ronny

Thanks Juliet... I had no idea that it was so popular. I guess it is a bit of a surprise to me that people would want to sit through the anguish of prince Rudolf and the murder suicide and all that. I have a hard time connecting that to dance but if it sells tickets then it means that there is something there. Actually I enjoy some sections of it, the first 15 minutes and the first part of the scene in Rudolf's mothers room. Some of Listz's music is really thrilling. Really, I'm quite impressed with the Royal Ballet, they certainly have all the skill and talent to produce anything they want. Very impressive. Helena, I guess I am just a softy for the more beautiful and lofty kind of things that ballet can do. I am real partial to the fairy tales. But your comments here show me that maybe I need to be a little more tolerant of these other things. So thanks for your repy Helena.

Why are the great resources and talents of the Royal Ballet Company being used for the continuing production of Mayerling? Does anyone know the logic behind it? The music of Franz Liszt is wonderful, the costumes are fab, the choreography is great, but the story??? What are they thinking?:confused:

These are great replys, so diverse and intelligent. Thanks Mel for your comment. It is so nice to hear from a dancer in Milwaukee and the post is so brilliant that it is cracking my illusions about some forms of plotless dance. And BW, I am really happy that you made this comment on Martins "Jeux de Cartes". I really wanted the other side to come out. Sometimes I say things that are a little extreme so that these kinds of things WILL come out on the other side. I am just a learner and I want to hear the other side of it. So I think I have a better appreciation now for the plotless ballet. Really and truely I knew there had to be something great there or people wouldn't be buying tickets. Maybe it is just the term "abstract" that is causing the confusion. It seems to mean different things to different people. I'm going to read all the resposes again to see if there is some kind of common thread in the whole thing. Mel's very clear statement on art as "communication" seems to be a really nice summary of what ballet should be doing. Sounds to me that communication can take place nicely in both plot and plotless ballet. After all, if people like something, there must be some kind of communication going on, whether seen or unseen.

Yes Mel, I'll have to give you that one. All of the ballets are "open to interpretation"... I think you are right there. One thing sticks in my mind that you mentioned on your first post and that is this thing about "communication" and "symbolic language". That sounds very right also, and in that context of ballet being a method of communication from the artist to the audience it then becomes important that the artist HAS a message to give!! This is really what prompted this post to begin with. I just had the feeling that Peter Martins didn't really have any kind of particular message in mind and that it then becomes convenient to say "this is an abstract" when confronted with someone who asks the question "what are you talking about here"? Abstract seems to be a kind of term that sounds deep, but in fact may just be a coverup for the artist having no particular message to give. If it is true that Ballet is communication, then the artist should know about the message that is being sent. He should be able to express that intent. If he knows there is no message, then the term "abstract" is a nice way to wiggle out of the situation. I am being hard on Peter Martins, and that is not fair because I saw only two of his works. I am certain that many of his works do have great content. I just don't like that way this term "abstract" is being used. To me, the classic ballets are loaded with abstracts... real live "human being" abstracts... like innocence, brilliance, love, beauty, etc. etc. These are all abstracts... what's wrong with them? Those seem to be the REAL abstracts in my mind.

Yes FF, Sylvia sounds like my kind of production. Too bad it isn't going to a choreographer that loves the old classic style. I've been told that Sylvia was never a hit in recent times, so there must be some difficulty with choreograpy or the storyline or something else because the musical score is terrific. I just picked up the Sylvia CD (couldn't find a video) from my mail box and was enjoying the music yesterday. It is really a wonderful score. In fact there is one piece in there that was so good that it was stolen to add some depth to the last act of Copellia. (or at least my version of Copellia) The CD also has 6 ballet pieces from Saint-Saens "Henry VIII"... the package says these 6 are "Ballet-Divertissment" (don't know what that means)... but I enjoy that part more than the Syliva section. Does anyone know what this "divertissment" means? Was talking with my sister yesterday since we were considering driving the 7 hours to Birmingham to see "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" but since we are both new at this, we both thought it would be better for us to go see the Nutcracker which is being performed locally a week later (Dec 7). I don't know about you, but I usually don't enjoy brand new music until I have heard it 3 or 4 times. I'm going to let the experts check out the Birmingham scene. I am going to see "old faithful" (nutcracker) for the first time. I know we will enjoy that:)

In reading all these replys I was wanting to come to some general idea on what "abstract" means to the ballet expert. Would it be something like "OPEN TO INTERPRETATION". Would that be general enough to take most of these responses into account? Does "open to interpretation" sound like "abstract ballet" to you? Does it sound right or not?

I was introduced to abstract ballet by Peter Martins and PBS when Peter described the dancing playing cards in the recent telecast production of the Diamond Project. Peter was saying that people asked him if the playing cards represented anything (like a royal flush or whatever) and he said "no", and that the performance was an "abstract". So then I thought to myself, oh, I get it, abstract means NO CONTENT as far as meaning, it just doesn't mean anything in particular... I guess it means just whatever you want. So what do you think of the abstract ballets? Do they seem to have any content to you? I suppose this idea of abstract comes from the world of art (You know, taking a subject and reducing it to its simplest form and color). Personally, I don't think that this idea of abstract is transferable from art to ballet. After all, in painting it is one canvas to another canvas, both are objects. Both the complex canvas and the simple canvas are objects that represent something. But in Ballet, these are live HUMAN BEINGS dancing. If you make something abstract out of humans, aren't you stripping them of their human qualities? Sounds like a loss to me. Now, abstract art, yes, that seems to make sense... but abstract ballet??... it may work to some extent, but it seems like a loss to me to turn human beings into objects?? Aren't human beings a lot more interesting than objects?

Great info... would you believe, I am within 40 miles of Alabama!! Now, I am hoping it is Montgomery and not Birmingham. I am within striking distance of Montgomery. October.. hmmmmm.

Alexandra, thanks for this comprehensive response. Really a brilliant response. Afraid that I am not so familiar with Balanchine and his "offsprings" so I don't know enough to understand that part of it, but I really connect with what you are saying about "contemporary story ballets" and how Petipa would have made them into something great. In fact I like your statement about contemporary story ballets so much that I will probably want to quote you on it in the future if that is allright. You said that these contemporary story ballets are "simplistic in theme and choreography and not very imaginative" < that is the part I may want to quote. Will that be OK? I really connect with that statement. Thanks Alexandra. Yes, can anyone else think of more examples? That would be interesting.

I have been wondering if there have been any recent ballets that have attempted to followed the classical style. I heard about "the legend of sleepy hollow" and that sounds a bit like the kind of thing I am thinking about. And if so, have any of those new attempts at the classic style been successful?

I would like to see excerpts from our favorite ballets on PBS. PBS is educational, so there are tons of folks out there who know the Nutcracker and many who have seen it, and there are many who have heard of Swan Lake but most have NEVER seen it, and many, who have never seen AND never even heard of Coppelia or Giselle!!! So why not put the best scenes from the best ballets on PBS in order to educate and introduce people to the BEST. If I was producing such a thing, I would start with something beautiful from the Nutcracker so people will not "tune out". They will see something familiar to them and they will get drawn into the program. Then graudually show things that they have never seen before. Just an introduction to the best ballet scenes... that is what I would want to see. It would be educational and it would be putting our best foot foreward. Hey, if PBS in not doing ballet it is not because they are bias against ballet, it just means that the things that the ballet world is giving them is NOT what people want to see. Give the audience "time proven" things and they will enjoy. The ratings will go up and PBS will come back for more.

As usual, ronny is going to ask the question WHY? Why are weddings are so popular in great ballets. Alexandra mentioned one... that weddings provide an opportunity to dance. But isn't there something more to it than that? Perhaps something deeper? I know wedding is a metaphore for spiritual union in many parts of the world. Wedding has a deeply spiritual inference to it. The reason I mention it, is this idea of "happily ever after". They got married and "lived happily ever after". "Happily ever after" is a reference to immortality. And I think that we all know that weddings on the material plane are not always happily ever after!!!! So for that reason I feel that weddings in ballet have to have a deeper significance... it has to be deeper to be "happily ever after" because "happily ever after" can only truely exist in the realm of immortality.

Now, I am just assuming that the trend you speak of is taking place and I am wondering WHY it is taking place. Could it be that the excitement is due to the fact that when there is an opera, there is a PERSONALITY that is performing there? People get excited about a personality. I remember looking at the diamond project on PBS and I was wondering... just where are the personalities? Where are the people I am supposed to connect with? There are all those dancers, but who are they?? Personalities can be created in a ballet story, but there was no story and no pesonalities performing in the diamond project that I could see... just moving bodies and music. Where is Giselle, where is Clara, where is Odette, where is Juliet, where is Aurora? Where are the poeple we can love and get excited about? Is this the reason for the boredom? I don't know much about opera, but I know that the opera singer has a personality. People know them and they talk about them. How can I get to know ballet performers in an abstract ballet? Who am I coming to see?

Thanks for bringing up this topic Farrell Fan. Ballet is deserving of promotion. The time is right for such a thing since the trend these days is moving in a more spiritual direction with Yoga and Self Improvement and all the rest of it. I don't know about the New York scene, but Classical ballet has a very strong spiritual side that is being overlooked... in fact I will venture to say that ballet is the most spiritual of all the arts. Beauty, Innocence, Orderliness, Vitality and Joy... these are all spiritual qualities, and classical ballet has them all in abundance. These things deserve promotion.

Yes, this is really nice to know. I understand what you are saying and I can see why it is true. It is the mark of the highest order to be able to put on a production like that. Now, that kind of thing would be worth traveling to see. So this is great to know. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. Very much appreciated. By the way, I found that FSU in Tallahassee is performing Coppelia in May next year. That's only 100 miles from me and they also have an afternoon performance which will work for me. They are a very small company, but I think it will be interesting to see it. I'm looking foreward to it. I also plan to attend the nutcraker just down the road from me... its the Moscow Ballet Company. I don't expect very much, but I'm sure I'll get a kick out of the adventure! Thanks again for the help. You both explained it perfectly.

Have you ever seen Sleeping Beauty done successfully by a small ballet company. I have only seen it done by the Kirov, and it is really hard for me to imagine that it could be done on a smaller scale but I guess anything is possible. Sleeping Beauty seems like such a huge undertaking that I was wondering if there are shorter or more compact versions that work well. I have heard a number of people say that this story is their favorite, so I am just wondering why it is not performed more often. Is it just too big, or what?

You have the ability to turn back time. Tchaikovsky and Petipa are about to launch their careers. If you had a chance to give them each a copy of "Ballet 101", would you give it to them?

I read very little, so little books appeal to me. The "Odes of Solomon" is a very small book of psalms assembled and probably written in the 1st century. I think the whole thing can be found on the internet. The 34th ode starts like this "no way is hard for the simple heart..."

While composing another post in the issues section, I was recalling another one of my favorite small things. It seems kind of rare, but ocassionally a ballerina will be able to create a shimmer or a quiver in her tutu. If it is done at the right moment, it sure gives me a quiver too. The example that I remember is from a moment in a Kirov performance of Sleeping Beauty I have on video. It is during the rose adagio when Aroura has just been lifted high by all 4 of the male dancers. When they set her down on pointe she (Altynai Asylmuratova in this case) starts a kind of shimmering in the tutu. Its pretty amazing and I suspect that it may be quite a difficult thing to pull off, but the music at that moment seems to send her off into a natural kind of thrill that gets amplified by the vibration of the tutu. It sure gives me a thrill too.

Yes, three acts is a bit much for todays audiences. I guess the attention span is not as good as it was 100 years ago. I was thinking the other day about Giselle and how it seems to be a very good length for todays audiences. Two acts is enough, even for me. When I view a video of Sleeping Beauty I'll usually break it up into smaller viewing sessions. I too would have a problem sitting through 3 hours and 3 acts! As for Sylvia, I think I might just start looking for it. For some reason these dusty things are fascinating to me. Maybe its the subconcious influence of all the reruns of the "antiques road show"!! Mel, if you (or anyone else)can think of any other oldies that had great music and fell through the cracks would you let me know? Thanks. Yep, I'm surely going to be looking for Sylvia. Maybe it will come up on Ebay.

This is about trends and the issue of correct costume in ballet. To me, the tutu is the trademark of ballet and should continue to be the primary costume for the ballerina. I mention this because it seems that the trend is moving away from this garb and thus the ballet is losing its traditional trademark. Moreover, the tutu is an essential element in choreography. If I was a choreographer I would insist on the tutu as the proper costume to express music. Without the tutu I would not be able to express two important aspects of music... one is "bounce" and the other is "shimmer". Light garb that falls flat does not bounce and cannot shimmer or quiver. Sometimes I wonder if the choreographers realize what they lose when they allow modern garb to replace the tutu. Its a loss to move away from the tutu. It is loss of trademark and loss to choreography.

BW, may I suggest that the next time someone says to you that the choreography "doesn't go anywhere" just ask them to give you an example of some choreography that "does go somewhere". And then if they give an example, then just ask them... well then, where does it go? Where does it take you? But as for me, I feel like choreography goes somewhere when it supports the mood or telling of the story. Energy with excitement for example... or if there is no story, then the choreography has to support the feeling that the music was designed to convey. But as you know, I am just an newcomer to all this, but that is my guess on it. Its an interesting question. It may just be that the person saying this to you is just repeating what they have heard from someone else... so it may be useful just to probe a little to see if they have something specific in mind.

Do you think it is possible that there may be great ballets that have been composed and have just been overlooked or forgotten. This question came to mind when I was reading a letter written by Tchaikovsky which mentioned a ballet called "Sylvia" composed by Leo Delibes. Tchaikovsky calls the music "good" and I am wondering why I have never heard of this ballet before. So if Sylvia is out there, there must be many others as well. Do you think there are treasures out there (especially in terms of music that was written for ballet) that maybe didn't become popular because of poor performances or poor storyline or poor choreography or whatever?

Alexandra, this thing you mention here is the thing that has always been in the back of my mind... "what makes a classic a classic?" We already know that a classic is timeless and is therefore ALWAYS contemporary. But just what is it that makes them so great and therefore always contemporary? Just what is it? What makes a classic a classic? It's the most important question. I already have an idea on it but I want to refine the idea a bit before posting anything. No boundaries is certainly a part of it, but that is not the whole thing of course. And Mel, I was thinking about the british princess also... but I hadn't made the connection with the story of Giselle. So that was very interesting to see it. Thanks so much for the encouragement Kate B. I have fun posting these kind of things, but sometimes I worry a little bit that I might be a little out of tune with the nature of this site since I like to be playful most (all) of the time. I'm not very serious, I like to play. So that comment of yours is very helpful. So now I'm thinking "play is OK"... with responsibility of course.

I named this reply "no boundaries" because this is the moto of the Ford Motor Company right now. Why bring up Ford? Well, I have some familiarity with advertising and I know that if Ford is going to spend hundreds of millions on advertising and their main theme becomes "no boundaries" then I know for sure that they have done the research and their research has shown that the contemporary thing for them to associate themselves with is the idea of "no boundaries". So, no boundaries has to be contemporary... or heads will roll in the advertising agency headquarters! So now, to connect this with classical ballet... well its not very hard to make the connection since it is the classic stories that have "no boundaries". I'll give an example: Giselle. If the story of Giselle had ordinary boundaries the story would have to end in Act 1. Giselle is dead in act 1!! If this was one of those so called "modern real life" stories, you would have to take her to the grave yard and bury her and that would be the end of the story. BUT NO... that boundary of death is broken. Not only is Giselle in Act 2, but she becomes the hero in the second act!! It is the classics and the classic stories that continually break boundaries. Some people when confronted with a no boundary story say "its a fairytale". These are not fairytales. These are simply stories that break the boundaries of "material" life. If a person thinks that the only real things in life are the things that we can see with our senses, then of course they will say "fairytale". But if you realize that there is more to life than what we see, then these no boundaries stories become the actual real life stories! Classics speak to the soul. Its just that simple. And speaking to the soul requires that the boundaries of material life have to be broken. The classics do it, the more "modern" so called "real life" stories do not. So in fact, it may just be that the things that are thought to be modern today are in fact shallow and materialistic, and the stories that are thought to be old fashioned are in fact completely contemporary. It is just a matter if seeing them in the light of "no boundaries". The Classics are contemporary stories. They know no boundaries, they speak to the soul, they are "so contemporary"... just as Nadezhda said. I rest my case.