miliosr

I can't speak for Hans or Old Fashioned but my use of the word monotonous wasn't referring to the contents of Balanchine's ballets. What I was referring to is their ubiquity -- many, many companies program them and, frequently, the artistic directors program the same ones. The companies and their repertories blur together as a result. As to whether you can be lukewarm about Balanchine (or even dislike his work) and still like ballet, I thought Arlene Croce put it best in an interview she did with Dance Ink in the 1990s. She said that, even when Balanchine was alive and doing great work, there were still a lot of people who honestly preferred a Bolshoi highlights program to going to the New York City Ballet. You can argue that the people who preferred the Bolshoi to Balanchine had reactionary taste or even bad taste but I think it's a stretch to say people who fell (and fall) into that group "don't like ballet."

Checking in from raskol'niki HQ! One of my favorite dances is Jose Limon's A Choreographic Offering, which is completely abstract. So, I have no bias against the abstract/non-narrative/plotless dance -- provided that it is done right. And that is the crux of my complaint -- I don't see anyone doing it right and that makes me wonder whether the form itself is well-suited to most choreographers, especially young choreographers. Whether you accept this argument as expressed by Kaufman (that the form, as developed by Balanchine, is too limiting) or by Croce (that the form, as developed by Balanchine, is "mined out") is irrelevant -- you end up at the same dead end. My belief is that too many people looked to what Balanchine was doing in the 20th century and decided that, henceforth, Balanchinean dance was the form all future dance should take without ever thinking through the possibility that the form might be peculiar to the man himself or that the abstract ballet was a long-term destination point rather than a starting point for most choreographers. Balanchine had a lifetime to get to where he ended up. That meant a great deal of trial-and-error and exploring different forms and methods of presentation before he settled into the High Modernist phase of his last 25 years or so (and which most choreographers appear to be imitating.) Given the great difficulty choreographers making dances in the abstract mode have had in creating works which last beyond a season or two, maybe a more fruitful area of exploration would be to go back to narrative or semi-narrative forms and use them as a structure through which they can develop their craft over time and then begin stripping away. This seems like a more useful way to get out of the current rut rather than having choreographers jump into the middle of the abstract ocean and expect them to find their way back to shore. Maybe my approach won't work and we'll end up with a lot of bad Ashton and Tudor imitations rather than Balanchine imitations. But, again, if the classical ballet cannot evolve beyond the 19th century warhorses on the one hand and the Balanchine repertory on the other (as the Ashton and Tudor repertories disappear), then it truly is a minor art form and we are all wasting our time. As for the Balanchine repertory itself, Hans put it best -- it's the sheer monotony of it all that I object to. I don't think it's healthy for ballet in America to be as overdominated as it is by former Balanchine dancers. Even when someone like Peter Boal makes a good faith effort to program different things, the impression one is left with is that the type of dance programmed is all of a certain piece. Meanwhile, the Ashton repertory barely clings to life (even in London) and New York Theatre Ballet tries to preserve Tudor's repertory as best it can given its modest means. I guess I just find this state of affairs galling.

Well, dirac, whether you subscribe to the Kaufman take or the Croce take, they both lead you to the same end point -- don't they?

One last word from the raskol'niki camp . . . In a 1987 essay on Twyla Tharp titled Post-Modern Ballets, Arlene Croce digressed from her main subject to address a then-current Lincoln Kirstein essay titled "The Curse of Isadora," in which Kirstein launched yet another of his tiresome broadsides against the modern dance. Croce responded as follows: Might it not be time for another essay, called "The Curse of Balanchine," in which it would be shown how the great choreographer created twentieth-century ballet and put it off-limits at the same time? He incorporated into the mainstream everything there was to incorporate -- jazz, Bauhaus, twelve-tone music, American pop; yes, even the modern dance -- and left the academy at a peak of virtuosity, with nothing further to express. Balanchine's progeny rework his accomplishments; they can honor his precedents, but they can add nothing to what he has said. If Croce wrote that in 1987, I can just imagine what she would write now given the ever-decreasing marginal utility of the Balanchine-style abstract/plotless ballet. Ah well, I suppose I am a Cassandra on this matter. But then, look what happened when no one listened to her.

The Not Necessarily Bottom Two Bottom Two: Ty/Chelsie and Melissa/Tony w/ Ty and Chelsie leaving. It was Ty's time to go but his departure was bittersweet. I would rank him as one of the all-time great contestants on Dancing with the Stars because, despite limited natural ability, he worked hard to improve, accepted criticism w/ grace and humor and enjoyed the experience. Like Lil' Kim, he won't go home with a shiny disco ball trophy. But, like her, he does go home w/ a huge bank of good will from the many fans he made over the course of the season. The remaining Final Three -- Gilles, Melissa and Shawn -- are the correct Final Three and arguably the best Final Three this show has ever seen. The question mark for me remains Shawn. How is she polling w/ the audience? Has she been running away with this since Week One?? Dial Idol says "no" but I have to wonder. Special congratulations to Tony Dovalani who has made his first Final Three since Season Two! See you next week for the Finals . . .

You're welcome dirac! It's nice to know someone is reading these updates. As it turns out, I've gone from almost skipping this season to really enjoying it. After the disappointment of Mel. B losing to Helio in Season 5 and then back-to-back disappointing seasons (the Kristi Yamaguchi and Brooke Burke seasons), I was almost done with the show. But this season has been a real return to form for me.

What does it say about the classical ballet as a major art form if it cannot generate diverse choreographers of stature (or even talented craftsmen) on a more regular basis? I can only speak for myself but an artistic discipline that has to wait 25/50/75/100 years for a "savior" to come along to rescue it is a discipline doomed to minor art status. If the nature of the art form is so rareified that very few (Ashton, Balanchine, Tudor) can do it well, then a "savior" who comes along to overturn the apple cart (which, by the way, I don't believe is what Balanchine did) will only ever be a singular success -- the followers cannot replicate the "genius" and the result is a floodtide of mediocre imitations. (Evidence A from the prosecution: The former New York City Ballet dancers. Is anyone going to make a serious case that the existence of Balanchine resulted in lasting work from Peter Martins, Helgi Tomasson, Kent Stowell or Robert Weiss? Or that the work of second generation Balanchine adherents like Melissa Barak and Benjamin Millepied will be any more lasting??) If Balanchine was, in fact, a "once-in-an-era genius" then I get back to one of my original points: He has said everything that can be said in that particular key and it's time to move on to something else. What Balanchine wrought may represent the apex of what the classical ballet can achieve and express. But it may also be a vein of creation in which no one else is suited to explore. As for the examples presented by Helene, the same names (Balanchine/Robbins/Tharp/Wheeldon) appearing over and over again says it all about the increasing homogenization of ballet repertories. (I'll give Peter Boal a mild pass because of the Ulysses Dove evening. Feckless but at least different.)

Judges Scores from Week Ten: Round 1 01 30pts Gilles/ Cheryl (waltz) 01 30pts Shawn/Mark (Argentine tango) 03 28pts Melissa/Tony (quickstep) 04 25pts Ty/Chelsie (Viennese waltz) Round 2 01 30pts Gilles/Cheryl (salsa) 02 27pts Melissa/Tony (cha cha cha) 03 26pts Shawn/Mark (lindy hop) 04 23pts Ty/Chelsie (samba) Totals 01 60pts Gilles/Cheryl 02 56pts Shawn/Mark 03 55pts Melissa/Tony 04 48pts Ty/Chelsie

I thought Kaufman's important (and long overdue) essay raised two interesting questions: 1) Are the works of George Balanchine overrepresented in the active repertories of American ballet companies, and 2) Are today's choreographers (both those who danced w/ Balanchine and those who came of age after his death) looking too much to one mode of creative expression; thereby limiting their own potential creativity in the process? Obviously, the members of this board will answer these questions differently based on how you feel about the entire Balanchine enterprise. I would offer an unequivocal "YES" to Question # 1 and I don't see that situation changing anytime soon. Given that former Balanchine dancers now sit in positions of power in New York (Peter Martins), Washington DC (Suzanne Farrell), North Carolina (Robert Weiss), North Carolina (Jean-Pierre Bonnefoux and Patricia McBride), Miami (Edward Villella), Chicago (Daniel Duell), Colorado (Damian Woetzel), Arizona (Ib Andersen), Los Angeles (Colleen Neary), San Francisco (Helgi Tomasson) and Seattle (Peter Boal), the tidal wave of Balanchine productions will likely continue for the foreseeable future. As to the Question # 2, I would also answer with a resounding "YES". If I'm a ballet choreographer (particularly a young choreographer) trying to find work in the United States, I'm going to look at the collective listed above for clues as to where the road to commissions lies. And the answer would appear to be (to me, anyway) non-narrative dance delivered in the manner of George Balanchine. That's fine as far as it goes but it prompts me to ask a question of my own: If Balanchine's ballets are in fact "archetypal" and represent ballet taken to its absolute apex and limit, then what's left to do or say in that particular mode of ballet? Like the old saying goes: You can beat a dead horse all you want -- it ain't gonna give you a ride. Maybe the way forward for choreographers (especially young choreographers) would be to look toward undertapped areas of exploration such as those mined by Ashton and Tudor. But that's the catch. If these young choreographers rarely see other modes of expression, how would they ever know that these modes may be more suited to their creative gifts than the Balanchine aesthetic is??? It's ironic. The ex-Balanchine dancers obviously love the Old Master. But I have to wonder if, in their zeal to spread the Master's work to the four corners of the world, they aren't unintentionally inhibiting the advance of the classical ballet in the 21st century. Heading off to put on my fire retardant suit . . .

<<Haven't Balanchine's ballets "aged better" precisely because they're abstracted and more archetypal as a result?>> Fancy Free and Jardin aux Lilas have help up pretty well even though they are narrative dances set in very specific times and places.

Actually, dirac, the "ballet" about contemporary life you describe sounds pretty close to Anna Sokolow's Rooms . . .

Ah, volcanohunter, but at least the pallid Ashton and Tudor imitations will be different and less routine imitations . . .

Looking toward Ashton and Tudor for inspiration may not lead to genius but at least it would offer an alternative to the wall-to-wall Balanchine and pallid Balanchine imitations we see today.

[moved from a continuation of another thread] She says everything I believe . . .

Bottom Two: Lil' Kim/Derek and Ty/Chelsie with Lil' Kim and Derek leaving. Ty should have gone over Lil' Kim based on the merits. BUT, I never thought Lil' Kim was registering all that well with the audience and this week proved it. The judges have been able to sustain her for a while but we're now at that point in the season where the pendulum swings toward the audience and, sure enough, the audience sent Lil' Kim packing. Even though Lil' Kim didn't make it to the Final Four, she should be happy with how things went for her on the show. She came in w/ a very negative reputation due to her legal problems and she's going out having burnished her reputation considerably. Ty is my favorite kind of contestant on this show -- no natural talent but embraces the concept and strives to improve -- but he needs to go next unless he really pulls off some stellar dancing next week. It would be a travesty if hangs on (in the manner of Marie Osmond in Season 5) at the expense of one of the other three semi-finalists -- Gilles, Melissa and Shawn.

Judges Scores from Week Nine: Ballroom Round 01 29pts Gilles/Cheryl (foxtrot) 02 27pts Melissa/Tony (waltz) 02 27pts Shawn/Mark (quickstep) 04 25pts Lil' Kim/Derek (waltz) 04 25pts Ty/Chelsie (Argentine tango) Latin Round 01 30pts Melissa/Tony (samba) 02 29pts Shawn/Mark (paso doble) 03 27pts Gilles/Cheryl (rumba) 03 27pts Lil' Kim/Derek (salsa) 05 21pts Ty/Chelsie (rumba) Totals 01 57pts Melissa/Tony 02 56pts Gilles/Cheryl 02 56pts Shawn/Mark 04 52pts Lil' Kim/Derek 05 46pts Ty/Chelsie

Last Two: Chuck/Julianne and Melissa/Tony with Chuck and Julianne leaving. I've disliked this team all season (her in particular) so no tears from me regarding this elimination. Since the # of contestants expanded in Season Two, I don't they I've ever liked a Final Five (Shawn, Lil' Kim, Gilles, Ty and Melissa) the way I like this Final Five. The elimination order will be difficult to watch from here on in. My guess is Ty will go next, followed by Lil' Kim; leaving Shawn, Gilles and Melissa in the Final Three. The enigma to me is Shawn. She came in with a strong fan base but I don't get the sense she's been adding to it the way, say, Gilles or Ty has. I guess I'll find out soon enough!

Simon G, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree . . .

As a big Limon fan, I must object to the statement above as it pertains to Limon: 1) The Limon company has survived for 63 years without ever having a hiatus due to funding problems or internal strife. 2) The Limon company has survived for 37 years since the founder's death (the first modern dance company to do so) and maintains a regular performance schedule (hardly an "occasional" company.) 3) The Limon company was never an "eponymous" company. There were two choreographers (Limon, Humphrey) and, in addition, Limon presented the work of his company members (Pauline Koner, Lucas Hoving, Ruth Currier, Louis Falco). 4) The Limon company's budget is in the $1.5-$2 million range (hardly "poorly funded".) 5) The Limon company performs in many different venues, including opera houses (not just "in University gyms.") Simon G -- If you want to argue that Merce Cunningham is a superior artist to Jose Limon, that's fine. If you want to argue that the Limon Dance Company has abdicated responsibility for maintaining the Doris Humphrey repertory, that's fine. If you want to argue that the Limon company has had trouble commissioning lasting new works in the Limon manner, that's fine. But before you get to that point, it would be nice if you demonstrated a basic understanding of what the Limon Dance Company is or is not.

Judges Scores from Week Eight: Individual Dances: (Melissa was injured so the judges scored Melissa and Tony on their last filmed rehearsal.) 01 28pts Lil' Kim/Derek (paso doble) 02 27pts Gilles/Cheryl (lindy hop) 02 27pts Shawn/Mark (samba) 04 26pts Chuck/Julianne (cha cha cha) 05 24pts Ty/Chelsie (salsa) 06 46pts Melissa/Tony (jive) Group Dances: (Team Mambo -- Chuck/Julianne, Lacey (for Melissa)/Tony, Shawn/Mark. Group score based on Chuck/Julianne and Shawn/Mark.) (Team Tango -- Gilles/Cheryl, Lil' Kim/Derek, Ty/Chelsie) Team Tango -- 28pts Team Mambo -- 25pts Combined Totals: 01 56pts Lil' Kim/Derek 02 55pts Gilles/Cheryl 03 52pts Shawn/Mark 03 52pts Ty/Chelsie 05 51pts Chuck/Julianne 06 46pts Melissa/Tony

I don't think you would want to create a show like Maude today. As great as Bea Arthur was in the title role, the series itself has dated horribly (as have many of the Norman Lear "issues" sitcoms.) Back then, Maude was very now but now it's very then.

Apart from the succession issues raised in this thread, I have another question: Where will the new dances come from when Merce Cunningham dies? Are his successors just going to endlessly recycle old dances?? (Granted, Cunningham -- like George Balanchine and Paul Taylor -- has lived long enough that his body of work is big enough and substantial enough to power a company on its own.)

Interesting article in today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/arts/dan...1&ref=dance Is Brown the only one of the Judsonite Jacobins to institutionalize her work with a permanent company?

Luna Negra Dance Theater will perform its revival of Limon's There Is a Time on August 20 at the Chicago Dancing Festival. Updated: http://www.webany.net/Sites/chgo_dance_fes...ernMasters.aspx

Courtesy of yesterday's New York Times -- "Unemployment in Spain Hits 17.4%" (!!!)