Helena

I don't think the music in ballet is "just an accompaniment", in Ed Waffle's words, any more than I think the piano in Schubert lieder is "just an accompaniment". It's part of the whole, or should be.

Fonteyn was very reluctant to dance it. She thought it was sort of sacred to Pavlova, the way we (well, I!) now think of Marguerite as being sacred to Fonteyn.

I saw Markova dance it. I watched her from the wings when I was a little girl. Naturally I thought she was perfect - I do think that she was probably the nearest to Pavlova that I could have seen. After all, they did meet, and Markova was billed (poor child) as "The Child Pavlova".

Don't forget that Nureyev went straight from the school to solo roles in Leningrad - he was never in the corps de ballet. They must have considered him good enough - they certainly knew a star when they saw one. It wasn't just after he defected that he was considered brilliant.

Dance Books had a shop in Covent Garden until recently. It now operates by mail order and internet only, and has an excellent online catalogue at www.dancebooks.co.uk

Like everyone else who used to frequent it, I really miss the shop.

Alexandra,that would explain it. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Ballet - the old one - just says "Erik Bruhn (orig. Belton Evers)", and I had just believed that.

I've always been a bit surprised that Belton Evers changed his name to Erik Bruhn, which I would have thought (though admittedly I'm fairly ignorant about Danish names) was roughly the equivalent of John Smith or Mark Williams in England, i.e. very ordinary. When very young (dare I admit this?) I naively looked him up in the Copenhagen phone book and found a great many Erik Bruhns!

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Helena ]

I agree with most of what Drew says. I saw more of Nureyev than I did of Baryshnikov, but (intentionally) I didn't see Nureyev's later performances - I didn't want to see his decline when I had such amazing memories of his early career. My impression is that Baryshnikov was probably the better technician from a purely academic point of view. Nureyev, even when young, was variable. To some extent this added to the excitement - you might see something beyond the apparent bounds of possibility, or you might see him fall over. The risk element was huge.

Ballet, though, is much more than technique. It is theatre, and in this sphere Nureyev is for me the winner by miles. I love Drew's expression " frisson of terror". Every performance was uniquely exciting, his "acting" didn't seem to be acting at all, it simply seemed real. Nureyev was without doubt for me the greatest artist I have ever seen.

I agree that Dowell and Bruhn were superb, but in my experience Nureyev, at least when young, had a magic that seemed to belong to another world. It was almost beyond humanity. No amount of academic perfection can compete with that.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Helena ]

I'm with Alexandra. It said I was Shostakovich, but I know I'm Tchaikovsky, so I cheated and did it a few more times, answering the questions just slightly differently. I still was Shostakovich twice, and Stravinsky once. It took four tries before it told me what I know to be true - I'm Tchaikovsky.

I'm with Alexandra. It said I was Shostakovich, but I know I'm Tchaikovsky, so I cheated and did it a few more times, answering the questions just slightly differently. I still was Shostakovich twice, and Stravinsky once. It took four tries before it told me what I know to be true - I'm Tchaikovsky.

I find this subject very interesting, but I have no answers, just a few questions. Can a performer be a genius, or does the word apply only to a creator: composer, choreographer or writer? What on earth causes genius? Are geniuses ever happy? Are there degrees of genius? I have read biographies of people I consider to be geniuses - Schubert, Ashton, Britten, Nureyev among them - trying to find a common thread to their lives, and I can't find anything in common except perhaps a sort of tunnel vision and determination. Certainly nothing in their backgrounds or their families. All of these people seem to have sprung, more or less complete, from nowhere in particular. I'd welcome any thoughts on these questions, because they have long puzzled me.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Helena ]

Jane, I have read Jasper Howlett's comments quoted in other books and articles, but have not actually read his/her book.

Alexandra, that is very interesting about "Les Patineurs"; I can well believe it, and have a nasty feeling it wouldn't be so different at the Royal Ballet. I haven't seen Les Patineurs since the 60s - or if I have I've forgotten.

You are right, of course, that Clement Crisp is comparing the Royal Ballet with its former self, and I think you are also right about the "eye" of whoever promotes dancers. I have often wondered if there is some young girl working at the back of the corps who could have "greatness thrust upon her" if only someone would notice her. (I've also always been intrigued by that telegram.) Yet it seems very odd that Dowell, for instance, did not have "the eye" - he had all the background that should have developed it. Maybe there truly was just no-one there - he was quick enough to recognise Cojocaru, who everyone seems to see as the RB's next great hope. (I am not certain about her myself - I like her very much, but I am not as convinced she will become a great dancer as I was, for example, about Dowell himself at a similar age - of course, it could be thet I am now more experienced and cynical!)

Certainly I feel that if today's ideas of "what ballet is" had applied between World War 2 and say, 1970, Rowena Jackson and Nerina would have been the famous dancers, not Fonteyn. I don't remember anyone even beginning to think at the time that this was the case. Alexandra is right that Seymour and Sibley were recognised immediately as wonderful dancers, and few if any people said "Sheeznofonteyn" about either of them. Seymour had many of Fonteyn's "faults" - unreliable fouettes, for instance - but she was instantly recognised as a great artist. I suppose de Valois, Ashton and MacMillan had something to do with that! They recognised artistry, so we were allowed to see it. Would Seymour be given a chance today?

The lack of first-rate choreographers is a mystery, but I think it may have something to do with lack of general artistic education. The creative spark has always been rare, of course. There is really only a handful of great choreographers in the history of ballet, and the many, many failures are now largely forgotten. I am living in hope. Yet perhaps the shift in the perception of "what ballet is" is so profound that I and others whose tastes were formed in the Ashton/Fonteyn era are doomed to be disappointed. I do hope not.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Helena ]

She certainly is. She is now in her early 60s, still lovely, and one of the Governers of the Royal Ballet in London.

It has struck me since I wrote my previous post that in 1934 Haskell was not an "old" balletomane- he was only 31. The idea that only Russians could dance was obviously widespread.

On the subject of the innate conservatism of most ballet fans - Clement Crisp included, though I deeply respect his views, and agree with many of them - I cannot resist quoting a wonderful poem, originally a revue sketch, by Herbert Farjeon, dating, I think, from the 1930s, "When Bolonsky danced Belushka":

"Of ballet fans we are the cream,

We never miss a night;

The ballet is our only theme

Our Russian accent is a dream,

We say the name of every prim-

A ballerina right."

and:

"It's true that many lesser clans

For ballet also thirst,

But they are merely nouveau fans,

It's we who liked it first,

And we who know it best, becos,

Ask any connoisseur,

The ballet isn't what it was,

When we were what we were."

and further on in the poem:

"When Bolonsky danced Belushka in September 1910,

What a wonderful night that was! what a wonderful sight that was!

We are positive that nobody has really danced since then!"

and:

"Something happened then YOU'll never never, never see,

So don't talk about these others, but apply your mind to me....

Though today's Boutique Fantasque'll do for Haskell and his lot,

It is not good enough for us! It is rather too rough for us!

We miss the old precision, on the beat and on the dot!"

And it finishes:

"You'll never know the throb, the glow, the bliss that we knew then,

When Bolonsky danced Belushka in September 1910!"

So, you see, things never change.

I can't resist putting my oar in on this diverted topic! I have quite a lot of evidence about early opinions of Fonteyn - I have several books published in England in the 1930s, which give contemporary critical views of both Fonteyn and Markova. I also saw both dancers, as did my mother, who saw Fonteyn from the mid-1930s.

There seems to have been a feeling among the older balletomanes at this date that only Russians could really dance. Arnold Haskell, in his book "Balletomania" (1934 and just pre-Fonteyn) says he believes from experience that Russians are "physically and temperamentally better suited" to ballet than any other nationality. The teenage Fonteyn's adverse critics compared her with Toumanova and Baronova, her exact contemporaries. She was less experienced than they were, and certainly less showy. Markova was considered an honorary Russian, although she was English, and is actually included in a list of Russian dancers in Haskell's "Ballet", written in 1937, when Fonteyn was 18. Fonteyn is in his list of English dancers. By this date he appears to have reconsidered his view that only Russians can dance. He says of the 27 year old Markova that she is a dancer in the direct line of Pavlova and Spessiva, though "technically she is less finished and her emotional range is smaller". Of Fonteyn (aged 18, remember) he says "Together with Baronova, she has the greatest range in contemporary ballet....in Giselle she gives the most outstanding performance to be seen in ballet today."

There are also some very revealing comments in the later book by William Chappell, "Fonteyn: Impressions of a Ballerina" published in 1951. (This book was my constant companion when I was eleven!) He says that at the very start of her career, when she was 15 or so, many older balletomanes were not convinced. And even later, he says "She was not a showy dancer. Pyrotechnics and dazzle did not enter into her work at this time. She danced with a quiet unforced ease, and a charming modesty which reflected truthfully her offstage personality. It was, needless to say, too gentle for the public taste, and in the early years of her career her gifts were not obvious enough for the ballet audience. They could readily appreciate a series of brilliant fouettes or rapid pirouettes, but the beauties that lie in a harmonious line, a clean flow of movement and the poise of a head were invisible to the majority." (Still true, I'm afraid!) He also makes the telling comment that "I can think of no great dancer who has appeared similar to another great dancer." It was clear to him by the time Fonteyn was 15 that she was "growing up to be Fonteyn and not Fonteyn/Markova".

There are no adverse comments on Fonteyn's technique in these books, only comments on her lack of "showiness". I think it may have been Ashton's comment about her feet being "buttery" when she was a little girl that may have started the idea that she was "no Markova". I certainly remember Markova as being a "sharp" mover and Fonteyn as being a "soft" mover.

Whatever the public thought, many critics were predicting Fonteyn's career by the time she was 15. My mother, a young balletomane at the time, was never in any doubt that she was going to be a great dancer, and had the sense not to compare her with anyone.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Helena ]

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Helena ]

Heavenly joy - Fonteyn in Sleeping Beauty.

Spine-tingling heaven - my first glimpse of the Bayadere Shades scene when Nureyev first brought it to Britain. All performances of this affect me, but never to quite the same level as that one.

It's going back a long way, but once seen, never forgotten....Helpmann's Elektra.

Very confusing, these fairy names. I grew up with the Sadlers Wells Crystal Fountain, Enchanted Garden, Woodland Glades, Song Birds and Golden Vine. I knew the French names Candide, Coulante, Miettes qui Tombent, Canarie and Violente because they were the names used on my records. Then Purity, Vitality, Generosity, Eloquence and Passion arrived, and I think the Kirov brought Sincerity into it as well. It would be a lot simpler if we used the French names - which are, after all, the ones Petipa used. Thank heavens the Lilac Fairy and Carabosse remain unchanged.

I used to be puzzled by the Breadcrumbs (Miettes) until I read somewhere that it was a Russian custom to sprinkle breadcrumbs in a cradle as a symbol of fertilty and plenty. The Lilac Fairy symbolises Wisdom, again in accord with a Russian tradition that a baby placed under a lilac bush would acquire that quality. I have Robert Grescovic to thank for those explanations.

My memorable fairies are Ann Jenner's Songbirds, Antoinette Sibley's Golden Vine, Sarah Wildor's Breadcrumbs and the Lilac Fairies of (in the past)Deanne Bergsma and, in the Kirov's reconstruction, Daria Pavlenko, who positively radiated benevolence and wisdom.

Melissa, I think the Prince was originally called Desire. (Sorry, my laptop doesn't do accents.) When it was staged by the Sadlers Wells (Royal)Ballet in England in the 1930s, problems arose with the name because it was the name usually used for princes in pantomimes, which were considered a downmarket form of entertainment, so it was changed to Florimund, presumably considered more distinguished. Other companies sometimes adopted this name. The Kirov still uses Desire.

Well, it's difficult to do anything with Florimund, isn't it? I suppose nobility and good technique are the most you can hope for. I think it's a role where good looks help, too.

I've seen Nureyev, Dowell, David Blair, Donald Macleary, Anton Korsakov, Fadayev, Zelensky, and various others I've forgotten, and some on video. I wouldn't say any of them "defined the role" for me, but they were all acceptable. Dowell was the best dancer, and since he had the looks too, he probably wins! Nureyev had too much personality for Florimund, I feel, too dominating.

As with productions, there is a gap between the number of Auroras I've seen and the ones that stick in my mind. I recall Fonteyn, Beriosova, Annette Page, Ayupova, Maya Dumchenko and Darcey Bussell. Of these Fonteyn and Darcey Bussell were by far the most memorable. Fonteyn had such sweetness and radiance, and there were moments of sheer joy in her performances that made me cry with happiness however often I saw them. Darcey Bussell isn't the world's greatest actress, but the qualities needed for Aurora are her natural qualities, sunny innocence and radiance. Both she and Fonteyn did superb Rose Adagios!

I don't really count performances on video, but I did think Kolpakova had great style in spite of her age - she must have been 50-ish in the video I saw.

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: Helena ]

The productions that I actively remember are the Sergueff/Messel RB one, which remains my favourite, the Dowell RB one (which I like a lot more than most people seem to), and the Kirov reconstruction of the original, which was absolutely fascinating. I've seen more than these, and more again on video. The Chisinau National Ballet I saw quite recently, and can remember virtually nothing about it!

I'd like Sleeping Beauty, too. There's a lot to discuss in it.

I was always a big fan of Richard Buckle - I think everyone was when he was writing. As Alexandra says, he was extremely funny, but there was a lot of thought behind what he said - usually! I had no idea what he looked like until I saw the photo in one of the obituaries, and it wasn't the way I had always imagined him.

Several of his reviews stick in my mind - I remember he said that watching Fonteyn's face as Odette was like making "a journey of the soul". That was one of his serious moments. To be as entertaining as he was, and also as observant, imaginative and well-informed, is a very rare thing.

How amazing to have been in the first performance of Noye's Fludde. I remember that somebody famous - don't remember who - said he had spent hours going to church in Orford waiting for the voice of God. In Noye's Fludde he found it.

People might think that this comment is not relevant to this thread, but I think it is - the Arts can bring about such profound spiritual (not necessarily religious) experience. I am glad you brought up the changes to the last night of the Proms. I am proud that the patriotic songs have been dropped, and that the organisers have said flag-waving is inappropriate.Nationalism is always dangerous, no matter which country it comes from. I would be very happy if the patriotic songs were never restored to this event. Schiller's "All people shall become brothers" at the close of Beethoven 9 is a far more noble sentiment. I only wish it were likely to happen.

I suddenly remembered about Yehudi Menuhin and Benjamin Britten going to the newly liberated Belsen concentration camp in 1945 to play duets. Neither man was ever quite the same again, but you can be sure that it helped the people in Belsen.

The very young Sadlers Wells ballet - now the Royal - was important to a lot of people during World War 2 in Britain. It provided beauty, escape,inspiration, and in ballets like Ashton's Dante Sonata, a powerful depiction of the struggle between good and evil, a moving comment on the times.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Helena ]