Alexandra

Fusion is a term used to describe/categorize a particular kind of choreography -- as carbro noted, a fusion of two forms, ballet and modern dance -- often by the choreographers themselves. It's not a judgment. I think part of its function really is to bring objectivity to a subjective discussion, to describe rather than judge. (I don't know what they'd call a mix of ballet and hip hop -- perhaps just that, until there were enough works done in that style that it needs its own name.) Words are invented when they're needed. There's a kind of dance that isn't ballet and isn't modern dance. So it needed a name. "Fusion" -- and crossover, and other terms -- are distionctions, and like most distinctions, only useful in discussing something at a certain level. If you're just going to talk about fruit, then you don't need to distinguish among apples, pears ands kumquats. Just say fruit and everyone will be happy. If you're really into fruit, then it's nice to know which are the apples and which are the pears. And so when there came a time when "classical ballet" didn't quite work for "Apollo" or "Agon," people started talking about "neoclassical ballet." And when one might need to say, "You know, that stuff that isn't ballet and isn't modern" a new term had to be invented. (In modern dance, you had "postmodern" choreogaphers when what they were doing was so far from Martha Graham that it was generally recognized that this wasn't "modern dance" anymore). I don't think one has to know the different genres to enjoy them, but, like other terms of art -- demicaractere, noble, character dancing as applied to dancers (or tenor, baritone, bass voices in opera) -- the terms are useful in describing performances, aesthetics, and different approaches to ballet. The categories of dance -- classical, neoclassical, fusion, ballet moderne, etc. -- are based on the vocabulary used, the language of that particular category, and the training of the choreographer. So if the choreographer is trained in classical ballet and uses that language when s/he choreographs, that's a classical choreographer. "Neoclassical" was a way to distinguish people like Balanchine and Ashton from Petipa and other 19th century choreographers, and indicates that the roots and vocabulary are classical. "Fusion" came in in the 1950s with John Butler and Glen Tetley, who were trying to "fuse" ballet with modern dance. There are also instances of works in a ballet company's repertory that are modern dance -- or postmodern dance -- and works by modern dance choreographers who can work in ballet and with ballet dancers and who make things that can genuinely be considered ballet -- or not. (I think actually someone has trademarked the word "fusion"; there was an incident a few years ago when a critic used the term in a review and got an angry letter from someone saying that the term had been used inappropriately because it was HIS. But I can't remember who it was!!) One other monkey in the works is that people often use the term "classical" to mean everything from "they're standing in straight lines" to "they're wearing toe shoes" to "a great ballet." Classical ballet is a vocabulary and training system; theatrical works built on the danse d'ecole. A modern or postmodern choreographer may make very formal works, but that's formalism, not classicism. There are choreographers who put the dancers in toe shoes and use them as though they're height boosters and choreographers who make barefoot ballets, and there are a lot of classical ballets that are not generally considered great. When I was in college, I remember puzzling over why Leonard Bernstein was considered a "classical" composer when he wrote "West Side Story" and George Gershwin was considered a pop composer when he wrote a concerto and "Rhapsody in Blue." It was explained to me that the distinction was one of training and orientation and language -- and the same works for dance. It's not always clear from just seeing one work by an artist, but taking the whole body of work into consideration, and placing a person both horizontally (where s/he fits in to the historical continuum) and vertically (where s/he fits in compared to others working at this moment in time). Sorry for the long answer, but these are complex issues! You've hit upon a topic that actually was one of the reasons the site was founded. Some of these issues (especially the judgment ones) were addressed in the Mission Statement, What This Site Is About

Thanks! That's good to know. "Carnival" and "Fairy Doll" aren't often seen.

Yes! For the ballerina, nice guys DO finish first. And I think for a lot of audience members, too. I remember a piece Walter Terry wrote once about The Stars during the Boom, "For Rudolf and Misha and Especially Ivan" -- writing about Ivan Nagy's partnering. I'll never forget the way he would simply touch the small of her back and she would rise in the air. I swear. And there was the sense that he enjoyed this aspect of dancing -- what Treefrog noticed at the performance she saw.

Somes is a difficult case, because World War II interrupted his career -- he didn't peform for six years, and was injured in the War. Back to Treefrog's original question, which was about generosity of spirit more than technique, in reading interviews with dancers, there are some who, you can tell, really liked partnering -- and those are the ones I remember as being fine partners, from the audience's perspective -- and others who give perfunctory answers to partnering questions, and that's just how their partnering looked to me on stage. There have been great partners who were also great technicians, but there have also been great partners who werre not. Then the question is, is this a personality difference? Or is it because of training. Are boys pushed so much into the medals race that partnering isn't emphasized for the potential medal winners? Or are they given the message that partnering isn't important, it's just the solos that are? If you don't get to run the medals race, as it were, does that give you more time to think of others?

Thanks, Ian! Could you tell us what the Russian Treasures are? For those who aren't familiar with the company, it's directed by a former Kirov principal Eldar Aliev -- hope I spelled that right! -- and they've done several rarely performed ballets, including "The Creation of the World," a ballet done in the Soviet Union for Baryshnikov in the 1970s. It's a company I haven't seen yet, and would like to, so I hope there will be many reports here!

I think the innovations in ticketing that balletaime mentioned are a great idea, and I agree that that will be the best way to attract a new audience -- and keep those who come and are mildly interested, but not yet addicts. On demographics, I think too much is made of the "elderly" audience. First, the audience for ballet and opera is, and has always been, middle-aged. In 1975 there were articles about the NYCB audience that the average age was 55. (And average age means, of course, that there are some 30 year olds and some 80 year olds in there.) Unless you do a survey, it's really hard to tell what the demographics are. Eyeballing it (and I do the same thing!) gives you a sample, but you can't see the whole house. By my eyeballing, the audiences in DC seem to be older at weekend matinees and younger on Friday nights. As for "the young" seeking excitement....I think it's dangerous to make assumptions about any group. (Not to mention what one considers "excitiing." I came to ballet at 25 and thought "Swan Lake" was very exciting!" I know 60 year olds who prefer "cutting edge" work and 16 year olds who don't want to see anything but Swan Lake and Bayadere. There needs to be a balance of new and old -- GOOD new and old, not something the marketing department dreams up to follow a trend, or a perceived trend.

There are exceptions to every rule (The big hands comment came from a great partner and teacher of partnering, but I don't think he meant that if you didn't have big hands you couldn't partner.)

Mel's last post reminds me that when the Central Ballet of China was here a few years ago their stage manager (or whoever it was who made the pre-curtain announcements) had a particularly effective way about him. He didn't exactly SAY you'd be shot if you TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, RATTLED PAPERS, TALKED OR COUGHED, but left the distinct impression that DRASTIC MEASURES would follow any infringement of house rules.

They should be confiscated at the door, like nail scissors at airports

I always think of him as tall and bone thin -- Adam Luders (who did do the role in the past, I believe). Jacques d'Amboise would be interesting, as one of Farrell's former partners. Of course, there are other former partners.....

Any nominations for who should play The Don in the upcoming revival of "Don Quixote?" It's a mime role, so an actor who looks good in armor would do, if no dancer springs to mind.

No, I don't think they're at all obsolete, and not all artistic directors, do, either. (Actually, this site was founded in large part to provide a place for discussion of just those categories ) I'm not sure that there's a divide simply between Americans and Europeans. Although I do think there is a divide between some Europeans and some Americans, there's also a divide between some West Coast Americans and some New Yorkers, and there are different opinions among Europeans as well. There's been a divide between formalists and expressionists since ballet was born. I think there are "oh, it doesn't matter what you call its" on both sides of the Atlantic. But there are also people who understand the differences among classical, modern, and fusion or other words for blended dance, or ballet moderne, as the Paris Opera Ballet school calls it. If you talk to dance students, even the 16 year olds are very clear about the different kinds of dance, and know which kind(s) they want to do.

Arne Villumsen was the great Danish partner of his generation, and I asked someone there why. I got a look. "Have you noticed the size of his hands?" was the response. Huge hands. Huge. Hands made to catch footballs.

A warning. Some of the "historical information" in "Footnotes," especially that in the interviews with dancres, is slightly askew. That may not affect your enjoyment of the DVD, but I'd suggest checking any fact before you go on Jeopardy.

Goro, Pierre Lacotte is a dancer and choreographer who's been reviving (rechoreographing, really) a lot of 19th century ballets recently. I think "La Sylphide" was his first. I think Paris Opera Ballet wanted their great Romantic ballet back! It was choreographed by Marie Taglioni's father, and the choreography lost long ago. (The Bournonville one uses the Taglioni libretto, but is completely different choreography and a different score.) Lacotte had access to Taglioni's notebooks and used some of the combinations in those books as the basis of his choreography, and the rest is made in the style of the time. Here are two big ones, in addition to the choreography. Pointework - in the first French production, only the Sylph was on pointe. To me, it looks odd that Effie and her friends are on pointe; I think they should be in character shoes, as they would have been in the 19th century and much of the 20th, but putting them on pointe is what a contemporary audience expects. The Sylph -- the Sylphide is a grand ballerina role, a la Taglioni, and the choreography uses a lot of poses from drawings and lithographs of Taglioni. The dancer is also wearing the pearl necklace and bracelets that Taglioni wore. So it's really a different ballet, as different from the Bournonville version as is, say, the MacMillan "Romeo and Juliet" is from Lavrovsky's. I hope you'll write about all the DVDs once you've had a chance to watch them -- that's quite a haul!!

Bournonville used Weber's "Invitation to the Dance" for a mime scene (!!), the prologue to "Konservatoriet" in the 1850s, when Weber's music was nearly new. Fokine used the same music for "Le Spectre de la Rose." In the "it all depends on your point of view" department, I once read a scathing criticism of "Spectre" by a Danish critic comparing the two. OUR Master's was far superior. The Russian version is mere gymnastics, while OUR Master's is poetic and human. I saw the revival of "Konservatoriet" in 1995 (the full version had been out of rep since 1929, I write from memory) and the use of the music caught me totally off-guard. It's a mime scene, with the concierge of the school, the old man who's the ballet's central character, being fussed over by his housekeeper (who gets him in the end). I can't prove that Fokine knew about this ballet, but I suspect he did, through Christian Johansson.

For a time capsule, "Cinderella," because it's such a beautiful example of a 20th century three-act classical ballet. For me, his "Romeo and Juliet," but only if I got to pick the stager

Thanks for postiing that -- I didn't realize that the show had moved to 9, an almost civilized hour I remember Corbin as a young teen (14, 15) doing the Prince in Washington Ballet's "The Nutcracker," and patiently, kindly, standing in the downstairs lobby at Lisner Auditorium every intermission, in his tights, signing autographs for little kids. And now he's a senior Paul Taylor dancer.

I don't think Franz had a variation in the original production, because Franz was a travesty role (i.e., danced by a girl, in the fashion of the day).

Hi Lisa! I couldn't choose. I'd go to both I agree with greyhound on the tickets -- you can buy on line, and do so as early as possible. I would bet that the Kirov will sell out. The "Don Q" is more specialist fare, so it might be possible to get a late ticket. But it's hard to tell. The second week of ABT sold out -- "Swan Lake." But the first week, especially the weekends, you could have brought your entire extended family and gotten in ten minutes before curtain.

Houston Ballet brought this one here a few seasons ago for a whole week. I saw two performances, and at both I thought the audience reaction was tepid. (I'm sure there were some who liked it.) I'm in the "this is watered down pablum" crowd. There's no reason a "Dracula" ballet couldn't work, but this one was just, well, silly. Minimal choreography -- I honestly can't remember one dance image from it, unless you count the little helper swinging from the chandelier at the end as a dance image. I didn't think the plot was clearly developed; I kept having trouble telling the women apart (not a criticism of the dancers, but of who in the heck they were supposed to be.) There were DOZENS of "Draculas" a few years ago, even one "Son of Dracula." One year (2 or 3 years ago) many companies programmed their "Dracula" for Hallowe'en weekend. Last year, there weren't so many, and I thought it might be a fad whose day had come and gone. But, then, I'm not a fan of Stevenson's choreography generally. Everything I've seen of his I've found derivative and dull. If you go, I hope you'll tell us what you thought!

"Don Q." When ABT first got this, it took a season or two for some of their ballerinas to be able to get through it -- many performances with an Act I Kitri, an Act II Kitri, and a third for Act III.

No, it's not on line I had been uploading articles a year after publication date, but have stopped even that because several people sweetly took the time to write that they wouldn't renew because "everything is available on line." (And they have a point!)

Her uncle used to post on this site a lot -- I still miss him. He says he still reads us from time to time. I hope he sees this.

There's more than you'll ever want to know about Bournonville coaching in those articles, paul