The necessity of stars (and style)

[Ed Waffle]

Victoria Leigh, in another thread, wrote:

“There is too much emphasis on tricks, jumping and turning, and not enough on the ballet itself and the artistry of the dancers. Everyone today is a medal winner from some competition or other, and extreme technique is becoming the norm.”

Victoria’s point, as always, is well taken and well made. And it may also address an issue that is increasingly a problem on the opera stages of the world and may well be in ballet. The problem is a lack of individual style, based partially on the loss of national styles of interpretation. To the extent that acceptable style is based on jumping through the rafters, turning like a top and extending like a contortionist, and not on a connection to the work being presented, there will be less content and meaning in performances.

In opera the problem is structurally similar. Based on where you are, it is either the “internationalization” of style or the “Americanization” of style. Late nineteenth century verismo is the basic style for everything, so the bel canto masterpieces of Donizetti, the Mozart/Da Ponte masterpieces and the most delicate French works are interpreted using the sound world of Puccini.

Part of this is unique to the lyric stage. Stage directors are becoming the real powers in opera productions, so an “all purpose” sound is acceptable. Another part, though, is more universal and affects any staged art form.

I was thinking of this recently, when Sumi Jo, a soprano of rare coloratura gifts, cancelled a series of performances of “Lakme” at the Michigan Opera Theatre. It was a real cancellation—she is have scary vocal problems—but still disappointing, since the production was mounted with her in mind. It would have been her debut in the role.

I have heard Sumi Jo in a number of roles, including Gilda in “Rigoletto”, Queen of the Night in “The Magic Flute” and the title role in “Lucia di Lammermoor”. Based on these and on her recordings, especially “Le Toreador” by Adolphe Adam, we may have heard much of what she would have done with Lakme.

A debut we did catch here was Ruth Ann Swenson in the title role of Massenet’s “Manon” a few years ago. She has since sung it to acclaim in New York, San Francisco and London. The interpretation of French opera is based on a number of things, including the French language with its rhythmic idiosyncrasies when set to music and the incredibly rich French tradition of spoken theater. This tradition was probably stronger and more influential in France than almost anywhere else. I am sure that Miss Swenson knows at least as much about these things as I do about the general theory of relativity.

Neither case is meant to convey a lack of respect for either of these singers—they are both committed and talented artists who are at or close to the height of their powers. Each has wonderful technique and a command of scores of roles. However, neither of them (nor almost anyone else I can think of) is really necessary to the operatic world. That is because neither of them has a definable style—neither has roles that belong to them, neither is able to inhabit a role in a way that makes one forget about the technique and artistry involved in doing it.

In years past, Maria Callas helped to rediscover many of the bel canto operas of Donizetti and Bellini. Slightly later Joan Sutherland made many of the same roles her own. They were completely different artists, their approach to the parts were as different as can be and they were both absolutely essential to the world of opera in the middle of the last century. Each had an individual, definable and recognizable style. In many cases, recognizable from the very first vibrations of the first note of a role.

I am sure there are dancers who were (or are) necessary to ballet in the same way that these singers were to opera. But to the extent there are, I would hazard that it is not because their jumps and turns are the most athletic and flashy.

[Leigh Witchel]

Interesting points, Ed.

In the case of the biggest stars, the ones known outside their discipline (Fonteyn or Pavarotti) for instance, I wonder how much emphasis we place on the life of the artist rather than the art of the artist. Do we love them for what they do or how they live?

I wonder if it was different in other eras. It seems that part of the allure of a Taglioni or an Elssler was their mystique, as well as their technique.

What do others think?

[Alexandra]

I think when one talks about a star "outside their discipline" that means someone known to people who have little knowledge or interest about the art form, so the interest would be completely about their private lives and not their art, wouldn't it? (Although I don't know a thing about Pavarotti's life!)

Nureyev was the prime example of someone know generally for things like getting arrested, dumping a plate of spaghetti on someone's head at a party, etc. Known as a dancer, but not more than that. Fonteyn's public personal was very discrete and much was kept hidden.

I wonder about Taglioni and Elssler. It's hard to say, since Entertainment Tonight wasn't about in those days. Women imitated Taglioni's style of hair and dress -- how many knew about her mal de genou? (I don't know.) I think there were just as many vicious rumor mongers and gossips back then. They just didn't get into print!

Back to the original question posed by Ed:

Victoria Leigh, in another thread, wrote:  

“There is too much emphasis on tricks, jumping and turning, and not enough on the ballet itself and the artistry of the dancers. Everyone today is a medal winner from some competition or other, and extreme technique is becoming the norm.”  

Victoria’s point, as always, is well taken and well made. And it may also address an issue that is increasingly a problem on the opera stages of the world and may well be in ballet. The problem is a lack of individual style, based partially on the loss of national styles of interpretation. To the extent that acceptable style is based on jumping through the rafters, turning like a top and extending like a contortionist, and not on a connection to the work being presented, there will be less content and meaning in performances.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, to both Victoria's and Ed's points. Lots of gold medals, little individual or national style.

[Olivier]

Where can I find that Thread with Victoria's quote ?

[Leigh Witchel]

http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=4405

[Ari]

Originally posted by Ed:

The problem is a lack of individual style, based partially on the loss of national styles of interpretation.

I think the problems are different in opera and ballet, because star singers have always traveled from one company to another, while dancers traditionally stayed with their own company (except mega-stars like Elssler, etc.). It's only in recent years that the itinerant dancer has become common, and that has brought with it the bland, all-purpose, sensation-based style that others have noted.

I don't think, however, that the issue can be framed in national terms. There's nothing wrong with a a Russian dancing with the Royal Danish Ballet or a Romanian dancing with the Royal, as long as they assimilate the company's style. The bigger danger is companies losing their style, the Royal being the most heartbreaking example. Of the world's other major companies, NYCB and POB have pretty much retained their distinctive styles, the Kirov and Bolshoi only partly so. The Danes are in the same situation as the Royal (although their longer history may offer hope that they'll bounce back, as Alexandra suggested in a previous thread), and ABT never had a style to begin with. In fact, you might describe the current world situation as the infestation of the ABT style.

As for dancers losing individual style, that is something that has been happening gradually for many years. People were complaining about it when I first started watching ballet, so I don't have the perspective necessary to suggest any answers. But I wonder if it has anything to do with the institutionalization of ballet schools and the fact that most dancers with major companies are now the product of one or another of them. This is a good thing to the extent that it provides first-rate training for larger numbers of students. Perhaps, though, the old method of individualized training with a topnotch teacher who focused completely on a talented dancer and imparted some of his or her own style produced soloists who had a more fully realized sense of their own unique qualities.

[Calliope]

I sometimes wonder if it's companies that have lost their "style" or an audience who doesn't know the difference.

American audiences, posters of this board of course, the exception, tend to be made up of people who don't know much about ballet or the choreography, but see someone whip off 3 turns and become blown away by this, which leads to the excessive (and inappopropriate) clapping and yelling.

But companies know that's what sells tickets, I think they feel the need to make ballet "exciting" in the adrenaline pumping sense.

I think audiences appreciate the "older" dancers, but usually not until they leave.