Alexandra

Thanks, Giannina. Please give a full report -- I love watching rehearsals. Sometimes they're more interesting than the performances -- because the dancers were winging it.

I agree with Olivier; best guess is Gillian Murphy. Check the Ballet Alert! with the interview with Georgina Parkinson in it.

As for Herrera, last time I saw her, her legs and arms were still all over the place. She's still awfully young -- but the endearing pride in and zest for dancing have been tamed. A friend said that ABT was turning her into their idea of a ballerina -- all the airs (I don't mean that she's stuck up, I mean the outward appearance, carriage -- as opposed to placement -- of a ballerina) with none of the polish.

Alexandra

Yeah! I'm glad somebody noticed Saskia Beskow. She's from the Royal Danish Ballet and was considered ballerina material when she was an aspirant -- but that was before everything got turned upside down there.

Alexandra

I'm responding to Leigh and Mary's posts on the first Great Dancers Thread (which I'll go close off after I've posted this. I'm sorry if this is confusing. It's just that when the threads get too long, they take forever to load.)

On Leighs points, the idea of considering dancers cross-repertory is an interesting one, and full of pitfalls. Dancers can be wonderful in a certain repertory, or niche of a repertory, and not in others. I have to say I saw Woetzel with the NYCB soloists do the Black Swan pas de deux, and it was one of the least princely, least classical performances I've ever seen. Coaching problems, perhaps.

I also remember when ABT did lots of Tetley that there would be dancers -- Clark Tippett, Kirk Peterson, Dennis Marshall -- who looked wonderful in Tetley, but then, when they turned up in classical (i.e., in that repertory, Petipa) roles, they looked -- well, much less wonderful. (Martine Van Hamel looked magnificent in both.) Now, this could be partly because dancers always look their best in roles that are fresh to them, that are either created roles, or virtually recreations -- i.e., they've learned them from a good coach or the choreographer rather than whoever is assigned Studio B from 3 to 4 that afternoon -- but for whatever reason, there was a clear difference in standard.

What standards of judgment apply when determining a great dancer? I'd be very curious as to what people think about this. There are a lot of possibilities. Great range usually will suffice; mastery of, not just appearance in, a vast range of roles. Difficulty, as well. Someone who gives great performances in technically difficult roles will always beat out an artist who is only able to gesture and make an attempt at an arabesque, no matter how moving the performance is. Some dancers can be definitive and give Top of the Line for All Eternity-level performances in a few roles -- I'm thinking of Merrill Ashley (to switch genders for a moment) in Square Dance and Ballo. If you only saw her do those roles, you might call her the greatest ballerina you ever saw. If, on the other hand, you tell this to your friend who rushes out to catch her "Emeralds," you might have some explaining to do.

On Mary's comment about lost opportunities, sadly, I agree. I saw five teenage girls who had the ability to be ballerinas at Washington Ballet during the 1980s who simply stopped dancing -- for reasons ranging from couldn't take the stress to hated the life, discovered boys, and fear of heights (i.e., lifts).

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited 02-02-99).]

Welcome, Leigh. I'm glad someone has stuck up for Darci Kistler. I know she's been injured a lot, but, after all, her injuries were not caused by roller blading or disco dancing, but by the overdancing she happily endured when extremely young. My position is that once a ballerina, always a ballerina -- that is, if you were a really truly ballerina, as I think Kistler was, you get to keep the title. Kirkland was injured more years than she danced, yet she was one of the finest dancers I've ever seen.

Alexandra

Katharyn, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed your report. I think you have terrific instincts and a clear eye and, hardest of all, you have the patience to tell us what you're seeing. I hope you keep posting.

Alexandra

Thanks for such a good idea, Mary. I'd forgotten that Ferri did Red Riding Hood, but I do remember that performance. She alternated with another dancer I thought very promising, Rosalyn Whitten. Both were adorable, Ferri obviously the more talented. Whitten was pushed for awhile, then disappeared.

Unfortunately, most of the dancers I loved in the corps disappeared -- or came to a bad end. I remember Deirdre Carberry at 15, and Nancy Raffa, both in the corps of ABT, both seemed to have great potential. And Roma Sosenko at City Ballet. And remember Marguerite Porter when she was so delicious as the chambermaid in A Month in the Country, and everyone thought she was the Next Thing -- and she was, but not the way it was supposed to be.

Giannina, I remember liking Yeager very much when she was in the corps. She always danced as though she loved whatever role she was doing -- and not as though she was trying to get out of the corps, as so many others do. Her path to stardom began with Amor in Don Q, and she was wonderful. Then she did "The Throw Up Girl" in Rodeo. And then, instead of bringing her along slowly and carefully and in the appropriate roles, they did what ABT, no matter who the director was, did: decided she was a ballerina and plopped her down in just about everything except Swan Lake -- Sylphide, Sleeping Beauty, Don Q.

More discoveries, please.

Alexandra

"Demicaractere" is not a term of derision, and I certainly didn't mean it as such, but rather the denotation of a genre. My classification of Soloviev as such is based on what English and American critics during the 1960s, who did see Soloviev on Kirov tours to the West, wrote. I remember reading early reports of Baryshnikov (also a demicaractere dancer) that compared him to Soloviev. Demis are also classical dancers, of course, and can be fine stylists. Or at least they used to be.

I have nothing against Soloviev (and I have seen several of the video pas de deux you mentioned), I just was surprised at reading him described as the greatest Russian male dancer. A star dancer, certainly, but not the greatest. (One could argue, of course, that naming anyone as "the greatest" is difficult; where do you put Nijinsky or Chabukiani?) Interesting that the Russian view is different. Of course, they never got to see much of Nureyev.

alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited 01-25-99).]

I've never seen that Raymonda, but I'll look for it -- thanks. I admire Kolpakova's Aurora very much and I'm sure her Raymonda would be just as lovely.

I have the Sizova "Sleeping Beauty" -- she's teaching here in Washington now at the Kirov Academy, by the way; supposedly a fine, and strict, teacher. It's a wonderful example of how styles change. With 1999 eyes, the dancing -- and the dancers -- are small-scaled, light, very fluid and fluent, not unlike the Royal during the '60s. I emphasize that this is with 1999 eyes. In the 1960s, the Kirov and the Royal would have looked very different from each other. It's interesting that, on this video, Makarova is actually rather chubby. (And maddening that, at least on the American version, only the Bluebird adagio is shown, not the solos. Her partner is Panov, whom we never saw dance at his prime.)

I do have a question, though, on your comment that Solovyev is considered the best Russian dancer ever. That's news to me, and I wondered if this was current Russian-Kirov thinking, or just another European/American difference? In my iconography, he was a fine demicaractere dancer, though not as great a virtuoso as Baryshnikov. I've never heard him mentioned as a great Prince, though, and I must say that when I saw this video, I was surprised that the Kirov had cast him in a noble role. I never saw his Bluebird, which I have read was absolutely fabulous.

(Please understand, favorites are favorites, and I'm not writing this to criticize your choices; I'm really curious about Solovyev, whether that's your opinion, or whether it's general "conventional wisdom" now, as we would say here.)

alexandra

This is to start a new thread of favorite ballet videos.

The following was posted by Marc, and I'm putting it up because I wanted to respond to it.

Marc wrote:

Ballet videos that rank highly on my list are:

"The Nutcracker" with Yekaterina Maximova and Vladimir Vasiliev from 1978 at the Bolshoi. This version of the ballet by Yuri Grigorovich is one of the very few to match the sweep and ardour of Tchaikovsky's music. It also features two magnificent artists at the height of their abilities and the tranformation of the doll into the prince is one of the truly magical moments of ballet on film.

"Raymonda" with Irina Kolpakova and Sergei Berezhnoi from 1978 at the Kirov, simply because it highlights one of the really great Russian classical ballerinas. The staging by Sergeyev is a model and the Kirov-company is simply glorious. A lesson in style.

"The Sleeping Beauty" with Alla Sizova and Yuri Soloviev from 1964, also Kirov Ballet. The superb Sizova is hardly known in the West, yet her interpretation of Aurora is one of the most convincing on film, while Soloviev is considered to be the best Russian male dancer ever. Also features the famous Natalya Dudinskaya and a young Natalya Makarova. A dream.

I was going to post a reply to Marc's post, but this is another thread that's much too long, so I'll close it, and start Favorite Videos #2, copying Marc's post to start.

alexandra

Victoria, I think you're absolutely right. ABT was always the best bad example of this, but the difference was that, 20 years ago, people (critics, regular balletgoers, other ballet dancers and artistic directors) understood this and excused it, understanding the company always lacked money and was doing the best it can. But they did not imitate it.

The difference today is one, that this understanding no longer seems to exist, and ABT's performances have become the standard. They've got all the stars, they're so exciting. And you have people in charge of companies who do not know enough to see that what's on stage is not what it could be.

I hate to bash ABT, because I've enjoyed so many of its performances and admired so many of its dancers. They have had, and have now, wonderful, wonderful dancers. They could be a truly great company. But they won't be wiithout coaching.

Another problem is that the three Old Companies (Kirov, Paris and Royal Danish) used to operate with an overlord, if you will, who knew the talents of everyone on the staff and assigned them differents roles. Someone might be a great coach in certain roles; someone might be good with stars, others with very young dancers. But the "overlord" (balletmaster) knew the strengths and weaknesses of all and assigned accordingly. That is gone too.

Part of all of this is result of what might be thought of as the artistic equivalent of a power vacuum. In the absence of a great talent, a genius, the moderate talents, the mediocre and even, in some cases, the truly terrible, spring forward to claim artistic pre-eminence. "I worked with soandso; I can do everything." And there's no one there to shame them into silence, and no one there to stop them. When this situation goes on for long enough -- one audience generation, it seems, is enough -- then what is seen becomes the norm, becomes acceptable, becomes the standard.

Victoria's point about coaching for ocmpetitions instead of for the stage is a wonderful one -- I hadn't thought of that, but I'm sure you're right. Thank you for a new soap box! Please bring that up on alt.arts.ballet the next time someone rants about those snotty people who don't lilke competitions and what harm can it do and all the winners go on to become great stars and so there.

This thread has so many long posts that it will soon become impossible, and so I'm about to start a new Lack of Coaching thread and lock this one off.

Please, all new thoughts, go on to Lack of Coaching #2.

alexandra

It is depressing, but there are what I think of as candles -- like Sibley coaching Wildor. The scariest thing about ballet is that it only takes one person to destroy or damage a company or a tradition, but it can also be saved or restored by one person. It's happened.

Every time I see a new, young dancer who seems to relish dancing classical ballet, I think there's hope. It's like seeing a rose flourishing on a crabgrass lawn, sometimes, but you take your miracles where you find them.

alexandra

Paul wrote:

"The idea that today's coaching of dancers is somehow compromised from what it used to be strikes me as a charge that has not been demonstrated sufficiently. Jane's anecdote about the Sarah Wildor and Antoinette Sibley dancer/mentor relationship can't represent that unique a situation can it"

In a word, yes. It is very unique. Even in Russia, as you may be reading in the posts about the Kirov.

I have one anecdote about this. I interviewed Nina Ananiashvili for my biography of Kronstam, because she had worked with him in Copenhagen. We talked a lot about coaching, and I asked her if there was anyone of Kronstam's level at the Bolshoi now. "Oh, yes," she said, naming Semyonova and two older dancers not known to me (or at least I couldn't understand their names when pronounced in Russian as opposed to Amero-Russian). I asked, "Any under 80?" There was a pause, and a very sad, "No, there is not. It is a big problem everywhere now, isn't it?"

The Sibley-Wildor situation is also unique because, even where there are still great dancers who are also great coaches living, the management often does not allow them to coach.

With regard to the Hartford situation, I think it's quite complicated. Does a board have to cough an infinite amount of money to fulfill a director's ambitions? I don't want to say too much because I did not see the company dance, but I have seen their promotional materials, their programs, and many photographs of the dancers, and none of what I have seen looks like good classical dancing, no matter what the director's intentions. This is not surprising; it is not possible to create a great classical ballet company in five years.

I think one of the biggest problems today is linked to money, but it goes beyond that. It's hype, bringing in audiences, getting attention, being an overnight success.

I'm sure the Hartford Ballet performances were enjoyable to many people, and I know it was important in the community and got people excited about ballet, which is great. But in matters of style, productions, casting, all of those "beyond technique" things, I'd suggest it might not be taken as the classical ideal.

I think Paul's point about the dancers succumbing to our fast-paced society is very true, but that's also the artistic director's job. If the dancers respect this person, they'll allow him/her to set the tone. Dancers, I am sure, want to be as good as they can be.

Finally, one of the most difficult problems is that, with the proliferation of dance companies -- which now pay very good salaries for artistic and administrative staff -- there are a lot of people who want the job who do a great job of selling themselves to the board, and who may be terrific fundraisers, but they're just not cutting it in the studio. Unfortunately, they don't see it that way. The woods are virtually crawling with "great coaches," or those who think they are. But they're not. And that gets us back to what we were talking about: great coaching, or the lack thereof. They can get away with it, because there aren't that many knowledgable, cultured people around who can, if you will, be Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle (I know great coaching. Great Coach was a friend of mine; and you, sir, are no Great Coach.)

One of my colleagues said something very wise a few months ago. "It's not just that there's no Balanchine. It's that there are no Lincoln Kirsteins." And no small cadre of men and women who formed the Camargo Society, either.

It's a very complicated question. Like the public schools, though, I don't think that money will solve anything.

alexandra

I think what you've observed is happening everywhere (except, from the little I've been able to see, in Paris). I think there are two things happening. This is DEFINITELY an opinion; I have no facts!

I think the American influence is responsible for some of it. In the 1970s, American Ballet Theatre, despite it's stars (Makarova, Baryshnikov, et al) was not a great classical company. Critics decried this; the new audiences coming into ballet for the stars had no way of knowing, had no past with which to compare. All that mattered was "technique" which became divorced from style.

What was once a blemish has become de rigeur. How do you coach a teenager if he looks at another teenager, doing more or less whatever he/she darned well pleases, and getting rewarded with good reviews, cheers, and, in some cases, big bucks? The stylists among the great dancers have always taken a back seat to the showmen. That's not new, and it won't ever change.

Another thing that has happened, at least in some companies (I can't speak for Russia) is that the artists, the great coaches or those with the potential for great coaching, are interested in working, in what goes on in the studio. What matters today is what goes on at the fundraising event, at the cocktail party. While the two arenas are not necessariy mutually exclusive, the gladhander is much more visible than the artist, is more likely to convince a board of well-meaning though not knowledgeable people that his Grand Scheme will bring Great Ballet to their metropolis, and, once given the title of "artistic director," they think they are one. It must be fun to go into a studio and tell everyone what to do. and there's nobody around to say, "Hey, wait a minute. This is Giselle. I read here in the notes something about "Romantic style.""

And now, one, two dancer generations on, there are few left who can reproduce it. Those who can see it -- a small percentage, it seems, of today's artistic staffs -- can not necessarily show it, much less convince young dancers that they must soften their arms, not show the virtuosity, not kick the sky just for the hell of it -- in short, do none of the things they've seen rewarded.

Finally, we are two dancer generations away from the great artists (in the sense of complete artists, the Fonteyn, Kolpakova generation). If you've never seen it on stage, how do you know what it looks like?

Alexandra

who sees little hope

It is interesting to know when ballet is "getting a fair go," as you say -- that's one of the things Ballet Alert is about. So thanks for your post, Katharyn, and I hope you'll tell us about it, what you saw and what you think. Many people who read this board will have seen much of the ABT show. Do you know which gala, or more details about that program?

alexandra

Please continue the discussion of Great Male Dancers of the Day here.

Thanks,

alexandra

This was posted by Dale on the Great Ballerinas #2 thread, commenting on posts by both me and Marc H. on the notion that the central problem in ballet today is the lack of first-rate coaching.

This probably should be a different thread but...the developement of dancers or the coaching of ballets seems to be the biggest problem these days. I was reading the reviews in the latest Dance Magazine and almost all pointed out that the ballets weren't being taught right, that dancers performed the ballets in a homogenized style. I don't think it's because the dancers are not talented. They can do it, but they're not getting the support they or the ballets need. Is it a money issue? Do companies feel that coaching is a place where they can save a few bucks? Or do dancers feel that they are out of school and don't want to "take lessons" any more. I know that in music there was a point where instrumentalists felt that while they always had to practice, there was some point where they didn't need to study anymore. However, opera singers never stop working with their coaches. Even the best of the best still take lessons. I've noticed that Nina Ananiashvili still works with her coach just to make sure she's not slipping. It's sad to hear that this is happening at the Kirov, where it always seemed that older, retired dancers stayed around to help the next generation.

Dale

Please continue the discussion of Who Are the Great Ballerinas of Our Day here. (The last thread was so long it took forever to load.)

Thanks.

alexandra

I'm going to start two new threads, because this one is getting too long:

Please don't post anything more here.

If you want to talk about Great Ballerinas, please go to Great Ballerinas #3.

If you want to talk about coaching or the lack thereof, please go to Coaching or the Lack Thereof. I'm going to copy Dale's posts to that thread, just to get it started.

Thanks,

alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited 01-18-99).]

Welcome, Anjain,

Unfortunately, I don't know a thing about ballet today in Poland. One of the hangovers of the old Cold War, perhaps, but Warsaw Pact companies never toured here, and so we didn't get to see the great companies of Poland or Hungary. Thanks very much for the information.

Please write us what the repertory is, and tell us what you're seeing.

Glad you've discovered ballet!

alexandra

Marc, I think you've mentioned the central problem of classical ballet today (even greater than the lack of choreographers, in my opinion), and that's the way young dancers are developed -- or not developed. Throwing them into all the big roles without adequate coaching, having everyone dance everything -- the All Purpose Principal principle. It's very sad that it's happening at the Kirov, too. I had hoped that that was the last place where "employ" was still respected.

The Stanislavsky Ballet was in Washington recently and, although it's hardly a great company, it had great balletmastering. The Princes were Princes and the Jesters were Jesters, so there. The company also paid great attention to style. Their "Chopiniana" was gorgeous -- and never looked, for a moment, like the second act of "Swan Lake." Alas, if they had a ballerina, they left her at home.

alexandra

I agree with Dale. I loved Makhalina when I first saw her -- Lilac Fairy and Medora in Le Corsaire. She was so lush and rosy; an absolutely perfect Lilac Fairy.

Then something seemed to go wrong. Next time, she danced Tchaikovsky pas de deux in what looked like a Naughty Nighty from Victoria's Secret; as did her Dying Swan costume. Her dancing seemed less disciplined, too.

When I saw the Kirov ten years ago, they had that wonderful crop of young women: Makhalina, Ayupova, Ivanova, Pankova, Lezhnina, (forgive my spelling; I'm not looking any of these up) with Asylmuratova, slightly older, at the fore. I remember we all breathed a sigh of relief. "Ah, Russia. It won't die out. Look at them. They still produce squads of ballerinas." And within a few years, most of them were gone to other companies, and the ones who remained -- well, to me, they did not fulfill their early promise.

Hope with the new management the current generation will do better.

As for your question, Marc, of how did soandso get chosen, I doubt that any of us would agree with many of the names posted here. As Dale said, people just put up their favorites. That's why I put up the other thread, "Favorites." I was trying to make the distinction between "Great" and "Favorites" but I realized that that's something that concerns critics much more than fans, and it was probably a silly thing to try.

alexandra

I'll second that. I had the good luck to see POB do several performances of Bayadere in Washington a few years ago, AND from where I sat at one performance, I had the most extraordinary view of the corps. When the dancers stood along the side, one row on each side of the stage, from this angle, the perfection and symmetry of the legs really looked like an optical illusion, that it was one perfect pair of legs duplicated on to infinity. Yet each woman is different; only the French can pull that off.

alexandra

I haven't answered because I've seen so little. Not much comes to D.C. anymore, and I didn't travel this past year.

I enjoyed some of ABT's performances, and was glad to see Clark Tippett's "Bruch Violin Concerto" again, and I was also glad to have seen the Stanislavsky ballet's Swan Lake (Bournmeister production) and Nutcracker (Vainonen productoin), although only for historical reasons.

Otherwise, this is the first year since 1975, when I first fell down the rabbit hole into balletland, that I did not see one single thing that I need to see again.

alexandra, who writes this morosely

Hi, Paul -

Don't know about Vilno/Vilnius, but Bronislava Nijinska is absolutely a great choreographer. There's a good video of her Les Noces with Paris Opera Ballet. I think it's Paris Opera Dances Diaghilev. It was extremely influential. Ashton revived it (and Les Biches) for the Royal in the 1960s and Nijinska was sort of "rediscovered." Robbins' Les Noces for NYCB was choreographed -- I'm pretty sure I read this -- before he knew that the original could be revived. The NYCB version uses the same score and the same idea, but isn't the same ballet.

A few years ago the Joffrey revived Les Noces -- and did it very well, I thought. DTH also revived it, and danced Les Biches a few years ago. Neither of those are on video, as far as I know.

I love Les Noces (in case you haven't guessed.) It's still the most "modern" ballet I've ever seen.

alexandra