Alexandra

I think LMCTech's take on Balanchine would be shared by many, but I agree with Leigh. (I also don't think that Balanchine was great merely because he "pushed the envelope." His career can also be seen in the context of carrying on a noble tradition.) France has never shirked from the new, and I'll bet Paris would have loved good avant-garde works -- as would London, many of whose critics dismissed Ashton as too old-fashioned for years. I think Balanchine's "envelope pushing" is related to the music he used. Give him modernist music, he made a modernist ballet. Give him Tchaikovsky, he did Theme and Variations. Balanchine was Russian Orthodox and quite conservative in many ways. I never bought the image (not that he was selling it) that he woke up every morning, thrilled to break yet one more rule. I think he made work, using the materials at hand, using, bending, breaking or reviving rules as he needed them. The genius, for me, is that he had such a huge palette. I think he would have used that in any country, and I think -- as long as he had a company to work with -- he would have achieved the same stature, even though the works would have been different.

This was posted on ballet.co.uk: http://www.washtimes.com/entertainment/200...712-5341340.htm Michael Kaiser has set up a program to train arts administrators (funded by philanthropist Vilar), and former Royal Ballet company dancer Bruce Sansom has been named one of the first twelve Fellows.

DianaL posted this on Links, and I'm moving it over here to see what people think of Robert Gottlieb's take on the ABT and NYCB seasons just completed. There's a lot in this to chew on. http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4573

I don't know much about Blum, but wanted to respond to the teachers question. There is as book by Gretchen Ward Warren called "Master Teachers of the Ballet" (I think).[see corrected title in Victoria's post below.] It's very readable, even if you're not a teacher. It covers 105 teachers who were living when Warren researched the book, which is only about five years old, I believe, and explains their methods and combines capsule biographies with interviews. The appendix contains one class from each teacher. It's a lovely book. (Disclaimer: we share a publisher, but that's not why I'm posting this!) I forgot to mention Constant Lambert, who was of crucial importance to the Royal Ballet, I think, because he served as musical advisor. Ashton didn't have the musical education Balanchine had; he wasn't a musician. Lambert had not only knowledge of music, but connections to musicians. I don't know of a Lambert working today; perhaps one is. [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I don't know much about Blum, but wanted to respond to the teachers question. There is as book by Gretchen Ward Warren called "Master Teachers of the Ballet" (I think).[see corrected title in Victoria's post below.] It's very readable, even if you're not a teacher. It covers 105 teachers who were living when Warren researched the book, which is only about five years old, I believe, and explains their methods and combines capsule biographies with interviews. The appendix contains one class from each teacher. It's a lovely book. (Disclaimer: we share a publisher, but that's not why I'm posting this!) I forgot to mention Constant Lambert, who was of crucial importance to the Royal Ballet, I think, because he served as musical advisor. Ashton didn't have the musical education Balanchine had; he wasn't a musician. Lambert had not only knowledge of music, but connections to musicians. I don't know of a Lambert working today; perhaps one is. [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I've made another change, at least on a trial basis. Everyone will now be able to delete his or her own posts. I'd disabled this feature because, many months ago, we had someone who would make contentious posts, then go back and delete them when they caused comment, leaving a thread that didn't make any sense. I don't think we have anyone here now who would do that, and I know it's an inconvenience -- sometimes people do put up something that they realize would better be left unsaid, or that someone else has said on another forum, etc. If problems develop, we can always shut off the feature again, but for now, if you need to delete one of your own posts, you can. (Use the edit function, and click the box that says Delete post at the top of the message box.) Also, a reminder, if you need to edit a post more than once, you can avoid having the string of "edited bys" by simply deleting that line every time you go in to edit.

A quick response to Steve's question about what would you call Balanchine's "Union Jack." I'd call it a character ballet.

Thanks very much for posting that, Lara. I was especially interested in your reports on audience reaction to Carmen. That ballet was a hit on Broadway for six months in 1948! (Another indication of how tastes can change.) The cigarette smoking would have seemed very sophisticated then; this was nearly two decades before the Surgeon General's report. Chairs and chanting were seen as very avant-garde. There's a video of Zizi and Roland Petit, who created the leading roles, called "Black Tights" that you might be able to rent, if you're curious. The thought of a passionless "Carmen" is very sad to me -- it used to be a real sizzler! Not a great ballet, IMO, but it can be great fun. I didn't realize La Scala was already on our shores. I hope we'll have other reports, on this program and on the "Giselle." It's a traditional production, with changes, from what I've read.

I never can resist "what ifs :)" On Tudor, I've read several critical assessments (books, reviews) that said that Tudor was always essentially English and didn't quite transplant -- certainly not in the way Balanchine did. I think of Balanchine as a crab (no, she said wearily, this is not an insult). Put him down, he starts burrowing in instantly; the beach doesn't matter. I think he could have worked anywhere, because the world of the theater was his world; everything else was extraneous, spice. He came here, he became intrigued with America, he used American material, both from popular culture and the very bodies. I think his ballets would have looked very different if he had stayed in Paris (he was maneuvered out of that job by dear Lifar; it wasn't pretty) or in Russia -- and how he would have adapted to the Soviet aesthetic is a fascinating piece of conjecture. Could he have worked in England? He didn't seem to like the English; I don't think the "if you are awake you are already vulgar" was a sour grapes statement; I think he meant it. While he was interested in some of the Danish dancers in the 1930s and needed a job, I think Copenhagen would have been too small for him. One of the many things that's fascinating about Bournonville--given that it's very difficult to talk about either Bourononville or Petipa, or other 19th century choreographers because so much of their work has been lost or changed--is that he's the only artist in ballet history that's generally considered "great" who spent nearly his entire career in a provincial theater. I think if we had Perrot's works, Bournonville's would look very small--but there would have good bones, and his work in Vienna indicates that he had the capability to make larger-scale works, just not the means. (One Danish balletmaster, on a fussy day, said to me, "Bourononville had six good dancers and the rest were supers.") Back to Balanchine, he had an incredible opportunity -- he got to paint on a blank canvas. He captured the imagination of both the city's intellectuals and artists, and the general balletgoing audience. That's an opportunity he couldn't have had in Paris or Russia. But I think he would have adapted equally well, just created different work.

Lots of saints and angels, aren't there? Lucia Chase is an interesting case because she was on stage as well as behind the scenes. I've read that, in the early days, she didn't let anyone know she was funding it -- as she was dancing, as she was going on the road, sharing a room. I think she deserves a lot of credit for what she did and I'll recommend, again, the essay about Chase's directorship in Charles Payne's book about American Ballet Theatre. I read it in my first balletgoing years and found it a real eye-opener. As much as we love to talk about the great years of creation, those choreographers were, to a man or woman, pills. They fought over everything, they'd withdraw works at the drop of a hat, they were always flouncing out to go somewhere better. One reason Chase turned to "the classics" was because she didn't have to deal with choreographers! While Chase may have had a heart of gold, Harkness strikes me as having lots of money and ambition and being a little dim in the taste department. She had some wonderful dancers, though. (Two very different takes on this company are offered by Croce -- forget the title, but it's an evisceration -- and Walter Terry's "Hail, Harkness! Hail!" both in their respective collections.) I've never read an unbiased view of what she did to Joffrey, but this may be one rare instance where there isn't another side to an issue. I don't know very much about Denham. He's either a Saint or "if I ever get my hands on that s.o.b. I'll wring his neck." Hurok is an interesting case -- he might be worth a thread. I came into ballet as he was leaving it, and I heard a lot of grumbles about how he had ruined ballet, and I couldn't figure out how someone who presented ballet could be ruining it. I'm beginning to understand that point of view now. He had a grindingly popular taste and skewed repertories accordingly -- nothing wrong with being popular, but there are those who felt that squeezed out art. More importantly, he promoted stars at the expense of companies. I saw the effect of this, reading reviews of the Danes in the 1950s, when their tours were managed by Columbia Arts Management, and 1965, when it was a Hurok special. The reviews of the first tours were all about the company and the ballets. Dancers were barely mentioned, and never one over the other. The 1965 reviews were all Star Fever, 90% reports on dancers and personalities. The contrast, in less than a decade, is incredibly stark. What's wrong with that? Depends on your point of view. It was undoubtedly fun at the time, but I can see how it was a road to hell. (Yes, he brought ballet to lots of people. So did Columbia Arts Management.) Volkova was also a hands-on person and not a patron saint (as Leigh mentioned) but was certainly someone I'd like to clone. Her work in England is almost completely unknown. She taught class there after the War and many Sadlers Wells dancers took them -- after taking the mandatory company classes. This upset DeValois, and eventually Volkova moved on -- was squeezed out, really. I didn't know until I talked to Danes (where Volkova ended up, after discovering a teenaged ballerina named Carla Fracci during her very brief tenure in Milan) that Volkova had coached Fonteyn in Aurora and Odette/Odile and it had been felt at the time that Volkova gave her her final ballerina "polishing" -- but I can't find any mention of that in the British press (nor, except for a veiled reference or two, in Fonteyn's autobiography). She was reportedly close to Ashton and attended every rehearsal of "Symphonic Variations" and was helpful when he had the idea of paring it down -- again, no mention of that in books about Ashton. But the first half of this century was Diaghilev-centric (in the West) and the second half was choreographer-centric (like the auteur theory in cinema) and ballet masters, or what went in to actually making a dancer, wasn't really thought of.) In Copenhagen, Volkova came in when the company had been rent apart by the loss of its director, no successor in sight. She took over the school and, with Stanely Williams (on whom she was a great influence), taught the children. She also taught the aspirants class (the 16 to 18 year olds). She taught company class. She attended every performance. She geared the classes to what the dancers were doing on stage that week. She could make classes that prepared you to do a step you were having trouble with. She trained teachers. She coached dancers and she was absolutely adored. She just forgot to hold press conferences about it. While they may not have been of such crucial importance in other companies (Volkova was the only one working in Copoenhagen on that level then) there must be other Great Balletmistresses/masters who worked without recognition, yet made a difference. I don't know who was responsible for the Royal Ballet's dancing during the 1960s, a Golden Age. We hear about Rosemary Dunleavy as having an extraordinary memory and being the guardian of the steps at NYCB, and John Taras, especially when he was younger, was reportedly an excellent balletmaster. Patrice Bart is doing the honors in Paris (plug: we have a very interesting interview with him, by Marc Haegeman, in the next issue of DanceView which will be mailed out next week). Others? And if anyone can fill us in on the Ballet Russe (post-Diaghilev) saints, please do.

Lots of saints and angels, aren't there? Lucia Chase is an interesting case because she was on stage as well as behind the scenes. I've read that, in the early days, she didn't let anyone know she was funding it -- as she was dancing, as she was going on the road, sharing a room. I think she deserves a lot of credit for what she did and I'll recommend, again, the essay about Chase's directorship in Charles Payne's book about American Ballet Theatre. I read it in my first balletgoing years and found it a real eye-opener. As much as we love to talk about the great years of creation, those choreographers were, to a man or woman, pills. They fought over everything, they'd withdraw works at the drop of a hat, they were always flouncing out to go somewhere better. One reason Chase turned to "the classics" was because she didn't have to deal with choreographers! While Chase may have had a heart of gold, Harkness strikes me as having lots of money and ambition and being a little dim in the taste department. She had some wonderful dancers, though. (Two very different takes on this company are offered by Croce -- forget the title, but it's an evisceration -- and Walter Terry's "Hail, Harkness! Hail!" both in their respective collections.) I've never read an unbiased view of what she did to Joffrey, but this may be one rare instance where there isn't another side to an issue. I don't know very much about Denham. He's either a Saint or "if I ever get my hands on that s.o.b. I'll wring his neck." Hurok is an interesting case -- he might be worth a thread. I came into ballet as he was leaving it, and I heard a lot of grumbles about how he had ruined ballet, and I couldn't figure out how someone who presented ballet could be ruining it. I'm beginning to understand that point of view now. He had a grindingly popular taste and skewed repertories accordingly -- nothing wrong with being popular, but there are those who felt that squeezed out art. More importantly, he promoted stars at the expense of companies. I saw the effect of this, reading reviews of the Danes in the 1950s, when their tours were managed by Columbia Arts Management, and 1965, when it was a Hurok special. The reviews of the first tours were all about the company and the ballets. Dancers were barely mentioned, and never one over the other. The 1965 reviews were all Star Fever, 90% reports on dancers and personalities. The contrast, in less than a decade, is incredibly stark. What's wrong with that? Depends on your point of view. It was undoubtedly fun at the time, but I can see how it was a road to hell. (Yes, he brought ballet to lots of people. So did Columbia Arts Management.) Volkova was also a hands-on person and not a patron saint (as Leigh mentioned) but was certainly someone I'd like to clone. Her work in England is almost completely unknown. She taught class there after the War and many Sadlers Wells dancers took them -- after taking the mandatory company classes. This upset DeValois, and eventually Volkova moved on -- was squeezed out, really. I didn't know until I talked to Danes (where Volkova ended up, after discovering a teenaged ballerina named Carla Fracci during her very brief tenure in Milan) that Volkova had coached Fonteyn in Aurora and Odette/Odile and it had been felt at the time that Volkova gave her her final ballerina "polishing" -- but I can't find any mention of that in the British press (nor, except for a veiled reference or two, in Fonteyn's autobiography). She was reportedly close to Ashton and attended every rehearsal of "Symphonic Variations" and was helpful when he had the idea of paring it down -- again, no mention of that in books about Ashton. But the first half of this century was Diaghilev-centric (in the West) and the second half was choreographer-centric (like the auteur theory in cinema) and ballet masters, or what went in to actually making a dancer, wasn't really thought of.) In Copenhagen, Volkova came in when the company had been rent apart by the loss of its director, no successor in sight. She took over the school and, with Stanely Williams (on whom she was a great influence), taught the children. She also taught the aspirants class (the 16 to 18 year olds). She taught company class. She attended every performance. She geared the classes to what the dancers were doing on stage that week. She could make classes that prepared you to do a step you were having trouble with. She trained teachers. She coached dancers and she was absolutely adored. She just forgot to hold press conferences about it. While they may not have been of such crucial importance in other companies (Volkova was the only one working in Copoenhagen on that level then) there must be other Great Balletmistresses/masters who worked without recognition, yet made a difference. I don't know who was responsible for the Royal Ballet's dancing during the 1960s, a Golden Age. We hear about Rosemary Dunleavy as having an extraordinary memory and being the guardian of the steps at NYCB, and John Taras, especially when he was younger, was reportedly an excellent balletmaster. Patrice Bart is doing the honors in Paris (plug: we have a very interesting interview with him, by Marc Haegeman, in the next issue of DanceView which will be mailed out next week). Others? And if anyone can fill us in on the Ballet Russe (post-Diaghilev) saints, please do.

Diaghilev is the obvious one, I think. And, as Jeannie mentioned on another thread, a whole passle of Kings and Queens (not to mention Czars). Not all of them had the best motives, perhaps, but they certainly kept ballet going -- and employed a lot of dancing masters and dancers. And, IMHO, they had a much better track record than the bunch that's running ballet today There's still an elite; it's just a different elite, and one that's not necessarily educated and trained in the arts. I suppose Edward James must count, although his interest, or perhaps his means, to support ballet was shortlived. In San Francisco, the current incarnation of the San Francisco Ballet owes a lot to Mac Lowry, who wanted to have a first-rate classical company and brought Tomasson in to build one. An extremely controversial move, as both dancers and audience were very attached to the director (Michael Smuin), so one could argue that this was one man being a dictator -- but patron saints are always dictators, I think. In Denmark, there was a politician -- Niels Mathiesen -- a member of Parliament who (savor these words) loved the arts. He fought for their existence and their funding. He was the first Minister of Culture (before, this had been lumped with the Ministry of the Church, or whatever its name was). In the 19th century, even though there was state support, the Theatre Chief was the Culture Czar, and there were at least two Lincoln Kirsteins, men of taste and passion who had an artistic agenda and went about fulfilling it with amazing taste and efficiency. In England there was Lillian Baylis, but perhaps one of our British visitors can explain her!!!

Diaghilev is the obvious one, I think. And, as Jeannie mentioned on another thread, a whole passle of Kings and Queens (not to mention Czars). Not all of them had the best motives, perhaps, but they certainly kept ballet going -- and employed a lot of dancing masters and dancers. And, IMHO, they had a much better track record than the bunch that's running ballet today There's still an elite; it's just a different elite, and one that's not necessarily educated and trained in the arts. I suppose Edward James must count, although his interest, or perhaps his means, to support ballet was shortlived. In San Francisco, the current incarnation of the San Francisco Ballet owes a lot to Mac Lowry, who wanted to have a first-rate classical company and brought Tomasson in to build one. An extremely controversial move, as both dancers and audience were very attached to the director (Michael Smuin), so one could argue that this was one man being a dictator -- but patron saints are always dictators, I think. In Denmark, there was a politician -- Niels Mathiesen -- a member of Parliament who (savor these words) loved the arts. He fought for their existence and their funding. He was the first Minister of Culture (before, this had been lumped with the Ministry of the Church, or whatever its name was). In the 19th century, even though there was state support, the Theatre Chief was the Culture Czar, and there were at least two Lincoln Kirsteins, men of taste and passion who had an artistic agenda and went about fulfilling it with amazing taste and efficiency. In England there was Lillian Baylis, but perhaps one of our British visitors can explain her!!!

Thank you for this -- we'll look forward to your next report. I don't want you to think that because people don't post comments, that there isn't any interest. I'm sure there is lots! It's just no one else is up there (yet?).

Thank you for that, Alymer. I've always been curious about Valse Nobles et Sentimentales. At a panel discussion here in Washington during the Royal's recent visit, Russell Roberts said he thought "we've gotten back all we can," and David Vaughan piped up right away, "Oh, no. There's...." and had quite a few suggestions. There was another version of the Waltz in Act I of Sleeping Beauty, a pre-War version, with me, wasn't there? I've always been curious about that, too. The one I'd like to get back is the Nutcracker -- new designs would be fine, but I'd like to see the choreography.

Mashinka, that you for the information on Russian choreographers. As for Christopher Bruce, he was for awhile (perhaps a long while?) a resident choreographer with the Houston Ballet. I'm not sure modern dancers would claim him, and I'd call him a blend of modern and classical, which I suppose makes him contemporary or third stream (a term invented, I think, by Kerensky, an Anglo-Russian critic, that I wish would catch on!) I can't comment, really, because I've only seen two of his pieces. Leigh, your question is one that continues to fascinate me. If you look at the history of ballet with your institutional lens on, I think the luck of history has a great deal to do with it. Fokine was homeless -- think of it, at a time when we're bewailing that there aren't any great classical choreographers roaming around -- no one would have him. He taught class for two years in Copenhagen and staged one program of works, and the administration wouldn't let him back in, because he wasn't Danish (same went for Balanchine. There's provincialism, and then there's provincialism.) He did work with ABT, but he was pushed out there, too. He's criticized for peaking at 30 (the work he made after this time is often seen as remakes of his older works). He made a "Midsummer Night's Dream" and a work to Tchaikovsky's "Serenade for Strings," both of which I'd like to see. DanceView published a very interesting piece by Leland Windreich (which is in his collection of essays) called "Balanchine's Salad Days" where he remembered ballets of Balanchine's he saw in the 1940s, when Windreich had been a teenager. Not the ones he did for Ballet Society, but the ones for various traveling companies. He made a good case that they weren't all A-plus works, but also a good case that the reason for it was that Balanchine was working outside of an institution -- not enough time, not within the primary aesthetic of the company, and, most importantly, not his own dancers. Would Balanchine have achieved what he did without Kirstein? (please put the bottles and rocks down ) There are other choreographers (perhaps Lifar?) on the other hand who are in the C Conference who somehow manage to fall into, or steal, a classical company, have a lot of institutional support, and produce watchable work. Never underestimate the power of constant rehearsal and a beautiful theater. One of the problems with institutions is that there is a constant power struggle -- new ones coming up, wanting a chance. This means getting rid of whoever stands in your way. Each generation doesn't have equal talent. Or does it, but lacks equal opportunity? Sometimes, too, recognition is a big part of the game. When Balanchine made "Apollo," Diaghilev supposedly looked at it and said, "It's Petipa!" This excited him. There were others who thought it was retrograde, and going backwards against Fokine's reforms (and others who thought it wasn't classical enough and incorporated too much of the current sports craze to really last). What if Diaghilev had said, "None of that old stuff. I want something new, new, new. Stop piddling around with this nonsense and make another Barabau"! What if Massine had said yes to Kirstein? What if Ashton had gotten that letter? What if De Valois had liked Tudor best? What if Peter Martins had a band of passionately supportive critics? It would be interesting to make a historical matrix of choreographers with Leigh's question in mind. As for how do we get to see them, I like to think that, somewhere, the Royal Ballet of Ruritania is keeping them all, lovingly tended, until the borders open again.

I realized I'd omitted several people whose works I barely know, but I think are important: Leo Staats (I've only seen Soir de Fete, which might be dismissed today as a mere divertissement, but which exhibits a command of both structure and vocabulary that put him at the top; Balanchine admired him, I've read, and he didn't praise many other choreographers). Lifar is important, but from the little I've seen, I'd put him in the DeMille category. There are a lot of Russian choreographers we just don't get to see these days -- first would be Lavrovsky. After having seen his "Romeo and Juliet," finally, I'd really like to see more -- and I wonder if he got eclipsed simply because he was followed by an active choreographer. (I see him as Ashton to Grigorovich's MacMillan, but that may be way off base.) I've only seen tiny bits of Vainonen, Goleizovsky and Jakobson, and don't have a clue about Gorsky -- social reformer, or great choreographer? I never know how to rank Nijinsky because I think the only thing we have is Faun and a lot of legend. Others? Whether you're adding to the mix or just reranking the Top Ten, it would be interesting to hear more views. [ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I agree, particularly with the last sentence. I also think one's perceptions of how Martins' directorship is perceived in the press depends very much on which press one reads. The daily press is generally very supportive. The weekly/monthly/occasional press is mixed. The subscriber/audience/fan reaction is, of course, impossible to measure. It would be interesting to take a poll For regular NYCB-goers, what's your perception of the kind of direction people would like the company to take? More Balanchine/Robbins? More Diamond Projects? More Wheeldon? More something else? Has Wheeldon's appointment as resident choreographer meant that he's seen as the annointed successor?

I agree about the jokey aspect weathering well or ill. People complained that "Facade" had lost its subtlety very early -- when it moved into Covent Garden, if I'm remembering correctly (from reading, of course, not watching). I think it's as much that some of Ashton's dances are so made of his dancers -- Soupirs, the last Sibley-Dowell thing, was little more than glances and low arabesques, but they made something of it. If someone else does it -- not that I'm guessing that it's a deathless work that will enter the Canon -- it may well come back as glares and high kicks The whole revivals/what holds up issue is so hard to judge -- and is so interesting. I've been surprised to hear friends who didn't see the first casts say that Balanchine's "Union Jack" or "Tombeau de Couperin" aren't very good ballets. When they were new, I thought they were wonderful. (I don't usually think of Balanchine as being as cast-specific as Ashton, but in some cases, in a grand, big spectacle like "Union Jack," I think he was.) Back to Ashton, I didn't think any of the performances of "Symphonic Variations" I saw this spring were particlarly good, yet I talked to some people who were seeing the ballet for the first time who were very moved by it. I never know which is worse: to see a ballet you love not done very well and get cheered, or to see it in tatters and dismissed.

In Copenhagen, they called it "hurdy-gurdy" music -- and the company made cuts in it for the same reasons Estelle mentions

Perhaps not, Terry. I don't know her (which doesn't mean, of course, that dozens of others don't.)

It certainly does. Thank you, Brendan. I can't resist adding that a friend of mine, a long-time Royal Watcher (long time) grumbled when Vaughan's book came out, "Damn and blast. No one ever noticed that step before; now it's all anyone talks about."

Could we have a Royal Ballet season recap, too, please? I think we have enough Londoners here to do it justice, and it was an important season, not only because it was Dowell's last, but because of the content. For younger balletgoers, I imagine there would have been works that they hadn't seen before -- "Les Noces," "Song of the Earth," etc. (And there's a chance to compare the Kirov's with the Royal's Firebird.)

David Vaughan wrote about the Fred Step in his biography of Ashton, and mentions which character dances it in which ballets. It does appear in a lot of them. (And I'm pretty sure he wasn't the one that named it "the Fred step.") I can't remember any, but someone else may well be able to.

Thanks, Colleen! I was beginning to think no one had gone to ABT