Alexandra

I disagree Alexandra. I do not believe that it is a matter of opinion or value but about really knowing what classical ballet is/how it should be and having the experience and the eyes to see the difference. My concern is that there are very few people left who have this and those who have are already very old. So soon there will be nobody left who really knows and has the eyes, and I would say that the true tradition of classical ballet will die with them. But of course ballet will go on superficially and most people would not even notice what has been lost. Forgive me for being off topic in this thread. I don't think we disagree at all, omshanti. I'm saying that people's opinions are formed by what they see, not that I think that all opinions have the same weight. Today, what I read mostly are inferious classical productions touted as "great," dancers without line or refinement praised for their line and refinement OR nonclassical ballets pronounced far superior simply because they're not classical ballet -- they go beyond it, etc. etc. Or both. I don't agree with that, but if that's what you're seeing, and that's what you're reading, that soon becomes the new standard. Someone who's never seen or appreciated classical ballet working at its highest level won't be in sync with someone who has. That's all. It's very hard to have this kind of discussion on message boards, as we've found time after time, because the conversations usually quickly dive right down into personal taste

I think that omshanti made some good points. There are lots of ballet schools and ballet teachers today, and many of them are excellent. But one often reads complaints by company artistic directors about the quality of the training. I diid an interview last year with a director who had 150 eager young dancers at the company's audition and didn't take anyone. I also agree that the verticality of ballet, and other special qualities -- epaulement, style, polish -- are often sacrificed for other qualities (as modern dance is losing its weightedness when danced by ballet dancers, as Carbro noted above). There may be disagreements about issues like this depending on what one sees and what one values, of course.

To make the discussion even more interesting, there's a lot of ballet that isn't classical -- demicaractere ballets (almost never done anymore) and character ballets, or character elements in ballets. Ratmansky uses character dance. Of the contemporary (meaning: working this hour) choreographers whose work I've seen, he's the one who seems to use the entire ballet vocabulary, not just the danse d'ecole. And there's a lot of dance of all genres that's called "classical" that I would call "formalist" -- to differentiate between vocabulary from structure. The more you get into it, the more the differentiations matter and the more fun they are to decode. But one doesn't need any of this to enjoy watching dancing, of course!

There are several mixed genre companies in Europe -- one of the most famous is Netherlands Dance Theater. Then there's tanz teater, a new (now several decades old) descendant of modern dance that's a kind of movement theater. There are several Asian ballet companies -- in China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. Don't know about southeast Asia; perhaps someone else will. I know BT4D has quite a few students from Singapore. I think ethnic or national sensibilities and aesthetics will always be visible.

"Company B" was created on Taylor dancers, but intended for a ballet company (Houston). It's an exception, but I use it to prove a rule. The Bugle Boy solo, especially, is a ballet solo. (In its early seasons, Houston looked better in this ballet than the Taylor Company. Really!) Mark Morris is often quoted as saying he's a modern dance choreographer (I have some friends who consider him post-modern). Ballet is definitely part of his background, but it's not his primary sensibility. I haven't seen "Sylvia," and I'll be curious how New York sees it. More and more, there seems to be a difference between West Coast and East Coast perceptions -- not saying one is "right" or "wrong," just different. I remember hearing and reading friends iin LA and San Francisco who thought Matthew Bourne's "Swan Lake" was a new classicism and New York colleagues had a different take. All of this to say that things are in flux and until -- and if -- there's another Center, a big movement in which people either buy into or rebel against, there are going to be a lot of grey areas.

Patrick, I didn't see it. He's one of the "blenders/hybrids/crossovers" whatever types. I'm sure others here did see it and I hope they'll chime in with specifics.

DefJef, modern dance has its own rigor. It doesn't require as many years of training. Many modern dancers started as ballet dancers, but many also don't discover dance until college and start then. It's very rare for someone who's a trained modern dancer to switch to ballet -- especially women, because if pointe work is not started very early one won't be proficient. It's not rare for ballet dancers to do modern dance -- these days, there are almost no companies that do not have modern dance in the repertory. For years there has been a "crossover" style and it's had different names. The French call it "ballet moderne" (as opposed to "ballet classique"). It's also been called hybrid, crossover, altoballet, etc. It started in the 1950s with Glen Tetley, John Butler and several others who experimented with blending modern dance and ballet technique, really blending it, not just staging a modern dance work on a ballet company, or having a modern dance choreographer come in and choreograph a ballet. In the past couple of years, a new genre has started to emerge called "contemporary dance" (as awful a name as modern dance, because it's confusing. A new "Giselle" staged this week is a "contemporary" version, but may not be a "contemporary dance" version. It's a blend of everything, including ballet's virtuosity. (Modern dance had, as its credo, an emphasis on expression and a loathing of virtuosity.) Modern dance companies do what their choreographers do. Merce Cunningham or Paul Taylor will do modern dance, because that's what they do -- they won't invite someone in to do a "contemporary" work. I'm not sure I understand "Or do they remain rooted in a classical repertoire." There are very, very few repertory modern dance companies. They're nearly always one-choreographer shops. Nearly all classical dancers today have training in modern dance, or jazz dance, or some other non-classical form. Some have no trouble moving among genres, others do. There are some dance students who see ballet technique as a means to an end -- builds strength, gives you a good vocabulary, develops muscles -- and others who want to dance classical ballet. When I became interested in dance, I remember having a hard time sorting out the various genres -- I'd read it was all about the shoes, but Alvin Ailey's dancers sometimes wore street shoes, sometimes were barefoot, and sometimes wore pointe shoes. Then I realized that the easiest way to try to sort things out is to think of dance as a language. Balanchine borrowed from German modern dance, jazz, Broadway, everything else around him -- but he spoke classical ballet, and, unless he was choreographing for Broadway or circuses, what he made was ballet. Paul Taylor and Mark Morris know how to use ballet technique and ballet dancers, and when they make a work for a ballet company, it will suit the dancers, but they're still modern dance choreogrpahers because that's their language. One caveat: In Europe, many people use "contemporary dance" to include "modern dance." I just read a 'short history of contemporary dance' on the web that began with Isadora Duncan. This is new. In the '30s, there was "German modern dance," and when modern dance began to develop in England, it was called "modern dance," but "contemporary" took its place. This site, by the way, was founded partly because of this grey area, as you put it. I was alarmed constantly reading that ballet was disappearing, that it was just another kind of dance. It's its own thing, and I wanted to have a place where it could be explored and discussed: "a place for civilized discourse about classical ballet".

I just found this one -- it covers all the arts in Boston, which includes Boston Ballet. BB fans may want to check it. http://www.hubarts.com/weblog/

I won't be going to Jackson, but I hope to read about it here, on BT4Dancers (link at the top of this page) AND in Links. Today's Links thread has several articles: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...topic=22676&hl= and dirac and Mme. Hermine will be posting articles about the competition, and Varna later this summer, I'm sure.

Friday night's performance wasn't perfect, but there were some lovely moments and I was darned glad to be there Full (or nearly full) and happy house for Pavlenko and Kolb. Did anyone go?

Hey! Wake up! This is a good question!! What do regular NYTimes readers think? And others, generally. Work, y'all

I got two reports this morning, one from a Forsythe hater, another an admirer, who both thought Thursday night was very well danced. Both had seen earlier evenings and thought that Thursday was the best. We often have jet lagged openings, and this may have been one of them.

The exchange quoted above between Nancy Dalva and Richard Howard is very close to something that's often attributed to Balanchine (and apologies if I posted this earlier iin the thread): Ballet is not for everybody, but it is for anybody. The "elitist" charge can be interpreted so many ways. It's only for those awful RICH PEOPLE (new slur, and an odd one in a land where most people think they're going to be a millioinaire, according to polls). Or that it only appeals to a small percentage of the population, and that group is generally better educated, or more culturally aware, than others. The elite "club" IS something that anyone can join. It takes a bit of effort. Some people grow up in families that value art, others discover the arts later iin life. The door is always open. My question to those who think that "elitism" is a "charge": why are you so threatened by this? Just stick to what you like and leave me alone.

Thanks. Hmm. Now I hope I"m right and Merkuriev didn't dance Wednesdays. Apologies to all in advance if I'm wrong.

I'll leave others to comment on Mr. Rockwell I'd suggest reading Robert Greskovic in The Wall Street Journal (it's not on line, and he's not in every day, but there's usually a heads up on a forum here if he has an article). He's been watching ballet Forever and his reviews are extremely knowledgeable. Joan Acocella writes occasionally in The New Yorker. Tobi Tobias (a long-time reviewer for New York magazine until they cut their dance coverage) writes regularly for Bloomberg.com Deborah Jowitt in The Voice and Robert Gottlieb in The Observer are two more long-time New York writers. Also, I humbly refer you to http://www.danceviewtimes.com All the reviewers are professional writers/critics and one of the goals is to provide good criticism. We have a new issue up every Monday and back issues are on line. Also, I hope you check Ballet Talk's Links. Every day, dirac or Mme. Hermine puts up every link to a ballet review or story. You can read them and decide which reviews are useful or helpful. Newspapers have cut back drastically on reviews in recent years. The NYTimes used to cover every cast change and no longer does. To be fair, though, companies used to have 2, 3 cast changes tops, and today there can be 6, 7, 8, and that's a lot to try to cover. Reviews of ballet and opera and classical music performances are not read as often as reviews of movies and pop music. The newspaper standard has changed. It's no longer the goal of a newspaper to have people "scouting" what's good and writing about it, or reporting on everything in the cultural life of the city. It's covering stuff that people alrready know about. Or, at least, that's my very biased take on things. The change started in the '90s, when newspaper readership fell off. I've written for the Washington Post since 1979 and used to cover, say, all four casts of an ABT full length over a weekend. Each program was covered, each cast was covered. That's no longer the case. Generally, each program is covered, but rarely is each cast covered. (And one could make the argument that this is part of the fall-out of the end of the Ballet Boom. It was one thing to write about Makarova and Baryshnikov in a new role, or an up and coming Martine van Hamel and Fernando Bujones, and another to try to cover today's scene.) I don't know how the Times works. Most papers will cover the first night. If there's another major debut -- David Hallberg, on a third performance, say -- that might get covered. It's not up to Mr. Rockwell, Iw ould imagine. He probably suggests things, and may well want to cover more than he's given to cover. the editors decide. It can depend on the day. If something really big is happening, like the Super Bowl, or American Idol final night, then there may not be any room for dance that day. I don't think reviews should have any effect on a dancer's career. I've been told by dancers that that is not the case. Whether that's perception or reality, I can't say. Editing to add: Some publications which still print full season reviews, all quarterly: England's Dance Now; Canada's Dance International; New York's Ballet Review. And DanceView, of course

I can't answer about Osmolkina, I'm afraid. Two cast changes were announced, very quickly, and I missed them. I thought they announced the Merkuriev change last night -- but I didn't catch the substitution. (Very unprofessional, I know, but I wasn't covering. )

Audience was warmer last night, too. Steptext got three calls. I only remember one Tuesday. I did miss Mercuriev in that. I thought he was quite good. I have to say that four Forsythes on a program is three too many for me. The repetitions, the stop/starts, the lack of dynamics, all the clever little Sixties avant-gardisms....too much of a muchness for me. I'd seen all of these before except for Vertiginous. "He looks like he's trying to prove that he can do it [make a classical ballet] and he can't!" a friend said at intermission. And I'd second that. The program is a good chance to see a lot of the dancers in soloist roles, though. (The house looked about as full/empty Wednesday night as Tuesday. Which is good news, actually. Usually the opening night has the largest audience.)

kfw -- an acute observation, as usual! Natalia -- I had the same feeling, generally, as you, but Wednesday night was twice as zippy as Tuesday.

Tonight was opening night (the Forsythe program) and the house was not well sold, especially for an opening. I hope anyone who's on the fence about going to this one will go -- if Washington won't go see the Kirov, then I worry about the future of the ballet subscription. This program is all-Forsythe -- four of his works made for ballet companies. It's a very good chance to see a lot of the dancers. The people who were there seemed generally happy, although I have to say I don't think the company looked its best. They're too calm for Forsythe and smoothed everything -- tempi, dynamics, steps -- out. But they got a good response. I hope if others go you'll report.

I think your architecture/ballet analogy will give you the answer you seek. I can't see in a building what you can, I'm sure. I may see a house that I think is beautiful and finely made (it's got trees and ivy and it's grey stone and it has a good view) and you'll not only know that it's a bad copy of a landmark building in some foreign clime that I've never seen, but see that the rooms don't flow in the best way, that it's not placed on the land correctly so it will get the sun at all the wrong times and no cross-breeze in the summer, that the stone isn't native to that area, and that the balance of the rooms is off. But you'll still see the beauty in (pick your favorite Gothic cathedral, or simple federal house in an old town). You'll just know how it was made.

Ego problem? Tsiskaridze? Nah!

I just learned of this today from one of its writers -- www.ionarts.org (that's pronounced Eye On Arts) It's a blogger blog, but a serious one, centered on the fine and performing arts in DC. If you look at Recent Entries, you'll find a review of the Kirov's Balanchine program danced in St. Petersburg last Saturday, with some photos. I think this one is worth watching. Ion Arts

Julia Moon is director and prima ballerina of Korea's Universal Ballet Company. (Washington Ballet fans might remember her as Hoon Sook Pak some years ago). Others may know this -- I'm not sure if she is still dancing. She was two years ago. (I'm sure this is a coincidence but I can't help pointing out that Simon Dow was also a Washington Ballet dancer in the late '70s and '80s.)

y'all did very well If we could just cut more of those BORING parts out, we could not only save money, we'd be home sooner! Maybe Serge can start rolling in his grave. Something new to do

It sure didn't! Thanks, AG. I reposted it. When I went back to check the link, I found a review of the performance. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/a...etrevu0605.html It's a positive review, but....... class, find at least three clues that let us know that this writer really doesn't like ballet.