Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Why is City Ballet Corps Weak?


Guest dancerboy

Recommended Posts

Guest dancerboy

I have been following NYCB for years, and have noticed two consistancies: Strong soloists/principles, weak core. For such a top-tier company it is surprising, in my opinion. Anyone have any ideas on the subject?

Link to comment

That's corps, dancerboy. And I've edited the title of this thread to more accurately reflect the tenor of your first post.

I realize that this is a weak welcome to Ballet Talk here on Ballet Alert! Online, but welcome anyway.

You've hit on a traditional complaint about NYCB's corps - Robert La Fosse made it, too in his autobiography, Nothing to Hide, and he wrote that while he was still a principal with the company! The dancers in the NYCB corps aren't weak, they just aren't together, and the arms, oh the arms - seldom have there been so many arms on so few dancers.

Link to comment

I don't think NYCB's corps has always been weak, nor is it always weak.

In my years following the company I have seen waves of wonderful times when the corps was magnificent. Then there have been times when they were quite bad.

I think it goes that way with most companies. I've seen this at ABT and even with PB. I've witnessed wonderful seasons and sloppy seasons with the company I work for. :sweating:

Part of the problem for ABT and NYCB is the huge rep they put together in a very short time. I believe time accounts for the problem in their not so wonderful seasons.

Link to comment

I think it's very hard to make a group of dancers work perfectly together when their arms and legs are all over the place and do not have a consistent line. With NYCB, in terms of the legs, it's the tendency to have them out to the side instead of behind them, and with varying degrees of this, it's bound to look "off". With the arms, besides the broken wrists and stiff hands, it appears to me that there is no pattern to the way they move from one place to another. Again, creates a lack of consistency. This is a problem in the schooling, and it affects ABT as well, since their dancers are from all over the place and have not had the same schooling. Generally the coaching there works better in terms of getting them all to do the same thing, however, I too have seen years where the corps was quite underwhelming. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Strictly from an audience point-of-view, the corps may be regarded as weak in terms of uniformity, but it affords us the pleasure of picking out dancers "to watch." Many NYCB corps members become those "strong soloists/principals" dancerboy alludes to, and even corps members who never get promoted often hold a lasting place in our hearts and memories. I doubt this is true in many other companies. In fact, I think it's what makes NYCB unique.

Link to comment

This uneveness in the corps of major companies reminds me of why bigger is not always better.

I remember watching OBT's James Canfield rehearse two measures of the Flowers from Nutcracker for nearly one hour. By the end, not only were the arms together, the very breath was together...and it showed in performance. I think that coaching is the issue here, not the dancer's talent. Some times the big companies are focused on other production issues.

Then the Kirov pulls into town and everyone remembers what a corps is supposed to look like.

Link to comment
Guest dancerboy

a lot of the replies seem to focus on technical nuances, which I find interesting. One would think that NYCB would find corps (see - no typo!) members who can figure those subtleties out. I know I've seen good lines, etc in far less "known" companies. I sometimes feel that the "individuality" of the dancers is more to the point. It's often more like watching a group of soloists as opposed to a true corps de ballet. But that's just my gut reaction. The technical stuff is very informative - thanks for the responses - I'm glad to know I'm not alone in feeling this way, and it's good to hear that this isn't always the case.

Link to comment

Dancerboy, when you say "It's often more like watching a group of soloists as opposed to a true corps de ballet," I think that's a good point. So many of the ballets in that repertory use a small group of dancers, they really are soloists, or at least demi-soloists. That's what many of us think of as the company's style -- when they do "Swan Lake" it gets a bit more controversial, as several threads on these boards will show.

Link to comment

Dancerboy, it may be a matter of taste --

Of course Glebb has an important point, and Watermill's is a version of hte same thing -- more rehearsal time ...

But..... Mr B cared much more for energy than line. I'm pretty much quoting Kyra Nichols, whom I interviewed years ago, not long after balanchine died. She brought up the issue of lines herself and said that mr B didn't want perfect lines, he wanted ENERGY and her whole body kind of made a starburst as she said it. (Ms Nichols herself is one of the few NYCB dancers whom English and Russian dancers regarded as correct.)

Link to comment

That is interesting Paul because good line mattered and still matters to me most. I had the energy (and had it under control.) I could and can still spend hours looking at pictures of Makarova, Kirkland, Royal Ballet Ballerinas of the seventies and early eighties and Stuttgart Ballerinas of that same time. I adore perfect line.

Kyra Nichols often reminded me of Makarova in regard to her line.

As for the corps, I find that it is much more than straight lines that matters. When all are in straight lines with a similar understanding of port de bras and timing, I can then enjoy the individuality of the dancers. When their timing, port de bras and execution of steps is not uniform I see blur.

Link to comment

I've sometimes seen corps that have been drilled to within an inch of their lives :yawn: :sleeping: , and I almost have to ask, At what point is a company so tightly disciplined that the sense of Dancing is replaced by regimentation? Also, I have seen corps that lack the feel of Dancing but not due to overregimentation :wacko: (i.e., NYCB in recent years, but not so much in Winter 2003).

At what point do you have and maintain the best of both? Is it necessary to sacrifice the one for the other? :shrug: I think the Royal Ballet of the '70s and early '80s hit the right mark with terrific consistency.

For me, if it doesn't dance, I'd just as soon stay home.

Edited by carbro
Link to comment

Then perhaps it should be a company of all soloists and no corps de ballet! :wacko:

Just kidding, but seriously, if this is the case, then they should not try to do Swan Lake or any of the classics. But do you really think he intended Serenade or Symphony in C, for instance, to not have the look of a corps de ballet? I'm afraid I will have to rather strongly disagree with a good, clean, together corps de ballet looking like robots, in Giselle or anything else. When there is a group dancing together, they are intended to be together and do the same thing at the same time, with legs and arms at the same place. Otherwise, you have chaos. :o

Link to comment

I have never seen a corps de ballet rehearsed to look dull. Together is not dull. It is exciting. Did any of you see the Cubans in "Giselle?" They were on fire! Live bodies dancing together are not robots. Each face is different. Each soul is different.

I saw NYCB summer before last in "Tchaikovsky Suite No. 3" and "Firebird.". The corps work was so bad I did not go back to see them any of my trips to NYC this past summer. I could not see Balanchines beautiful choreography because of all the mistakes and lack of being well rehearsed. Timing was off, port de bras was all over the place. It was quite disheartening because from 1975 - 1988 and longer NYCB was my favorite company. Earlier in the thread I expressed my views on why the corps work comes and goes at NYCB. I'm sure it will be good again.

A corps de ballet is just that. Soloists are soloists and principles are principles. They are not the same. Why list them as such?

Link to comment

Glebb wrote:

I saw NYCB summer before last in "Tchaikovsky Suite No. 3" and "Firebird.". The corps work was so bad I did not go back to see them any of my trips to NYC this past summer.

That's been one of the consistent criticisms of the NYCB corps for the past few years in some reviews, that they no longer have the articulation or technical strength to do justice to Balanchine.

I think the corps uniformity issue is a matter of taste and we have quite a few Londoners on this site who would not consider their company dull.

Edited by Alexandra
Link to comment

Getting 42 people to all do the same thing at the same time is a bravura feat, IMO! :wink:

I understand the points about energy being more important than everyone being in a straight line, but it is possible to have both. Not only is the schooling a problem at NYCB, but so is the lack of rehearsal time, something many companies face these days, which makes it even more incredible that the Maryinsky corps is so perfect--they tour so much one wonders whether they ever have time to rehearse at all!

The reason a coordinated corps de ballet does not look like robots is that they have to be connected on some level--the music, breath, awareness of the person next to them, &c. These are connections between conscious beings, not robots who have been turned on at the same time but run on forever in a void.

Link to comment

The high rate of turnover year after year at City Ballet in recent seasons may also have something to do with it.

There also may be something cultural going on here -- The great corps de ballets at the moment belong to the European companies. The Kirov, Paris Opera Ballet and the Bolshoi all take your breath away with their corps de ballet. All of these companies have a strong tradition that the corps de ballet really matters, that a career there is an honorable and important one in itself for a dancer, that a dancer is not a failure if he or she does not progress beyond the corps de ballet.

With some of the American Companies and American Dancers, I get the feeling that this isn't quite the same. All too often everybody wants to be a star and feels that they should be one. If they aren't on track to be a soloist in a few seaons they feel they have somehow failed. You hear that "so and so has been stuck in the corps forever," etc., as if they have not succeeded. That attitude is very different from the ethic in, for example, the Kirov. No company can be great without a great corps de ballet. You can't have too many Chiefs and too few Indians.

Link to comment
There also may be something cultural going on here -- The great corps de ballets at the moment belong to the European companies. The Kirov, Paris Opera Ballet and the Bolshoi all take your breath away with their corps de ballet. All of these companies have a strong tradition that the corps de ballet really matters, that a career there is an honorable and important one in itself for a dancer, that a dancer is not a failure if he or she does not progress beyond the corps de ballet.

Just an observation regarding this statement...these ballet companies also have very reputable schools that have been established for centuries and traditionally have drawn the majority of their dancers from these schools. In short, the dancers, who have trained together since childhood, all use the same vocabulary, understand each others way of moving, they all come from the same mound. This can make for very coherent corps work! :wub:

Great idea! :)

Link to comment

Balanchine WAS interested in training his dancers a certain way and hiring them from his school. That probably had something to do with it in the past.

Many seemingly small technique issues in ballet actually have a lot to do with being together --- for example, if you stick your leg out a bit to the side in arabesque instead of behind you, then when you step onto it you'll suddenly be out of formation.

There is certainly a fine art to figuring out just how to discipline the corps. You have to look at it and see what sticks out that you don't like and change it. You can't just harp on everything because there's no time for that. That's one reason Balanchine was so good.

Good corps doesn't necessarily mean great line on everyone --- but it DOES mean choosing a line that everyone can do adequately well, and then agreeing on the details of how that line will be accomplished so everyone does it the same way.

We did a dance recently in which a LOT of precision and uniformity was required of the ladies' corps, but for dramatic reasons was not so desired of the male corps. This came through in the rehearsal process. The ladies were told exactly where to put their fingers, etc. But the men were not, and hence we all did our steps a little bit differently from each other. Many things were left undefined.

Link to comment

Living in Europe I only see NYCB every third year or so, when they visit Denmark as they are presently. My impression formed on yesterdays performance is that the corps have become significantly weeker since last I saw them, less unison and much less given the impression of one dancing body. Few choreographers make so wonderful use of a corps like Balanchine. When done right you do not register individual members of the corps, you see The corps. I hope they can retrive the look again, because it is a loss to the choreograhy

Link to comment

It's interesting that the corps looked incredible during the Baryshnikov years and for some years after that. I never spoke with Balanchine but I'd bet he didn't mind the corps looking good.

Those years were wonderful times to see the beauty of his ballets.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...