How much "homework" should an audience member do?

[Alexandra]

The discussion about "Enigma Variations" over on the Royal Ballet forum made me think of this question. "Enigma Variations" is a famous ballet, generally regarded as one of Ashton's (a major choreographer's) major works. But it's not self-explanatory. You need to know something about Elgar, and the music, and the idea behind the music, to understand it even on its most basic level. One could say the same thing for many other ballets -- if you don't know anything about Greek mythology, "Apollo" is just a set of variations, or maybe a beauty contest.

What's the responsibility of an audience member? Should you read about (in these two cases) what you're going to see in advance? Or just depend on program notes? Or not read a thing, and just watch the stage -- and complain if you don't get it, as some people sitting near me did last night

(I do think, as I wrote on the Royal thread, a brief program note about the situation of the ballet, a one-sentence summary, would have been appropriate, but I could cheerfully argue the postion that one should be informed before going into the theater.)

What do all think? How much "preparation" do you do?

[papeetepatrick]

I don't think there's any responsibility exactly. I tend to want to do as much preparation and learn as much as I can before seeing something, but I want to follow up a performance with as much study and research as I can get too.

I used to just go to see Farrell or McBride or Nureyev, I didn't care what I knew or not. What I didn't know I'd find out later, and you can never know all of it anyway. Now that I've become equally interested in the Royal, Bolshoi and Kirov, I'm watching all the tapes I can get hold of and reading everything in the archives of this board I can get hold of, and checking out books on ballet notation so I can see what it looks like and using it with the 4 volumes of Sleeping Beauty scores I've got hold of when I pick them up tomorrow. I never even knew what the Rose Adagio was till a couple of weeks ago, that never bothered me; but I like knowing about all of it now.

In any case, going without knowing anything is all right too, and then complaining you don't understand it is normal. People do this all the time. I don't have any reason to think anyone else at all ought to want to study the things as I do and most of the people on this board do.

Tomorrow night NYCB will do another 'Klavier.' I could well be the only person on the board who's played the 'Hammerklavier' (although I hope not), but that won't necessarily make me understand what Wheeldon has choreographed, since, on the other hand, I don't know which turns are which--so the dancers and knowledgeable balletomanes are going to understand many aspects of the dance parts I wouldn't. So I may understand the Beethoven in some ways even better then Wheeldon, who probably can't play it (but I wouldn't know for sure), but I can't dance any of it. My knowing the Beethoven has probably made me decide not to go tomorrow night, but wait till next season; however, knowing it has definitely made me want to see it. If I go, I'll probably look up reviews from back in the winter here at BT and NYTimes, but tons of ignorant audiences are needed too.

It all has to do with how much investment of all kinds you want to put into it. I've read the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey,' and that helps me understand 'Clytemnestra' more, but I don't know about 'Apollo', even though he appears a good deal in it. I think I understood 'Apollo' on a primitive level before I read Homer, and that I still always see it on a primitive level.

I always went to see Suzanne Farrell dance to whatever music it was. That was enough for me, but I read things before or after as needed. Now that I'm more interested in the theatrical ballets, I need to study them more, because I want to enter in to the part that is more specific to the dance.

But unprepared philistines at the ballet and concert hall are needed just the way tourists who can't negotiate a guidebook are needed to support the NYC tourist industry, by paying for the endless streams of busloads of themselves.

[canbelto]

I don't think anyone should be required to do "homework" on a ballet any more than someone should be required to do "homework" before a baseball game. Of course if one read up on the strategy of lefty-vs.-righty, batting order, fastballs vs. curveballs vs. knuckleballs, you'll understand the game better. But then again, most baseball fans understand the game instinctually by watching many games, observing, asking questions, listening to sports commentators. I kind of feel the same way about ballet. Learning is not always "homework." Many times, it's osmosis.

ETA: I think that playbills that bother to place so many ads could at the very least provide *some* program notes for any ballet, whether it's Symphony in C or Enigma Variations.

[jayo]

If there is information (brief) that is important to understand the work being presented, I'd really appreciate it being in the program. Even better would be for the program to contain this information, and then give me web links where I can read more later if I want!

I don't think the audience should be expected to do anything other than show up, turn off their phones, and give lots of positive energy and clapping for the dancers.

jayo

[bart]

A very interesting question. For me, I can't imagine the ballet now without the weight of previous knowledge and experience I bring to each performance. (Ballet Talk has been a huge part of this process.) All of this enriches ballet for me.

But sometimes I really miss those nights at NYCB when I brought nothing much except a young eye and a powerful urge to see and to learn.

Each evening had many revelations. I'd heard the music to Firebird, for instance, but knew nothing of the story. I didn't have a clue that people could move in such beautiful and mysterious ways. I slowly learned to recognize individual dancers by their faces, then by their style and quality of movement -- and then feel elation or disappointment when I found a dancer's name next on the program in a role for which I felt they were suited or not. I wanted (long before it was invented) something like a freeze and re-wind function so that I could register better on my memory what I had seen.

Knowledge is great. But so, sometimes, is the freshness, the unexpectedness, of tabula rasa.

[Farrell Fan]

One thing I don't like to do is read long program notes before the curtain goes up. The lighting isn't good and and neither are my eyes. This is not a problem at NYCB where there usually are no notes. Sometimes this presents a problem, as in "Orpheus," where most of the audiemce can't tell what's happening. For a ballet like "Agon," reading up on it beforehand is to be encouraged. The more you know, the more you'll appreciate it. Years ago, after a good performance of it, a stranger came up to me on the promenade of the NY State Theater and asked "What fo you think of Stravinsky? Why were those people applauding? I think he's a phony."

[DefJef]

This is a terrific question and something which I have thought about a lot.

One the one hand art is meant to be a message we are meant to receive without secret or esoteric knowledge. Were it required the audience for the message of art would be incredibly small.

The genius of art is that its message is "holographic" and depending on what the observer brings to the experience, the message can, will and does change in content and nuance.

All works of art share this "holographic" nature and those who are especially drawn to art, as "consumers" and or creators have understood that the more knowledge you bring to the experience as an observer, the richer the experience will be. But again, great art needs no esoteric knowledge to speak to the observer.

As a none musician and non dancer I cannot ever get to all the levels that are there... same goes for painting and sculpture in the experience of the work. At first I was drawn to ballet and opera because I marveled at the beauty and the rigor and the way music and movement create meaning... and librettos do contribute to meaning, but surely not necessary.

I love the complexity and the simplicity of art, ballet and music... composed of little things merged together which such "craft" and beauty and speaking volumes in a language without words (except perhaps songs). I am drawn to the mystery of these abstractions because I simply cannot do them or without study understand them.

But knowledge and understanding can be "incremental" and as the light shines brighter we do in fact "receive more". So I am slowly becoming more familiar and learning bit and pieces and as I do it amazes more!

Now there always is the danger of focusing so much on technique and detail that the art is lost. And therefore some innocence is lost and some of the mystery must surely fade. This is what science does to the mystery of matter... it reveals the mysteries.

Most of the conversation of BT is completely over my head, but I am now more and more interested in gaining a bit more understanding of the genre because I believe I will receive more as I watch a performance.

I recall my first trip to a country where I did not speak the language. I observed immediately how I looked at the expressions on people's faces, their gestures ... anything non verbal that I might use to better understand what was being said. My initial experience of ballet was like that heightened awareness... searching for understanding and meaning in everything. Now I want to be able to "read" the language a bit... not enough to be fluent, but enough to get more of the message... the message which lives on levels which can only be extracted with insight and deeper knowledge of the work, the artists, the genre and the entire experience.

I am enjoying my naivite immensely and my respect for the ballet is growing daily.

Thank you for raising this issue.

[chauffeur]

You need to know something about Elgar, and the music, and the idea behind the music, to understand it even on its most basic level.

On the Royal thread, I said that I felt like I didn't need to know the specifics of what this piece was supposedly about. And, even a few days later, I'm finding I still feel the same way. Perhaps I'm more forgiving of the creative urge. I tend to assume the best of the creating artist (in this case the choreographer) and try to process a work very (and perhaps too) generously.

But it does raise the question for me, in reading people's various reactions to this work, if we, as audiences of the 21st century, haven't changed substantially from even a few decades earlier. Why is it so important to audiences now to know exactly what is being portrayed? Why aren't we comfortable experiencing something on a broad level and then applying our own personal interpretations? Have we become so conditioned by the specificity of TV, film, music and theater of nowadays to allow no room for a broad range of interpretations?

I left my experience of Enigma Variations with the interpretation that the male protagonist had sent a son off to war and the telegram had informed him (and his family and friends) that the son was alive and safe. Why? I dunno. It's just what came to me in watching the sincerity of the performers' emotions.

I'm certainly not saying that it's wrong if, as denizens of the 2000s, we expect specificity of our art, but I am wondering if this is, in fact, who we are now.

[bart]

Great, thought-provoking posts! Please keep them coming.

DefJef, your analogy to being in a country where you don't know the language -- and your gradual development of survival strategies -- is right on the money.

I recall my first trip to a country where I did not speak the language. I observed immediately how I looked at the expressions on people's faces, their gestures ... anything non verbal that I might use to better understand what was being said. My initial experience of ballet was like that heightened awareness... searching for understanding and meaning in everything. Now I want to be able to "read" the language a bit... not enough to be fluent, but enough to get more of the message... the message which lives on levels which can only be extracted with insight and deeper knowledge of the work, the artists, the genre and the entire experience.

[Alexandra]

You need to know something about Elgar, and the music, and the idea behind the music, to understand it even on its most basic level.

But it does raise the question for me, in reading people's various reactions to this work, if we, as audiences of the 21st century, haven't changed substantially from even a few decades earlier. Why is it so important to audiences now to know exactly what is being portrayed? Why aren't we comfortable experiencing something on a broad level and then applying our own personal interpretations? Have we become so conditioned by the specificity of TV, film, music and theater of nowadays to allow no room for a broad range of interpretations?

I would say that it's the opposite, though. UNTIL relatively recently audiences were more informed. Not everyone, of course, but a liberal arts education was the norm for people who attended serious theater, ballet and opera performances regularly. They have the same educational background and interests as the playwrights, choreographers, etc. Ashton's audience would have known Elgar, as a famous British composer, and the time period (and the Muses ).

[canbelto]

I would say that it's the opposite, though. UNTIL relatively recently audiences were more informed. Not everyone, of course, but a liberal arts education was the norm for people who attended serious theater, ballet and opera performances regularly. They have the same educational background and interests as the playwrights, choreographers, etc. Ashton's audience would have known Elgar, as a famous British composer, and the time period (and the Muses smile.gif ).

Well, I knew Elgar, and I knew a bit about his life (I even knew his wife's name was Catherine). I was also familiar with the musical piece Enigma Variations. But that being said, I still saw the ballet for the first time and had no clue what was going on. I think i would have had to specific research on Ashton's ballet for me to "get" the storyline the first time around. And frankly, this is where I think some well-written program notes would have helped.

[Alexandra]

I'd like to clarify what I mean by "homework" -- reading about the ballet. I didn't mean to analyze a score, or play it, or read a biography of Elgar or Edith Hamilton's mythology, but to read about the ballet. I don't mean to suggest that anyone SHOULD, but I was interested in knowing if people DID.

[Hans]

I do...mostly what people have previously said about it on BT.

[vicarious]

I do in my own ballet novice way. We have the Random House Stories of the Ballet picture book. It has ten ballet stories in it. I've also read other children's books or watched a video of the story or ballet. Not exactly a study of the ballet but I have the basics of the story line. Or I have dd fill me in before hand. I think I might get a copy of 101 Great Ballets sometime soon. Maybe I'll carry a copy of a synopsis of the next ballet I go to in case I'm sitting next to some lost soul. Someone in the family usually fills my husband in before we go. We I recommend a performance to friends I usually give them a quick summary at the same time. Both to whet their appetite and so that their not clueless if they decide to go.

[DefJef]

How DOES knowing "the story" make the ballet a "better experience"? It of course would provide some sort of context and meaning to the sets, costumes.. and dancers on stage...

How does this knowledge actually intersect with your appreciation of the actual dancing? Does this awareness allow you to evaluate the "success" on some level of the choreography as distinguished from the dancing technique and virtuosity? Does this mean that certain dancers are better cast because of their "look", for example, irrespective of their technique?

[bart]

I think it's possible to focus too much on "the story" in the big classical ballets, or even in shorter works like Enigma Variations. A short synopsis should be all that's necessary.

What is more important to me, is to develop an awareness of the dance vocabulary by which the story is advanced, the emotions are expressed, personal relationships are defined and re-defined, and the music is interpreted.

For instance, in Enigma, I especially recall the the characters around the Elgar figure moved and what their movements conveyed about their feelings for the composer. As to specific information, you could certainly tell which figure was his wife, and what role she played in his life. No ambiguity there, and no special knowledge required. While it would be interesting to know the details about the other characters, I don't really see how much this would hlelp.

I am not fond of Elgar's music, but I felt closer to it during my one experience of Ashton's ballet than I ever have when sitting and staring into space in a concert hall. I this case, visuals really do help.

The ability to "see," "listen" -- and RETAIN, if possible -- is something I wish for more than the ability to "know", or even to "understand." A degree of understanding definitely comes, but it takes more time.

After more than a decade away from most ballet, I was quite rusty on all of the above. I found Robert Greskovic's "Ballet 101" to be the most useful single resource in recapturing my old involvement in ballet, and starting to develop new skills. And, I agree with Hans that Ballet Talk has been a HUGE resource. You can actually ask questions -- and get remarkable answers.

[vicarious]

I found Robert Greskovic's "Ballet 101" to be the most useful single resource in recapturing my old involvement in ballet, and starting to develop new skills.

Thanks for the suggestion Bart. I just ordered it instead of Balanchine's 101 stories. Wow, that book has 688 pages. That's sure to have alot of info.

[Alexandra]

Book list:

Definitely Robert Greskovic's "Ballet 101" -- yes, it's long, but it's an easy read.

When I started going to the ballet, I found Balanchine's "Complete Stories of the Great Ballets" incredibly useful. It stops in the mid-1970s (although a paperback is still in print) so it won't help with the Diamond Project, or some of the classical ballets like Bayadere and Corsaire that were just known in truncated form back then, but it's still valuable. The unabridged version is available used on line.

AND a book I always plug, available only used now and often expensive, is Nancy Reynolds' "Repertory in Review" that covers every ballet in the New York City Ballet's repertory through 1976. Before City Ballet came here for its season every year, I'd look up the ballets they were bringing and was always glad I did

If you get interested in the "what step IS that, anyway?" question, Gretchen Ward Warren's book on classical ballet -- which I've loaned out, so can't consult to get the exact title -- is still in print, I believe, and very useful. Hordes of photographs, each step photographed from many angles.

I also found the essays in Arlene Croce's "After Images" extremely helpful in teaching me how to see. I often disagreed with her, but she made me think, and I found it very helpful that she, and others of that period, did not view ballet as "just the steps," but looked at the whole work.

[chauffeur]

she made me think, and I found it very helpful that she, and others of that period, did not view ballet as "just the steps," but looked at the whole work.

I really prefer to take this approach, too, though much of it stems from an inability to identify and remember many of "the steps." I'm the same way with cars -- couldn't identify a make and model if my life depended on it.

I find that when I focus too hard on the details, I lose sight of the overall production and, for me, the experiences loses so much of its power and emotion. It may be the Taoist in me, but I just hate to overanalyze. I admire and respect those who do want to (and can) delve deep into the details, but I enjoy my blissful ignorance and gut reactions immensely!

[vicarious]

or some of the classical ballets like Bayadere and Corsaire that were just known in truncated form back then

Huh? Are you saying parts of these ballets were missing for decades and have been found? Is there a thread about this?

[Alexandra]

No, no. They were danced in Russia, but in 1976, we couldn't get to Russia In the West, "Bayadere" was just the "Kingdom of the Shades" act, and very few companies did it. The Royal (in Nureyev's staging from the mid-60s) and ABT in Makarova's staging in the mid-70s). One of the first articles about ballet I ever read was the (very rare) report of a critic who'd seen "La Baydere," the full version, in Leningrad, as it was then known, and while I certainly can't quote something I read once 30 years ago, I remember the gist of it being that they did this old ballet once a year just to keep it in repertory, but of course, it was so old-fashioned it would never be seen outside of Russia. "Le Corsaire" was made famous by Fonteyn and Nureyev, again in the mid-60s, as a pas de deux (in the ballet that segment is a pas de trois). I didn't see a full-length "Le Corsaire" until the Kirov brought it here in the late '80s.

In 1976, the one-act ballet was king.

[vicarious]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Hans]

If you get interested in the "what step IS that, anyway?" question, Gretchen Ward Warren's book on classical ballet -- which I've loaned out, so can't consult to get the exact title -- is still in print, I believe, and very useful. Hordes of photographs, each step photographed from many angles.

Alexandra, do you mean Classical Ballet Technique?

[Helene]

If you get interested in the "what step IS that, anyway?" question, Gretchen Ward Warren's book on classical ballet -- which I've loaned out, so can't consult to get the exact title -- is still in print, I believe, and very useful. Hordes of photographs, each step photographed from many angles.

Alexandra, do you mean Classical Ballet Technique?

I hope so, because I ordered it earlier today!

List price is $39.95, but there were several used copied for under $30.

[bart]

That's it!. I really love Gretchen Ward Warren's Classical Ballet Technique (University of South Florida Press, 1989). I got it on Amazon and use it continually -- primarily for stuff that comes up in class, but also when watching ballet videos and freezing and/or repeating certain taped sequences.

With some floor space, a full-length mirror, and Ward's book you can learn -- and accomplish -- quite a bit. I recommend trying this even to non-dancers. If nothing else you'll emerge from the experience with a greatly enhanced respect for people who dance.

Merrill Ashley's book (autobiography) also has lots of multiple-shot sequences of steps. But it is out of print, I believe. It's Ashley's book that has shots from different angles.