Hans

See the Edith Wharton quote in "Sticky: Quotable Quotes" for one nineteenth-century view of Duncan's dancing. That is a very nineteenth-century idea--applying a moral code or ethics to art. (I know it was Duncan's idea, not Alexandra's.) I don't think it's a very logical idea, as part of what makes art art is that it uses symbols, illusions, etc. instead of conveying an idea directly so as to express it more forcefully. That's not the same as lying to the audience. As far as I know, Duncan didn't use literal imagery extensively in her dancing. She could dance barefoot all she wanted, but she wasn't being "more honest." More clearly human, perhaps, instead of otherworldly, but not more or less honest.

Thank you for the explanation, grace--fascinating!

That actually sounds like it might be interesting: using ballet to promote one's political views:). However, they should just make their own ballet rather than drown Swan Lake in an oil spill. Question: Why is it only inferior choreographers who make up their own versions of the classics? Answer: If they were good choreographers, they'd choreograph their own ballets and wouldn't need to steal someone else's rightfully earned fame and prestige. The classics are classics for a reason: they're good. They do not need to be updated any more than the Mona Lisa needs glittery eyeshadow and a tube top. If you want to say something about today's culture, do something original. No one remembers choreographers because they did some version of a classic--that just reminds everyone how good the original was. Choreographers are remembered for creating their own works.

I think I read somewhere that the very first Swan Lake (the bad one at the Bolshoi) did not have the suicide in it but that it was added by Petipa. Am not too sure about that, though, as I think Balanchine said it. I am not crazy about the Maryinsky's jester or dancing Rothbart, and I think its ending is anticlimactic, but as far as I know, it is the most traditional Swan Lake today, unless the Bolshoi does a better one (haven't seen it). Anyway, I don't really care whether they die or not in the end as long as Rothbart is defeated somehow, preferably in a very dramatic way to match the overwrought music. I also read somewhere that the suicide was considered by nineteenth-century audiences to be a happy one, as Odette and Siegfried ended up together in heaven, and Odette did not have to be a swan forever, &c, but am uncertain as to how true that is, too. Maybe it's sort of like the ending of Bayadere--everyone dies, but Nikiya and Solor get to live forever in a castle in the sky. Of course, it implies that their love would not be possible in this world, which is not exactly a happy thought...besides, ABT does the suicide version, and it looked kind of comical to me. I expected to see Odette and Siegfried bounce up and down repeatedly on that trampoline, going higher and higher until they jumped right up into the afterlife. It didn't help that the path up to the "cliff" looked a bit like an obstacle course and I kept wondering if they would trip on the way up. Talk about anticlimactic.

As far as I know, the Kirov still does a traditional version...well, maybe not so traditional when Zakharova dances it:rolleyes: but I agree, I would like to see more widespread good Swan Lakes. They don't all have to be exactly the same, but some respect for Petipa would be nice.

Strictly speaking, in journalistic terms, there is a difference between a "review" in which one simply writes down what one saw, audience reactions, &c, and a "critique" in which one actually analyzes a performance. Anyone can write a review, but you need to be educated about the art form to write a critique.

I think it would probably require a moderator. What s/he could probably do, I think, would be to take comments relating to a particular type of variation as grace suggested above and place them in a new thread specifically for discussing that type of variation. Perhaps that would be more organized?

Considering that Nutcracker was the B feature on a bill with Iolanthe, does that make it a B-ballet? Remember to take into account that it was choreographed by Ivanov, not Petipa. Is Dell'Erte then a B-ballerina? It seems as if they thought she was, back then.

I don't think you need a really incredible jump to perform those variations, but if you are planning on performing them onstage, it would be preferable to have strong grand allegro. However, if you need to work on grand allegro, those variations would probably be good studio practice. Being good at pirouettes helps, too. Lots of consecutive doubles in those variations.

I would not necessarily consider someone a bad dancer either if they didn't use épaulement, but I would consider them to have been poorly trained. Clear, consistent use of épaulement is a sign of good training. When one speaks of an individual dancer having good or bad épaulement, one is usually speaking of how aesthetically pleasing the dancer's épaulement is, not necessarily whether or not he uses his upper body. I agree with you vrsfanatic regarding the use of épaulement in other forms of dance: Graham, for example, has the 'spiral' that, while different from the concept of traditional ballet épaulement, is nonetheless a very dynamic use of the upper body. Don't the Cecchetti (I think they exist in Vaganova as well, but perhaps not officially) épaulé positions require one to twist the shoulders but not the hips? I tend to prefer not to think of ballet in terms of positions even though it is often described that way, but that discussion could fill another thread. Regardless, I still wouldn't say that a ballet position is "not movement." I realize it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but I can really see the difference in my students between when I tell them something is a position and when I describe it in terms of "energy."

It isn't always accurate in terms of technique, but it's interesting to read. It has many "fun facts" & tells you some things like why tall dancers can usually jump higher but short dancers usually move faster.

I remember seeing the last half of an old movie (60's perhaps) in which there was a bit of Giselle. It was a murder mystery with Doris Day, and I'm pretty sure it was set in Paris. She kept receiving threatening telephone calls, and in the end, it turned out that her husband had staged the whole thing, and that he was really the one who wanted her dead. Anyway, there's an unfortunately short scene in which they go to the ballet. I don't know who the dancers are.

You bring up an excellent point about the Maryinsky style--even when the dancers' legs and hips are de face, the shoulders and head are almost always turned in either croisé or effacé épaulement.

She is listed as a soloist on the ABT site. I would also like to see her promoted. I much prefer Wiles over Gillian Murphy, to whom she is often compared.

It's very clear to me, grace .

Unfortunately, in classical partnering, the ballerina faces away from her partner, so we will all look devotedly at her hair bun throughout the pas de deux ;). Just kidding--look of love contacts sound like a great idea; in fact, I know a few thousand dancers who could use them:rolleyes:.

I believe you are right about pointe shoes, Susanne--strong feet with low arches used to be considered ideal for a dancer because shoes offered less support. Now that pointe shoes are stronger, people with high arches are able to dance en pointe more easily--the shoe makes up for the difference. One thing has not changed: the preference for toes of even length, which spread out the weight of the dancer and do not place all the stress on one toe. However, having toes of uneven length still does not make it impossible to dance en pointe with all the products like spacers and pads.

I'd ask Petipa what he really meant his ballets to look like and why and about balletic structure--most particularly, how to use a corps de ballet. In short, I'd ask him to give me a choreography lesson!

True. There was, after all, that period during which people seemed to prefer Gorsky revisions (what on earth were they thinking???). I'd better buy up some Ivanov--Act II of Swan Lake won't go out of favor either, nor will the Nutcracker.

I've put everything in Petipa, who will be popular forever . Among authors, I still prefer Edith Wharton to Henry James. Her stock is slowly rising, I believe, as one tends not to mysteriously wake up with her book on one's face, as sometimes happens with James. And how about the other other Mr. B (Béjart)? I fear his stock is not quite as high as the first two, except perhaps in Europe.

I wish there were a system for teaching choreographers that would require them to study the works of old and new masters. However, there isn't, as far as I know...I think the college choreography programs tend not to be very substantive and tend to focus on modern dance, which is not a bad thing in itself, but unhelpful to the ballet world. I would say yes, it is definitely easier for a dancer with a major company to become a major choreographer--think of the connections they have just laid right out for them! Some major ballet schools such as SAB and the RBS have choreography projects or competitions that allow their students to choreograph--if they choreograph a great deal, while they may not become high-level dancers, they may choreograph for the company. While choreographers must be good teachers in one sense of the word--they must be able to communicate what they want from their dancers--they are sometimes terrible teachers of technique, preferring to create beautiful movement sequences rather than logically planned lessons. This is why ballet choreographers, while they may make good company directors, often do not make good teachers. I don't think Balanchine was any exception to this, but have expounded upon that point enough already. Martha Graham was an exception--she created her very own solid, logically thought-out technique with absolutely no gaps, nothing based upon aesthetics* or personal whims, just pure movement. She also happened to be a gifted choreographer who was able to use this technique to create works that did take her personal sense of aesthetics, &c into account. This is a difficult separation to make, but she did it. *One could argue that all dance is based upon aesthetics, but I think this is less true in Graham's case in terms of her students' technical training. She advocated "feeling" a movement rather than checking it in the mirror and sometimes had her dancers practice movements with their eyes closed. When it feels right, it usually looks right. You shouldn't have to look in a mirror to know whether you are fully turned out. If you're using your muscles correctly and to their full potential, you'll be turned out. The mirror is however necessary for more abstract concepts, such as the angle of an elbow or the height of a leg in relation to the body. It depends upon whether the director would rather see a certain type of energy or mirror-image positions.

Forget Sapphire Fairy--I can't even get my students to count the "Dance of the Big Swans" from Swan Lake, and one of them is a pianist! I think that perhaps it's more because dancers are expected to be able to figure out complicated pieces of music--in Petipa's day, musique dansant was extremely simple and easy to follow, with a steady beat (except for Tchaikovsky, of course!). These days, people choreograph to almost anything and there aren't really (m)any ballet composers about. Also, I can't think of a single company that performs only ballet, and modern dance often uses unusual rhythms and time signatures. Ballet classes do have their little irregularities, like 24 measures instead of 32 or four extra chords after every 16 counts, but they're not really that difficult to follow.

It depends on the school. At SAB, all sorts of people walk in and watch class all the time--other students usually crowd the doorways, and Peter Martins, Kay Mazzo, or Merrill Ashley may at any moment walk in to watch, not to mention various donors the students don't know by sight. Also, in the higher levels, just about anyone from the company can walk in and take class. You could be doing barre next to Baryshnikov, Darci Kistler, corps members, apprentices, soloists--there are a lot of distractions. UBA has observation windows, but the school is much more secluded, so visitors are not as likely. The most usual ones are Mme. V. checking on students' progress or coming to discuss something (in Russian of course!) with a teacher, or sometimes the commuters' parents watch through the windows, especially on Saturdays. Every now and then a famous alumnus like Rasta Thomas or Adrienne Canterna will take class or visit, and students often watch classes and rehearsals during their time off or between classes.

I'll try to keep my comments on this thread minimal, as we all know my opinion of Balanchine and especially NYCB. However, I have technical experience with this style, so I can mention certain stylistic details that were taught to me. I'd like to note re: the Ashley quote above that "clean" is relative and that NYCB's footwork, while certainly fast, is not necessarily clean, speaking strictly in terms of classical ballet technique. Leigh is absolutely correct in noting that the arms are held further back than in other styles. Hands are rounded, in the old Romantic style, with the fingers spread well apart. Their basic relationship to each other is similar to the Vaganova hand position: the little finger is raised the highest, while the middle finger is lowest to connect with the thumb, for example. However, the thumb and middle finger are rounded to form a circle (they do not touch, however) the palm is rounded, and the fingers are spread so as to make the hand appear large. The use of the wrists is quite baroque; often they are flexed. The elbows are straight, not relaxed, in allongé positions, and the head is not necessarily coordinated with the arms in all movements, especially at the barre or during petit allegro. The weight is carried very far forward. Pliés are usually performed with the heels off the floor, especially during jumps (though the extent of this can depend on the teacher); theoretically, this allows the dancer to perform a "3/4" plié and therefore perform a larger jump. Feet are often slightly winged, and when performing "a terre" movements, they do not go through the demi-pointe position; however, the demi-pointe is emphasized heavily in pointe work. Fifth position is crossed very far indeed, as are all movements in which one leg is raised to the front or back. In arabesque, particularly first arabesque, the shoulder above the supporting leg is allowed to reach forward, and the opposite shoulder is allowed to extend back. The hips are also opened in arabesque. Movements are quick and sharp, though not necessarily very exact. Balanchine dancers often dance just slightly ahead of the music unless it is extremely fast.

Yes, carbro, I think we should agree to disagree on that point. I do see a difference, though, between the odalisques and shades, and even in the corps de ballet. The shades have variations perfectly illustrating qualities of spirits freed of earthly weight and cares--they should be danced peacefully, demonstrating souls in perfect calmness, and lightly--notice the running steps en pointe, the flying jumps. Very different from the Odalisques, which are a dream of the Pasha. They are full of life, vibrant, with brilliant beats. The shades are mere shadows of the dead; the odalisques are lively, beautiful young women, and I think the steps show it, though in my opinion, it is done more effectively with the shades. In contrast, I'm not too sure the Lilac Fairy's dryads (I assume you refer to the ones in the vision scene...?) should be different from Don Q's dryads--they're the same type of mythical creature, after all. However, they should absolutely be differentiated from the shades, swans, wilis, and sylphs. It's not so much that each Petipa ballet must have its very own style of dancing but rather that characters should be consistent and distinct from each other. The Lilac Fairy's attendants, for example, in the prologue should be light and shimmery, weightless, but alive and benevolent. The dryads are much more mysterious.