Please Update!
Please update this app! I really like using it for my younger dancers.
I paid and no update for IOS 11
When it work was good but since IOS11 the developer didn’t update so is not working any longer and I paid money for it
Not as it seems
Well I had the free version and saw that this version had the pictures to demonstrate the description of the moves. So I bought it for that reason. Click on the move, and it's exactly the same as the free version. Where are the illustrations?!?! Get the free version, it's cheaper! If the illustrations had been there it would have had 5 stars.
Show more
Not so useful.
It's all right. The thing that I dislike is that it has photos for unimportant things like "ballerina" and very few for things that would be useful, like all of the movements. I would like to see photos of thi gs like all the variations of an arabesque, for instance, or of all the positions. That's what I really wanted. A description is just not as useful.
Show more
Brilliant
I have been studying ballet for almost 2 years now. This app has been the best app to help me get through the language and the terminology my teacher and friends use. This has been like my bible for the last few years. It's easy to read and to understand and especially because I'm a guy it's extremely straight to the point. Such a good app :).
Show more
No pictures
Paid for the app and there are no pictures. Screen shots are deceiving.Useless. Will be asking for a refund.
Same thing as lite version.
It's the same as lite version, useless to pay, if there are no pictures as promissed in the description. Disappointed.
Great ballet ap
Has been really helpful for me, as a new dance mum.
Ballet Index
Sorry to say - not great!
Descriptions not clear and still waiting former of those pictures that were promised! Come on - sort it out - I night this App to learn positions, not just to have a useless App I'm my phone!
Descriptions not clear and still waiting former of those pictures that were promised! Come on - sort it out - I night this App to learn positions, not just to have a useless App I'm my phone!
Disappointing
While the definitions are thorough, the lack of pictures a real upset. There might be five definitions in the whole app that include pics. Your better off googling the terms for free if you want an example. How hard is it to snap pics of dancers and uploading them to the app?
Disappointed!
First downloaded the lite version then found this which was indicated more pics then the lite FALSE! The only difference between the lite and the index are with the PAID version is no ads THATS IT fix this if we paid for something we expect it!
Such a ripoff!
No images after paying for the full version. Don't waste your money!!!
rip-off!
I first downloaded the Lite version and after finding out that there were a lot of entries with no images, I decided to buy the (supposedly) full version. What a disappointment! more than 90% of entries will just present a dictionary-style definition, with no supporting images!
Good
Overall a very useful app. (: but need more features coz there's not a big difference than the lite version.
Fine dictionary but the store shows photos but ...
Unless I'm missing something there are none! I am pretty "ticked off"! I bought this because at 55, even though I still teach in pointe shoes, I can't demonstrate everything the way I'd like to anymore! Bring on the photos & I'll rate this higher....
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 (Balanchine's 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 don't 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!
I'd have to write more content than is fiven in this glossary to cover a half of the problems with this book app, so, I'll leave it at that. Here's the rub: if a person doesn't know a subject in its entirety, or at least have an editor point out errors and omissions, don't 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, you'd do a lot better to simply buy a used copy of Gail Grant's antique "Technical Manual and Dictionary of Classical Ballet." It's much more accurate, though not quite up to date.
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 (Balanchine's 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 don't 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!
I'd have to write more content than is fiven in this glossary to cover a half of the problems with this book app, so, I'll leave it at that. Here's the rub: if a person doesn't know a subject in its entirety, or at least have an editor point out errors and omissions, don't 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, you'd do a lot better to simply buy a used copy of Gail Grant's antique "Technical Manual and Dictionary of Classical Ballet." It's much more accurate, though not quite up to date.
Show more
Ballet
Very clear descriptions for all ballet levels
Misleading
There are like two photos in the whole app not what it shows in the preview..
Love it
I love it. It would be cool if it had a book maker and if you could write corrections your teacher give you on it. It would make it totally more awesome.
Great!!
It needs pictures, but it's a great dictionary.
