Treefrog

This really does belong on Ballet Talk for Dancers, but as a longtime poster and former moderator there, I can tell you what the answer will be: forget it. Bad idea. At that age, kids don't learn ballet anyway. They take a "pre-ballet" or "creative movement" class, whose goals are to teach musicality, rhythm, and balance. And they learn the discipline of the class environment. They learn to stand in first position -- although not all studios call it that at this age -- and maybe they learn a rudimentary tendu. Mostly, they learn to walk and skip and generally move to different rhythms. They learn what it means to point feet and to flex them. They spend a great deal of time being animals, or colors, or types of weather. By all means, do these kinds of things with your niece. Skip with her. Clap out a waltz or a polka. Have fun doing "baby runs" on tiptoe and grand "ballet walks" (while balancing an imaginary crown on your respective heads). These are the kinds of things that ballet training is built on. And keep watching those ballet videos! The best thing you can do for her is to nurture her love of the art. If she wants to learn it herself, there's plenty of time later for her to join a class.

If you don't answer anything else, "Lucky number < 50%" always returns choleric, and "lucky number > 50% always returns sanguinic. "Always" meaning "after a couple of tries each way." For the record, I was choleric. Has anyone gotten anything either of the other two temperaments?

One of the posters on Ballet Talk for Dancers is looking for advice about which ABT or NYCB performance to attend in June. Rather than start a new thread here, I thought I'd just post that link. If you are not registered on BT4D, post your comments here and I'll direct her to this thread. Thanks.

Keep an eye out for the stage right soldier-with-a-sword -- that's my husband, who just landed a gig as a super for this run!

This is too good to stay buried in Links. Find out what advice columnist Ask Amy tells Giselle. (Amy is the Chicago Tribune's replacement for Dear Abby, and a very fine one she is! I lover her column, which is very solid, practical, and up-to-date.)

Ah, yes! Mrs. Stahlbaum reminds me that dancers auditioning for the Stiefel and Stars Performance Project in early March received an email saying that Stiefel was having unexpected knee surgery. Thanks for that information, Mrs. Stahlbaum. (And thank you also for checking with me before posting possible gossip -- in this case, there was an official communication.)

Jeez, you're right! I hadn't noticed that. Wonder what's up? And welcome to Ballet Talk!

This from an article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune. Julie Kent will replace Ferri on opening night.

Oooooh! That IS a fun fact. I, for one, didn't know that. It does clear up another dissonance for me. Thanks.

And just to add to the confusion, Western Reserve University -- now Case Western Reserve, after a merger -- is in Cleveland, which is in eastern Ohio!

I do agree with Amy that the common understanding of American West does not include Pennsylvania. I think Dunning is wrong in her characterization, if only on the grounds of good, clear writing. However, Europeans landed (primarily) in the East, and the only way to expand was west. So, the western frontier moved continuously. I tend to think of pioneers as those inhabiting the far western frontier -- and pushing it farther -- wherever that was. Surely the Ingalls family were pioneers even when they lived in the Big Woods in Wisconsin. However, I'm grateful for this conversation as my common image of Appalachia is the Kentucky hollows that I've visited, and Appalachian Spring did not seem to fit that image. Knowing that it is set in western Pennsylvania clears up that dissonance for me.

Well, after THAT .... I hardly dare complain. So I won't. ABT and the Bolshoi do regularly tour to Chicago. ABT is pretty recent, though. They always bring big story ballets: Swan Lake, Bayadere, Don Quixote, Giselle, and (big but relatively rare) Raymonda. Eifman comes through each year with whatever he is doing currently, although my budget hasn't stretched to see it ever. Smaller companies tend toward repertory programs, although I've not seen as many of these as I would like (meaning I don't get to the performances, not that the performances aren't happening). And we get the St. Petersburg Ballet too. My sense is that, as big as it is, Chicago is still viewed as pretty provincial. I don't think anyone would try out an adventurous program. Bring out the war horses!

Canbelto, there is a wonderful discussion group for adult recreational dancers at Ballet Talk for Dancers. You will find LOTS of support there for taking up ballet at your age. Heck, many of the posters there started a lot later than 26! When you register there, please use the same name. It helps to keep everyone straight.

Jack, if by "their" orchestra you mean one that plays together only for Joffrey performances, I don't know the answer. But the orchestra that plays is consistently the same one, and there is a resident conductor (Leslie Dunner) who is listed on the Joffrey website as "Music Director and Principal Conductor". (Incidentally, it is a small thing to appreciate, but Dunner is one conductor who knows how to move; he does not look awkward or out of place when taking his bows with the company.) I am grateful that the Joffrey has made the commitment to live music.

This is a great topic! So much depends on the company, and on the type of audience it wants to attract (not to mention its training needs, which is a facet I would never have thought of -- thanks for pointing that out). What programming will yield the biggest audience, as well as a good audience mix? Fendrock, as a relative newcomer I do share your pain. I want to be exposed to a broad range of programming. I'm not quite ready to appreciate the nuances of this performance versus that one, this cast versus that. And you and I are committed ballet-goers -- subscribers, even. Think of the masses out there saying, "Yes, but I saw Sleeping Beauty two years ago. I'll go when they do something different." In my case, the fact that my resident company is small exacerbates the problem. Chances are pretty good that when they mount Romeo and Juliet next year, I will see approximately the same cast I saw last year. Will they perform it somewhat differently? Almost certainly, but I'm not sure I'll even be able to tell; when you are not intimately familiar with a ballet, it's all something of a blur anyway. On the other hand: some ballets are capable of sustaining long-term appeal. In point of fact, I am eagerly looking forward to Romeo and Juliet! And there is, after all, the example of Nutcracker. My kids practically insist that they will not see a Hubbard Street program (sorry -- modern dance, I know) that does not include Minus 16. So ... is there a good mix of programming? Is there some magic formula?

When they were in Chicago they were budget-priced compared to Joffrey and ABT. I think ticket prices were in the $35-$60 range, rather than $60-90.

It's so interesting to hear that audiences are loving this. Not that they shouldn't, but both of you have suggested that the audiences are young and naive. I wonder if people are flocking to this because 1) the company brings ballet to novel places, e.g. dance-starved college campuses, and/or 2) because it SOUNDS like it's a big-deal Russian company, and/or 3) it's classical ballet for budget-priced tickets. That is, do the audiences love it because of what it is, or in spite of it? And does this suggest anything about ballet marketing in the future? Can we get the masses to appreciate ballet more if smaller companies send out budget tours (shades of the original Joffrey)?

Awwww, you beat me to it! I was just planning on reviving this forum with this very book! I really liked it. I loved being introduced to a new culture, especially through the eyes of a child. But mostly, I liked the development of the central character, and how we get to see how the events of his childhood create the man. There are so many fascinating relationships in this book. The ending is perhaps a bit melodramatic -- and yet, perhaps inevitable.

I think the real question is not why we have ONLY five positions, but why we have five and not four. This is because I can envision a geometric explanation for everything but third position. Imagine the body is at the intersection of two perpendicular axes lying on the ground. The (turned out) feet can be aligned along the side-to-side axis; when in that alignment, they can be either touching (first position) or apart (second). Or, the feet can be aligned along the forward-and-back axis; similarly, they can either touch (fifth) or be apart (fourth). In any other position -- third, for example -- the feet are not aligned along either axis. It is true that each of these positions have analogues with the feet in parallel. But then it is no longer ballet. Alexandra, I don't think I buy your suggestion that turn out gives the body a broad base of support. Stability is more easily achieved by moving the feet apart (for side-to-side support) and using the inherent length of the foot for front-to-back support. Put another way, if turn out were genuinely advantageous our bodies quite likely would have evolved to have turned out feet. What turn out DOES do is to enable the body to glide side-to-side. This probably doesn't have much evolutionary advantage, but it has artistic advantage: the dancer can range across the stage while facing front the whole time.

Ballet Talk has a new forum: "Discovering the Art". This forum is designed for people who are new to ballet, or who have questions they think are very basic (and whose answers often turn out to be very complex ...). NO question is too basic or simple here. Ask questions about steps, choreography, comportment at the ballet, costuming, history, tradition ... whatever will enrich your ballet viewing.

Jack, what's your opinion about the new Harris Center?

Herman, your point is very well taken. I don't think all US companies have to play such a large venue. As a side note, the Auditorium Theatre is absolutely glorious, and some percentage of the pleasure of going to the Joffrey is soaking in the atmosphere. I always find something new to gaze at. The Auditorium is brand spanking new by European standards (1889 or thereabouts), but highly significant architecturally. Louis Sullivan was the architect, and Dankmar Adler the engineer. It is just magnificent. One advantage to the large venue is that it is almost always possible to get last-minute tickets! A huge disadvantage is that the seasons are so short. The current program runs just two weekends, plus one Wednesday night opener. And, it's just one program at a time; we'll get another one in May. I do think this presentation format is a response to an audience conception that ballet is entertainment. If they presented two programs simultaneously -- as they used to -- I think most people would choose one rather than see both. "I WENT to the ballet already this week," they would think.

Cliff, I'm waiting for your review! In the meantime ... The program certainly was eclectic, and yet ... there were threads that drew it together. I think calling it American masterworks is a stretch. The Robbins piece was certifiably, undeniably, exuberantly American. And I will give credit also to Square Dance, which draws on such a rich tradition of American social dance even though the Corelli and Vivaldi music, and the neo-classical technique speak to another time and place. The Tudor? Nothing discernably American about it. As someone (Mel?) revealed on the Dark Elegies thread, this piece was created before Tudor moved to the US. The music is German -- words and composer -- and the feel of the scene is Welsh or English. What brought the program together? Both Square Dance and Dark Elegies draw on the movements and figures of social dance -- squares, circles, and contras. In Square Dance, that's one of the points of the piece. In Dark Elegies, the movements are very subdued, and emphasize the feeling of community. This is not social dance as entertainment, nor even as mourning; it is an allusion, a conveyance of people being together. (Just to round things out: I think NY Export: Opus Jazz evn had a few contra-like arrangements, but I wouldn't say they dominated ...) Casting: Julianne Kepley and Willy Shives danced the leads in Square Dance. Loved them. I remembered the description of the footwork as "devilishly difficult", and concentrated on watching that this time. Kepley handled it beautifully. Valerie Robins was the mother in Dark Elegies, with solos also by Maia Wilkins and Willy Shives (pdd), John Gluckman, Erica Lynette Edwards, and Calvin Kittin. Robins was particularly soulful. (This piece is especially moving because the traditional movements of grief are incorporated very subtly -- alluded to, but never used tritely or overbearingly -- and in a very stylized, sharp way.) I wondered how Edwards would do, because I think of her as an energetic, exuberant dancer. She often dances the Russian dance in Nutcracker, for example. She handled this role beautifully. As a side note, I do wish I understood German, or that the songs had been translated in the program. Mahler certainly had his reasons for setting the poems to music, and Tudor had his reasons for using the songs instead of unscripted melodies. I can't help but think that something of the richness of the whole piece was lost to me. Opus Jazz was certainly a change of pace! Snazzy, pure fun. Led by April Daly and Fabrice Calmels, the company showed once again that it will not be bound by convention (Daly is tiny, Calmels a graceful giant).

Migdoll's photos are always spectacular -- clean and crisp. In order, from left to right: Erica Lynette Edwards John Gluckman Valerie Robin Maia Wilkins and Willy Shives Fabrice Calmels (with John Gluckman and a touch of Michael Smith) John Gluckman, Thomas Nicholas, Michael Smith, Fabrice Calmels The Company Willy Shives, with Temur Suluashvili, Mauro Villanueva, John Gluckman, David Gompert(?) Julianne Kepley, with ??? Megan Quiroz and apprentice Aaron Rogers (NOT Emily Patterson and Masayoshi Onuki, as I posted earlier) (Oh my gosh, I AM becoming a groupie; I did 85% of these ID's without resorting to my cast list!)

Can you remember what some of the questions -- oops, answers -- were?