Alexandra

Thank you, Old-Fashioned! Thanks for your review, AND that you've just christened the Houston Ballet forum [sound of champagne bottle smashing against hull of forum] Of course, Houston Ballet is one of our major companies, but we didn't have a lot of Houstoners posting here, and so I didn't make a forum for it. You must keep us posted on the season. p.s. For those of us who don't follow the company closely, who's Dominic?

I'd like very much to hear from people in the cities mbjerk mentioned as well, and I think he raises an excellent point. I know in Washington, the National Ballet did not survive the Kennedy Center -- not just because of the competition, but because, as one of my friends explained to me, people didn't want to go to Lisner Auditorium any more after the Opera House was built. (Lisner is the George Washington University auditorium. It's not ideal for dance, and it's hard to imagine how a company would stage "Swan Lake" there, although the big touring companies in the 1950s and 1960s did.) Having the Center has made things difficult for Washington Ballet as well. (And your comment about government decisions is a good point, too.)

Leigh raised this question on the contemporary/classical thread and I thought it deserved a thread of its own. Leigh wrote:

Alymer, I love your Symphonic Variations story (I have several friends who consider Bejart quite classical, and very misunderstood). And it raises an interesting point, too, about how much performance has to deal with this. I can think of several classical ballets that look rather different danced by companies with a more eclectic style, and, conversely, several modern or crossover pieces that look very classical when danced by a classical company. I think that all has to do with language -- dance language -- too. I think Leigh's question is a very good one, and perhaps it could have a thread of its own: http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=6854 What about the original question, about the model that seems to be emerging in Europe of having one central classical ballet company and, rather than regional or satellite classical companies, the rest of the country being contemporary dance, for economic (production and ticket sales) as well as artistic reasons? Is that a good model?

Alymer, I love your Symphonic Variations story (I have several friends who consider Bejart quite classical, and very misunderstood). And it raises an interesting point, too, about how much performance has to deal with this. I can think of several classical ballets that look rather different danced by companies with a more eclectic style, and, conversely, several modern or crossover pieces that look very classical when danced by a classical company. I think that all has to do with language -- dance language -- too. I think Leigh's question is a very good one, and perhaps it could have a thread of its own: http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=6854 What about the original question, about the model that seems to be emerging in Europe of having one central classical ballet company and, rather than regional or satellite classical companies, the rest of the country being contemporary dance, for economic (production and ticket sales) as well as artistic reasons? Is that a good model?

I think Balanchine was considered revolutionary -- as was Fokine, in his day, who did do "story ballets" . And I'd agree it's difficult to pigeonhole, and that pigeonholes expand, but it's possible. I think the discussion is getting caught up in different definitions perhaps - revolutionary and modern with modern dance as opposed to ballet.

I think Balanchine was considered revolutionary -- as was Fokine, in his day, who did do "story ballets" . And I'd agree it's difficult to pigeonhole, and that pigeonholes expand, but it's possible. I think the discussion is getting caught up in different definitions perhaps - revolutionary and modern with modern dance as opposed to ballet.

I agree it's difficult to judge a work in its time, but not impossible. I happened to be reading Rep in Review this afternoon, researching something else, and turned to the Four Ts page and could not find any critics complaining, or worried, that Four Ts was modern dance. Modern -- which I take to be in the sense of "of our time," "contemporary" -- certainly, but not modern dance. In fact, John Martin wished it had been and said the ballet was "not very advanced." "The music is neo-Gothic and though Balanching has put the danse d'ecole thorugh all sorts of imaginative deviations, they all fall quite within the classic frame." Since the critics Reynolds quotes all do classify this ballet, I think it interesting to see how they do it. They all use different phrases, of course, but all are related to the discussion here, far beyond Four Temperaments. Denby: "Novel aspects of classic ballet technique -- aspects apparently contrary to those one is accustomed to -- are emphasized without ever breaking the classic look of the dance continuity." Terry: "The effect is quite modern dance in quality, for fluid torsos, archaic arm patterns and brfeath rhythms (as opposed to purely jusical rhythms) are apparent, yet a closer search will show that the fundamental structure is balletic..." Barnes, writing in 1965, discusses the modern dance influences; a German critic thought it influenced by Dalcroze and reminiscent of dressage; and in France, "He uses the purest classical language, which yet becomes an entirely new idiom." There are other critics quoted (Anatole Chujoy and Doris Hering) who don't address this question, and someone named Miller in the Boston Globe who writes about classical ballet and modern dance using the language analogy and then says "Balanchine grafts certain traditional movemetns onto one another. He is also one to borrow from other dance movements, even nondance sources. He makes a kind of dance bestiary and like the great draughtsman he is, he doesn't show the sutures." I think when a great or disturbing work appears, all critics, at any rate, rush to pigeonhole it, and generally don't do a bad job.

I agree it's difficult to judge a work in its time, but not impossible. I happened to be reading Rep in Review this afternoon, researching something else, and turned to the Four Ts page and could not find any critics complaining, or worried, that Four Ts was modern dance. Modern -- which I take to be in the sense of "of our time," "contemporary" -- certainly, but not modern dance. In fact, John Martin wished it had been and said the ballet was "not very advanced." "The music is neo-Gothic and though Balanching has put the danse d'ecole thorugh all sorts of imaginative deviations, they all fall quite within the classic frame." Since the critics Reynolds quotes all do classify this ballet, I think it interesting to see how they do it. They all use different phrases, of course, but all are related to the discussion here, far beyond Four Temperaments. Denby: "Novel aspects of classic ballet technique -- aspects apparently contrary to those one is accustomed to -- are emphasized without ever breaking the classic look of the dance continuity." Terry: "The effect is quite modern dance in quality, for fluid torsos, archaic arm patterns and brfeath rhythms (as opposed to purely jusical rhythms) are apparent, yet a closer search will show that the fundamental structure is balletic..." Barnes, writing in 1965, discusses the modern dance influences; a German critic thought it influenced by Dalcroze and reminiscent of dressage; and in France, "He uses the purest classical language, which yet becomes an entirely new idiom." There are other critics quoted (Anatole Chujoy and Doris Hering) who don't address this question, and someone named Miller in the Boston Globe who writes about classical ballet and modern dance using the language analogy and then says "Balanchine grafts certain traditional movemetns onto one another. He is also one to borrow from other dance movements, even nondance sources. He makes a kind of dance bestiary and like the great draughtsman he is, he doesn't show the sutures." I think when a great or disturbing work appears, all critics, at any rate, rush to pigeonhole it, and generally don't do a bad job.

I think that going along with a teacher thinking that his/her method is the ONLY way that they'll think everyone else is doing it wrong But some of the teachers Warren mentioned -- Larry Long, for one -- taught a mixture of things, got a bit from here, and a bit from there. Fifteen years ago, 25 years ago, there was a complaint about the young stars of the day being all technique and no nuance, too, and I think those judgments have held up pretty well. They either still stand -- a Fernando Bujones, say; exemplary technique, but that's it -- or the dancer is seldom mentioned. Danilo Radojevic comes to mind

Polls like this always over-represent the recent past; I'm actually a bit surprised that so many pre-1999 artists are mentioned. CNN reported a recent poll in Britain that rated Princess Diana's death as THE most important even of the entire 20th century!

Ask La Cour was thought to be one of the most promising of the young Danish men. His photo is still up on the RDB web site. There's no direct link, but if you go to http://www.kgl-teater.dk/ choose In English (link, top right of board), then Ballet from the left side menu, then Staff, then corps de ballet and scroll down, there he is. Click on his name and get a picture and brief bio. Thanks for the update, Sneds.

Giannina, I loved your "this is the right way" -- no, this is... idea. I think that's very apt -- and with great teachers, I think that's the way it should be. To me, the ideal for ballet is to have dozens of "This is the right way!" teachers/balletmasters/choreographers -- and they are the right way, and they're all different. (Xena, I can't resist mentioning that the Kronstam biography deals with his career as a dancer, of course, but also a lot with teaching, coaching and staging of ballets )

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, BW. You wonder if the teachers are protesting too much that today's dancers are all about technique? I think they've nailed it. These are teachers who have to fight, every day, to get students to focus not on how many turns they can do, but on the 99999 other things they have to learn to be a ballet dancer.

I think, for the general audience, familiarity is EVERYTHING. Bausch has never been to Washington, and I'd bet, if she ever comes here, the house will be subscribers only. One either has to be familiar with the work, or there's a celebrity factor -- Martha Graham made it to the Met because of Nureyev and Liza Minnelli. On definitions of classicism, we have an archive of past discussions on this topic which those interested may wish to read. And one thread in particular that deals with as many definitions of "classicism" as I could think of http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=6852

I think, for the general audience, familiarity is EVERYTHING. Bausch has never been to Washington, and I'd bet, if she ever comes here, the house will be subscribers only. One either has to be familiar with the work, or there's a celebrity factor -- Martha Graham made it to the Met because of Nureyev and Liza Minnelli. On definitions of classicism, we have an archive of past discussions on this topic which those interested may wish to read. And one thread in particular that deals with as many definitions of "classicism" as I could think of http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=6852

I've read it and I think it's a fascinating book. Warren is very good at describing class in general terms, and, I think, gets at what makes each of these teachers worth knowing about. One thing I remember reading over and over from all of them -- regardless of country -- is some variant of, "Today's dancers are just about technique, but I try to teach them that it's more than that." One hears that often, and it seems that teachers aren't very successful about doing that!

I agree with the need to educate audiences, Calliope. I've often wondered where all that money the Endowment and others have raised for educational programs goes, and what it has done. It seems that people are LESS educated about ballet, and dance in general, than they were 30 years ago, when those programs started. (I don't mean to blame the programs; the culture changed during that time radically, turning into a mass market/celebrity driven culture, but I don't think these programs have been a very big finger in the dike.) Ari, I don't think one can define the limits of experimentation. That depends on the talent and vision of the choreographer. Classical ballet is rooted in the academic vocabulary. Balanchine (and others) grafted other influences on to that vocabulary. To me, that's the crucial difference. To use another cooking analogy, it's like a soup. You start with a chicken, and add a lot of whatever you want. You can even add clams, and possibly chocolate, but it will still be chicken soup. I think if one's native language is "ballet" (as I think Balanchine's was), then anything one does will be ballet, whether it borrows from jazz, or modern dance, or gymnastics, or rodeo. I wouldn't think of Four Ts as modern dance -- I can't recall contemporary reviews that did -- and I didn't think Symphony in 3 Movements or Violin Concerto or Agon as modern dance, or crossover. I'm not sure I see a great deal of modern dance influence in Four Ts. But I do think that much of contemporary ballet -- the Diamond Project wing of the party -- start with Agon as though it were The Original Work and everything they do derives from it and that particular strand of Balanchine's work. But that's another issue. Ed makes a good point, too -- although the experiments you mention, IMO, are worthwhile ones and maybe worth sneaking into a subscription season. It's the lesser experiments -- that, at this point, aren't really experiments; they're derivative popularizations of past experiments, but there's no guts to much of the contemporary dance I see -- that are clogging the works now.

I agree with the need to educate audiences, Calliope. I've often wondered where all that money the Endowment and others have raised for educational programs goes, and what it has done. It seems that people are LESS educated about ballet, and dance in general, than they were 30 years ago, when those programs started. (I don't mean to blame the programs; the culture changed during that time radically, turning into a mass market/celebrity driven culture, but I don't think these programs have been a very big finger in the dike.) Ari, I don't think one can define the limits of experimentation. That depends on the talent and vision of the choreographer. Classical ballet is rooted in the academic vocabulary. Balanchine (and others) grafted other influences on to that vocabulary. To me, that's the crucial difference. To use another cooking analogy, it's like a soup. You start with a chicken, and add a lot of whatever you want. You can even add clams, and possibly chocolate, but it will still be chicken soup. I think if one's native language is "ballet" (as I think Balanchine's was), then anything one does will be ballet, whether it borrows from jazz, or modern dance, or gymnastics, or rodeo. I wouldn't think of Four Ts as modern dance -- I can't recall contemporary reviews that did -- and I didn't think Symphony in 3 Movements or Violin Concerto or Agon as modern dance, or crossover. I'm not sure I see a great deal of modern dance influence in Four Ts. But I do think that much of contemporary ballet -- the Diamond Project wing of the party -- start with Agon as though it were The Original Work and everything they do derives from it and that particular strand of Balanchine's work. But that's another issue. Ed makes a good point, too -- although the experiments you mention, IMO, are worthwhile ones and maybe worth sneaking into a subscription season. It's the lesser experiments -- that, at this point, aren't really experiments; they're derivative popularizations of past experiments, but there's no guts to much of the contemporary dance I see -- that are clogging the works now.

Now that, I'd agree with I think the word "ballet" is used to cover a multitude of sins!

Now that, I'd agree with I think the word "ballet" is used to cover a multitude of sins!

Interesting angle -- that "classical" has a different meaning than it did 50 years ago. I don't think I'd agree. I think it's just being misused. It's like calling every kind of meat "hamburger." That might happen, but it wouldn't mean that veal and beef and pork and lamb no longer existed. And even the companies that are presenting crossover or modern dance are quick to say they're bashing ballet, turning it upside down, kicking it into the next century -- I guess that would have to be just "the future" now. I love Watermill's metaphor: Exactly. And it would be fine if you'd gone to Funky Dinners, $7.99 for all you can eat of today's Experimental Blended Spectacular. But when a company says it's America's premiere classical ballet company, and offers a season with more modern dance and crossover ballet -- much of it pop, not serious concert dance -- and charges a bit more than $7.99, then I think there's a problem.

Interesting angle -- that "classical" has a different meaning than it did 50 years ago. I don't think I'd agree. I think it's just being misused. It's like calling every kind of meat "hamburger." That might happen, but it wouldn't mean that veal and beef and pork and lamb no longer existed. And even the companies that are presenting crossover or modern dance are quick to say they're bashing ballet, turning it upside down, kicking it into the next century -- I guess that would have to be just "the future" now. I love Watermill's metaphor: Exactly. And it would be fine if you'd gone to Funky Dinners, $7.99 for all you can eat of today's Experimental Blended Spectacular. But when a company says it's America's premiere classical ballet company, and offers a season with more modern dance and crossover ballet -- much of it pop, not serious concert dance -- and charges a bit more than $7.99, then I think there's a problem.

While browsing on the Dance Books site, I saw this in new titles: Undimmed lustre, the life of Antony Tudor. Author: Topaz, Muriel A chronological biography of one of the most creative forces in twentieth-century dance. Born in 1908 in London, Tudor spent the first decade of his professional life as one of the founding members of Ballet Rambert. He later became a prime mover in the American Ballet Theatre for most of its early history, and was later its associate director. Muriel Topaz's book is based on several personal archives hitherto unavailable, correspondence, and copious research, and reveals some of the reasons behind the misconceptions and contradictions that have been attached to Tudor.

Got this today from David Leonard at Dance Books: Dance Books is pleasedf to announce re-publication of Professor Anya Peterson Royce's classic text, 'The Anthropology of Dance'. This pioneering book, first published in 1977 and here reprinted with a new introduction, is the first general introduction to dance anthropology. The author first explores the various meanings that dance has had over time for different peoples. Next she focuses on the place that dance has occupied in anthropological studies over the past one hundred years, and discusses techniques for studying and recording dance; the book then turns to structural and functional analyses, comparing them with reference to their different purposes and capabilities. The second part of the book presents three perspectives frequently used by anthropologists to view dance: the historical, the comparitive, and the symbolic; and in part three discusses two categories of research that will be significant in the future: creativity and aesthetics, and communication and meaning. You will find details of this and other new releases, with on line ordering facilities at: http://www.dancebooks.co.uk/new.asp or you may send orders by email to orders@dancebooks.co.uk, by telephone to (44) (0) 1420 86138, by fax to (44) (0) 1420 86142, or by post to Dance Books Ltd., The Old Bakery, 4 Lenten Street, Alton, Hampshire GU34 1HG, UK.