dirac

Calliope, I wonder if Leigh was regretting that dancers today don't have the extra time that the circumstances you describe would allow them to acquire more knowledge. He wasn't implying that dancers today are more ignorant by intention or capacity, I don't think. Dancers today are much more advanced technically as a group then they were in Le Clercq's day -- she said as much to Barbara Newman herself -- but there's a cost, as Leigh says. Of course, this isn't limited to the dance world only -- it's happened in sports, too, with the increase in competition,improvements in training, and ever-rising technical demands. There's a scene in The Legend of Bagger Vance where the golf champion Bobby Jones is being introduced, and the speaker lists an impressive array of Jones' academic and athletic accomplishments, and none of them are made up. Couldn't happen today.

Who's in, who's out: Yagudin will be the only gold medalist to show up at the world championships this year: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...agudin_worlds_1

Errol Flynn could certainly teach Stiefel something about bringing conviction to this kind of role. Also, his elevation wasn't bad, either. Too bad Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. died a couple of years ago. I'd suggest bringing him in to coach.

There's a lot going on in this essay, maybe just a little too much. I was expecting, from the way she begins, that a discussion of Balanchine's domination of the choreographic scene in ballet almost twenty years after he bought the farm would be forthcoming, accompanied by a demonstration through a discussion of Barak and Wheeldon of the way in which Balanchine opened new territory for contemporary ballet while simultaneously through the breadth of his gift fencing it off from those who would hope to follow. Many valuable observations, but I didn't quite get the central issue here. I'm sure it's me. Minor issues: I don't see much point in denouncing the ill effects of television and personal computers -- even if you agree with her, and I don't, it seems to me like getting mad at the weather. Also, while I might concede that Ashton rates somewhat below Balanchine, I'd object strenuously to bracketing him with Tudor, which seems to happen here. I understand her larger point, and that she has other things to discuss, but I'd hate for anyone to get the impression even in passing that he was just paddling feebly in Balanchine's wake.

I'm sure Eifman's Tchaikovsky has nothing on Ken Russell's. For no reason, I'm reminded of something I once read about Generals Grant and Longstreet. They were great friends before winding up on opposite sides of a certain inter-state dispute, and during the previous war against Mexico they entertained their comrades with amateur theatricals, and on one memorable occasion, Grant played Desdemona to Longstreet's Othello. No dancing involved, however.

"They had been coached to nail their routines; most of them did, and deserve high marks for technical merit." -- From Sarah Kaufman's Corsaire review. A modest proposal for ABT. Why not simply do away with the pretense of presenting "Le Corsaire" or indeed any ballet, and just present the dancers jumping, turning, with fancy footwork, to the music for all they are worth? Toss in some "artistic" phrasing, pretty costumes, and toothy smiles for good measure. You needn't bother with a live orchestra; taped music will do. To make it even more interesting and create lots of public buzz, you could have judges, especially emotional French ones, scoring the number of pirouettes, their speed, execution, musical timing, and so forth.

While I definitely agree in principle about too many companies trying to do too much, in the case of the Bizet and other items closely identified with NYCB, it seems to me that if Balanchine had been worried about this kind of thing he would have left his ballets, or some of them, to the company, which he did not do. And he does appear to have been very generous in allowing other companies to try his ballets.

While I definitely agree in principle about too many companies trying to do too much, in the case of the Bizet and other items closely identified with NYCB, it seems to me that if Balanchine had been worried about this kind of thing he would have left his ballets, or some of them, to the company, which he did not do. And he does appear to have been very generous in allowing other companies to try his ballets.

I don't think this is an issue peculiar to ballet. It happens in opera companies, too, and also in businesses, where it's de rigueur for a new CEO to bring in his own people, for practical reasons -- any leader wants lieutenants in place who are loyal to him -- and to show the board that he is Putting His Stamp on the company. New publishers taking over a newspaper will often bring in new editors and writers, for example, and it's not always what you call a graceful transition. I don't know if right or wrong really enters into it -- it's the way of the world. As Ari says, he can also have other motives that are more artistically justified, and sometimes it's just a mishmash of all of the above.

Beryl Grey, Violetta Elvin, and Moira Shearer -- all departed from the Royal by age thirty. In addition to Fonteyn's other qualities, she must have been skilled at protecting her turf. (This is not to say that she didn't deserve the top spot.) I note at the very end of this article, Grey remarks that she and Pamela May will go to performances together and say things like, "Why are they doing that?" and she notes that the two of them are not consulted on such matters. Too bad.

I have the Lanchbery recording and recommend it also, however, that version does have some cuts in other places. (Maybe someone should come up with The Really Totally Complete Swan Lake at some point, if they haven't already. )

The following was posted by julip on another thread. I'm copying it over here for discussion: "Dirac (or anyone else), I was wondering if you could tell me why you think Grigorovich is a great choreographer. Everything that I have seen by him, with the exception of one male solo in Spartacus, I have not been impressed with at all. It all seems rather unimaginative and well, boring. I have heard alot of people say they consider him a great choreographer, but I fail to see why. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks in advance for replies." Actually, I do not think Grigorovich a "great" choreographer in the sense that I actually like his work, odd as that sounds. I'll explain myself more clearly when time permits.

julip, I'm copying the text of your post over to "Choreographers" for further discussion, so we don't wander too far out of the topical corral here.

julip, I'm copying the text of your post over to "Choreographers" for further discussion, so we don't wander too far out of the topical corral here.

Story ballets used to bore me to tears when I was very young. Not enough dancing, too much "silent movie" stuff. (Now I would make the opposite complaint.) When I was in high school I thought Henry Miller was a great writer.

In my American Heritage dictionary (paperback), third edition, which is the only one I have handy at the moment, ballet is defined as "1. a classical dance form characterized by elaborate formal technique. 2. A choreographed theatrical presentation danced to a musical accompaniment. 3. A company that performs ballet." No definition of pointe or toe shoe. I think any dictionary would avoid mention of pointe shoes -- too explicit and narrowing of the definition, although something might turn up in one of the unabridged volumes.

Sticking strictly to ballet, I'd hold my nose and vote for Grigorovich, a figure of stature and influence who led one of the world's great companies, like him or not.

Sticking strictly to ballet, I'd hold my nose and vote for Grigorovich, a figure of stature and influence who led one of the world's great companies, like him or not.

I did realize it was a "making of" movie instead of the thing itself; I probably should have clarified that when I included the link. However, I hadn't seen it myself, (which I also ought to have mentioned) so thanks for the appraisals. Never heard anything, positive or negative, about the production, but the cast doesn't sound terribly well suited to it, I must say.

I think a gymnastics thread would be wandering a little too far afield, even for this broadminded board. Thanks to everyone who responded. Cammy, welcome and thanks for de-lurking. Always nice to hear from a new voice. You make an interesting point about changes that make the system "fairer" but also change the nature of the competition, and not necessarily for the better. I think the school figures are gone forever, and I'm not sure that reinstating them would cure any of the current judging ills; but their loss has certainly taken away something essential from the sport -- made it something less of a sport and closer to entertainment (I wouldn't say "art" -- although that term might apply to what's done by some individual skaters).

"The other aspect is what that has done to the sport of figure skating. It has been so great that it has eliminated one half of what figure skating is all about, and that is the skating of figures--the name, figure skating, is no longer an accurate one because figures have gone away. They were too boring; they took too long; too many people weren’t interested. As a result, television simply couldn’t handle it and the governing bodies eliminated what was the oldest and strongest and longest tradition of what the sport of figure skating was all about." Dick Button said this on a recent edition of the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. It was towards the end of the segment and there was no follow up, but I thought I'd see if anyone had any comments to make on it. What difference has the elimination of school figures made, and is the difference for better, or worse? It's fairly appalling, when you think about it, that a major element of a sport can be eliminated simply because TV audiences are bored by it. You could also argue that much of the emphasis (overemphasis, IMO) on jumps in skating today arises from the fact that it's become harder to assess pure technique without the school figures, since back in the old days there was a clearer of division of labor: show your technique in the compulsories, and your technique and presentation in the free skate. (Good figures didn't necessarily preclude grace and flair; Peggy Fleming performed solidly in the compulsories at Grenoble, for example.) Is Dick being an old-fuddy duddy, or does he have a point? Opinions?

It's my understanding that when you departed Russia in those years, you disappeared -- your name wasn't mentioned, erased from history. Maybe this happened to Diaghilev? It's interesting to me that Diaghilev was very closely associated with a number of distinguished artists and décor and costuming played a significant, some say preeminent, role in his productions. For reasons aesthetic and financial, less-is-more seems to have taken over, and I'm not sure that's such a great thing. When Yves Saint Laurent announced his retirement and all the articles came out, much space was given to his Ballets Russes collection. It's hard to imagine any designer of the future coming up with an NYCB collection, or a Royal collection.

From Slate, a re-posting of an article by Steven Landsberg on the risks of noodling with the skating scoring system, in reference to Cinquanta's previous attempt at a fix a few years back: http://slate.msn.com/?id=18581

And the Nearys, Patricia and Colleen. There's also the Tallchief sisters, Maria and Marjorie, although I don't think Marjorie ever danced with NYCB. (They also provided Arlene Croce with an opportunity for a tart rejoinder to a fellow critic's overheated declaration, "There is only one Tallchief!" "There are, of course, two," Croce pointed out.)

FYI: http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/defa...FJ32HMF24839F0B