Alexandra

Juliet, every time I've thrown away something, I find I need it later. I actually tossed Walter Terry's biography of Bournonville once! (It's pretty vestigial, but I would have liked to have had it around.) Libraries don't need these programs -- they already have them. They take 'em and they toss 'em if they're duplicates.

When I started out I not only saved every program, but every review. Sigh. They began to take over my apartment, and so they had to go. I still have several shopping bags full of programs in the back of the hall closet. The last time I moved them, one fell apart -- and out came a correction slip reminding me that I had once seen Van Hamel dance Kirkland's role in "The Leaves are Fading." Farrell Fan, long ago we had a thread here -- I believe Jane Simpson began it -- of how do you keep track? Several people have spreadsheets of what they've seen and who danced what. In my next life.....

Yes. Capsule 3 (the Ashton/Bournonville Cutesy-Wutsey Capsule) is the one I was thinking of when I made my original What If? list. Nothing wrong with any of those ballets, and within a broader repertory they're wonderful. But if that's all we have left.....

I was secretly hoping to be Glazunov if I couldn't be Tchaikovsky, but alas Melissa, I don't believe any of the ghosts you mentioned have yet reported for duty.

I was secretly hoping to be Glazunov if I couldn't be Tchaikovsky, but alas Melissa, I don't believe any of the ghosts you mentioned have yet reported for duty.

Chance or Fate? I didn't mean to say that the works I'd listed were neglible or unworty. With a choreographer like Balanchine, with such a vast oeuvre, everything needs to be taken in context, and if the only thing that were to survive was PAMTGG, I'd wager that future generations would say, "Hmmh. There IS something there. Must be that the style has changed so -- but I wish they'd saved some of his work." Here are two more What Ifs on Balanchine: Space Capsule One, which lands on Venus. 1. Suite No. 3 2. Scotch Symphony 3. La Source 4. Chaconne 5. Symphony in C 6. Serenade 7. Meditation 8. La Valse While Space Capsule Two hits Mars with: 1. Apollo 2. Agon 3. Monumentum/Movements 4. Violin Concerto 5. Electronics 6. Variations 7. Symphony in 3 Movements 8. The Four Temperaments Who was Balanchine?

Mme. Hermine, it's a very good idea for a thread, I think, and limiting it to ten keeps us disciplined. (And, from what history tells us, accurate.) We could also do a What If "top ten" -- What if all that were left of Balanchine was: 1. The Steadfast Tin Soldier 2. The Costermonger pas de deux from Union Jack 3. The Explosion Polka from Vienna Waltzes 4. Slaughter 5. Harlequinade 6. Meditation 7. A Door and a Smile 8. Stars and Stripes 9. Serenade 10. Nutcracker. History would see him quite differently than we see him now, if that list were the remains, c. 2050.

There was a grand ballet presented in America (Philadelphia) at the end of the 18th century called "Democracy." All of the Indian Chiefs (what few there were left in the area anyway) were invited to attend -- to be instructed, no doubt -- and did so, dressed in evening clothes (formal tribal best). There's a report of it in Marian Hannah Winter's "Pre-Romantic Ballet." Maybe there's something about the end of a century that leads to excess? I'd be curious to see Excelsior, but knowing that it was all "reconstructed" and I wouldn't be seeing Excelsior made it less attractive. There was a similar ballet called "Sport". Progress and Sport; that sums up the century very well -- theirs and ours.

Nope, Leigh. Those airport security people would never let you sneak in Ballo Only 10. Sad to think, in 50 years or so this may be what's left. Bournonville left 16 well-rehearsed and ready for rep (not including La Sylphide, which makes 17) and by 1930, all the serious ones were gone -- they say it was the mood of the day, but I think it's because they could no longer do them. Now, they really, deep in their hearts, would like to get rid of the three comedies because they're "too silly". (And they don't know how to do them.) The same thing is happening to Ashton -- the difficult ones have fallen away and we're going to be down to "Les Patineurs" and "Les Rendezvous" and, on a good day in a good year, "Symphonic Variations." As for Balanchine...it's hard; the most performed works (judbed by looking at regional company's reps) keep changing. The two most popular ones this season have been "Divertimento No. 15" and "Slaughter". 15 years ago, it was "Barocco" and "Serenade," 10 years ago, "Agon" and "Four Ts." Into the space capsule (not necessarily my favorites, or all of my favorites) would go: 1. Serenade 2. Four Temperaments 3. Apollo 4. Symphony in C 5. Theme and Variations 6. Liebslieder Walzer 7. Stars and Stripes 8. Chaconne 9. Davidsbundlertanz 10. Symphony in 3 Movements

Has anyone ever seen this one? (Too much to hope there's an old-timer around, I guess, but there have been recent revivals.) In an 1881 Ballet, Optimism as It Used to Be Innocence can be disturbing. Yes, on a wintry Paris evening early in the 21st century, it can be a tad unsettling to be abruptly transported to the sunny optimism of the late 19th century, when Science was conquering Backwardness for the sake of Humanity and Western nations were celebrating a relatively peaceful European century around the flag of Progress. [The 19th century "relatively peaceful"? Between Napoleon and the Franco-Prussian War, not to mention a few dozen revolutions......] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/15/arts/dance/15ARTS.html

Hi Dale! Happy New Year. We've missed you I wonder if there's been a marketing survey asking about start and stop times? Perhaps weeknight people said, "Hey, I work and need to get home early!" I think the earlier Tuesday start time was to accommodate people who'd asked for it. (The idea of "I'll subscribe to anything as long as it starts at 7:30" is foreign to me, but everyone has different priorities.)

I like Roma's answer. A man has a right to name his own ballet. How 'bout, "It's SerenODD and the music is Tchaikovsky's SerenADE for Strings?" I think he thought it was AH-gon, but so many of us like to think it's Ah-GONE.

Me too. And for the best of reasons I always heard it pronounced "Serenade" -- who got that pronunciation from the dancers. So SerenADE sounds weird to me. Joan Acocella's article was in Dance Ink, now defunct.

I don't know, Lillian, but I had to break in and say HAPPY NEW YEAR. Good to see you here again

:sigh: I was hoping for a natural vodka clicker, Manhattnik

:sigh: I was hoping for a natural vodka clicker, Manhattnik

I'm Shostakovich, too -- I think this is rigged (I'm really Tchaikovsky.) Did anyone click all the vodka answers, just to see who that is?

I'm Shostakovich, too -- I think this is rigged (I'm really Tchaikovsky.) Did anyone click all the vodka answers, just to see who that is?

Jhora, what a kind question I think sometimes the stage name is suggested -- or insisted upon -- by the company or perhaps the dancer's agent. So that gets you off the hook. "But MOM, they MADE me do it"

Hi, Jhora. Writing reviews can be fun -- at least, until people read them and complain to you about them When I started writing reviews, a senior critic (the man who hired me) gave me two pieces of advice I've never forgotten. The first was to write from the gut. Meaning, if the news angle that evening is a new work by Choreographer X, but the thing you can't stop thinking about is how absolutely wonderful Dancer Y looked in one of the other works, that's your story. Of course, you have to mention the new ballet, but the excitement you feel about the dancer will come out in your writing, so that should be your "angle." The second thing is, write as though the dancer's mother is looking over your shoulder. That doesn't mean you have to be dishonest -- if someone doesn't do a good job, say so. But anything can be said politely, or in a way that doesn't hurt. Sometimes there's a temptation to be funny, or sassy, for the sake of the writing, and it's good to remember that these are real, living, breathing people with feelings. (Probably not as much a problem for someone who is also a dancer, although some of the harshest critics I know are dancers.) And finally, something I've read elsewhere from several people and I think is good advice: write what you see. It's that simple. Don't try to impress anybody, don't try to agree or disagree with your friends. You may be the only person in the room who likes something and everybody else is saying, "So what was that???" Or (more likely) you may be the only person in the theater who is disappointed and thinks a dancer is sloppy, while everyone else is standing on their seats and jumping up and down and cheering. I take my motto from Davy Crockett "Be sure you're right, and then go ahead." Meaning, write what you see, write what you think. Have fun -- keep us informed of your adventures (We have several writers who post here, including those who write for DanceView and Ballet Alert!, and we always jump in first on these questions -- I hope readers will answer as well. Here's your chance to train someone right ) [ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I'm bumping this, since no one answered it -- and it's a good question. I can't help, Ken. Can anyone else?

Thanks for this, Juliet. It's a good topic. I'm going to move it to the Ballet Competitions forum, as this one is just for board business.

Interesting question, Estelle. Does repertory dictate hierarchy? I'm sure part of it's historic -- the "if you're of this rank, you don't have to dance in a group larger than eight" idea that we talked about over on the POB thread. When all the works are small-cast, hierarchy doesn't matter. The rankings today are also a matter of salary. Farrell Fan is correct, I believe, that NYCB dancers were listed alphabetically, but they still had rankings, and they knew what that rank was. There are always dancers who look as though they're about to be promoted and aren't. I've learned that sometimes it's because they are very good in a few roles, and we think we want to see them do everything -- but the direction knows their limitations. The Royal Danish Ballet had only two ranks until 1992: solo dancer and ballet dancer. The star men got promoted very early, usually at 20, 21 or 22; 26 was considered a very late promotion. Women usually got promoted in their mid-twenties. There was another rank of First Solo Dancer, but it was only given five times in the company's history. I think the hierarchy question is now part of the contemporary/classical question. If you're a small company of only 20 members, you probably aren't going to worry about titles. Can a company dance "Swan Lake" and "Sleeping Beauty" without ranked dancers? (I mean grand-scale versions of those ballets, not mini ones.) I wonder. Does hierarchy create ballerinas? One of my disappointments with much of the contemporary (not modern) dance that I see today is that the dancers are all so anonymous. When ABT did Kylian's "Sinfonietta" here a few years ago, I was shocked during the curtain calls when I realized who was dancing -- I hadn't checked the program, and I thought they were all corps. The stage was full of principals. They danced beautifully, but there was nothing in the ballet that let any one of them look like an individual. After much pondering, I drew the conclusion that while the lack of hiearchy makes a company LOOK as though it's more democratic, it's not, in the sense of fostering individuality. A hierachy allows people to achieve individuality.

The difference in mindset is an interesting thing to ponder. Is it because Russia still is not a commercial society in the way the West is (I'm sure it's fast becoming so, but, again, the ethos of the society was formed where honor meant more than money). If everyone -- spectator, competitor, judge, director -- is concerned with art and performing at the highest level rather than being on the Wheaties box, that might make a difference. I remember in one recent Olympics a commentator comparing European and American skiiers. The American had been expected to win a gold and tanked -- coming away with nothing. A European woman who had also been expected to medal high had come in fourth, or something. The American was in Deep Despair giving different reasons why he'd fallen. The European woman was having chocolate with her competitors, enjoying the day. It was a totally different mindset. (Allowing, of course, that there are undoubtedly some Americans who care for more than medals and some Europeans who are deeply mercenary )

I think one can make the case that competitions push dancers I'm also wary of them because they have become a way for dancers who are not always well-schooled, but who can dance two or three variations that especially suit them, or can be coached and overcoached technically so that they can "deliver" in a competition, enter competitions as a way to get noticed, to boost a career. I don't blame them for doing this, if any "blame" it's to the teachers for pushing them and the companies for taking them in as soloists, or into the corps, but with soloist roles. It's not unusual for medal winners (and I'm not going to name names ) to get into a company, do their two or three specialty pas de deux, and then fall not be able to hold the same level in regular repertory. I think there are other ways to build dancers without pushing them.