipher colonial-era documents, and while the handwriting is bad enough, sometimes I encounter records dictated in French to a Dutch stenographer. One page is sometimes an interesting day's activity.

 

My favorite old paper was a 1728 farm census recording the buildings, people, crops and animals of a local area. The last column had me stalled for hours. Not only could I not make out what the last column was, but everybody seemed to have a lot of whatever it was the German census-taker was counting. Finally, I made out the letters in the handwriting - s-h-i-g-n-s. Shigns. Omilord, chickens!!!

[balletstar811]

Colonial-era documents! How fascinating! That makes me think to ask: why are some "s"'s printed as "f"'s? I have several newspapers I purchased whilst in Williamsburg and wondered why!

[Mel Johnson]

Look at those papers closely; you'll notice that on an "f" the crossbar goes all the way through the body of the letter. On a long "s", the mark is only a tick on the back of the letter. The long "s" dates from about 800 AD, and the invention of the Carolingian minuscule alphabet. The letters were only about 2½ penwidths tall. An "s" written that tall looks only like a splotch. They stretched the letter out to be long, like an "f", but careful study will reveal how different they are. If you read enough old documents, you stop seeing the long "s" and it reads very smoothly.

[balletstar811]

Ah, yes, now that I look closely at a document reproduction written in cursive, I see the difference betwixt the long s and regular f. However, I am still having trouble deciphering this differences in the newpapers which are printed, not cursive.

[Mel Johnson]

Just keep reading period books and documents. After awhile your eye edits out the differences and you read them just as quickly as modern papers.

[Victoria Leigh]

Okay scholars, back to ballet here!

[balletstar811]

Thanks Mr. Johnson , and sorry Ms. Leigh!!!!