lorenzoverlaine Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 In one of his critiques of the early 1920's Akim Volynsky stated his preference for the Italian ways of doing attitudes and pirouettes over the respective French techniques. What is or was the difference? L.V. Link to comment
rg Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 i believe Gail Grant's dictionary of ballet has much about the variants in French, Russian and Italian schooling. also i think Vaganova's book on ballet (translated by A. Chujoy) goes into these details somewhat. Link to comment
Hans Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I agree with rg--Vaganova's Basic Principles of Classical Ballet shows the differences quite clearly. Link to comment
lorenzoverlaine Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Thanks, friends. As I have Grant's little book I'll try first to glean some info there. Apparently, I should already know the answer to my question! Link to comment
vrsfanatic Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 You may have more technical answers to your question if you venture over to Ballet Talk for Dancers, the sister site to Ballet Talk. There is a link in the upper right hand corner of this page. Ballet Talk is more a webssite for discussions about ballet such as reviews, history, etc. Link to comment
Mel Johnson Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 But it's worth considering that in the early 20s, Italian meant Cecchetti straight from the Old Man Himself, and French meant Leo Staats. Not the same things anymore, anywhere. Link to comment
Nanarina Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Cecchetti is still taught in the UK today at The Royal Ballet and Arts Educational at Tring. (May have changed its name now). One of the recent Ballerina's to have studied the method was Darcey Bussell. Link to comment
Mel Johnson Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Yes, but Cecchetti as systematized is not Cecchetti from the horse's mouth, as it were. Even in period, those who set up the Cecchetti curriculum and syllabi were criticized for missing things in the training. As Peter Schickele observes, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi!" Link to comment
Recommended Posts