What are the 5 or 10 "best" ballet companies?
Posted 01 March 2007 - 02:09 PM
If you were forced at gunpoint to list the 5 best companies in the world (OR the 10 best, for those with a lot of experience who want to take on a more difficult task), which would you put on your list? How about just in North America?
A related questions: what variables go into making a company one of the "the best"?
Posted 01 March 2007 - 02:27 PM
Posted 01 March 2007 - 03:40 PM
Perhaps I should have put the question differently: how do you measure "the best" when it comes to ballet companies.
We have had posts on this topic before, but there never seems to be agreement. What are the variables we include when we think about a company as one of "the best"? Size? Budget? History? Breadth of repertoire? Number of performances? Extent of touring? Critical reviews? Consistency of performance level? Having a recognizable company "style"? Just because we see them a lot and get to love certain individual dancers? Because they issue dvds for world-wide sale?
A couple of names on one of the most common top-five lists -- Kirov, Bolshoi, Royal, Paris, NYCB -- have been questioned recently. Top five in North America? NYCB, ABT, NBof Canada, San Francisco... and then what?
And how about the big-/ medium-/ small-company divide? A smaller company, which does fewer performances of fewer ballets a year, actually has to perform "better" (in the sense of more consistently) than vast companies with huge schedules which can afford to throw away a certain number of performances a year for whatever reason. If you buy 3 tickets a year to one of those large companies, and each performance is an off night, is it a "best" company for you? (We certainly have seen plenty of reviews in BT recently about NYCB, ABT, the Royal, the Kirov, and no doubt others which have fallen into that category.)
Posted 01 March 2007 - 06:04 PM
Any of the Big 6 (the above five + RDB), can be transcendent or crappy on any given day. They are worth seeing because of what they can and might do, and one great value of BT is that it can help guide you as to what to see to maximise the experience. A careful reader in DC would have known to give Bolshoi's DQ with Osipova/Vasiliev a look, for instance. Of the Big 6, I suspect the Bolshoi, since a year or two ago, is most likely to give a great experience to many people. It is my choice for #1.
But, speaking locally, NYCB's recent Gergiev night delivered the goods. Not only Bouder's already hyped Firebird, reaching a new high (one might have seen the chance, with the combo of her musicality and a specialist in Firebird conducting), but also that local thing, discovering that hot young dancer Sara Mearns, debuting in a Farrell role, had (not before noted) great footwork.
As for American Top 5, how can one not include PNB? From what we can read on BT, it has a remarkably high batting average.
Sure, see the Big Guys if you can, selectively, but support your own company and you can find great pleasure too. Rankings are just numbers, and the only way numbers count is that the dancers get their counts right.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 09:04 AM
On what basis to decide if a company is "great"? I think one should add the number of famous individuals the company boast/ed. This is not necessarily fair on the actual company, but I think it has a great influence on how the company is percieved by the public.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 12:26 PM
Posted 02 March 2007 - 12:40 PM
That doesn't mean that in any given season another company can't be wonderful, but without hitting all the benchmarks, no matter how loudly people insist they're The Greatest Ballet Company in the World, they're unlikely to be considered as such by other than their fans. And even if you do have all the stars (and ballets) aligned correctly and a wonderful, inspired director, when he or she steps down, everything can disintegrate in a year or two if there aren't the pillars of native repertory and School to sustain the transition.
I think when you get to American ballet companies it's hard, because very few people see all of them, or even most of them. I often wonder, too, when a director says "We're going to be one of the Top Five companies" which liist s/he's referring to.
And then there are the choreographers whose press releases say "the internationally renowned Joe Blow...." or "We are pleased to present a new work by one of the world's most respected choreographers." Sometimes, as Andy Warhol said, "Art is anything you can get away with."
Posted 02 March 2007 - 01:23 PM
The Paris Opera Ballet remains my "home team" though. It makes quite a difference when you follow closely the dancers and get to know them - some can get on your nerves, some will make you forget about their shortcomings after a while - and you get the excitement of wondering who will be promoted next, what the next season's repertoire will be like... I still think the company is having an off period, but it has much to do with artistic direction. Wonderful dancers keep coming in from the school, and things could improve very quickly.
The Kirov is of course another top 5 company, but I can't say I'm crazy about the hyperextension hype which now seems to rule in Petersburg. But again, with such dancers as Lopatkina, Pavlenko or the young and wonderful Evgenia Obraztsova, you can't go totally wrong...
I haven't seen NYCB and the Danes so can't comment.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 02:17 PM
If one wants to look to national purity as a benchmark for the Top Ballet companies, then only four truly-greats remain on this earth: Kirov-Mariinsky, Paris Opera Ballet, Bolshoi and New York City Ballet, although every single one of those troupes has at least one 'foreigner' in its ranks. And hot on their heels are Chinese, Korean, Cuban and Japanese troupes that indeed retain national purity in their ranks, plus have wonderful academies. They fall short of the list only because they are relatively young, compared to the others. In the case of Cuba, the current economic situation is an additional problem...but don't count those Cubans out, in the longer run!
Edited to add my rankings (duh...):
1. Kirov-Mariinsky - The One, The Only, To the Manor Born by Imperial Decree of the Romanovs. There is only one Mecca in Islam and there is only one 'Mecca' in Ballet and it's an aqua-and-white building on Theater Square in St. Petersburg! Just because an oddity (Somova) or two appear in the ranks every now and then is no reason to lower its status. Beyond the mystique is the Elegance & Carriage that the Bolshoi can't match. Never has - never will. Unparallelled corps de ballet in the classics. Amazing soloists that just keep bubbling up from the Vaganova Academy, year after year, century after century.
2. Paris Opera Ballet - fabulous precision, especially in the legs & feet. Best Feet Trophy! Wonderful mix of repertoire, too. To think that 30 years ago -- before Nureyev -- they were rarely on anyone's Top 10 or even Top 20 list.
3. Bolshoi - Excitement Factor. Trophy for Best Overall Improvement during the last 3-4 years.
4. New York City Ballet - general unity of style & incomparable repertoire outside the classics.
5. Royal Ballet of England - currently the best among a group of companies that I call "The Eclectics" -- those that draw dancers from around the globe more than from its feeder schools AND employ a huge number of International Competition Winners. ABT and RDB are the others - and they round-out my Top Seven.
Among American troupes that I've seen, I'd definitely add the Joffrey to NYCB and ABT to round-out the Top Three, due to the Joffrey's wonderful repertoire and high-quality in dancers who represent many body types and styles. I've also admired, recently, Pa Ballet, Boston Ballet and Miami City Ballet. I suspect that San Fco and Pacific N Ballets also rank right up there, from what I've read and heard.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 02:37 PM
I don't know if, in its latest incarnation as JKO School, it will ultimately provide most of the company's dancers, but most of the the promising corps dancers who've joined after a year or two in ABT Studio company have attracted a lot of attention. Among principals, Cornejo, Hallberg, Wiles; soloist Salstein and former soloists Tidwell and Erica Cornejo (now of course a principal at Boston Ballet).
The academic thing should not be a barrier to ABT's inclusion.
The quality of the stagings of the touchstones of the international repertoire? That should exclude ABT, along with (these days) a most of the aforementioned biggies.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 03:05 PM
I know - I know, Carbro. But has anyone really taken these 'ABT School' ventures seriously? One of its earlier incarnations was basically a school for Manhattan socialites or other fans to pay & say that they were taking classes with so-and-so stars; hopefully the JKO is much more serious than that. And not to be argumentative -- because I'd do whatever I can to help raise ABT's status -- but almost all (if not all?) of those Studio Company dancers that you cite come from academies not affiliated with ABT, such as Kirov Academy of DC, Central Pa Youth Ballet, No. Car Dance Theater, Harid, etc. I almost consider those schools as the 'UNofficial-official feeders' to ABT. Just as in the 80s, the DC-area's Maryland Youth Ballet and Washington Ballet Schools were the 'unofficial feeders' of young dance talent to ABT.
I'm all for the JKO School rising above the other attempts at creating an official ABT feeder school.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 04:00 PM
About ABT, I mostly agree with Carbro. The lack of a consistent style at ABT is my main problem, but hopefully that will change.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 04:15 PM
Not being argumentative, either. Just pointing to the absence, in the US, of a real national academy -- or two -- as in Denmark, Russia, France and to a lesser degree, if I have the right sense of it, England.
Posted 02 March 2007 - 05:56 PM
Posted 02 March 2007 - 06:30 PM
And I am going to go to them no more (with one possible exception...). I remember well the dread of what Gergiev might do in terms of not being sensitive enough to the dancers, and I obviously believe that the dance has to come first. But none of the fears of what the flamboyant Gergiev might do proved true; if anything, he was thoroughly heroic, life-giving and transforming. However, my ignorant bliss about NYCB's orchestra was all overcome when Leigh and volcanohunter informed me that NYCB is almost always dreadful; I figured it was just par for the course, mediocre compared to opera and symphony orchestras, but not worse than other major companies. It has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are disappointed with the tired company and the bored or half-competent orchestra. Knowing about the POB, RB and Vienna orchestras, this is now the last straw. I am not going any more till they fix their orchestra problem, I don't care if that's forever. There's obviously no excuse for it, and Gergiev proved it.
POB's emerging as a great company is relatively new, isn't it? As of the 80's, mustn't it be? When I lived in Paris in the early 70s, I was aware of them, and saw them once, but I was not overwhelmed by 'Notre Dame de Paris.'
I am sure that the playing at the Kirov is a thousand times better than at the NYCB pit, and yet I now am stuck with impractical travel or tolerating disenchantment where I thought all was a more or less normal situation, however mediocre in some ways. The NYCB has become tacky in some ways: That's the one thing ABT can afford to do from time to time, but I don't think NYCB can do it indefinitely, as it quits being the NYCB if it gets more and more infused with settling for what will 'just do.'
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: