How viable is the ROMANTIC/CLASSICAL distinction today?
#31
Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:14 PM
#32
Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:18 PM
AlbanyGirl, on 21 February 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:
Michael, on 20 February 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:
I disagree, Michael. If you were talking about the average person who doesn't listen to classical music or know that much about it, that would most likely be true. But I have to believe that most people who care enough about classical music to subscribe to a series of concerts would have knowledge of the development of 'classical' music and would know that Tchaikovsky is a romantic composer and an example of the 'high romantic', for lack of a better description. On the ballet side of this discussion, what may be less clear to casual ballet-goers is the difference between romantic ballet and classical ballet, which doesn't correspond to the development of what is termed 'classical music'. I agree with your earlier post, and Dirac's, that the terms are confusing.
My 100th post! I thought I would write a more substantial post for my 100th, perhaps about NYCB's Sleeping Beauty last Saturday at Lincoln Center, but since I have to sign off, this will have to do. (I'll post about SB this weekend). Just to clarify my statement about 'high romantic', high as in late romantic. Didn't we say something about confusing terms?!
#33
Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:26 PM
AlbanyGirl, on 21 February 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:
Michael, on 20 February 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:
I disagree, Michael. If you were talking about the average person who doesn't listen to classical music or know that much about it, that would most likely be true. But I have to believe that most people who care enough about classical music to subscribe to a series of concerts would have knowledge of the development of 'classical' music and would know that Tchaikovsky is a romantic composer and an example of the 'high romantic', for lack of a better description. On the ballet side of this discussion, what may be less clear to casual ballet-goers is the difference between romantic ballet and classical ballet, which doesn't correspond to the development of what is termed 'classical music'. I agree with your earlier post, and Dirac's, that the terms are confusing.
There should be an easy way to explain that not all classics are classical.
#34
Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:44 PM
Quiggin, I'm grateful for your point about Tchaikovsky Suite No. 3. Nancy Reynolds quotes a critic who thought that this work had a "split personality." Llike most people, I usually see Theme and Variations as a stand-alone work, without the sections Balanchine added to it. On the few occasions on which I've seen the multi-section piece, I tended to think that it was a bit disjointed in terms of style. It never occurred to me that this might have been a comment by Balanchine on the romanticism/classicism dichotomy, with romanticism actually leading to (or culminating in) the triumph of classiscism.
Cristian, thanks for those links. Dupont is a gorgeous Sylphide, though not the most ethereal. She is more glamourous than "fairylike" in its original sense, but lovelyi to watch nonetheless. Fracci's Giselle with Vasiliev is a marvel, especially considering her age at the time. I prefer it to the much earlier ABT Fracci-Bruhn film, with its over-active camera work.
#35
Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:46 PM
Helene, on 21 February 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:
I'm not surprised at all, Helene. People have different levels of interest when experiencing a performance.
#36
Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:57 PM
#37
Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:59 PM
AlbanyGirl, on 21 February 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:
Michael, on 20 February 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:
I disagree, Michael. If you were talking about the average person who doesn't listen to classical music or know that much about it, that would most likely be true. But I have to believe that most people who care enough about classical music to subscribe to a series of concerts would have knowledge of the development of 'classical' music and would know that Tchaikovsky is a romantic composer and an example of the 'high romantic', for lack of a better description. On the ballet side of this discussion, what may be less clear to casual ballet-goers is the difference between romantic ballet and classical ballet, which doesn't correspond to the development of what is termed 'classical music'. I agree with your earlier post, and Dirac's, that the terms are confusing.
One of the problems I have writing on this, my only forum, is that I post thinking my draft is final! Then, after posting, I realize I could have written more clearly or concisely, etc. (I'm an English major, so this is not new to me! The problem isn't the writing, but the leisure to write.) That said, I'll revise this to say:
But I have to believe that most people who care enough about classical music to subscribe to a series of concerts would have some knowledge, more or less, of the development of 'classical' music and would know that Tchaikovsky is a romantic composer.
#39
Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:44 AM
I think that what we forget is that if and when we do see the old Romantic ballets with their out of this world aura nowadays, we are watching them being danced by modern dancers with their extraordinary technique and pointe shoes that are nothing like the shoes that the original Pas de Quatre ballerinas would have used. Taglioni's shoes used to be on display in the now defunct Theatre Museum in London. They were tiny satin shoes with lots of stitching on the toes and some slight padding - it must have been like dancing on pointe in soft shoes stuffed with a bit of cottonwool! There are drawings of those early ballerinas standing en pointe on prop flowers, which were obviously built for that purpose to make the dancer look weightless and ethereal. I think perhaps all this explains why we no longer see a great deal of difference (apart from the afore mentioned length of tutu)in style between for example Giselle and Swan Lake. Also don't forget that we're not actually seeing the original Jean Coralli and Jules Perrot choreography, but Petipa's version for the Imperial ballet, which makes it even more similar to his classical ballets to Tchaikovsky scores.
#40
Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:04 PM
#41
Posted 24 February 2013 - 03:36 AM
The life span of Romantic ballet, 1831 to 1847, pretty much ran in parallel with that of the July Monarchy. It had some questions to ask of "new roles for women" as "murderous slyphs, rebellious slaves and amazons fighting a patriarchal society." Robert le Diable brought up questions "of society's indecision about the Church within post-revolutionary France." (Marion Kant / Sarah Davies Cordoba).
Also Romantic ballet began with the era of publicity and large scale journalism – stardom for dancers and ballet performances as something to be read about in newspapers the next day. The libretti were now written by poets and journalists and based on fairy tales and literary best sellers – rather than by ballet masters. It combined formal danse d'ecole, society dancing, pantomime, and folk dancing.
TJ Clark gives the plot of a pantomime that may relate (just barely) in his book on Courbet and the events of 1848:
Quote
In Les Trois Filles a Cassandre pantomime bourgeois Pierrot gets married, and on his wedding night panics at the pinkness of his wife’s skin. He waits until she falls asleep, then carefully paints her white from head to foot.
#42
Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:11 AM
Quiggin, on 24 February 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:
The life span of Romantic ballet, 1831 to 1847, pretty much ran in parallel with that of the July Monarchy. It had some questions to ask of "new roles for women" as "murderous slyphs, rebellious slaves and amazons fighting a patriarchal society." Robert le Diable brought up questions "of society's indecision about the Church within post-revolutionary France." (Marion Kant / Sarah Davies Cordoba).
Also Romantic ballet began with the era of publicity and large scale journalism – stardom for dancers and ballet performances as something to be read about in newspapers the next day. The libretti were now written by poets and journalists and based on fairy tales and literary best sellers – rather than by ballet masters. It combined formal danse d'ecole, society dancing, pantomime, and folk dancing.
Thank you, Quiggin, I have and love that book and will check out the essay you mention. I'm also thinking of Deidre Kelly's book, Ballerina, which is an insightful and often wrenching history of the ballerina and describes the professional ballerina's rise to fame amidst a new social, bourgeois order. In the second chapter, she describes the rise of the Romantic ballet; the notion that dancers represent the 'ideal woman', with Robert le Diable (1831) being the work that led "ballet's 'new wave', where 'female dancers became spectral images of themselves: vapors more than real women'".
OT, my post earlier where I lament my troubles getting used to writing in this format, I think my post misleads that I am currently an English major. Not so, having graduated many years ago. Just want the record straight and happily, I've found the option to open the writing box here, which makes it much easier to compose my thoughts!
This is such a fun thread and so many interesting comments.
~ Karen
#43
Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:20 AM
Hamorah, on 23 February 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:
I think that what we forget is that if and when we do see the old Romantic ballets with their out of this world aura nowadays, we are watching them being danced by modern dancers with their extraordinary technique and pointe shoes that are nothing like the shoes that the original Pas de Quatre ballerinas would have used. Taglioni's shoes used to be on display in the now defunct Theatre Museum in London. They were tiny satin shoes with lots of stitching on the toes and some slight padding - it must have been like dancing on pointe in soft shoes stuffed with a bit of cottonwool! There are drawings of those early ballerinas standing en pointe on prop flowers, which were obviously built for that purpose to make the dancer look weightless and ethereal. I think perhaps all this explains why we no longer see a great deal of difference (apart from the afore mentioned length of tutu)in style between for example Giselle and Swan Lake. Also don't forget that we're not actually seeing the original Jean Coralli and Jules Perrot choreography, but Petipa's version for the Imperial ballet, which makes it even more similar to his classical ballets to Tchaikovsky scores.
True. It raises the question: do we/can we ever really see a truly authentic rendering of a romantic ballet, because later technical developments, as you point out, Hamorah, supersede and replace the older aesthetic.
#44
Posted 25 February 2013 - 07:30 AM
Hamorah, on 23 February 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:
Hello, Hamorah,
Not sure if you know that that clip you mention is available on DVD. Please see Cristian's post on Karsavina Chopiniana in the forum's section Everything Else Ballet - I've listed the DVD by name, label and label number. Such a beautiful performance. ~Karen
#45
Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:23 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases:



