Alexandra

Of course one can clone the dead! Anything is possible...a hang of hair....

Kirstein -- good clone. Since my Vestris family suggestion was out of deviltry and curiosity, I'd trade them for Lincoln, with his vision and selflessness. I'd like to see what Nijinska would do, too, although she might well have been a modern dancer/choreographer rather than a ballet one had she joined the firmament at a later time. That, too, would have been interesting to see.

I think those are all good points and at this point in the discussion, I think I have to say that the prerequisites for taking part in it are to have seen: A, at least a few of the ballets that use a hierarchical structure and B, the companies so constructed; as well as C, contemporary dance companies. Calliope made several good points early in the thread that got swallowed, so I reprint them: Calliope wrote: At NYCB, there are de facto demi-soloists, I agree, or "top corps" as I've heard it called. And then there are the corps-within-a-corps dancers -- sometimes it seems as though these big companies only have 12 dancers, you see them night after night. Is that one of the things that's driving the "should we rethink the hierarchical structure?" It has been a criticism for the past 20 years that companies often only use 12, or 20, dancers out of the 80 regularly, with the other 60 being on reserve in case someone's injured, or put in for the few large-cast ballets still in repertory. Is this yet another thing where the "abnormal" has become normal, and rather than figure out ways to use the whole company, it's easier and cheaper to reduce the size of the company and say "we're a company of soloists?" I think that etoiles will go ellsewhere, as long as there is a place that will give them safe harbor and profit by their individuality.

I'd like to give Fokine another shot, with a company this time. The others I revere -- dancers or choreographers -- would take one look, turn around and run, I fear, except possibly Balanchine, who is the one choreographer who could adapt to any age. And I'd be very curious to see how the Vestris family would make out in New York That's very greedy, because there were about a dozen oof them, but they'd share a room.

I've only seen Bart on tape (and, very late, as Von Rothbart in Nureyev's "Swan Lake") but liked him very much. There was something very military about him, which I think of as an 18th century characteristic that is indeed much missed, and a body that was a bit stocky in the chest, but still very elegant. And I liked the way he moved -- musically, as I remember it, and with considerable authority. (I don't know what he looked like very young. My ideal of the Bournonville body is from teachers who pointed to Flemming Ryberg and Ib Andersen as having a "French" body, but that's an argument, too, as some favored Werner Andersen, who was about 5 foot 1 and quite round.) I wonder, Alymer, if the two versions of "Viviandiere" that you describe get at the division of opinions on Lacotte's stagings? (I haven't seen either Guest's staging nor Lacotte's, so I'm totally innocent here ) Guest's may seem simple in comparison, but perhaps are not simplified? Those who mistrust Lacotte's stagings say that he's updated them, making them more complicated than they were. (There are obviously two very different takes on Lacotte, and I"m grateful that you're providing the positive side -- thank you!) There are stories from the early 19th century, when Danish dancers first went to Paris as guest artists, of the older French dancers being astonished at seeing "our beautiful old school" before it had been, well, enhanced by the Italians. One of my great regrets is that I'll never learn to read Danish well enough to decipher Danish Gothic script, but supposedly in the Royal Library in Copenhagen there are letters from Augusta Bournonville, who studied in Paris in the 1860s, recounting the differences between what she had learned at home -- the 1820s school of Vestris, which was already 50 years old -- and what she was learning now. One phrase is "Oh, Papa, Papa! How the style has changed!" But when they talked about stylstic differences, they were talking about things that would seem minute today -- the angle at which the head was held, whether the hands en couronne are directly over the head or a bit before the ears, or behind them. It's something we'll never get back. Today, we think of Cecchetti as a dear little saint, the epitome of moderation and harmony, but if you read the Legats he was a coarse, Italian pig with no sense of style at all!

greedy. Good list, but greedy

I think a true etoile, even a baby etoile, is an exception to everything -- they may be 13, 16, 18, but they can do everything. Not as well, perhaps, or with as much emotional depth as they will in 10 or 15 years, but they can do it. No role is too big or too hard. And that's one reason why a corps dancer is cast in principal roles. A good book to read that discusses how Petipa brought up one dancer "through the ranks" is Keith Money's "Anna Pavlova." It discusses each role in turn -- why she got it then, what she brought to it, what it did for her. It really gives one a sense of that repertory, and what is required for that repertory. And, reading it, one can see exactly what Balanchine was doing with (in my generation) Farrell, Ashley, early Nichols and Kistler. (Ashton is a different case, because he didn't have control over casting until quite late, when he became director. And I don't think it's a coincidence that his greatest works came bursting forth during that brief, nine-year period.) Is any of this relevant to today? Only for institutions that still hopes to perform that repertory.

To go back to the original question, why is "hierarchical structure" now being raised as an issue? Is it thought to be antithetical to creativity? Or merely a big company/small company issue? (Smaller companies fearing they're not considered "important" if they don't have rankings.) Or a frontal attack on the 19th century repertory -- do away with rankings, eventually, you'll finally kill off nasty old Petipa. Could a company of 80, 90, 100 dancers work without rankings? What would be the advantage of this? Or, if the contemporary dance people have their way and replace the entire "heritage" repertory with workscreatedlastweek, you'd only need companies with 24, 30 dancers -- and this would save money. Is this, then, an economic issue?

I'm copying this over from today's Links, just so I can say that I love the Loie Fuller line! Clement Crisp goes to the Royal Ballet's Nutcracker.

I agree that there's no one size fits all -- there have been some very small companies in the past with more rankings, it seems, than they had dancers, which seems both silly and pretentious. Bob, what you're describing is the traditional American modern dance model (which were nearly always one-choreographer, small companies) not the institutional model that ballet has traditionally used. And the term "hierarchical" is not mine. I'm using the term you raised, and that has been raised elsewhere, including the upcoming meeting of artistic directors, and trying to explain where it came from. Again, this has nothing to do with "resting" the dancers or spreading out work. There are times when a principal dances the lead in three short, demanding ballets in an evening -- standard practice in the 1950s and '60s in several companies -- and times when a dancer does the ballerina role in a full-length one night, a smaller role the next night, etc. Manhattnik made several interesting points about NYCB. I think, though, that even during the alphabetical days, there were principal dancers and soloists -- it would be stated in the contract. I also think that the "we have no stars here" is another line that's lost its original meaing over the years. It was said during the Age of Hurok, when he was promoting the Royal Ballet, and other companies who wanted to be like the Royal Ballet, and he sold STARS!!!! Come see Fonteynandnureyev, as Croce put it. I hate to say that "we have no stars here" was a marketing statement, because those were more innocent times, but that's what it was, in essence -- come look at our company, look at what we do; we're not advertising our stars. But of course, there were stars, and Balanchine created some ballets for stars, and this was not a new, American democratic invention (although I think some took it that way) because even in the great European companies that had etoiles or prima ballerinas/primo ballerinos, the ensemble was important and the Romantic Era in Paris where STARS!!! were promoted at the expense of the ensemble was an exception. It's interesting, too, how Balanchine used the traditional structure -- there are some ballets that have obvious principal/soloist/demisoloist/corps -- even coryphee roles -- although a corps dancer could be cast in any of these -- and some where the demarcation isn't obvious, but it's always there, lurking in the background, as it was part of his upbringing. And even a chamber company with eight dancers and no rankings can use a hierarchical sensibility -- Ballet 1 is for a principal couple and three female soloists. Ballet 2 is for four couples who are, in effect, principals, etc.

From what I know of Lacotte's work -- and that is only "La Sylphide"; I haven't seen the others, but I have seen that one, and discussed it with both critics and dancers who know more about it than I -- it is not really a reconstruction, just claiming to be a reconstruction. I don't see that that has a value and if it inspired others to do the same, then I think it has a negative value. These ballets can't be reconstructed; so be honest about it. Make your own pastiche and say that's what it is. There's an appetite for story ballets now, and people might very well like it. I would say comparing Saint-Leon's Vivandiere, which I saw the Joffrey do quite a bit when it first got the piece, to Bournonville that I think there is a difference in sophistication -- the very few genuine Bournonville divertissements that we have now are simpler. (There are two tapes by the Kirov of this, and I like the Sizova one; it flows. The later one, with Pankova -- ten years after the revival -- seems distorted to me, too slow and too stretched.) Saint-Leon, according to Beaumont, was not admired in his time because there was "too much dancing" in his ballets -- not in the sense of too many steps crammed into a phrase, but too many dances in the ballets. Another reason to save ballets. Saint-Leon's audience wanted more story. We want more steps. We might be quite happy to see those now.

I think Wheeldon's still green, but worth watching -- to continue off-topic and let Mel get in his plug I think one of the problems with the post-Balanchine era (speaking from a U.S. perspective, of course) is that we were dealing with a mature choreographer from the time NYCB was founded and Balanchine was in his 40s. It takes awhile for choreographers to mature -- Fokine being one 20th century exception to this -- and many do their finest work in their 50s. I think Wheeldon also may be one of those who's best judged looking at his entire oeuvre (I think Ashton is another). This or that ballet may be judged solidly constructed, but slight -- but put them all together and they stand for something. That said, it's still early days and who knows what Wheeldon will be like at 46. Katherine, I'm not as bothered by ONE nonballet ballet at the Paris Opera; DeValois's writing convinced me of the place of novelty in a repertory. (It's fine in its place, and if everyone involved realizes that it's a novelty, the Twinkie, if you will, rather than the beef or spinach or tofu casserole on the school cafeteria menu, and not let the children eat too many Twinkies.) What troubles me is that nearly the entire current POB repertory is either nonballets or Rudiballets (a/k/a "the classics"). THAT can lead to audience bifurcation, as mentioned above, rather than exposing the whole audience to a range of different styles. Have Bianca Li, but have her on a program with a Leo Staats (revolutionary idea) and a Balanchine or Ashton or Robbins. Make each segment of the audience sit through what they think they don't like, in other words.

Thanks for that! There were some reviews of early performances posted on the Recent Performances forum, but we haven't heard from anyone in a few days, and I hope some others will join in.

One of the saddest series of posts we ever had here was a little girl who was 12 (before we had an age requirement of 13 to post here) who began that book and was so excited. She told us several times how much she liked it -- she'd report every few chapters or so. Then there was a long silence. And then she came on and said she'd finished it and she wished she hadn't read it, and she didn't like Kirkland any more. If I were a parent, I wouldn't let anyone under 15 or 16 read that book, and I'd make sure the child knew that Kirkland was a great artist, but the book might be disturbing.

Why not, Sylvia? In the spirit of the holidays, we should be generous!

well, tabloids have headlines, too. "Scientist To Clone 5 U.S. Presidents. News Readers get to pick." The photos included Lincoln and FDR, and then I averted my eyes:) Better than the People's Choice Awards! I thought we should have a chance to play, too. If the scientist has an interest in ballet -- or perhaps the First Runner Up Scientist; we can't be picky -- and you could pick 3 ballet people (choreographers, dancers, whatever) from the past to clone -- not bring back as little old men, but reborn, ready to apply their genius to today's troubled times -- who wouldl they be? (I am not making this up. Check it out when you go to the grocery store. It's the one with the screaming headline: 'Hitler's Whacky Predictions" which included "internet porn and the rise of J.Lo." I wish I wrote for a tabloid. It would be so much more FUN than writing about dance.!)

Sorry to disappoint, but rankings have nothing to do with a dancers' well-being, although any decent director will take into account each dancers' assignments and not overwork him or her. For good or ill, companies do take into account how many dancers of each type and potential rank are needed. By "for good," I mean that directors do have to make sure they avoid the problem citibob states above (of having too few people in the corps, too many soloists, etc.; IMO, there can never be too many stars, but they'll sort themselves out -- if there are too many some will leave). By "for ill" I mean that there may be some very talented dancers who don't get into a company because there are too many tall boys, longlegged girls, demicaractere dancers, potential stars, etc. But there are a lot of companies, so this, too, sorts itself out, I think. There have been exams at the Paris Opera where no one is promoted, and the thought is that this is because the directors know that two years down the line there is a STAR and they have to leave room for him or her. There are dancers who (unbeknownst to them, perhaps) the school/company management know will be corps dancers forever. (One of the complaints I've heard from teachers today is that, in our crazed, commercial atmosphere where companies seem to be competing to see who is "the best," some directors are throwing out good corps dancers and only take in potential Varna winners.) I don't think it's fair to say that without hierarchies there would be choreography to the lowest common denominator; I've seen contemporary dance and modern dance companies where the standard of dancing is excellent. But to make Aurora dance in the group pieces five nights a week and then expect her be Aurora on the sixth night -- that's a misuse of starpower, in a classical ballet company, but it doesn't have anything to do with weariness. I don't think this can be discussed purely as theory. One needs to see Sleeping Beauty -- and Balanchine's Theme and Variations, Ashton's Cinderella and the like, and then the less formally structured works that still draw on these ancient rules as a contrast to contemporary dance. Classical choreographers have used the various rankings as part of the architecture as well as the dynamics and texture of their ballets -- along with other things, like employ (which has often been discussed here); it derives from court protocol and, as has often been remarked, is similar to the military and the Catholic Church hierarchies. And in that context, no, I don't think you could pluck even a talented medal-winning 25-year-old out of a nonhierarchical corps and throw her in Saturday night as Aurora and expect to get anything but a step recitation of the role, if that. It would be like taking either a raw recruit, or a seasoned footslogger out of a brigade and expecting him to be a General. The two are totally different aesthetics. Plop Nureyev down in the Murray Louis Dance Company and ask him to be one of the boys -- not saying it wasn't fun, but it wasn't what one was used to seeing, shall we say. It works both ways. The anti-hierarchical people tend to couch their arguments as democrats; in today's enlightened age, the idea of the ballerina is anathema, apparently. Yet it is the hierarchical that celebrates the individual.

Because in ballets created for a hierarchical classical company there are technical and interpretive requirements for the roles that are not found in every dancer. That's why they established the hierarchies

From context, I'm sure they mean dancer rankings, not management issues. Have you ever seen one of the big international companies do Sleeping Beauty or Swan Lake? The ballets and rankings are rather intertwined. (There is choreography for a corps, for demi-soloists, for soloists, for stars.) To me it's a problem of the current mixing of repertories, as I tried to indicate above. Jiri Kylian's ballets aren't made for a hierarchical structure and don't require one; Petipa's were, and do. If you dance as "one of six" -- or eight or ten -- in 8/10ths of the repertory, then I would say that you could not dance Aurora, or Odette/Odile, or Albrecht on Saturday night. (As do other classical choreographers, like Ashton and Balanchine. Anything after that? I don't know. Maybe MacMillan and Cranko as well, although one of the major complaints about those two choreogrpahers is that they neglect the middle ranks; it's all stars and harlots, I mean, the corps. Yes, both Ashton and Balanchine often used young dancers in principal roles, but they were still expected to dance like stars.)

I don't think anyone has said it will destroy classical ballet, citibob. I've been reading it, mostly in the English press, and it's an agenda item on the conference of Artistic Directors planned for mid-January in Britain, to wit: I'm presuming they mean the ranking of dancers in the major classical companies: Principal, Soloist, Corps de Ballet (in America). There are European companies with further subdivisons -- First Soloist, Second Soloist, etoile, coryphee, etc. The rankings derive, as do most things in classical ballet, from the ballet of the Paris Opera. I don't know why this is an issue, and would like to know. Smaller companies (and modern dance companies) don't have any rankings. Others have only two ranks, soloist/corps. It's another of the contemporary dance/ballet issues. It would be difficult to imagine a company doing Sleeping Beauty where all the dancers were brought up in a culture of "all for one, one for all, nobody's important here." I really don't understand why it's being made an issue. Some companies need hierarchies, others don't. I'd be very interested in comments about this. The U.S. Congress has something called zero-based budgeting. It doesn't really work, of course, but in theory, you can't carry over a program from one year to the next. It has to be examined each year to see if it's worth continuing. Any tradition can be examined at any time -- do we need rankings? (Dancers, do feel free to chime in on this one!) Could you dance Aurora if you are Alphabeticlaly Listed Dancer 86? Are the rankings an issue among dancers and, if so -- to be blunt about it -- an issue with all dancers, or just the ones who aren't etoiles?

True, Kathleen; there are a lot of examples in modern and contemporary dance, but it seems as though no one has yet figured out how to use the ballet vocatulary to do a romantic pas de deux for two men.

TWO Paris reports in the same day from Alymer! Now that's a Christmas present. Doesn't sound like one I would like. (I have liked some Neumeier, his "Don Juan" and his Camille ballet, but not much more). Have you ever noticed that when a ballet is particularly unmusical, the choreographer will give several interviews indicating how much the music means to him? As for updating, I remember (as I'm sure does Alymer) that in David Vaughan's book, when Ashton did "Sylvia," London critics (I believe Richard Buckle was one) begged him to update it and suggested a scenario, and hated it that he was so old-fashioned and did it straight. I'd also like to have it back. I miss the old Dance and Dancers end of year poll, when you could pose questions like that and have a vague hope that someone in charge would actually read the answers!

Thanks for being brave, Alymer. I'm very glad to have multiple views! I do want to comment on Lacotte's statement that Bournnonville was not considered by the French to be in the first rank of choreogrpahers. I've read reviews, letters, etc. (contemporary, 19th century) that would dispute this. Bournonville was blocked from the Paris Opera, and there may well have been in-house choreographers who felt this way, but there were others who did not, which was one of ther reasons why he was invited to publish his "Etudes choreographiques" and a series of letters to the editor (which have now been published in English) that are a longer version of Fokine's letters, about the state of choreography in France in that time. I think it's fair to say that Lacotte's stagings are controversial. He writes what he is trying to do, and there are those who admire it, but there are also those who see something different in the actualization, and have a different view.

Lil dancer, there are a lot of threads like this already on the forum. If you'll check them, you'll find many recommendations Click on this link for one: http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=1963 (Note to lildancer: please check your email! There's a message from us for you there )

They're on holiday, Katharine. They're back on January 22nd with Neumeier's The Odyssey, which I'm sure you'd just love