Alexandra

Okay, I'll bite. I don't know anyone who wishes this, actually. It does seem to be a cherished myth, though -- at least on this board I've never understood why. I've never read anyone post that they only want to see this or that dancer from grandpapa's time, and so I don't understand the basis for the assumption. It's the cousin of, "They don't really remember. They just think they do. It's all in their [read the unspoken: oh so silly and beknighted] minds." The people I know want to see ballets well rehearsed, well staged, and well cast -- and the talented dancers of today developed to their full potential. Some people love everything they see, or have favorite dancers who can do no wrong -- and that's fine! But there are other perceptions, and people with other priorites, and they have a right to exist Re museums (and I thank Kathleen for her excellent post!) I think it's the duty of a museum to make sure that that all its exhibits are visited. In the National Gallery here, I've never visited on a day where there were empty rooms, so it can be done. I have no idea how! (Maybe simply because it's free?) Painters do go in and out of fashion, but if they were hauled into the basement every time a museum goes by ratings, would we have the Sargent and Vermeer exhibitions, that were wildly popular, in recent memory?

I can't stand it. Why is "We're NOT a Balanchine museum?" a good thing. Companies are always saying this. But what's wrong with museums? The Met, the Louvre, the Tate.....Will we soon be reading press releases and speeches that says these "will now be galleries, with NEW work only because we're NOT museums"? A museum preserves masterpieces exactly. They don't repaint them, change the color in the backdrops, add a few extra men to "The Three Graces," etc. There is no ballet company in the world that could be accused of preserving its masterpieces exactly! Stop worrying. We don't think you're museums! Back to NYCB opening night sans whatsisname.

Yes, it's a shame Balanchine didn't create any substantive works. One does get so tired of "Tarantella."

Now, now, Farrrell Fan. Let's be fair. There are so few Balanchine ballets that when "Tarantella" was pulled -- undoubtedly for an excellent reason -- it would have been impossible to find a substitute

This is terrific -- thanks to both of you! I used to do something very like this for the print version of Ballet Alert! every year and know how much time it takes. It will be a wonderful resource!!!

J-M, sorry -- yes, Frantz/Franz was a travesty role in the original production (1870) and at the Paris Opera until around 1960, I believe. (It was the fashion of the times.) In Copenhagen, Franz was always danced by a man. I don't know for certain that Swanilda was the only pointe role (in Copenhagen) but my best guess is that it was. In the Paris 1870 production, there were many variations. So many, in fact, that Saint-Leon was asked to trim them, and when the ballet was revived after the Franco-Prussian War, in the late 1870s, the third act, with the divertissement of the bells, was cut.

Yes, it's very different -- or was. I don't think they've done it since 1994 and after Hans Brenaa died in 1988, the performances became rather coarse, but before that, it was a marvel. It was changed by Hans Beck almost as soon as the company acquired it -- no travesty role Franz for the Danes! Swanilda is the only dancer on pointe, and nearly all the characters in it are bad-tempered, or selfish, or otherwise less than ideal. There is lots of character dancing -- Franz is in boots. When I saw it in the early 1980s, the conducting was extraordinarily masculine and robust -- you could really hear the Hungarian colors in the score. It was televised in the early 1980s, but as far as I, it's never been released. Bruce Marks staged the production for Boston Ballet during his tenure there. I don't know of any other producitons (but that doesn't mean there aren't any). What's really interesting is how close the second act is to other second acts. This is mime that lasts (pace Denby).

I generally admire Morris's work, and his company. Now, iif the unstretched legs and floppy feet were descriptions of a ballet company, I'd be cross. But wiith modern dancers, I think it's a different aesthetic: relaxed legs and feet, a free use of the body, the illusion that they're office workers, but just try to do what they do My favorite Morris piece -- well, tied with L'Allegro -- is one from years and years ago, where the dancers was....a little, toy, robot truck, that learched its quavering, broken-hearted way across the stage, stopping, starting again, nearly breaking down, b ut gathering up its courage and pressing forward -- to a country and western singer's wail about how his woman done left him.

Bart, that one's brilliant. Thoroughly thought through, and reprehensible in every way I give it three years before it's on stage. I'm sure there are "choreographers" out there who are leaping -- no, wait, that's a ballet step -- who are shouting, "Yes! Yes! Why didn't I think of that??? Keep 'em comin' The ballet world needs some inspiiration...

I didn't get to see this one, but George Jackson reviewed it for DanceView Times shortly after it was shown in Washington: http://www.danceviewtimes.com/dvdc/reviews...4/dancecuba.htm

That does sound like a long gala! Not much about Bournonville, but perhaps intended as having dancers from around the world pay tribute to him? I'm sorry you had so much trouble getting tickets, Estelle -- it sounds like a hassle. But it is a beautiful little theater. Estelle wrote: Could it be "nye vaerk"? If so, I think the sentence would read, "Fei Bo's new work has changed names from "Ripples" to "Lianyi." ("bye" means "towns," I think). My Danish is rather primitive, so please, if anyone really knows, don't hesitate to correct me I look forward to reading the rest of your review!

Thank you for that, Mary! (I think Herr B did create more ballets that were worthy to show at the end of an evening, but they've disappeared ) I love the idea of your dancing Napoli on the way home! If you see more performances in Copenhagen this coming season, I hope you'll tell us about them. [Editing to add:] I forgot to ask -- I'd be very interested in knowing what you found outdated about the Bolshoi dancers? Style, technique, approach, all of the above, something else?

The age of the tape has nothing to do with the speed of the dancers. This question comes up over and over (and not on silent films, but of films made between 1930 and 1970, for the most part). People accustomed to today's dancers see historical footage and can't believe how fast dancers 30, 50, 70 years ago could turn. (Although they have no trouble believing that they're really heavier, or shorter, or with lower extensions!) People who saw the dancers during the times filmed say, "YES, they turned that fast." Different times have different concerns and emphasize different aspects of technique. Compact dancers with short, sturdy legs often turn faster than tall, very thin dancers with thin ankles and high arches. Dancers of the Ballet Russe were not as concerned about line as are dancers of today; different ages and companies have different strengths and different concerns. But yes, they really did turn that fast.

I'd forgotten that quote about his firing Mezentseva Vinogradov is currently the artistic director of the Universal Ballet of Korea (Seoul) and artistic director of the Universal Ballet Academy (Washington, D.C.)

Gina, that's an interesting point. I have suspicion (that I can't prove ) that there's a lot more to demicaractere dancing than being light, sweet and charming -- and I think Ashton knew this. Reading some 19th century reviews, one gets the sense that the demis were the "sexy" genre (think of Gautier's "Christian/pagan" differentiation). I've only seen Nerina on film, but she looked more on the earthy than sweet and charming side to me. There may also have been other considerations. Nerina had a JUMP -- huge jump, for example; it's an important component of the role. And there's also musicality. Of the dancers I saw as Lise in the 1980s, only Dawn Ciacamo (sp?) phrased the role in an Ashtonian way, and she wasn't at all the "right" type.

Good points, Bart -- sometimes it's simply about personal power: who gets the corner office, who gets to do the fundraisers, who gets THE CREDIT for all the glorious things that the company is doing? And sometimes it is about artistic vision: "I cannot stand the idea of your putrid revision of "Swan Lake" -- no offense :blush: " versus "If I see one more 'traditional' production of a classic I'll scream." Mergers are hard. It's usually because neither organization can make it on its own, and the merger sounds great, until people start dealing with details. I'm not writing anything people couldn't figure out on their own, I know

I think, in this case, it's likely to mean aesthetic vision. (Gielgud, in the article, says, in effect, she didn't think he had one.) But it could also be a clash over who had the right to do what, and what the understandings were on both sides when Gielgud was hired. If it is the case, as is widely assumed (and these assumptions are what underlie what's been written, both in this instance and in the articles when Gielgud joined the company) that Gielgud was to be a co-artistic director while Welch would be primarily occupied with choreography, then those hybrid directorships seldom work. The person with the title is the one who chooses the repertory and the dancers -- casting seems to have been a major issue here, with Gielgud stating that she didn't get the dancers she wanted for her production of "Giselle." And she's right. That usually is the choreographer/stager's prerogative. Welch obviously has a side to this, and he's being diplomatic about expressing it. It sounds like a clash of taste as well as vision. What's interesting (to me, from afar) about Houston is that the company had a very loyal audience -- a passionately loyal audience -- that liked what it was being served. They liked Stevenson, they trusted his vision, and they liked his ballets and the dancers he chose and developed. Now they're getting something very different -- but here, there was no diminution in audience, no crying need for something new!!! new!!! new!!! The repertory has been changed completely (as Stevenson's ballets are no longer part of it). Gielgud was a link to the Stevenson era -- they shared an aesthetic, generally. It's understandable that Welch wants to do with the company what he wants, but it will be interesting to see how the audience reacts. Will it merely drive the old audience away? Or will it also bring in a new one?

Thanks for posting that -- it's one story that's easy to read between the lines I love the thought of Welch "refining the classics."

I would, too. It was changed, by Flindt, in 1965. I've seen a non-dancing Gurn as late as 1993 -- when Alexander Kolpin was injured (and he was a marvelous Gurn). Kronstam danced both versions, and told me in interviews that during the solos James was walking around the room, greeting each guest and thanking them for their gifts. It doesn't make sense that James would dance, because, by Bournonville rules, the hero cannot dance while the balance of his mind is disturbed, and Kronstam said that "it never felt right" (although he loved doing the solo). And the dramatic point, as you note, of James finally finding flight, when his soul and his body are free, in the forest is lost. But I don't think any force could pry those solos away from the dancers, at this point

On the DVD of the Kirov's staging, the production is credited to both Gusev and Vinogradov. I would like to know, as well, what happened to the original! When was it dismembered and reassembled Beaumont (Cyril W., "Complete Book of the Ballets") writes of a serious ballet, whose ballerina (Rosati) brought the audience to tears. One major change (I write this from memory!) is that Medora and Conrad knew each other when the ballet opens, and that Lankedehm was her GUARDIAN! and sold her to the Pasha. (Needed the extra cash? Medora had been lax with the chores?) A lot of music has been added -- Beaumont credits Adam with the score -- so it must be a patchwork quilt of a ballet.

There's a film of him in 1940 (when he's 30) in La Bayadere with the same manege -- it was his specialty -- and he's much faster. It's on one of those collections -- The Glorious Russian Tradition -- but I can't remember whether it's Volume I or Volume II. (Both are worth having!)

This wasn't a silent film, though, and there are other, earlier, examples from Soviet TV of Chabukiani that are much faster. Yes, they turned that fast. I asked the same question when I started watching ballet in the mid 1970s -- about Plisetskaya -- and was assured by everyone I asked (puzzled that I would ask) that no, that was the accurate speed. Chabukiani is in his mid-40s in "Flames of Paris," too, and allowances have to be made for his technique. Also he was a heroic dancer, not a lyric -- not a classical stylist. THAT has changed. They didn't care if they landed in position, they cared about other things -- expressiveness being primary.

I'm sorry for the change, but if it's any consolation, I've seen the first act of the Schanne "La Sylphide," and the production itself was not in good shape then. Schanne looks like something out of a child's storybook. Big head, big crown, big wings, armour-underwear. But what everyone says was a magnetic stage presence wasn't visible, to me. Flindt is James, and this was the old-old version, where James dances only in the reel. The two solos were extraordinary -- Niels Kehlet, who had the highest jump in the West, if not the world, and Jorn Madsen, a promising young dancer whose career ended early due to injury. But the production itself -- it wasn't directed. They just danced. It was the post-Lander, pre-Brenaa era, when Bournonville was left to fend for himself. It's stop and start, no seamless connection between miming and dancing, no flow. Liebs, I'm glad Rachel remembers Bournonville fondly. The world cannot have too many Bournonville fans Jane, yes, Kronstam would have been 22, and extremely thin. They must have either cut off, or neglected to film, the beginning, since that would mean at least two men's and two women's solos, and some trios, would have been omitted, if they followed the same order. Odd.

Some of the Danish dancers in the 1990s were quite proud of the fact that "I never had to count" or "so and so never had to count the score for me." But I think, as others have said, that depends on the complexity of the score. Bart, to add to the confusion about counting, I have a quote from Henning Kronstam about Ashton (both were considered very musical): "Ashton didn't care about counts. He didn't care whether you ended on one or on four, as long as you were with the music."

Yes, Ralov was THE star then. He got a full page photo in the 1953 souvenir program, and the other solodancers got half pages. He was the first First Solodancer among the men. His great roles were Gennaro, Harlequin and Petrouchka -- and Albrecht.