Alexandra

This is in response to Leigh's questions about definitions of classicism. I'll also attempt a "list" for Paul, using "classical" in as many different senses of the term as I can. This means that this thread will be monstrously long. Responses, additions, corrections, and other suggestions perhaps should go on a new Classicism #3? The "classical" definition of "classicism" refers to the aesthetic principles in Aristotle's "Poetics." For theater, this included: the "classical unities" (unity of time, space, and action); the importance of plot, (i.e., that a man's character was defined by his actions); a hierarchy of appropriate characters for a drama (gods on top, slaves at the bottom); proper subject matter (myths, actions of the gods or heroes for tragedy, not to aggrandize the rich, but because the actions of a Prince in choosing a bride had consequences for the whole kingdom while the love life of a baker was mere sentimental twaddle of interest only to him); categories of plays (tragedies were in three parts; a fourth play, the satyr play, was a very ribald take on the myths and followed a tragedy). Etc. Other characteristics included an emphasis on the general rather than the particular, or individual; an artificiality as opposed to an attempt at being realistic; and objectivity (classical drama is not confessional; there must be a distance). Art has rules which must be followed; it is not simply freeform personal expression. Harmony (think Greek columns), symmetry, building for the long term, all are emphasized. Art is for the good of all. Art must uplift, must depict life as it can be, not as it is. Evil must be punished, etc. etc. There is definitely a moral component to classical classcism. Alastair Macauley once wrote about the necessity for "seemliness." In Western art, there have been two great post-Hellenic (Greek) periods that have been labelled "classical;" both have received that label because they've attempted to recreate Hellenic art, or at least looked to the Hellenic period for inspiration in trying to make new art. The first was the Renaissance, when ballet was born, at first indistinguishable from opera, in an attempt to revive/remake the Greek theater as a union of music, dancing, and poetry. The second was the neoclassical period of the 18th century (called "neoclassical" because it was a rather slavish attempt to recreate high Hellenic art). The French take on neoclassicism is the one most relevant to ballet, because the Paris Opera was THE great company during this period, thus enormously influential. Think the heroic paintings of David, the strictly regulated couplets of Racine's dramas. The proper subject matter of art (including ballet) was Greek myths. This is what Noverre tried to do. (In music history, this time period roughly corresponds to that of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, hence the term "classical" for their particular brand of "classical music.") So, in the real world (outside of ballet) that's what classical means. Obviously, this is the classics comics version. Within ballet, "classical ballet" either refers to the whole art form, i.e., that kind of dancing which is based on the vocabularly of the danse d'ecole which has evolved over the past 200 years, dances which move through the five postions of the feet (and with the appropriate positions of the arms!). It really doesn't have to be on pointe. There are Petipa variations that were off-pointe; much of Bournonville is off-pointe. Used in this way, "classical ballet" refers to a method of training and using that training. (Think of it as a type of dancing, as oil painting is a type of painting). Thus, "classical ballet" can also be romantic or modernist, as music can be romantic or modernist. "Giselle" is a Romantic ballet, but it is also a classical ballet. "Agon" is a modernist ballet, but also a classical ballet. To further confuse things, in dance, "neoclassical" is generally applied to 20th century choreographers, especially Balanchine, Ashton and Nijinska. This means that these choreographers looked to Petipa as a root artist, in the same way the 18th century artists looked to the Greek poets and playwrights as models. (Problem with this is, where do you put people like Fokine and Tudor, or Cranko and MacMillan? I would argue that the language of all four is basically classical, although Tudor and MacMillan are quite expressionistic in some works.) Sentences: "My daughter Susie studies classical ballet." Susie is taking ballet lessons, as opposed to tap lessons. "Sleeping Beauty" is a classical ballet." "Sleeping Beauty" uses the language of ballet (and language doesn't just mean steps, but the dance analogs of grammar, intonation, phrasing, etc.). "Susie is a classical dancer." If it's the same Susie and she's still 12, this still means she's studying ballet and not tap. "Margot Fonteyn was a classical ballerina." Margot didn't do tap either, but this also could refer to her employ, her genre of dancing. (She's "classical" as opposed to demicaractere.) Or it could be descriptive, to denote that she was a classical rather than a romantic ballerina. The classical ballerina's arabesque implies a circle; the romantic ballerina's an oval. This has to do with body proportions, and also with the fact that classical shoulders are squared, romantic shoulders droop. Of course, demicaractere dancers are also classical dancers (they went to the same school) but they dance (or should, in a perfect world) demicaractere variations. Genre and employ is a whole new can of worms. Do contemporary choreographers who make classical ballets call it that? I've read both Christopher Wheeldon and Michael Corder say their work is "classical ballet." In my interview with Ib Andersen (which is on the main site), he talks about what ballet means to him, and says, "I'd just call it 'ballet.' 'Classical ballet' makes it sound like 'Swan Lake'." And now you know why David Gordon, who is not a classical choreographer in any senses of the term, said, "I call my work 'my work.'" Hope this helps Alexandra

Thanks for posting this, Barb. For me, this is one of the, if not the, central issue in ballet today (artistically speaking, anyway). From what I know, rehearsals at many companies are, let's just say, not what they once were. Partly for reasons of time -- 500 ballets in five weeks, seven casts in seven days -- and partly because one of ballet's dirty little secrets is that dancers learn the roles from videotapes (the wisdom/efficacy of which is a whole 'nother discussion) and get little or not -- or often just plain wrong -- coaching. I'm sure there are exceptions. Alexandra

I'd like to second everything that Marc wrote. On top of everything else, I think that classicism is an attitude. I'd add it includes a preference for beauty, order, symmetry -- often by implication; "Monotones" is two trios, but there's still symmetry, even though it's not foursquare 18th century symmetry; "Serenade," with its 17 girls scattered "like orange trees in California," is symmetrical, but...etc. Paul, all your questions are excellent. It's an overused word. If the Eskimos have 57 words for "snow," why can't we develop at least twelve different words for describing aspects of an art form that's been around, in some way or another, for 400 years? I think it is used to describe both the dancer and the dance. Ballet dancers are classical dancers. Ballet has a specific vocabulary (the steps) and a specific grammar (the way the steps are put together, which -- "classically" -- do move through the five postions of the feet, although I have to say I have never watched a ballet to make sure that's always done, and I'm sure much "neoclassical" or contemporary work skirts around that. (I would say that a classical choreographer knows the rules, even though he doesn't follow them, in the same way a good writer breaks the rules of grammar for effect, or whatever.) As for the lamentations over good productions -- take it you're referring to productions of existing works, like "Swan Lake," etc.? I'd say they're not well-staged, they're often not well-danced (even though the dancers' technique is fine) because the style is sloppy, or, in some cases, nonexistent (style: accent, polish, the way the head is held, the postion of the hands, arms, fingers. This should be integral to technique, but, in a foot-conscious era, the upper body is left to tend to itself and is often found wanting.) I could not name a contemporary production of either "Swan Lake" or "Sleeping Beauty" that I would willingly sit through. Some have been "enhanced" by finding wondrous psychological secrets of the major characters, others are just plain sloppy. We can't say it's inferior to how Petipa produced it, because we don't know what Petipa's production looked like, and we probably couldn't reproduce it if we tried. Think of trying to reproduce, exactly, "Hamlet," down to the blocking, body movements, exact accent and intonation of the original actors. Not possible, even if we had the video. Yes, a list would be helpful, but all our lists would be different. I once tried to count how many ways "classical" was used, and I think I came up with twelve. I also agree with Paul that it isn't something one has to worry about when one is watching ballet. It's just important if one thinks about it, or tries to talk about it. I became interested in classical productions because I saw the Royal's version first (with Nureyev, but, alas, Monica Mason, not Fonteyn) which I loved -- and later discovered was at least as much Ashton as Petipa; so much for authenticity. Then I saw ABT's, which looked like a simplified version of the Royal's at that time (mid-'70s); then Erik Bruhn's for the National Ballet of Canada which was, I thought, totally whacko. (Von Rothbart was the Black Queen; Bruhn had a thing about bad mothers, apparently.) Which made me ask, what the hell is "Swan Lake"? A question I still cannot answer. Hope some of that is clear. Alexandra

I agree with what Leigh said, that "classicism" is often defined as "something with qualities that I happen to find attractive." I've given the popular definition as "the kind of ballet I like" or "24 women in white tutus standing in a straight line." It's sometimes assumed to mean "good". I also think Steve gave a very clear and complete definition of the way the term is generally understood, at least in America. (I'll bet the Russians and perhaps the French would have a different perspective). I think Steve's "I know it when I see it" is what works for most people. One historical note related to what Steve wrote. I was taught in my first dance history class that "dance history is backwards from the other arts in that classicism followed romanticism." That made no sense to me then -- based on nothing -- and makes less sense to me now, based on a little reading about the 18th century. If you read about what Noverre was doing, it's classical in the same way painting and music are considered classical - classical by form and classical by conviction. You can't have romanticism without classicism. Problem is, we don't have anything left of Noverre -- directly. I think what we see of Petipa that we call classical is what he developed from Noverre. (The Danes 1990 production of Bournonville's Lay of Thrym, a wretched botch of a revival which began my delving into deepest darkest Denmark, was the bones of a grand, late work which bore remarkable resemblances to some Petipa ballets that we knew -- processions, variations, long passages of mime. The only logical deduction, it seemed to me, was that they came from the same source (Noverre, or the ballet of that time). The white passages of "Giselle" we now know are late Petipa interpolations; we don't know what it looked like, but it was probably a lot rounder and softer. I saw another clue to the past on video, from a televised performance of Paris Opera's recent revival of Leo Staats' "Soir de Fete." The structure is very very similar to Ashton's Les Patineurs -- it's not as linear, it has a logic of its own, but it's not the logic we're used to and so it takes a few viewings to get (I'm presuming Ashton saw the Staats). This is offered only to say that there are even different formal, or structural, approaches to classical ballets. A final (for now) comment, is that "classical ballet" until recently encompassed classical, demicaractere, character and pantomime passages, each with its own rules. In the post-Balanchine, "pure dance" world, all we have is the classical. (Balanchine used all the elements. Not in every work, but he used them.) And if that's more than anyone wanted to know, sorry. alexandra

Question of the week: I'm curious about what people think of when they think of "Swan Lake." What does a production have to have to satisfy you? What do you expect when you go to see a production that you don't know anything about? I'll happily stipulate that there isn't an "authentic" production around, but there are still things -- images, steps, parts of the story -- that mean "Swan Lake" to people: 24 swan maidens, 32 fouettes, love, betrayal, death, owls. Benno or a Jester? Happy ending or sad? All or none of the above. Alexandra

Thanks for filling in the gaps, pdance. I asked, because it seemed, from your first post, that you went to take lessons first, and then became interested. (Which sometimes happens.) But most people see something they love and that makes them go to the ballet and now we know what you saw. It must be nice to be able to take part in what inspired you! (Hope you found the smilies. If not, email me) ATM711, what a debut! I'm sure most of us are seething with jealousy (I know I am.) You started going at just the right time to have seen almost everything that's been important in America's ballet history, and I fervently hope you'll keep us entertained with more. Did you stick with Ballet Theatre, or go see everything? (And you can remind us how much ticket prices were then, too). A very hearty welcome. Alexandra

No shoes, alas, but I would like to say that (surprise!) I DO agree with you about Baryshnikov. It's just the incessant "it's not my fault" that got me -- that, and the "vitamin pill" Balanchine supposedly slipped her, stuffed with drugs. From everything I've heard or read, drugs were anathema to Mr. B (which certainly makes sense, considering his age and background) and the idea of him starting a dancer on drugs is not credible. None of that takes away from the beauty of her dancing. And I think she was one of those artists for whom the pressure of performing and of being perfect, of living up to her own ideal of being perfect, was too much (it's broken a lot of people). To give up performing must have been a terrible decision, but necessary for her survival. Now, for something a little different -- there is another video. Did you catch her on "L.A. Law"? (Don't remember the date; I never watched that show and turned past it on the way to somewhere else, when I realized it was about dance and stopped and watched. Surreal.) Anyway, Kirkland played a ballerina suing her artistic director. (It was all his fault, of couse.) She got to testify, but she also got to dance. She's in the studio (his new ballet looks an awful lot like "Giselle") and she also dances at the end, over the titles. She was still a ballerina. Alexandra

Beautifully done, from both Ed and Katharyn. It is amazing, isn't it, that it's often that "perfect moment" -- and it can be an arm, a glance,, the way a head is inclined, a look of despair or love -- is often what one remembers from a ballet, not the multiple pirouettes and high leaps? Alexandra

While I agree that Kirkland seems to blame everybody but herself, I have sympathy for her because she was such a great artist and so troubled. If she destroyed her gift, I think it was that she was trying too hard to be perfect and broke under that stress. One thing about the book that's always troubled me is that some of the young people who read it will think they should inject collagen in their lips or have their foot broken to change the arch, or any of the other scary things she did or wanted to do. There should be a Parental Discretion warning on those pages! Alexandra

Okay, pdance, that's how you found the ballet studio, but why did you WANT to find the ballet studio? What made you want to take ballet? And, by the way, I wanted to say this on another thread, after you'd posted that you'd been accepted at the Southern Ballet Theatre summer intensive, but I didn't post in time, and there were several other posts in between, but CONGRATULATIONS! Hope you get to go, too. alexandra alexandra

Good question, Jane. Thanks. Like you, when I started (before computers!) I kept track of everything. I had little index cards. I had a notebook where I tried to write "reviews" (now burned). I kept a scrapbook of every review from the Washington Post, Washington Star, NYTimes, NYPost, New Yorker, and London Times. I am not normally a compulsive person. As a matter of fact, my apartment decor is Early American trash dump (my main bookcase collapsed and its contents are "neatly" stacked in little piles all over the place.) Also kept every program and every souvenir bok. The programs and scrapbooks got tossed in a "I've got to do something to make a living" phases a few years ago, to my everlasting regret. There should be a way to do a computer database but, alas, what to do about those 25 years of lost performances? Luckily, I have a good memory. And so do my friends. alexandra

In some ways, Balanchine is an American choreographer, but in others, I think he's old school European. The first time I saw the Kirov do "Theme and Variations," I had the sense that he had been choreographing for that company all along -- these people knew what a Polonaise was, and it showed. And their "Scotch Symphony" is danced by a company that knows "Giselle." It's not that they turn it into "Giselle," but they know what's going on in the wings in ways that American dancers don't. I see "Union Jack" is a good, old-fashioned Franco-Russian character ballet with (inaccurate) British trappings. Even "Stars and Stripes" and "Western Symphony" are classical ballets with Americana costumes, but that's just the surface. I've always thought this was Balanchine as marketeer. Americans were squeamish about ballet; it was foreign, too fancy. So he put it in cowboy clothes, and cheerleader/drum major outfits. What could be more American? (Bournonville did something similar, actually. "The Tyroleans" was a Greek ballet in liederhosen. He changed the characters names to Swiss peasants' names and set it in the Alps, but it was the myth of Anacreon. He chuckles about tricking his audience in "My Theatre Life.") As for "The Nutcracker" being Walt Disney? There really is a huge gulf between European and American perceptions. To me, Walt Disney is cartoon -- simple message, broad characters, rather unsophisticated structure, aimed at a mass audience. Well, Balanchine's "Nutcracker" was aimed at a general audience, if not a mass one, but other than that, I don't see a cartoon there at all. It's not the story, it's the music and the dancing. The story has to be told well, of course, because it's theater, but that's not the point of it. What makes that Nutcracker Balanchine's is the choreography and the way in which it is danced. The Vainonen Nutcracker (which I just saw, about 60 years after the fact) and all its progeny seem to see the story as predominant. To me, that version seemed very cartoonlike, with a simplified story but, more importantly, very simplified dancing. Now, of course, any semblance of story is thrown to the wind, and we have Drosselmeyer as a child molester and Masha's dream a real, five-star nightmare. Yes, that suits the book, perhaps, but not the music. (Vainonen's version seems to deliberately ignore the music. I mean literally. There are theatrical effects built into the score that he pretends aren't there.) Balanchine modernized the dancing, leaving the music to tell the story. At least, that's the view from here. Alexandra

I agree with everybody! But I think it would be nice to hear from some Ballet Talkers who aren't writers. Easy for us to say we like good, simple writing that describes what we see! On Denby, I agree that he's terribly important, and influenced a lot of contemporary American writers (and is a fine writer) but I have to say, the more I read him and the more I learned about ballet outside New York, the less I like him. I'm not saying that you can't learn a lot, you can. But he has a large ax to grind -- namely, that Balanchine is the great choreographer who ever breathed and NYCB was already a major international company five seconds after its birth -- and in doing so, he dismisses, often quite nastily (under cover of politesse) anything remotely a possible threat. He was writing at a time when the other critics were very anti-Balanchine, so I understand his reasons, and he was also in the position of understanding a great artist who, at the time, was working against the mainstream, and I'm sure his reviews were very helpful in educating Balanchine's audience. I read Croce's "After Images" and "Looking at the Dance" every year until I'd practicaly memorized them. I disagreed with her, and much of what she said angered me when I first read it but I read her essays at the back of "After Images" over and over until I thought I understood them. Now I realize that she predicted in the '70s and '80s just about everything going on today. Smart lady; great writer. I would say generally, that most people go to the ballet because they like it and probably many don't think more about it than which dancers or ballets they liked, and I think that's fine. But, Giannina, if you're reading critics, this is a sign that you're also interested in what other people think. I think if you feel you're missing something, you probably are. (I took a course in criticism my second year of viewing because I knew I wasn't seeing everything, and I wanted to be able to, fast. I thought taking a course with a critic would help. It didn't.) Sometimes there is a philosophical underpinning or a deeper meaning, I think, than just a few pirouettes -- "La Valse" has references in Romanticism, and someone who understands the Love/Death connection beloved of Romantic poets will probably see something more in that ballet than someone who doesn't. But any really good ballet, I think, can be enjoyed on its face. It's when you have to read three pages of program notes and/or attend a workshop to know what's going on that I'd leave the theater and go home to a good book. Your question was excellent, I think, and I'm off to start a new thread. alexandra

Mary, you must have been posting at the same time I was writing, so I missed acknowledging your post in my response above. Thanks for mentioning Leigh's great comment about "confusing plotless with pointless." I'd forgotten to second that earlier. I think that could easily characterize a lot of the new ballets (especially the "after Balanchine" ballets) being made today. So much is just setting steps to music. And I don't blame audiences for finding such work both trivial and boring. Jane, I'm sure the score to "Ondine" will be perceived much differently now, especially if it's gotten a good aring. I was referring to what I read in, I think, David Vaughan's critical biography of Ashton, that there were some ideas he couldn't use because they just didn't work with the music. I can imagine Kirkland as a wonderful Ondine. I remember when she first started coming up, I asked an older colleague if she was like anyone who'd gone before, and he said, in a curious way, she was like Fonteyn, because they were both "as pure and clear as water." Libby, I don't think the question is naive at all; thank you for asking it and thank you for posting. Forsythe's work appears in several American companies' repertories and I have read him referred to as "the future of ballet," or "the hope of ballet," a sentiment with which I disagree. (I think Leigh also mentioned this.) I really think it's too early to judge his work; he's in mid-career. I don't see him as a particularly important force here, at least not at this stage. He's based in Europe, and his reputation (like Neumeier's) seems different there. Heinz Spoerli has ballets in the repertories of a lot of ballet companies in Europe and we see very little of it here. And all the comments that I and others have made about the Balanchine influence must seem totally irrelevant to Estelle and Mark, because I don't think there are dozens of "sons of Balanchine" scattered throughout Europe. So yes, I think, too, that it is very much what you see. I can certainly sympathize with your comments on popularity, and it is a difficult subject to discuss, because if you say a popular choreographer isn't a total genius, that would naturally offend the people who like his work, and sound horribly snobby, to boot. On the other hand, taste in anything changes the more we see; audiences new to ballet will like different things than those who see a lot of it. And, as you point out, if you ever see something you regard as perfect, it's hard to accept something less. Until, of course, something just as perfect comes along. alexandra

Thanks for that information, Jane. I had completely forgotten about Seymour. The only Marcia Haydee I've seen is her production of "Sleeping Beauty," which I absolutely detested - Carabosse was the dominant character, scenes were added where we saw Aurora grow from 4 to 5 to 8 to 11 (different child trudging on, with Carabosse making faces at her), etc. The Maids of Honor's dance replaced with something for men; forget what. But then, I'm a strict constructionist on Sleeping Beauty. I've heard of a lot of young women choreographing ballets here -- Miriam Mahdaviani (sp?) with NYCB (nothing very major), Julie Adam at San Francisco Ballet (all I've heard is "promising;" keep fingers crossed). Martine Van Hamel has choreographed a few pieces; she did one on Washington Ballet. I liked her dancing better. There are a lot of women choreographing for the relatively minor regional companies here (in San Diego, in Cincinatti; I'm sure there are more). I'm sure you're right about the current climate. I wonder, though (back to the original question about Deborah Bull's complaint that the characters she dances are all made by men) if, after all that's happened in this century, a great female choreographer emerged, there was suddenly a great insight or change of viewpoint -- in the way that Martha Graham's view of the world was so revoutionary. I was hoping Victoria would have time to answer this thread. As a teacher, she'd know more about the aspirations of young women. Dancing or choreography, or both, Victoria? alexandra

I agree with every word Kevin wrote. Unfortunately, "Dancing on my Grave" remains the most popular (in terms of sales) of any dance biography, and I think that's a shame. Especially since so many teenagers read it. It's not a very accurate picture of ballet life, in many ways. alexandra

Just a quickie on terminology. For music, I used "classical" in the "this way to the classical collection, rock and rap are under the stairs, jazz and folk are to the right." I did not mean that Messaien was "classical" in the sense that Mozart and Beethoven are "classical" (vs. "romantic," "contemporary," etc.) Sorry. I thought that was obvious. I didn't think Bausch had yet come up. I actually would call her a great choreographer, although I don't particularly "like" all of her work. And I think she's several notches above her many followers who (as imitators nearly always do) rip off the externals -- the potted plants, the angst -- and not the genius. I would also add that I think it would be very dangerous for a ballet company that wanted to remain a ballet company to perform Bausch regularly. (Style creeps in to other works. When ABT was dancing Tharp regularly, they started to dance classical ballet a la Tharp. There's a moment in "Push Comes to Shove" when the corps does an arabesque penchee, and ducks their heads under their arms and looks at the audience. It's cute, and everyone knew it referred to the Kingdom of the Shades. It was less cute when they started to do it while dancing Shades.) On Ashton v. MacMillan, I can't think of any of the British ballet critics I know, or have read, which includes at least all of the ones who saw his or her first ballet prior to 1990, who would rank MacMillan higher than Ashton. I have read sentences like, "Our two great choreographers," yes. Americans will write the same thing about Balanchine and Robbins, but I don't think we're saying they're equal. I know this kind of back and forth makes it sound like a food fight, and I don't mean it that way; anyone who thinks MacMillan is great is certainly welcome to do so. I think such discussions are useful in helping to form one's personal aesthetic, though. At least, they were to me when I was trying to learn everything I could about ballet in six months, and they still are. Another thought on contemporary (another bad word which could cover a multitude of sins) ballet choreography and how it's gone astray. This is part of the narrowing problem. I know Balanchine is not the reference point for places outside America, but here, at least, many young choreographers seem to think that "contemporary" started with "Agon." I've heard/read people who think that works like "Scotch Symphony" or "Divertimento No. 15" are almost the silly indulgences of an old man, or a cynical pandering to a conservative audience. I think this misunderstands Balanchine, and I don't think ballet will be revived from within solely from this strain. Someone mentioned "Ondine." I wish I could come over and see "Ondine," but then I wonder if such a delicate work can be revived. There's also the problem that the score is at odds with the ballet's theme. (It has a very then-contemporary score which is not what Balanchine would call "musique dansant," with a 19th century story and a choreography and structure that seem more in sync with the story than the score.) alexandra

Just to hit a few points without completely recapping, or this thread will become interminable, I don't think people were putting forth the names of Corder and Wheeldon et al. as GREAT classical choreographers, merely that there were living people choreographing recognizably classical ballets. I would add one more sadly, prematurely, dead name to this list, and that is Clark Tippet, whose "Bruch Violin Concerto" is one choreographer's attempt to make a classical ballet using the materials of classical dancing -- genres (classique/noble/character/demicaractere), style, all within the context of his (ABT's) repertory. It's touring America -- Ed, it's coming to Detroit soon. If anyone is curious about it, I posted a review of it, trying to explain these elements, back in December. It's in the Reading Room, under Reviews. It's nine years old. Tippet died two years after it was created. Back to this thread, I think terminology is extremely important in any serious discussion about art. I also think there's a big difference between what is popular and what is good, between what I "like" and what is judged by people who actually spend their lives thinking about such things to be great. (Fifty years ago, the most popular, adored, all-time-greatest choreographer was Leonid Massine.) I'm quite ready to believe that many British ballet fans prefer MacMillan to Ashton, if only bcause they see very little of the latter and what they see is not very well done, but that doesn't speak to their relative worth as choreographers. I really don't think Forsythe has been around long enough to get into "is great/is not" discussion. (Again, this, to me, is a very different question than whether one likes him or not. Like anything you please.) To me, it matters a great deal whether something is "ballet" or "notballet" (which I'd be more than happy to substitute for "ballet moderne") for all the reasons ranging from truth in advertising to direction of ballet to problems of technique, not to mention aesthetic, that have been mentioned here. I brought up the opera analogy and I'll stand by it. I'm certainly not an expert in that field, but I'm generally conversant with its history and repertory. Messaien and Warlock are, as far as I know, generally considered "classical musicians," and part of the main line of opera (part of the problem is that "classical" has about 20 different shades of meaning. Yes, they are modern, contemporary, not Verdi, however you want to put it, and I'm sure a great huge chunk of the Puccini fans can't stand them, but they're a continuation, a development, of the main line. Every art form has "rigid" classifications. Blank verse is blank verse; it is different from free verse. The reason we have such terms is so that when we talk, we know what we're talking about. Some are horizontal, i.e., of the same general type or rank (sonnet, epic poem, elegy; Aristotelian rules of aesthetics would rank them, and not in that order, I know). Others are vertical (poem, rhyme, limerick), and everyone knows that a poem is "greater" than a "limerick," although a limerick may not only be more popular but sell more beer than a poem. Dance is the poorest of the arts in these phrases, I think. The best/worst example of this is "modern dance," which says nothing and everything, and which everyone has always found inadequate but no one has bettered. Since the Judson Church days here (the '60s) during the "dance is whatever I say it is and you can't stop me" phase, everything became dance. "Dances" had no steps, no dancers, used words. Since then, at least in America, there seems to be little attempt to classify. Ballet is not simply classical ballet (hard to remember in the post-Balanchine age where "pure dancing" dominates. It's also demicaractere and character. (I'd argue that Afternoon of a Faune -- Nijinsky's, not Robbins' -- is very much a ballet; it's out of the character dance line and it's not danse d'ecole, but it's a ballet. I don't buy the "Nijinsky was the first really modern dance choreographer" line at all, and I think that's been put forward because people see very little character dance these days, and therefore it's not part of our universe.) I agree wholeheartedly that there's not much even halfway decent classical ballet being reproduced today, but I haven't seen anything in the notballet category that's worth seeing twice, either. (Taylor and Cunningham are Giants and still work, but they're in the "more of the same" phase. I keep going to things that I read are new and wonderful, but I think it's just wishful thinking. (I read the posts about "Carmen" at ballet.co. I have to say that nothing made me want to catch a plane.) Why? I think (and this is purely opinion) partly because dancing has gotten too narrow. In ballet, everything here is "son of Balanchine," but the Balanchine aesthetic has probably run its course. The same thing that happened to modern dance in the time after the giants is happening in ballet now. I also think that abstract ballet feeds off narrative. The only way an audience can respond to abstraction is through the images narrative works have built up in their minds. When those memories grow dim, or are nonexistent, the abstraction is without inner meaning or reference. People are turning back to narrative, but no one seems to remember how to make a narrative ballet -- well, a first-rate one, anyway. Also, the fact that "classical music" has been, shall we say, not very tuneful for the past 50 years (the aftershock of Stravinsky, musicologists say) has left choreographers with little new music to use. This, too, is changing. Young musicians in the Baltic States, I learned recently from a choreographer working here, are writing chamber music and symphonies that are looking both back and forward. Which is probably what ballet needs to do. If I could run a choreographer's workshop for ballet choreographers, I'd first make them stage some 19th century balets, then some 20th century (generally agreed upon) masterworks -- works whose structure and vocabulary are considered nearly flawless. The 19th century ones would have to be as close to the old versoins as we could get. None of this "throw out the character dancing and mime because I don't get it" stuff. I think this would serve the same purpose that painting the Old Masters does for budding painters. You have to recreate that lighting, draw those long fingers, reproduce that smile, before you can use the skills to express your own imagination. The ones who did well with those stagings, those I would let try to make a ballet, and see how they do from there. Modern dance students in the States all take "composition" courses, and many find Labanotation courses, Effort/Shape, helpful in analyzing dances, I'm told. I that such analysis is important. I did learn a terrible truth, though, about the way this idea is carried out at at least one American university. They take two semesters of composition. In the first semester, they do only solos. In the second, they do groups. Only they never get to the groups -- too many rehearsals, too many schedule conflicts. That explained a lot to me why choreography here looks the way it does! I would also suggest that great artists in any medium need to know the other arts. Go to theater, concerts, operas, as much dance as possible. Read books, not to look for novels to dramatize, but to think about something other than themselves. Those skills were not being taught at the university where I was teaching, and the students looked utterly bewildered when I suggested it. And so they made dance after dance about how hard it was to be a dance student, and how terrible it was to break up with their boyfriends.

It's the same thing here, Estelle. I really think, when it comes to directors (who are often, though not aways, choreographers) it's money. The big institutions are where the money is, and men are better (for a variety of reasons) and, one could argue, more often favored by institutions. The small companies, outside the mainstream, are easier to start. In collegiate sports in America, a government law was passed awhile ago requiring that women's sports were given equal support by colleges. (Before this, very few women athletes were given scholarships.) More money has gone into women's sports since then, and a lot of fine female athletes have benefitted from it. But the institutions, well, that's another story. A study done last year revealed the single statistically significant change is that 20 years ago, the coaches of women's sports almost exclusively were (very poorly paid) females. Today, the coaches of women's sports at universities (and almost exclusively at the top, big money universities) are very highly paid men. Whatever forces are at work there -- and they are complex, from habit to perception to networking to the confidence or lack of confidence of individuals, and probably a half-dozen more -- are at work in dance, too, I think. As for mathematics, this is as off-topic as it is unscientfic, but I'll offer you an anecdote. My grade school gave a prize to the student who had the best grades in each subject (in each grade). I had the highest grade in arithmetic and got the arithmetic prize. After two years of this, I also had the highest grades in arithmetic and a few other subjects but was given a single award for General Excellence. Now, I had enjoyed marching up to the front of the classroom and collecting those little prizes one by one (hell, I was 8) and was most annoyed at getting only one prize, even though it was bigger and bright red. My mother explained, and my mother doesn't know how to lie, that the mothers of the boys had complained to the school that a girl had won the arithmetic prize, and that this "wasn't right." And so they fixed it. A small pebble in the muddy, rippling stream that is sexual politics, mathematics tributary, but that's how it starts. alexandra

There have been quite a few posts since this board started about Gelsey Kirkland and I've been especially interested to see some of our youngest young dancer posters have listed her as their favorite dancer -- although they couldn't have seen her on stage. Is this based on the Nutcracker video? Have any of you seen the "Baryshnikov at Wolf Trap" video, because she's on that, too. I saw Kirkland quite a lot in her ABT career, although, to my regret, I came to ballet too late to have seen her at New York City Ballet. I admired her dancing very much, especially "Giselle," "Theme and Variations," and "The Leaves are Fading." Arlene Croce once wrote about her technique that it was "porcelain-coated steel," and she was an amazing combination of fragility and strength. I'd like to hear from you Kirkland fans, new or old, about what you've seen her in -- and especially from those who've taken her summer intensive at Southern Ballet Theatre; what's she like as a teacher, etc. Thanks, alexandra

It is a huge and interesting subject. I'd like to grab your point about only about six companies in the world being able to do the big classical ballets. YES! So why do about 185 of them, right down to your neighborhood company, try to do them? (Three guesses). I understand your point about turning in and turning out, but I do think there are exceptions -- Forsythe being one, and Tetley being another. He's all long lines and pulling up and sleek turnedout legs, but it's not ballet. (And Tetley's stated mission was to blend ballet and modern dance.) Lillian, I, at least, don't think you're being picky at all. Anyone who cares about an art form eventually, at least, develops strong opinions. Blast away. alexandra

Thank you for a very interesting post, Ann. I'd never seen Balanchine that way -- although, as I read your examples, I could see each one. Nothing I've ever read or heard about him makes me think he had even subliminal contempt for women, and I might timidly (this will offend everybody; anti-Balanchineans who think he is a sexist, and pro-Balanchineans who think the way NYCB dances him is the only way, so I'll apologize in advance) but I think that this might partly be the way they're danced. There's a plie' on point in "Tarantella," for instance, that can look absolutely lewd, as though a washerwoman is dancing. But I've also seen it look quite elegant, and I've also seen it done just as a step, nothing you would even notice. I might be being very naive, but we see a baby sucking his thumb and we think something sexual is going on there; Balanchine, born in 1904, came from a different world. My instinct said that when he wanted something to be sexual, you knew it, and it was a glance or a touch that took place between partners. But this is a fascinating idea, and I'd love to hear other people's comments on it. Re MacMillan, first, FYI, "Triad" is on one of the ABT videos. (Two brothers are never the same after a woman enters their lives.) I agree with all your examples completely. I haven't seen "Judas Tree," but Deborah Jowitt, the most mild-mannered of New York critics, wrote after seeing it, shortly after MacMillan's death, that she thought no one "would want to face God with that ballet on his conscience." I know several men who liked the ballet, however (very nice men who certainly hold women in no visible contempt), so it may be a gender difference. I would say that much of what I've seen of MacMillan does indicate a wish (whether conscious or not to humiliate women, at least in his choreography. Not forgetting "Isadora," are we? (I'm not a MacMillan admirer, but it's not for this reason.) Thanks again for a most interesting post. alexandra

Go, Lillian! My dream is that, at a New Now Night in the not too distant future, there will be people with picket signs saying, "We want real ballet!" (Always remembering that if it's the My City Contemporary Dance Company, that's just fine.) I thank you for pointing out the turned in-turned out difference which is, of course, very valid. I do think you need more than pointe shoes to make it a ballet, though (and some ballet companies, including the Bolshoi last time I saw them, aren't turned out in the classics now; perhaps as a result of the moderne influence). You could put a modern dance on pointe, but it would need more than that (and Rambert and the Limon companies dance Dark Elegies off-pointe, but I'd argue that the work is still a ballet). And my definition, at least, includes character dance and mime as possible material for ballet-making. I think a ballet makes reference to the established rules of classical form (entree, adagio, soli, coda); even if it breaks the rules, the choreographer knows what they are. Likewise, the steps move through the five positions of the feet, and there are complete phrases, with linking steps, not just high kicks and jumps (no sentence fragments). I'd agree that Golden Age is a ballet. I think "In the Middle..." looks almost like a ballet when Paris Opera Ballet does it, but they dance everything with their own accent, and so could probably make "Billboards" look like a ballet (this is not a repertory acquisition suggestion). Nacho Duato is everywhere this year. I found his work harmlessly pleasant until a modern dancer sitting behind me at a performance, who was seething (I think it was Jardi Tancat) over it, pointed out that this section was "borrowed" from this work by Martha Graham, and that section "quoted" from a dance by Jose Limon. There were more references, but I lost track. But that gets more into "good" vs. "bad" than "ballet" vs. "modern;" again, there are good and bad in both. It's fascinating to me, that some people recognize a distinction, yet we all have a different dividing line: vocabulary, pointe work, turnout. And others, especially those who've come to ballet after the merging began see it all as ballet, because (I'm guessing) it's done by a ballet company and ballet dancers are dancing it. (I'm not trying to criticize that definition, just trying to summarize the discussion.) Finally, to Lillian, yes, the two styles, if done right, are very different and very few people can really do them both. I liked the Paul Taylor dancers better in the 1970s, when the dancers were mostly modern trained; now they're ballet trained, and it shows. Air turns are centered instead of rough and powerful and raw. Fifty years ago, someone in the general audience could tell a Russian dancer from a French dancer from an Italian dancer from a British dancer from a Danish dancer. A professional could tell who the dancer's teacher was. A hundred years ago, I read in a biography of the Legats, Cecchetti (dear, sweet old grandpa Cecchetti) was considered coarse; Johansson (Legat's teacher, and a pupil of Bournonville) was more refined. Balletic diversity is disappearing. That's at the root of what troubles me. Please keep posting. I am really very interested in the different points of view - dancers, teachers, watchers, and I've gotten several emails from others who are reading this conversation with great interest, also. Thanks, alexandra

I had the same thought, at first, Steve. Problem is, Oliver (2) wouldn't know about Olivier (1). (I'm posting this publicly in case we have an Ann and an Anne, etc. later on.) The way the board works, if "Oliver" had really been "Olivier," the board would not have let him register. It would say "someone else is using that name." I hate to make Olivier change his log on, since he's been here quite awhile (of course, he's welcome to do it). But it might avoid confusion in the future if Oliver were to add a last initial -- and, again for the future, if someone comes along later and finds that his/her name is very similar to one already on the board, it might help avoid confusion to use the last initial. None of this is an attempt to make Oliver (or Olivier) less welcome. I hope that's understood. And thanks, Oliver, for the kind compliment. And remember, everyone, that Anna Pavlova was known on the home front as "Pavlova II"! alexandra

I have to add a wicked story -- rumor -- that went around when Forsythe was trying to work with the Royal Ballet. It is this: that when he went home, he was complaining that he kept asking them to give him steps and they "couldn't," they kept expecting him to set steps on them. He does mention, I believe, that he works "collaboratively" with dancers. About Grigorovich...Marc, your post trailed off. I know that Soviets (if not Russians) considered Grigorovich a great genius of the 20th century, and I must confess a weakness for Spartacus, but.... I do agree that he uses the classical vocabulary and I definitely agree that he tried very hard to modernize ballet from within. But...I hope there's a better Nutcracker out there! (Marc, have you ever seen Balanchine's?) One of the problems, for me, with Grigorovch, except for the signature motif of the woman grabbing her ankle when she's in a one-hand-over-the-head-lift, no matter what's happening, or what character she's playing, is the elimination of anything that isn't a Big Effect. No little linking steps, no subtlety, no real subsidiary characters (like all the fairies in Sleeping Beauty) You're either the hero, or you're a shepherd -- or a legionnaire, or a whore, etc. I also would classify a lot of the lifts and (remembering Mukhomedov in "The Golden Age") some steps as gymnastic, if not acrobatic. And I would object, also, to the eradication of both mime and character dance in his classical revisions. I still would rather see Spartacus than any Forsythe -- or Lar Lubinovich, or Val Caniparoli (he's real hot here right now; fast worker), etc. than I've yet seen. But if I had to pick a 20th century Russian, I'd pick Lavrovsky. alexandra