Rachel

Amen, Carbro! Rachel

Being a ballet student who is still very focused on the technical aspects of ballet, I tend to watch legs and feet. Although many of my teachers have reiterated that one's port de bras is noticed before one's footwork, I always make sure that there are nice legs and feet befor I glance upward. This is the reasoning behind my comments about Margot Fonteyn. My focus will most likely change when, like Leigh, I perceive technique as a given. Untill then, the dancers had better have good 5th positions. It's often very difficult for me to chose where I will focus my attention during a ballet. I tend to focus on one dancer at a time and analyze her technique, rather than concentrating on the ensemble as a whole. This means that I tend to miss out on the general pattern of the choreography. I ocassionally remind myself to enjoy the entire "forest" and then zero in on the mushrooms at other times. It definitely helps to see a ballet several times, so you can devote your attention to all the different components of the ballet. Rachel

Ocassionally, there will be a woman with a high hair-do sitting in front of me, and being age-appropriately short, I have to lean forward in my seat or lean a bit to the side to see between the window created by those in front of me. I suppose I wouldn't enjoy sitting behing someone like me, but the reason for my bobbing head is definitely the result of my enthusiasm and desire to see everything. Rachel

According to a featured article on her in Dance Magazine, she is well on her way to promotion. Before that, however, Kevin Mckenzie seems to want her to mature a bit more artistically and develope more of a stage presence and dramatic ability. Rachel

If you're interested in some more versions of Aurora's variation from the Wedding Pas de Deux, you might want to check out the Prix de Lausanne website, as many of the contestants performed this piece. Rachel

In the recent disscusions of the different styles of ballet companies, it seems that many of you attend a performance of a company and expect to see an exhibit of that company's style. For example, someone was remarking about how the Royal presented a work with Soviet style and was disappointed. Am I alone when I say that I don't care what style I see, as long as it's beautiful dancing? Would some of you be disappointed if you saw a performance that defied that companies style as you knew it? In the discussion of Odette/Odile, I said that I didn't like the British style of the '60s. Maybe I feel this way because when I watch performances, I expect to see only beautiful dancing, not a particular style. Since the old British style didn't conform to my conception of beautiful dancing, I didn't like it. Maybe I should try to appreciate a ballet for its stylistic differences as well. Alexandra, is that what you were trying to say? Rachel

I'm a youngster and never saw Fonteyn or that older generation of British dancers. I firmly believe that artistry is as important if not more important than technique. I also know that artistry cannot be successfully captured on tape. For that reason, Fonteyn and other dancers fail to capture me when I watch them. Because I really can't judge their artistry, I do look at technique and what I see is a lack of technique. What Alexandra describes as "a not completely stretched pose to allow for additional movement," comes off as bad line. Their feet look mushy and buttery. It appears that they couldn't execute quick or precise footwork even if they wanted to. I suppose such things could be called stylistic, but bad technique is bad technique. Lack of turnout and clean positions cannot be justified. In many of the earlier Royal videos, it looks like the dancers are marking through everything and never hit any positions or achieve any lines. Rachel

Now don't get me wrong, Hans and Silvy. I love the look of a high russian attitude. In this case, however, I feel it would be inappropriate for the sake of being able to balance. Maybe I'm referring to a high attitude in general, not specifically a Russian attitude. It's anatomically difficult to maintain a lower leg that is higher than the knee (in the Russian style), while keeping a lifted knee that isn't higher than 90 degrees. In other words, it's hard to do a Russian attitude if it's not high. I think a square attitude with the ENTIRE leg a tad higher than 90 looks just fine. A good example of this line is Vivianna Durante's attitude in the Royal's Beauty. I don't mind a less than 180 penche as long as the back remains arched, resisting being pushed over. Too often, however, I've seen legs at 140 degrees, with the back as flat as an ironing board. Anyone can get their leg to 180 if their back is completely relaxed, but the object of a penche is to maintain the arch that one would have in a normal arabesque, and to tilt the torso as little as possible while achieving a very high leg. In other words, if the leg isn't going any higher, the torso shouldn't be going down any further. A good demonstration of a penche with the correct arch in the back is this picture of Susan Jaffe. Here's the link (look under Penchee) http://www.abt.org/library/dictionary/index.html Rachel

The videos that I've seen of the Royal from the '60's could definitely be described as mushy legs and stiff upper body. I think some of those videos, especially An Evening with the Royal Ballet are painful to watch. Rachel

In regard to that Royal review~ I was just imagining the position described and think it would be completely ridiculous for her leg to be more than say, 110 degrees. And seeing that from her extension front she fouettes to attitude, the ballerina would either make an exaggerated croisse attitude or would drop her leg(technically incorrect) It would also be terrible to have a high Russian attitude in the promenades and balances. What are your opinions on the heights of penche arabesque? Unless the ballet is Les Sylphides, I always expect to see a 6 o'clock. However, I've seen a picture of Maria Kowroski in Swan Lake where she is past a split and her weight is so far back that she's barely on her pointe shoe. I thought this looked absurd and is the sort of thing that we generally don't like about Zakharova. Rachel

I think Dale has discovered what makes an extension beautiful or vulgar. If the dancer retains a good line, looks beautiful, and doesn't reseamble a contortionist, extensions are fine. That and no 180 degree legs in Giselle. On another note, I was watching Tatiana Terekhova in Don Quixote and noticed that after her supported pirouettes in the Grand Pas, she did a very quick and very high develope side. I think it looks much nicer and just as virtuoso to extend the leg to about 90 degrees with good rotation and arched feet. Rachel

It seems strange that the coaches don't mind the extensions but many seasoned ballerinas do. I've read an interview of Assylmuratova where she condemns the younger generations use of such vulgar extensions. But aren't those seasoned ballerinas the coaches of the newer generation? Maybe the coaches who encourage such extensions were over-the-top dancers themselves. Maybe it's just taste. Rachel

Thanks for that clarification, Marc. Alexandra~ Could you explain, in your opinion, what distinguishes a very high extension as classical or not-classical? Does it depend entirely on the role? You said that you found Darcy Bussel's extensions to be be classical. Is this because she uses them sparingly and only in the right context? For example would you consider her huge extensions as Gamzatti in the Royal's Bayadere to be classical, because they fit the part? As I young dancer, I am envious of such extensions and do find them beautiful. I do, however, understand how they at times aren't true to the art and reduce ballet to a bag of tricks. I guess this applies to many other aspects of ballet technique as well. I'm getting from this discussion that such fireworks should only be used at the appropriate times and sparingly. For example, if Sofianne Sylvie turned every simple double pirouette into 5, it would get old fast and would turn her into a dancer with nothing but a bag of tricks. Rachel

Concerning flexibility, I find that Yulia Makhalina exhibits hers far less than say Svetlana Zakharova. When I watched her in the Kirov's Don Quixote as the Grand Queen of the Dryads, I felt that she was relatively contained. In the beginning of the variation where she does a jete ferme and releves to a develope a la seconde, her extension was not foot to ear. I haven't seen Makhalina in any roles that require real artistic interpretation, so my comments are limited to how she uses her facility. It seems that many reviews have decided that the recent generation of Russian ballerinas use their facility in unclassical and even vulgar ways. I'm quite sure that these ladies would never dare to use these extensions in Giselle; their coaches would shun such an idea immediately. However, if a ballet is designed to be virtuoso, why not be as virtuoso as possible as long as it's not out of character. For example, Paquita, Le Corsaire, and Don Quixote are purely virtuoso ballets. I would expect to see such feats of virtuosity. I think a high extension would be fitting in the Rose Adagio of Sleeping Beauty as well, because although Aurora is a bit unsure of herself, she is young and exuberant. Obviously, such extension would be inappropriate in Giselle or for Nikiya. Who wants to see a peasant girl or a Wili with their foot in their ear. I don't mind huge extensions unless they are clearly unfitting of the character or are unharmonious in the choreography. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that only the Russian dancers are criticized for their extension. I know that many, especially English critics, role their eyes at Sylvie Guillem's extension. But has anybody bothered looking at Darcy Bussel or Lucia Laccara 180 degree extensions. I've even seen Laccara do one of those in Giselle. It seems strange to me that what every dancer strives so hard for is actually unwelcomed onstage in the classics. I'm quite sure that most dancers try their hardest to get their legs as high as possible, say in the Rose Adagio, but the Russians who can do what everyone else strives for are getting the sour grapes. Rachel

One of my classmates had just seen San Francisco Ballet's production of Don Quixote and was commenting on Kitri's fouettes. Apparently she did a double turn every second fouette and opened and closed her fan on evey double. We went on to discuss other virtuoso feats we have seen dancers do, including fouettes without coming down from pointe and fouettes with a saute in passe in between every fouette. What technical fireworks have you seen on the stage? Did they make you want to jump out of your seat and cheer or did you find them distasteful and ridiculous? Rachel

What is the web address to this "a.a.b?" I'd love to check out any other worthwhile dance sites. Rachel

I discovered BA when I was directed here for a review of Sofianne Sylvie's performances with NYCB by a member of Pointe Magazine's message board. I was immediately hooked and was glad to discover people who are as obsessed with ballet as I am. It's wonderful to be able to talk with people who have seen Fonteyn and Danilova, who have watched NYCB evolve, and to discuss dancers in a more artisticly educated way (i.e. not limited to "She has great feet") Thank you so much, Alexandra and all other valuable members, for creating a haven for my greatest love. Rachel

Silvy~ Regarding similarities between the Lilac Fairy and the Harp Variation from Paquita: I'm referring to the same video of ABT as you and the Kirov's Sleeping Beauty with Irina Kolpakova as Aurora. There is a diagonale traveling backwards of pique attitude croisse on the right leg with right arm opening, pique 1st arabesque on the left leg, double pique turn w/ arms in high 5th on the right leg landing in tendue side in allonge plie. Regarding Paquita and Les Sylphides: I was referring to a variation that isn't included in Makarova's Paquita staging for ABT and to Les Sylphides in An Evening With the Royal Ballet in one of Margot Fonteyn's passages. Rachel

I was thinking about Paquita the other day and it struck me that the choreography is really a hodge-podge of all the other classical ballets. For example, the principal ballerina's variation in ABT's production is very similar to the Kirov's Lilac Fairy. There are also segments from Les Sylphides (Chopiniana.) Has anyone else noted this? Rachel

I'm not sure about choreographers using this musical phrasing, but I know that it's common for teachers to do so. It rhythmically challenges dancers. I think that Nureyev's tendancy to match each beat with a different step resulted in overly-busy choreography that ended up boring and even monotonous. Rachel

One of my favorite variations is the Lilac Fairy (Kirov w/ Kolpakova as Aurora.) If you are a legato dancer with good balance and a nice arabesque line, this solo provides a great canvas for artistic interpretation: adding nuances and playing with musicality. The second Odalisque is a good variation for the dancer with a strong technique but who lacks an obvious strong point. There are turns, attitudes and arabesques, and petite allegro. I also love Aurora's variation from the Wedding Pas de Deux. The port de bras is so fluid and delicate, and it's a great opportunity for displaying good feet. Esmerelda is an overall fun, lively, and bravura variation. Each section of the variation ends in a pirouette, and the music definitely allows for multiples. It also requires some lengthy balances. The tambourine and seductive gypsy movements really allow some character to come through. Rachel

I think using some examples might help my understanding of what is in "good taste" and what isn't. In a ballet, what determines "bad taste?" Is it uncouth subject-matter, kitsch costumes, cheap choreography? Would Stars and Stripes be in "bad taste" because of its high-flutin' patriotism? Would the jogging/strutting steps of Rubies be in bad taste? For those of you who have seen the pop ballet in Center Stage, this ballet is obviously in bad taste (costumes, subject matter, & choreography). But, how would you identify the more subtle bad taste of Martins' Swan Lake for those of you who think so. I think the perception of good taste is shared by most people. With a few exceptions, most of us would consider the chartreuse and polka dots to be bad taste and the little black dress and pearls to be good taste. Everybody considers Martha Stewart to have good taste, but that doesn't mean that everyone would chose to decorate their home like that. It's possible to acknowledge something as good taste without actually liking it. I guess the same holds true for ballet. Rachel

What exactly does "extinct" mean? The classics will always be performed because they are wonderful works. Afterall, Petipa has been matched by few choreographers. All great works, whether they are Petipa, Ashton, McMillan, or Balanchine, WILL remain in the repertoire. "Will the classics be preserved with their original splendor?" is another question. It seems to me that there isn't the interest to focus on the classics. Therefore, the classicals will gradually be performed with less depth that they had been in previous generations. As time progresses and ballerinas who are "professors" of the classics pass, interpretations will become less authentic as our ties with the past are broken. The quality of these works will deteriorate unless we work to preserve them. "Will there be new choreography that is classic?" Probably not, as no modern choreographers seem to be interested in competing with those classical geniuses. Maybe modern choreographers feel that their creativity is limited when it comes to using strict ballet terminology. Whatever the reason, nobody seems interested in trying to be the next Petipa. Besides, one can think of many more important things to use as choreographic ideas than fairy tales. In short, the classics will forever remain in the repertoire. Whether these classics become tarnished over time depends on the dancers who dance them and pass them on. And there's nothing we can do about choreographers who feel that classical ballet limits them. Rachel

Maria Alexandrova made quite the impression on me, cast as one of Sigfried's friends in Act I's pas de trois, and as the Spanish princess. She had an amazing grand jete. Her fluidity and port de bras were very lovely. Anna Antonicheva was stunning solely because of her facility. She had gorgeous hyper-extended legs and bulging insteps. Her extension was 2nd only to Guillem's and Lacara's. I have never seen anyone turn as fast as she did in a supported en dedan pirouette in the Black Swan Pas de Deux. She seemed unstable in certain moves and her fouettes looked taxing. She didn't have an extremely strong interpretation of Odile or Odette, but her Odette was more lyrical than her Odile was sharp. She was fascinating to watch, and I found myself staring at those legs of hers. Ah, if only.... Rachel

I have read Suki Schorer On Balanchine Technique in quite depth, and if it does represent Balanchine's teachings well, I would say that his teachings form as Style. In Suki's descriptions of ballet steps, it generally seems that these same descriptions would work in a primer on Vaganova, Bournonville, and Cecchetti. She stresses that Balanchine emphasized picking the foot up with the heel forward and toes back. Apparently this is a key element in Balanchine "Technique." However, if you ask any dancer, this would be called "utilizing one's turnout," wich is a fundamental in all school's. The only other difference that I found between Balanchine and other styles was the precise musical phrasing of steps. This phrasing gives the movements a different look than if the step were performed at an even tempo. But, the musicality doesn't change the mechanics of the step. Of course Balanchine used crossed wrists and broken wrists and all sorts of unorthodox positions. I don't really believe that different arm positions distinguish between different styles. Cecchetti's third arabesque is different than Vaganova's, but this isn't why these are two separate techniques. The core differences between techniques are the different ideas on how steps should be performed. For example, Cecchetti insists that one's hips must remain entirely square for grand battement while Vaganova didn't stress this. Rachel