Hans

You should definitely see Les Sylphides (aka Chopiniana). You'd probably enjoy La Sylphide as well. It's difficult to choose companies that do good versions of the classics in North America; few have the resources to really pull them off and those that do don't always try very hard. It's probably best to see the Royal Ballet, Maryinsky, Bolshoi, or Paris Opéra when they tour if you really want to see the best. Otherwise, the truncated versions on this side of the Atlantic still give a pretty good idea of the important choreographic points. ABT gives vague sketches of the classics, but don't bother with McKenzie's Nutcracker. You should also perhaps try and see Symphony in C by Balanchine and might like the Diamonds section from his ballet "Jewels." It will be much easier to find a good version of those, though the corps will probably not be very synchronized ;).

She is a teacher at the Universal Ballet Academy in Washington, DC. She is the most turned-out person I have ever seen, and I have some fun stories about her--like the time she was giving the girls a grand allegro combination and accidentally did a double assemblé en tournant (she's sixty-something years old) and then told her students (about 15-16 years old) not to try it because it was too difficult! She wasn't trying to be rude; she just meant they weren't yet advanced enough.

YES, absolutely the classical passages should be danced differently depending upon which ballet they are from. The technique is the same, but the character of the dancing should be different. The dancing definitely should tell something about the plot; and the fact that ABT didn't bother to show it is their own fault. The dancing doesn't always have to move the plot forward, but it must at least try to relate to it somehow. Otherwise, why are they dancing? They were just in a theater one night and decided to dance a few variations? What motivates them to dance quickly, slowly, happily, sadly? Their experiences in life, and each character's experience shows in his/her dancing. Watching robots executing tours de force holds no interest for me--I want to see people on the stage with some reason for dancing other than to show off their extensions or to look pretty. Plotless ballets don't have stories, but some are still motivated by life experiences--everyone can relate to the feeling of sadness or anger or whatever emotion the performer expresses without having to know details. To express more complicated emotions, I think a plot, however vague, is necessary, and sometimes no program notes are necessary. But to just watch Le Corsaire's grand pas de trois is incredibly dull without knowing how the characters are related. The feats of athleticism are interesting up to a point, but when I've seen them once, the interest is gone and I need something deeper. Re: the Byron poem, who cares what differences there are? The ballet has its own story, and just because it shares a title with a poem does not mean it has to recreate the poem in tiresome exactness. Of course changes crept in (or were shoved in) over the years; the ballet must be true to itself and have its own motivation, which may or may not need to be explained with a synopsis. Are you arguing that we should just get rid of anything that isn't a classical variation or a pas de x? It would make productions shorter, but I can't think of any other benefits.

Without a story, there would be no reason to watch Le Corsaire at all, except perhaps at a gala where they drag out the pas-de-deux-that's-really-a-pas-de-trois-and-it-shows or at a ballet school recital at which everyone just wants to show off technique. If the story doesn't matter, then who cares whether there's mime or not, whether the dancers bother to create a character or even move their arms differently from Swan Lake. The story is what keeps Le Corsaire (or any ballet) from being merely a technical display or classroom exercise. Whether it is currently danced that way is another matter--I was referring to how it was probably meant to be performed originally--as an exotic drama. Le Corsaire happens to have a more complicated story than other ballets; therefore, a synopsis is needed to let the audience know what to expect and to help them follow along, especially if they are not used to ballet. No, La Sylphide does not need notes because the story is put first, not the dancing. In Petipa ballets, the dancing is first.

Do you carry AchilleStretch, which keeps the heels firmly fixed to the floor during demi-pliés? I understand it is not for use with Balanchine dancers. How about PullItIn, which keeps the stomach muscles lifted? I think it's also known as Belly-Spine.

I think Sizova's back is one of the seven wonders of the ballet world:).

If it helps, this is Gail Grant's definition from her Technical Manual and Dictionary of Classical Ballet:

The Glass Slipper with Leslie Caron. Ever seen fouettés on top of a wedding cake before?

Bar is English and barre is French. Therefore, you can spell it either way; it just depends upon which language you prefer to speak--kind of like ballerina, ballerine, ballerino, and ballerin--they refer to the same types of people (female and male ballet dancers), but are spelled differently in the different languages. Each is correct; however, most ballet dancers prefer to speak French;).

If that's pudgy, I like it. She looks fantastic, IMO. Silvy, that is exactly what I meant--isn't it amazing what Russians can do with their backs?

Just imagine the effect that had on his students' self-esteem.

Ivanov!? Ugh. Never mind. Don't revive it. I'd rather choreograph my own. Back on topic, I haven't found a story ballet yet (even a Balanchine one) that didn't need program notes to explain it. Even operas have synopses of the plot. How else could anyone understand what's going on in Le Corsaire?

Alexandra, I thought the corps looked excellent, but could have used more épaulement. Carbro, didn't notice the bad pliés on the Kirov's recent KC visit; it is surprising, as Vaganova training emphasizes strong jumps for everyone.

Sizova performs all the usual Russian choreography, which is restrained, not technically dramatic. By the way, the cambré back is not a big one--just in the upper back, with the head inclined. It's not obvious; it's just a fuller use of the back than you would see with for example a British or Balanchine dancer. There is also a young Natalia Makarova dancing the bluebird pas de deux with Valery Panov on the same tape.

One thing I notice from having taken a few classes from a Paris Opéra teacher is the emphasis on the legs and feet. The port de bras wasn't very elaborate (or logical), but positions were clean and clear. The footwork was very clear and light, and while port de bras wasn't used as sparely as at NYCB, it was definitely not used much. The positions of the hands were similar to Vaganova.

It make sense to me that the Cecchetti method would not be widely used in Italy--he left to dance at the Imperial Ballet in St. Petersburg and taught there and in England. The ISTD is in England, too. One could speak a bit about the Italian style historically--the Vaganova book is useful in this respect, but currently...I guess from reading antoP's comments that there really isn't one anymore. However, as RAD is so widely used and Cecchetti had such a large influence in the English style--you might say it's come full circle .

Wonderful post, Marc . I think it should be required reading for Maryinsky dancers. I see Maryinsky dancing as a combination of Italian and French renaissance architecture--especially Italian, which is more individual and less abstract. I can give a more technical explanation, though I think the way I learned it is a bit old-fashioned compared to what you see now. vrsfanatic can probably give a more contemporary description. Hand position: Place the tip of your thumb on the first joint of the middle finger so that the thumb is bent, not straight. Lift the ring finger slightly higher than the middle finger, and the index finger slightly higher than the middle one. The little finger is raised highest. None of this should be exaggerrated--it's a gradual progression. The fingers are lengthened but relaxed, and the entire hand should look 'long,' a continuation of the wrist and arm. This is how beginners hold their hands--after a while, the thumb no longer touches the middle finger, but keeps its general shape. Head: Russians don't just use their heads--they use their upper backs as well. The head is almost always turned and inclined with the breastbone lifted and the shoulders pulled down and back. The head may be inclined forward or back and turned to either side, but it is rarely, if ever, turned without being inclined, except during pirouettes, of course. In écarté positions, the head is turned and inclined up or down instead of forward or back. Knees: Pulled up and straight, just like everyone else . The plié is deep and springy, with the whole foot on the floor, and always very turned out. The accent in plié-relevé is generally up. Toes (ie, feet): Pointed straight, not winged, not sickled. When the foot points, it always goes through the demi-pointe position, but as it is usually pointed very quickly, this position is not emphasized beyond the first one or two exercises at the barre, and it is definitely not emphasized in pointe work, which the Russians view as more similar to jumps than relevés. (They even say "jeté arabesque" instead of "piqué arabesque.") Russian footwork is sharp and clear, with exact 5th positions (toe to heel, no overcrossing, no uncrossing, no space between the feet). I think that satisfies Alexandra's requirements , though I think it's more about Vaganova than the current Maryinsky--judging by their last performance at the Kennedy Center, I wonder whether the two names are still synonymous...or maybe I just learned it wrong.

There definitely was a ballet in Russia called The Magic Flute, but I can't remember whether it was choreographed by Petipa or Lopukhov (or someone else entirely). Balanchine mentions it in "Balanchine's Tchaikovsky" by Solomon Volkov. I definitely do not want to see the Martins version until I've seen the original ;).

I think it would look fine--particularly if you cambré back a bit in the attitude. If you've seen the Sizova video, that's what I mean.

It's called "The Kirov in London" distributed by Kultur. It also has Asylmuratova, Makarova, Ayupova, and Yevteyeva. Sorry--I meant the Sleeping Beauty video in which she dances Lilac. That Paquita video is definitely one of my favorites . I figured that she probably did usually do all doubles onstage, but it is really thrilling to watch that sequence of pirouettes build--the best part is that she seems so surprised that she does so many!

I can't say much about the current La Scala style, but I imagine it changed rather a great deal between Taglioni/Grisi and Legnani. Fracci sounds as if she was more in the Taglioni mold.

Silvy, you might want to try a different version of that variation--the Russians do it with attitude derriere instead of retiré. You sissonne en pointe in attitude derriere effacé, close 5th back, sissonne simple en pointe raising the same leg and changing it from back to front, then take a step forward in effacé en pointe. HTH

Ashton's ballets are definitely extremely difficult to dance--very challenging even for today's dancers. I agree that dancers of 50 years ago had good technique--you can tell they must hae had excellent technique even in the 19th century from the ballets of Bournonville and Petipa--Désiré's variation from Sleeping Beauty leaves most current dancers breathless, yet we read that Legat's version was even more difficult. Certain things were not as refined then--turnout was not necessarily always 180 degrees, and fifth position was not necessarily always toe-to-heel. Certainly technique has been cleaned up a great deal lately, and I think a lot of it has to do with abstract ballets and minimalist costuming--no plot, no acting, no sets--what else is there but perfect technique? While I definitely object to the traditional English style, I do not maintain that it is bad technique--however, I only realized after watching old videos many times. Rachel, you might want to try watching Sizova in Sleeping Beauty or Nureyev with Svetlana Beriosova. Sizova especially provides a bit of a bridge from the '50s to the present day so that the differences are not quite as obvious. If you want to see really old (not bad) technique, there's a video of Karsavina taking class out there somewhere. She dances well, but the style is so old-fashioned that it first led me to label it 'bad;' for example, Russian dancers back then leaned forward a great deal more in arabesque than we are used to seeing today as Balanchine and the Royal Ballet popularized the more upright Italianate arabesque.

Just because that movement in Kingdom of the Shades is often described as arabesque penché doesn't mean the term is being used correctly. The photo of Susan Jaffe is a very good example of this position, which is not the same as what is done in the entrance of the Shades--they only raise the leg because the supporting leg is performing a plié (you can raise your leg higher when your supporting leg is bent). It is not meant to be a full inclination of the body or arabesque position, though with extensions these days, it's not always easy to tell ;). It would be more accurately described as "arabesque en fondu" or "arabesque with a plié in the supporting leg." One way to tell is to look at where the dancers' focus is--are they looking straight ahead or down? If they're looking down, it usually indicates that they mean to do arabesque penché, and if they're looking straight ahead, they generally mean to perform arabesque with a plié in the supporting leg. The Kirov, as well as all other companies I've seen, perform it looking straight ahead. As far as the Russian attitude goes, it doesn't have to be high to be Russian--what I meant was that Russians don't bend the knee to a full 90 degrees, and they often raise it just above 90 degrees in relation to the torso. This doesn't drastically affect balance, though it is more difficult to maintain than a lower position. I've only seen Makhalina on video--Paquita, Swan Lake, Le Jardin Animé, Sleeping Beauty, Don Quixote--and have never thought her extensions too high or vulgar. Her pirouettes seem to have improved, though--she does 2, 3, then 4 en dedans in her Paquita variation. This might have been a fluke, but she is wonderfully centered in her fouettés as well. I also admire her port de bras and épaulement.

I was told by one teacher that arabesque was based upon the comma, which she said was an Arabic mark, and that it should therefore not be a right angle, but should have an upward curve. I doubt it that's really true, but it's a nice story .