Pushing Young Dancers

[BalletNut]

This is a question that came up on the Kirov-Mariinsky forum, which Natalia suggested might make a good thread for an "interested poster" to start--whether the Kirov's management pushes young dancers too far, too soon and whether this is a problem. I'm taking the bait, but I'm also going to take the liberty of opening the topic here instead of in the Kirov forum, because although the discussion of this came up in that forum, it's quite possible that this could be a trend in other ballet companies besides the Kirov.

So, are young dancers being pushed too far, too soon? Are there companies where this might be an issue? When is the right time to "push" a dancer and when should directors and choreographers "lay off"?

PS: I realize I might be opening a can of worms here, but I have confidence that the issue of pushing young dancers can be discussed and stay in bounds as regards our no-gossip policy.

[canbelto]

I'd say Alicia Markova becoming a ballerina at the age of 14 in the Ballet Russes is too young, but it seems ot have worked out well for her

Ditto Vaslav Nijisnky, Rudolf Nureyev, Alla Sizova, and Maya Plisetskaya, all bypassing the corps after graduation, but it worked out well for them too Oh and Diana Vishneva.

[Ari]

I think it all depends on the quality and amount of assistance they get. Just throwing a kid onstage without preparation -- emotional and moral as well as artistic -- could do more harm than good. But if the director chooses the dancer wisely -- i.e., avoiding those too immature to cope with the responsibility -- and then gives them the resources with which to handle the assignment, it could work out well.

Of course, being in the corps for a while can help a dancer more than he or she may at first realize. I imagine it takes a while to get used to being onstage and coping with the vagaries of performing, such as learning to adjust to different tempos, partners, circumstances. And performing itself is so different from just executing the choreography (pace, Mr. B!). The anonymity of the corps may be the best place to learn all this.

Then there's the issue of what repertory the company is performing. In Balanchine's day, even the most talented dancers spent years in the NYCB corps before being officially promoted. Part of that was Balanchine's insistence on seeing a significant change in the dancer before dubbing him a soloist, but a lot of it had to do with the fact that dancing Balanchine's ballets takes some getting used to even by dancers trained in his school, and putting in your time in the corps was the best way of acclimatizing oneself to his style. It was fascinating to watch how he would put a dancer in a specific ballet in order to develop a particular quality or aspect of their technique. (I'm talking about corps assignments.)

Of course, Balanchine's ballets make great technical and stylistic demands on the corps, but many other choreographers' ballets just use them as stage-dressing, and to be stuck for years doing that can be pretty oppressive for someone capable of greater things.

The ideal situation would be to give potential soloists their solo opportunities (with the necessary support) but also give them the comfort and safety of corps and demi-solo work until they're ready to stand alone.

[Helene]

In many cases Balanchine did do the ideal: he grew young dancers by giving them a featured role in one ballet, and then sending them back to the corps for the next, and doing this over the course of a long period. Even when they started to dance principal and big soloist roles only, their title remained a rank below, and they were promoted mainly when they could handle the pressures of the title as well as dancing the roles.

There were exceptions, like Kistler, McBride, and Kirkland who were fast-tracked, the equivalent of Roberta Peters in opera, but the typical procession was slower. Even in these cases, Balanchine was there for decades to coach as well, with the exception of Kistler at the very end of his life. Kistler has said that when he gave her Swan Lake Act II as a teenager, his instructions to her were "Don't act," "You're not in love with your partner," not only to avoid overacting, but to take the pressure off of her to portray something she hadn't yet experienced and didn't understand.

What's frightening to me is when a young dancer is "born" in a major role, particularly when a company is hurting for Stars. That's when management casts the young dancer in roles for which the standards are the greatest dancers in role after role, often with little coaching, in order to sell those tickets and publicize the young "star." The pressure -- physical and psychological -- can become dangerous, unless the dancer is a fearless stage animal and can't be stopped.

[Daniil]

I don't think "Push" is the right verb in this context. It sounds like all these young dancers don't want to dance and are "forced" to dance major roles.

Why not let a passionate young dancer let dance a major role, if he wants it? (of course only, if he has everything). Give him an opportunity to show himself. If he fails, wait this dancer to become better!

Some dancers are earlier finished with the development of their bodies then others. A condition for letting a dancer dance a major role is that this dancer won't possibly hurt himself (e.g. I think a boy with normal physique is ready to do all these lifts only after becoming 20 years)

Personally (maybe because I want to become a dancer) I don't like all these "educational" things like let a dancer doing major roles and then the next day let him dance in the corps. If a dancer deserves a place in a company, then he should stay there!

[Hans]

Regarding Balanchine's advice to Kistler...if she was too young to portray the emotions involved in Swan Lake, why give her the role? I would always prefer an expressive performance than merely a technical one, however prettily it was executed, although I suppose Balanchine didn't see it that way.

Regarding young dancers in big roles, I've read that historically, promising young dancers were coached extensively at the Kirov, sometimes for a year or more, before performing a principal role. I think this is an important distinction to make. Are young dancers being fully prepared for their roles or just given a video and a week to learn the steps?

[Helene]

Last night Francia Russell, in a post-performance Q&A, answered a question about how roles are cast. Her answer was two-fold: to create the best cast for the audience, but also to give younger dancers the opportunity to grow, so that the next crop of dancers would be ready to assume the roles.

I find that many "mature" portrayers of Odette emphasize the emotion over the choreography. I loved Kistler's early performances in the role because she was a dance creature, and the video of her graduation workshop shows remarkable dancing for anyone at any stage in her career. Also, there wasn't the pressure of Odile or Act IV, in the short version.

I also love to see young dancers in roles; I used to live for Saturday matinees at NYCB. I'm rarely disappointed when a young dancer replaces a Principal in a role, unless the Principal was supposed to give one of his/her last performances, but that may be because I don't attend the full-lengths all that often. I can think of one performance in over 30 years in which I thought a young dancer's performance was an unmitigated failure. There's almost always another angle or aspect that is revealed in any performance by a dancer who is learning in front of my eyes, and decisions that are ignored by the greatest interpreters of the role.

However, I do think it's the responsibility of the AD's to grow dancers, and not exploit their willingness to over-extend in order to promote them -- in all ways -- before they're ready to take on physical demands, the burden of public scrutiny, and the sense of responsibility to maintain the level of excellence that nearly every important dancer has expressed as his/her career progressed.

[Daniil]

Are young dancers being fully prepared for their roles or just given a video and a week to learn the steps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the Kirov the young dancers are not provided by a video and a do-it-yourself thinking. I can say for sure that they (if they're given the opportunity) are well prepared by their personal coach, who also has a big responsibility for this role and his dancer.

[Ari]

Last night Francia Russell, in a post-performance Q&A, answered a question about how roles are cast.  Her answer was two-fold:  to create the best cast for the audience, but also to give younger dancers the opportunity to grow, so that the next crop of dancers would be ready to assume the roles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would add a third: to give dancers the opportunity to use the roles to develop certain aspects of their dancing -- technique, expressiveness, presentation -- even if the role itself is not one to which they are wholly suited. Balanchine did this all the time, both in solo and corps casting. Putting Merrill Ashley in Emeralds and Swan Lake to develop her adagio and refine her placement is an example. Of course, deliberate miscasting that is too extreme is unfair to the audience, and there were times I felt cheated, even though I knew the rationale for the casting and trusted that Balanchine's strategy would pay off in the long run.

I loved Kistler's early performances in the role because she was a dance creature, and the video of her graduation workshop shows remarkable dancing for anyone at any stage in her career.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Video? There's a video? I mean, I was there, but . . . there's a video? Where did you see it? Are all the SAB Workshops available on video for viewing by the public?

I'd give anything to see a tape of the 1978 Workshop with the 13-year old Peter Boal bringing down the house in a children's ballet. If there's a tape, maybe they'll show it at his farewell performance.

[Helene]

Video? There's a video? I mean, I was there, but . . . there's a video? Where did you see it? Are all the SAB Workshops available on video for viewing by the public?

It was excerpted in Dancing for Mr. B. It's possible that it was a rehearsal that was taped, because the quality wasn't that great.

[ninjarina]

I don't think "Push" is the right verb in this context. It sounds like all these young dancers don't want to dance and are "forced" to dance major roles.

Why not let a passionate young dancer let dance a major role, if he wants it? (of course only, if he has everything). Give him an opportunity to show himself. If he fails, wait this dancer to become better!

Some dancers are earlier finished with the development of their bodies then others. A condition for letting a dancer dance a major role is that this dancer won't possibly hurt himself (e.g. I think a boy with normal physique is ready to do all these lifts only after becoming 20 years)

Personally (maybe because I want to become a dancer) I don't like all these "educational" things like let a dancer doing major roles and then the next day let him dance in the corps. If a dancer deserves a place in a company, then he should stay there!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree with you

[Hans]

Speaking of dancers doing too much too soon, I wonder how Alessandra Ferri's career might have been different had she not been promoted to principal dancer at the age of 18 or 19. (I also wonder how it might have been different had she been trained at the Vaganova Academy or Paris Opera, but that's another thread.) I remember reading that when she was a principal dancer, she wasn't given "tutu" roles such as Sleeping Beauty and Coppelia, and when she asked why, she was told that she didn't have the technique. Well, my question is: Why was she a principal dancer if she had such big holes in her technique? Couldn't the Royal Ballet and its school produce a principal dancer capable of performing a ballet as unchallenging as Coppelia? (Sleeping Beauty, admittedly, needs to be worked up to.) It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Paul Parish]

Hans, I wsa wondering hte same thing about paloma Herrera -- not that she didn't have a fair amount of technique, but her temperament wasn't developed, and she became confirmed so early in some unfortunate mannerisms.... but worse than that, the deadness of her performances in the last few years make it seem that she lacks character, that that human development which should have taken place gradually, in its own good time, was rushed and may unfortunately never take place (as Michael Jackson may never grow up).

I don't wish this upon her -- and, not living in New York, I haven't had a chance to follow her development. But I was certainly horrified by a performance as Giselle in which it was almost impossible to find her onstage,vshe was so drab. I'd write it off to a bad day, except that I see people who DO live in New Yorrk comment on this often enough to make it seem that there's a pattern.

[BalletNut]

In response to my own question , I think the distinction lies between dancers who are ready and able to be promoted and/or given lead roles very early in their careers (Markova, I suspect, falls into this category), and dancers who are obviously gifted but need a few years to put under their belts as corps dancers and soloists. In retrospect, I think a better way to word the original question is how directors can determine which dancers fit which category.

Then there are dancers who are extraordinarily talented in some ways, but need to work on other areas. I'll just use the examples from this thread: From what Hans and Paul have written, it seems that Herrera had, and still has, outstanding technique, and not much dramatic presence, while the opposite is true for Ferri. The question I think both of you are asking (correct me if I'm wrong) is whether or not to promote dancers who are less than well-rounded, and when, if ever, to "push" them further once they are promoted by casting against "type" and, sometimes, against capabilities: would Ferri have been a good Aurora even without the technique? Could Herrera eventually become a good Giselle if she performed it enough? I think the answer is different for dancers, who understandably want to dance a wide variety of roles to keep them stimulated, and possibly to help them improve their dancing, and for critics and audience members, who might be hesitant to spend money on tickets for ballets that they would consider to be miscast. I also agree with Ari that sometimes "pushing" can ultimately help dancers to improve and become more well-rounded, even if the actual performance doesn't go well.

Finally, I would like to address Daniil's comment about the use of the word "push." By "push," I don't mean forcing dancers to do things they don't want to do, and indeed very young stars are usually more than happy to take on many leading roles on in a short amount of time, it's only human. What I think the word push means in this context, and the way it was being used in the Kirov forum as well as other forums where this comes up, is nudging young dancers towards the outer limits of their experience--both in terms of actual technique and especially in terms of what Ari called "emotional, moral, and artistic" experience and skills.

[Daniil]

Finally, I would like to address Daniil's comment about the use of the word "push." By "push," I don't mean forcing dancers to do things they don't want to do, and indeed very young stars are usually more than happy to take on many leading roles on in a short amount of time, it's only human. What I think the word push means in this context, and the way it was being used in the Kirov forum as well as other forums where this comes up, is nudging young dancers towards the outer limits of their experience--both in terms of actual technique and especially in terms of what Ari called "emotional, moral, and artistic" experience and skills.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, this was a misunderstanding

What I wanted to add is, that a dancer should not only be prepared for the role especcialy, but be prepared to dance such a thing on stage. A dancer should have danced a variety of roles which come before a major role. E.g. a male dancer should dance Pas De Deuses like the Blue Bird in Sleeping Beauty, Paysant PDD from Giselle, Pas De Trois from Swanlake etc.. These things are even more difficult to dance on condition than the major PDD (really), so after dancing such things the dancers will be ready to dance a major role.

[Jane Simpson]

Speaking of dancers doing too much too soon, I wonder how Alessandra Ferri's career might have been different had she not been promoted to principal dancer at the age of 18 or 19.  (I also wonder how it might have been different had she been trained at the Vaganova Academy or Paris Opera, but that's another thread.)  I remember reading that when she was a principal dancer, she wasn't given "tutu" roles such as Sleeping Beauty and Coppelia, and when she asked why, she was told that she didn't have the technique.  Well, my question is:  Why was she a principal dancer if she had such big holes in her technique?  Couldn't the Royal Ballet and its school produce a principal dancer capable of performing a ballet as unchallenging as Coppelia?  (Sleeping Beauty, admittedly, needs to be worked up to.)  It just doesn't make sense to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main reason she didn't do Coppelia with the RB is that it wasn't in the repertoire for any of the time she was in the company - but in any case I shouldn't think she'd have been cast, as she was seen very much as a dramatic dancer (she made her name in the MacMillan repertoire). The RB had several very promising young dancers at the time and Ferri wouldn't have been at the head of the queue for Aurora, either. (I think she was 20 when she was made a principal, by the way.)

[Estelle]

The careers at the POB often are quite slow (with five categories in the company's hierarchy, and sometimes several years in each category before being promoted), but recently there have been more examples of young dancers being given big roles, and also a surprisingly early promotion: Mathieu Ganio being promoted to principal at 20, after having danced only two big roles (Kourbski in Grigorovich's "Ivan the Terrible" and Basilio in "Don Quixote"), and almost no soloist role (as he had been injured for several months after being promoted to sujet the year before). Well, I haven't seen him since he was promoted, and so don't know how well his performances were received... But, while most POB viewers agreed that he was extremely promising, I found that such a promotion was a bit early, and that it would be a great pressure for him to have to perform major roles with so little experience.

More generally, I guess one risk of "pushing" some young dancers too soon is that it probably increases the risk of injuries, and an early injury can be detrimental to a whole career. Also there is the problem of some dancers who are pushed very much for a while, and they fall "out of favor" for some reason (one missed performance, or simply because another young dancer is preferred by the direction) and then it can be very hard to overcome psychologically.

[accob]

Speaking of dancers doing too much too soon, I wonder how Alessandra Ferri's career might have been different had she not been promoted to principal dancer at the age of 18 or 19.  Well, my question is:  Why was she a principal dancer if she had such big holes in her technique?  Couldn't the Royal Ballet and its school produce a principal dancer capable of performing a ballet as unchallenging as Coppelia?  (Sleeping Beauty, admittedly, needs to be worked up to.)  It just doesn't make sense to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People don't go to see Alessandra Ferri for fantastic turns. People go see her in ballets like Giselle, Romeo and Juliet, Manon, etc., because of her absolutely extraordinary dramatic gifts, and her ability to completely live the role she is dancing. That isn't to say she has bad technique- but certainly it isn't as strong as say, Paloma Herrera's. Of course what was mentioned about becoming a principal too fast could be a possible reason, but there are also her feet- which pose an obstacle very difficult to overcome. Then again those are famous feet. If people want to see Sleeping Beauty, of course they will want to see a great technician, but that isn't what Ferri is about.

Also, an all-around dancer is actually extremely rare. Here in New York, I can think only of Nina Ananiashvili, who dances practically all the ballets, with great artistry AND amazing pyrotechnics.

Ferri is known and adored world-wide as a dramatic ballerina. In fact, I read once that in Italy she's the official "Juliet", and responds to all mail adressed to Juliet!

I agree that some dancers are being pushed too fast. What about the recent promotion of Megan Fairchild to principal?

[BalletNut]

I agree that some dancers are being pushed too fast. What about the recent promotion of Megan Fairchild to principal?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a thread on the NYCB forum about the recent promotions of Fairchild and other young dancers, which is also relevant to this topic.

[Mel Johnson]

For a company skilfully to use its young dancers it needs to "break out" to give experience and exposure, the three-bill or four-bill mixed repertoire program is ideal. A young man, ready for the job, can take on the Blue Skater in Ashton's "Les Patineurs" and melt back into a supporting role on the same evening. It's rather like Daniil's suggestion of putting someone forward in the Bluebird, or the Act I pas de trois in Swan Lake. After that's over, Benno just kind of cools it in stagings where he's kept at all! After the pas de trois, his most important thing to do is to say to Siegfried in mime, "I dunno, Siggi, she seems kinda...different somehow."

[Hans]

I didn't mean to imply that Ferri should have danced Aurora if it was the wrong role for her, but if she was so weak that any tutu ballet was completely beyond her abilities, why was she a principal dancer? I imagine that they saw her great talent and potential and simply promoted her too fast. To promote someone to the highest rank in a world-renowned company and then tell deny them roles because of their technique sends mixed messages IMO because to a principal dancer at the Royal Ballet, technique should really not be an issue. Whether her temperament is right for Aurora is one thing, whether she's technically capable of performing lead roles with one of the leading ballet companies of the world is another.

About Ferri's technique vs. Herrera's...to me, they are not really opposites. Ferri's technique is clean, but not strong, whereas Herrera is (or at least was, I haven't seen her lately) strong, but riddled with mannerisms and holes. I would definitely not call Ferri's technique "bad."

[carbro]

During her first couple years at ABT, Ferri did a few Nikiyas (Shades Act only), which exposed her weakness. It's not that she never did the roles, but that she retired the ones she did early.

ABT often presents Swan Lake's Act II pdd as a concert excerpt. I don't remember Ferri ever having done it, which is a shame, because I think it would have shown her off to good advantage.

[Ari]

I didn't mean to imply that Ferri should have danced Aurora if it was the wrong role for her, but if she was so weak that any tutu ballet was completely beyond her abilities, why was she a principal dancer?  I imagine that they saw her great talent and potential and simply promoted her too fast.  To promote someone to the highest rank in a world-renowned company and then tell deny them roles because of their technique sends mixed messages IMO because to a principal dancer at the Royal Ballet, technique should really not be an issue.  Whether her temperament is right for Aurora is one thing, whether she's technically capable of performing lead roles with one of the leading ballet companies of the world is another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm inclined to agree with you, Hans, but as Jane said, Ferri came to prominance largely because MacMillan liked her and cast her in his ballets, which relied more on dramatics than on classical technique and style. The company couldn't ignore the preference of its then leading choreographer. That, of course, raises the whole issue of why a classical company like the Royal chose as its principal choreographer someone interested in a style so alien to that of its founding ethos, but that's a question for another thread . . .

[Cliff]

According to several (NYCB) biographies I've read, dancers continued to take classes even after being promoted. So how, exactly, does an early promotion impair a technique?

[Lovebird]

At the RB, one must remember that certain differences exist. Unlike the NYCB or ABT or even the POB, the RB has always had specialist principals, not everyone did everything. It could take decades, literally, to be cast against type. Wayne Sleep never danced any prince roles yet he was a principal. Vergie Derman's only leading role was Odette in Swan Lake and that came only after ten years of dancing and towards the end of her career, yet she was also a principal. Nowadays the rules are not so strict, but before if one was seen in a certain way by the management that was where you stayed. Leslie Edwards was a principal and he only danced character roles.