grace

good idea - so i just checked my own very detailed list for that series, and it appears NOT to be in there, either.

thanks for info above, and please: what is IN The jerome robbins collection? and is it just named after robbins, or is it his OWN collection? (thanks in advance!)

i just had a quick squizz at my BALLERINA videos list (can't find episode #1) - and it isn't in episode 2, 3 or 4 - so if it's not in 1, then i have named the wrong series. maybe someone else could check #1?

not that i don't trust the lists above, but just that there are so many little bits in these videos, and maybe the NYPL list only mentions the more 'significant' (as in 'lengthier') footage? what do you think?

WOW dale - that's SOME list! what is NYPL, please?

i'll go and have a look at my videos, as i DID make my own list of the contents of SOME of them. if it's not in BALLERINA, i may still be able to find it...maybe.

thanks amy, for the link to this site. i did not know anything of basil thompson, but i enjoyed looking at the site, and i particularly appreciate these bon mots:

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

Postage stamp dancing.

Looks like you're ready for the morgue!

My dead grandmother could do it with more energy.

If I can do it at my age...

I can't do it for you.

If you pretend to work, I'll pretend to pay you.

it's very touching that this site has enabled people who otherwise would not have been in touch, to BE in touch, in this context.

something (more!) for you to be pleased about and proud of, alexandra.

not much use to you, i'm sure, but there IS a tiny snippet of nerina, in 'her' jumping solo from fille, commercially available. i believe it was in one of the makarova BALLERINA series of programs, that i saw it.

the reason i particularly remember it, is because it was the ONLY footage of nerina that i had ever seen, and of course, because it was nerina in the solo that people refer to as hers. i could look up which program in the series, if you REALLY want to know!?

please leigh, can you explain your use of this word : 'contraposto' (in this context)? thanks (again) in advance!

thanks, leigh. and i WILL try that clicking thing, on the seating plan, again.

leigh: please, i did not understand THIS:

All of the standing places in stalls circle cut off the top of the seating.

thanks in advance for explaining?

to treefrog (i think), who asked 'what is amphitheatre?' ("amphi") :-

stalls are the seats on the 'floor' at the bottom of the auditorium. (stalls CIRCLE is the horseshoe of seats surrounding this). limited (and good view) standing is allowed at the back of this.

next level up is grand tier = the best for ballet, IMO (and this is where the queen sits! ) no standing at back of grand tier.

next level up is balcony.

NEXT level up is what they call the amphitheatre - as someone else has said here, the amphi is highly/dizzyingly raked - back of this = "the gods"! there is standing at the back of the amphitheatre, BUT - unlike 'ami1436', i personally found this TOO far back, and the people TOO tiny - unless i was REALLY desperate to get in/be there, 'no matter what'. (it was fine for opera, IMO. )

(lower and upper slips are really NOT worth mentioning - they are pretty much so useless for dance, as to say: they might as well not BE there.)

Yes, and on one occasion from my seat in the stalls circle, Miss Seymour telling the conductor, in fairly basic terms, exactly what she thought of his tempi!

thanks for the info, alexandra and leigh. i hope i remember these things, and don't ask them again. paul parish, thank you very much for the link to the titian painting, to make my understanding visual. i am really enjoying your descriptive writing, leigh. i admire your ability to observe and articulate these things. thanks.

in response to cygent's comment, on fonteyn's artistry:...

'what' it looked like to those who witnessed it, (way before my time - or my parents')

please cygnet - NOT meaning to be at all rude, just explanatory or curious!...i can't help wondering how young you are! i am 'only' middle-aged ('middle-aged' being defined in my mind as half of a not IMpossibly reasonable lifespan, these days ), and i have clear memories of fonteyn dancing with nureyev in giselle. i was about 10, as far as i recall... (yes, i KNOW i'm lucky!! )

BalletNut, i enjoyed your observations, especially THIS comparison, which i will try to remember, for the next occasion when this point of view gets trotted out:

I just find it disturbing that dance critics might be required to produce good reviews out of obligation to the well-being of the local dance scene, and that a bad review shows a lack of loyalty to the company, choreographer, and dancers being discussed. Can you imagine if a political correspondent were to be considered unpatriotic for implying that the government's actions were less than intelligent?

- well said.

re ROH amphitheatre (front row) leigh writes:

Things you can’t hear in other parts of the house; footfalls and even breathing onstage can be heard very audibly here.

- wondering if anyone else has ever noticed this? not that i doubt you, leigh, as you have been so observant about so much, and have expressed it so well...but i am just curious about this, as i never noticed it, myself.

so i am wondering WHY i never noticed it myself!!

thanks for the history, alexandra. now, please, what does this mean?:

“Noli me tangere!”

:lol:

canbelto - thanks for your prompt response, but at present there is no link in your post, and i am guessing that maybe we should all GO THROUGH THE AMAZON BANNER anyway, because maybe just every click (as opposed to every purchase) DOES advantage this site. thanks for trying!

i am imagining faces like this

:glare:

in response to my questions, but please leigh:

- could you tell me what 'deus ex machina' actually means? i HAVE heard the term before (but rarely), and have never bothered to find out.

- and presumably 'apotheosis' is just the extra bit at the end, to resolve a story or tell you what happened next?

thanks in advance for answers! :blush:

canbelto: for the lazy, could you put up a link here to your review at amazon?

bearing in mind, OF COURSE!, that if any ballet talkers want to purchase said book, i am sure they will come back to ballet talk and CLICK THROUGH THE AMAZON BANNER in order to make that purchase...(so that the site is advantaged)

thanks, ed. i had a quick look at that paper, to get an idea about perkins' theory. now i understand your comments better, especially your use of the term 'ritualistic'. i agree that this is a frequent outcome of ballet study.

perky, thanks for your interesting comments. THIS caught my eye immediately:-

...the obsessive love she felt for her pointe shoes...

as only yesterday i was trying to explain - to a young dancer's mother - the intense and lasting rapture i felt, for a turquoise satin i saw in a shop window, which i wanted my first tutu to be made of.

and the same feeling for my first pair of pointe shoes - the smell, the feel of the satin, the walk up the stairs at the ballet boutique on the occasion of my first shoe fitting...only those who have felt these things could possibly understand. and even the aura of magic that i STILL feel, when i think of these old memories... :blush:

what a pleasure to read! you are quite a writer.

i laughed out loud at this:

Inevitably with MacMillan, though, there is always one lift with a woman held in some position resembling a carcass. ........in a dubious blow for equality Ivan Putrov also gets some time as a carcass as well.

:blush:

thanks, leigh - and i too am most envious.

i was fascinated by the idea of getting an impression of what the stage would look like from any seat, so i clicked on the interactive seating plan link.

however, as cute and as useful as it is, it actually just shows you the detail of the seating plan - not the view (which i THOUGHT was too much to ask!).

from my experience as a patron, and as an usherette in this theatre, about 15 years ago (but the seating appears to have changed very little):

cheap tickets are :-

the cheapest = standing room. this is behind the stalls circle and is FANTASTIC, especially if you know WHERE the BEST spots are to stand!

NEXT cheapest is UPPER slips - these are a TOTAL waste of time unless you are just there to HEAR the music (for example, at an opera performance). you CANNOT see the stage from MOST of these, as i recall...

NEXT cheapest is LOWER slips - the FEW seats closest to the centre of the theatre/furthest away from the stage, are BEARABLE - but only a FEW, literally 2 or 3. anything closer to the stage will have an EXTREMELY LIMITED view of the stage - you may only see one downstage corner! again, these seats are acceptable if you are there only to hear the music!

the NEXT price range is the BACK OF the amphitheatre - these are perfectly acceptable good seats, no matter where you are - although of course the more central you are, the better. you can see EVERYTHING; it just looks a bit small! these seats are very high though, and therefore not suitable for the giddy!

next range is the LOWER amphitheatre and these are pretty much all very good seats indeed, with the proviso again that the more central you are, the better. if you are way on the side, you will be missing the view of YOUR side of the stage, (especially the upstage corner). the FRONT row of the amphitheatre is FANTASTIC - but this would be getting a little bit pricey - comparatively speaking. the next couple of rows are also GREAT because all the amphitheatre seating is highly raked.

ADDITIONALLY, you might like to know that it USED TO BE that there were ONLY STAIRS to the WHOLE of this top level - no elevator. so you would not have wanted to have tickets up there, if you have any difficulty climbing stairs. HOWEVER - my guess is that this problem has probably been remedied, when the ROH was closed and renovated in the early 90's (but, with the british - maybe not!!! )

my first choice when i was buying CHEAP tickets: standing room, then central back of the amphitheatre (even if that means the LAST row!), then the end (only) of the LOWER slips (never the upper slips).

hope this helps. :blush:

i haven't done a search to verify this, and perhaps the thread i refer to has been lost, over time, but i DO know that we DID discuss this book, when it first came out, as i remember some of the points which were made about it. maybe if you want to know more about this subject, you might want to try a search?

Ed - thanks for that. that's fascinating.

at first i assumed that ballet must be your OUTside field - because how could ballet be SCIENCE (in university terms)?!? so that's a new idea to me - that ballet study can lead to a SCIENCE degree in the US.

as to the approach to teaching, you sound like you have a great approach already.

i particularly liked THIS bit:

their knowledge of ballet is more ritualistic than it should be

interesting! sounds like there's grounds for a good discussion, there! i assume (please correct me if i am wrong) that you mean that these students, who have mostly come from private schools with perhaps somewhat limited or blinkered approaches, tend to have made assumptions and picked up prejudices that are un-necessary or unhelpful, such as the idea that there is only one right way to do X or Y...am i on the right track?

victoria, i haven't seen the tarasov book, and i was thinking when you wrote what you did, WAY above, that i must get it. obviously i HAD thought that it really was designed for teachers of MALE dancers, and therefore it wasn't a first priority for me to purchase - although i'd buy ALL pedagogy books if i could afford to. now that you have added even more info, it sounds like a 'must-have'. thanks for that.

i would find it interesting - because i love these 'real' teaching discussions - if Ed McPherson might like to give us a bit more info, so that we could, perhaps, offer more specificaly tailored 'advice' - if he would like that, of course...i am also curious as to WHAT the degree is, that he is doing...? - if that's not too personal a question? :blush:

my first thought was to recommend gretchen ward warren's THE ART OF TEACHING BALLET, which is a collection of in-depth interviews with master teachers of the twentieth century, including some little tidbits like favorite combinations and class structure/order, etc - but perhaps i didn't read the question carefully enough, judging by the other responses you've got...

john white's book is OK, but not in the same class as the other books mentioned in this thread, IMO.

my second thought was that, unless i am misunderstanding you (?), you seem to be implying that the students' level might NOT be very high?...and therefore perhaps you need some help to keep the work very BASIC (NON-majors, etc)? is that what you are getting at, or have i got it all wrong?!?

if that IS the case, then i'd give a miss to the various abovementioned books (except for your own reading pleasure), and we'll all have a re-think...