Alexandra

Exactly. That's what I was referring to in my answer to antoP -- that many of her 100 posts may be on BT4D now.

Yes. If a post is deleted, it's gone to Post Heaven, and there is no record of its existence. think of it as a juvenile record wiped clean

Mme. Hermine posted the following in today's links thread and I thought it might spark an interesting discussion: John Rockwell in the New York Times on the exploitation of star power: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/arts/dance/26star.html The article ends with the following question:

Merry Christmas, whatever day you do, or do not, celebrate it! Especially to Helene and the Moderators, who've kept this site going!! Thank you!

Helllo, antoP It's so good to read you again! There are a couple of reasons for this. First, in the early years, we had to prune posts frequently for space reasons (space was very expensive, then, and we kept bumping up against the limits of our various plans). More likely, in your case, most of your posts will still be on our sister board -- Ballet Talk 4 Dancers (link at the top of the page). We split the board a few years ago because it had simply gotten too big, and moved the Teachers, Young Dancers, and other forums about dancing to its own site (where you will find Victoria and Mel). Please continue to post on both boards -- I miss your voice! (I've lost 4,000-some posts in various moves and purges, if that helps )

No no! The "you" was the good old generic "one". (My rule is that Siegfried must be taller than the swans, and you have to be ablle to see Albrecht over the Wilis ) And I didn't intend to be snitty to someone who WOULD want to see Favorite Dancer in a Totally Unsuitable Role -- to many people this whole line of conversation is daffy becasue it's so intangible, and, as I said above, we don't learn about it in school and have to learn it -- and unlearn it -- piecemal as we watch. I would agree with you on Part and Wiles as Myrtha; I'm sure there'd be some disagreement, but I take your point. I will say that I remember thinking about the difference between the Romantic Van Hamel in "Swan Lake" and the classical Gregory. I preferred Van Hamel, but I can remember a couple of Gregory's performances that were so pure and perfect that she made a case for it. I was just rereading Gennady Smakov's "The Great Russian Dancers" (another book that talks about employ) and he says that was Kschessinskaya's approach, and included some very interesting views by contemporary critics on her performances. (An aside, know.) I'm off to a ballet school recital at a school which takes employ very seriously, even for the 11 year olds

There are several reasons why these ideas can seem so limiting to people. One is that we're not taught them in school. We're taught how to appreciate music and poetry and art, but not dance, and so we all grow up with our own ideas and can be confused, if not aghast, when they don't match up with others. Also, right now, classical ballet is in free fall -- there isn't a dominant company, nor aesthetic, nor choreographer, nor dancer. So it comes back to personal taste. If My Favorite Dancer happens to be 5'2, then of course he can do Siegfried, and who can say no? And then, of course, you'd put the tall girl with absolutely no wit, charm or sense of humor -- but great legs and fast pirouettes -- in the McBride role in "Rubies," and it would look just fine, especially if you never saw McBride. The question of changing roles is a fascinating one. At some point, ballets lose their connection wiith the creator, or particular dancers, and become opportunities for perfoormance art rather than ballets, I think. Many times new dancers change roles/ballets for the better, and sometimes, I think, we only think they do -- and then someone comes along with a body with the same proportions as the role's originator, and it's like watching something that's become warped snap back into place. The next time there is a great period in ballet, all of these rules will have shifted around again; they always do, but, but, but, but, but. If you think of ballets as having architecture and geometry, then changing the bodies changes the ballet. Sometimes this matters more than others. (In an abstract ballet more than a narrative one, perhaps. There's a very interesting -- though very specialized -- book about 18th century dance and the genres, from the grotesque dancers' point of view, that provides an interesting perspective. I can't find my copy, but it's something close to "The Role of the Groteschi on the 18th Century Stage" (the authors are editors). The historian Joan Lawson has addressed emploi in several works, but otherwise, it's hard to find -- a reference here, another one there. There's a lot in Russian; one reads references to this book or that one, but I don't read Russian Andre Levinson has written about it, but he writes in French. Noverre's "Letters" -- a very old view, but one that is still referenced -- is available in English. [edited to add a paragraph and correct a few typos]

These are all excellent questions. The basic genres of dancing date back to the late 17th century and were then as strict as tenor/baritone/bass in singing (danseur noble et serieux, danseur demi-caractere and danseur grotesque). The terms are still used -- danseur noble (tall, good lines, slow movements; The Prince in Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, etc., and for women, Lilac Fairy and Gamzatti) and danseur demicaractere (medium height, quicker movements,, and "half-character," meaning a variation isn't pure dance, but has a hint of character in it, Mercutio in Lavovsky's "Romeo annd Juliet" woould be a good 20th century example; and "grotesque" is now usually "comique" and sometimes "bravura" -- the Jester in a Russian 20th century "Swan Lake". BUT these started to become more flexible during the Romantic era, and often a dancer does, and can, adapt to the roles. So there are roles that require a specific type, too. There's a demi-caractere approach to dancing, line can be emphasized or not, if it's not an important part of a variation. Some choreographers -- in the West, Ashton and Balanchine, as well as Petit, Cranko and MacMillan -- used these concepts quite consciously, especially in neoclassical ballets. The Blue Skater in "Les Patineurs," Puck in "The Dream" are two examples of demi-caractere roles. If they put in someone who moves slow and is six feet tall, people will scream. Likewise, a tiny scamperer cast as Siegfried will set at least some people screaming. Loudly. ("type" is actually something diffferent, and nearly gone in ballet, although you still have The Ingenue, The Juvenile Lead," etc. in acting. It was a very specific slotting of people in roles to which they were physically and temperamentally suited to help in storytelling, so that the audience would instantly recognize The Tall Dark Handsome Stranger, the French Chambermaid, the Sailor, the Woman with the Apron, and the Woman in the Ball Gown. (Fine actors can cross those lines, too.) The genres are generally the same for males and females, except I think there are dozens of sub-genres in demicaractere for women. I don't know the names. I think they're lost now. I've talked to dancers and coaches asbout this, and they can group roles together, but can't name what links them. There are cheerful, innocent demicaractere roles -- Ashton's tarantella in "Swan Lake," or the Blue Boy, or Lise and Colas; and some that are very sophisticated (I think some 19th century demi roles were the sexy ones, in that time -- anything with a Spanish flavor, anything in which the dancer is allowed to flirt with the audience. Balanchine's Rubies (the McBride role) would be another. And then there are the national differences Giselle and Albrecht are demicaractere in France (and, until recently, in Copenhagen) but noble (sometimes now called "classical" to confuse us; technically all these are classical) in Russia. Songbirds fairy at the Kirov is quite elegated and sophisticated; in England and America it's often "cute." As for individuality -- ah. To me, that's the glory of classical balllet, that you can find 12 dancers who all have the same body type, give them the same variation, and you'll have 12 different dances. And yes, that's artistry, and nobody knows where it comes from, but it's fun to try to figure it out.

And might not the same "new audience" turn up for other programs if they were similarly priced? In the Washington suburbs, there are two theaters that program one Russian classical company a year -- a different one each year, and it doesn't seem to matter which. the tickets are a $40 top, the houses are always sold out, and they are the most racially and age-diverse audiences you see here.

I'd just like to say how much I enjoyed Leonid's long post -- I agree with every word in it and think it presents a very good history. Bart, there really are dozens and dozens and dozens of classical ballets that aren't performed. The Fokine, Massine, Nijinska, DeValois, much of Ashton; Robbins, Tudor and DeMille, Petit, Leo Staats, just off the top of my head. to make another satirical analogy, think of a symphonly orchestra saying, "Well, all there is is Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, so next season we're doing jazz, rap and some Tibetan chants." Caroline M, Leigh is right about the point of view of the site, but we're always interested in a variety of opinions.

Not interference at all -- all comments welcome! No, I don't find anything postive about it at all. The current repertory is not granted now. It's been dumped into something called Heritage Works which, just by its name, means Something We Have To Do, something that's in another room, as it were, not something we live and breathe every day. Oh, God. Must schedule 3 Heritage Works this season. Secondly, why do they want a new audience that doesn't like ballet? It's a ballet company. There are plenty of companies performing contemporary dance. There are very few who can dance classical ballet. The idea that "classical ballet" is a "heritage style," a dead end, a closed road, and that all new work must be in a different language is one of the things that's killing ballet. And thirdly and most importantly for the future of the company, as has been said above, the resident choreorapher becomes the company's way of dancing, their native language. And that will have every effect on what is danced and how it is danced. Other than that, it's a great idea!

Thank you, Alymer. (And it's good to read you again!) I'm afraid you're right! I've edited my post, substituting the slightly revised version I'll put up on www.danceviewtimes.com tomorrow morning. ami, thanks for telling us about the audience survey. It's a good idea to know what your audience wants, though these days people often gear what they're offering to these surveys, rather than educating them. They do it in politics too, at least over here. Some years ago, if people said, "We want to abolish public education because the schools are awful" or "the most important issue to us is repeal of all taxes," a candidate who cared passionately about education would use the results so that his speeches would address the issues -- explaining how public schools could be made better. Today, he'd be just as likely to change his slogan to: "Close the schools and cut the taxes!"

It might be, by Monday I have to say I checked the ROH site to make sure he wasn't already Resident Composer (honest I did) and then checked Sir Elton's biography to make sure he wasn't RC somewhere. It's only a matter of time. Although opera fans seem to understand the nature of their art form a lot better than ballet fans do, so maybe they're safe for a decade or two.

Thanks, all. I'll be putting this up on DanceView Times this week (probably slightly altered) as a commentary, but thought I'd try it out here first to make sure people would understand it was satire!!!!!

Revised version, will be up at www.danceviewtimes.com Monday morning. Breaking News! The Royal Opera announced Friday that Sir Elton John will be named Resident Composer immediately, if not sooner. Spokesman Reginald Foggybrane broke the news, which stunned the opera world and caused other Rocker Knights to spit nails. "When the Ballet appointed Wayne McGregor as Resident Choreographer, well, that was a real wake up call for us," Foggybrane explained. "We could not be left behind. We don't want to lose out on the youth movement that's desperate to see the lyric arts, if only they could relate to them.” Why Sir Elton? "Well, Madonna isn't British you see, and we're not sure she actually composes her own songs. So the Board mulled it over for a bit and lots of names were bandied about, but when they remembered that beautiful Candle thingy that Sir Elton sang at Princess Diana's funeral, there was really no question that he was the right man," said Foggybrane. Unlike McGregor, whose recent work for the Royal Ballet played to screaming audiences and rave reviews, Sir Elton has never created a work for the Opera. "Of course not," said Foggybrane. "Don’t be silly. He's not an opera composer." Quite. But he will be now? "Oh, he's very excited by this and is working on the form as we speak. He's already got melody down, of course," said Foggybrane. “And anyway,” Foggybrane continued, “who says he has to create an 'opera'? Who's to say what 'opera' is? McGregor isn't going to do anything that looks like "Swan Lake" or "Symphonic Variations" now, is he? Of course not! They don't want that — God, nothing like THAT. They want something that no one could possibly confuse with ballet." And if Sir Elton doesn’t produce an opera, but some kind of Contemporary Song Thing? "Who cares?" said Foggybrane. "It's all a matter of what the audience and critics will buy, and we think this is something we can sell." When it was pointed out that Sir Elton, 59, may be acclaimed in his genre, but is neither young nor especially cutting edge, Foggybrane was quick with an answer. “Baby steps, baby steps,” he said. “We’re really lagging behind the Ballet here. They’ve been stuck with all those great Heritage Works, but haven’t found anyone to make ballets on the same level for years. So they’ve had to look elsewhere and bring in people from outside and call what they make ‘ballet.' Brilliant, isn't it? They’ve been doing non-classical works for some time now but it’s new territory for us. We can't just dive in and pull out some Punker. But Sir Elton is still a big name to young people, and at least some of our longtime subscribers will know him. We think of him as a bridge between the traditional and the contemporary worlds.” Foggybrane admitted that the Opera’s problem was a bit different than the Ballet’s. “Of course, we don't have that many Heritage Works to toss out, just tons of Italians with a few Germans and Frenchmen thrown in here and there, but we do need new works. After all, how many times can you see 'La Boheme'? Young people don't like it, they just can't relate to it — good Lord, who dies of TB nowadays? And the singers need new works created on them, made for their very own vocal chords. That's what it's all about, isn't it?” We wondered how the singers’ classically trained vocal chords were going to take to New Tunes, but decided to save that one for another day. Foggybrane reminded us that Sir Elton’s appointment is well within the operatic tradition. "We must remember that we've been stuck in a stodgy period for awhile now. We need someone to shake things up a bit. Verdi was a real rebel in his day. So were Beethoven and Mozart, not to mention Puccini." Yes, they were rebels, but they were rebels within their art form, exploring new paths without bulldozing the forest, someone pointed out. Foggybrane became impatient: "That's old thinking. Opera is old news now. No one’s writing it, and young people don’t come to performances." That seemed to be the impetus. Young people aren’t coming to performances. Young people aren’t coming to performances. But even if young people are enchanted with the appointment, someone asked, will they be coming in droves to hear Sir Elton’s work at £170 a ticket? Could that possibly be a reason why The Young aren’t first in line at the box office? “Our prices are perfectly reasonable, considering the expenses of opera,” Foggybrane sputtered. “It’s such an elaborate art form—grand designs, great music, the most respected conductors, superb singers with years and years of the finest training. That’s what our subscribers expect when they come to the Opera and they're willing to pay for it. You don’t do performances that sear the soul on the cheap!” Foggybrane said, and who could argue with that? [Edited Sunday, December 10, 2006, 6:00 pm.]

Exactly. And if he really does serve as a resident choreographer -- not just making one ballet a year, but making a lot of ballets and working with the dancers on a regular basis, which is what a resident choreographer like, oh, say, Ashton or MacMillan, did -- what this means is that within a few years, all of the ballets in the repertory will begin to look like McGregor ballets and he'll change the style. Why else have a resident choreographer? His works should be the native language of the company.

Danish casting has long been inscrutable to me Thanks for posting this, Jane.

I hope atm is reading this thread and will comment, because she saw Tudor when it was Tudor. I saw his R&J in 1976, with Hilda Morales and Fernando Bujones, and I just remember it as one very, very, VERY long act.

What was so awful about it? Do tell. The pillow. Kirkland came out at the end with a pillow stuffed under her costume -- a pregnancy pillow. I've seen Offenbach, Dark Elegies, Romeo and Juliet, Undertow, Dim Lustre and Shadowplay. (And Leaves, Jardin, Pillar of course. ABT did them regularly through the '70s and early '80s.) Back then, the ballets were in an awkward stage. The aesthetic was pretty much dead by then -- it was the High Abstract Period -- and, try as they might, the dancers were always judged (rightly, I'm sure) as not being up to the earlier standard. The centennial would be a wonderful opportunity to really restage them, not as hand-me-downs that didn't quite fit the current cast, but as fresh works.

Oh, Manon is too good. New choreography, or the classic version? Anyone want to take a stab at the casting......

Re a Petit aesthetic -- I think it's more a theatrical than a formal one His favorite theme -- the young man and death -- done in a dozen different ways has most often yielded his best work, I think. There are signature steps, of course, but while you can identify an Ashton or a Balanchine work from a photo, even if the work is unfamiliar to you, I'm not sure I could do that with Petit. There are signature steps, of course, especially quick footwork, and, for women, the long leg used as a sword (which was Zizi's signature). I showed "Carmen" to a class this week, so just had a chance to look at it again, and, although this work is often dismissed, I can make a good case for it What I especially admired this time was how NEW everything in that piece would have been in 1949, not only the singing, and the dancing with chairs on your head, and the smoking on stage, and the use of the pas de deux as a rather literal metaphor for sex, but how he made everything (including character steps) look like classical ballet. To me, that's how you expand the vocabulary, and it's what I'm missing in today's work. Re the state of repertory (and I added the phrase "is performed today" to my original post to make it make sense!) I've asked a few directors about this, and often the response is, "Who would stage it?" I wonder if there would be audience interest, or at least curiosity about, the Disappeared Ballets?

Must it be an either/or? There are works that are theatrically interesting that are also well-made. (I realize that there are many who think that a formalist masterpiece is enough theater already, and that there are those who are happy with something "theatrical" -- people dressed as devil/angels swinging onto the stage on ropes, dropping down on motorcycles and jumping through flames, say -- that has no formal content.) I've always admired "Carmen." I think it is both theatrical and well-made. I loved his "Les Rendez-vous," which POB brought here about 15 years ago. I thought "Proust" was interesting, as was "Jeune Homme" and "L'Arlsienne." I think American companies would be hard-pressed to put over "L'Arlsienne," because there's so much filler. You have to believe in it to put it across. BUT when he is bad, he is BAD. "Chaplin" looked like a revue slapped together for a cruise ship. "Ma Pavlova" was just plain silly. Why isn't he done? More than money or taste, I think the problem is that NOTHING between Petipa and last Thursday in America (except for Balanchine at NYCB) is performed today. Where's DeMille, Robbins, Tudor? How about Fokine and Massine? We're equal opportunity discarders.

Just a quick hello to Ilya -- it's great to read you again! I hope you stick around for awhile

Interesting. Mine has been fine, at school on Windows IE, and at home on Mac, both Safari and Firefox.

I'd suggest making a donation to both sites if you use both sites. If you use both and $15 times two is a stretch, then give $7.50 to each