Thread: Why do troupe directors care...

It has been my experience that troupe directors do not like, and sometimes forbid, the dancers in their troupes from dancing with, working with, or dancing at the venues of, other troupes?.p::

Unless a dancer is teaching another troupe her troupe's choreography, I don't see what the harm is.

Please enlighten me. ..c::

I think the issue is one of commitment. If, for example, I'm in Troupe A and the reason we exist is to create pieces together and perform them professionally, then I need to be available for Troupe A performances and rehearsals. If I then join Troupe B, I probably have the same level of commitment, and inevitably, the two will clash at some point - two sets of rehearsals, or gigs at the same time, that sort of thing. At our national festival, nobody is allowed to dance twice - if you were in two troupes and needed in both of them, then you'd have to choose and that could cause ill-feeling.

So I understand why people do that.

I have no good answer for you. I encourage my dancers to dance wherever, whenever. I can't imagine why any troupe director wouldn't want their dancers to - well - dance. I think my dancers sparkle and shine and I like to show them off!

As far as dancing as a permanent member of another troupe - that may cause time/commitment problems. But then if one of my dancers was in a band or did competitive karate or something, she would have the same situation.

I'd imagine that it might cause some degree of political unrest, if you know what I mean. I guess it would depend on the dance school/troupe.

I think there's something to the comraderie that develops when people dance together exclusively. If a group doesn't dance a lot I don't think it's as big of a deal, but in a group that performs and rehearses a lot, I think it's not good for the group.

My husband has this issue in his band, too. One of the guys plays in 2 other bands, including gigs and is always dragging his feet about recording, taking gigs, and rehearsals because he's just worn out. However, he considers their band his MAIN band, so it is frustrating that he lets other similar commitments get in the way.

As a troupe director, I have never forbidden my students to dance with other troupes. However, I have considered it, so I'll share why I considered it:

• When big events come up, every troupe wants to be in them. If both my troupe and the student's other troupe both get performance spots, then the student who belongs to both often finds that she doesn't have time to prepare adequately for both. She doesn't have time to pull together two different costumes, learn/polish two entirely different sets of choreographies, learn/remember all the transitions, etc. As a result, she misses rehearsals or doesn't take sufficient care in creating her costume and looks sloppy compared to everyone else.
• I've had students who got confused between my choreographies as opposed to the other troupe director's. So while I'd be wanting everyone to do upward hip figure 8's, the student would learn downward hip figure 8's from the other troupe director and then use them in my choreo where she should be doing upward ones. This really irritates the other troupe members who made the effort to get the choreo correct. I had to cut someone from a performance because she kept missing rehearsals (see above point) and substituting the wrong moves into my choreos. I felt bad, but I didn't think it was fair to the others to let someone dance who was doing it wrong and had skipped half of the rehearsals.

Originally Posted by gotraqs

It has been my experience that troupe directors do not like, and sometimes forbid, the dancers in their troupes from dancing with, working with, or dancing at the venues of, other troupes?

I don't forbid it, however, if they want to be in my company, our company takes precedence (sp?) if they cannot do that, well then, they can choose to dance in the other company. I work *really* hard to get us gigs and dance opportunities, and to have another dancer say, well, I've got to be with the other troupe, sorry, nope.....
not fair to the other company members.
My company members are welcome to dance away wherever and whatever they want, I do not "own" them, however, like I mentioned above, if they want to be in my company, which is a profesional company, not student, then our company takes precedence (spelling again?)

I can understand a troupe director having a problem with a dancer not being available for shows because of involvement with other troupes- that is, in a professional troupe. I don't see any harm, however, from a dancer dancing at another troupe's regular gig when it isn't conflicting with the dancer's main troupe's activities.

I have gotten the feeling, over the time that I have been dancing and observing troupe dynamics and observing comments from other dancers as well, that this requirement for dancing only with one's troupe, may sometimes possibly stem from a sense of insecurity on the director's part. It kind of reminds me of some of my childhood friendships. You are friends with girl A, and girl A either dislikes, or feels in competition with girl B, so girl A doesn't want you to be friends with girl B, or even says she does not want to be your friend anymore, if you become friends with girl B.

Could be a kind of power play too maybe?

If a dancer is dependable, and keeps her commitments, I think she should feel free to associate with, and dance with, whoever she pleases. If I am working at a corporation, and I have a part-time evening job with another corporation, my primary employer is not going to care, or even have the right to know, about my having a part-time job, as long as I honor my commitments to my primary employer, and of course, do not share trade secrets with a competitor company.


Maybe a little of this requirement for exclusivity also has to do with directors not trusting dancers to be responsible, and be loyal to the primary troupe?

Yes I agree to some expent that it might stem from insecirity on the directors part. I have never forbidden any of my girls to join other troupes. However a troupe that one did try out for would not allow her to be part of thier troupe because she was part of mine. It was a "conflict of interest".
Personally I feel that dancers are adults and they need to know as such, thier limitations of the dance home life balance, the balance between the two groups and what thier priorities are.
After the situation I started to ponder why someone would "forbid" being part of another troupe. In our case we do a few competitions a year, and I have to agree that in that case there could possibly be a "conflict of interest" if both troupes are in the competition.
I personally would never completely "forbid" it, I may advise the dancer that hey here are your expectations for being a member of my troupe, if there is conflict we may need to reevaluate the situation.

Perhaps forbidden is the wrong word. If you are in a professional group, you often sign a contract that may require some exclusive use clauses. You will often have to choose, you can't be in two sororities, you can't play for two basketball teams, you can't dance with two ballet companies. However, on an amateur, hobby level, it would seem to matter less, as if others have said, one can meet all the obligations of all the groups. I have been in a group where members are in other groups and when there have been scheduling problems in shows (not enough time to change costumes), they have chosen the other group. (they are more known) and that leaves the other group short!!!

Originally Posted by gotraqs

If a dancer is dependable, and keeps her commitments, I think she should feel free to associate with, and dance with, whoever she pleases.

Ah, but even if the dancer makes commitments and claims she will keep them, it doesn't always happen. I have seen many cases where Dancer A tells two different troupes she will be part of such-and-such show - shows that are occurring on the same evening, same dance event.

She rehearses with both, gets placed in the formations, rehearses with the groups in those formations - and then one or two weeks before the event she drops out of one of the troupes' appearances at that event, leaving everyone else who depending on her scrambling to re-do formations and rehearse them without her.

Or, she rehearses with both, but panics at not getting both costumes done in time, and shows up for one of the troupes with something sloppily thrown together that looks shabby compared to everyone else.

Or, she rehearses with both, and one week before the show misses a key rehearsal where transitions, stage size, and other details are discussed and rehearsed, leaving everyone else scrambling the day of the performance to try to tell her all this stuff 30 minutes before the troupe is supposed to go on. Invariably, she forgets something and screws up, making the entire troupe look bad.

Or, the troupe director sees the storm clouds of one or more of the above problems starting to develop and cuts the overcommitted person from the show. Drama ensues when all the little friends of the cut person become upset at the troupe director being the Big Meanie.

Originally Posted by gotraqs

If I am working at a corporation, and I have a part-time evening job with another corporation, my primary employer is not going to care, or even have the right to know, about my having a part-time job, as long as I honor my commitments to my primary employer, and of course, do not share trade secrets with a competitor company.

Actually, gotraqs, I've worked for a number of corporations whose employee handbooks explicitly forbade having a second job. They did care - they cared enough to forbid it. Their logic was that the other job could conflict with my primary one by preventing me from working late (if it should be necessary to meet a deadline), or traveling on business, etc. I was in a salaried job, as opposed to hourly pay, and with salaried jobs it is expected that you will sometimes work longer hours.[/quote]

[quote]Maybe a little of this requirement for exclusivity also has to do with directors not trusting dancers to be responsible, and be loyal to the primary troupe?[QUOTE]

Gotraqs, it sounds as though you feel you are mature and responsible enough to balance multiple troupe commitments and therefore you resent troupe directors treating you as though you are not. Unfortunately, over my many years of troupe work I've worked with other dancers who certainly were NOT mature and responsible, and those people are the ones that have often motivated troupe directors to set exclusivity rules.

I have gotten the feeling, over the time that I have been dancing and observing troupe dynamics and observing comments from other dancers as well, that this requirement for dancing only with one's troupe, may sometimes possibly stem from a sense of insecurity on the director's part.

I do agree with you that this is a factor in some situations.




Finally, if Troupe A does Egyptian style and Troupe B does American Tribal Style, I can see how that could create a conflict. A dancer who belongs to both might get the technique for similar moves confused - after rehearsing with Troupe A, she comes to the Troupe B rehearsals doing the technique of Troupe A's style, which would understandably displease Troupe B, and so on. This can be really exasperating for a troupe director - it has happened to me. When a troupe is dancing together, it's important for them to have consistency of style in executing the moves. An advanced-level dancer should be versatile enough to transition between a couple of troupes of different styles without problem, but a student dancer who had less than a couple of years of training may well get confused and make a mess of things as she tries to work with both troupes.

Thank you all for your input. I think I have a much better understanding of the reasoning behind exclusivity. Certainly sounds like it could cause some confusion when troupes are dancing in the same showcase shows, or at the same events. I would not even try to do that. Far too hectic, and I know what I can and cannot take when it comes to time and stress.

Would be nice though if everyone could work together a little more cooperatively when it comes to, for example, restaurant dancing. One dancer dancing at another dancer's late night venue, I would think, would be less complicated, as long as the dancer doesn't schedule two late night gigs in one night.

I do consider myself to be a dependable, honest person, but I can understand, in some of the situations described by Bhuzzers above, why it would be difficult for troupe directors to trust other dancers to display the same traits.

I think, when it comes to restaurant dancing, you're talking about a highly competitive business with stiff competition for gigs. So you're not just talking about another part time job -- you're talking about moonlighting your job at Coke with a job at Pepsi.

Troupes with restaurant gigs are *very* protective of them. People don't have to work in that side of the business long before they've dealt with undercutters, dancers who present the dance poorly & hurt everyone's employment prospects, etc. It's a cutthroat side of the business in most cases.

There's one restaurant in our area that has dancers from a variety of troupes performing on different nights. The competition over a *monthly* shot at this $50/set gig has ruined several long-term friendships in less than a year!

I'd be very leery of a dance director who objected to her students or troupe members taking an occasional class from another teacher, or going to workshops/events sponsored by another troupe, or dancing at/attending a hafla. Restaurant dancing is another whole animal. IF I had a restaurant gig, I'd keep it on a short leash!!

p.s. I say *IF* I had a restaurant gig as if I might actually consider it -- for all the reasons mentioned above, as well as a few others, I dont *want* one!

Wow, I'm impressed that *anyone* has the time and/or energy to dance with two different troupes. Considering that even if styles are similar, the dance terms for even basic steps varies quite a bit from teacher to teacher in bellydance, let alone remembering all the nuances of entrances, exits, and what about expense of troupe costuming? I have only seen, in 20 years of dance, one person who was in two troupes, and that was with the same director who had 3 troupes going at the same time. She was a good dancer but said she wouldn't do it again just because of the mental "overload".
I can totally see, however, why directors wouldn't be thrilled if one of their troupe members wanted to dance simultaneously in another troupe. It is not an issue of whether the dancer is "good" enough, it's the focus and camaraderie between dancers that is impacted. Dancers are not "plug-in" fixtures - what makes a troupe really put out a great performance is how the members relate to each other in addition to audience and this doesn't happen if dancers are bouncing back and forth between two troupes. It's the result of a group working together over time, so of course what troupe director wants to see that focus jeopardized?
I'm not even addressing the issues around choreography and keeping it separate - most dancers really do "get it" that choreo is the property of whoever wrote it. Or the fact that most folks work dayjobs to support their dance activities, or have regular club/restaurant gigs - either way, the idea of being in two troupes at the same time just doesn't seem doable. I could also see, besides director frustration, a high incidence of dancer burn-out from being in more than one troupe.

Hi everyone.

I'd like to chime in here. I am currently in 2 troupes - one of them is mine (I do the choreography, find venues for performance, and do a fair bit of the costuming) and the other is run by my main teacher. It is completely possible to perform in the same events as long as the individual practises and polishes all the pieces she is working on, which requires commitment and self-discipline. I work hard and have not had a problem so far.

One of my dancers is in a folkloric troupe as well. Very occasionally a rehearsal conflict will come up, but we all rehearse regularly and practise and have danced together enough that we can pull things together well.

Another one of my dancers has recently started doing Tribal, and that has affected her arms. She now has these weird arm positions sometimes that are halfway between the two styles. She is just going to have to spend some extra time in front of the mirror to make sure that she gets the arms she needs to have in our dances. (And actually arms have been her weakness from the start.)

I think the most important thing is to have a rehearsal timeline and any costume commitments laid out as early as possible (like a 3-month plan), and people have to be willing to work (and have enough spare time to do the work). We are all so happy with our various dance projects - I couldn't ask anyone to give something up that gives them so much pleasure. (A side note - everyone discussed the new comittments with the rest of the troupe before we actually started them, which is also important.)

ciao,
Anuka

Originally Posted by gotraqs

1) I have gotten the feeling, over the time that I have been dancing and observing troupe dynamics and observing comments from other dancers as well, that this requirement for dancing only with one's troupe, may sometimes possibly stem from a sense of insecurity on the director's part. YES

2) Could be a kind of power play too maybe? YES

3) Maybe a little of this requirement for exclusivity also has to do with directors not trusting dancers to be responsible, and be loyal to the primary troupe? YES

It also has to do with commitment/availability. as many have noted.


As a director, although I would be a bit concerned about troupe members being members of other troupes, I would not be concerned about those same members dancing at other troupes' haflas, showcases, etc. Might a troupe member decide to go with that director rather than me? Of course! Even if we teachers/directors work very hard not to take this stuff personally, it would still be disappointing; however, we "own" no one and no one owes us anthing except fees, reasonable loyalty for the time one is in a troupe, and the good grace not to air publically the "dirty laundry" of one's past associations.

Deborah

At one time I belonged to 3 different belly dance troupes (one was a duet), worked a full-time job and taught one-two classes a week. I learned all of the choreography for all 3 troupes--creating some of it for the duet--and had no trouble remembering it nor did my "cane technique" bleed into and interfere with my veil work. All of my costumes were complete and I managed to switch costumes 5 times for one show--performing as a member of 2 troupes at that event.

When conflicts did arise due to multiple events being scheduled on the same day (not often but enough to make one wonder why local organizers don't all keep their events updated on Bhuz to avoid such problems whenever possible), I always adhered to my initial commitment. I never opted to take a second offer when I had already said that I would perform in the first. I was very honest and open about all the gigs and kept my schedule updated and visible on my website. While a director might frown on not getting "first dibs" on me at all times, I don't see how this would be any different if the other commitment was my child's birthday, a work function or any other "valid" excuse other dancers might invoke.

Ultimately I think it depends on the individual. Some people are flaky and incapable of keeping commitments. Those people probably shouldn't try to do too many things at once. Other people thrive on variety and want exposure to different instructors, fellow dancers and dance styles. While it may not be common for a dancer to be in 2 ballet companies, for example, there were many dancers at Ruth Page who zipped over to Gus right after class. I was not one of them but I did envy their energy! I did study ballet, jazz and tap when I was younger and belonged to both a ballet and jazz troupe. Dancers need to dance.

If your director is giving you grief over another troupe or hobby, I would try to reassure her that you can handle it. If she doesn't believe or trust you, it's time to move on. Belonging to a group has its advantages but the troupe should never completely erase the individual. Don't expect the director to change--you must decide what is best for you.

:o)

P.S. I am not referring to any particular troupe leader, or dance troupe I have associated with, but rather the sum of the various experiences I have had over the years, the other dancers I have known, and the things I have read on message boards. No dirty laudry to air - just more a matter of curiosity about group dynamics, and the reasoning behind directors' requirements of troupe members.

I feel like I just wrote a legal disclaimer! ..l;,

Hey, why not?

"Warning: Certain individuals who follow this thread may experience intestinal discomfort, itchy rash, blurred vision, dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, and/or stupor progessing to coma. Please consult your physician if these symptoms do not subside within 2 weeks of onset." ..l;,

Can't tell I worked for a pharmaceutical company, can you?