Dancers who may have been lacking in technique,

[Helene]

Brevity deserted me today.

I, for one, am glad.

[bart]

I agree with helene, and I want to thank all the posters so far for contributing so much thoughtfulness and depth to this topic.

I have a few questions, especially as regards the relationship between emphasis on "technique" for its own sake, and "artistry", which ineviably incompasses fine technique but uses it for higher ends. (Or, as leonid puts it:

...technique versus virtuoso exhibitionism.

One of these questions is triggered by a recent re-viewing of Dudinskaya's and Sergeyev's take on the Black Swan pas de deux in 1953. (Glory of the Kirov DVD) I realize that both were advanced in their careers when this film was made, but this thread made me look at these strange (to me) performances in an entirely new way. The tightness of the upper body, the lack of concern for fluidity and line as we would value it today, the exagerrated preparations for the more difficult combinations, the constant alterations in musical tempo (as when everything is speeded up to an almost comic level for Dudinskaya's series of pique turns). This is "technique" -- combined with huge muscles -- shouting attention to itself. I'm a bravura dancer! Linkage and flow are given no attention at all.

Would this be possible on the stage, and especially in the more intimate medium of video, today?

In other words, is it possible for "technique" to actually be even more destructive of the artistry in ballet than "lack of technique"?

It was during Vaganova's era that the virtuoso (Soviet heroic) type of dancer appeared with the emphasis on showy technique vulgar exhibitions of jumps and pirouettes that had a lot of force behind them – and it showed.

[omshanti]

Dear Leonid .

Thank you so much for taking time and answering my questions. You explained your opinions really well and now I understand your posts much better. Forgive me for taking this long to reply.

One thing I realized is as you wrote we have completely different perspectives.I for one started loving ballet purely from doing it, the watching came later. Also I am influenced by my teacher about whom I wrote in my previous post. I feel you come from a pure audience perspective.

I have been asking many people (incuding my teacher) about art in general and art in the context of ballet, and am starting to understand and form an idea about it. I have few questions and few things that I want to clarify.

Ballet is a form of language because it carries meaning with it. Through certain ballet dancers it speaks with an intensity of power that at one performance it can make decades of watching ballet a worthwhile pursuit.

Can you please name the dancers who made you feel that way and let me know what was it that they communicated through their dancing? I am really curious.

I want to take up your mention of ‘elitist implication’. We live in a world where rulers shaped history and elite groups in society were formed. This is a reality. Patrons from the elite have shaped the development of the arts and up to today classical ballet companies could not do without the support of people who fit the profile of this imagined class. History is history.

When I wrote elitist implications my comment was not concerned with wealth but meaning that people who do [art] call what they do [art} to say what they do is higher in worth or importance compared to the things they do not call [art].

Regarding your mention of the importance of technique versus virtuoso exhibitionism

For me ballet technique and virtuoso exhibition are two different things.

My teacher always says never do ballet your own way, do it ballet s way. The more a dancer s way of dancing ballet is closer to ballet s way or ballet logic the more technically accomplished that dancer is. In my opinion a good teacher is a teacher who can find and show ways suited to each student s talent personality and physique to reach that one and only ballet logic. My teacher also says that it is the technique that gives a dancer freedom. It is not the other way round. Ballet technique is the most basic foundation for all dancers that gives them freedom. If we think about houses for example we can design a fancy beautifull house on surface but without a strong foundation nothing will stand properly. This is why I am saying that we can not ignore the technical aspects of ballet.

and Vaganova I agree on the first part of your statement but question the latter reference to the lady. I had thought for a long time, that we could always witness in particular dancers a high level of execution of individual steps but that the wider vocabulary that existed in the 19th century had disappeared.This opinion was formed from viewing the repertoire of the Kirov and Bolshoi I witnessed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However reconstructions of ballets(and fragments) unseen in the West in previous decades seen in the 1980’s, 1990’s and this century have shown that the Vaganova Academy still teaches a method that allows modern dancers to effectively accomplish individual steps and combinations that one had read about in history books. The Bolshoi in Lacotte’s, ‘La fille du Pharoan’ showed that the seemingly forgotten steps of the 19th century Paris ‘ecole classique’ could be replicated. I agree that the contribution that Vaganova made to teaching cannot be underestimated but we have to remember; she was the product of three methods of ballet technique taught by superior teachers and she had they advantage of witnessing the developing method of teaching already innovated by Preobrajenskaya. It was during Vaganova's era that the virtuoso (Soviet heroic) type of dancer appeared with the emphasis on showy technique vulgar exhibitions of jumps and pirouettes that had a lot of force behind them – and it showed.

I mentioned Vaganova as one example out of many to mention the importance of technical aspects of ballet in respect of its survival, I was not meaning that Vaganova did it all alone . We all know that we are influenced by the teachers we take class from or dancers we observe or dance with. To be fair to Vaganova the disappearance of the wider vocabulary that exsited in the 19th century started in stages from when Petipa moved to Russia. In later stages I agree that there were things that were better preserved outside of Russia by people like Balanchine. I do not think it is fair to blame Vaganova for that. Just like ballet became more theatrical in Britain because of Britain s theatrical past, ballet bacame more physical and athletic in Russia because of Russia s Euroasian folkdance culture. It was also the soviet Union s system that created [soviet heroic roles] not Vaganova. Thanks to great teachers like Vaganova and their great folk dancing tradition the Russians were able to do those roles with lightness, style and logic. I do not think the emphasis was on showy technique because even though they were doing the showy technique it was within the dance and they were dancing it , and they were doing it with logic rather then force.

Fortunately, there were always pupils with an innate sense of taste and who later received coaching from other former dancers that carried on teaching the refinements of the school as opposed to strong execution of steps.A measure of this statement can be made if you compare various dancers who made ballerina status but who differed in 'artistry' to such a degree you cannot believe they were products of the same school.

That is normal for any school or teacher. Any ballet teacher aimes to develope each student s individuality, but there is always an underlining technical similarity within student s of a same school.

As regards a decline in technique I don’t think there is a problem with teaching at the Vaganova Academy for instance, and the technical achievements elsewhere. There is however almost universal crisis in respect of epaulement.

I think epaulment is only one of the many things that is in crisis. If you think how much time ballet schools now spend on modern and contemporary dance forms and also have made the school years from 8 years to 6years it is understandable.

[Mashinka]

I had thought for a long time, that we could always witness in particular dancers a high level of execution of individual steps but that the wider vocabulary that existed in the 19th century had disappeared.This opinion was formed from viewing the repertoire of the Kirov and Bolshoi I witnessed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However reconstructions of ballets(and fragments) unseen in the West in previous decades seen in the 1980’s, 1990’s and this century have shown that the Vaganova Academy still teaches a method that allows modern dancers to effectively accomplish individual steps and combinations that one had read about in history books. The Bolshoi in Lacotte’s, ‘La fille du Pharoan’ showed that the seemingly forgotten steps of the 19th century Paris ‘ecole classique’ could be replicated.

Surely the ‘Ecole Classique’ from the 19th century still exists in Denmark? Bournonville’s Le Conservatoire” has at its heart the recreation of a ballet class that shows us exactly what that 19th century dance vocabulary looked like. And why is the Vaganova School so highly regarded? It certainly doesn’t cut that much ice in either Copenhagen or Paris, where classicism in its purest form still manages (against the odds in Paris these days I’d say) to survive.

As for Daughter of the Pharaoh, I have to admit to some disappointment that the Paris Opera Ballet hasn’t yet performed it. Petite batterie has been virtually lost in Russia (and elsewhere, as is acknowledged in another Ballet Talk thread, ‘Are certain ballet steps an endangered species?’) and I don’t agree at all that Vaganova training enabled the Bolshoi to tackle Lacotte’s choreography, which was his own remember, not the original. I was in Moscow for the premiere of that work and the dancers I spoke to were highly indignant at having to perform such difficult steps that they weren’t used to; there was actually a move to have the ballet dropped from the repertoire completely. Fortunately this threat was averted due to the instant popularity of the work with Muscovites and today the Bolshoi dances this ballet rather well.

Although this thread is about dancers lacking in technique, I would like to refer to two that don’t lack technique at all: Messrs Lund and Thibault in Copenhagen and Paris respectively. If you want to see what the ‘Ecole Classique’ looks like, you need look no further.

[Helene]

To speak literally to the topic, Lynn Seymour, certainly at the beginning of her career, was not a solid technician, but at a very early time in her performing career was singled out by Kenneth MacMillan, whose eye she had obviously caught.

[leonid17]

WOW!!!!!

I am waiting to get my breath back from Mashinka's and Omshanti's posts. When I have, I will reply.

I feel I have entered an advanced fencing school all thrust and parry.

Warmest regards

Leonid

[Hans]

And why is the Vaganova School so highly regarded?

The Vaganova Academy is not exactly a bad school. And considering that Asylmuratova is currently the director, I suspect that in eight years or less we are going to see it produce some very lovely dancers.

[Paul Parish]

Similarly to Lynn Seymour, Balanchine saw something in Stephanie Saland, who could not do cabrioles nor turn reliably but became a star of New York City Ballet; she had a fabulous look and fabulous dance imagination

[leonid17]

To speak literally to the topic, Lynn Seymour, certainly at the beginning of her career, was not a solid technician, but at a very early time in her performing career was singled out by Kenneth MacMillan, whose eye she had obviously caught.

Thank you Helene for reminding me of the centre of this topic, as in replying to other posts it has become much broader than perhaps Bart intended with his original question. I am ducking the question of the great male artists of the dance as the popular conception of such rare animals would raise such contentious issues it deserves a topic of its own.

To answer Omshanti’s assumptions about my background I would inform her that I studied ballet in class, I have had the opportunity of watching legendary dancers from the Kirov and Bolshoi Ballet (i.e. Natalia Dudinskaya and Asaf Messerer etc) teach classes and have watched a hundred or more classes taught by famous dancers and other teachers with established reputations. I also in the 1960’s attended a long series of lectures on Vaganova technique (presented by Anne Marie Holmes) illustrated by I think 11 films made at the Vaganova Academy illustrating the classes over a 8 year period which were discussed by the audience who included representatives from the Ballet Russe era and those who taught the Cecchetti and RAD method. Watching films of Anna Pavlova and talking with many members of her company has for me also been inspiring. Escorting Galina Ulanova around a museum and discussing with her aspects of former ballet stars and her teachers was an unimaginable experience as has been listening to talks by famous dancers and choreographers. I have contributed research to published books and lectured on ballet history and staged a ballet festival and exhibitions about dancers. I am also a collector of books on ballet history and attend performances that I expect to enjoy so yes Omshanti, I do see ballet from the point of view of an audience but I also like to think as an informed member of the audience.

The reason I am interested in dancers who did not have strictly academic technique as well as those that do, is because ballet is not just about the perfect replication of the established steps, it is also about the ‘flow of movement’ and a ‘ theatrical experience.’ I have to say that dancers that have meant most to me possessed as good a technique as can be achieved. Omshanti you mention “…. by the one and only logic” by which I understand you to mean the guiding principles of a school of ballet. Every dancer should find within the framework of the execution of steps and choreography on stage something that illuminates their performance and adds a layer of their own logic (the relationship between elements and the whole in a set of objectives), to that which they learn and practice in the classroom.

Margot Fonteyn was in a direct line of ballerinas who confirmed ballet as a complete theatre art wherein the execution of steps in time to music achieved in relationship to choreography and acting took place when she danced. The theatre is the place where the dancer leaves the classroom behind and the performer appears. It is through seeing dancers like Fonteyn, Chauvire, Kolpakova, Zubkovskaya, Osipenko, Sizova, Komleva, Plisetskaya, Struchkova, Maximova, Asyluratova, Lander, Samsova, Beriosova, Verdy, Schanne, Ananiashvili, Nadezhda Pavlova, Bessmertnova, Chenchikova, Evdokimova, Haydee, Seymour, Vishneva, that have set standards which I undoubtedly carry with me to performances and establish my expectation in all other dancers I see. There have been many outstanding soloists and character dancers that have also formed my expectations and taste. Of course it is absolute originality of personality in performance that I would expect from any dancer in a leading role.

When technique falters in older age or due to injuries, what often remains is still a unique theatrical experience which is why I pay to go to a theatre and watch the ‘art; of ballet and not go regularly to watch a class. How far should we go in measuring the balance between technique and audience experience? We have to travel no distance at all because the performances by great artists transcend normal measurements. The subjective appreciation or experience diminishes the objective measure, which should be the aim of any practitioner in any field whose work is aiming for a significant audience response. We have the ability not only to see and measure, but to also to feel a response that arouses the emotions and that is what great artists evoke and a work of a craftsperson does not. Art imposes a response from an audience not measurement of skill at a craft.

The aim of every artist is to make technique invisible so that only art remains. If it is not invisible then they have in my opinion failed as an artist. “When I (Omshanti) wrote elitist implications my comment was not concerned with wealth but meaning that people who do [art] call what they do [art} to say what they do is higher in worth or importance compared to the things they do not call [art].” What is wrong with this? Calling something art is not to diminish a practitioner of a craft or skill. Elite also means the best or most skilled members among society in a particular area of expression whether tennis, football, opera or ballet. This is a reflection of societal value systems that grow from education, knowledge and experience. Audiences of all sports. arts etc, seek to become members of the cognoscenti. Education and the acquisition of knowledge and the resulting formation of particular expectations or taste, is a natural process for some people but not all as some members of audiences merely want to entertained to while away time.

To become an elitist or a member of the cognoscenti can attain seemingly obsessive levels and that is an individuals right. If someone wants to be (or is) considered to be an ‘exquisite’ (One who is excessively fastidious in matters of taste or appreciation) that is their choice and many people across the world will admire that and emulate them. It is natural for individuals to recognize different kinds or levels of expression of skills and it in the use of the words art or craft, which have a historical usage over centuries, that people are able to share a common understanding of their meaning. When I see dancers today on stage emphatically producing every step at its fullest possible value as if in showing their teacher that they can execute the step, I despair.

Bravura dancing is an art itself but it should be within character and not just a display of technique. The classroom should not be seen on the stage, as the stage is a place for seamless interaction between choreography, music and the other aspects of a ballet. It is in the lightest of touches of performing technically difficult steps that we as an audience recognize art transcending form or structure. Dancers who exhibit obvious strength in performing every step of choreography, can tend to become wearing and appear vulgar. There are those dancers who want to make a greater physical impact on the audience and to hear gasps of delight from those that go to ballet to seek sensation.

It is in the giving of different weight or emphasis to the same step (among other things) that makes the repetition of such steps in a ballet bearable. The true ballet artist learns this through teaching, coaching and the experience of audience response. Schooling alone (ecole classique or not) cannot make a ballet artist, because artists quite patently are born not made. Great artists, who assimilate technique into their performance so that it matches the choreographer’s inspiration or goes beyond it, are in my opinion, extremely rare. Frequently, they are dancers who do not exhibit (but may possess) the perfect schooling or strength of technique as they are concerned with becoming the role and vividly bring a character to life in way that has meaning beyond the skill of most dancers and the audience responds.

.

[Hans]

Beautifully stated, Leonid.

[Helene]

Thank you Helene for reminding me of the centre of this topic, as in replying to other posts it has become much broader than perhaps Bart intended with his original question. I

I apologize for not completing my thought in this post. I think the way the discussion has evolved is much more important than a narrow interpretation of the question. I meant to bring up Seymour in the context of the discussion: a dancer who is widely called a great dramatic ballerina and artist, who strengthened her technique during her career, but was never a stellar technician or bravura dancer, and whose training in unified schooling started relatively late, with her move to England. In a narrow definition of ballerina as classical technician, she would not qualify, and would have been sent home to Canada. Luckily for ballet, this did not happen.

[leonid17]

Thank you Helene for reminding me of the centre of this topic, as in replying to other posts it has become much broader than perhaps Bart intended with his original question. I

I apologize for not completing my thought in this post. I think the way the discussion has evolved is much more important than a narrow interpretation of the question. I meant to bring up Seymour in the context of the discussion: a dancer who is widely called a great dramatic ballerina and artist, who strengthened her technique during her career, but was never a stellar technician or bravura dancer, and whose training in unified schooling started relatively late, with her move to England. In a narrow definition of ballerina as classical technician, she would not qualify, and would have been sent home to Canada. Luckily for ballet, this did not happen.

I witnessed many of Lyn Seymour's performances in the 1960's and 70's with the Royal Ballet in London where she was after Fonteyn and Beriosova much loved by the audience. Her teacher at the Royal Ballet School(and later in her career) was the distinguished Winifred Edwards who had returned to England in the 1940's from a long sojourn teaching in the USA with the Kosloffs where Agnes de Mille was also her pupil. As has been mentioned Miss Seymour never had an extensive technique but in 1958 she did dance nine Odette/Odiles when the RB were on tour in Australia. The last major classical role I saw her dance(excepting MacMillans's ballets was as Aurora to which she brought much feeling and a softness of movement with her beautifully rounded arms lovely leg line that ended in beautifully arched feet like Pavlova's that Ashton so admired and exploited when he created 'The Two Pigeons for her. Seymour's performances with Chritopher Gable were legendary. Rarely have two dancers met on the same emotional and dramatic plain as they did in Romeo and Juliet. She was Macmillan's muse and the ballets he created for have in my opinion never had a better interpreter.

Ps. Antoinette Sibley and Marcia Haydee were in the same class as Lyn. No doubt

Miss Edwards learnt a lot as a member of the Anna Pavlova Company.

[omshanti]

To answer Omshanti’s assumptions about my background I would inform her that I studied ballet in class, I have had the opportunity of watching legendary dancers from the Kirov and Bolshoi Ballet (i.e. Natalia Dudinskaya and Asaf Messerer etc) teach classes and have watched a hundred or more classes taught by famous dancers and other teachers with established reputations. I also in the 1960’s attended a long series of lectures on Vaganova technique (presented by Anne Marie Holmes) illustrated by I think 11 films made at the Vaganova Academy illustrating the classes over a 8 year period which were discussed by the audience who included representatives from the Ballet Russe era and those who taught the Cecchetti and RAD method. Watching films of Anna Pavlova and talking with many members of her company has for me also been inspiring. Escorting Galina Ulanova around a museum and discussing with her aspects of former ballet stars and her teachers was an unimaginable experience as has been listening to talks by famous dancers and choreographers. I have contributed research to published books and lectured on ballet history and staged a ballet festival and exhibitions about dancers. I am also a collector of books on ballet history and attend performances that I expect to enjoy so yes Omshanti, I do see ballet from the point of view of an audience but I also like to think as an informed member of the audience.

Leonid , my apologies for any misunderstanding. I was not assuming that you had never done ballet. I was only saying that I feel your perspective on the matters we were discussing comes from an audience point of view. I was only stating the difference in our perspectives, I did not say which one is better or worse. (I am male by the way)

I only asked you to name the dancers and let me know what they communicated because I simply wanted to know who they were and was curious.

To speak literally to the topic the way Helene did, I would name 2 male dancers. Jorge Donn and Patrick Dupond. I think these 2 dancers fit this topic in different ways from each other. Jorge Donn was not a technically accomplished dancer at all but he became a star dancing for Maurice Bejart. Patrick Dupond was a virtuoso or a bravura dancer but one of his feet was sickled , his ballet positions were not clean or beautiful and were all over the place , his batteries were awfull. Still he had much stronger and more eye-catching stage presence than more technically accomplished dancers such as Manuel Legris or Jose Martinez. I am not sure if he was a great artist but he was definitely very entertaining.

[atm711]

The last major classical role I saw her dance(excepting MacMillans's ballets was as Aurora to which she brought much feeling and a softness of movement with her beautifully rounded arms lovely leg line that ended in beautifully arched feet like Pavlova's that Ashton so admired and exploited when he created 'The Two Pigeons for her.

While transferring my old tapes to DVD I came across a clip of Seymour and Nureyev in Sleeping Beauty PDD and what an eye-opener it was. Although I only know Seymour mainly through tapes, I have come to admire her greatly ---much for the way it is expressed above. After watching her in 'Brahms Waltzes" I feel I have really seen Duncan; but it is "A Month in the Country" that her artistry (yes, that word!) is so much in evidence.

[omshanti]

Eventhough I feel that there are many things that I need to ask , give my opinion , clarify, in Leonid s long post before his last one, I do not have the energy nor the patience to sit in front of the computer long enough to do that as this whole discussion and computer has really tired me out. However there is one thing that I could not let go.

The reason I am interested in dancers who did not have strictly academic technique as well as those that do, is because ballet is not just about the perfect replication of the established steps, it is also about the ‘flow of movement’ and a ‘ theatrical experience.’ I have to say that dancers that have meant most to me possessed as good a technique as can be achieved. Omshanti you mention “…. by the one and only logic” by which I understand you to mean the guiding principles of a school of ballet. Every dancer should find within the framework of the execution of steps and choreography on stage something that illuminates their performance and adds a layer of their own logic (the relationship between elements and the whole in a set of objectives), to that which they learn and practice in the classroom.

When I wrote ballet s way or the one and only ballet logic I was meaning the ultimate right way of using and controling the human body and mind in the context of ballet movement and dancing. It is more internal and deeper than things that can be seen easily on the surface such as the guiding principles of a school of ballet. Although it includes those things on the surface they are rather like the tip of the iceberg. Ballet positions are not the goal of ballet logic but guides in order to reach it. It involves mental and body control not only during the class but every minute of the day. Therefore it is a way of living. In my opinion only few dancers have attaind it perfectly and even fewer know it consciously enough to teach it. There is a Sanskrit saying that says a teacher can only show the way to or teach a student as far as he/she has gone. There are very few people who know by experience and have the eyes to see the ballet logic. That is one of the reasons I love ballet and ballet technique because in this respect of pursuing one ultimate goal it is very similar to the great meditation techniques and it is spiritual. I know that the aim of ballet is first of all performing to an audience and that ballet technique might not be as important as its theatrical performance aspects to many people , but to me it is very important because of the reason I stated above. ( this is my opinion so I am not saying it has to be this way)

As I wrote in my previous post it is the technique that gives a dancer freedom. The more technically accomplished a dancer is the more option and freedom of expression the dancer will have. So I do not understand why many people think that the technique comes in the way of [artistry]. If a dancer is technically accomplished it does not mean that the dancer dances as if he/she is in class on stage. On the other hand it means the dancer will have a stronger foundation and more freedom to add his/her own expression to the dance and the steps.

[Hans]

There's nothing wrong with being technically accomplished; you are exactly right--it gives the dancer freedom to be expressive. The problem comes when a dancer ignores expression and focuses on technique as an end in itself...which I think perhaps brings this topic full circle.

[DefJef]

On another thread the question was posed: What is technique? This seemed to me to be a rather "self evident" question and the more interesting one is: What is artistry in ballet?

One interesting notion about the ballet is that, like music, theatre and opera, so much of the performance is "set down" in writing... the notes, the lines, the steps. Each participant must perform their bit with precision so that the entire structure of the work has coherance and integrity. I can read aloud the lines of a play, but those lines done by a skilled actor make more than a world of difference. So the message is much more than the writing word, the libretto, the score, the steps...

But you can't be sloppy with these elements... one letter can change the meaning of a word, a sentence, a thought... one way to pronouce a word can change its meaning.. or inflection. How we "deliver" the words... is perhaps where the actor's artistry lies... and so it is with the dancer.

But the dancer is working against a very rigid structure and their opportunity for artistry is perhaps limited, and nuanced. But within these impossible constraints of proper technique, and timing and so on the great dancer can demonstrate amazing artistry above, beyond and outside of their language of movement and technique. Like a musician in an orchestra you can't change the notes... but you can find a unique and stunning way to present them. So it is with dance... no?

[Hans]

I would actually compare a dancer to a singer rather than to someone playing an instrument--two pianists can play the same music at the same tempo and sound exactly the same*, but two people singing the same thing will sound different because each voice is unique--and each dancer's body and way of moving is unique.

*And yes, they can also sound different depending upon who the pianists are and what sort of piano each is playing, but I'm sure you understand my point.

[papeetepatrick]

I would actually compare a dancer to a singer rather than to someone playing an instrument--two pianists can play the same music at the same tempo and sound exactly the same*, but two people singing the same thing will sound different because each voice is unique--and each dancer's body and way of moving is unique.

*And yes, they can also sound different depending upon who the pianists are and what sort of piano each is playing, but I'm sure you understand my point.

I understand your point, and consider it to be 100% incorrect regarding the pianists or instrumentalists, no matter how closely they resemble each other--try to test a NYCB audience without opera glasses in the 4th ring who don't know much about the dancers, and you would have found in the 80's that most would be lucky they could pick out Suzanne Farrell--and only because of her height and because they knew which role she was doing (if they didn't, they still might not). Let them describe in perfect detail why it was Maria Calegari or Heather Watts without knowing they were dancing that night. And few could make the difference in various Violettas, Mimis, etc., if they just heard on an unidentified recording.

They wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between the perfectly schooled Balanchine dancers than most dancers would know how to tell the difference between Andras Schiff and Murray Perahia or Garrick Ohlsson or even Leif Ove Andsnes or Ivo Pogorelich.

It is precisely the same to compare a dancer to a singer and to see that while a dancer can be 'musical,' he/she cannot literally sing.

Dancers can be musical, but they are never musicians as such, unless they are also musical performers as well (as was Balanchine himself.)

A singer is more like an instrumentalist than like a dancer. this is because they are both musicians, not because they can get an artistic 'singing' quality in their art.

As for the dancer 'singing,' he is therefore much more like an instrumentalist than a singer, because the pianist or violinist is often cajoled over and over to 'Sing! Sing it!' But he/she is never actually singing in the same sense as a singer is. The dancer and the instrumentalist become 'singerly', but they do not sing.

Likewise, the instrumentalist and singer can 'dance' their music, but they dance it in precisely the same way that a dancer or instrumentalist 'sing' theirs.

What you've said would only be possible if the pianists were capable of forgeries such as are done in paintings. They would have to make a special project to exclude every ounce of personal expression.

[Helene]

What you've said would only be possible if the pianists were capable of forgeries such as are done in paintings. They would have to make a special project to exclude every ounce of personal expression.

That's exactly what happened in a very cheesy movie called The Competition. The young pianist played by Amy Irving was surprised to find that she had auditioned for a piano competition, when her teacher, played by Lee Remick, told Irving's character that she had made and submitted the audition tape for her, and described in several pointed phrases exactly how she had mimicked the personal qualities of Irving's character's playing.

[papeetepatrick]

Helene--and it could only happen in such 'cruel and unusual' circumstances. Made me remember Arlene Croce's piece 'Farrell and Farrellism', in which attempts were made on Karin Von Aroldingen (and perhaps others) to remedy the sense of lack during Farrell's Bejart sojourn. However, I thought Ms. Croce went a little far in her assessments of Ms. Aroldingen's talents, which she thought limited, unless she was referring the attempt to 'farrellize' her. I thought Von Aroldingen could be very haunting and moving and was an especially sensitive artist, so my guess is that that occurred as a result of that difficult period.

[Helene]

Similarly to Lynn Seymour, Balanchine saw something in Stephanie Saland, who could not do cabrioles nor turn reliably but became a star of New York City Ballet; she had a fabulous look and fabulous dance imagination

The last major classical role I saw [seymour] dance (excepting MacMillans's ballets) was as Aurora to which she brought much feeling and a softness of movement with her beautifully rounded arms lovely leg line that ended in beautifully arched feet like Pavlova's that Ashton so admired and exploited when he created 'The Two Pigeons for her.

It's often the quieter, less bravura aspects of technique that get lost in a discussion of a dancer's technique, the assumption being that arms and line are the "easy stuff" than any dancer can do if s/he put his or her mind to it. (If they are so easy, then why do so relatively few actually do them?) While there were steps and moves beyond Saland's technique, it wasn't just as a dramatic ballerina or late muse of Robbins that she was noted for: she had some of the most beautiful basic technique of anyone in the Company. For example, I don't know of any other dancer at NYCB who did sur le cou-de-pied with the same quietness and precision as she. It seems like a small thing, but then so does tendu, and it's the basis for developpe.

[Hans]

That's an excellent point, Helene. The most difficult things to do in ballet are also (seemingly) the simplest.

[Paul Parish]

Thank you, Helene--

Saland was an exquisite dancer, and one of the greatest experiences of my dance-going life was seeing her borne off to Paradise at the end of Serenade. I've seen the waltz-girl before , and I love Serenade every time I see it, but Saland made that finale make me want to shout "Holy!" and fall on my knees.... And she did it simply, but with the grandest imaginable phrasing, by ennobling her lines with a gradually but steadily accelerating intensity that corresponded to the brightening of the light as she got nearer and nearer its source.

[carbro]

Just a reminder that although Saland may be famous for a "lack of technique," she did dance the lead in Square Dance. (Once.) Not brilliantly, but certainly respectably. I'm pretty sure she was still in the corps at the time. Another example of giving a promising youngster an opportunity to break through.