Programming the Winter Concert: Eleven Submissions, Eight Slots
You direct the winter dance concert at a comprehensive high school. Eleven student-choreographed works were submitted; the program holds eight pieces in 45 minutes including transitions. The stage is 30 feet wide and 24 feet deep with 6-foot wings. One piece uses 24 dancers. A duet is set to a popular song with explicit lyrics and a suggestive section; the choreographer is a senior who says the lyrics are "the whole point." Two junior pieces use the same song and nearly the same theme. One senior's solo is structurally weak - 45 seconds of undifferentiated movement - but this is her last showcase. A freshman group's work is strong but they have missed two of three tech rehearsals. The concert is advertised as family-friendly and the elementary dance club will attend.
1. What selection and programming criteria would you use, and how would you apply them to the four difficult submissions?
Read the worked answer
Criteria, published before auditions. (1) Compositional clarity and development against the class rubric; (2) readiness - tech attendance, spacing set, music cut and submitted on time; (3) safety and physical feasibility in the space; (4) content appropriate for a family audience; (5) program balance in style, tempo, cast size, and tone.
Applied.
- The 24-dancer piece is feasible only with a plan. A 30×24 stage with 6-foot wings cannot hold 24 in a wide line, but it can hold them in a central mass with two diagonals and an early exit for half the cast. I ask for a stage plot and a spacing rehearsal in the space before deciding; if it cannot be re-blocked, it moves to the spring concert or a daytime assembly, not into the 45 minutes.
- The two similar junior pieces: program one and invite the other to the spring concert. The stated reason is program balance, not the work's worth, and I say so in those terms.
- The freshman group: strong work, two missed techs. They get a conditional slot with a mandatory spacing rehearsal; missing it forfeits the slot. That is fair to everyone who showed up.
- The senior solo: it stays in, with required revision (below). A weak piece by a senior is a teaching problem, not a programming emergency.
Running order. Open with an energetic ensemble, alternate cast size and tempo, never place two slow solos back to back, close with the strongest group number. Place the senior solo after a strong ensemble piece so it is framed rather than exposed. Plan transitions on paper under 30 seconds: who strikes, who sets, what crew does.
2. How would you handle the explicit-lyrics duet?
Read the worked answer
Start with the student, not the policy. Ask what the lyric does for the piece. If she can articulate it, there is something to work with; if she cannot, the song is doing the compositional work for her.
Then state the constraint plainly. The concert is a school event advertised as family-friendly with an elementary audience; explicit lyrics will not be played in that venue. That is a condition, not a negotiation about her taste. The real question is what she wants to do about it.
Options, in order.
- Clean edit, if one exists and the section still functions. She decides whether the edit weakens the piece.
- Different track, same intention. If the lyric carries the meaning, find music that carries the same tension without the language. This is a compositional problem, and solving it often improves the work.
- Different venue. If the work is genuinely about that content and an edit destroys it, program it at a curricular sharing for dance classes with an advisory note, not at the family concert. That is programming for the right audience, not censorship.
- Cut, as a last resort, with a real conversation and an offer of the spring concert with a different cut.
Separate the two issues. The suggestive staging is a different category from the language. Material that sexualizes the performers would be handled with an administrator and the students' families, not resolved by a lyric edit, and I would say so to the choreographer directly rather than letting the lyric conversation absorb it.
3. What would you say to the student whose piece is not programmed, and to the senior whose solo needs revision?
Read the worked answer
To the student not programmed. Tell them in person within a day of the decision, and be specific. "The program had room for one piece in that style, and the other work was further along in its development" is honest and impersonal. Then give something usable: two concrete notes on the work - the opening takes 25 seconds to establish the motif; the ending resolves twice - plus an invitation to the spring concert and a real role now (understudy, crew, rehearsal assistant) if they want it. What I will not do is cushion the news with vague praise, because that leaves the student with nothing to fix, and I will not disclose which other piece took the slot.
To the senior with the weak solo. The piece is in the program, so this is a revision conversation, and it must happen with time to act - not at dress rehearsal. Be direct: "The first 45 seconds are the same quality of movement at the same tempo with no change in the space, so the audience will not know where to look." Then give three specific tasks: choose one moment to slow by half, change facing at least twice before the midpoint, and find a clear opening and closing image. Offer a 20-minute rehearsal with me as an outside eye and a deadline before the spacing rehearsal.
Why both conversations matter. Both students are learning the same lesson: choreography is revised in response to a viewer, and a programming decision is not a verdict on the person.