Alexandra

Very good point. At one rehearsal I watched, the dancer kept running out of breath halfway through the enchainement -- and, as with most Bournonville enchainements, it was long; I can't swear it was one of the 64 bar ones, but I think it was. She was given one, succinct instruction: "Then breathe." (She took the breath at the apex of a jump and I swear it made it go higher!)

I got an email today from Belyaevsky and Dunets asking if I'd post their web site and include it in our links, so here it is! http://www.bd-ballet.com The official site of Stanislav Belyaevsky and Anastasia Dunets. We are soloists of Finnish National Ballet.

Thanks, Giannina! I think you've hit on many of the major points of the style, and that Jeppesen quote gets to the heart of it and illustrates one of my favorite Bournonville quotes: "All effort must be concealed under cover of harmonious calm." A couple of other things: The training still emphasizes beaten steps -- a variety of them -- and changes of direction, which, as is often pointed out, the result of the very small stage Bournonville worked with (24 feet wide, according to Patricia McAndrew's notes in her translation of Mit Teatrliv). There is no promenade, no walking around the stage before a big solo; you just start. Often the first step is a jump. The back leg -- in a jump, in an arabesque -- is slightly bent. There is an emphasis on epaulement. Perhaps the one central thing -- and it's a real giveaway, a way to spot the non-Danish trained dancers -- is the plié. It's deep, and especially noticable on landings from jumps; it keeps the movement flowing. Without it, the impetus of the movement stops, as the knees stop. With it, the dancing flows from one step to another. The style has changed, of course, and this is one style that we can track fairly well. 100 years ago, the line was ROUND. Think vines. Nothing was stretched, everything curled. The Danes thought Fokine's line was harsh and ugly when they first saw his work. This lasted until the early 1950s, when Volkova joined the RDB and stretched the line -- although not as stretched as it was becoming elsewhere -- and put many of the demicaractere solos that were choreographed on demipointe, and some of the corps work, on pointe. There is something still, despite brainwashing, hundreds of guest teachers, and all manner of persuasive means, inherent in Danish dancers from Bournonville: the women don't like dancing on pointe, and the men don't want to do lifts. [Pointework, I've been told by Danish teachers, ruins the jump, it changes the way the dancer feels the floor and affects the push off for the jump.] Company attitudes towards the style have been on a pendulum swing throughout at least this century, with regards to musicality (do you dance right on the beat, or through the beat), presentation (grin or don't grin), and the scale of the dancing. Bournonville's style is often referred to as "small" -- and there is a lot of small, qluick footwork -- and the current generation of stagers interprets this as dancing on a very small scale. The Brenaa generation did not; "use all of the space available to you" was the watchword then, and dancers of that generation call what's being danced today "Bournonville in a box."

Here's a list of links to the threads. Please post comments, questions, etc. on the company/style thread of interest: ABT style Bolshoi style Kirov/Mariinsky style New York City Ballet style Paris Opera Ballet style Royal Ballet Royal Danish Ballet La Scala style

There's a debate on whether there is anything left of the Royal Ballet style -- but there are shreds of it, or people wouldn't be reacting so strongly to the "differences" Makarova has brought in with her new "Sleeping Beauty." The first season I saw the Royal, I was disappointed in the dancing because I didn't think it was very exciting (this was my first season seeing ballet, and "exciting" to me was Nureyev in "Le Corsaire.") A few years later, talking to an older critic about the company's style, he said, "It's never been a virtuoso company." I had to mull that one over for a few years. What's a nonvirtuoso company? Why would anyone want to do that -- how could that be a hallmark of style? With that introduction, I offer a few observations. First, the shape of the dancing is square or circular, not rectangular or elliptical. And by that, I mean that if you take a dancer in arabesque, you can draw a circle or a square around it, but no other shape. Arabesques are at 90 degrees, NOT because the poor little things couldn't do any better, but because that was what Ashton wanted. Second, epaulement, which was integral to the style. The body is always turned a bit, you see the dancers at an angle, not head on. The dancing is three dimensional. Third, footwork. Ashton choreographed for feet. Many of his variations for women were made for women in skirts, and the leg is not visible. The footwork is extremely fast. Fourth, musicality. It's a melodic musicality (I think this comes form Cecchetti; that's the one link I've found among Ashton, Tudor, and the Volkova-influenced Royal Danish style of the late 20th century. David Vaughan wrote (paraphrase) that Ashton's style had the clear melodiousness of English speech. He used virtuosity -- the Blue Boy in "Patineurs" -- but he used it as a spice, in contrast to the harmony of the whole. The sense of harmony is key to the whole line, and to other aspects of technique. Arms en couronne, for example (when the dancer lifts the arms above the head and curves them so that they suggest a crown) are directly over the head; the arms are aligned with the ears. I've seen some film of Ashton coaching, and geometry was crucial to him. There's a film of him setting "Monotones" and he explains, in his patient, crotchety way, that if the arms of three dancers -- standing next to each other, arms en couronne, interlaced -- are not crooked EXACTLY at the elbow then the whole thing is all wrong. "Monotones" is an essay in geometry, as much as "Scenes de ballet." It was written for three dancers who had exactly the same proportions, height and line (when the woman was on pointe). When Ashtons' style was a living, breathing thing, the dancing MOVED -- there is film evidence of this, for those who weren't around to see it on stage, but most of it is archival, not on commercial video.

I'll start with a few observations from an outsider. The first time I saw the company, I noticed several things -- mostly from the way they danced La Bayadere, because that's what they were doing for a week here that season -- about the company's style that impressed me as different from what I saw with ABT or NYCB, the two major companies I see the most. I'm not saying that these are unique to POB, but I think I can say they are part of the style. One. The working foot in passé ALWAYS touches the opposite knee. Not a half-inch above, not excitedly swatting the calf, the knee. Two. Dancers with bodies I'd considered "Romantic" -- tall, slim, linear, long legs, not "classically proportioned" -- like Elisabeth Patel were using their bodies "classically": squared rather than sloping shoulders, raised chest. Three. In turns -- I loved this -- the dancers' arms were held in a circle. It made the dancing look very centered, self-referential. Four. (Many people didn't like this; I did). The coldness and purity of the Shades scene. It wasn't spiritual; it was crystalline. There's a photograph of the Shades' legs (when the corps is standing at the side of the stage) that the company once used for publicity -- and it wasn't a lucky accident. It looks like one pair of legs refracted in 16 mirrors. Five. Backs. This is where terminology becomes loaded. The back is different from the Russian back. If you don't like it, you'll say it's stiff; if you do, you'll say it's erect. There isn't the same bend, flexibility, that there is with Russian-trained dancers, and I think this is because Russian classicism is inflected with Russian folk dance. Acting style. In the time I've been watching dance, I've never seen a company that can handle different styles as nimbly as POB -- yet they always remain themselves. The acting in Bayadere was very stylized, very grand, rather cold. The next week, in Petit's "Les Rendez-vous," many of the same dancers were detailed, passionate and fiery. I hope we'll get some observations from people who actually know POB style but those are a few points to start.

There's a wonderful story about Massine reviving a work once -- one of his large, symphonic pieces -- and the corps was divided in half. One dancer worked with Group A, and another worked with Group B. (Both had been in the work.) When the dancers came together, in one segment, Group A turned to the left, while Group B turned to the right. Pandemonium. Accusations. Curses. A film was found. And there, yes indeed, when they were dancing it, Group A Leader turned to the left, while Group B leader incorrectly -- and singularly -- turned to the riight. So both stagers were, in fact, doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU TOLD ME TO DO! HOWEVER. The difference between staging and Rashomon is that there is one truth: the particular version being staged. If 10 different dancers stage something 10 different ways, it doesn't mean that all 10 are "right." Some dancers are accused of only remembering his/her own part -- and sometimes these accusations are dead on. Not all stagers are equal. Some people see better, some people remember better, some people have a deeper understanding of the work -- and some who may get 10s on any objective perception test may have learned the work from an idiot. The first time I saw the Danes' "La Sylphide," I noticed 22 aspects of staging -- just gesture and stage business, nothing as complicated as how far the head should be tilted forward or how high the back leg should be -- that were not in the ABT production that I had "grown up" seeing. I wrote them down. Two days later, I overheard a dancer visiting from ABT say, "It's exactly like ours." I hope this person never stages. The text -- the steps and patterns -- are probably quite similar. I liked Hans's explanation very much -- two tendus. We could have a Tendu thread -- Ballets with Important Tendus in Them And How They Differ!

I got an email this morning from someone saying, "how technical should we be?" -- perhaps that worry is what's stopping everyone's fingers from responding I'd ask -- as NON technical as possible, since this thread is intended to be read and understood by everyone. (And please, contribute! I can't believe no one has thoughts on various styles.) I've put up a few notes on POB and Royal Ballet style -- but there should be dozens of people here who can say something on NYCB and ABT and the Maryinsky. (I'll try to do the RDB later.)

Thank you for that, AntoP -- then what is Italian style, and where did it go? It sounds, from what you wrote, that the current style is a bit of everything, which sounds as though the native style got lost. I'm curious about all the various strains -- Blasis was quite different from the late 19th century style, too, at least it sounds that way from reading.

Yes, Fracci is the La Scala dancer most known to Americans, and she's always said to epitomize the Romantic style -- and yet she's very different from those steely turners one reads about.

No wonder! The pas de six from Vivandiere is by St. Leon and I believe (writing this without checking) that the Thessalian Ballet's version of the story is the right one. (The other capsule libretto is of a different St. Leon ballet.) The story is that it was found, in a book in the Paris Opera Ballet's Library, in this century, by Ivor Guest. St. Leon had written it down to prove that his notation system was accurate, stuffed it in a book, and forgot about it! You can read about "Vivandiere" in Cyril W. Beaumont's Complete Book of the Ballets, if you can find a copy. The ballet wasn't popular, he said -- because it had too much dancing in it! (There's a real difference in style between those two videos, too. One is tighter, smaller scale, the other more stretched.)

I had at first been a bit curious why Ari chose "The Firebird" as a contender, since I didn't remember having seen that many productions lately. Then the DTH season was announced, and I remembered (Nothing against the ballet, it's just that I've seen it approximately 89 times.) There are several new productions of this ballet coming up, too. Not sure whether that's good news or bad news.

That is a nice story -- and I think the curve might well be part of it, Hans. The Danes STILL bend the back leg a bit in arabesque -- it's not quite an arabesque en attitude, but their nickname for it is attabesque. There's a fascinating video I saw once called "Dance in Human History" and it divided the world into three "bands" with movement styles evolving out of work indigenous to the peoples who live in these bands. Northern Europe was straight up and down -- from ice fishing, spearing. up down up down needlework, syrup tapping, etc. etc. The dancing kept a stiff upper body, the action was in the legs. The line was straight, movement one-dimensional. From Africa, through the Middle East, through the Russian steppes was the second band -- wheat agriculture. The body's movements are two dimensional; there's a curve in there, matching the curve of the scythe, not the spear (difference between cross and crescent/sickle?) That twisting torso is reflected in the dancing too. In Asia, there is three-dimensional movement, and this is from the rice paddies. Not only twisting the torso, but bending up and down, producing the most supple style of dancing.

Thank you for bringing up Markova, atm, and the question of "marking." I think that raises a good point. When I first started watching the Danes, I was amazed -- curious, befuddled -- that they didn't emphasize the steps. It wasn't that they didn't dance cleanly, it's that you could barely see the steps. Beats were too fast for the eye -- and I've read critics who complained about that. "James should wear white socks so you could see the beats better" -- well, he didn't wear white socks, which told me they didn't want you to see the beats as BEATS, but watch the dancer's whole body. The women make the steps disappear. Other companies will. emphasize. every. step. even. the. linking. ones. The Danes didn't. Some people wrote that this was "weak dancing." The Danes had "no technique." Once, I watched a rehearsal of "La Sylphide", the Sylph's first solo, where the dancer made it look like nothing. It looked as though someone with six months of training could do it. This was one of the company's strongest technicians, and when it was over, she was gasping for breath for about four minutes. That was a big lesson for me. (note to atm - I hope you'll see the Style threads I've posted on the Discovering Ballet forum and contribute there. You'll have a view of ABT style when that meant Markova, Alonso and Nora Kaye and I'd very much like to have it.)

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for La Scala/Italian Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women. I don't know enough about LaScala/Italian style to know whether there is one today, or if there are significant differences among companies. But I'm curious about it. This school had as great an influence on ballet in the 19th century as the Russian school had on the 20th. I'm sure people are familiar with the squadroms of ballerinas that danced in Paris during the Romantic Era and St. Petersburg and Moscow during the last half of the century. They danced in New York, too; Rita Sangalli and Maria Bonfanti were huge stars here, before Pavlova ever docked. And the Italian teachers changed technique in Paris; the French were still fighting them off at the beginning of the 20th century. So what is the Italian School, yesterday and today?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Danish Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Paris Opera Ballet Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for American Ballet Theatre Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women. It's often said that ABT doesn't really have a style, not having had a formative choreographer with a body of works that defined the repertory or a school. It's sometimes said that ABT is a collection of different styles. However, there are company differences; the balletmasters don't say, "oh, just go out and do whatever you want." There may be some differences among dancers they don't smooth out, but I think there are other elements that the company does want in its classical dancing. (This could be discussed too, of course.)

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for New York City Ballet Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women. Is NYCB style still synonymous with Balanchine style? If not, what are the changes?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Royal Ballet Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women. Sub-question: once "Royal Ballet style" was synonymous with Ashton style. Is that still true? If not, what are the differences between current Royal Style and Ashton Style?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Bolshoi Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for Kirov Style? Head, fingers, knees and toes, please. And for men as well as women.

I'm going to put up a series of threads to discuss style of different companies and countries, one per thread. I'd like this to eventually be a resource where someone who's interested in what "Balanchine style" is, etc., could come and read about it -- recognizing that there are differences among generations, etc. But what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a dancer to have correct "Kirov style" -- or "Bolshoi" or "Ashton" or whatever style. I'm only going to put up threads for the major Schools now, meaning styles related to institutions wiith recognized Schools (not the building); one could have interesting and useful discussions about the difference between Miami City Ballet and San Francisco Ballet styles, too, but perhaps for the first round we could be more basic. There are those who don't recognize the concept of "style" saying that what we call "style" is really technique. I think that is true up to a point -- if you're at the Vaganova school, you're not learning "Kirov style." You're learning to dance. It's when others look at you, and see that your arabesque is different, the carriage of the upper body, the arm positions, the way the fingers are held, etc., that is what is called style -- and that's the way I'm intending the question. All ballet dancers have to jump and turn, but do the arms form a circle when they're turning, or do they not? Are the fingers spread or held together tightly? I will do everything possible to keep this discussion civil. Please, no, "their arms look like sticks," "They can't turn for beans," etc. Partisanship is great at soccer games, or if you're in your own home theater. Then "they" are icky, awful and we're glad we don't dance like them. But "They" are also reading this board, and I'll ask everyone to be polite. I think it's also interesting to talk about what happens when a style changes -- what is changeable? what is not? -- or ossifies. How do you keep the style living without changing its essence? But first, please, definitions.

Rachel, I know that you only know what you can see, and videos are not a substitute for live performance. Try to dance Ashton, and then say those dancers didn't have good footwork. There are probably a dozen different views on line -- from country to country, choreographer to choreographer, and decade to decade, and it really is useful to try to understand that, I think. I found that the more I saw, and the more I read, the more the differences became differences and not "ew, that's awful."

Administrator's note: please don't post rumors off-board, even benign ones. If you're not familiar with our Rules and Policies, please take a few minutes and review them -- they're on the About This Site Forum. Here's a link to the Gossip policy. http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=9427 Thanks very much for your report, lillianna. It's fun to see several casts and compare them, and fun to read about them.