Alexandra

Thanks to both of you

And I'd forgotten Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Another one that, for me, when I first heard about I said, "Oh, no." (I'm not generally a fan of Cute.) But, like the Rooster and his Hens in "Fille," it's so perfect... There was also a suite for vegetables that I only saw a bit of on German television once -- a dancing cabbage. Again, I thought it was a bit much until the darned vegetables started dancing. There was a solo for Merle Park as a cat ("La Chatte") that I never saw, and a "Voices of Spring" (also for Park, with Wayne Eagling) and "Explosion Polka" that Ashton did for a Vienna production of Fliedermaus one New Year's. He is the one choreographer who really didn't make any effort to have his works last. Odd, for someone who's thought of as old-fashioned and sentimental (not my characterization) he was so willing to create in the moment -- something that suited one (and only one) specific dancer at that one particular time. I think I've read that "Lament of the Waves" (another dancer-specific piece) might be revivable. (There are many other ballets, of course, but the ones we've been mentioning, even these last ones for special occasions, were all filmed.) Helena, there was an abbreviated, slightly changed version of "Salut d'Amour" (thanks for the title) at the Met Opera Gala in 1983.

Thanks, Juliet. I took Jeannie's "academy" reference to be small "a," as in dance school. (And please, let's not rehash this issue again ) I'd missed Mme. Hermine's mention of Albert Evans -- it came up on the end of a page, and there was a post that followed it quickly, so more people might have missed it as well.

Thanks for the additions. There was a solo Ashton did for Dowell that he danced with Makarova's short-lived company. I missed it, but it sounded divine, the kind of thing Ashton did so well, where he captured the essence of a dancer, as Fokine did with "Dying Swan." There are dozens of those, and I wonder if they'd look like anything on other people. (Although "Thais" didn't even look like a cousin of itself here in D.C. and people loved it. So ....) Another one -- I don't know if it had a name -- was the 60th birthday present for Fonteyn, where he choreographed a solo for her out of ports de bra (she remained seated) and put in a gesture, or arm/head position, from all her roles, in order -- or at least, enough in order to justify a comment that you could tell when the people in the audience had come to ballet by the moment they started crying.

I used to want to slip the conductor (at ABT) $25 and say, "For God's sake, speed up the tempo!" But I saw some lovely performances. Slow, but lovely. Did you see the NYCB practice clothes experiment, atm? You had your chance! Fokine was enormously important -- and a good lesson in how someone who did turn the world upside down and was The Man can disappear in an instant, at the whim of another (he was fired in his prime and he never got another company; he wandered, a freelancer, for most of his life.) I think the generation of choreographers that followed were very much influenced, and one could argue that he's the father of modern expressionistic ballet (although I don't think that would have been his intent; in a funny way, he was a classicist, a Noverrian classicist). I think for 20 years, most choreographers had to think twice before putting a woman on pointe. (Not Balanchine, who seems to have been immune to Fokine and cared not a whit for his "reforms," which can also be seen as anti-dancing.) One of the great moments in ballet history I missed, by accident of year of birth, was the meeting John Martin arranged between Fokine and Martha Graham in a public forum. It must have seemed a great idea at the time (They didn't get on, and Fokine was moved to tell Martha that he thought her dancing was ugly.)

As delightfully wicked as this is, before the thread gets totally off-track, I think it's an interesting, serious question, and I'd like to read some more answers I'd add that in addition to A) Creator and B) Conservator, it is possible to have C) Creator/Conservator and D) neither. Always looking on the bright side....

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I think that's why I keep going.

I'd like to second the "anyone can do them" comment. It's something we often hear/read, and probably in class, they can. But I can't remember the last time I saw a really solid set delivered onstage. There may be a technical reason for this -- IS THERE, VICTORIA??? I remember one ABT principal (not a ballerina, in my book) lurching through Don Q some years ago and I swear, she fouetteed right into the wings and (perhaps) pushed off against the wall and fouetteed out again.

A lot of sense. I think the age question is a big part of it. When I started going to ballet, there were very interesting dancers in their 40s. It was a bit of a scandal that some companies started cutting soloists and principals at 35. Now you read that dancers are over-the-hill at 30. If you look at photos of companies in the 1940s, the dancers of all ages look very grown up to me. The 20-year-olds look like adults, not kids. Today, the 30-year-olds have to try to look like kids. This is part of the youth culture, and part that the contemporary/pop dance is so high energy that it really only suits very young dancers. If you go back even further, to the 19th century, look at all the ballerinas who were gave convincing performances at 16, 18, 21. That was a youth movement, too, and youth was seen as beautiful and touching, but they didn't look like children. They were dancing grown up roles. The difference in hierarchy -- that that is disappearing in some places -- is something I've not thought of. Thank you, Victoria.

Ballet has always evolved, I think, by stealing -- from folk dance, from art, from drama, from popular dances -- and it has to speak to each generation. Often it's recycling old forms in new costumes and new contexts (example, Balanchine's "Western Symphony.") The American critic Marcia B. Siegel once wrote (I forget where) that perhaps ballet companies are like modern dance companies in that they're the best in the first generation when all that creativity just explodes. I think that may be true in a way, although there are companies that have lasted more than two decades (like, two centuries), so there's more to it than that. It's just very hard to maintain something at a high level -- and perhaps not so interesting. Do you want to create your own works and make your mark, or do you want to try to maintain the works of the guy you bumped off to get the job? (figuratively speaking, of course). Perhaps one of the reasons the Kirov survived so long is that when the repertory was a bit dowdy, they brought in a first-rate balletmaster to clean it up. Then they had a Great Genius for a long time, long enough to really whip them into shape, and they could live off that repertory, adding a few novelties in between the Really Big Hits, for decades. The dancers question is always a thorny one, because the younger generation (not necessarily in years; some people see their first ballet at six, some at 60) will always believe that the older one that keeps moaning about the Sheeznos and the Heeznos are just dotty old coots who can't get over a first love. One of the nice things about becoming middle aged for me is that you see how things change, and I do relish the sight of people who once argued with me that I had to "get over" the notion that Farrell was definitive in this ballet, or Kirkland in that, finally, dogmatically, intolerantly, saying the same thing about a dancer they'd seen. I think the proof that, at least in some cases, Standard, not personal loves, is at work here is that the Older Generation opens its arms quite readily to a new genius. Two examples I often cite are Sibley/Seymour and Kirkland. I know many people who loved Fonteyn who were ecstatic when they first saw Antoinette Sibley and/or Lynn Seymour, neither of whom were at all like Fonteyn. But they were interesting, obviously born ballerinas, and it was going to be so exciting to watch them grow up. The same with Kirkland. When I first came to ballet, many people who also loved the current, or previous generations' ballerinas, said, That's the One -- and said it very happily. One of the things I learned from studying the Danish ballet was that, given enough time, things can come back. There were three or four really bad dips in that company's history and three or four peaks. It's hard to see that in a company that's only 25 or 50 years old, but it's as likely, in theory, that things can get better as that they will get worse. (Hope you're reading this, Young Dancers )

Manhattnik, I toyed with the idea of having a thread that said, "Top 10 ways to get NYCB off its moorings," and definitely "Giselle" -- how about the Mats Ek "Giselle?" or should there be a new version -- was one of them. And then I thought, why give anyone a battle plan? (with no disrespect to either board or management of NYCB, but there could always be the Hostile Takeover model that worked so well, so quickly, in Copenhagen :-) )

I'd like to underscore Liebs' last point, which I think is very important -- that the new director would not be going it alone, because there are people on staff that would continue the company's traditions. I think, though, that it may be dangerous to assume this. Yes, it's the way it's supposed to work, and I don't think there is any reason at the present time to believe it wouldn't work, but the past decade has seen such upheaval in the ballet world internationally that I don't think it's certain. Two or three different people on the board, who knows? A financial crisis we can't foresee..... There are companies that have been turned upside down and passed from director to director with traditions broken, or no chance of a tradition growing. That's why I thought it was worth spending so much time on the situation in Boston. I think we need to be aware of these things are they're happening. Otherwise, we're left in a desert saying, "when did they cut down all the trees?"

That's all right, Drew. The custard pies have, unfortunately, already been thrown As always, you've made some very interesting points. On the question of standards, I agree that any dance capital is going to have standards; that's partly what makes it a dance capital. Whether younger choreographers like it or not, they're going to be held up to Balanchine. "Not good enough; go back and try again." (I keep remembering the story of how Papa Taglioni brought Marie to Paris, thinking she was ready to be the Next Sensation; saw one evening at the Opera and realized that times had changed and she still needed work.) I don't think that has changed. When it gets to a point, though, that so many choreographers think their work is not getting a look because it doesn't look like Balanchine's -- not that it's not as good as, but because it's different from -- there's a problem. It may not be solvable. It may merely be a case of, "Tough" -- or will be solved when the next great choreographer comes along. I think the scrambling for Who's Greatest is usually put to rest when there's a dominant figure. I think dance critics could be more careful about how they write "he's no Balanchine" reviews. And this is what I meant by the Balanchine-centric issue. Centrism to me isn't that I love this person more than all others, but to see the world through that framework and to assume that everyone else sees it the same way. So when a critic writes, "Of course, he's no Balanchine," what does that say to someone who's 25 years old and hasn't read the dozens of previous reviews that explain exactly why this or that choreographic sin makes a work not up to snuff? I do want to say, though, that no one is saying that Ashton or Bournonville is the greatest, greater, etc. etc. and one of the things that I've found troubling about the turn this thread took is the idea that if you've ever dared mention the name of another choreographer, or do not say that Balanchine is *the only* great choreographer, then some people read that as being anti-Balanchine, and I protest that. As several people have said, I think it is possible to have many loves. I do think there is a geographical element, as well as a time element. My older friends have much more catholic tastes than my younger ones -- and I think that's because they were exposed to more good work, good dancing, and have more models. But there are thousands of Russians who think that Grigorovich is *the* great choreographer, I imagine -- certainly every interview with a dancer or critic from the 1960s through the 1980s I can remember seems to assume that everyone knows that "Grigorovich, of course, is a great genius." It's not a view I share, but I write that from minimal exposure. If I saw his work night after night after night, I may well find riches and subtleties in his work that I don't see now. I may not. I don't know. (I was hoping that one of our Russians would chime in on Grigorovich, or the view from that part of the world on Balanchine, not to try to whip up an anti-Balanchine faction, but because I'm genuinely interested.) I certainly agree that Balanchine's influence on the history and development of ballet is of crucial importance. One thing that I've learned from doing the Ballet Alert! calendars for the past four years that surprised me -- shocked me -- however is that that influence is not as visible now outside New York as it was 20 years ago. (I mean this in the sense of the repertories in regional -- oh, god, smaller, lower-budget, not-full-season, mostly-outside-of-New York -- companies. We still read that American ballet is made in Balanchine's image, and there certainly are many choreographers working within the Balanchine aesthetic, but the repertories aren't, for the most part (Miami City Ballet aside) chock full of Balanchine. 20 years ago, I think you would have found a Balanchine ballet on every program. Now, it's more likely to be one Balanchine ballet every year. (San Francisco Ballet has more; Pacific Northwest Ballet usually has more, but not, I think, this year. Washington Ballet, which has been doing only one Balanchine a season the past few seasons, will do one per program next year; these are the exceptions. There also companies that don't do any Balanchine. If you don't believe me, you can subscribe and get the Season's Preview issue ) At the risk of starting another food fight -- and I honestly do not mean to insult anyone by writing this -- the Joffrey Ballet model seems to be the dominant one in America now. A combination of neoclassical, contemporary and pop ballets. And I think the San Francisco Ballet model -- which has gotten much more tilted to the contemporary dance/homegrown "classics" model than it was a few years ago -- may become more of the model than either New York company as well. (Again, I guess I have to clarify, that's neither a wish nor a fear, just a prediction.) [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Thank you, Jeannie. I'd also add that my comments about the Fourth Ring Society were not intended to be pejorative; quite the contrary. Someone (I believe it was Jeannie) commented that there were many ABT fans in New York as well, and I commented that my perception of the two companies' audiences was different. I meant that NYCB's was more company-loyal, while ABT's was more dancer-loyal. That's all. Of course the Fourth Ring Society is a great idea -- and part of ballet's traditions; there was always a "gallery audience," the devoted, knowledgeable audience -- in ballet.

Diana, I think that's a very good question. NYCB's identity has always been that it's a creative institution rather than a custodial one. (Meaning the new works come from in-house choreographers. With very rare exceptions -- Balanchine's stripped down "Les Sylphides" being one -- the repertory has always been generated in house. Of course, nothing is written in stone. If the board felt that it was more important to preserve Balanchine's works than keep that tradition, they could certainly put in a conservator, someone who wasn't necessarily a choreographer but whose primary interest was to preserve as much of that choreography as possible, even at the expense of his own career. (My personal Ballet Hero is Hans Beck, a choreographer of no small talent -- he did those solos in Napoli -- who didn't choreograph but, instead, saved 17 of Bournonville's works for 35 years.) This makes it interesting. For whom would you vote? The choreographer or the conservator? (Not suggesting a change now, to be clear, but, as Jane postulated, when the current director resigns, happily, at a ripe old age.)

James, I thought what you wrote about "La Valse" was very interesting. I've only seen that in the film version, never live, and I never ranked it as one of Ashton's best ballets -- it just looked like a corps de ballet exercise to me (sorry; I'll get out the tape again ) Sometimes when Ashton is discussed, there's the sense that he really didn't create that much, or that so much has been lost that there really isn't a repertory, but I think there are at least two dozen ballets that are in repertory (loosely defined; recently performed) or revivable (revived in living memory). I'll start a list, and if anyone thinks of one I forgot, please add it. (Also, I should have moved this initially but I didn't notice it was on Dancers; moving to Aesthetic Issues). Full lengths: Cinderella, Romeo and Juliet, Sylvia, Ondine, La Fille Mal Gardee, The Two Pigeons. Les Rendezvous, Les Patineurs, Apparitions, Dante Sonata, Symphonic Variations, Scenes de Ballet, Marguerite and Armand, A Month in the Country, Daphnis and Chloe, Birthday Offering, The Dream, Monotones, Enigma Variations, Jazz Calendar, A Wedding Bouquet, Thais, Five Brahms Waltzes in the Manner of Isadora Duncan, Illuminations, Rhapsody, La Valse. That's 20 short works and six full lengths. There were also substantial portions of "Swan Lake" and "Sleeping Beauty" and a lot of pas de deux and diverts for galas. What have I missed? {I hope it's not necessary to note that I'm not counting works to make a case that Ashton is less than choreographer X, nor more than choreographer Y; just to put together what the surviving repertory is.) [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

James, I thought what you wrote about "La Valse" was very interesting. I've only seen that in the film version, never live, and I never ranked it as one of Ashton's best ballets -- it just looked like a corps de ballet exercise to me (sorry; I'll get out the tape again ) Sometimes when Ashton is discussed, there's the sense that he really didn't create that much, or that so much has been lost that there really isn't a repertory, but I think there are at least two dozen ballets that are in repertory (loosely defined; recently performed) or revivable (revived in living memory). I'll start a list, and if anyone thinks of one I forgot, please add it. (Also, I should have moved this initially but I didn't notice it was on Dancers; moving to Aesthetic Issues). Full lengths: Cinderella, Romeo and Juliet, Sylvia, Ondine, La Fille Mal Gardee, The Two Pigeons. Les Rendezvous, Les Patineurs, Apparitions, Dante Sonata, Symphonic Variations, Scenes de Ballet, Marguerite and Armand, A Month in the Country, Daphnis and Chloe, Birthday Offering, The Dream, Monotones, Enigma Variations, Jazz Calendar, A Wedding Bouquet, Thais, Five Brahms Waltzes in the Manner of Isadora Duncan, Illuminations, Rhapsody, La Valse. That's 20 short works and six full lengths. There were also substantial portions of "Swan Lake" and "Sleeping Beauty" and a lot of pas de deux and diverts for galas. What have I missed? (I hope it's not necessary to note that I'm not counting works to make a case that Ashton is less than choreographer X, nor more than choreographer Y; just to put together what the surviving repertory is.) [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Since the Kirov brought a whole program of Fokine to London so recently -- and has been traveling with that program -- I thought it time to give Fokine his due. What do you think of his ballets? Which have you seen? Do you think there's any likelihood that a body of his work will be revived/survived? This is a choreographer who made thousands of people in Western Europe fall in love with ballet, who was a passionate reformer and theorist about ballet, whom many believe is one of the greatest choreographers ever, yet we seldom see his works today. As late as the 1950s, I've read articles maintaining that "Petrouchka" was the greatest ballet of the 20th century. What do we think about Fokine today?

I agree, Stan, but I don't think Jane meant to be writing his obit, or in the hopes that he'd be gone. I think her question is a good one, because I think it's the next director who will really determine the shape of the company. I'd also agree with Manhattnik that Martins has shepherded the company well, generally speaking; he's kept the shape of the company. In all our talks about internationalization, NYCB hasn't come up as a bad example, and with reason. I think the structure of what Balanchine and Kirstein built is still there. I think they'd recognize it. And I think that is no small accomplishment, given the current ballet world. So the Next Director will really matter. If that structure has settled a bit oddly and could use some adjustment here and there, it's the next one who will snap it back in place -- or push it further off. (I think if you follow the history of the Royal Ballet, you see this pattern.) As for the repertory, personally, I'd hate for it to become an omnivore company. I want companies to maintain their identities, and NYCB is Balanchine's baby. Robbins, of course, deserves a place as well. Whether any ballets from the last 18 years will survive? Again that depends on who's next. I definitely hope the trend to doing "the classics" is gone, but I fear it isn't. I'm saddened that a whole generation of dancegoers will have that "Swan Lake" as their model, and I don't want to see City Ballet do "Merry Widow" or "Madame Butterfly," or "Le Corsaire." The real paradox will be when the company gets a choreographer who is on Balanchine's level, or who catches the public's imagination. That's when Balanchine will begin to disappear, or, at best (given what's happened elsewhere) become the company's Festival choreographer: works carefully (or uncarefully) maintained and dragged out for special occasions. At first once a year, then every five, then..... (Disclaimer: no, that's not what I want to happen; it's a prediction.) [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Manhattnik, I'm very sorry you were so offended by how the question was phrased or that you felt it unfair. Re Denby, perhaps partisanship is yet another thing that is in the eye of the beholder. I opened my copy of "Dance Writings," completely at random, and found this (p. 468): "In California, Khruschev asked, "Which is better, your ballet or ours?" The fact is, the Bolshoi choreographers couldn't have imagined dances like Agon, Episodes, or Divertimento No. 15. Bolshoi dancers couldn't have danced them, or the conductors played the scores so straight. It may be that the New York ballet public is the only one quick enough of eye and ear to enjoy these pleasures. Does that prove our ballet is better? No, only different." I have no objection to a critic thinking one company is better than another -- it may even be true -- but I think the way that's phrased is an example of ...I don't know what I'd be allowed to call it, so I'll stop there. (I admire Denby. I can, and have, read passages of him over and over for the sheer beauty of the writing. This is not intended as an attack on Denby. I don't have a drop of Russian blood and, at the time I read that comment, I'd never seen the Bolshoi, but I remember thinking, "I wonder how a Russian would feel reading that?") I don't want to fuel this further, so I'm going to bow out now. I hope, however, that this is an issue that we can continue to discuss. Although I'm very sorry for those who were offended by this topic, it's an issue that comes up often in the press, in interviews, and in conversation, and we have to be able to discuss some things, or we'll be reduced to going back to the Victorian era, when all one was allowed to say in polite company was "one lump or two." [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ] [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Yes, I do remember her, Mme. Hermine, and I believe she was with Stuttgart before ABT. (And they paired her, with a black male dancer, in Chocolate in "The Nutcracker," which either shows extraordinary insensitivity or total obliviousness ) We're missing one Very Big Name in today's ballet world. I'm surprised. A man, dancing in New York......many of you mention him frequently as "why doesn't he dance more???"

Amy, thanks for the clarification (re "formerly Salome") I couldn't figure out who "Amy S" with so many posts was! Welcome again!

Andrei, was Petipa really so dry? Even if the patterns come from somewhere else, there's a different coloration if they're suitors.

Thanks, Dale. Now we know why that misunderstanding happened AND this thread has solved a longstanding Coppelia mystery -- now we know what Dr. C did with all the pay-off money! (Came to New York and opened an ice cream parlor. And you all thought he was a mean man )

Yup, just the dull ones. Thanks, Andrei. Now I can ask better questions in Heaven