Ray

I really respect Paul's well-supported criticisms. While Scherr's feminism may be a bit reactionary, I think we always have to interrogate choices that put yet more men in charge in a field dominated by women's labor, insight, and expertise. As far as Macaulay's expertise goes, Paul's (and other's) criticism in this regard suggests to me that perhaps his writing might constitute a case of style over substance. Too harsh? We'll see... I'll be a careful reader indeed of his Times reviews.

Excuse the grammatical quibble, but a critic should always be disinterested (impartial). However, he should never be uninterested (indifferent). Thanks for quibbling! But see the beginning of Michael Skapinker's "Why I will continue to split hairs over split infinitives," an article in the 10 Feb. Financial Times that addresses this issue in a very interested fashion: A few weeks ago, I implored my colleagues to maintain the distinction between "uninterested" and "disinterested" after a couple of instances of us mixing them up. You know the difference. "Uninterested" means not interested. "Disinterested" means impartial. People say "I am completely disinterested in Celebrity Big Brother" when they mean they are uninterested. Disinterested would mean they held no shares in the production company. Or so I thought until I read Steven Pinker's magnificent book The Language Instinct. Pinker, a Harvard psychology professor, also loathes people getting the words confused. "Since we already have the word uninterested, there can be no reason to rob discerning language-lovers of disinterestedby merging their meanings, except as a tacky attempt to sound more high-falutin'," he writes. But having got that off his chest, Pinker tells himself: "Chill out, Professor. The original 18th-century meaning of disinterested turns out to be - yes, 'uninterested'." Oh. You can keep reading the article at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5a7eb714-b8ac-11db...00779e2340.html

A great sale, but going online to look at what's available to us always reminds me of how much dance is not available on DVD, or film, or video, "not even for ready money," to quote Oscar Wilde. By comparison, can you imagine if we only had one or two versions of Beethoven's 5th to listen to? Or if a handful of servicable orchestras produced many recordings while the major orchestras produced few or none? Or if we had to go to a special library and get special permission to hear legendary performers?

Scherr's blog now includes some responses, the most substantial from Paul Parish on Macaulay's qualifications as a Londoner for the post in New York: "Alastair's lack of a passionate interest in the New York art scene, the kind that means you have to GO SEE STUFF and develop your taste in the only way you can, which is in direct contact with the strict taste-making organ of the artists, which must be experienced over time for you to have a real feel for how that organ operates, when it constricts and when it dilates..... If you don't know that, you don't really know the first thing. And that's what Alastair as a Londoner ain't got" (Foot in Mouth 2/17/07) Scherr's comments aside, this is the first negative thing I've heard about him--what do others think of Parish's criticism?

I share SanderO's sense of "ugh" on a regular basis, yet the notion that our ideas of artistic "value" are intrinsically tied to notions of monetary "value" (notice how we use the same word) in a capitalist society is an old one--see John Berger from the 60s or 70s for a cogent articulating of this. What's different today I think is the erosion of the sense on the part of cultural leaders of a nonprofit serving as a public trust. We can see this everywhere from nonprofit presenters being rewarded by foundation grants to present for-profit brodway touring shows, to nonprofit museum curators crafting secret deals to sell paintings. And almost none strive to subsidize ticket prices anymore--they just don't think that's important or, to put it in capitalist terms, they're content to let market forces determine their "value."

I think answering this question would require specifiying what you mean by "ballet," or, rather, what sort of "ballet" you're most interested in tracing the lineage of. If you mean ballet that most resembles modern-day ballet then you probably mean the romantic ballet of the early 1900s; a neat comparison then could be made between the romantic ballet and the relationship of the Enlightenment to literary Romanticism. Later 18th-C writers and thinkers were concerned with "sensibility," that is the importance of the role our senses play in forming our ideas and perceptions. The Romantic poets built on--as well as reacted against--these and other Enlightenment thinkers' ideas. One idea that took shape at the end of the eighteenth century was differentiating between the "great" and the "(merely) beautiful"--the difference b/t, say a mountain and a flower (or, in literary terms, between Milton and a popular ballad), the former being more significant than the latter. (A distinction that I think helpd to exclude ballet from serious aesthetic consideration for a long time.) Edmund Burke is a great figure in this regard for talking about the difference between "mere" theater and reality. A great topic; I have more bibliography if you are interested.

Klavier wrote: "Take first the crucial matter of age. In Mann, Aschenbach is described as elderly, graying, and at least 50 but probably much older; Tadzio is about 14 - a well-bred, beautiful but delicate boy with grey eyes and honey-colored ringlets, just old enough to be incipiently sexual but not much beyond a child. Visconti came close to capturing Tadzio in the teenage boy he cast for his movie, though even there the actor looked a bit too old. Mann himself admitted the novella concerned "a case of pederasty." After nearly 100 years, it is more disturbing to imagine a 65-year old man infatuated with a 14-year old boy than a 40-year-old interested in a well-built athlete of about 20. And yet the latter is what Neumeier gives us." To put myself in the surprising position of defending Neumeier's choices, I think that in the ballet world, the difference between 20 and 40 is huge; so in translating Aschenbach into a choreographer, perhaps the choice makes sense. Jennifer Dunning was right on the mark, however, in wondering how this could possibly be the first infatuation since the ballet's choreographer, unlike the novella's Aschenbach, is surrounded by lithe beautiful bodies from day one.

And I never knew that Pithoprakta was part of a longer work, Metastaseis and Pithoprakta. In my ignorance, I guess I imagined the words indicated names, like Tristan and Isolde or Abelard and Heloise, so I thought it was one work (and took nerdy pride at learning to pronounce it, along with Davidsbundlertanze). How great that SFB is reviving it.

I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but I was disappointed with the brevity and general tone of these "notes." Many read to me as if a publicist had written at least part of them, with SF just adding some impressions & information (rather than insights) and signing off on them. Perhaps my expectations are too high...

It's sad, isn't it, that there's never been a sequel or a regular update?

Well the Inquirer barely has a stringer anymore, much less a full-time critic. I attended on Saturday matinee, with Ochoa as Giselle. Everyone seemed a bit tentative, with the exception of Yudenich as Myrta (I'd love to see Heidi Cruz as Myrta, too, but that's not in the cards). And that set--oy!--fresh out of Mrs. Havesham's attic, with dreary lighting to boot and a thin orchestra.

I beg to differ; there are dozens of book, music, film, and theater critics I'd much rather read--who manage to provide insight and cultural context, and raise provocative questions about even those whom they revere. And in the dance world it's certainly a small pool. This makes me very sad because I want better stuff about an art I care alot about.

But why can't we have the poetry AND thoughtful analysis--without deriding the latter as "reality TV mentality"? Again, I'm looking for some middle ground here; it's not a zero-sum game (which is something reality TV practices, by the way, with it's one-winner-only ethos). I want to hear more voices, in all different registers, talking about, debating, dissecting, celebrating, criticizing, fictionalizing, gossiping about, mythologizing, historicizing, or otherwise paying attention to dance.

Kathleen, I want first to apologize for not distinguishing between those of us on the list expressing our admiration for artists in tones reverential or otherwise and professional writers like Acocella. I in no way meant to impugn you when I wrote that I was weary of reading that an artist is "mysterious." What I meant to emphasize--and I think you see this--was that I'm weary of reading that tone in articles and books that pretend to--or should--offer more. In defense of Lobenthal, however, I think it's perfectly valid to criticize a writer for inconsistent methods of analysis, especially when the results are so patently, well, fawning. As Lobenthal allows, Acocella in her other work has shown us she can be careful and thoughtful and use evidence to support her assertions (though I actually take issue with a lot of her literary criticism on methodological grounds too, but that's another story...). Toeing a relatively uncritical line when discussing "living legends" is a choice she makes as a writer, and I don't always enjoy reading those discussions. I've come to regard Acocella as an "annointer" rather than a critical thinker, and I'm glad to see a smart writer like Lobenthal call her on it.

I love Farrell as much as the next person here. And while I too appreciate the "mystery" of her art I learn nothing new by being told over and over again that her art is mysterious. So Lobenthal's point still stands: these people are not gods or saints who may not be critically analyzed, they're human beings, subject to the same laws of physics, psychology, and cultural forces as the rest of us. I'm not a big fan of armchair psychologizing of *anyone*, much less my favorite ballerina of all time (see, I can do it too!); but between the "trashy novel" and the book of saints there's a continuum of registers in which we can write about our cultural heros. Kathleen is right to say that "the facts...demand something more"; but more for me means that I want to hear from a wider range of approaches than are available to us now.

I think that's true, Leigh. So the comments challenge American presenters and producers to support their own companies, outside of the small handful they curently promote. There are now several presenters in Europe who operate on a whole 'nother level: they actually curate dance, and often at all phases of development and achievement. I can think of very few presenters here who would even think about doing that for any but the usual "safe" suspects.

Whether or not you agree with Croce and Acocella, you have to admire Lobenthal's spot-on analysis--they both do have a tendency to tie up their verdicts in neat packages--sometimes *pretty* packages, to be sure--which can sometimes have the effect of "simplify[ing] the historical record," as Lobenthal reports.

But I want to see other dance companies to judge for myself, and not have to rely on the "taste" of a presenter who keeps programming Momix. And as a citizen of the world, I'd like to see what's going on elsewhere even if it ends up pissing me off.

I think the discussion begins to address this, if from the perspective of non-US artists; in a word, it's the presenters: they dictacte, for better or for worse, what we see. As Cees de Bever notes, presenters in this country are often miserly when it comes to reciprocating with financial support for touring--ergo, we don't get to see some artists who have already become quite well known outside of the cultural island America. Some US presenters are highly informed and dance-literate--they lead their audiences--while most are content to follow each other in what they perceive to be "hot" or "classic," and often telling us that they are just delivering what the public wants. Ray

Just so there are no confusions, Sander0 and others: Bob Yesselmon, dir. of Dance/NYC did NOT post this; I did. So you're not really replying to him except in a rhetorical sense. (You could probably find his email addy on the Dance/NYC website.) Ray

Below please find a transcription from Bob Yesselman (distributed through Dance/NYC), director of Dance/NYC, in re the Association of Performing Arts Presenters conference (APAP). I heard from many that this APAP session was firey; this transcript confirms that: On Friday, January 19th, just prior to the official opening of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters conference (APAP), I attended a session presented by the Dance Working Group, a consortium of dance organizations, among them Dance/USA, that each year present a forum for ideas looking at big picture issues in dance. Each year, the Dance Working Group chooses a topic both relevant to what's going on now in dance, and provocative in the ideas put forth. This year was no exception. The topic was How American Dance is Viewed by the Rest of the World and provocative was an understatement. The session was moderated by Carolelinda Dickey, principal consultant of Performing Arts Strategies, working in international exchange (a former member of the NYC dance community and former presenter) and facilitated by Andrea Snyder, Executive Director of Dance/USA. The four speakers were: Cees de Bever: Director of Performing Arts, Consulate General of the Netherlands Jennifer Barry: Director of Dance Down Under (Australia) and a producer of dance Mark Staub: Director of Dance for the Canada Council Mayumi Nagatosi: Director of AN Creative (Japan) and a producer of dance I must stress that each speaker spoke about perceptions abroad and each was quick to acknowledge they were speaking in generalities. I will try very hard not to editorialize. Here's what they had to say: Cees de Bever (Netherlands) * Production values of American dance are very low which places our work at a competitive disadvantage in the market place. Cees was very quick to point out that he was very aware of the financial conditions under which we operate in the U.S. * American dancers are not as well-trained or strong as they once were. * While many countries financially support native companies to tour abroad; there was very little reciprocity for American companies. * Since so few American companies are touring abroad, there is very little knowledge of the vast diversity of American dance. * We are not helped by the current political image of America abroad. Cees had some recommendations: * Take a hard look at which American companies are really suitable for export. * Study international exchange programs closely and adapt to American reality. * Find the money to bring international presenters to the U.S. to build relationships just as many countries bring American presenters to see their work. Jennifer Barry (Australia) * There seems to be a huge focus on the body in American work and promotional materials (she mentioned having received hundreds of postcards from American companies prior to APAP and that every single one was a body image) as opposed to dance in Australia which is much more concerned with concept. * American dance does not display a cohesive integration of design, lighting and music (production values again). * Australians tend to resist American-style hype and "showbiz." * There is much less reverence for the American "masters" - they are perceived as old-fashioned. * There is a sense that American dance is overly concerned with "pretty" work as opposed to the character-drive, narrative work now popular abroad. * Australia's subsidy system allows artists the freedom to make less commercially-driven work. * There is the sense that American dance lacks humor and is very "earnest" with a preoccupation with, in her words, "the pure essence of dance." Mark Staub (Canada) * Many in Canada associate American dance as being of a very specific time (the 60's and 70's) and place (NYC). * Dancers in Canada know the "masters," and many of them have studied with them, but have very little knowledge of what else is happening in American dance. Mayumi Nagatosi (Japan) * There is a sense in Japan that American dance's time is over and that in the last 15 years European dance has become more important. * The current generation of Japanese choreographers have been influenced by European artists, not American. * American dance is perceived, in her words, as "old-fashioned" and "boring." I came away from the session with what seemed to be two major themes. First, the lack of production values in current American work coming, I think, from two sources - our chronic lack of money (if we can get a work to a stage in street clothes we consider ourselves lucky) and, as the Australian speaker mentioned, our focus on the body alone in space and our concern with the "essence" of dance. Let me be clear, I attach no value judgments to either of these viewpoints - that's what makes soccer matches. Secondly, that American work is perceived as old-fashioned and still beholding to our great pioneers and masters. Again, it seems to me, money is partly the culprit. We have so little export of current American dance nowadays that this perception is, in part, understandable. I also found it interesting to note that two of the speakers and many members of the audience also mentioned that they had all come to the U.S. (NYC in particular) for study and training. It was quite a morning. As always, I welcome your comments. Please don't hesitate to email me with your comments or questions. -Bob Yesselman

From working with Maria Tallchief in the early '80s, I remember her sometimes talking about MEM. She praised her technical abilities in a way that made me think there was a rivalry there--MEM had some natrual physical gifts that Tallcheif really had to work to emulate. I got the sense too that Balanchine played on this to motivate Tallchief. This is by Tallchief's telling, at least; things might look different from MEM's point of view, of course!

Some new list heads: Most audacious re-use of music already choreographed to (i.e., Paul Taylor's use of Concerto Barocco Bach in Esplanade) Music used in a film and a dance and did the choreographer know it? (a movement of the Schumann piano quartet in Mark Morris's V was also used in Bergman's Fanny and Alexander) Music you wish had other choreography (a long list, I fear). _________ wrote 600 pieces and they keep choreographing to _________. Music surprisingly neglected by dance makers.

I do, except I had the misfortune of seeing the performance in which Ricky Weiss blew out his achilles doing brises volees--so when that music comes up in the coda, I still wince! Here's some other lists I didn't make (not as clever as Leigh's, alas); all completely subjective: Music I like because it's loud and brassy (much of Wagner goes in here). Bad Trasncriptions of Music (i.e., a 2-guitar transcription of Pictures at an Exhibition) Transcriptions that Work (i.e., an accordian transcription of Mozart Organ music) Unlikely but Compelling Juxtapositions: Wagner Magic Fire Music from Die Walküre and the Panorama from Sleeping Beauty (OK, maybe not so unlikely--both involve a sleeping heroine!) Petrouchka and Scheherezade also belong in an unwieldly titled category for me: Music I loved as a kid but imagined as very different ballets than what I eventually saw on stage.

La Grande Procrastination: making lists when I should be doing other things. The other day, I though about how my relationship to dance has shaped my musical tastes—nurtured and damaged them! Below is a list of 4 categories I came up with to sort this out. They’re incomplete (missing here, for instance, is a too-long list of music that I love *because* I connect it with a ballet; or the too-embarrassing list of music to which I imagine big ballets with casts of thousands), and meant to inspire others to make their own lists. 1. Scared stiff: music that, because it signaled a particularly difficult dance for me (in my days as a lowly corps dog), still gets me shakin’ in my boots: Tchai piano concerto #3 (B’s Allegro Brillante) The River The Schubert pieces used in Paul Taylor’s Mercuric Tidings Arabian from Nutcracker The four-mens’ variation from Pas de Dix (Raymonda) Martinu symphony no. 1 2. Repeated Exposure: Music I can’t stand anymore because of bad ballets (or bad versions of ballets) connected to it in my performing or viewing experience: Gershwin Cuban Overture Most Mendelssohn Coppelia Don Quixote Western Symphony Stars & Stripes pas de deux Gottschalk Tchai’s Romeo & Juliet Most Rossini non-opera music Most Tango music Rodeo Carmina Burana 3. Wounds healed: Music I like again because I no longer have to dance to it: Petrouchka Nutcracker Firebird Die Fledermaus Cinderella (Prokofiev) Les Nuits d’ete (Berlioz) Eternal Luv: Music I never stopped liking despite repeated exposure via dance: Swan Lake Sleeping Beauty Sylvia Raymonda Rite of Spring Mendelssohn string symphony used in act 2 of B’s Midsummer Night’s Dream Scheherezade 4. Just a Phase: Music I liked as a kid/young adult that I just can’t listen to anymore La Boheme Most of Carmen The Sorcerer’s Apprentice Pachelbel’s canon Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D minor Dvorak’s New World Symphony The Pines of Rome Most of Pictures at an Exhibition Billy the Kid Gershwin Rhapsody in Blue