Hans

I'm not sure Fokine and Massine had as specific ideas about style and the way a dancer ought to look as Balanchine had, but it's definitely a possibility.

I can't imagine singing (at all) while dancing! However, voice training does enable one to connect to the music in perhaps an even more physical and (personal? intimate?) way than dancing does, and I've found that in my own experience, once one can feel such a connection, it transforms one's dancing.

At the Ecole-Atelier Rudra Béjart Lausanne, the students have lessons in classical singing, and I think it makes a difference in one's dancing.

Grace, could it have been "Birds of Paradise"? Washington Ballet used to perform Goh's works quite often, as I believe he was their resident choreographer, or at least had some sort of strong association with the company. Haven't seen his work on their programs for quite some time now, though. He choreographed the Chinese Tea dance in Mary Day's Nutcracker (which they don't perform anymore).

I agree with you on that, canbelto. Completely wrong. Farrell dancing Bournonville...what a thought. I'm sure she could dance the steps, but that's about as far as my imagination will go. Regarding Whelan as Aurora, I suppose I would say that she was unaffected, but considering how bad Martins's choreography is, I can't say I find that to be a virtue! I found that she lacked characterization--she danced it as if she were doing Agon or Theme and Variations. The steps were there, but she wasn't a princess.

One that actually happened: Whelan as Aurora.

I know this isn't an excuse, but Les Sylphides is probably the dullest ballet in existence when you're in the corps.

Margot Fonteyn in "In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated." Sylvie Guillem in "Marguerite and Armand." (Yes, I know she's danced it.) Baryshnikov as Prince Desiré. Suzanne Farrell as Amor in Petipa's Don Quixote. Alla Sizova in The Cage. Makarova in Concerto Barocco.

Interestingly, Les Sylphides was choreographed in the early 20th century, and the dancers were intended to imitate the style of the 1830's. I'm not totally sure what a 2006 dancer imitating a 1910's/20's dancer imitating an 1830's dancer would look like, but I think the Kirov or Royal Danish Ballet might do it best, as they both still have small traces of those soft arms (and the Kirov originally performed Les Sylphides).

Actually, Ms. Asylmuratova herself embodies her own comment, at least on video.

vrsfanatic probably knows the most about this, but I believe she might be referring to the two years of training that occur before "official" ballet training starts at age 10. The children would learn simple things such as how to stand and battement tendu. vrs has written about what these classes are like at the Vaganova Academy over on Ballet Talk for Dancers; I'll do a search and see if I can find the post. Editing to add: Here it is! http://dancers.invisionzone.com/index.php?...ndpost&p=106607

Those are lovely rg--thank you!

I'm surprised I missed this poll the first time around. I voted for "In some ballets but not in others." No high extensions in a Romantic (or pseudo-Romantic) ballet ever, IMO. It's not so much that it distorts the costume for me (although that is a problem) but it's historically very incorrect. A good rule would be: the shorter the skirt, the higher the legs can go. When it comes to men with high extensions...well, many of the same ideas apply--it must be well placed (no distortion of the rest of the body), appropriate for the choreography, and not used in every single step.

I would. I don't think it's possible to really mask that type of thing. As Martha Graham said, "the foot is either pointed or it is not," and if one foot points more than the other, that's life, although it probably made buying pointe shoes a bit of a pain.

Symmetrical how? If your legs are both exactly the same length, but you can raise one higher than the other, is that symmetrical or not? All dancers will tell you that not a single person on earth has perfectly symmetrical ability in every joint, but when standing still, their bodies would often be considered symmetrical. I think one famous example that completely disproves the "symmetrical people dance better" idea is Suzanne Farrell--her feet were completely different as the result of one being broken during her childhood.

Now I've started envisioning Raymonda's variation as a parody during which the stage lights go on and off each time she claps....

High point: The Kirov corps de ballet in Le Corsaire at the Kennedy Center. Low point: The Kirov principals in Le Corsaire at the Kennedy Center.

I think you've answered your own question, and I agree with a lot of what you've written. Many dances these days do indeed seem to be created for shock value, but worse than that to me is the lack of feeling. It's all about steps and tricks, with choreographers apparently thinking that the audience wants ballet to be like Cirque du Soleil. (By the way, I think Cirque du Soleil is pretty cool; I had the opportunity to see them live a while ago and it was a lot of fun, but it has a very different purpose from ballet.)

Off-topic post ahead! Good luck finding even a halfway decent school where none of the teachers has danced professionally. I'm not saying it's necessary to have danced professionally to become a ballet teacher, but you'll have a tough time getting hired anywhere above Dinkle-level if you haven't. Regarding Farrell, I'm not impressed with her abilities as a teacher, but as a coach (an entirely different endeavor) she is marvelous. Many great dancers make great coaches even if they are not suited to teach. Ballet needs both kinds--those who are born to perform and help others perform and those who are more interested in the pedagogical side. I now return you to your regularly scheduled Anne Bass discussion.

Well, being a great dancer is different from being a great teacher, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Just a quick note: in the case of my friend, he is very involved in drama and has performed Shakespeare, so I don't think he was bothered by the old fashioned social hierarchies and/or gender stereotypes.

Wow Bart, you even outdid me extending it to Act I, and your ideas work very well! BalletNut, the Waltz of 1-800-Flowers is good, too. I'll bet the army would sponsor the Act I soldier doll dance.

Ok, I know it's no longer Silly Season, but I was inspired by Mel's most recent post in the Nutcracker thread. Remembering that the original Chinese Tea dance had a Phoo dog that said "Ty-phoo!" for Ty-phoo tea, what modern commercial brands could be featured in the Act II divertissements? You may change the countries that the various goodies are from--I'm pretty sure Folger's doesn't come from Arabia, especially considering that there isn't really a country called Arabia anymore, although there is a Republic of Tea.

I think that in some ways, ballet has detached itself from the audience. I recently took a friend who had never seen ballet to Giselle, and contrary to my expectations, he preferred Act II to Act I, not because he knew anything about dancing, but because he could tell what was going on--the action is built in to the choreography. Act I requires mime to tell us what's going on (as you can't peek at the program synopsis in the dark) and today's dancers and AD's are so overly familiar with the plot that they expect a few rather vague gestures to speak paragraphs--even I had a tough time figuring out what they were trying to express sometimes. Dancers live an extremely cloistered life, often having little or no contact with those of us beyond the footlights, and it's easy to start regarding that big black space as a void where the mirror is supposed to be. Talk to a dancer after a performance and they ask you, "Did you notice when I wobbled during the promenade?" and not, "What did you think of my characterization?"

I read that in Russia it used to be common for The Nutcracker to be performed year-round, although I imagine that was rather a long time ago.