Alexandra

Jane, I'm all for your "casting backwards" idea! I remember Lesley Collier's Aurora. She literally whizzed through in Act I -- couldn't slow down to do the Rose Adagio. But was never a convincing Princess, for me. I don't think I'd classify Aurora as an allegro role, any more than Odette-Odile. I think you're right: it's both.

Leigh, I think allegro/adagio may be a 20th century American classification, as heroic/lyric is a 20th century Russian one. Both leave out things, as Andrei mentioned in his post explaining why you need the noble, the demicaractere and the grotesque above. But technically, the danseur/ses noble were the adagio genre, dancing the slow, measured rhythms (saraband, pavane) and the allegro was definitely the demicaractere genre (courante). Also, an adagio (noble) needs line. I'm quite certain that Vestris's famous instruction to Perrot ("Move fast so they don't ever get a good look at you") is NOT because he was ugly, as the history books usually interpret this, but because he had no line, and you have to have line to do adagio.

Perhaps Petipa's leading roles were a different way of merging the demicaractere and the noble genres? The women's roles all seem to have bits of both.

Thanks, Andrei. Now, how about what I've heard referred to as the "black line" in Russian ballet: Kitri, Myrtha, Black Swan, Raymonda. Is that just a coincidence, with a line of ballerinas who were suited to, and danced, that employ? Or is that another genre?

One other thing that's worth mentioning, I think, is that I doubt any balletmaster in recent memory has sat down and said, "Hmmm. He's demicaractere, but she's semicharacter classical." They know it by instinct -- the ones that know it, that is.

Alexandra

As early as Baryshnikov's debut as Albrecht with ABT (1974?) Van Hamel was referred to in a review as "the company's state occasion Myrtha," indicating not only that she was not dancing the role regularly, but the attitude that real ballerinas don't do Myrtha. I saw ABT's Giselle in the 70s and 80s at least 50 times and saw her dance Myrtha only twice. As for her suitability to Giselle, I think there are a lot of dancers who could be good or interesting (or, perhaps in this case, better) in roles if they had proper coaching, but that's not the same thing as being inherently suited to a role. (She was a lovely Sylphide, btw.)

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited February 25, 2000).]

Jeannie, your memory is fine I think, though, that Mary was making the point that Van Hamel danced Myrtha early in her career, but by the mid-1970s, when she was beginning to be recognized as a ballerina, she got Giselle -- very briefly -- and then didn't go back to Myrtha, hence not having the opportunity to develop the role.

Re Aurora, as I've said before, I think female emploi is too complex for me I did think, though, that Van Hamel was not only a wonderful Aurora, but a "correct" Aurora, as she is classically proportioned (the waist bisecting the body) -- and certainly had classical line, a fine balance, etc. I liked her Lilac Fairy too, but that's a difficult role, because it was originally a mimed role (a really truly danseuse noble) and then in the early 20th century became a new type, the neoclassical role, with that solo (neos are tall with long legs. I have no idea how I know this.)

Another good question. I think it's up to the artistic director. Fokine was *adamant* that his ballets not be interrupted by applause, yet the last time I saw the Bolshoi do "Les Sylphides" each soloist came to the footlights for a bow.

I do think applause is different country by country. (In Copenhagen, when it's really good, the audience stomps on the wooden floor, but only at the end. It's great; get all the energy out through the legs) But they don't applaud much. It's also different in different times. I have a very fond memory of Nureyev receiving a standing ovation after his solo in the third act of Sleeping Beauty once. Now, he demanded it. He stood in fifth position, raised his arms, and made it absolutely clear that nothing was going to happen until everyone in the Met stood and acknowledged his (not insignificant) accomplishment. It worked.

Whew. Your list: "Desire, Bluebird, Sigfried, Albrecht, Nutcracker, James, Franz, Basilio, Ali, Conrad, Solor, Spartacus (Grigorovich), de Brienne, as well as male parts in "Le Spectre de la rose", "Grand pas classique", "Flower Festival", and peasant pdd from "Giselle". (The only ones I'm pretty sure about are Desire, Sigfried, and de Brienne.)"

Desire - danseur noble

Bluebird - semicharacter classical (henceforth called "classique")

Some differences: I watched some coaching sessions in Denmark a few years ago. A very young dancer was learning Desire's third act solo. Just the solo, mind you. But the coach stopped him when he was walking and said, 'No, you're walking on your toes, like the Blue Bird. You're a Prince. Get your heels down. Feel the floor." Desire needs line and weight, and how to hold the stage just by walking and standing. The acting is in his very being, and through mime. The Bluebird is a dance-acted role, the character is in the dancing. He also needs line, but it's a fleet line, not a still line. NOTE: I think one of the big confusions is this middle genre, the "classique." Some classique roles, like Albrecht, are thought to be danseur noble roles (because "danseur noble" is sometimes thought to be French for "hot star dancer," but this is a bad translation Some classique roles are thought to be demicaractere roles. I've heard Bluebird considered demicaractere. I've noticed that Kirov and Kirov-derived productions have a much more elegant, "classical" way of dancing the BlueBird pas de deux.

Now back to your list. Short answers:

Sigfried - danseur noble

Albrecht - classique (I've been told that in Paris, this was considered a demicaractere role. Also, in Denmark, this was one of Borge Ralov's great roles, and his other two were Petrouchka and Harlequin (!) He bombed as James.)

Nutcracker - danseur noble

James - classique

Franz - demicaractere

Basilio - demicaractere

Ali - I think we're too far from the original to tell. Now, it's almost a grotesque (exotic) role. I've noticed demicaractere dancers calling themselves "virtuoso" dancers. I'll bow to Andrei on this one (and of course, any additions or corrections you'd like to add...),

Conrad - danseur noble

Solor - danseur noble

Spartacus (Grigorovich) - 20th century employ. Hmm. Created for a great demi (Vasiliev) but I think would be considered, in Soviet terms, a heroic as opposed to a lyric role

de Brienne - danseur noble

"Le Spectre de la rose" - classique (Of course, I don't know what it looked like when Nijinsky did it. He was a demicaractere dancer, who also did Albrecht and Siegfried (but only in Paris)

"Grand pas classique" - don't know. Haven't seen it since I became employ-eyed

"Flower Festival" - demicaractere

peasant pdd from "Giselle". demicaractere

On Ruzimatov as Desire. I would argue that he is not a danseur noble primarily because he doesn't have the weight and he doesn't have the line. (Not to mention the height or the proper proportions.) Any interesting dancer can be interesting in any role. Horrid example. I met someone who had only seen "Rubies" in Copenhagen, and who didn't like the NYCB version. Why? "When you've seen a tall man dance that role, it just doesn't make sense with a short man." In Copenhagen, their "short man" had been injured and the second cast man was well over 6 feet tall, but very light -- light in spirit as well in dancing -- and he could be witty, so they put him in. The role was made for Edward Villella.

ATM, re Fonteyn and Makarova, I thought Fonteyn was too calm at first. I later realized that she was supposed to be calm ("supposed to be" by the rules of her style). This isn't to argue; tastes are different and many people adored Makarova and found Fonteyn dull. I found, when I started really looking at the "dullness" that it was quite interesting.

Bridget, yes, partners can definitely define a role for a generation.

Ilya, I agree that it's very confusing. The clearest definitions I've seen are in Noverre's Letters -- yes, very old, but that's the basis of it, one of the first times it was written down. There were genre crossings from the beginning. I learned for the first time a few years ago that Gaetan Vestris (the original Dieu de la Danse) was originally a grotesque dancer in his native Italy. But he was tall, good-looking and a good actor, and when Duport was about to retire and they needed a danseur noble in Paris.... (And people complained about it, too, but Vestris's PR machine won that battle.)

Stars do dance roles "out of type." But again, it is very misleading to just check a list of roles and think one understands what really happened. As was pointed out here, Martine Van Hamel danced Giselle -- once. And Myrtha many more times. So to say that she danced both roles is not really true. Danilova (another Myrtha) also danced Giselle a few times, and her fans were undoubtedly delighted. But she was still a Myrtha (and a very great ballerina -- at least by American standards ) There is also a very big difference between having danced the role, as in, "Whew. Now I can put this one on my role list" and being great in the role. There are dozens of dancers who danced roles for which they were unsuited, especially away from their home companies, but were taken out of the roles after a few performances simply because it was clear that they were unsuited.

As for physical requirements, I can only list this for men. Danseur nobles are 5'10 and above. Duport was 6'1, G. Vestris 5'11. A very rare genre. But also, more importantly, they are elegant and "classically proportioned," which means the waist bisects the body. The semicharacter classical (Prince rather than King) is 5'7 to 5'9. Also slender and elegant, although not necessarily quite so elegant, and the legs are long; the body is not classically proportioned. Demicaractere is 5'4 to 5'6. Their build is more stocky (but not inelegant) Grotesques were extremes: either very very short or very very tall. We're also talking about the natural body, not a stocky or naturally fleshy body starved to look more elegant. There are also steps associated more with one genre than the other, again descending from the original steps/dances assigned to each genre. BTW, I loved what Andre wrote above about the need for all the genres to make a truly great ballet. I certainly agree with that.

A general note: I would imagine it would be almost impossible to really understand this from reading a few posts here. Anyone who is genuinely interested might want to read old dancing master's manuals, or any of Ivor Guests books about the Paris Opera (which institution classified dancers formally by category until well into the 19th century at least), as well as dancers memoires, reviews, etc. (Checking and cross-checking a dancer's complaints about how he was typecast against his or her colleague's comments often sheds useful light on this question, for instance.) But until one has the historical background to really discuss this, I don't think the "so what?" attitude is very helpful.

I'd be very interested in reading how Andrei, as our only Russian-trained dancer poster, I think, would divide the genres physically.

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited February 23, 2000).]

Ah, words. They are hard. Someone could argue that Juliet (depending on the version) was a "lyrical" role, while a dramatic role would be Tudor's Hagar or Ashton's Natalya Petrovna. (I'm not offering this to dispute what Leigh wrote, just to point out that there are so many words with so many different shades of meaning.)

I'll bet that closer to Fokine's day, each of those three leading "sylphs" was a different genre. And speaking of sylphs....Bouornonville considered his La Sylpide a classical role, as opposed to demicaractere (Teresina in Napoli) and let it go out of repertory when he didn't have a classical ballerina. The great Danish ballerina Margot Lander (the 30s and 40s) was heralded in Giselle and Coppelia, but never danced the Sylphide. I asked why once, and was told, "she had a gimmick in her eye."

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited February 22, 2000).]

Marc, some day, try to get ahold of Croce's collections of essays. They're full of descriptions of Makarova's and Baryshnikov's technical supremacy. (I quote Croce often here; I admire her, and she's very very quotable. But on these two dancers, I never agreed with her, for what that's worth.) Croce certainly wasn't the only one, but she's very influential, as I'm sure you know.

I can chime in on the overstretched part. It means the body looks as though it's been stretched on a rack, every limb is extended as far as it is humanly possibly to extend it. Volkova (pupil of Vaganova and coach of Fonteyn in the classical roles) taught that the body must never be overstretched, that the dancer must always leave room, as it were, for more movement. The movement must never be finished, there must be the possibility that there's somewhere else for the dancer to go.

Interesting remarks, Marc. (I don't think I'm ready to think that Nureyev was not representative of the Russian school, though.) I'm curious. Do you consider Ulanova a typical Soviet swan, or a great Soviet swan? Again, only comparing to video, but Makarova's phrasing in the White Swan is almost a copy.

I was also interested in your saying that Makarova was too technically weak to do the role, as she was considered the epitome of technique (not only Russian), the ideal classical ballerina, by many here.

Ed, I think you're exactly right. I also think that the body types -- height, frame, musculature -- are as restrictive as voice, but dancers go out and strain their bodies every night. Many older dancers (dancers who grew up when employ was more strictly adhered to) think that this is the leading cause of injuries. If you are aware of employ, you'll find it popping up (often unnamed) in dancer interviews. How they felt totally comfortable in McBride roles, for example, but could not do Farrell ones. Well, duh, as the kids would say. It also applies to acting. Whether it's temperament or facial musculature, I don't know, but I've seen dancers with wonderfully mobile faces in comedy look ridiculous in tragedy -- it's not just that they "can't act." It's that the face literally cannot assume tragic poses.

Dancers can legitimately move around in fach/employ, as you say. Often a light dancer becomes heavier with age, for example.

The genres are much older than German romanticism, Michael. They go back to European mythology. The three body types are described as clearly in a Norse myth (they're called Jarl, Carl and Thral) as they would be later by Beauchamps and Noverre. The genres work in 20th century ballet, too. If you're interested, the best contemporary writer I've found on them is Joan Lawson. She has a fairly recent book called something like (sorry) "How to Make a Ballet" and actually sets out the "rules" for demicaractere ballets (the kind popular in the 30s and 40s) as if she wanted to have it written down somewhere, in case anyone ever wanted to revive them.

The genres are not really limited to just a few roles and ballets. They pervade the ballets, and the ballets of Ashton and Balanchine as well as Bournonville and Petipa. They've gotten corrupted in this century, but they're still there.

There's a big debate, for example, over Apollo, which is usually described as a demicaractere role (not character) I think. But then there's Peter Martins -- the role changed. But Balanchine made that change, and made an exception for a specific dancer. I think the Adams/LeClerq pairing is very much the same noble/classique contrast that Petipa used in classical pas de trois (Swan Lake pas de trois, for instance) or the two soloists in Jardin Animee. It's to provide contrast and texture, like a duet between a lyric soprano and a mezzo-soprano.

Alexandra

Giannina, I think it's the subtlety. She manages to be regal and humble at the same time. I don't see her as a literal swan (which she's not supposed to be, during the white act; just at the end). The dancing is so clean and so simple and so pure -- "classical," by my definitions. I never saw her do it in performance. The two Swan Lakes I have of Fonteyn are from the "An Evening with the Royal Ballet" film from the 50s and the Nureyev version with the Vienna Ballet. I will also say that I watched these videos dozens of times before I "got" it. I always had the sense that, beautiful as Makarova was, Odette/Odile wasn't natural to her. It was as if she was dancing in falsetto.

I'd like to thank everyone for their patience and forbearance for this thread. I have a horrible feeling we're insulting everyone. I can imagine our dancer readers seething. Dancers (anybody) hate to be put in boxes. If you asked Kevin McKenzie or Anthony Dowell at one of those "chatting with the director" nights (or almost any other artistic director today): What do you consider the place of employ in today's ballet scene? He/she would either gasp or gag or laugh. They may not have heard the term either (I first learned it reading Gennady Smakov's biography of Baryshnikov. Like much of the good stuff in ballet, it's a secret kept by the great academies). They certainly don't practice it. They would probably say it's out of fashion, irrelevant to today's repertory, etc. But one can also make the argument that ballet is an art of rules. Modern dance is not; that is one of its glories. But ballet is about rules, and not only do dancers look best when placed in the right "box," but so do the ballets. A "Swan Lake" where the Siegfried is shorter and bouncier than the four little swans is missing something.

Aha! Van Hamel *did* do Lilac, and was wonderful -- whether a Russian balletmaster would consider that her correct employ, I don't know, but I liked it. (I will readily confess my sense of employ for women is not nearly as keen as that for men.)

I'll join Mary in a minority of two. I had the misfortune to be a Fonteyn and Nureyev person who came to ballet in the age of Makarova and Baryshnikov. They were not interchangeable dancers, IMO, but that's how they were used. By that time, in the Ballet Boom, Age of Stars, the "star roles" and star career path was quite firmly established.

Aside from Makarova's lack of miming (a product of her era and training, I think, rather than one of employ), I never thought she came close to Fonteyn -- and this is comparing dozens of live Makarova performances to two not-top-of-the-line Fonteyn videos. Makarova definitely owned the role for most Americans of that time, and you could see the effect this popularity had on the bodies of the dancers around her. There were quite a few ABT dancers (Harvey, McKerrow, to name two of the most prominent) who actually changed their bodies from Fonteyn-like to Makarova-like. There were others -- my favorite being Kristine Elliott -- who were considered "old-fashioned" (i.e., Fonteyn) and passed over for Makarovites.

I also think that Mary's mention of the lack of roles is a HUGE factor. If Baryshnikov had had a wide repertory of challenging, suitable roles, we would all have been the richer.

To throw another set of factors into this debate, for those who accept my notion that Sleeping Beauty is a statement of Petipa's employ, I think "Jewels" does the same for Balanchine.

Good Lord, Leigh. Where in the world would there be a ballet master so dense as to think that James should be the one with the best beats?

ATM, I think you've touched on a very important point. Employ matters to people who think classical line is an integral part of ballet, and "to hell with employ" is more suited to people who care about other things.

Andrei, I had the misfortune to witness Baryshnikov's Siegfried, twice. He must have been more clever when he was young.

I think there are balletmasters today who don't know what employ is, and, even if they did know, would scorn it. Perhaps this is the American influence? Employ is not an American democratic concept.

Your putting it in prince, lover, fool terms makes good sense. Part of it is character, but part of it is also body type. (And for the Danes, a good bit of it is the nose. I'm not kidding. Turned up noses are demis, long, straight noses are nobles, tragedy.)

Michael, I think allegro/adagio makes a lot of sense too as a category. A languid dancer probably won't look her best in a role calling for quick footwork, and speed queens don't know how to take the time to unfurl their limbs in supported adagios. There are also other divisions, like "classical/romantic." I think a lot of this is lost. I'm comfortable only with 18th century and early 19th century because dear Noverre wrote it down, and historians quote dancers and balletmasters about how it evolved in the 50 years after Noverre's Letters. After that, I'm trying to glue feathers together to make a duck.

I also think there are lots of subtle distinctions within the genres that have gotten lost. Each of the fairies in Sleeping Beauty seems different, to me, and look best when danced by women who suit the role physically. I just don't know the names.

Victoria, I think Tudor was very careful about casting, too (except for his Leslie Browne period ) I don't know enough about Tudor to comment on how he used employ.

When the Stanislavsky Ballet came to DC, I thought they used employ better than most larger companies today. They knew who was the Prince and who the Jester, and those two dancers looked as different as night and day. But in the contemporary ballets (contemporary classical ballets) the same two men danced side by side and the distinctions were blurred. One was slightly taller; that's all. So a lot of it is how the body is used.

Alexandra

Alymer, I agree that she was a dramatic dancer, but I'd also make a plea that she was a great Romantic one. Isn't that what Ashton saw in her for "The Two Pigeons?" I always thought she would have been an ideal Bournonville Sylphide or Teresina.

I think that's a very good point. Every dancer doesn't fit perfectly into 18th or 19th century employ, and Baryshnikov and Soloviev seem to be prime examples. They needed 20th century ballets that used their gifts. Baryshnikov was, one reads, really only suited to Basil -- not much of a career.

To muddy the waters further, there's a "middle genre" that doesn't show up in the danseur noble - demicaracter -- caracter/grotesque trio. Its formal name is "semicharacter-classical" and it's often shortened to "classique" or "classical" -- and since the latter is the most overused term in ballet, it causes a lot of confusion. The history of this genre is that it came about at the beginning of the 19th century for the new breed of dancer who both danced and mimed [in the 18th century, dance and mime were quite separate; Noverre didn't believe that dancing could express anything but itself], had the fleetness of the demicaractere dancer as well as the grace of the noble genre. James and Albrecht are "semicharacter classical."

I've also noticed that some demicaractere male dancers are starting to call themselves "virtuoso" dancers, as the term "demicaractere" is so often misunderstood to mean something second rate, which it's not.

Re Myrtha, as I remember it, Van Hamel did do Myrtha (quite wonderfully) but before stardom descended upon her. At that point, the role was surrendered to soloists -- Jolinda Menendez, Nanette Glushak. Yes, she only did one Giselle, but she didn't return to Myrtha after it.ASBT's ide aof emploi was ranking. Myrtha, Effy, Lilac were all "junior ballerina" roles. Gregory danced both Giselle and the Sylph. Lots. And lots and lots and lots and lots. One of Alan M. Kriegsman's greatest lines was that when Gregory's Giselle makes her entrance, she "bounds out of her cottage, looking all the world as though she's ready for Wimbledon."

Leigh, re emploi, although I agree that there are differences among companies, I would add that some of those differences are due to misunderstandings or corruptions of employ. I would very much disagree that just because your leading men are short and muscular, that that is what the company's Princes must become. You wait until you have a suitable Prince. The great companies have retired ballets for several years because there wasn't anyone suitable to dance them. If the situation is really bleak (the Danes didn't have a great James for ten years, for example) you can put the "wrong" dancer in the role if he has other charms, and you start grooming the successor Now. And the directors know the difference and cast correctly when able.

Alexandra

Ah, Vaganova. What a woman.

Marc, I think it's partly ignorance and partly dancer pressure. No one likes to be typed and I doubt there are many dancers who would accept the notion that they're a fairy and not a swan. When star dancers dance roles out of their emploi -- and were not only applauded for it by the audience, but called "definitive in the role" by critics -- naturally, other dancers wanted the same chances. And they've been given them. Denmark held on to emploi until about 15 years ago; it's now completely gone. ABT never had a sense of emploi, IMO, and that's another reason why it's gone elsewhere. NYCB had a very strong sense of emploi, under Balanchine. I haven't seen enough of the Royal Ballet lately to be able to tell, with certainty, what's gone on there, but I haven't read anyone accuse the company of typecasting dancers, so I'd be surprised if it's still active there, either.

Emploi in dance is analogous to voice in opera. Certain "types" once had a vocabulary specific to their type; it was that strict. I agree with Vaganova that it makes a huge difference.

I think that video was shot when both Seymour and Nureyev were past the first bloom of youth. Some did consider Seymour plump; she is also rather short. Others found her an ideal Romantic ballerina. I think she battled a weight problem throughout her career, though -- lots of injuies and time off for them, too.

Alexandra

Thanks for writing that, Michael. I thought the "staccato" odd when I read it, but then thought maybe she was rushed by the tempi. Everything I've seen her do is exceptionally musical -- creamy, legato musical. Wish you'd seen her Sylph.

I'm glad some of you liked Schandorff. The NYTimes review, calling her "small and slight," I believe, is a huge joke in Denmark, as Silja S. is at least 5'7" and considered "too big for our stage" by some people there.

Re the coaching question, Schandorff has worked on the role herself without help. Danes say her interpretation now is completely different than at the beginning. In Copenhagen, she has a tempo that's slower than NY and which suits her style better. Michael, the sense of continuous flow of dancing was a hallmark of Danish style -- through Volkova, I think.

I put Schandorff on the web site because, when we first went online, I didn't have a scanner and so couldn't have any photos. I wanted at least one visual, and thought of putting a ballerina on every page. I had used that photo of Schandorff in "Etudes" in DanceView a few years ago, and thought the bending position would work placed atop the list of choices -- it's as though she's ushering you in, welcoming you. Also, since Schandorff wasn't known here, I thought it would be better than having a more recognized dancer, which would make the site appear to be an ABT site, or NYCB, or Royal, etc. I also think Schandorff is a marvelous dancer.

Alexandra

I have a caveat on the "Footnotes" series. The performances may be good, but the history is terrible. This series cannot be trusted for basic historical information. I can't go into detail from memory, but I've been meaning to put up Robert Greskovic's review of "Footnotes" which does go into detail. Many people are worried that teachers will use this series in dance history and appreciation courses, even though there are so many errors and omissions.