Incomplete and inaccurate.
I really wanted to try this and write a good review. Because the less-than-literate world of ballet out there really needs one. But, there are some glaring issues with this app that make it frustrating at best and angering at worst.
So, first, why it deserves a "star": It seems to be well coded and is fairly functional in finding and accessing terms. Good. Great template to make a great glossary or dictionary. But that is where the fat lady finishes her aria and the curtain closes.
I wrote my thesis on Balletic Linguistics and Semiology in reference to the verbal transmission of technique. I confess that I tend to be a bit erudite in my criticism to this study. But, this glossary only confirms the conclusion of that thesis: There is far too little academic understanding in the world of ballet - even among academics, in regards to definition, usage and synomics between cultural schools of ballet linguistics, for them to be teaching, much less, presenting such a glossary. There are far too many omissions and little mistakes that should have been edited before the release of this app for me to count.
In brief, here is the main omission of this app: it is primarily inclusive of a foundation of the usage of French from the perspective of most -English schools of ballet-, instead of the ballet world at large. Cecchetti is the next best represented, but that is because, more or less, English ballet is based directly upon Cecchetti. French school is the next, but, hey, the language of ballet is predominantly French. After that, forget it: Bournonville, Vaganova, even Balanchine are barely represented (Balanchines usage is based upon the Cecchetti influenced old Russian Imperial school).
Take for example the definition of "arabesque". "in the arab fashion"? Wha....? The term Arabesque originates from arab moorish decent through Spain and is a term of design meaning "spiral." The arabesque ligne is a spiral. Then, no description of -any- of the schools forms of arabesques: not the five arabesques of Cecchetti, four of Vaganova, nor even the English versions!? To parse down a glossary to the effect of not defining the term at minimum as, say, "one leg extended derrière, qualified as arabesque by one arm extended en avant, palm down with the back erect as possible" or something along that line, betrays the purpose of such an app book.
Secondly: very few discussions of synonmics. No discussion that in most schools, a so-called "split jete" (colloquial), referenced as "grande saut de chat" in most schools, is strictly "grande PAS de chat" in the Vaganova school! If this is not inclusive, a document is inaccurate. Not to mention that they use the term "raccourci" as part of the descriptor, and then dont go on to have a definition for it, nor use the synonyms that match it, such as retire, passe retire or, in the Vaganova school, one of several versions of tir bouchon...and that raccourci is rarely used in its kinetic referencing, (It is more or less, a dead usage in contemporary balletic linguistic.) The definition of "raccourci" is buried within the definition of "retire"! Lastly, the description of this step is dated; since the early 1960s, almost every school follows the larger definition of the Vaganova grande pas de chat! This may sound nit-picking, but, I can assure you, it is not. This is extremely important to the study of ballet technique and artistry!
Lastly, the inaccuracies. Here is a glaring example of repeated inaccuracy under the definition of "port de bras": "The basic port de bras exercise moves from fifth en barre- to first arm position, to second arm position, then back down to fifth en -barre-. A full port de bras moves from fifth en -barre- to -fifth overhead- and back down but a variation of sequence is common." FYI: the correct term is "fifth (cinquième) en bas" meaning, low fifth position of the arms. "Fifth overhead" is "cinquième en haut" ... Not to mention that fifth en bas in the French school is "bas au repos" and in the Vaganova, "preparatory." and "fifth en haut" is "third position of the arms", grrrrrrr!
Id have to write more content than is fiven in this glossary to cover a half of the problems with this book app, so, Ill leave it at that. Heres the rub: if a person doesnt know a subject in its entirety, or at least have an editor point out errors and omissions, dont write a book for everyone, when it is only meant to (misinform) a proprietary audience at best, or to make a buck, at worst....and at one buck for a purchase, youd do a lot better to simply buy a used copy of Gail Grants antique "Technical Manual and Dictionary of Classical Ballet." Its much more accurate, though not quite up to date.
Prosemo about Ballet Index
