Went to another of my granddaughter's talent shows this week and last, and while I usually publish a tongue-in-cheek review, I won't be reviewing many of the performances this time, in that the programs was at 3 hours and still going when I left. Apparently all one has to do to qualify to perform in the talent show is to fill out an application. And, as I am now a retired teacher, I will take the liberty that many of my friends do, and that's to tell the Principal at Moiola how to run her school.
First of all, as I said, anyone who says they have a talent "tries out" for the final show. We saw the tryouts, and everyone who tried out appeared to have made the show. This included things like a young man dressed in camo who waved a stick in the air and eventually was "killed" by an intruder who was unarmed. Who knew that when we played army as kids we were exhibiting a talent? Two young ladies sang a song that I think was entitled "Across the Universe." I realized the title was actually a metaphor for the distance between their performance and perfect pitch. Three girls got into sleeping bags and their moms threw stuffed animals at them from behind the curtain. That was it. I can imagine them saying, "When I grow up I want to be a target." Or at least work there. It suddenly dawned on me that the reason that we have so many talentless people trying out for American Idol is that their elementary school didn't have the courage to tell them they had no talent.
The program also did something that I thought was impossible: It made me appreciate "Dancing with the Stars." Not for the dancing, of course, but for the fact that the dances have a time limit. One boy, who was very talented, did a break dance to a song that had to be six minutes long. Yes, he was good, yet the kids enjoyed it, but 6 minutes? My reason for this is very personal. First of all, I came to see my granddaughters perform, as I'm sure did many others (their grandchildren, not mine, though I suppose the word has gotten out about my grandchildren by now). The program started at 9 and my girls finally got on about 11:15. Fortunately, I had the time. My son in law did not. He had to get back to cover a final and did not get to watch the girls, neither Jolie's singing or Jolie and Jeslyn's dance, which they had prepared as a surprise for Daddy. Jennifer even went up and asked if the girls could be moved up, but no dice. And, of course, her video camera went belly up in the middle of the girls' dance--I think even a new camera would have died of old age waiting for the performance.
The girls' turns finally came, and for me at least I'm glad I stayed. Jolie sang Taylor Swift's "Love Story" and nailed it even better than she did last week when her voice teacher was there to watch (thanks, Chelsea). Almost all of the other "singers" just did a lip sync to the actual performance, which made Jolie's stand-alone even better, in my unbiased opinion. Then the girls danced a routine to "I Can't Do This Alone," (that's close enough) from "Chicago." So well done, and so sorry dad missed it. They are doing it again at their recital in a couple of weeks, but I know they really wanted to surprise him Monday.
OK, pity party done. I can understand the philosophy of letting everyone experience performing in front of a group, and the reluctance to tell people "you weren't good enough." I wouldn't want to be the one to tell a 5-year-old that nobody really wants to see him balance a big feather on his hand for 4 minutes. (I think I would have been able to tell the trio of girls who danced to Rocky Horror's "Let's Do the Time Warp Again," that performing hip thrusts in front of a bunch of jr hi boys was not a good idea). The Special Olympics has shown us the value of rewarding everyone who participates. So I get that. I'm sure the kids don't mind because a 3-hour performance is 3 hours out of class. So, in my ideal talent show, I probably couldn't tell someone they had no talent, either. So here's what I'd do (I'm sure you were dying to see this).
1) Define categories. What is talent, and more importantly, what isn't. I don't think it's a talent for some 7th grade boys to dunk a basketball into a 4-foot basket. (Tho it was kind of entertaining to watch the kid in the Celtics jersey keep missing at that height. Art imitates life.).
2) Limit the length. Most kids would have the technological capacity to edit out a verse or chorus of a song. Say you can only read 2 of your poems, not 7. Under current "guidelines" a kid could haul up a TV and an x-box and subject us to watching him play a role-playing game for 2 hours. It's definitely a talent, but out of place in this setting.
3) Give the parents a clue when their child (or grandchild) will perform. Even if was just "before recess" or "after recess" would have helped Jeff schedule differently. When I sing in church and friends come to watch (It could happen!), it's good to be able to give them an approximate time so they can either come watch or come up with a credible excuse. The way it's done now almost makes it seem like the show is for the kids' benefits, not ours. How selfish is that?
Every good sermon has 3 points, so I'll stop there.
Abusive Evangelism
12 years ago
I went to the 3rd grade talent show today....and it was 1.25 hrs.....nothing as silly as yours. We had a 3 Stooges skit, the "Whose on First?" skit, lots of lip syncing and dancing, some actual singing, piano, guitar, and probably the only one with talent at all...a gymnast. I was proud of Ash and her friend....they were the only ones who sang without music so you could actually hear them. They are not in the same category as Jolie but they are darn brave for singing. :) And Carson watched it all....I think if their was one more act we would have been out of there...lol.
ReplyDelete