kfw

We all know "post-mortem." Certain people where I work refer to sizing up business opportunities before they go after them as . . . , that's right, "pre-mortems."

The summer 2006 issue of the journal Daedalus has a brief (page and a half) article by Jacques D'Amboise entitled "The Mind in Dance." It's largely about the mental exercises he would do before dancing, visualizing himself executing the steps. D'Amboise also remembers that Conrad Ludlow and Nureyev would warm up in stocking caps. Nureyev: "It all comes from the brain to the feet. If the brain is warm, it gets to the feet faster." He also writes of times on stage when "time slowed down markedly" and he could observe himself dancing. Daedalus puts back issues online here, so it's to be expected that D'Amboise's article will be available in the fall. In the meantime, a paper copy of the summer issue is $13.

Darn right. Ticketmaster can't tell you what NYCB seats you're buying. NYCB can't or won't. Am I going to plan a trip to New York around iffy seats for the same program two or three times in a row? Forget it.

I think the difference is that woodwind players aren't lesser musicians than cellists or trombonists or conductors, they just have different roles to play. Corps members are most often lesser dancers than AD's were, so shouldn't we expect that AD's see better? Even apart from their greater dance ability, which must often correlate with better vision, they have many more years of viewing to sharpen their vision. It would be nice to think that Martins consults Pauline Golbin in a pinch. But it stands to reason that he's the legitimate authority.

I've always been bothered by the fact that corps members are still, apparently, often addressed as "boys" and "girls." But other than that, I draw a distinction between dispensiblity and disrespect. Soloists are drawn from the corps for their dance talent, and individuality is an essential/indipensable element of dance talent. The greatest talents will often be noticed and promoted. But the first role of a corps member is sublimation to the whole, and to my mind that's no humiliation or restriction, that's service. They also serve who stand and observe, and then move in un-PC conformity to the vision of the greater talent. When it comes to soloist and principal roles, we know that some ex-dancers/repeteurs have the vision to allow more interpretive freedom than others. But if at this level of higher talent, most dancers again felt more restricted than not, surely we'd see less range of interpretation. On a side note, what saddens me is that most dance training isn't, and perhaps if current technical standards are to be met can't be, well-rounded. There are only 24 hours in a day, and today's dancers do have an unprecedented ability to move. I only wish there were more Balanchine's and Diaghlev's to take them to museums and assign them challenging reading.

Thanks for the interview, Leigh. So she knew how things should look. Good grief, what with the contested state of Balanchine ballets at . . . I can't quite remember the name of the company . . . what was she doing teaching in North Carolina? Oh well, I'm sure she did a world of good down there too.

I guess that aired on PBS, what, 17 years ago now? Still, she looks so vigorous in that, the news comes as a shock. Time to go watch the tape.

papeetepatrick, when I asked 'And how can we separate her art from the damage it did,?' I was referring to our experience of Riefenstahl's work. If we responded fully, we'd become Nazis. Schwartzkopf's work doesn't suffer from the same dynamic.

papeetepatrick, I don't understand why the price each performer paid affects your evaluation of them. Do you think Riefenstahl's suffering lessens her culpability? She may have paid more, but she was responsible for much more too, and she didn't pay more willingly, did she? And how can we separate her art from the damage it did? I mean, we can admire its formal values, but can we ever give ourselves up to it like we can to Schwartzkopf's singing? And was Riefenstahl more authentic because she didn't (but how could she have?) hidden her true sympathies, when as far as we know Schwartzkopf only did what she did in order to have a career? Is there any chance that your low opinion of Schwarzkopf's work is influenced by her politics? Just wondering. We can wish that she'd been more forthcoming, but that might have required almost as much strength of character -- extraordinary strength of character -- than resistance.

As a proud Dylan fanatic, I'm pleased to say that this point made here. :blush: Stravinsky and Eliot and other modernists wanted to, so to speak, to submerge personality in the work itself. Come to think of it, isn't that just a variant on the age old idea of the artist channeling a muse? In a similar way, Dylan immersed himself in the tradition (and as recently as 5 years ago still performed traditional songs), furthered the tradition with up to date topical songs performed by modern instrumentation, and has always insisted that his work speaks for itself and should not be confused with him.

Part of the rehabilitation of even the worst of criminal offenders, is putting their past life behind and moving on to make a positive contribution to society. That Schwarzkopf went on to make a contribution isn't in dispute, but I don't think there is such a thing as moral rehabilitiation without confession, without a willingness to be honest to the people one has wronged. In fact, as psychologists say and as most of us know from our own experience, only through facing up to our wrongdoing can we really put it the past. And moral crimes can't be balanced with artistic contribution. There is no way to compute -- there is no such thing as a computation of -- whether or not Schwazkopf's activities as a party member did more harm than her singing did good. These are two different spheres. We can only judge them separately.

Wonderful! And if the oppressed ballerina is wearing a chador for the ultimate in modesty, she'll hardly be able to move! Thanks for making me smile, dirac. But where do the classics don't put women in chadors, or anything suchlike? Modesty needn't signify submission, wouldn't you agree? I'm reminded of the performers adage, "always leave them wanting more." Modesty in a strong woman and a strong dancer is tremendously alluring, and if the woman is so inclined, a potent weapon. I'm spellbound by the ballerina in Agon; I'm smitten by the ballerina in the first act of Giselle. They're two sides of the same coin. In the same way, high extensions to my mind sometimes exemplify a contemporary, almost in-your-face style of self-presentation. They can thrill. But lower extensions have another, more delicate and for that reason sweeter, appeal. Both have their place.

Brilliant, Bart. Said choreographer will have established a thematic contrast between the woebegone, put upon, unenlightened and oppressed ballerina as signified by her modest 90 degree extensions, and her contemporary equivalant who understands that modesty signifies not love and the joy that flows from love, but a resigned acceptance of oppression, and who will shoot down that oppressive male with a liberating, 180 degree shot to the chin.

Remountings would be contributions if there were talented choreographers moved to take on the task. In the meantime, accessibility works both ways. To translate things into pop terms, today's teenagers can't relate to the Beatles or the Stones. Give them time and, as Tony Bennett's popularity among Beatles and Stones fans shows, they'll learn. 19th century ballets remain acccessible on formal aesthetic terms. The unenlightened and prejudicial elements of their stories remain accessible to all human beings in touch with their own faults and complexities.

Men and women relating together on stage, often in overt love stories. . . beautiful bodies making beautiful movements to beautiful music . . . to rephrase Balanchine, how much relevance do they want? As Alexandra says, formal beauty can be an acquired taste, and pop culture is easier, but the gold is there if people dig. I'm more sympathetic to argument that some story ballets present bigoted sterotypes, but if I view those "lustful Muslims" and "murderous Hindus" as just lustful, murderous individuals, they still look relevant.

A hokey title like "Stravinsky and Balanchine: Eternal Partnership" feels patronizing to me. (How about just "Stravinsky and Balanchine"?) I go to the ballet to escape that level of crass, dumbed down culture.

The last snore-along performance I attended was a matinee. I guess I was it actually a nap-along performance. Why this SFB bill included Robbin's quiet "Dances at a Gathering," I'll never know.

Sickening it is. carbro asks the great question of why "relevance" is relevant in ballet. And why oh why are tacky labels relevant?

Yes! I'd especially love to see some of the paintings and sculptures of Kirstein done over the years, like the Gaston Lachaise figure "Man Walking (Portrait of Lincoln Kirstein)" and the Jamie Wyeth portrait.

What about the "needs" of serious out-of-town ballet fans? I suppose we're a relatively small market, but I've often come into town for 5-6 performances at a time. They'll see me less often now.

I guess I wasn't clear about the performance I saw. MCB did dance the 3rd movement that night, and I remember Villella seemed to speak with understandable pride.

At Villella's pre-performance talk before MCB performed it outside of D.C. sometime in the late '90's, he said it was dropped because it was too hard.

Considering how sharp your ballet observations are, that's a little hard to believe.

Helene, I think those are great reasons for why if racism is a problem in ballet, some dancers might not report it. Bart, you saw Mitchell and Adams in Agon? Could you please upload your memories to YouTubeIt? :cool2:

Leigh, I hadn't thought of the lighting issue, but many people have preferences based on color, specifically a preference for certain things to be all one striking color. Why does that become racist when it's transferred to a ballet corps?