Esoteric snobbery

[canbelto]

I am also an opera fan, and I know that among the hardcore opera nuts (among which I count myself) there is a kind of esoteric snobbery. We crinkle our noses at La Boheme and conversations are likely to go like this: "The Magic Flute production was wonderful!" "Magic Flute!!! I'm not going to waste my money on that, I'm going to see Dialogue of the Carmelites!!!" Not every opera fan is like this but a sizable portion are -- a portion that dislikes anything with simple, straightforward, perhaps immediate appeal (Puccini operas, lavish traditional productions, superstars like Pavarotti). This is not good or bad, and I think it is a natural result of being curious about new territory, but it definitely exists in droves.

Do you think the same thing exists in balletomanes? And I'm not talking about Nutcracker burnout. But is there scorn for anything with simple, straightforward, perhaps immediate appeal? For instance, during the Ashton celebration I saw Two Pigeons and Enigma Variations. I sobbed my eyes out during the lovely, touching Two Pigeons but I admit Enigma Variations bored me. But Enigma Variations is widely considered to be an Ashton masterpiece, while I read a review of Two Pigeons that called it a "fluffy curiosity." A guy in the audience explained how he didnt even understand why they'd revive the 'trashy" Two Pigeons.

Now, is something wrong with me that I was enthralled by the charms of Two Pigeons while I found Enigma Variations, well, a little too subtle? (To the verge of boredom ...)

[Treefrog]

Well, gosh, don't warhorses become warhorses for a reason? They do have some enduring appeal to them. I do think that when the more experienced members of the audience reject them as "overdone" or "common", it is mostly to boost their own ego and set themselves apart from the masses. (If they are simply saying, "Gosh, if I see one more Swan Lake this season, I'm gonna moult!" that is a different issue.)

On the other hand, -philes DO appreciate things those of us with a less-educated palate cannot. They experience and observe things differently. Thus, I think it's okay for a balletomane to laud something I found boring; quite possibly they understand something about it that I do not.

This doesn't really answer your question, but I don't know any balletomanes in real life. The only ones I know are on this board, and they should speak for themselves (and about each other, I guess ...).

[Drew]

Perhaps one problem for opera fans is that many opera companies perform a very limited repertory. And they certainly don't put on novelty premiers with the frequency ballet companies do. So, a regular opera goer in many cities might, even over the course of decades, have (more or less) regular opportunities to catch Tosca or Boheme but only one or two to see Dialogue of the Carmelites and none at all to be present at a "premier" however ghastly. (Also at the risk of sounding like one of the snobs I think there is a difference between putting down Puccini and putting down Mozart.)

I do think one subset of American ballet fans can get pretty snobby about the superiority of Balanchine to many of the popular warhorses--which they view as just that, "warhorses," not classics. So, for example, they like Four Temperaments but not Macmillan's Romeo and Juliet, at least not unless it is being danced by Fonteyn/Nureyev/Sibley/Dowell and their like...Of course, they don't see their attitude as snobbery; they see it as taste. I belong to this subset myself.

Some of the above subset might extend that attitude to not wanting to see "classics" like Swan Lake or Giselle, but in that case it's usually not exactly snobbery that's involved, but a distaste for nineteenth-century conventions. They aren't looking down on the "immediate appeal" of those works, because they sincerely find them aesthetically and intellectually uninteresting. I do not belong to this subset.

The issue is also complicated (as it must be in opera) by the problem of specific "productions" of the warhorses. Someone might consider certain productions of even very great classics (Swan Lake or Giselle) not to be worth repeated viewing because they give so inadequate an account of what makes these ballets classic. (They may also feel that way about the way a company dances Balanchine.) I sometimes belong to this subset.

You may wonder if it doesn't work the other way around...Given that in New York, at least, Balanchine is not a rare commodity, aren't those who love Romeo and Juliet and have no interest in the Four Temperaments snobs of a sort too? But I actually think their attitudes don't usually translate into snobbery so easily--at least not in the New York context where Balanchine has a very particular kind of cachet--reflected in the relation of poets and artists to the history of NYCB. When I read non New York balletomanes preening over the superiority of full length ballets I sometimes suspect some snobbery--but then again (to revert, if you will, to my own snobbery) I find those attitudes so hard to take seriously, I usually just consider them an example of poor taste.

I meant the above ironically, so I hope it doesn't sound mean. After all, most of the world would consider being a balletomane of any kind at all makes one something of a snob...

[Helene]

The issue is also complicated (as it must be in opera) by the problem of  specific "productions" of the warhorses.  Someone might consider certain productions of even very great classics (Swan Lake or Giselle) not to be worth repeated viewing because they give so inadequate an account of what makes these ballets classic.

I think Drew has a great point here. I happen love many warhorses, and I'll see just about any one of them except Madama Butterfly, which, like Giselle I don't like, but given a choice of warhorse or new, the decision usually boils down to:

*Is it a new production of the warhorse -- like Julie Taymor's Magic Flute?

*Is someone I'm dying to hear singing in it or conducting the warhorse?

*Is it a dedicated production, i.e., 15 performances of Carmen in a row, with adequate rehearsal time, which is the practice in many regional houses?

*Is it a chance to hear singers in a smaller house whose voices would never carry in the international barns?

*Is it a dedicated Ring Cycle performed over one week?

*Is it a Company I've never seen before, or have seen before and liked and are doing a piece that I've never seen them do?

If the answer to at least one is "yes," chances are, I'll go hear the warhorse. Otherwise, I'll choose Dialogue of the Carmelites, or, if visiting NYC, go to dinner with friends.

For ballet, I often use the same kind of reasoning. For example, I wouldn't travel to NYC to see ABT perform La Sylphide, where it's just another ballet, even if it's a new production, but I did travel to Phoenix to see it a few weekends ago, because it was a dedicated production, staged by Nikolaj Hubbe, with dancers I knew I wanted to see. Likewise, I would never travel to see Martins' Sleeping Beauty, but when I was in NYC (to see a Met trio, two warhorses with singers I really wanted to hear and an opera I'd never seen live), I couldn't resist the temptation across the Plaza.

Locally, I wouldn't miss Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty or The Nutcracker, because the productions are dedicated. And even though I really, really dislike the music for Don Quixote, the Bolshoi is coming, and never having seen them do this ballet, I really couldn't justify to myself missing that.

[canbelto]

I also find that there's a subset of ballet fans who follow the dictum: "if the ballerina is out of the corps forget it." I mean this in that you mention Fonteyn, or Makarova, or any big-name ballerina, and they'll crinkle their noses, say how "soulless" they are, how they're just "technicians" and then rave about this corps member ... (I'm totally like this with opera. I have been known to grab the Fleming Rusalka out of people's hands in Tower and say, "You MUST get the Subrtova one on Supraphon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!")

Do any of you also have the "subtlety" thing going? Meaning, ballerinas whose appeal is simple and straightforward gets shunted aside for the "subtle" ballerinas? For instance, one of my favorites, Altynai Asylmuratova, has an easy appeal to understand. She's very beautiful, very graceful, has a very fluid body, and most of all has a mixture of charm and vulnerability that (I think) tends to make people instant fans. OTOH, I found Miranda Weese a much harder dancer to really "get." There's a certain coldness to her that makes her somewhat distancing. I like her now, but she definitely isnt one of those instant adoration ballerinas, IMO.

[Drew]

I do think some ballerinas are harder to "get" than others, but I also think there are genuine differences of opinion and taste and/or judgment. I wouldn't myself assume that someone doesn't get Weese because there is something particularly subtle about her qualities as a dancer...a number of fans are unpersuaded by her as a ballerina let alone a ballerina in the class of Assylmuratova.

I'll make a special plea for my own judgments and say I think there is tremendous snobbery among American fans about Guillem whom I have periodically defended on this board as a genuine and even a great dance artist--not a gymnast who happens to wear a tutu. (Though I don't think I have had much impact!) To take a very different example, most American fans were dubious about Bessmertnova who was a featured Bolshoi ballerina of the Grigorovich era (and his wife)--but whom I found quite lovely, at least in the roles Grigorovich created for her. But in neither case has it been a matter of fans preferring lesser known figures as a way of showing off that they are "in the know" about who is "really" great--Bolshoi fans of the 70's/80's wanted to see Pavlova and Semenyaka (as did I!!!), hardly unknowns, and those who dislike Guillem don't mention some less familiar ballerina of the same era as the one whom people "really" should have admired...

It is possible I suppose--to go back to a very different ballet era--that fans of Bruhn felt a bit of "esoteric snobbery" when it came to Nureyev...And to fully appreciate Bruhn one probably did need to be able to respond to genuinely classical ballet values (which was not necessarily the case with Nureyev); perhaps a similar snobbery played into people's preference for Dowell over Baryshnikov. You can probably guess that I write this as someone who is a proud fan of the Bruhn/Dowell line of male dancing...

Come to think of it, probably the biggest snobbery one runs into in ballet circles concerns the general superiority of the past to the present. (That, and the more specific snobbery of western fans concerning the superiority of Margot Fonteyn to all other ballerinas.) Not having seen enough of Fonteyn to have been captured by the mystique (or having seen her too late) I'm one of those --discussed in the past on this board-- who tire of "she's no Fonteyn" as a response to any and every ballerina, but I am not unsympathetic to the view that past eras had some qualities the present lacks and hasn't made up for...

Indeed, if Canbelto was a little bored by Enigma Variations, I'm prepared to speculate that it may have been because the dancers weren't really up to the roles as originated in 1968 and though some fans may have seen "through" that problem, it's still a problem. (But I wasn't there, so that's definitely just speculation...)

[Drew]

Very tacky to reply to my own post I know--but it's too late to edit what I wrote above. I wanted to say that I very much doubt anyone ever said that Fonteyn was souless and would be willing to wager all my earthly belongings that no-one ever called her "just a technician," though it is possible that a few balletomanes might once have described Makarova as "cold"--so I can't help but think Canbelto's example of "put downs" of principal dancers are much rather put downs she has heard about today's stars and,at the risk of simply exemplifying the snobbery I describe in my previous post, that is often a very different matter (though not always).

[Farrell Fan]

"The Magic Flute production was wonderful!" "Magic Flute!!! I'm not going to waste my money on that, I'm going to see Dialogue of the Carmelites!!!"

Canbelto (l love your screen name, by the way -- it makes me imagine Ethel Merman in the mad scene from "Lucia"), if we're talking about the new Met production of "Flute" vs. the NYC Opera production of "Carmelites," which opened at about the same time, count me on the side of "Carmelites." I haven't seen the former, but it's said to be more overstuffed than a Zeffirelli production, whereas the latter, which I did see, is appealing and dramatic -- not at all esoteric. At that, it's not as great as the old Met production by John Dexter with its image of prostrate nuns. I think it was one of the best things ever mounted at the Met -- the definitive anti-Zeffirelli. I have nothing against the warhorses, or Mozart for that matter, just certain productions. Zeffirelli's actually worked against the operas. Sometimes it was hard to tell who was singing because of all the stage business.

I think what I want to say is that when I was younger, I considered many more things than I do now "esoteric snobbery" because I didn't understand them. Now that I'm older and perhaps wiser, I think there's a lot more philistinism than snobbery in evidence at our opera and ballet theaters. Once, years ago, a stranger approached me on the promenade of the NY State Theater after a performance of "Agon" and said "What do you think of this Stravinsky? He's got these people fooled. They applaud this crap, and he's actually making fun of them." He had nothing at all to say about the dancing. I've also read posters on this board who've said they didn't "get" Suzanne Farrell. Eventually, they saw the light.

[canbelto]

Drew (and all): I know as an opera fan that "the past vs. presents" I find MUCH more present in the opera world. I for example know people who think opera died the day they started electrical 78s (around 1925) and they stopped using the acoustic cylinders. Not a joke. Perhaps because ballet is a much more visual artform, it's much easier to sit around at home listening for the 7.568th time to Caruso's "O sole mio" or Callas's Lucia than to spend one's days remembering Fonteyn as Aurora and really be a "ballet fan." Not saying it doesnt exist, just that it's not as prevalent of a "disease." (For the record, I can sit and watch Fonteyn and Nureyev's R&J 100 times and sob my eyes out each time.)

What I DO find is another form of "snobbery" is the Russian vs. Western ballet styles. I know many Russian ballet fans who find all Western dancers stiff, overly athletic, and cold, while I've seen a lot of Western fans consider Russian ballerinas undisciplined, unathletic, grotesque, unclassical, overly Romantic, you name it.

But getting back to the original topic, I guess what I'm talking about is the tendency to see anything crowdpleasing, etc. as "just a crowdpleaser." I notice this even with the Balanchine ballets -- I've tried (and failed) to enjoy Liebeslieder Waltzes, but OTOH I know that's considered a Balanchine masterpiece. But a Balanchine "crowdpleaser" like Who Cares? I hardly ever see listed among the masterpiece list.

As for my screenname, thanks Farrell Fan, if you ever met me (loud, tonedeaf, and tiny) you'd understand why I call myself "canbelto" :grinning:

[Helene]

Drew (and all): I know as an opera fan that "the past vs. presents" I find MUCH more present in the opera world.

Reading through the thread, I was thinking EDITED to read "the opposite". I think there are two reasons: the number, breadth, and quality of ballet vs. opera "recordings"and the physical development of the art forms. While an opera recording or broadcast is not quite the same as a live performance, it is more like the real thing than a taped or filmed ballet in almost every case. I don't "get" Fonteyn, because she does little for me on film, and I've only seen her live as Lady Capulet. I've been told repeatedly that she had to be seen live to understand. On the other hand, from an opera recording, I can "see" what people are talking about when they go crazy for Callas.

Dancers move a lot differently now than they did thirty or fifty or seventy years ago, and the lower extensions, slower movement, and "modest" costumes often look old-fashioned to modern eyes, while the great singers of the past mostly don't sound as mannered on recordings. (On stage would be a different story.) I think that's why older dancers can be seen as "backwards" on the evolutionary arts food chain, while the great singers of the past could and did just as much vocally as contemporary singers.

I, personally, don't like the way most sopranos sounded in recordings made before the 40's, although there are exceptions, like Mei-Figner, the part's originator, singing Lisa's aria from Queen of Spades. To me, most sound shrieky, although mezzos fare better, but there has never been a recording that has made me "get" Ponselle, one of three singers Tulio Serafin called "miracles." This is why almost all of my favorite mezzos and sopranos are still alive, even if retired, while almost all of my favorite tenors, baritones, and basses are not.

[BalletNut]

Come to think of it, probably the biggest snobbery one runs into in ballet circles concerns the general superiority of the past to the present. 

People who pull this stuff make me want to blurt out, "Well, excuse me for being born too late!" I mean, I wish I could have seen Fonteyn, I really do. And NYCB when Balanchine was alive. Heck, I wish I could have seen the Ballets Russes, and Marie Taglioni for that matter! :rolleyes: But I was cursed with the misfortune of having been born in 1982, so I don't have that frame of reference. Does this mean that loving something I see today makes me less "cultured" because I don't have the authority to say, "Fonteyn was better"? This rant, by the way, is NOT directed at anyone on this board.

I think this whole discussion could be thought of as a variation on the dichotomy between high art and low art, whatever that means. Adherents to either camp have a tendency to fling barbs at one another. For example, one side will decry stuff like Liebeslieder Walzer as Esoteric Snobbery, and the Esoteric Snobs [sorry :shhh: ] will write off some of the more accessible stuff as beneath consideration. Of course, these are stereotypes; I know that, as a ballet lover, I get put in both camps depending on who I'm talking to. People whose idea of culture is American Idol will consider me an Esoteric Snob for liking ballet, and people who are diehard fans of opera and/or modern dance will think I am unsophisticated and simplistic. You just can't win...

[canbelto]

I am under 30, but I think that SOME past ballerinas look "old fashioned" to me, while others do not. And it's not necessarily chronological. For instance, Maya Plisetskaya's amazing leaps and superhuman arms don't look "old-fashioned" at all. Most of the Balanchine women (McBride, Farrell) seem to have technique and style that wouldnt seem out of place today. Neither would the lyrical, graceful dancers like Kirkland or Sizova or Makarova. Fonteyn doesn't seem old-fashioned either: her extensions arent as flexible, but her lean, graceful body and general style still seems like an ideal.

The dancers that seem outdated to me are the ones without a modern physique THAT to me has changed for better or for worse: dancers without the lean limbs are just not seen today. Natalia Dudlinskaya and Lynn Seymour are just two examples of two ballerinas I think who seem unacceptably dumpy by today's standards.

The other ballerinas that look out-dated to me are SOME of the 1970s/80s Russian ballerinas. Galina Mezentseva, Larissa Lezhnina, Natalia Bessmertnova ... Maybe this was an example of the camera not capturing them well, or them being filmed past their prime, but none of the above three have the kind of technique or appeal that is particularly immediate.

What I DO think has changed immensely is the standards for male danseurs. When I look at the old filsm of ballet, what is most notable is the lack of virtuosity (relatively) of so many male dancers. Their leaps arent as high, they dont present themselves as impeccably, even their appearance seems unacceptably dumpy. There are exceptions but in general dancers like Malakhov, Corella, Acosta, Gomes, Carreno, Zelensky, Zakhlinsky, et al. have just set unbelievable standards of virtuosity and technique.

[carbro]

In an ironic twist, it wasn't until I had gained enough experience to become an ES myself that I began to appreciate "Who Cares?", a ballet often shrugged off by ESes. Go figure! Maybe I wasn't as "E" as I thought. :shrug:

[Ari]

I've tried (and failed) to enjoy Liebeslieder Waltzes, but OTOH I know that's considered a Balanchine masterpiece. But a Balanchine "crowdpleaser" like Who Cares? I hardly ever see listed among the masterpiece list.

This raises an interesting point -- how the trappings of a work of art can influence our judgment of its quality. When Who Cares? was new, some critics (notably Clive Barnes) dismissed it completely, and I think they were reacting to the use of popular tunes for the score and the ballet's celebration of the Broadway/Hollywood type of dancing and esthetic. It took a while for people to see that the structure of the ballet was no different from any other Balanchine ballet, and as solidly made. At first blush all people saw was the external, and reacted with embarrassment to the sight of Broadway/Hollywood on an opera house stage. As carbro said, it takes experience to see through to this. Of course, those who come to the ballet merely for enjoyment (what a thought! ), without expecting to immerse themselves in Culture, would have no trouble enjoying the ballet straight off.

It reminds me of when Masterpiece Theater was new, in the 1970s. In those days there was a reverential attitude towards anything that was shown there, because the subjects were Serious (adaptations of classic novels and history, usually about royalty). It took a while for people to look beyond the surface and question whether the actual programs were any good. Today I think we have enough discernment to see that The Sopranos is far superior to, say, The Pallisers, despite the low-life subject matter.

[Natalia]

What a perfect topic for discussion here in the Washington area, where we have recently witnessed a turn-around in priorities at the Washington Ballet....the (for me) ULTIMATE ES troupe during the 1970s & 80s! Back in those days, it appeared as if each triple-bill programme -- as that is all that they performed, save the annual Nutcracker kiddie-fest -- was trying to "top" the last one in ES-ism. I knew some of the Board of Directors members back then; at a fundraising cocktail party, one of them (a lady since long departed) actually boasted to me (oblivious of my desire to see classics in DC): "You'll never see a tutu here. We are above that!" Instead, we received steady diets of Choo San-Goh and esoteric Dutch post-modernists.

Since the appointment of Septime Webre, relief arrived in the form of more balanced programming, with a love and appreciation of good, old-fashioned, POPULAR CLASSICS beyond Nutcracker. Gee -- last week's Giselle even contained several romantic tutus. Hurrah! How far we have come in Washington!! Keep up the great work, Septime!!!

Seriously, I believe that there is room for ES dance, as well as 'The Classics' and other popular fare, in very large cities, such as New York, where one has a choice of seeing all of those styles throughout the year. Washington, DC, on the other hand, had only the Washington Ballet as a permanent classical troupe, following the closure of the National Ballet in the mid-70s. It's a shame that, for so many years, the WB stubbornly refused to digress from its esoteric repertoire and give us enough popularly-appealing fare. It could have been one-act ballets, say, 'Tribute to Fokine' or 'Evening of Massine Ballets' instead of 'Celebration of Luxembourg in Unitards.'

By the way, I don't mean to imply that Choo San-Goh's works aren't 'quality' in & of themselves. However, to have made them the mainstay of the one-and-only permanent classical troupe in the capital of the 'free world,' was not right.

DC is back on the right track, I feel. If I ever get the urge to see three Dutch one-acters performed in unitards against dark spotty lighting, I can go to NYC! )

[Farrell Fan]

Ever since this thread came up, I've been wondering if those of us who disdain the ballets of Boris Eifman are guilty of esoteric snobbery? How about those who praise the works of William Forsythe? Just asking.

[Natalia]

FarrellFan - Your comment about Eifman makes me chuckle because in Russia it is the opposite; that is, the die-hard local Mariinsky fans think that the Eifman fans are Esoteric Snobs!

re. Forsythe, feelings about his work run the gamut from those who consider his works very intellectual (worthy of being embraced by 'snobs') & those who are so 'snob' themselves that they lump him with "EuroTrash."

Which reminds me..."EuroTrash" -- there's a good snobbish term if there ever was one. When I first heard the term (late 1980s), it was uttered by North Americans, usually in disdain of Maurice Bejart. What exactly is the meaning of "EuroTrash"? Are we snobs to even use the term? Probably so.

[Helene]

Which reminds me..."EuroTrash" -- there's a good snobbish term if there ever was one.  When I first heard the term (late 1980s), it was uttered by North Americans, usually in disdain of Maurice Bejart.  What exactly is the meaning of "EuroTrash"? Are we snobs to even use the term? Probably so.

"Euro Trash" is a defensive term used to describe dance and other arts whose supporters believed was cutting edge, or to use a newer technical term, "bleeding edge" and not like at all like that snobby, old-fashioned ballet stuff. (Like the Eifman supporters in Russia and NYC.) I mostly heard it used for Pina Bausch and her ilk. The fact that most of it looked dated within nano-seconds was considered a plus, because it wasn't mired in institutions or canon.

While I found Red Giselle to be a hoot, like the Duato Maria de Mar Bonet pieces, was hoping for much more from Ballet Hispanico, and might even like this Bolshoi Romeo and Juliet at least as theater, they hardly makes me want to throw off classicism, any more than my addiction to soap operas and Harry Potter does. I guess you can figure out which side of the argument I'm on

[Old Fashioned]

Natalia, the way you described Washington Ballet during the 70s and 80s, pre-Webre, gave me the feeling Houston Ballet is currently going through the same phase. Not only does the crop of ballets this season look like they were tailored specifically to set them apart from other American companies (programs like "Women@Art," "Cullen Series," and "Rock, Roll, and Tutus" come to mind :yawn:), I thought it was particularly ES of them to create new, European positions like demi-soloist and first soloist. When only one single dancer occupies each position, it seems just plain dumb. That's what I call EuroTrash.

Heh, now I have to point I sound like an esoteric snob.

[canbelto]

I guess my point is,at what point does "subtle" or "high art" become "dull" or "inaccessible"? For an example OUTSIDE of ballet, I'll use the famous Schubert lieder, Gretchen am spinnrade. It certainly doesnt lack for recordings, and I've heard so many. One thing I've noticed is that the recordings of this song have become ever more "subtle". Emma Eames' 1911 recording might cause gasps of horrors for its portamento, very emotional "operatic" inflections, and the veristic sob at the end. (Ms. Eames was no sacred monster. She was known as a coldfish singer with a lovely voice.) Yet compared to the whispered, "introverted" recordings ever since Ms. Eames' 78, I find the Eames interpretation refreshing. It's honest, it's straightforward, obviously deeply felt, and Eames seems to understand something that, say, Barbara Bonney does not: that this is a mad scene, with a deeply emotional core.

[Nanatchka]

Canbelto, Don't give up on Enigma and Liebeslieder, my favorite Ashton and my favorite Balanchine. They will grow on you,because they are beautiful. Nothing to do with the esoteric snobbery at all--I'd say within the Balanchine canon, it's a rather romantic, non-esoteric choice. Ditto the Enigma and Ashton. On the other hand, what's wrong with being an esoteric snob? (I think that what bothers people isn't what one likes, it is one's opinion of what they like. In other words, if I like Balanchine that's okay, but if I think Eifman is a vulgarian, that's esoteric snobbery.)

[Drew]

I think Nanatchka's last comment is very shrewd. I'll add (in response to Canbelto) that I don't believe "high art" or "subtle art" ever becomes "dull." DULL is dull. Dull art (if we allow that there is such a thing--which I don't think I do) is dull art

"Inaccessible" is a little harder to assess--partly because the word admits of a number of different interpretations, but let's say a ballet danced to silence may seem less accessable to many because, in a manner of speaking, one road of access into the movement is not there. One might well find Robbins's Moves is less accessible than his Interplay or Tharp's Trio less accessible than Push Comes to Shove. Sometimes the less accessible work is actually more rewarding, once you "get" access. But if people feel somehow deliberately kept out, they register it as esoteric and other people's love for the esoteric they often regard as snobbery...

I find it useful to remember what a computer expert told me years ago about "user friendly" software. Sometimes (not always, but sometimes), the software program that is harder to learn is actually easier to use once you learn it. Similarly, with art, sometimes once you gain access to the "inaccessible" you discover that what you thought was unnecessary esotericism is deeply compelling. (Though to stick with computer metaphors, one might respond that sometimes it's just the work of a hacker...or to leave that metaphor behind, a hack.)

[sandik]

Come to think of it, probably the biggest snobbery one runs into in ballet circles concerns the general superiority of the past to the present. 

People who pull this stuff make me want to blurt out, "Well, excuse me for being born too late!"

I think we've all come across this point of view at some time, the only thing that alters is the date of the golden era that's being held up as an unmatched model. I agree -- I wish that I'd been able to see people and productions that were long past before I got to the theater, but I like to think that other, wonderful things might be in store if I'm patient and stick with it.

Most long-term dance watchers seem to have the equivalent of the bird watchers "life list" -- an index of dances that they're curious about, with check marks on the ones they've managed to see. If I had lots of disposable cash and time, I would have sent myself to Ohio earlier this month to see the reconstruction of the Massine Symphony -- it's on my 'curious' list, and isn't likely to tour much. I don't know that I feel particularly snobbish about this -- I'm excited when I see a good performance of hip hop dancing too, but following an art form that has such a spotty record of conserving its past is motivation to see as much as I can.

[Natalia]

Natalia, the way you described Washington Ballet during the 70s and 80s, pre-Webre, gave me the feeling Houston Ballet is currently going through the same phase.  Not only does the crop of ballets this season look like they were tailored specifically to set them apart from other American companies (programs like "Women@Art," "Cullen Series," and "Rock, Roll, and Tutus" come to mind :yawn:), .....

Heh, now I have to point I sound like an esoteric snob.

Oh my, Old Fashioned. What happened to the traditional BenStevenson company that I so admired in their 1980s tours to the Kennedy Center, with gorgeous Swan lakes and Sleeping Beauties? We could always count on Houston (among other touring troupes at the KennCen) for luxuriously-designed classics.

[Old Fashioned]

Well, they're still keeping the Stevenson ballets in rep (other than Nutcracker, they're doing R&J, and I am very much looking forward to Gielgud's production of Giselle), but I'm afraid they might be leaning more and more toward the "cutting-edge" ballet company model.