Lewis Segal in the LA Times on what's wrong with ballet

[Ray]

ballet isn't infantilizing - ballet directors are. Hire better ones.

Yes! But by what means can this happen? Again I pull up the comparison with classical music: somehow musicians have managed to hang on to their traditions while they've changed a lot about how they govern themselves and guide their institutions. Can dancers participate in the same ways?

[Helene]

PS The point about Segal omitting opera is excellent, except that opera in the 19th and early 20th centuries could be highly politically charged--think many Verdi operas, Poulenc's Dialogue of the Carmelites, and even Puccini's Tosca. When we think about "political ballets" we always recur to the Soviets (or the PRC), who usually combined politics and dance in hamhanded ways.

The great thing about the political subtext in Verdi's operas, for example, is that they were subjugated to the form (those censors were watching carefully), and, to apply Alexandra's point, the form was suited to that type of expression. Opera is more static dramatically than ballet, and the expectation is that a singer or chorus will stand for a long time, virtually immobile (even with good direction) and soar over an orchestra. Opera's "big" effects work wondefully for grand emotion in a way that petit allegro just doesn't. Ballet has to move, and to move and move and move to big bombastic scores usually used for historical/political ballets gets tedious quickly in most cases. (Hence my skipping forward to Vasiliev's sections of Spartacus.)

A quite wonderful political work by Val Caniparoli (which is being performed by Atlanta Ballet this upcoming season), is The Bridge, but it focused on the personal relationship of a couple caught in civil war, for which ballet has the tools, not the civil war itself.

3) Dancers work on an "assembly line, automatic and unyielding." They are treated like children and are disposed of as soon as they get too old, too fat, or just too ... something.

I think this is generally true and part of the reason I retired from the field--specifically, I felt that for a profession, ballet ranks low in terms of consulting its own resident experts. Symphony orchestra sections always audition new members; ADs wouldn't even think about asking a company dancer what they think about potential hires.

Ray, for an illustration, albeit extreme, of why ballet companies don't ask company dancers what they think of new talent, see the memoirs of Mathilde Kschessinskaya. She was sort of a version of Zero Mostel's sketch character, the Italian tenor, Mostelli. "Mr. Mostelli, what did you think of Enrico Caruso?" "'ee's a PEEG!" "Giovanni Martinelli?" "'ee's a PEEG!" "Jan Peerce?" "'ee's a PEEG!" "Robert Merrill?" (sweetly) "Baritone...."

I think there are a couple of issues at hand: dancers are more disposable than symphony musicians, who will remain colleagues for decades. Their unions tend to be stronger. But I think the trick to getting feedback on fellow dancers is inherent in Mel's anecdote: you don't ask a tenor to judge other tenors; you ask other tenors to judge baritones, and more specifically the sopranos with whom they will sing. Just as it might make sense to get feedback from potential partners.

[Leigh Witchel]

The biggest difficulty in comparison between ballet dancers and musicians is their relative ages during their careers. A 35 year old musician is in a different position to speak about his/her job and art form than a 17 year old dancer. I wonder if you would find a correllation between the median age in a company and dancer autonomy/self-image/satisfaction.

ballet isn't infantilizing - ballet directors are. Hire better ones.

Yes! But by what means can this happen? Again I pull up the comparison with classical music: somehow musicians have managed to hang on to their traditions while they've changed a lot about how they govern themselves and guide their institutions. Can dancers participate in the same ways?

[Ray]

I think there are a couple of issues at hand: dancers are more disposable than symphony musicians, who will remain colleagues for decades. Their unions tend to be stronger. But I think the trick to getting feedback on fellow dancers is inherent in Mel's anecdote: you don't ask a tenor to judge other tenors; you ask other tenors to judge baritones, and more specifically the sopranos with whom he will sing. Just as it might make sense to get feedback from potential partners.

I like that anecdote in re ballet b/c for all the talk of dancer abjection, we're all trained to imagine ourselves as soloists! Musicians by contrast see the writing on the wall a lot sooner, I think, about the trajectory of their careers (a second trombone never gets to play a first trombone part, for example, while a corps dancer can of course move up the ladder). But still, why can't corps dancers help audition other corps dancers, the people that they'll have to work with? Is that at all equivalent to the woodwind section auditioning a new clarinetist? Are dancers just too immature--i.e., b/c they're too young--to participate in the process of running their own organizations? Something has to change; it should be CLEAR to any ballet watchers that most ADs can't do it alone (or, they cede their authority to the marketing/management arm).

[winky]

Of Segal's points I found I reacted least to the third - ballet is infantilizing and mechanizing, etc. I guess I've heard it so many times that now I think, "Oh, this one again?" And I guess it would be too much to explain that ballet isn't infantilizing - ballet directors are. Hire better ones.

This seems kind of chicken and egg. An environment that raises dancers to be discouraged from thinking creates directors who will continue this behavior. This has become a part of the culture of ballet and therefore is very difficult to change. In fact, I think that in discouraging independent and intellectual thought among the dancers, especially among the women, may be one of the reasons we are not seeing more great choreographers.

[Leigh Witchel]

That sort of intellectual autonomy is a good thing, but I don't see it as a tautology towards better choreography or better ballet. One of the best choreographers of the last century (Antony Tudor) probably would have been hauled in front of every labor board had they existed. Good working conditions don't necessary equal a better product - they're a goal in their own right.

[Ray]

QUOTE(Leigh Witchel @ Aug 11 2006, 11:45 AM)

Of Segal's points I found I reacted least to the third - ballet is infantilizing and mechanizing, etc. I guess I've heard it so many times that now I think, "Oh, this one again?" And I guess it would be too much to explain that ballet isn't infantilizing - ballet directors are. Hire better ones.

This seems kind of chicken and egg. An environment that raises dancers to be discouraged from thinking creates directors who will continue this behavior. This has become a part of the culture of ballet and therefore is very difficult to change. In fact, I think that in discouraging independent and intellectual thought among the dancers, especially among the women, may be one of the reasons we are not seeing more great choreographers.

Well put, Winky--you've really diagnosed the root of multiple problems here! Many of the smartest women I've know in the profession have been smart enough to get away fast after they retire -- and the profession should be concerned about this.

[Ray]

That sort of intellectual autonomy is a good thing, but I don't see it as a tautology towards better choreography or better ballet.

True enough--nothing guarantees anything. But discouraging dancers' artistic/intellectual inquisitiveness and their participation in institutional self-determination because "that's the way it is" don't seem to have produced much for us lately either.

[kfw]

3) Dancers work on an "assembly line, automatic and unyielding." They are treated like children and are disposed of as soon as they get too old, too fat, or just too ... something.

I've always been bothered by the fact that corps members are still, apparently, often addressed as "boys" and "girls." But other than that, I draw a distinction between dispensiblity and disrespect. Soloists are drawn from the corps for their dance talent, and individuality is an essential/indipensable element of dance talent. The greatest talents will often be noticed and promoted. But the first role of a corps member is sublimation to the whole, and to my mind that's no humiliation or restriction, that's service. They also serve who stand and observe, and then move in un-PC conformity to the vision of the greater talent.

When it comes to soloist and principal roles, we know that some ex-dancers/repeteurs have the vision to allow more interpretive freedom than others. But if at this level of higher talent, most dancers again felt more restricted than not, surely we'd see less range of interpretation.

On a side note, what saddens me is that most dance training isn't, and perhaps if current technical standards are to be met can't be, well-rounded. There are only 24 hours in a day, and today's dancers do have an unprecedented ability to move. I only wish there were more Balanchine's and Diaghlev's to take them to museums and assign them challenging reading.

[kfw]

But still, why can't corps dancers help audition other corps dancers, the people that they'll have to work with? Is that at all equivalent to the woodwind section auditioning a new clarinetist? Are dancers just too immature--i.e., b/c they're too young--to participate in the process of running their own organizations?

I think the difference is that woodwind players aren't lesser musicians than cellists or trombonists or conductors, they just have different roles to play. Corps members are most often lesser dancers than AD's were, so shouldn't we expect that AD's see better? Even apart from their greater dance ability, which must often correlate with better vision, they have many more years of viewing to sharpen their vision. It would be nice to think that Martins consults Pauline Golbin in a pinch. But it stands to reason that he's the legitimate authority.

[Mel Johnson]

Ray, dancers are so threat-averse that a formal process of including corps dancers in the auditioning board for corps would begin an inexorable decline in quality of the corps, until those selected were no threat to ANYBODY! but no treat to watch, either. Robert Joffrey used to have an informal way of getting input from company dancers when prospective members started taking company class.

[sz]

I brought this up with a friend the other day. Where are all the former dancer women in choreographic roles today, and director roles? I still am keeping my fingers crossed for Melissa Barak... She choreographs small pieces on SAB students from time to time, and those pieces I've seen were all quite good. Why? Because she understands women's technique (avec pointe shoes) far better than most of the new male choreographers out there. I hope to see more from Melissa at NYCB one day as a choreographer when she isn't dancing her tail off every day/night....

As far as ballet company directorships. Women may have a harder time, because of the nature of our society, but of course it's possible. We all often wonder what NYCB would be like today if Mr. B had given his company to Suzanne Farrell to artistically direct. If Mr. B had opened the door for Suzanne, and it was a good transistion, successful, Mr. B would have opened the door for many other women in ballet companies. National Ballet of Cuba, The Royal Ballet have opened doors... I think in time, women here too will take on more leadership roles, and not just in ballet.

Ballet's women don't run away.... Many retired ballet women have settled into the nurturing roles of ballet's mentors, teachers, coaches, and motherhood. They are professional writers too!

This is nonsense about ballet being infantilizing and mechanizing.... Yes, there is youth among dancers, but better directors are the answer. And dancers do contribute more than you may think towards the process of creating a ballet, maintaining a ballet.

[Helene]

I think the difference is that woodwind players aren't lesser musicians than cellists or trombonists or conductors, they just have different roles to play.

I think role is key: apart from chairs, who play solo parts called for in the orchestra scores, the role of section musicians is to blend, and function much as the corps. During performances, they are expected to follow the lead -- sound quality and interpretation -- of a conductor, who is on stage with the orchestra during performances.

Orchestral players are either musicians who have either decided not to pursue a solo career, or, hopefully, have put their solo ambitions aside to fulfill a group role professionally, at least while they are performing with the orchestra. While there is competition for the few chairs and for the associate and assistant concertmaster position when there are rare openings, or to move from the second violin section to the first, most orchestral musicians fulfill their ambitions by moving up the orchestral food chain to another organization.

By contrast, even if an AD chooses to hire a dancer with the assumption that the person will be a long-standing corps member, how many dancers, at least in North America, join the corps with no ambition to rise up the ranks? There's no tradition of a corps job as a respected civil servant. If the AD hires a dancer because s/he sees a potential soloist or principal, then how the dancer fits into the corps -- or doesn't -- might not interest the AD, much to the chagrin of the rest of the corps. Once in a while orchestras give their own chairs a chance to solo in a concerto, but more likely, they (try to) hire Yo Yo Ma, Yitzhak Perlman, or Lang Lang, who sell the tickets. While ballet companies do hire guest stars, most performances are led from the ranks of all tiers.

I do think Mel's anecdote does have the answer for getting feedback, though: you don't ask a tenor to rate other tenors; you ask a tenor to rate the baritones or sopranos with whom they will sing. It might help to get get feedback about the dancer's partnering abilities/ability to be partnered, unless the dancer is a short male expected to dance jesters.

[bart]

A few days ago, dirac posted a LINK to an article by Marc Shugold on RockyMountain.com, responding to the Lewis Segal - John Rockwell discussion. Here's a summary (omitting some of the explanations the author gives for each point). Here's the Llink to the complete article: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/spot...5031431,00.html

Any more thoughts from BT?

Fact is, ballet should be adored. And hated. Here's why:

Reasons to hate ballet

• Silly plots

• The weight of tradition

• The air of superiority:

Reasons to love ballet

• The beauty of dance

• The power of movement

• The glory of music

• The magic of spectacle

• The magnificence of the human body

So much for the pros and cons. Where does all this leave us? Perhaps, ballet has outlived its relevance - that its unswerving devotion to tradition and its corny onstage antics have nothing to say to today's audiences.

[....]

Which is a shame. Love it or hate it, ballet seeks to celebrate human perfection. I never tire of its loveliness. No matter how many productions I've attended (even all those Nutcrackers), I am still moved by the sheer beauty of a dancer in motion.

Great art represents the highest form of human expression. Too many of us seem embarrassed by that. Has our age become so cynical that it feels more comfortable with crude ugliness, blasted at full volume

Sugold concludes on a very positive note. However ....

I have never understood why people feel there is an "air of superiority" surrounding ballet. On the other hand, ballet DOES often produce feelings of unfamilarity and the fear of the unknown. Does ballet demand that you will look closely, attempt to feel deeply, and try to learn something? Yes. Is it usually expensive? Unfortunately, yes. But, in American culture, who's really more snooty and intolerant nowadays: the professional rock and/or pop music critic? or the person who loves and responds to ballet?

As to "silly plots," Shugold gives the example of Giselle. The story is, in certain terms, quite trite, simplistic, and contrived. But it is also a platform that carries and conveys deep and important human feelings, and raises issues of forgiveness and redemption. Does that make it "silly"?

[richard53dog]

As to "silly plots," Shugold gives the example of Giselle. The story is, in certain terms, quite trite, simplistic, and contrived. But it is also a platform that carries and conveys deep and important human feelings, and raises issues of forgiveness and redemption. Does that make it "silly"?

No,it's not really silly at all. You hit the nail on the head; the audience needs to be taken by the dancers THROUGH the surface elements of the plot to the ones that matter. Then instead of "silly" you have a plot that is very moving. Really, an experience that is both beautiful and moving.

Some ballets plots, though, ARE silly and there no way around that.

Any favorite silly ballet plots? Like Le Corsair or Sylvia?

[bart]

I've been wondering how ballet dancers themselves feel about the charges raised by this piece. And now I've come upon a reaction from one of the best. . . .

The Autumn issue of DanceView has an interview of Muriel Maffre (SF Ballet) by Dale Brauner.

DanceView: In August, Los Angeles Times dance critic Lewis Segal wrote [ ... ] that ballet companies treat the dancers like children. As a woman who has pursued your college education while dancing, what do you think about that?

Muriel Maffre: I love talking about this subject. Dancers today are intelligent people, very sensitive. It hink their high sensitivity is taken as immaturity. But dancers are mature people; they take a huge amount of responsibility on themselves. It's a different kind of maturity. But I do agree that there's a culture, which has nothiing to do with the dancers, around ballet that treats dancers like children and immature. There have been instances here where I've been tryhing to fight against that. It think it's coming around but it's a long way away. Because it's the whole tradition, centures of dancers being treated that way and looked upon as child and kept in situation of submission. It goes back to when we were students. We are silent. Our opinions don't count. That permeates the culture; the reputation outside follows.

[Ray]

What about the idea expressed in the article that the "weight of tradition" is something that discourages people from seeing/liking ballet? I think the operative word in this criticism is "weight": generally speaking, the ballet world holds the notion of its tradition in a kind of hushed reverence that can seem tediously sentimental and even cultish to an outsider (and sometimes to me, now that I'm long retired--and "deprogrammed," haha).

[Hans]

We do?!

Could someone please mention that to various choreographers and artistic directors who shall not be named?

I am not sure why ballet traditions need to be considered a burden, as not every new work is expected to be as good as Giselle or as groundbreaking as Agon, and other art forms have even weightier traditions--think of the number of musical masterpieces that exist preserved by notation in their original form compared to the relatively small number of classic ballets, most of which have been altered considerably.

[Ray]

We do?!

Could someone please mention that to various choreographers and artistic directors who shall not be named?

I am not sure why ballet traditions need to be considered a burden, as not every new work is expected to be as good as Giselle or as groundbreaking as Agon, and other art forms have even weightier traditions--think of the number of musical masterpieces that exist preserved by notation in their original form compared to the relatively small number of classic ballets, most of which have been altered considerably.

I'm not talking about the actual value/maintenence of traditions, I'm talking about attitudes. That's the irony of it. Even bad choreographers take on the matle of tradition as if they are guarding the holy grail--believe me, I've worked with my share of these tiresome guardians of "ballet purity" who breathe life into the old SNL "bad ballet" moniker. There is more of a diversity of approaches to/digressions from traditions in the music world. Even as standards are in some cases absolute, people can do crazy things and it's still "classical music."

[leonid17]

We do?!

I am not sure why ballet traditions need to be considered a burden, as not every new work is expected to be as good as Giselle or as groundbreaking as Agon, and other art forms have even weightier traditions--think of the number of musical masterpieces that exist preserved by notation in their original form compared to the relatively small number of classic ballets, most of which have been altered considerably.

I'm not talking about the actual value/maintenence of traditions, I'm talking about attitudes. That's the irony of it. Even bad choreographers take on the matle of tradition as if they are guarding the holy grail--believe me, I've worked with my share of these tiresome guardians of "ballet purity" who breathe life into the old SNL "bad ballet" moniker. There is more of a diversity of approaches to/digressions from traditions in the music world. Even as standards are in some cases absolute, people can do crazy things and it's still "classical music."

I agree with Hans regarding ballet traditions not need be considered a burden they should only be considered an inspiration and a model.

Rays last sentence raises questions regarding classical music I cannot entirely agree with. When orchestral music has become an object of marketing and celebrity promotion of an entirely commercial enterprise that may be 'crazy' it does not follow that it is entitled to be called 'classical music'.

Because noises are made by a professional orchestra with a conductor in a venue that is associated with classical music, it does not follow that it 'classical music' has been performed but it may be called as such for

commercial reasons much more than artistic reasons.

Classical anything, follows an academic form which originated millenia ago. The term classical, can only be used as a benchmark meaning 'the highest form' or quality. To associate noise, with the accepted 'masters' of music is to me a vulgar marketing ploy to gain some standing for a commercially exploited maker of such music.

Anyone interested and knowledgeable enough about the traditions of 'classical ballet', will not be fooled by a cheap representation whose aim is inevitably entertainment of a kind rather than 'art' which is the aim of 'classical ballet'.

There is a place for, original thinking in theatrical dance which could follow the 'classical ballet' form. There are always possibilities for theatrical dance that employs much of the technical vocabulary of classical ballet that will however remain outside the academic pantheon of classical ballet.

I enjoy many of the genres of theatrical dance but am frequently dismayed when 'cross-over' steps or moves are used simply as a gimmicky effect in a particular genre that has its own form. Crazy music is not for me nor is crazy dancing just for the sake of being different. Original creative works genrally survive, commercially exploitative works one hopes will only give short term financial rewards(surely their aim) and the Emperor's new clothes revealed.

Tradition can not only sustain the best of works, it also resonates most loudly with knowledgeable audiences and those less knowledgeable.

[bart]

The term classical, can only be used as a benchmark meaning 'the highest form' or quality.

I personally agree with leonid on this. But there are those -- and they have been powerful in the criitical establishment for quite a while -- who reject the very idea of creating a hierarchy of value, importance, and even quality in the arts. This is especially the case when the "classical" forms and values under consideration are primarily European and/or upper class in origin.

This not the kind of debate in which there seem to be many converts on either side.

The best ways to preserve the "classical" in the performing arts today are probably similar to those that have enabled it to survive and flourish for centuries:

a) keep the standards as high as possible; ;

b) support education in, and exposure, to the classical arts in schools and in the media; and

c) don't be afraid to embrace new approaches, techniques, and subject matter -- but ONLY when they are the develop naturally out of the classical tradition, NOT when they require sad leaps into alien territory for the sake of gaining larger audiences.

[chiapuris]

The term classical, can only be used as a benchmark meaning 'the highest form' or quality.

b) support education in, and exposure, to the classical arts in schools and in the media;

I concur with leonid's and barts eloquent posts.

For me the term 'classical' in dance has to do with two canonic aspects:

1) the 'dehors' opening of the body on either side, generally encapsulated in the term 'turnout', and

2) the port de bras from low 1st to mid 1st (extending the arms to the midpoint of a hemisphere) to high 1st

(also en couronne or 5th position)-the top point of the hemisphere-, with the extension to the sides of the hemisphere, which is 2nd position.

I would like very much to hear what others think of 'classical' in dance.

Has Segal been enough of a thorn to revitalize the discussion on BT?

bart's point b) about supporting education is crucial. How can one promote it in the U.S. today?

I tend to be pessimistic about this. But we need to find ways.

[Helene]

bart's point b) about supporting education is crucial. How can one promote it in the U.S. today?

I tend to be pessimistic about this. But we need to find ways.

My pessimistic self thinks that the only way classical ballet can be promoted so that it stays classical ballet -- without the second coming of a Balanchine-Ashton-Tudor triumverate -- is if men are respected and rewarded for doing it. At this point many boys face physical and emotional abuse from their so-called peers for wanting to become dancers. I think the best form of education is the programs like Jacques d'Amboise's, where dance is brought directly in the schools.

Phil Otto managed a similar Pacific Northwest Ballet program in Seattle schools after he retired from the company. He was also teaching open classes, and one day he told our class that early on, some tough-looking kids came up to him when he was on his way to teach at one of the tougher schools in Seattle. Phil's a big guy, and it's hard to imagine any stranger with any hope of long life expectancy confronting him, but he said he was a little worried until they asked him whether he was the "dancing guy." When he told them "yes," they offered to watch his truck while he was in class.

I hate to be cynical, but if some tough-looking guys gain respect for dance and start watching the backs of the younger "dancer dudes," and make harassing them a dangerous choice, we can go to the next educational step, which is exposing dance to their peers.

[kfw]

I hate to be cynical, but if some tough-looking guys gain respect for dance and start watching the backs of the younger "dancer dudes," and make harassing them a dangerous choice, we can go to the next educational step, which is exposing dance to their peers.

I wonder if shows like "American Idol" and the like are doing anything to make dancing more acceptable for boys. I can't stand shows like that, so I don't really know, but don't they have male dancing contestants sometimes? Not ballet dancers, probably, but perhaps would-be Broadway dancers.

[richard53dog]

Classical anything, follows an academic form which originated millenia ago. The term classical, can only be used as a benchmark meaning 'the highest form' or quality. To associate noise, with the accepted 'masters' of music is to me a vulgar marketing ploy to gain some standing for a commercially exploited maker of such music.

Well let me play a sort of devils advocate here. The paragraph above refers to "classical music". Technically,

in music parlance, classical means "of a certain period", that is after Baroque and before Romatic. But that's sort of spliting hairs, most people use the term "clasical music" to refer to what can also be called "serious music"

What I have a problem with is the "benchmark" to denote quality. Who has the say here? Not the critics , surely, I doubt many readers would grant that them that authority. The academics?

Staying with music, since Leonid commented on it, in the early 20th century R. Strauss, Stravinsky, Janacek

and some others were all "convicted" of making noise. That wouldn't be said today, that's for sure.

For myself, I would say that time will be the ultimate authority on all these forms as them evolve, because evolve and grow they must. In the immediate time frame it's hard to tell what is a trip down an artistic dead end and what is a trip down a true path of growth.

"Vulgar" marketing ploys generally don't have lasting "legs" so in the long terms it isn't much of a concern