Alexandra

What Cosmo Guy could resist a ballet drenched in blood and violence that includes a pas de trois, the third party of which is a severed head????

No, not at all -- I'm glad you posted that and just meant to acknowledge what you'd written. I wouldn't want people to go around saying they read on Ballet Alert! that Nureyev danced Theme with Ruth Page's company

Thank you, Jeannie. I think you should get the First Annual Ballet Alert Paul Revere Award for calling this to our attention. I was hoping there might be an easy way to contact them by email. The magazine itself doesn't seem to have a site; it's hitched to ivillage. There is a form there where one can send an email: Click this link: http://magazines.ivillage.com/cosmopolitan..._293009,00.html

Mme. Hermine, I'm sure you're right, that it was with ABT and not Page. Perhaps it was in Chicago? I remember the Chicago connection (and Nureyev made his debut in NY with the Page company) and undoubtedly confused the two.

Katharine's reference to Vaganova reminded me of a comment a dancer friend of mine made about a young dancer at a competition a few years back (she didn't win a gold, perhaps only a bronze, and lost out to someone whom he felt did not have a solid technique, but could do thousands of multiple pirouettes, like Will Kemp's marathon hop around Northern Europe in Shakespeare's day. He described the "perfect technique" of the loser as being perfectly aligned, all "ten storeys" as described in Vaganova. I was unfamiliar with this, that Vaganova had broken the body down into ten segments (storeys, like the storeys of a building) and that perfect alignment (which I'm sure is very rare) was necessary for perfection. Some of our Vaganova technique people can do much better than this, I'm sure

Thanks for posting that, Jeannie. One of the things I'd intended to when starting Ballet Alert! is to write letters to people who do things like this. I've never done it -- I think I will this time! Perhaps some other Ballet Alertniks would like to do the same? Jeannie, would you mind posting the address for correspondence? Thank you!

Calliope, your post made perfect sense. I know exactly what you mean by a dancer in whom the viewer has total confidence (a rare creature indeed). To me, though, he or she is a dancer beyond technique rather than a technician. Those dancers, rather than making you look at them and noting how perfect the technique is, make you forget technique. So for me, a technician is one whose dancing calls attention to the technique -- not in a sense of "Look ma, I can turn" -- but that one is conscious of the technique. Of course, it's more than jumps and turns; the linking steps, positions, placement, etc. are as important, if not more so. One mustn't stumble over the feet, or smudge the steps, in between the jetes or the entrechats. I think the difference between "facility" and "technique" is apt -- it's one I've often heard. Facility is what you're born with, technique is, not just what you do with the gifts, but HOW you do it. To use a musical analogy (as probably nearly everyone on this board has taken piano at some time in their childhood ?), it's being able to play all the scales cleanly, master those "Etudes" books, be able to play arpeggios and trills. (While facility would be having a hand with a 12-key spread, or a very strong and loose fourth finger.) If that's all you can do, you won't win the Tchaikovsky Piano Competition, which often does not give a gold medal just to make the point that clinically clean playing isn't enough. I'm editing to add that my first paragraph was not intended to dispute or argue with Calliope's definition. If anything it was to point out how we often use a word very differently -- which I think was one of Leigh's initial ideas for the thread. [ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Another Ross Stretton interview, this time on Ballet.Co. http://www.danze.co.uk/dcforum/happening/2450.html

I'm concerned about this term "heritage works." This is new to me. Is it code for "works which we'd like to dump because we think they're outmoded but we don't dare?" As soon as a ballet is termed a "heritage work" to me, that means it's dead in the mind of the artistic staff (or whoever dumps the ballets in that bin.) "Oh, we don't have any heritage works this season. Damn and blast. Go down to the freezer and get three of them."

Another good question, Leigh I think often when we say "(s)he's a technician" many people mean "only a technician" or "primarily a technician," as though something is missing. If one is happy about the technique, then "he has a strong/solid/fine technique." (This is the way I use the words, but it's also the way I read the words.) "Only a technician" is someone who does the steps cleanly, as though they might in class. It often means they can jump higher or turn more than others, although not necessarily. (Sorry, I can only give Danish examples. There are one or two in any generation -- Arne Bech from the 1960s and 1970s and Christina Nielsen from the 1980s and 1990s are two of them -- who are not bravura technicians -- there's no flash, they're solid and modulated. Bech always danced the "odd man out" (the man without a solo) in the pas de six. He was a textbook, but not a very interesting one.) I agree with you about the technical bar. There are a lot of reasons dancers don't get promoted to principal, but I think in most of the major companies there is a level of technique that a company would want to say, "If you're a principal at NYCB, or the Kirov, you have to do x, y and z." Although other companies don't have the exam that the Paris Opera Ballet has, and that we've been reading about lately, perhaps they go through the same process. I also think of dancers like Cynthia Gregory, Merrill Ashley and Peter Martins as technicians -- not bravura technicians; that's Baryshnikov or Peter Schaufuss, for me -- but I don't mean that in a negative way, but a descriptive one. It means that I came away from their performances with a mental image of a pure technique. If I went to a Martins performance, I expected perfection (and almost always got it). If I went to a Nureyev performance, I never expected perfection, though I sometimes got something much more. Of the current generation of dancers, I see a lot of tricksters. I haven't seen the current crop of City Ballet people enough to comment.

To me it's when the dancer seems at one with the music -- meaning, I suppose, that my eye is not fighting my ear as I watch. There are times when a dancer is inside the music -- completely at one with it, as though he IS the music -- that I see the choreography more clearly. It also refers to phrasing -- which, in music, is the same thing as it is in singing or speech. A musical dancer doesn't break in the middle of a phrase, so it's "Oh, what a lovely time I had last night at your party" instead of "Oh! What alovely (pause) timeIhadatyour PARTY!!!!!) For me, musical dancers I've seen live were Fonteyn, Kirkland, Lis Jeppesen and Rose Gad of the Danes among women. Nureyev, Arne Villumsen and Alexei Fadeyechev among men. Viviane Durante, too -- in Swan Lake and Scenes de ballet. Cojocaru in Symphonic Variations. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I didn't see Nureyev -- before my time. I believe he only did it twice, very soon after he defected, with the Ruth Page company. There's a story -- perhaps in the John Percival biography? -- that is a stunning slice-of-Soviet-life. ABT came to Leningrad and Nureyev was sent out of town so that he couldn't mix with the foreign devils. He was very upset because he couldn't see the repertory, especially Theme. He asked a friend to film the performance for him. Film was either very expensive, or very scarce, or both, so Friend watched the ballet first, before trying to shoot it, and then filmed it, but stopped the camera at repeats -- i.e., he only filmed one of the double tours. So Nureyev didn't know how many there were until very shortly before he had to go on and was, um, surprised!!!

I'm going to move this post to Anything Goes.

In Charles Payne's book about ABT, he wrote that Chase brought the music to Balanchine and asked if he could make an opening ballet to this music that was just like Ballet Imperial. I hadn't heard of the Act III connection. I think the idea of the relationship to Sleeping Beauty came from writers, not the program notes (I write this not reading the program notes). I don't think it's either a distillation or a gloss, but something separate. Probably because I read Payne's book around the time I was first seeing "Theme," I've always compared it to "Ballet Imperial" (which, of course, at the time I hadn't seen) and admired Balanchine for giving ABT a ballet that LOOKED like a grand ballet but wasn't quite one -- the soloists aren't really soloists; ABT didn't have four soloists, in the sense of Sleeping Beauty fairy-level top soloists, then, but the ballet makes it look as though it did. One of the reasons why I do rate it a great ballet, though, is because it can accommodate the "Gut Cruncher" dancers as well as the perfumed ones. It can be about music, or technique, or speed, or line, or love, or a spiritual connection and, occasionally, all of those things. Distillation for me, more than gloss, if I can only choose between the two.

Thank you for that, Aubri. It's very nice to have an insider's view, and from someone who's studied various techniques. (I agree with you that the dancers named are very fine actors.) I have a question -- is what is taught at the Conservatoire very like what is taught at the Paris Opera school, or different?

We've been talking about "Theme and Variations" a lot here. I thought it might be interesting to find out which past performances of "Theme" you treasure, which formed your opinion of the ballet? I saw many more performances of the ABT "Theme" than the NYCB "Theme." I saw NYCB do it the first season I saw ballet, but I have no memory of who I saw (blush). When I saw the ballet again in New York, it was danced by Heather Watts, whom I didn't think particularly suited the role. I also saw Ashley and Farrell, who were very different, of course, but both perfectly suited to it. "Theme" was in ABT's rep consistently throughout the 1970s and 1980s. I can't remember (double blush) if I saw Makarova in it -- surely she must have done it. I remember Kirkland the most clearly. She was about 21 or 22 and was extraordinary -- technique, atmosphere, presence, the whole nine yards, as it were. She seemed so frail, but didn't dance frail. Croce's "porcelain-coated steel" comes to mind. While she was not a warm performer -- no grins, no eye contact with the audience -- she was an extremely vulnerable one; the warmth was to her partner, and shown through her body. I have vague memories of Van Hamel (whom I usually loved in everything) and Cynthia Gregory, but the clear one is of Kirkland. During the late 1970s, when the company got the full-length Sleeping Beauty, Theme seemed to be demoted, relegated to Saturday matinees and given to soloists as (it seemed) a consolation prize for not getting the real thing. I saw some performances in that vein that I wish I could forget. But one good one stands out for me -- Kristine Elliot, a small blonde dancer with an unfashionable line (she was more Fonteyn than Makarova) who was very regal and very musical. Later, in Copenhagen, I saw Rose Gad, an extremely musical dancer who phrased her dancing beautifully. Another "exotic" version of the ballet that I liked immensely was the Kirov's production which was shown in D.C. about 10 years ago with Asylmuratova. A colleague said at the time that she was more orchid than rose, which was true, but I still liked her. After years of seeing ABT's kiddie version, it was good to see a grown up one again. (I should say, too, that Theme has looked better at ABT in recent years; no longer a "kiddie version." I'm very sorry I missed Gillian Murphy's performance; I've heard so many good things about it. And during McKenzie's first years as director, I thought McKerrow very good as well. I also saw Eleanor D'Antuono a lot. There were some who said she was very like Alonso, and others, overhearing that, who reached for their (metaphorical) knives. Of the men, I especially remember Fernando Bujones. Not, perhaps, the most princely partner, but quite impressive and powerful in the flying ronds de jambe and double tours. But then I saw an old film clip of Youskevitch, and I have never seen anyone dance with such power, in this or any other ballet. Those air turns were up and down with the speed, force and steadiness of a jackhammer. I didn't realize, when I started this post, how many Theme casts I'd seen. A role that can provide fine performances from an Alonso and a Farrell -- and an Asylmuratova, Kirkland, McKerrow, Ashley and Van Hamel -- surely ranks as a classic -- one for the time capsule

I've been discussing "Theme and Variations" with several friends lately, and these discussions raised an interesting question. One friend said the ballet was a "distillation of Sleeping Beauty" another said it was a "gloss on Sleeping Beauty." (Both people love the ballet.) I thought this was an interesting distinction. Which do you think it is? A distillation -- Sleeping Beauty boiled down to 20 minutes, everything extraneous removed. In other words, if we had to lose Beauty to the time capsule, Theme would suffice. Or a gloss -- a work that captures the superficial charms of Beauty (and certainly is by someone who understood that ballet and its tradition thoroughly) but lacks the depth of the original?

I had wanted to stay out of this until more people had posted, but since the thread has gone quiet.....I think this is too important a topic to let die a quiet death. To me, this is one of the most central questions in ballet today. It's been an issue at some of the top companies -- both Britain's and Denmark's Royal ballets. It is NOT an issue, I think, at NYCB, and I don't think Martins has gotten credit for this. If a director at NYCB suddenly decided to do only Romeo and Juliet and Manon -- and new works in that genre -- mixed in with works by the new resident choreographer, say, David Parsons, and the Balanchine repertory was reduced to ten ballets -- THAT'S what's been going on elsewhere. As Ballet Nut points out, though, this trend has hit second and third-tier companies as well. The great example was Boston Ballet, I think, where there was a very definite tradition -- in its early stages, but thoroughly in place, in the school (Vaganova) and the repertory (Petipa classics). As Ballet Nut pointed out, the Oakland Ballet had a tradition of revivals of Americana and Diaghilev Ballets and this profile has been changed completely by a new director. The San Francisco Ballet example is one that, at the time, was considered a good change -- the board wanted to raise the level of the company and make it more classical. (That was the publicly stated goal of the board chairman, Mac Lowry.) It was a very controversial policy, for fans as well as dancers. It is the Board who determines the direction that a company will take now. Sometimes I think they do it without understanding the impact -- there is no requirement for an Environmental (or Aesthetic) Impact Statement. There's no realization that bringing in X director in, say, Boston, who is not only not a Vaganova person, but in some ways an anti-Vaganova person will necessarily result in changes at the school and the company repertory. They may do this without meaning to -- so who's Vaganova? -- and be looking for a big name, a choreographer who's just had a hit, or a director, late of another company who's on the job search circuit. I think, like all things, in many cases, results are what dictates success or failure. I think (and I may well be wrong on this) that the Oakland Ballet's Diaghlev repertory was an attempt to give the company a distinct profile; it was trying to do what SFB wasn't doing. In other words, perhaps the ballets were NOT the thing. If Brown was brought in to bring in a more contemporary repertory that was eclectic, but in a different way, then one could say the company still had the same artistic mission statement. If a new genius choreographer took over Company X and dazzled everyone with a new repertory, there would be fewer complaints. One of the problems is that a new director will bring in his own tastes in repertory and dancers. If a contemporary dance choreographer takes over, he will probably choose dancers whose bodies are less suited to the classical or neoclassical repertory. They may look just great in his ballets, but not in the former core repertory. This is when fans start to notice. The new director may also, of course, come in and throw out all the favorite dancers because they don't suit the repertory (s)he is planning to bring in. What do you think about this? Take your own home company -- and I hope we will get responses from all over, not just New York on this one. Does it have a distinct profile? What would you think if a new director came in and shook the place to the foundations? How much should a board consider before hiring a new director?

Welcome, Britomart -- I hope you'll continue posting and not withdraw into Lurkdom On soloists not dancing, it was this way in the Good Old Days too. When I started watching City Ballet there were some soloists who danced a lot -- like Colleen Neary -- and others whom I barely saw (like Susie Hendl and Suzanne Pilarre). Some people were promoted never to be seen again (or seen only in Serenade, a ballet that was not very well cared for in the late 1970s). I think "Soloist" is an awkward category for companies that don't have predominantly hierarchical repertories. You're really either a star or you're not -- unless a company needs to flesh out those big Petipa ballets.

Liebs, did you purchase the book recently? If so, where did you find it? I've been looking for it for years.

Oh, would that ballet choreographers had this much imagination!!!! One problem is thought, that since ballet companies seem to retire people at 30 now, it's becoming harder and harder to deal with mature plots. Ethan Stiefel as Bill Clinton? Ashley Tuttle as Monica? De Luz as Putin?? Too short, too young. Happy New Year, Ed -- good to see you posting again. We've missed you And thanks for the links -- they're a good laugh. Anyone with good, solid, newsworthy ballet ideas?

Thanks for the info, Jeannie. There are always some people who want to do it themselves and some who'd rather buy a package.

I had a call from a woman who will be running a tour from America to this Festival. I've never used her services; she's been running tours to Russia for 20 years and certainly seemed very knowledgeable in our brief phone conversation. For those who may be interested, I'm posting her company's press release. (Again, this is not an endorsement as I have not used the services myself.) ---------------------- An Imperial Russia for All the Senses: Second Annual Mariinsky International Ballet Festival St. Petersburg, Russia –– March 9-19, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C., August 21, 2001 – – This spring, you can see and experience Russia and the romance of its world-class theatre, summer palaces, foods and fine wines, all from the eyes, ears and palate of an imperial czar! Tour Designs, Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based travel company with 20 years experience in Russia and Eastern Europe, is offering unique personalized tours for groups and individuals to attend the second annual Mariinsky International Ballet Festival in St. Petersburg, Russia March 9-19. Packages include meals and accommodations at the luxurious five-star Hotel Astoria at St. Issac’s Square in the center of St. Petersburg. Top international ballet stars, along with travelers from throughout the world, again this year will assemble for the festival at the historic Mariinsky (formerly the Kirov) Theatre. Dancers of the famous Kirov Ballet Company will perform a series of nine nightly programs at this magnificent theatre, culminating on the tenth evening with a spectacular International Stars Gala performance. Last year’s stars included Ethan Stiefel and Carlos Acosta, among many others. Several of Russia’s most renowned dancers will perform classical ballets on this world-famous stage, including such favorites as Manon, Romeo and Juliet, The Nutcracker, and Cinderella. In all the surrounding grandeur of this magnificent city of high culture, you will be lavished in royal treatment, including exquisite authentic Russian cuisine, and private receptions with the stars and maestro. And, if the breathtaking ballet experiences are not enough, you will be treated to a fascinating behind-the-scenes look inside the Mariinsky theatre. Plus, you can enjoy the privilege of excursions with a private vehicle and driver to top shopping areas, as well as escorted visits to the opulent palaces, art museums, and the original Fabergé workshop, just two blocks from the Hotel Astoria. The tours will use private, professional guides, fluent in English. Packages range from U$1,299 pp twin share + air + visa for weekend stays; and from U$ 4,199 pp twin share + air + visa for the full 10-day itinerary. Special package airfares are available with Finnair through Tour Designs. Landing and storage arrangements are available for private jets, as is full assistance with visas, and customs-regulations guidance for bringing home objects d’art. An optional side-trip to Moscow for a performance at the Bolshoi is available. American Marylou Foley, CTC, principal organizer and guide, says “This is an absolute wonderful opportunity to travel back in time to the Bolshevik era and experience the extravagant lifestyle of the czars, while still enjoying the very best of today’s Western amenities.” For more detailed information, contact Tour Designs at (800) 432-8687 or visit their Web site at www.TourDesignsInc.com.

What a terrific idea!

And who danced the treasured ballerina role of "Moosey."