Philip

I think we need to be careful when referencing "classical ballet". I think properly, when generally attributing to the art form, most people these days simply say, "ballet". This is because most people do not analyze it enough to cognize the proliferations of sub genre that have risen out of the -classical- tradition. Classical ballet is a very specific aesthetic...and technque. For example, most people consider Cecchetti to be a a classicist. Indeed, it wasn't until after he left Russia, eventually becoming ballet master of Diaghilev's Ballet Russe, that he began his work on what we now know as "Cecchetti" technique. And heres the kicker, according to what we -truly- conside classical ballet tob, Cechetti's work is really only "demi-classical": only in part actually, "classical". The maestro introduced his modern ideas for a modern ballet company, and a Europe entering a modern era: - Flexed feet in battement frappé and petite battement. - Totally different uses of positions de bras and ports de bras. - His protègés later began to experiment with neutral and internal rotation as part of the class, many codifying a "sixth position" as feet together neutral rotation. - Chassé glissé (gliding from fifth position to fourth or second position in plié was a Cecchetti invention, that was impossible to perform on many of the stage floors of that and previous eras.) All of these ideas flew in the face of what we -still- know as "Classical ballet." Modernism, Therapeutics (Johanna Kneeland and David Howard), Neo-Classical Ballet (Balanchine) Contemporary Ballet (Forsyth, Kylian, McIntyre and countless others) - all of these either were either reactions against, or evolutionary movements from Balletic Classicism. There are tons of definitions of classicism. I have mine...and so sorry, it is a bit long winded! "Classicism is an engaged form and design, that has maintained a mathematically pure structure and/or 'rules of practice' over generations of time, without deterioration of its form, regardless of improvements made to it. The specificities of criteria, structure and rules of practice are aligned with the classical ideals of purity of form, particularly structures of imagined space within and without the body. These structures include, but are not limited to, the golden ratio, the Platonic solids, Newtonian physics and Pythagorean mathematics. These structures then are combined to support a classical aesthetic of purity and communication, so that abstract and literal information is passed to witnesses, the audience, according to the axioms of traditions of post-helenistic classicism. The resulting classical tradition must be maintained by 1) holding and maintaining the criteria and rule of method, 2) adapting and increasing the form to current eras and 3) promoting its import as a 'pure' and 'balanced' form throughout successive generations, applying the use of lineage of pedagogues, decorum and functional ritual as tools for communal cohesion." There is, of course, much more to this. To the original point of your thread begun so many months ago, "kinetic impressions": I think we need to think a little more broadly than the two fold aesthetics or athletics you mention. To identify merely athleticism from aesthetics, and visa versa, I think, misses the point. Kinetics are witnessed by the mover with "intra-haptics", meaning felt-sense or embodied. They "feel" the movement, space, flow in time within themselves. (This is regardless of whether or not they are an athlete or an "artist-aesthetician" ...aka, dancer). Or, they are witnessed by an observer; (You, a balletomane / fan watching Swan Lake, Four Temperaments, or a fancy dance at a Pow-Wow...or a fat guy guzzling his beer watching a football game on tv!) I think Kinetic impressions are personal. We can express them verbally or in writing. Or, an impression can be expressed through other art forms. As an observer of the art form, unlike dancers or ex-dancer pedagogues (like me), you may have a much more objective view. Conversely, possibly, you may attempt to put yourself in the dancers' place and feel the dance while you watch it. (I don't know what it does for other, but it does work for me!) Either way, maybe it has less to do with the type of movement making the impression, rather with what the observer is witnessing (self, other...or....?) and -then- what impression they are left with. So glad you posted this to this forum. Good subject! -Philip

So sorry to read this. Does anyone know how he died? I remember some ballet he did, tour second, and decended into grapnde plié with two more in the middle and returned to straight stsnding leg to finish with two more. Someone mentioned that he had been an ice skater when he was young, that explained it. I always wondered what had happened to him after he retired. Philip

As most folks probably know here, Martin Fredmann is no longer the Kirov Academy AD. The new director, Adrienne Dellas Thorton ,has taught there for years. However, I am trying to find out where Martin has landed. No. I don't want gossip, hearsay or slander. I just want to know where he is so I can contact him and stay in touch, as we are colleagues. And, yes, in the meantime, it would be nice to know more of what is going on at Kirov Academy, including have they been able to stabilize funding. How many teachers, who and where from are at the school etc. Here is Thorton's bio from the KAB website... http://kirovacademydc.org/explore-kirov/leadership/ -Thanks, Philip.

I was hired by his partner, Cincinnati Ballet AD, David McClain who died in 1986. I danced at CBC until 1989. If there is a word I could describe David Blackburn, it would be "Jolly". Even when things weren't going well, David was Jolly. He allowed me to substitute for his classes. The Pre-Ballet (what they called ballet 1 thru 3) at the CCM were the 8 through 10 year olds. They loved him. You could tell. They reacted to every command. As a associate director, David didn't do much in the way of coaching or staging. But, he did create a livelier atmosphere when times were rough - even for the short while after his partner our boss, died. He will be missed by those who knew and loved him. I hope some more CBC alum from the late 60s through 80s respond to this. It would be good to read their thoughts. Philip.

The National Ballet of Cuba Kennedy Center Opera House Saturday, June 4th, 2011 There is something expectant about a production that is familiar, as a standard by which to compare dancers and other productions. But, this can make life a bit too comfortable. Every now and then, something fresh and culturally removed needs to shake things up a bit. National Ballet of Cuba director and founder, Alicia Alonzo, with the choreographic assistance of Marta García and María Elena Llorente, has given us a gem. This 1988 re-staging of the Petipa/Minkus' ballet “Don Quixote” isn't simply Spanish: it is Latin. It leaves little cultural context to compare to standard versions, but much to contrast. Though, the scenic and costume designs directly reflect Spain, this production betrays a Latino sensibility that seems more authentic for Cuban dancers. The story takes place in a town on the plains of La Mancha, but it could just as easily be Havana. The hysterical Javier Sánchez as Sancho Panza could have entered stage whilst smoking a cigar, without much surprise! Though, it would have been wonderful to witness the mastery of Viengsay Valdés, extremely pleasing was the sharp Sadaise Arencibia as Kitri. Though, I was hoping for cleaner fifth position plie's preparing her tour en dehor, her turns and balances were amazing. Her acting and musicality spoke the abbreviated story with clarity. Arencibia's partner, Alejandro Virelles is one of those classicists who seem to come from the tradition of retired Cuban Ballet principal Jorge Esquivel; a strong dancer who reserves the light for his ballerina. Also in his variations, there was a sense of withholding, not doing too much to distract, even though “Basilo” must be a bit of a showoff, attempting to retain Kirtri's affections. Particularly notable was José Losada as the lead Toreador, Espada, who's shocking grande allegro and multiple turns looked improbable with such a lean body. If the Cubans were simply to mount the same Gorsrsky/Fadechev production that much of the world knows and loves, they may risk wearing a Russian garment that does not fit. Thus, this “Don Q” works for them, and they should be quite proud of it. © Philip S. Rosemond 2011 Re posted here in delay, from a closed blog.

This is wonderful! Martin is an old collegue (and employer) of mine back in Colorado and NYC. I'd love to hear how he is faring at KAB. Philip S. Rosemond.

Please forgive the length of this post. Responding to the inteview of Kathryn Bennetts at: http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/mediatheek/nieuws/cultuurenmedia/1.890921?ref=nf On one hand, I agree with Bennetts: the dusty old European Stattsoper system needs to be chucked. Indeed, Opera companies tend to dominate because 1) the system is based upon a worn out 18th and 19th century Euro-centric caste system that is long over due for replacement 2) Opera companies are, by nature, much bigger. Staging a Verdi Opera will always require much more funding than staging a Swan Lake or even less, an evening of short ballets: its the nature of the beast. Ergo, it is imperitive for Ballet And Opera companies to be separated, except for smaller opera company-based units to cover the dance needs many operas require. Sadly, Opera often treats ballet personnel like garbage. In my view, this is inequitable, and must be stopped by ligitative force. Some of this has been done in the US, where AGMA covers both Ballet and Opera performers - but Europe has a long way to go in creating said equity. When dancers' sole education is high school and a studio with $5000 worth of mirrors in front of them, the only thing that gets educated is their fragile under socialized egos. All too often, promoting them to AD, is the Peter Principal at work. When Bennetts referred to herself as one of the "experts", my eyes rolled deeply into my skull. I thought, "Yes, Virginia, she's just like a 23 year old dancer crying about the role she thought she should get but didn't." Please. I witnessed and did this myself when I was a dancer. Thank goodness I grew up. Listening yet another A.D. continuing this overly emotional tirade makes me wince; sister, its time to grow up! Fact is, the Euro -is- getting weaker -REALLY weak- and if countries are to be fiscally responsible, state support of the arts needs to follow suit. Bennetts believes her budget should be increasing by 2 million, when EU countries like Greece, Iceland and Spain are going belly-up. This is entirely ludicrous. (Particularly when she left-blank the assumption that -she- would be in charge of the budget!) Fact is directors like Bennetts may know ballet. But, all too often they don't know a) proper personnel management skills (IE: Dancers, the public, government officials and business partners) and b) how to operate and fiscally manage an organization: they simply have not had the education to do so. Her interview quite blatantly betrayed this problem, and likely a complete misunderstanding of fiscal management. I haven't seen RBF in decades.. I'm sure they are wonderful and she has done a good job. But, maybe what is needed here is a more conciliatory voice running this company. Working under stattsoper conditions is a pain in the tush, but for the time being when -EVERYONE- is cutting back, it may keep this company from going under. Particularly in Europe where, for now, this system may keep the arts surviving. Maybe later when times are better, the entire system can be overhauled, giving regional companies the benefit of autonomy. But perhaps now is not the time. Too bad Bennetts doesn't seem to understand this. From the videos above, Flanders looks exponentially better than it did when I was a young dancer. I pray it continues so under the new directorship. I'm interested to find out if the selections will be internally or externally politically motivated or not. All too often it is. That will be another issue to discuss on this forum when interviews begin.

And from washingtonballet.org: "!Please note that TWB's Saturday, December 19 7 PM evening performance of The Nutcracker is canceled due to the inclement weather. All patrons with tickets to this performance are encouraged to exchange their tickets for another upcoming Nutcracker performance. Refunds are also available, and patrons must contact their point of purchase for either an exchange or a refund. The Saturday, December 19th 2 PM matinee performance will go on as planned, but patrons who cannot attend this performance due to the inclement weather are also entitled to refunds or exchanges, available by contacting their point of purchase. For more information on donating your tickets for a tax deduction, please contact Steven Kirkpatrick at skirkpatrick@washingtonballet.org. All Sunday, December 20 performances will take place as scheduled." Finally, a wise decision. Bravo. I applaud TWB management coming to its senses! Hopefully there will be marvelous performances (or at least an evening performance) tomorrow. " Merde" (meaning "Bonne Chance" - not the vernacular) for a great rest of the "Nutz" season, folks. -P

This is the note from TWB website: "!Please note: TWB's Saturday, December 19th performances of Septime Webre's The Nutcracker are currently scheduled to go on as planned. Any patrons who cannot attend these performances due to the inclement weather conditions will be entitled to refunds or exchanges into other 2009 Nutcracker performances. In order to facilitate an exchange or a refund, please contact your point of purchase. Thank you." and from their Facebook page... "The show will go on! Despite the threat of inclement weather on Saturday, December 19, all Nutcracker performances will take place as scheduled. Don't have tickets yet? Great seats are available, but hurry, they're going fast!" Here are my Facebook responses: Hmm? As a founding member of the company, it is this exact kind of decision making that makes me continually question the wisdom of the current reigning management. Considerations of justifying payroll for dancers, orchestra (if they used one), staff, theatre and crew, along with facing the necessity of refunding or reticketing the audience are usually the reason for not canceling - and a quite understandable and necessary single determinant. Indeed, the prospect of loss of income is harrowing. But, the question I have is, should not such considerations be trumped for the safety of the same, not to mention any audience that wishes to brave such a trip? Isn't just getting to the theatre "harrowing"? Yes, there is Metro and most major roads are clear. (Nope! They are canceling both train and bus service as of 1pm.) But, we are talking about around a hundred personnel working on site. We are talking about a weather situation where even the sidewalks are dangerous, the roads perilous and transportation unreliable. Things have changed at WB, but weather is weather. Money or safety? Hmmm?" & "This seems to be a finanacial decision. Revenues, payroll, and contracts that demand payment. Warner Theatre isn't about to "call" the show closed. If they did, they lose the rent TWB pays them. So, danged if the company is gonna call it, because if they do, they don't get the tax loss even as a 501c3! Ergo: finance trumps safety. As an ex-director, I understand the predicament. But, erring on the side of care for stakeholders always pays off in the long run. I pray that in the next couple of hours that they realize this, particularly when literally -no- other event in DC is ongoing."

This may not be a typical ballet event, but it is news. John Goding, the beloved ballet master of WB, and original company member, (along with yours-truly) died of a pulmonary embolism in early August. The memorial service was needed, as one of the dancers stated, as a sense of closure. Having danced with John in his earliest years, I noted his willingness to be kind to others. A trait not always shared by dancers competing with each other and themselves for parts. Personally, I was not close to him. These were the beginnings of a fledgling company and the Choo San Goh years. Hungry years. There was little pay check and income supplementation was absolutely necessary for all of us. Many received help from parents; others worked moonlighting and odd jobs to make ends meet. The Porter Street Dorm was a helpful as a residence for many of us - for a time, including myself, even though I was raised in that neighborhood. John was immediately spotted by Choo San and inserted into Double Contrasts for its premere. I'd been dancing for longer, but could not match his ability to move even at that stage. He was dropped into a principal role next to James Canfield and Pat Miller (I don't remember his partner - Lynn Cote?) It was a fun ballet to dance. Then there was "Birds of Paradise", "Introducing..." and many others, most I was not there to dance or see, as I'd moved on to positions in companies that more appreciated my dancing. But, I always came home to watch John and the other dancers. The Memorial was sort of like a low key 65th reunion for many dancers and now us old fogies who were there in the pioneering stages of the company. Many of the more recent years - 90s to present, who didn't know who all the straight backed-duck-walking old folks with expanding bellies and crows feet were milling about. I am sad for these young dancers, for John was a mentor to them. Now they have to shed the tears many of us shed in the 1980s as our friends and colleagues passed on at -far- too young an age. For them and the rest of us on back to 1944, (if any are still around), I started a Facebook group..."The Washington Ballet Alumnae" page...along with one for the school. We of the original company posed for photos, that I will post on that page. Present were Patricia Berrend, Lynn Cote, Jon Jackson, Christine Matthews, Julie Miles, Helen Sumerwell and several ex-directors and board members. Missing mostly because they couldn't make it, were Berrend, Madelyn Berdes, James Canfield, Sharon Caplan, Robin Conrad, Robin Hardy, and Allison Zusi. However, alarming is the fact that Ricardo Mercado, Brian Jameson, & Terry Lacy all died many years ago... a good 1/3rd to a 1/2 of the male dancers from my generation who i knew are dead. Further sadly...we have to add John to their ranks. Please post your memories, and talk about the memorial if you were there.

Well, there are names for some of the steps and others not. One must remember that classical ballet vocabulary is -mostly- orally transmitted while the student watches and/or listens to the teacher state them. Top this off with around 9 differing codifications of the names of steps, depending upon the era, country and method of origin. Lastly, top that off with choreographic license, kinetic syntax to drive a reference, and the grammar used when presenting the referencing. Balanchine used many. If you read Suki Shorer's "Balanchine Technique" book, you will see that he drew from the French, Cecchetti, some Bournonville and his own pre-Vaganova Maryinsky schools of balletic linguists. (I'm not going to get into the perennial argument "Is Balanchine style a technique"...not an argument that is win or losable. ) So, take for example, the sissonne at the beginning of the video of "...Dream" you posted. From my Vaganova background, I would call it a "Grande Sissonne en double attitude, failli." But others, such as French school progenitors might say "Sissonne de Chat" or an "Grande Sissonne Italienne" due to its execution with two bent legs without straightening when Pat landed. But, who knows; its Balanchine!? I agree with the posters who recommended doing research and coming with your idea. One of my masters thesis proposals and drafts was on balletic linguistics. It is not studied because as soon as it is codified, it is reinterpreted and redefined. It is a pet topic of mine and I love to learn more as the languages we use help it to evolve. Philip.

IMHO, critiques of "vulgar" I believe -are- personal in taste. Because one person's "vulgar" is another person's "pristine", I would extend this question further. To what end does a dancer display their "rough edges" of their personal life onstage as a performer? Those of us posting on this site who are ex-dancers, staff and or behind-the-scenes stakeholders in ballet know all too well how much an illusion of perfection as little girl's view of her first Nutcracker. How many dancers you know don't glide off stage, pull their bloody feet out of their shoes, pop open a beer and snatch a smoke? There are many. And crudity is also "common" in the off-stage life of many of us. In fact, it virtually comes with the territory. There are relatively few dancers who are as pure in reality as the fantasies and fairy tales they portray on stage. "Common" could be an interesting term to use for Somova. Obviously, the speaker was referring to an overt display that betrays the intention of the artist to create art versus the intention to "wow" or display ability. Somova's extensions are -not- common in the literal context, but may be "socially common", due to the relatifvely young Somova's seeming desire to show off her unusual rather uncommon talents. Maybe such displays should be left to Cirq du Soliel's contortionists, versus "La Bayadere. So, rhetorically asked, does a dancer's ability or talent often get in the way of their ability to communicate artistry? Does their maturity and age? I think it true that traditional antagonists like Madge, Coppelius, and Carabos may actually be staged and/or interpreted to be vulgar. Without the vulgarities, the character may not help drive the plot in a specific staging or production. However, there are those stagings and performances that are -not- overtly vulgar of the same roles. For example, The late John Goding's performances (Washington Ballet) of Coppelius lacked the crotchety quality most (including my own) interpretations use to carry off the role. His had almost an undertone of elegance. Instead of a mad curmudgeon quasi-Einsteinian tinkerer, his was more of a studious inventor working out his issues of self-imposed reclusive loneliness with a doll. (ehem...please don't carry this further into most our artistic imaginations than I intended it too, .) So, I think most often, their vulgarities are a choice first of the performer and choreographer/regiseurre/ballet master's staging. Its no news to most of us that use or belief in such determinations as vulgar and "common" are a personal reference to taste and beliefs based upon one's own experiences. Indeed, (as stated) Kevin McKenzie's Rothbart could be viewed as "vulgar", but is he not intended to be so? In this, cannot such a performance of a vulgar character be brilliant? IMHO, Marcelo Gomez' performance is breath-taking, to me, the best part of the production. But, maybe folks prefer the traditional acting dominant version of the antagonist, hmm. In short, I think vulgar vs. elegant or decent, common versus rare or coarse are adjectives left to those of us with opinions based on experience - (which means just about everyone in a free society, LOL!) For example, I think there is likely a strong contingent who agree that Tom Delay was just as vulgar a politician as his is attempting to be a "dancer". For me, I find the competition scene worse than vulgar; I believe it to be corrupt and unethical. But, this is another discussion. -Philip

Hierarchy is an issue which of course, transcends the microcosm of ballet companies, but could be argued that is the cause for politics itself. Certainly every organization and social structure has its heirarchies. One of my non-dance mentors often spoke about natural heirarchies. First one can refer to the natural world where heirarchy is determined by survival and who gest to eat who, LOL! But, in so-called civil societies, heirarchy is either determined by a social pecking order and appointment or the natural ability for leaders to arise. Ballet companies of course, leadership is determined by the heirarchy of management. Corps soloist principle, in most companies do not influence hiring nor promotion. When I was jobbing at a company in NY (that shall go nameless) in the early 80s, I noticed that though hardly any of the dancers spoke to each other (particularly me - but I was not a full company member), it was a distinct social level of each rank. First, the men's corps dressing room was divided between gender preference. There was a straight dressing room and a "not-straight" dressing room. Regardless, you could hear a pin drop in those rooms before a show. This compared to some of the regional companies I danced for where the men's room was almost rockus. Women's rooms in many of the companies I danced for were always completely quiet! Back to the NY NY company, the soloists would rarely interact at all with lower levels until they began to move up the ranks. I noticed that the more rank, the more influence upon artistic staff and some of the decision makers there was. I'll speak more about how I think this effects performance in a later post. (I have to go). Philip.

HA! That's great to know. The next time I use this as a discussion with my students, I'll mention that! BTW: I agree that the ballet was overkill, as I recall it. I agree. I can be said that breaking the bounds of ballet has its limits similar to a rhetorical question I hinted at on the "Balanchine" post a day or two ago: Where does ballet end when 'pioneering" & "experimentation" move passed familiar territory? Is it ballet if we dance naked in the dark without pointe shoes, using mostly contemporary techniques? Or is it simply contemporary self-indulgence, neglecting the necessity or not of audience? (Semantics? Yes? But, it -is- as important not only to referential linguistics, but also to the kinetic syntax and language of ballet.) Oh, I remember the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center and the Maplethorp conundrum that lead Bella Lewistsky to refuse NEA funding, all to well. The sculptures of dissenting politicians using "poop" as a medium, were amusing but serious attempts a squashing "federally controlled financial censorship." --------------------------------------------- But I have a question about the nude duet: was the cockroach wearing clothes? Now -that- would have been a statement!!! ;@) (As far as crushing cockroaches goes, I think the PETA attempt to make an issue of President Obama swatting flies, deconstructs such arguments, discrediting such otherwise well -meaning institutions, simply through its mere stating!) -Philip.

Are you referring to "Bella Figura" by Kylian? (which was a catalyst for this discussion.) I actually liked that ballet because he used nudity to create a "genderless" effect, not of androgyny, rather of level ground for dance with both men and women without attempting the idea of interplay other than of simply 2 to several humans dancing together. Yet, I found that the sections of the ballet that were "clothed" to be intentionally sexually charged. ----- I remember reading an article on nudist camps were those interviewed said that after a few days, the whole sexual component became null. The idea of "you've seen one human body, you've seen 'em all". From the point of view of dance, I know that some human bodies can cause arousal to some, repulsion to another; we all have our own internal filters. Certainly, viewing dancers nude might be more currently acceptable than viewing a Botero-esque figure in real life - ("in the flesh", so to speak). Are these attractions and rejections actually veils for our prejudices or preferences? Do these views reflect the causes and conditions which bring us to such views, or simply some flaw in the human psyche. I personally don't think it a flaw. But, I do think it a challenge to our view as a whole. Nudity is the ultimate intimate exposure of the physical. Possibly, we who view it could be just as exposed in our reactions to it, as those standing/dancing naked in front of us. -Philip

I always reserve one elective ballet class per week as a "seminar". In addressing the truth of what has been called "avant garde' theatre, I provoke a discussion regarding nudity in ballet. No, I don't show video examples, LOL! However, I often mention the ballets of Flemming Flint who (passed away last March), in "Triumph over Death" (based on Ionesco) and a few others, incorporated nudity...full frontal nudity - often with outrageous and provocative choreography to match. I remark to my young students that "if they ever visit Copenhagen, look for a ladies bathroom." If they ever find one, they should let me know. Well, their likely are a few men's and women's rooms, but many are simply "publicly shared bathrooms". I tell them this because the Nordic European view of gender and the human body isn't quite so confined as ours in the US...or even more, other conservative cultures. Ergo, a ballet incorporating nudity in Copenhagen might be less challenging than it is here in the US. Certainly, when RDB performed in the US, a disclaimer was given at point of purchase that the ballet included "nudity and scenes not appropriate for children"...or the faint of heart! As a teacher in culturally conservative VA, I have to be careful that the content of any such discussion does not go beyond the the level that some of my Baptist preacher parents would be comfortable with. (I value my work...and my legal freedom!) So, I let all know that education about such issues as risk are necessary for students considering a career on stage. The proscenium arch is little protection from criticism (Am I right, Alexandra?! ), the eyes of the public, public scrutiny on one hand, and private lust on another. I think too little is taught to students of theater, dance, opera and other performance regarding "performance risk". When hired, one is at the mercy of the director or content of the show. A very difficult task to do is to expose oneself to an audience in normal performance. Fears of being judged, stage-fright/performance-anxiety, fear of making a mistake, and even the risk of stage combat, 'flying' and backstage hazards in general are one thing to psychologically encounter and handle. Another is to stand naked in front of directors other performers and staff, as well as a theater of people, some of whom may not be that friendly...and others of whom may want to become a lot friendlier than they'd like waiting for them at the stage door after the show...(abonnés, anyone?...LOL!). Regardless of whether nudity is appropriate in certain settings or not, is one question. But, I think educating students that they may be asked to take such risks is also important. They need to be prepared to make the decision for themselves as to whether or not to accept such employment when and if they are consistently working on stage. -Philip

First off, I have been accused of "talking down" to posters on these forums as if they don't know anything about ballet. I -know- y'all know something about ballet! I bring up examples, anecdotes, experiences and -opinions- because debate is a good thing. I don't think my opinions are laid in stone or better than others - even if someone is to read it this way. But, I do like to discuss it with others as well. I hope the posters here like to do this too! I agree that people are preserving balletic traditions. I'm a Vaganova teacher and I'm rather strict in maintaining that tradition as far as an American teacher with a changed and different population can: traditions may be preserved, but it is impossible to put them in a bell jar and ask them to stay the same. Particularly ballet which is a living art that happens in the moment like all theater does. However, I think you are correct; there are the "Catherine Turosy"s out there who maintain an historical tradition as is. This is important too. However, your point is entirely different than my assertion: the "Conceptual Sculpture Modern Dance Improv Ballet" may well be the wave of the future. Still, equally important is a staging of Sleeping Beauty. More grist for the mill, I say. As far as new labeling "genres" (ouch, I said it again!), I think if we don't see the thin lines where one artistic example ends and another begins, we start to deconstruct critical analysis to just sit back and watch and be entertained. Entertainment is fine. But, not worth dumping the recognition of saying "this is classical ballet and that is contemporary Hip Hop". (yikes!) Often what is rejected as "bad" now, is found to be absolutely ahead of its time later on. Its no news that is a difference between contemporary and experimental theatrical forms and classical forms. And, this comes to your point about "genres". Yes, to categorize types means looking at them as genres. I think this is your point, am I correct? To subdivide may be a bit academic...but, as for having been and academic myself, I apologize. One could say that every individual is a stereotype. these guys are my friends and neighbors. They often kid about me "runnin' aroun' in tippy toe shoes". I laugh, and joke with them and say "nah; you'd look a might better in 'em than me!" The point is that they stereotype me as much as I may them! Maybe we have our own cultural "genres" (Okay, I promise to drop that topic!) -------------------------------------------------- To take a different view, I do take your later point about trendy modernists. For example, pioneers like flim maker Stan Brackage will leave one scratching their heads at what and why they just watched a 2 hour film of leaves glued to each acetate frame! At some point are we going to toss the audience out the doors just to satisfy creative output? I think this is an important question for any creator who is interested in exposing their ideas. I think important is your point about audiences for classics. The restagings of the original "Pithoprakta" you mentioned and years ago "Le Sacre du Printemps" for Joffrey, were monumental tasks. Though, as ballets, these may not have been their creators best works, I think them important so we know "from whence we came". It is also important to know them for where we are going next. And, it is to this point I think the "In search of..." ideal is important: Do we need to be who our predecessors were or do we need to explore who we are now to grow into something altogether different? I'll leave it at that. Philip.

1) _I_ am a country bumpkin - and a city slicker because I was raised in both places: two different cultures both with their quirks. Each of us is different. The people to whom you just referred to as "bumpkins" are my friends and neighbors. Some have more education than I, and most know how to We come from a culturally different place, and yet, they still worked to attempt an understanding of me as I do them...which is of course, not what the thesis (and, yes, there was a simple thesis to my assertions.) The -direct- quote I wrote in dialect was an example, not a sarcastic put-down. 2) I restated my "points" several different ways. If you can't understand these points, sorry. I don't have time. 3) True. I like to provoke, however, not with the hostility you suggest. I do love sarcasm - I write it with a smile and a bow. No doubt, this did not register with you. 4) Well, I'm writing a post, not a blog nor an article. I don't have time to do that right now. However, in this case there were several points which, yes, I did directly defend through anecdotes, examples, personal experience and opinion. (And I love sarcasm which you seem to view as elitism and snobbery.) If my pointsare not coherent to you personally, my apologies. One doesn't write for individuals on such forums, one writes for many people. It was coherent to several other posters and private emailers and messages to me. 5) I'm not a fan of Tetley either, (for different reasons than what you stated). But, he has created some well accepted ballets, again, whether either of us likes it or not. 6) If it sounds like I am trying to talk down to others on this list, believe me I -definitely- am not! I don't post on any other dance sites (anymore), because Ballettalk is -the only- site where people of similar experience and education as myself discuss and debate topics. So, why not say for example "and Tetley was a grahahm dancer" You already know that and I -know- you and everyone else does! I'm stating it to defend a point. If this itself is elitist, well, think of it this way, I don't discuss nuclear physics with doctorates in that field because - I don't know s*** about nuclear physics. (Although, I'm sure some people think they do and discuss it anyway!) 7) I agree that if an opinion is vague and rambles it is not coherent. My statements were like this to you. This doesn't suggest that you are "an ignoramus" nor would I suggest that. Its does suggest that my post was provocative towards the negative to you. (I say this because your responses back to me were negative from the start) So, for the last time, here is my thesis hopefully without any of the elitism, rambling, incoherency or one-upmanship and other adjectives you assign me: I do not believe we will have another Balanchine or "great choreographer" the way we have had in the past. Many art forms and crafts have had this sort of natural hierarchies in the past and the time for such hierarchies is ending. I believe we are arriving at a time in history where there will be many good choreographers, some of whom could be considered "great". But, greatness is isolating, and we don't live in a time where single individuals rise to such a level any more...at least not for long. Therefore, again, I believe that at least for a while, in a global culture and communications era as we are now living, that we will have many choreographers arising, as only a few (like McMillan Ashton and Balanchine) arose in the past. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just, does the above synopsize my assertion for you better? In short, it encapsulates all I have said in my prior posts on this subject. Lastly, I -love- debate, even if it includes sarcasm about a subject. I detest it when it includes personal attack. Although, I believe you left yourself open for me to have a little fun in the last post, I prefer discussion as a form of debate, not attack. One of the only problems I have with Ballettalk and Ballettalk for dancers is that, in order to maintain civility, the rules squash debate in general. I hope there are more forums where debate won't be seen as a poster playing "up-onemanship" as you suggest I was doing, and taking others' opinions personally, rather as a place where honest discussion can ensue. I can guarantee you, with everyone else I've discussed this subject, that is what I was doing. Thanks, Philip.

Well, Simon, I'm sorry you find my post at once "juvenile" and "elitist". I'm not sure I would agree...I might agree if you said "opinionated". First off, You need to reread my statement. I'm not nailing the coffin on the afformentioned great choreographers. I'm nailing the coffin on the possibility that a few great choreographers will take their place. I danced most of those guys works myself at one time, and so will and should many dancers in the future. Period. Clarification over. If you disagree with this, wonderful. Maybe you'll be right. Second. I'm not interested in "cool". At once you say you dislike "cool" referrencing Glen Tetley (who was a Graham trained dancer), but then decrying MTV. And yet you are upset with my cynicism towards the a reality dance competition TV show?! Hmm. (fyi: "Dunce" referred to the show and hysteria thereof, not the necessarily individuals involved.) I'm not going to nail the coffin shut on choreographer gods. It will happen by itself because all cultures grow change and mutate - especially in the arts. I love Balanchine. I will continue to love Balanchine. May his ballets be danced for eons to come....I briefly danced for Balanchine's company when he was alive. But, sorry friend, Mr. B. is gone and times change for other people doing newer work. So will the way artists work. All three of the 21st century choreographers I mentioned are "process" oriented choreographers. I personally am interested in this. Like the progressions from lets say, Ballet d'Action, early Classicism, Romantic ballet, Classical ballet, into the variety of movements of 20th Century ballet and modernism, ballet will again, change. Personally I don't think we will arrive at one genre. I think this idea of "process orientation" is unique, and a lot of choreographers in ballet and modernism are adapting it. (Process orientation, similar to collaboration, has to do with the interaction between dancers and choreographer as the process by which the a work is created). But I think this idea is one of many which will change not only how we dance ballet, but how we look at and think about it as well. It is important to note that it was Balanchine who was the first to use basic process orientations with his dancers. (There are many stories about this told by his dancers.) If NYCB had miraculously been transported back in time, and "Jewels" had presented to Marie Camargo and her audience, the dancers, Balanchine and anyone involved with the production would either been laughed offstage or have been arrested and possibly executed for showing it. It likely would be to them as if looking at lunatics exposing themselves to cacophonous music. ... Indeed, this almost happened to Camargo herself when she was the first woman to raise the hem of the skirt above the ankles (gasp!) Times change and so does our view of our world as it did for her. Pioneers usually go criticised until recognized as having depth. This was true for Mr. B as well. But, you refer to classical ballet. Yes. I agree that classical ballet will always be classical ballet...but hasn't that too changed? Its changed so much in the last 80 years that one almost doesn't realize its the same ballet. The choreography has changed ever so gradually, as the the technical levels of dancers have grown and as the world as a whole has changed. Since perestroika, even the Royal Ballet has adapted methods from Vaganova. Balanchine Technique has effected other technical and stylistic modalities. Some ballet masters incorporate methods from modern dance, Pilates and yoga right n the ballet class (as a ballet, modern and yoga instructor, I'm skeptical that this is actually a wise move). One of these changes is the "star system". For dancers, this system died out in the 70s and 80s. Now, only a few companies either allow their dancers to dance with other professional companies and only a few companies hire such stars - and only when they don't have their own dancers to fill the roles. There are some great dancers out there. But, the 21st century equivalents of Fonteyn and Nureyev will mostly dance at home. (I don't include off-season freelancing in this - all dancers of a professional level have to do this to some degree, in order to make a living.) I believe that there will always be new good choreographers. (and many lousy ones, but more grist for the mill, LOL!) I don't believe we'll have another Balanchine as a shining star. I do believe there will be equally talented choreographers, breaking bounds the way Mr. B did, but on much smaller scales. Again, the world has gotten too populated in too small a globe with too many good creative people out there for the mathematics to allow for only a few great choreographers. IMHO, The way we view the world simply has forced this to be true. A ballet heritage must refer to the whole heritage: form medieval peasant and court dances, through professionalism, all the way to the present. And I mean the present, because it is in the present in which we "present" ours (and the past's ) work. Whether purists like it or not, last year, Trey McIntyre set a wild modernist "dance on the furniture" ballet in a motel room in Boise Idaho, and then flimed it. Then he showed the ballet on a loop to very small audiences in that same hotel room's television set! Again, whether you or I like it or not, welcome to the 21st century! Is he a Balanchine? No; he's a choreographer and that's what connects the two. Lastly, as far as your assertion of Marxism goes I can only respond "WHAaa....????" I should write a ballet manifesto like Chairman Mao - here's the first slogan: "Political power is won at the point of a foot!!!" (No? Oh, well, I'll keep working on it, LOL!) As far as egalitarianism contradicted by snobbism goes...guilty as charged: I promise to continue to be so in the future! Philip.

I tend to think that ballet should be entertaining. The problem is, so are spectacles like organized sports and Michal Jackson concerts (May he RIP, and may we be thankful we don't have to be put through that again!) I concur. I live on a farm in the country. I drive our John Deer tractor to the station to get diesel when our farm tank isn't filled (expensive!) and the good-ole boys hangin' out on the benches in front of the store always give me funny looks. I heard one say "Cain't fig'r 'im out. Huee tueech's ballet tah li'l gurlz at naught, an' hueez out der Boosh Hoggin' dah field n' rollin' hay, durin' dah day?!?!?....an' hueez married! ....tuh a woman! Cain ya bulueeeve it?!?!" Well, I gotta laugh, and there is no reason why they should understand. its not in their realm of experience. Dancers are actually no more of a sterotype as the good ole boys hangin' out on the bench. However, they love to come see their daughters dance at the little recital my school does for kids 9 and under...you know the drill: little pink tutus waving "hi" to mom and dad? But, we know this isn't what ballet is all about. It really isn't about Nutcracker either. But, the reality is, without Nutz, most companies would fail - it happened last year to a few when ticket sales were down. In fact, Nutz opens the eyes of so many who would otherwise, never see a ballet. I can't count how many folks respond to learning that I'm an ex-professional dancer, who say..."I saw the Nutcracker once". We have to tip our hat to them. The kid who sat next to them in that Nutz performance may have been jazzed enough to begin studying ballet and gone on to make a name as a choreographer or director! However, yeah, we need to move beyond Nutz as a method of audience generation and development. But, I don't think showing Balanchine's "4 Ts" to Bubba on the bench at the gas station is going to help! So, selectivity can help (in both urban and rural settings, LOL!) Arts education? Obviously. But, opening it up to other audiences "special populations", definitely. That's how Jacques d'Ambois remade his name and was rewarded with tributes repeatedly, as a result. Actually, my point was about incorporation into ballet, not isolation from others. But, you may be correct, in this case, I was not necessarily referring to collaboration directly with other forms. Though, such collaborations are possible, its a truism that genres such as Hip Hop and ballet belong to two distinct performance cultures and financial supports. Ergo, hypothetically, I think such a synthesis should be carefully produced so that it does not fall into the pit of contrivance. I agree. Encouraging specialization is key in this western free environment, where so many options are available to children to study. Let it also be said that not every child will be mentally or physically ideal for ballet. If not, encouragement needs to be focused fpr the student to specialize in other forms. Choreographers can arise out of these other forms, when the once-a-ballet-student emerges with the suitable knowledge of ballet to choreograph within it, and may create new possibilities within the balletic genre... Well, this depends upon the organization within the choreographer is creating. If the choreographer is lucky enough to have her/his own company, s/he is almost required to un-restrict the flow of creative ideas so that their "voice" can be heard in their purest form, untainted by the infrastructures and missions of outside organizations to which they could be contracted. Much better to first see Balanchine danced by NYCB and Balanchine satellite companies versus first seeing Balanchine danced by a Cecchetti or Vaganova trained company; you simply can't "hear the master's voice" unless you have the artists trained to sing his particular song. It goes without saying, it is financially impossible for choreographers to each have their own company. But the Catch 22 is that unless they are trusted enough by producers, directors, funders and financiers, choreographers won't be able to stage their work anyway: their ideas can only be available by liver performance, or recordings of live or studio performances. Very frustrating is the performing arts: it costs so much to be presented that there is little doubt that many "Balanchines" have not had and will never have exposure and we'll have missed something and not know that it passed us by. Fortunate the visionaries who have been able to break through the iron-procienial curtain. Intersting conversation. Philip.

"One" what? Balanchine? Obviously they're not a "Balanchine". It sounds as if, you're looking for some ideal "Balanchine"...as you're part of the idealized Michael Jackson hysteria...(although I find no talent in this example). Are you looking for a choreographer-god-king? If you are, sorry bub; ain't gonna happen. The days of a few ballet stars are over. The days of a few dominant choreographers are over. If not, I do think that all three: McIntyre, King (and though I'm not a fan of his work), Wheeldon, are often brilliant choreographers. I think the question is, do we need another Balanchine? My personal opinion is a patent "no"; we've outgrown the requisite for such idols. Even though the masses are addicted to them on a low level (EI: "So you think you can Dunce" "American Idoltry"); there is little need for such a heirarchy in a global community of artists and an educated public. Further, consensus over "who is good and who is bad" among these, is always wrong: consensus is the poorest arbiter of truth. A few will rise - maybe to the level of a Balanchine, but I doubt such a talent will be recognized as such. There are far too many "good" choreographers to be touted (and I agree that there are many bad ones as well), for a global population to require such a person. The days of craftsmen-monarchs is dying. I say, nail the coffin tight and bury it low. We'll honor them as part of the history that has brought us here. But, no need to repeat patterns of the past that do not serve the present. The present is that greatness is recognized by request through networks. Marketing though networks eventually weens out mediocrity. The present requires many great craftsmen, regardless of whether they are recognized as such. If they aren't great craftsmen, they'll not get work. If they are, the networks will request them, not the masses or critics. Welcome to the 21st century. Philip.

There was, count 'em, one Balanchine, just as there was one Nouvere, St. Leon, Bournonville, deBlasis, Perrot, Coralli, Cecchetti, (...oops there were two Petipa-like father like son), Massine, Fokine, Ashton, McMillan, Cranko (The British should feel blessed to have such equally brilliant choreographers alive and producing around the same era), Robbins...and now McIntyre, Wheeldon, and Alonzo King etc, etc., etc. Ya know, the 21st century world is too small for one great choreographer. To make a comparison take classical music performance, it used to be in the old "Columbia Artists' Tours" that the few great virtuosi of piano, violin, cello etc. could tour and make a very upper class living. Now, only a few performers can do this; they are great, but just as phenomenal are 1/3 of the Julliard grads. As a result, a payer with the ability a, musicality and technique of a Jasha Heifetz, has trouble getting a symphony job as back row, 2nd violin, much less a chaired position; there are just too many out there like them. Why? Several reasons: 1) We live in a global culture and great teachers and instruction exists outside of Europe and the Americas. Now all 7 continents are providing more beyond high level talent. Look at Gustavo Dudamel who came out of an impoverished family in the middle o' nowhere South America, where some bright minds put together a training program for poor young children...and they crank out the talent like it was a factory!! 2) the worlds population has grown so the odds of great talent is as great as not so great talent. 3) We can communicate in real time for little money, and can travel just about as easily. The same has happened in ballet: the larger the population the higher the likelihood of talent. The more retired professionals who are trained to teach open schools, the more they will produce great talent. The more ballet can be seen and accessed easily and inexpensively, (the internet plus just about any number of devices) the more talent will arise. Its a matter of mathematics. Now, principle dancers are hired to be corps members of ABT...and it shows...corps should look cohesive, not like a group of soloists, which upon occasion, has marred some of ABT's productions. No longer will we see isolated cases of talent like Balanchine, Ashton and others. We'll have mavericks like Trey McIntyre who has so expanded the idea of "what is ballet" that I do not think we can say, "well, ballet is such and such". It's now ballet-as-foundation, but (thanks and bows to all the modern dance pioneers up to this day), ballet is hip-hop, jazz, tap, release technique, horton, graham, character dance, gesture, acting, musicianship , athleticism, and "whateverthechoreograperimagines" etc. etc. So, much so that, if a dancer traines in 2 or 3 dance types with one main technique as his/her forte', then, the sky is the limit to what they can (a) learn (b) perform. Its not about the rather false idea of "triple threat", its about being flexible and pliable to what one can do for a choreographer and audience. Therefore, no more Balanchine's, please. Let's have more established choreographers who become known and whose work will last beyond their days. Thank you Mr. B., I loved dancing your work. And, thanks again for opening up our view to how much further the bounds of both classical and contemporary ballet can be expanded beyond even you. -Philip

John joined us at WB in '77, 3 years after Nat'l Ballet of Washington folded. He came to WB after only 2 years of ballet instruction, & a degree in flute performance. He was just dripping with talent. He stepped right into Choo san Goh ballets with little instruction. We had a year and a half of preview seaons. We were all very excited about being a part of a true "choreographer's company", now as true (albeit under paid) professionals. John was a welcome addition. He never left, long after the rest of us had moved on, retired & left. But, John not only stayed through his retirement, but became ballet master. He died as ballet master. If there is an afterlife, john is sitting with Miss Day looking down upon us and planning the next move for Wb, beyond Septieme's knowledge...& laughing! -Philip S. Rosemond, original company member, Washington Ballet.

My name is Phil and I was born on Feb 2nd. (Puxatauney Phil) I'll play the part of the Groundhog. (My Mom swears up and down that mine is a family name - it is- but, naming me that on Feb 2nd was just not fair...one step under "a boy named Sue!"

BLOGO!!! The Ballet. The story of the martyr Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his fall from grace! We'll cast Rahm Emanuel play the part of the governor...but he'll have to hold his tongue and grow his hair. Nyuk, Nyuk, Philip.