What if Balanchine had stayed in Europe?

[omshanti]

There is no doubt that some of Balanchine s works are masterpieces, but so are works of some other choreographers of his time. If Balanchine had not moved to the USA and if he had not had the position he got with the help of Lincoln Kirstein would he have been regarded as highly as he is now?

[Helene]

I think the answer is yes, because there was a lot of opportunity in post-war Europe, and it is possible that he would have been able to go back to Paris Opera Ballet after Lifar had been discredited and before he was reinstated.

[carbro]

I think genius is genius, and there's no question, as far as I'm concerned, that Balanchine still would have been the preeminent ballet choreographer of his century no matter where he worked. However, I think he would have been a different Balanchine.

Coming to the US, a country with no strong ballet Tradition, he was more able to improvise and improvise, building a technique of his own, not having to fight an ingrained "We've always done it this way" mentality. He wouldn't have had Tallchief, LeClerq, Adams and Farrell.

Who can even begin to imagine how his art would have developed?

We wouldn't have had Western Symphony or Stars and Stripes!

And what about all those Americans (like me ) who learned to love ballet through his work?

[dirac]

If Balanchine had not succeeded in finding a permanent home (although I can’t believe he wouldn’t have found something eventually, whether at the Opéra or elsewhere) he would be as highly regarded, but he might be differently regarded. That he found an unswerving backer in Kirstein, that he was able to found a stable company in the city that was rapidly becoming the media center of the world, in the country that became the dominant power in the West – some of those things did make a difference. I suspect Balanchine knew that they would, too – he didn’t want to base a company and school in Connecticut, but held out for New York.

If fate hadn’t brought him here, and he’d landed in Paris instead, he’d still be a great figure if not the greatest – but again, perhaps another kind of great figure. (He would not have been building a company from the ground up in a country with no pre-existing ballet tradition, for one thing.)

Note: I was posting at the same time as carbro -- didn't intend to duplicate any of the points made or ignore the post.

[Alexandra]

In Europe, too, World War II would have been more of an obstacle, shall we say

I think he always maintained an affection for Paris -- all those girls! -- and, watching the DVD of "Jewels," I couldn't help but wish he could fly down just for three rehearsals and MAKE THEM MOVE!!!!!!

I agree with the "genius is genius" line, but if he hadn't brought his company to New York every year or two, we might be worshipping Robbins and DeMille today. And Tudor might have been more prolific.

These questions are always so interesting! IF Balanchine hadn't gotten sick and hung on to Paris, and IF Ashton had gotten that letter and wanted to go to ABT. Not to mention if World Wars I and II, and the Russian Revolution hadn't happened . . .

[dirac]

I agree with the "genius is genius" line, but if he hadn't brought his company to New York every year or two, we might be worshipping Robbins and DeMille today. And Tudor might have been more prolific.

And even the greatest talents can fall prey to bad career moves, bad luck, bad health, etc. Balanchine was in the right place at the right time, but if you change just a few things around it could all look so different.

[bart]

If we stick with Paris, my first thought was in the form of a question: "Would the audience that adored Lifar in the 30s have been capable of responding just as positively to the very different Balanchine?" I really cannot imagine that.

So, where else might he have taken root? The USSR was out. Ditto Germany after the rise of Hitler. Denmark was small potatoes, and bound to Bournonville. Italy and Spain were in serious cultural decline. The Riviera already had a a few Diaghelev spin-offs. There WAS Britain, but considering the long, difficult path de Valois, Rambert and others had in creating a viable national ballet company, one has to wonder how well Balanchine would have fitted in there.

Then I began thinking how ecclectic, and relatively unfocused, Balanchine's genius was during years leading up to his move to New York. Had he remained in Europe in the 30s, he would certainly have grown, moving in a number of possible directions. The question is whether Europe at that time was able to provide him with the time, security, and resources to develop into the incredibly fertile creative genius he ultimately became.

In contrast, crossing over to the US opened many avenues that simply did not exist in Europe at that time.

One of the was the opportunity to learn from a vast, eclectic, energetic, heterogeneous culture -- one that was historically open to the contributions of immigrants from all over the world. The Balanchine we know experienced a kind of apprenticeship in the US during the 30s. During this time, he was learning as much or more about American culture, its strengths and weaknesses, as America learned from him. This enabled him to take advantage of the opportunities that arose at the close of World War Two, when New York City emerged as the capital of the western cultural world.

And think about this -- Balanchine without the US would be Balanchine without an awful lot of Stravinsky (another transplanted European). Now THAT's something hard to imagine.

[Alexandra]

If we stick with Paris, my first thought was in the form of a question: "Would the audience that adored Lifar in the 30s have been capable of responding just as positively to the very different Balanchine?" I really cannot imagine that.

I think it would have been a different audience. (Meaning, those who liked Lifar wouldn't have come to the Opera.) In the 1930s, Leo Staats was the choreographer and he was a good one; Balanchine admired him. Ashton's "Les Rendezvous" and "Les Patineurs" look, to me, as though they're modeled on Staats' "Soir de Fete." I'd guess the people who loved the formalism of Staats would have been quite pleased with Balanchine. Generally, audiences leave if they don't like what's being served. Balanchine would have catered to the French taste, as he later catered to the New York taste.

I don't think Balanchine could have failed anywhere if he had his own company. Now, if he hadn't recovered from the tuberculosis, or if all companies in the world had been closed to him -- who knows? He might have given Hermes Pan a run for his money in Hollywood

Edited July 18, 2006 by Alexandra

[Helene]

Coming to the US, a country with no strong ballet Tradition, he was more able to improvise and improvise, building a technique of his own, not having to fight an ingrained "We've always done it this way" mentality.

I think this is true, but only to an extent: he was able to instill his technique in Tallchief and Moylan, for example, when he worked with the Ballet Russe.

He wouldn't have had Tallchief, LeClerq, Adams and Farrell.

He already had Tallchief from the Ballet Russe. It’s hard to say whether he would have had Farrell or Adams, if there was a viable alternative and a choreographer who was willing to take Americans into his company. Farrell’s mother was ambitious; I can’t imagine that she wouldn’t have taken her to Switzerland, if that was where the action was. Probably not LeClerq, if he were working for a state company at the time of her training, since she was not yet a star.

Both Maria (1947) and Marjorie (1957-61) were étoiles with the Paris Opera Ballet, and with a ballet master sympathetic to American dancers, there might have been more, at least as long as he could have stood being there.

The dancers we wouldn’t have are the ones who were developed because of the Ford Foundation grant, and who like Merrill Ashley, we allowed by their parents to become dancers, because the FF grant gave ballet credibility.

We wouldn't have had Western Symphony or Stars and Stripes!

But Tricolore wouldn’t have been a dud.

And what about all those Americans (like me ) who learned to love ballet through his work?

Other Americans learned to love ballet through American Ballet Theatre and tours of The Royal Ballet, Bolshoi, and Kirov. (Not the same, I know.) But there would have been two generations of Europeans who would not have been subjected to as much faux ballet.

In Europe, too, World War II would have been more of an obstacle, shall we say

That is true, unless he landed in Switzerland. He may also have gotten work in Latin America, at least for a few years. I don’t think Kirstein would have forgotten about him if he hadn’t come to America, and Ballet Caravan was Kirstein’s doing, originally while Balanchine was otherwise occupied.

I agree with the "genius is genius" line, but if he hadn't brought his company to New York every year or two, we might be worshipping Robbins and DeMille today. And Tudor might have been more prolific.

I agree. Ballet in America was not just Balanchine, although it seems that way now.

And even the greatest talents can fall prey to bad career moves, bad luck, bad health, etc. Balanchine was in the right place at the right time, but if you change just a few things around it could all look so different.

Considering that Balanchine had all of these and still the miracle of Ballet Society/New York City Ballet came to fruition attests to his patience and focus; it was nearly two decades after he was in that right place at the right time that he had a ballet company of his own for ballets.

If Balanchine had one characteristic, it was that he was adaptable: to the pool of dancers, the physical space, and the budget. I don’t think America saved him or made him great. He often told incoming corps members that he would now teach them to dance. Imagine what he could have done with a group of dancers with the level of training they received in Paris. He was reared in a royal institution.

If he had been able to last at PB post-war to 1960, it would have been interesting to see if Nureyev would have stayed in Paris instead of going to London, which would have caused a whole different chain of events in ballet history.

If we stick with Paris, my first thought was in the form of a question: "Would the audience that adored Lifar in the 30s have been capable of responding just as positively to the very different Balanchine?" I really cannot imagine that.

Balanchine choreographed Le Palais de Cristal in 1947 for the Paris Opera Ballet, and staged Apollo, Serenade, and Baiser de la Fée for the Company. I don’t think he would have had a problem finding an audience in Paris. The question is whether he could have put up with the Company for long. But I don’t think he’d have had a problem in the post-war years, and even a relative short stint would have established him as a Ballet Master in one of the world’s oldest and greatest companies. That would have created demand for his services throughout Europe, at the world's great theaters, at a time when many companies were state-subsidized.

[omshanti]

Imagine what he could have done with a group of dancers with the level of training they received in Paris. He was reared in a royal institution.

If he had been able to last at PB post-war to 1960, it would have been interesting to see if Nureyev would have stayed in Paris instead of going to London, which would have caused a whole different chain of events in ballet history.

We should not forget that Balanchine had many amazingly trained dancers in his hands whose potentials he could not use to the max. Especially male dancers such as Ivan Nagy, Erik Bruhn , Baryshnikov, even Peter Martins in my opinion. If he had been in Paris opera ,it might have had its second decline of male dancing in the history.

As for Nureyev I am not sure if Paris Opera would have been politically able to hire him just after his defection.

If Balanchine had moved out of Europe but not to the USA ,things might have been different again as dirac pointed out about New York. For example if he had gone to Sao paolo of Brasil he might have been a good but just local choreograpeer who was only occasionally invited to come and stage his ballets in bigger ballet nations.

If we stick with Paris I am not sure If Balanchine would have survived the complicated French system of Paris Opera. He definitely would not have been Mr.B the boss in Paris Opera. Also in America he was able to educate the audience to the taste of his choreography from scratch, so my question is was it he who catered to the American taste or was it the other way round?

I agree with the [genius is genius] line too, and I also know there is really no meaning in to thinking [what if? ] about something that has already happened in a certain way. What I was trying to say with starting this topic is that human beings can easily be like a flock of sheep going this way or that way and the truth of things can easily be forgotten by the power of mass response. Sometimes it is good to put things in different situations in order to measure their true places.

There is no doubt that Balanchine was genius, but was he really THE genius as he is regarded now (especially in the USA) or A genius like many others ?

I think Balanchine knew it really well himself because he used to say that he is only one percent of the whole ballet world. But In my opinion to so many people he has become 50 percent of the ballet world.

[Hans]

Ballet in America was not just Balanchine, although it seems that way now.

It still isn't!

There is no doubt that Balanchine was genius, but was he really THE genius as he is regarded now (especially in the USA) or A genius like many others ?

Omshanti, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking--would you mind clarifying?

[carbro]

There is no doubt that Balanchine was genius, but was he really THE genius as he is regarded now (especially in the USA) or A genius like many others ?

Doesn't the definition of "genius" preclude the notion of "many others"?

[Helene]

We should not forget that Balanchine had many amazingly trained dancers in his hands whose potentials he could not use to the max. Especially male dancers such as Ivan Nagy, Erik Bruhn , Baryshnikov, even Peter Martins in my opinion. If he had been in Paris opera ,it might have had its second decline of male dancing in the history.

Why would these dancers not have followed him to Paris or wherever he was post-Paris?

If we stick with Paris I am not sure If Balanchine would have survived the complicated French system of Paris Opera. He definitely would not have been Mr.B the boss in Paris Opera.

I don't think he would have stuck with it long-term, but as former head of the Paris Opera Ballet, he would have been a formidable "player" in Europe. Again, he was adaptable, and was willing to work from scratch. When his dancers threatened a strike in the 70's, he said he'd just go to Switzerland where he had been offered the artistic directorship of a small company, leaving behind the institution and school he had built from scratch.

Also in America he was able to educate the audience to the taste of his choreography from scratch, so my question is was it he who catered to the American taste or was it the other way round?

The taste of the American audience had been created by the tours of Pavlova and the Ballet Russe earlier. American Ballet Theatre was educating the tastes of the New York audience. The first incarnation of Ballet Society was mean for a small, discerning audience thatwould put their time in the hands of Kirstein, who offered them a package of ballet, art, and film -- apparently the only thing he wasn't able to deliver was an LP -- where subscribers had no idea what they'd be seeing in advance. (Very clever marketing, to create a self-satisfied group of early adopters, with their air of exclusiveness.) According to Guest, Paris Opera Ballet languished when Diaghilev's Ballet Russe became the toast of Paris, and the company hurriedly played catch-up. What would have been more appropriate than being run by one of Diaghilev's key choreographers?

I agree with the [genius is genius] line too, and I also know there is really no meaning in to thinking [what if?] about something that has already happened in a certain way. What I was trying to say with starting this topic is that human beings can easily be like a flock of sheep going this way or that way and the truth of things can easily be forgotten by the power of mass response. Sometimes it is good to put things in different situations in order to measure their true places.

Why is placing Balanchine in Europe a "measure of true place?" Would Balanchine's genius have been any less if he had only choreographed Apollo and Prodigal Son and had died of tuberculosis? Who thinks Schiele or Büchner were any less geniuses because they left a limited number of works behind after dying young, or Tudor, for having left a relatively small legacy of ballets? Recognition of dominance and influence for any talent or genius of the theatre, where other human beings and performance spaces are required, is dependent on a certain amount of luck of time, place, and resources. However, "influence" and "genius" are two different things.

Another alternative is that had Balanchine stayed in Europe, he might have been hired freelance by a number of companies, and as they realized the thinness of their rep, may have clamored for Balanchine to stage his works and create new ones. There may have been a core Balanchine rep throughout Europe, without him having placed a foot in the US, and it would be US companies that would be applying to perform his work.

Even with a theoretical relatively short stint as head of Paris Opera Ballet, I think this is a reasonable scenario: the étoiles that were happy with the classics would dance the classics. Balanchine would create works for the dancers that followed his way and were interested in working with him, with a lead or two whom he developed through his other work (Tallchief, Moylan) to show the way. As his works became more important and captured the public eye, they would become more dominant in the repertoire. In the classics, the traditionalist étoiles would dance the leads, while Balanchine would create his own Garland Dances and variations for his young up-and-coming dancers, and his work would be integrated into the full-lengths. Eventually, the old-guard and he would clash, and he'd take a core of "his" dancers with him to the next place.

There is no doubt that Balanchine was genius, but was he really THE genius as he is regarded now (especially in the USA) or A genius like many others ?

I think Balanchine knew it really well himself because he used to say that he is only one percent of the whole ballet world. But In my opinion to so many people he has become 50 percent of the ballet world.

Companies went to Balanchine for his works. He did not go door-to-door to peddle them. Today they apply to the Balanchine Foundation for his works, just as they apply to the Robbins Foundation for Robbins'. Companies want more ballets than they are given permission to perform, because they aren't ready technically or artistically, or if they are, they can't support the numbers (Vienna Waltzes) or finance the strict requirements for scenery and costumes (Liebeslieder Waltzes). The Balanchine Foundation isn't actively "marketing" Balanchine.

Why would Europeans care who Americans think is The Genius? It wasn't an Evil Plot of Balanchine and his "followers" that caused the Royal Ballet to trash the Ashton legacy, while NYCB did not trash Balanchine's, or at least not until Balanchine was firmly rooted across the US and the world. Why is it Balanchine's fault that American Ballet Theatre did not continue its relationship with Tudor, or that another non-Balanchine affiliated company did not make Tudor an offer he couldn't refuse?

Who do you think are among the body of geniuses that Balanchine's legacy is overwhelming?

[papeetepatrick]

There is no doubt that Balanchine was genius, but was he really THE genius as he is regarded now (especially in the USA) or A genius like many others ?

Doesn't the definition of "genius" preclude the notion of "many others"?

Probably, but not 'several others.' And there are those. Balanchine is probably the greatest for me if you judge on both quantity and quality, but there are others that mean as much if you think in terms of fewer works of equivalent quality. I think what omshanti brings up is useful, because Balanchine, like Mozart, seems to have lead to a cult that can sometimes be oppressive--and this can actually detract from their own work when they get deified to the point where someone else is briefly given a moment, but all roads lead back to this kind of godhead. I used to subscribe to this, too (of Balanchine, not of Mozart), until I realized that even if he did the largest amount of innovative dance work in the 20th century, that others did things he could not do (for whatever reason--but in particular that it is not even desirable for one genius, even the greatest, to be omnipotent. If you take it further back than the 20th century, it makes more sense, because it's not very meaningful to compare Balanchine and Petipa, who are equally indispensible)

[Helene]

There is no doubt that Balanchine was genius, but was he really THE genius as he is regarded now (especially in the USA) or A genius like many others ?

Doesn't the definition of "genius" preclude the notion of "many others"?

Probably, but not 'several others.'

Who are these "several others" in your view?

[papeetepatrick]

Who are these "several others" in your view?

I see Martha Graham as quite as important, even if it's not ballet as such. There are works by Robbins, Ashton, and MacMillan that may not be as great as Balanchine at his greatest, but if you include musical theater Robbins did work of importance there that ranks with Balanchine; and even if Ashton, for example, is not as towering as Balanchine, still his work does something else that is satisfying that Balanchine's cannot do. There are other people who will know more about what was done in the 20th century in USSR, Denmark and England and Holland. I look at it as that yes, Balanchine was the greatest ballet genius, but that there is a tendency to centralize creative power therefore in this greatest one does not follow as a positive endeavour. I think I have been able to tell from Leonid's eloquent and excellent notes in various threads that, while he admires Balanchine, his greatest interests are within the great Russian tradition that descends from Petipa and goes into the newer Bolshoi and Kirov works, and pretty clearly is involved in a treasuring of ballerinas that are within that tradition and rarely the 'ultimate Balanchine ballerinas.' He also loves Fonteyn, as many of us do, but the only Balanchine ballerina I've seen him single out is Violette Verdy, whom I saw once and who had a lot of fire. (of course, correct me if I've misinterpreted another BT writer here.)

In any case, it's natural to worship figures like Balanchine for periods of time, even if I've ceased to do it with so much ardour. Then people get a different historical perspective. They start looking at things differently.

It's also true that the very Balanchine Muses themselves had genius that Balanchine himself didn't have--that these kinds of genius were of the dancer rather than the choreographer are an important distinction to some but I don't find them so. The easiest example is Farrell, of course, without whom Balanchine would not have been able to realize many of his visions--but at a certain point, she takes it beyond what was specifically his and makes it new in the performance--and it is most interesting when she makes it hers perhaps a bit more than it is his. (Surely her strongwilled persona is not limited to off-stage decisions.) So that even within the Balanchine inner circle there are other geniuses that were necessary for that genius and, since they couldn't be done without, they have a genius that is even distinct from his own, no matter how closely associated and intertwined their mutual work is.

And Balanchine's well-known disparagement of great dancers who were not in his immediate sphere, such as Makarova and Nureyev, may have been mostly just idle words (especially since he did some work with both of them, but would never claim that either was 'God-sent', of course), but they do point to the fact that there are other voices that people are listening to, and that there are very many ABT goers who never go to NYCB. They do not see why I or anyone else find Patricia McBride and Suzanne Farrell profound--they want to see something that did not become 'American-naturalized' but that still has more of the aura of old Russian ballet--and these are exemplified by Nureyev and Makarova in the big old 19th century ballets more than any of Balanchine's more subtle but cooler hothouse proliferations. Nureyev and Makarova could, by virtue of what they were, do things that Martins and Farrell could never do, and vice-versa.

I think a certain amount of objectivity is important to keep no matter how great the artist. For example, I think little objectivity is shown by Ravel vs. Debussy camps, or Mozart vs. Beethoven cults--or even Garbo vs. Dietrich cults. As I mentioned above, the better comparison is probably between Petipa and Balanchine, but it isn't possible to really do it yet, because the Balanchine trademark is still very hot--and is the guiding strategy within the promotion of all his greatest dancers--whether Martins, Farrell, Villella, Tomasson, McBride, Hayden and the rest.

This is mostly obvious stuff, even though a bit rambling. I guess one of things I'm saying is that I think the process of comparison has to be handled very carefully, and only the minimum amount should be used. I used to have a terrible tendency to succumb easily to comparison and the rather illusory identifications it seems to offer, but I found that it too often excluded much work of fine or even great, quality, if there was too much emphasis only on the very greatest.

[sandik]

I think it's very difficult to speculate about Robbins' development in a non-Balanchine American landscape -- the whole second half of his career would have been so extremely different.

As far as Balanchine in Europe is concerned, I agree with Alexandra. WWII would have been even more important in his development than it already was. I thnk it's entirely possible that deValois would have invited him to England -- she was very impressed with him from her time with the Diaghilev company, but how would he have fit in to her determination to create an English ballet?

[Helene]

As a political conservative, there are several countries in which he might have worked during WWII that would not have been politically correct.

[Anthony_NYC]

Interesting discussion! It seems to me a crucial point that when Kirstein brought Balanchine to America, the first thing they did was found a school. Balanchine was thus able to cultivate generations of dancers personally trained in his aesthetic and technique. Many ballet companies have their own schools, but how many individual ballet (as opposed to modern dance) choreographers been able to do that? For that matter, which companies besides NYCB have been founded and maintained by one choreographer, to show off his work? What I'm getting at is, do you think Balanchine would have been able to have his own school or large, stable company Europe? (I don't mean these questions rhetorically, by the way, I honestly don't know.) If so, what kind of company would it be? If not, then personally I think there's no telling what would have become of him, except that his output would have been very different.

[Helene]

Apollo, Prodigal Son, Concerto Barocco, Ballet Imperial, La Sonnambula, Palais de Cristal, Danses Concertantes, Baiser de la Fee, Theme and Variations as well as the lost Cotillon and original Mozartiana were all choreographed before he had a core of dancers that he had trained from scratch, and on dancers that he trained as he went along. It really wasn't until the 60's that he had a company that was comprised mainly from the fruits of his school. He was a master of creating training ballets to get dancers to move the way he wanted, from tendu to the huge quality of movement he expected.

Apart from the Paris Opera Ballet and Royal Danish Ballet, there were few companies with the kind of schools that would have hampered him, in my opinion. In many other companies and opera houses, I think he would have been given freer reign to bring up the quality.

I think that there is a good chance he could have had an independent school in Europe while choreographing for a number of companies as a free-lancer, which is really what he did in America. Russian teachers, especially from the Ballet Russe, had a lot of cachet.

[omshanti]

Omshanti, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking--would you mind clarifying?

Hans do you still need clarifying? I think papeetepatrick clarified them really well. Thank you very much papeetepatrick and also every one else for posting thoughtful posts.

Apart from the Paris Opera Ballet and Royal Danish Ballet, there were few companies with the kind of schools that would have hampered him, in my opinion. In many other companies and opera houses, I think he would have been given freer reign to bring up the quality.

Even though there is a superficial similarity between Balanchine style and the French or Danish school because of the fast footwork , quick change of directions and center, I think there is a fundamental difference between them in the quality of plies which in my opinion makes dancers of Balanchine style much more prone to injuries.

What I was trying to say with starting this topic is that human beings can easily be like a flock of sheep going this way or that way and the truth of things can easily be forgotten by the power of mass response. Sometimes it is good to put things in different situations in order to measure their true places.

Personally when I started this topic and when I wrote this which is quoted above I was hoping it to be taken not only in the context of this topic, but in the context of the whole ballet talk, in the context of the whole ballet world ,and also in a deeper level which includes the way people see the whole world. Personally (alongside the issue of survival of classical ballet) this has been the theme of most of my posts in ballet talk. There is that saying which says you can take the horse to the water but you can not make the horse to drink the water. I have felt the meaning of this saying many times in ballet talk and I was only hoping some people would take their coloured (whatever colour that is) glasses off. I know that sometimes it is painfull and hard to take them off but it is definitely worth it. Also It makes a difference only by knowing that you are wearing them even if you do not take them off.

(please note that I am saying this to myself too)

[Hans]

Omshanti, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking--would you mind clarifying?

Hans do you still need clarifying? I think papeetepatrick clarified them really well. Thank you very much papeetepatrick and also every one else for posting thoughtful posts.

No, I understand now, thanks.

Apart from the Paris Opera Ballet and Royal Danish Ballet, there were few companies with the kind of schools that would have hampered him, in my opinion. In many other companies and opera houses, I think he would have been given freer reign to bring up the quality.

Even though there is a superficial similarity between Balanchine style and the French or Danish school because of the fast footwork , quick change of directions and center, I think there is a fundamental difference between them in the quality of plies which in my opinion makes dancers of Balanchine style much more prone to injuries.

I agree with you 100% re: the pliés, but I believe Helene was saying that POB and RDB might not have been good long-term choices for Balanchine.

[omshanti]

I agree with you 100% re: the pliés, but I believe Helene was saying that POB and RDB might not have been good long-term choices for Balanchine.

Hans you are right, thank you for correcting me, English is not my native language so sometimes I misunderstand the vocabulary . Apologies Helene.

[Helene]

What I was trying to say with starting this topic is that human beings can easily be like a flock of sheep going this way or that way and the truth of things can easily be forgotten by the power of mass response. Sometimes it is good to put things in different situations in order to measure their true places.

Personally when I started this topic and when I wrote this which is quoted above I was hoping it to be taken not only in the context of this topic, but in the context of the whole ballet talk, in the context of the whole ballet world ,and also in a deeper level which includes the way people see the whole world. Personally (alongside the issue of survival of classical ballet) this has been the theme of most of my posts in ballet talk. There is that saying which says you can take the horse to the water but you can not make the horse to drink the water. I have felt the meaning of this saying many times in ballet talk and I was only hoping some people would take their coloured (whatever colour that is) glasses off. I know that sometimes it is painfull and hard to take them off but it is definitely worth it. Also It makes a difference only by knowing that you are wearing them even if you do not take them off.

(please note that I am saying this to myself too)

What is your argument for your assumption that we are wearing rose-colored glasses? I don't see a case in your posts for Balanchine being considered any less important or any less of a genius. What do you think we're missing?

[Mashinka]

I thnk it's entirely possible that deValois would have invited him to England -- she was very impressed with him from her time with the Diaghilev company, but how would he have fit in to her determination to create an English ballet?

Not a chance! De Valois was too busy creating the English style along with Ashton and besides her beloved Fonteyn never looked her best dancing Balanchine. Don't forget even the very English Tudor was a choreographer too many in those days.