Hans

I understand, and thank you for explaining.

This might sound strange, but although I often find myself jarred or annoyed by Balanchine's choreography, I can see where he is going with it, and I do think he is musical in his own way, even if it's not what I would have done.

It does sound strange, only because people who dislike Balanchine find his musicality too slickly or simplistically mimetic--i.e., "visualizing" the music in obvious or (merely) clever ways ("Mickey Mousing," as per LitLing above). Some say this about Mark Morris too.

I find his musicality neither jarring nor slick, however--no accounting for taste, I guess!--but I can understand the criticism. Can you elaborate on your sense of annoyance?

I would first like to point out that generalisations such as "people who dislike Balanchine" are not helpful in a discussion. Similarly, people may dislike his musicality for many reasons--perhaps they do not find it "simplistically mimetic" or "slick" (a word I did not and would not use) at all but object to some other aspect of it. I am not one who dislikes all of Balanchine's choreography: I adore much of it, particularly Apollo and 4T's. Some of his choreography I find very fussy and embroidered when simplicity would be preferable--and sometimes the opposite--and then at other times the choreography fails to build to a climax when the music does. I find Walpurgisnacht almost unwatchable for this reason--the music "tells" me one thing, and it apparently "told" Balanchine something else! Still, I can understand what he is doing; that is, I can see how he fits the steps to the music and why it makes sense. It does not, in certain ballets, have that "inevitable" feeling for me (in others, it does) but I understand it from a theoretical point of view.

This last is not directed at anyone in particular--it is inspired instead by several threads that have been active in the past month or so: I hope we can all avoid thinking of others in terms of "pro" or "anti" a particular artist. One of the main principles of this board is that there is room for all politely expressed opinions, even those that perhaps cannot be labeled neatly as belonging to one "side" or another. We are not here to choose sides against each other; rather, I hope that by carefully reading each other's posts we find ourselves enriched by the discussion, even when (or maybe particularly when) we do not fully agree.

This might sound strange, but although I often find myself jarred or annoyed by Balanchine's choreography, I can see where he is going with it, and I do think he is musical in his own way, even if it's not what I would have done.

You do have to register separately for Ballet Talk for Dancers. We prefer that you use the same screen name you have here. In case people prefer not to join BTfD, I'll post the direct link to the article on this thread in a moment.

Update: the direct link to the article is here: http://www.physorg.com/news162889771.html

There is more information, including the results of the study, here: http://dancers.invisionzone.com/index.php?...c=44661&hl=

If there is one ballet in which it is ok to do 1 1/4 fouettés, I'd say "Le Corsaire" is it.

Particular dancers in specific works for me. I refuse to sit through either bad choreography or substandard dancing.

Simon, I don't think Kathleen was saying musical theatre is not worthy of good choreography; rather, she was (it appears to me) comparing the state of the two art forms.

Also, I feel I ought to point out that we have always trained too many dancers for too few jobs. There has never been any money or job security in ballet (well, not in the last 100 years anyway) and unfortunately, that is life when you're a performing artist.

That could indeed be the case.

This music is used in the Mariinsky's production for the jester and four (I think) ladies. Peter Martins at NYCB uses it as a dancer for the jester and two boys.

In the pic to which tanzmaus linked, the body is in écarté devant, but the head is not quite right--perhaps it was choreographed that way. Normally in écarté devant the head would be turned toward the raised arm.

Did any of the men happen to be wearing clothes that evening?

Well, to judge by "La Fille Mal Gardée", Ashton liked his chicken dancing onstage.

According to the Kennedy Center website, the Mariinsky will definitely be performing the K. Sergeyev "Sleeping Beauty" this year. Too bad it's not the reconstruction, but hopefully we will get good casts.

Surely it's not a coincidence that the last NYCB performance broadcast on Live from Lincoln Center was also a Martins creation. I'm starting to think quality does not play a role in these decisions at all.

That would be nice. Maybe we'd get an Osmolkina or Obraztsova Aurora.

I don't think anyone has said Balanchine is to blame. I certainly haven't. When I wrote "happy with the way things are", I was referring to the ubiquity of Balanchine's choreography and his aesthetic, for which the man himself is not responsible.

I suppose it does come down to personal taste. Those of us who love Balanchine more than other choreographer are naturally quite happy with the way things are, whereas those of us with broader tastes would like to see a more diverse repertoire and aesthetic. No one wants Balanchine to go away entirely, but the steady diet of Balanchine, reworked Petipa, and Flashy Contemporary Drivel is becoming monotonous.

I was once sent a series of creepy, stalker-ish postcards as a student. It was very disturbing.

I really don't think Kaufman is referring to Balanchine with that remark but rather to current ballet performance and choreography trends begun by people who misguidedly think ballet is primarily about steps.

My mouse pad features ABT in Swan Lake....

That is funny--I find Raymonda Variations nearly unwatchable but love Apollo, even though I find it dated. Different tastes. Perhaps it's because I grew up with Balanchine's style--I generally find his 'surprises' predictable.

It seems to me that what Kaufman is saying is that artistically, following Balanchine is only going to take us so far. Many of Balanchine's creations are quite dazzling the first few times one sees them, but after that, his conventional choreographic devices start to wear on one, and there is frequently not much else there to support them. (His formulaic 'homage to Petipa' tutu ballets come to mind.) I find that the 'less is more' formula really did seem to work well for Balanchine: when he doesn't have sets or costumes or 'easy' music, his choreography is much more interesting, albeit perhaps only from the point of view of choreographic and/or technical theory. Unfortunately, his choreographic imitators do not have his ability with abstract and plotless dance, and while 'The Four Temperaments' and 'Agon' pushed the notions of what ballet was (and is), ballet choreographers have not taken us beyond that, and even their imitations lack his perfect, diamondlike structure. Thus, whereas Balanchine's black and white ballets have (IMO) the most choreographic substance even if robotically performed, his imitators give us expressionless dancers performing choreography that is not even interesting from a theoretical standpoint. However, skilled dancers and choreographers, even if not geniuses, can take even conventional steps and use them in service of expression. Tudor, Ashton, Bournonville, and Petipa all did this very well, but the electricity their ballets (and plenty of dancers performing today) can create is largely ignored by AD's and choreographers who think high legs, spinning, and fussy choreographic embroidery are the only things that sell tickets.

In short, Balanchine's ballets are lovely, but empty imitations of his style are just pale, lifeless copies, however fast the footwork and however contorted the limbs.

NOTE: Apologies, miliosr posted whilst I was writing.

It wouldn't. It might, however, start a trend of producing expressive, emotionally satisfying ballets rather than ones that are little more than technical exercises.

Have Balanchine's ballets aged better than others'? It's a matter of opinion. I think some have, and some haven't.