Jump to content


"Lost" Balanchine Ballets


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 stan

stan

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 22 June 2001 - 09:26 AM

While I'm not one of those "Everything has gone to hell since Peter took over" types like Arlene Croce, there are some things about Peter that really annoy me. His casting (haven't seen Monique Meunier all season), his curious obsession with the music of Peter Torke. Most of all, his repertory decisions.

Last night I was listening to Jellinek who was featuring Chabrier's Le Roi malgre lui. When they got to the Fete Polonaise, I said that's terrific ballet music. My friend said that she thought Balanchine had used it. Some slight research revealed that Bouree Fantasque had been done in 1949 for Tallchief, LeClerq and Robbins. It was also revived for a few performances in the Balanchine Festival in 1993. Since then, to my knowledge, it has not been done.

Another story. In one of my other chat groups, the discussion for some reason turned to favorite ballet music. Someone said that his favorite score was Delibes Sylvia. As the so-called ballet "expert" in the group, I knowledgeably remarked that Delibes was one of Balanchine's favorite composers and that that were a few Delibes pieces in the current repertoire but not Sylvia. What I had forgotten was that Balanchine had in fact done a Sylvia pas de deux (again for Tallchief) that was likewise revived for the festival and likewise forgotten.

My question is: why go to the trouble and expense of reviving (and perhaps reconstructing) these ballets and then forget about them? And it's not just "lost" ballets. When's the last time we've seen Bournonville Divertissements? Is there some logical reason for this or is Peter just being perverse, as to to say "I have some wonderful Balanchine ballets in my repertory but you're not going to see them; instead I'm going to make you sit through my latest collaboration with Torke.

#2 Mme. Hermine

Mme. Hermine

    Emeralds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,707 posts

Posted 22 June 2001 - 09:46 AM

as a note, boston ballet did bourree fantasque in 1989.

#3 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,242 posts

Posted 22 June 2001 - 09:50 AM

I think the standard response to this (the Royal would say the same for Ashton and the Danes for Bournonville) is something along the lines of "We're not a museum company!" -- said proudly, in the tone one would use for "We don't eat babies here!"

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

#4 LMCtech

LMCtech

    Bronze Circle

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 22 June 2001 - 06:45 PM

But if NYCB doesn't do these ballets, no one else is going to, and they do become "lost". Besides how many more "Prodigal Sons" am I going to have to sit thru when there is a huge repertory out there to choose from? I'm young there is so much Balanchine choreography I haven't seen. I'd like to see it revived before the first generation (Dancers who actually worked with Mr. B) is no longer able to teach it.

#5 leibling

leibling

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 22 June 2001 - 06:57 PM

Actually, some companies do venture into Balanchine ballets that are not presented at NYCB anymore. We dance the Sylvia pas de deux quite frequently in Miami City Ballet, as well as an early version of his Valse Fantasie (three girls, one guy), and a few virtoso pas de trois's (Glinka is the one that comes to mind). In fact, this has worked to our advantage- these pieces not being regular rep in NY- as it attracts special attention. I hope other ballet companies don't limit their rep to only what is popular in NY.

#6 Diana L

Diana L

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 22 June 2001 - 09:53 PM

Aren't a lot of the "lost" ballets lost b/c there were no notes, photos, film taken?
I have to say my favorite season at NYCB was the Balanchine Celebration. It was just amazing, but I do like to see other companies performing Balanchine, especially when they're taught by dancers who were originally cast in it and in some cases those dancers don't even coach City Ballet anymore (i.e. Scotch Symphony a few years back at the Kirov, Suzanne Farrell teaching it to Larissa Lezhnina).
Miami, SF, PNB all have put on some amazing performances.
Personally I'd rather see two weeks of Balanchine ballets that I've never seen than be tormented by 2 weeks of Diamond Project.

#7 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,242 posts

Posted 22 June 2001 - 11:41 PM

Lots of interesting points here. LMTech, I wish company directors would listen to you on this one :) Balanchine ballets do tend to be repetitively performed. (Miami is the exception, I think; you're right, of coures, liebs. MCB does have a more varied Balanchine rep than many.)

The ballets vary, though. Five years ago, Serenade, Concerto Barocco and 4 Ts were the standard. Now, all of a sudden, Slaughter seems to be a staple, and Divertimento No. 15! (That's a surprise because, according to Repertory in Review, this was not at all popular when it was first danced -- too tutu -- and only lasted "because the dancers fought for it.") I think partly this may be which stagers are available and partly the size of the companies.

One of the problems, even if there are notes, videos, etc., is that if the dancers get too far away from the ballets (if they don't see them on a regular basis) the performances are a little "off." (Could you bake a chocolate layer cake if you had never seen or tasted chocolate or a cake, even if you had Julia Child's best repertory?)

To me, this was obvious with the Royal's Ashton program. The stagings were good, I thought, but most of these dancers had probably never seen "Les Rendezvous," and seemed to be trying to be decorous, small-scaled, cute, "bright" -- all the things one reads about Ashton, except he's not. I keep thinking of this every time that commercial for the film "Artificial Intelligence" comes on. There's a scene when the little boy/robot is being touched in the pool by other kids, and they say, gosh, how amazing, he almost feels real, and he takes a minute to look at them and then .... laughs. But it's an artificial laugh, by someone who doesn't know what laughing is but is trying to imitate it. It's the best analogy from outside the dance world I've seen lately to what is wrong with many restagings.

This will eventually happen at City Ballet too, I think -- it happens everywhere. They either ossify the ballets, turn them into little gems of technique and polish and stretch and polish until there's no life left (as Croce wrote in 1980 that out the Kirov did with the Petipa staples) or they push them into a "drag out when we absolutely have to" bin, as the Danes and the Royal have done with Bournonville and Ashton (and ABT has done with the Tudor-Robbins-DeMille rep). They're not part of the lifeblood of the company any more.

Say what you will about Martins' direction, but this has not yet happened to Balanchine at NYCB. Perhaps ballets aren't ideally cast and rehearsed, or they're not enough of them in any given rep to suit Balanchine lovers (or good choreography lovers), but they're not relegated to the basement.

#8 BalletNut

BalletNut

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts

Posted 23 June 2001 - 06:39 PM

Far be it from me to think that Balanchine was anything less than a choreographic genius, but it begs to be said: some of his ballets were "lost" because they were not terribly good. Two that come to mind are Don Quixote and PAMTGG. I'm curious if anyone here has seen them, and can testify as to whether or not they were worth preserving, from an aesthetic standpoint.

#9 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,242 posts

Posted 23 June 2001 - 06:56 PM

Don Quixote was "lost" because people found the musical score difficult -- interesting to see how it would seem now -- and also because it was so associated with Balanchine (who did the Don) and Farrell. It was not a bad ballet. (I didn't see it, and that's based on reports of several friends who did.) As for PAMTGG, it's often said that if we saw it today.....

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

#10 Leigh Witchel

Leigh Witchel

    Editorial Advisor

  • Editorial Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 23 June 2001 - 08:22 PM

That's funny, I also never saw it, but no one I talked to called the Nabokov score difficult (this was a time when the audience was weaned on Stravinsky) People pretty much said the score was bad, so I'm not sure how close this mimics the situation with the Henze score in Ondine. I'd be interested in seeing the ballet. It does exist on film.

#11 Diana L

Diana L

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 23 June 2001 - 08:37 PM

It is a bit mouth gaping though that NYCB is not bringing any Balanchine to the Edinburgh Festival this year.

#12 Manhattnik

Manhattnik

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 23 June 2001 - 09:35 PM

I think the problem with the Don Q was that the music was just plain dull. It kind of killed the ballet dead before it even had a chance to get off the ground. And speaking of which, I have vague memories of PAMTTGG, which is probably better forgotten. There are a few Balanchine ballets like that -- I don't think I'd rush to see a revival of Gaspard de la Nuit, either. But I don't think those are the ballets we're talking about when we bemoan "lost" Balanchine. His ratio of hits to misses was very, very high. It's also interesting how posterity has been much kinder to many of his ballets than critics were at the time. Tchaikovsky Suite No. 3, for instance, while much-loved today, was roundly panned by critics at its premiere.

Speaking of PAMTGG, I suspect Balanchine didn't particularly care if it ever saw the light of day again. I recall a dancer who was once in the cast saying that, for its final performance, Balanchine told the dancers to wear whatever costume they liked and just have fun with it.

#13 stan

stan

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 24 June 2001 - 08:20 AM

Re PAMTGG: the old timers used to call it PAM-TA-GAGA which pretty much summarized their memories of it.

One "lost" ballet, though not by Balanchine,that I remember with some fondness is John Taras's black leather version of Daphnis & Chloe, done for the Ravel festival and never seen since. The fabulous cast included the two Peters (Martins and Schaufuss), Karin von Aroldingen and my all-time favorite member of the corps who never made it, Nina Fedorova.

#14 sneds

sneds

    Bronze Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 24 June 2001 - 08:44 AM

Diana...
The non-Balanchine rep for the Edinborough Festival was a request of the festival organizers, NOT a decision by anyone at NYCB. Apparently, they wanted something different from last year, when NYCB did mostly Balanchine (??).
Also, only half the company is going to Scotland, which limits the ballets that can be performed. The whole company is going to Greece and Italy though.
Kate

P.S. I remember seeing Houston Ballet doing Daphnis and Chloe, but with chereography by Glen Tetley.

#15 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,242 posts

Posted 24 June 2001 - 12:44 PM

There are several stories going around about the reasons behind the Edinburgh Festival rep. I'm not aware that there's been any announcement or statement, by either the company or the festival organizers, as to who chose what and why.

Leigh, I know several passionate defenders of "Don Quixote," who said that the audience simply didn't "get" the music -- as Mel wrote, most people thought it was boring. It may be an interesting parallel to Henze's score for "Ondine." People thought that was boring, nondanceable music as well.

Manhattnik, I think you've made a very good point that some of Balanchine's ballets that were -- if not actually panned, certainly pointed to as less than top drawer -- at the time are now seen as masterpieces (conversely some that were seen as masterpieces are now seen as minor works. In the latter instances, I think it's either because they're underperformed or have been so ripped off by subsequent derivative works that they, themselves, look derivative).

The problem with putting Suite No. 3 in the Masterpieces drawer is that it can serve as a model and a standard. As I remember it, Croce wrote that Balanchine was putting steps to music and calling it a ballet -- something that could be said of much "son of Balanchine" ballet today.


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 (adblockers may block display):