salzberg

Just north of Sarasota, there's an "Apollo Beach".

I've yet to find an "Agon Cove".

Originally posted by Basilio17:

The company did a great job with Serenade.

I'm very glad to hear this. I saw the company do Allegro Brillante on their recent tour and came away feeling that this company should not be doing Balanchine. I'm glad to know I was wrong.

Originally posted by Azza_4eva:

I go to a tasteful school where the 'pump and grind' is left for the nightclubs or for students in the senior grades

How old are these "senior" students?

For example this year we are dancing to Lady Marmalade from Moulin Rouge.

Just because a song is featured in a movie doesn't mean it's from that movie; "Lady Marmalade" preceded Moulin Rouge by many years.

However, what I strongly object to - which i see in other schools - are young kids under the age of 13 strutting around like sex objects. Its terrible! These kids are too young to understand the meaning of what they're doing.

Absolutely.

When I managed a theater in Houston, we were often the venue for recitals and <shudder> competitions. I was always appalled to see girls 10 years old and younger dressed like hookers and doing the old bump and grind. It happens a lot.

A couple of random notes and observations:

A. I wasn't sure that the terminology was the same on both sides of the Atlantic, so I checked with a friend in Scotland (who has, in fact, danced with SB); "contemporary", in this case, means "contemporary ballet", so this isn't a "Hartford Ballet/Dance Connecticut" type of thing.

II. It's kind of refreshing, actually, and a measure of how far we've come, I think, to see an advocate of classical ballet refer to another dance form as "elitist".

3. "Barre room brawl" is priceless.

Four. This is, in reverse, what happened in Houston over 25 years ago, when the board fired James Clouser and brought in Ben Stevenson.

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: salzberg ]

Q: How many dancers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: It doesn't matter; they won't be in their light anyway.

I've been thinking about this for about two days now, and this morning I decided that, within the next few years, there will be one truly great dance piece inspired by, if not based on, the attacks on 9/11.

Unfortunately, before then there will have been at least 1,000 tacky, melodramatic pieces of shlock.

Originally posted by dirac:

Off topic. salzberg, you left us hanging.  (Well, you left me hanging.) Which show was it?

The original cast revival of Man of La Mancha at the Vivian Beaumont in (I think) 1972. When it ended, I was crying (I've cried at shows many times many times since then, but they've all been my own shows, and if I cried because of their artistic quality, you must remember that "bad" is a quality). Had the evening ended there, it would still rank as the most memorable night I ever spent in a theatre -- but it didn't end there.

Afterward, we go to go backstage and meet Richard Kiley in his dressing room. While we were chatting, the composers of his new movie came in, so he introduced us to "Fred" and "Al". About 30 seconds after they left, we all realized at the same time who Fred and Al were.

What do you say to Lerner and Lowe: "Look, I really don't think Eliza should have come back. . . ."?

Yet another option would be to contact your local Arts Council (might be called something else where you are -- it's the funding agency for municipal arts grants). Many of them offer management assistance courses, including, but not limited to, grant writing.

I've never seen a ballet like that. Come to think of it, I've only seen one show of any genre like that, and that was in a genre I generally don't care for -- musical theatre.

That's not exactly the definition I had in mind, RG, although I see your point.

When I referred to "museum pieces" (except, of course, for my gratuitous wisecrack about the Met, which I just threw in because. . .well. . .just because), I was thinking of works that are finished -- not to be worked on again, ever. Few dances, in my opinion, fall into that category.

[ 09-02-2001: Message edited by: salzberg ]

Dance is a dynamic, living art form, not a static, dead one. If someone wants to see a museum piece, then I suggest that s/he go to the Mat (the one in Central Park, not the one in Lincoln Center, athough, now that I think of it. . . .).

As long as there's a valid reason and the new designs stay true to the spirit of the piece, I say there's no reason NOT to redesign.

Besides, I could use the work.

Thank you, Alexandra.

Actually, now that I've reread that, I realize that I never make misteaks.

OK. I really tried to think of a way to respond without using the first person, but I can't; it's too (first) personal.

There's redesign. . .and then there's redesign. For example, two years ago, after I'd lit Scherzo Fantastique for Dance As Ever, I remember thinking that I'd like another shot at lighting that set -- I didn't hate the way it looked, but I thought it didn't quite look "complete". Fortunately, I'm getting that opportunity soon. Is this a "redesign", or just a tweaking of an existing design? What's the difference? Where's the line drawn?

Any artist who isn't making mistakes isn't taking enough chances -- and any artist who isn't taking chances isn't growing.

Occasionally, someone asks how I learned to light dance. The answer, of course, is that I messed up a lot of dances. This is human nature; we rarely reverse-engineer our successes to see why they worked, but the smart artist always examines his/her failures to figure out what went wrong.

. . .And, after awhile, I stopped making as many mistakes.

We all pray for new works.  But "new" and "good" aren't synonyms.

Indeed, a work that's withstood the test of time is more likely to be good than is a work that has not yet been examined at length.

Originally posted by Leigh Witchel:

Some people come to see the dance, but just as many come to see also the lighting

There's another reason to come?

Originally posted by dirac:

"Slaughter " was the Act II ballet, and it was one of the first (and may in fact have been the first, but I'd have to check)

Agnes deMille's choreography for Oklahoma! is generally considered to have been the first.

Originally posted by alexandra:

Fonteyn was giving good performances well into her 50s. I saw her at 57 and thought she was 35

You're referring, of course, to Margot; Sheezno's career has not lasted nearly as long.

A sub-question:

How (if at all) does your knowledge of a ballet's (or a choreographer's) nationality affect your perception of the piece?

If you see, say, a wonderfully moving ballet about the Holocaust, is your perception changed if you know that the choreographer is the child of Polish survivors? What if you know that the choreographer is the child of a German camp guard?

Is Picasso's Guernica more moving because you know that the artist is Spanish? Are Stars and Stripes and G-d Bless America more poignant because you know that Balanchine and Berlin were immigrants?

Originally posted by atm711 (re: Balanchine):

It amuses me how some Russians are trying to claim him.

I'd love to hear them defend Western Symphony or Stars and Stripes as "Russian" ballets.

Every teacher who first got one of us interested in dance. In my case, it was Mary Ella Montague.

I agree with Ruth Page, who besides being a major influence was a very nice person.

I'd also have to add Mary Day, who was also a major influence.

Jean Rosenthal, one of the pioneers of dance lighting.

The only question that really matters is, "Were the arts better off as a result of Kennedy's policies?"

If the answer is "yes" -- which it is -- his motivations are irrelevant.