Lincoln Kirstein
todd
"there have always been, and always can be, important contributions from
outside the stricter confines of the academy, but personal innovation
usually affects manners in dance-compostion and individual styles in
movement rather than any basic training in the syntax or vocabulary of
ballet practice." He goes on to say that "It is not difficult for a trained
classic dancer to absorb varieties of idiosyncratic idioms; it is impossible
for a dancer trained only in a personal method to perform in classic
ballet."
While I agree with his basic assertion that the classical technique gives
one a foundation in which to move the body in an ordered precise way, I do
not believe it is possible absorb varieties of idioms based on the fact that
it takes just as much time to train the body to move in an idiosyncratic way
as it does to move in the classic way. Besides this, I find many of the
ways in which Balanchine dancers are trained to be purely idiosyncratic.
For example, the way the arms and fingers are held, or the head not used at
the barre can only be the result of one man's wish for his dancers to dance
in a particular manner. How would it be for a dancer who trained at SAB to
try to take on a role in the companies of Paul Taylor or Merce Cunningham?
It would no doubt be possible based on Kirstein's premise, but it would take
time and an inordinate amount of unlearning of SAB idiosyncracies. I wonder
if there is not a further contribution to be made to the ballet syntax in
the next century which would give ballet dancers a more complete
understanding of anatomy and the ways in which the bones and joints of the
body can be articulated using energy and will power. What I am suggesting
is not only a change in the schooling of a dancer, but in the entire ballet
aesthetic. Don't get me wrong. I love ballet (especially Balanchine) but I
feel that there could be so much more in the ballet world. And it doesn't
have to fall to the "modern" dance camp.
I look forward to any comments.
VLeigh7023
> I wonder
>if there is not a further contribution to be made to the ballet syntax in
>the next century which would give ballet dancers a more complete
>understanding of anatomy and the ways in which the bones and joints of the
>body can be articulated using energy and will power. What I am suggesting
>is not only a change in the schooling of a dancer, but in the entire ballet
>aesthetic. Don't get me wrong. I love ballet (especially Balanchine) but I
>feel that there could be so much more in the ballet world. And it doesn't
>have to fall to the "modern" dance camp.
>
>
I believe that there are many schools and teachers who already do this, and
have done it for years. Not all teachers work in a "set", or particular, style
which encompasses primarily one person's idiosyncracies, and many of us have
been trained with an understanding of anatomy and kinesiology. Many American
dancers today are extrememly versatile and able to perform the classics as well
as works of many different contemporary choreographers.
As a teacher, I have found that students trained at SAB (or an SAB staffed
school), and also most students trained in very strict Vaganova, are far less
versatile and less able to perceive different ways of moving, than most of
those trained in a less rigid syllabus. There are always exceptions, of
course, and it usually comes back to the teaching, ie, HOW it is taught more
than what is taught. If the teacher explores movement, searches for the
movement motivation, energy patterns, efficient use of muscles, and generally
teaches with knowledge and is able to communicate that knowledge in order to
train dancers who THINK and not just do, then any system or syllabus can work
as a basis for producing a "dancer" (as opposed to a "ballet robot").
Unfortunately, not all teachers are "thinking" teachers, and many just teach
what they have been taught without ever examining the logic behind it (if there
is any!). There are some things regularly done in ballet classes which are done
because they have been done for centuries, and were first done before there was
the knowledge we have today about the body and it's movement potential. Some
of these things make no sense at all, and can be more harmful than helpful.
But people continue to do them because they are "traditional". While I have
great respect for tradition, I simply cannot do something ONLY because it is
traditional if it makes no sense and has no valid purpose, or is potentially
harmful. The technique of ballet makes extreme demands on the body, and not all
of it can be made to be totally harmless or even to make sense. It is, of
course, an unnatural art form. But I do think that there are things which can
be done to improve on the way it was taught in the past, and I also believe
that there are people out there doing just that!
~Victoria~
There's only one of me. There's only one of anybody.
That's why steps look different on different people. ~Judith Jamison
Patrick Grant
>
> X-29140-Poster: Ch...@aol.com
>
> Our studio is planning a production number around a circus theme. Does anyone
> have any ideas for music, costumes, etc.
Nina Rota wrote some really cool circus music for Fellini's
"The Clowns" (I Cloni) that may be useful.
slake
>As part of his essay "The Classic Ballet", Lincoln Kirstein has said that
>"there have always been, and always can be, important contributions from
>outside the stricter confines of the academy, but personal innovation
>usually affects manners in dance-compostion and individual styles in
>movement rather than any basic training in the syntax or vocabulary of
>ballet practice." He goes on to say that "It is not difficult for a trained
>classic dancer to absorb varieties of idiosyncratic idioms; it is impossible
>for a dancer trained only in a personal method to perform in classic
>ballet."
>While I agree with his basic assertion that the classical technique gives
>one a foundation in which to move the body in an ordered precise way, I do
>not believe it is possible absorb varieties of idioms based on the fact that
>it takes just as much time to train the body to move in an idiosyncratic way
>as it does to move in the classic way. Besides this, I find many of the
>ways in which Balanchine dancers are trained to be purely idiosyncratic.
>For example, the way the arms and fingers are held, or the head not used at
>the barre can only be the result of one man's wish for his dancers to dance
>in a particular manner. How would it be for a dancer who trained at SAB to
>try to take on a role in the companies of Paul Taylor or Merce Cunningham?
>It would no doubt be possible based on Kirstein's premise, but it would take
>time and an inordinate amount of unlearning of SAB idiosyncracies. I wonder
>if there is not a further contribution to be made to the ballet syntax in
>the next century which would give ballet dancers a more complete
>understanding of anatomy and the ways in which the bones and joints of the
>body can be articulated using energy and will power. What I am suggesting
>is not only a change in the schooling of a dancer, but in the entire ballet
>aesthetic. Don't get me wrong. I love ballet (especially Balanchine) but I
>feel that there could be so much more in the ballet world. And it doesn't
>have to fall to the "modern" dance camp.
It is probably useful to recall here that Kirstein wrote his intro. in
1952, when things were different from today. What you call SAB was not
what the late 40's/early 50's knew as SAB. If you look at the contents
of Stuart's text you will see references to the Cecchetti and Russian
schools of theory/technique. For that matter, neither Paul Taylor nor
Merce Cunningham were who they are today, each was only just beginning
to show his own choreography. Kirstein was probably speaking
generally, about how the then long-established technique/school of
ballet differed from the then developing 'modern' techniques, which he
always considered 'personal' in nature vs. the 'impersonal' nature of
ballet schooling. 1952 was also an era when Ballet found itself waging
a kind of war against Modern Dance, which many of its champions said
was superior, and more American than decadent, dead, European Ballet.
History saw the outcome differently and the war petered out, more or
less, with today's so-called Modern dancers often taking ballet
classes and today's ballet repertory often involving the work's of
non-ballet Modern aesthetics. Stuart, the author of the running text
of this book was a member of Pavlova's company and many of the
teachers then involved w/ SAB were emigres from Russia's Imperial
Ballet. Little of this is true for the SAB you are speaking of in
1998.
Ch...@aol.com
X-29140-Poster: Ch...@aol.com
Our studio is planning a production number around a circus theme. Does anyone
have any ideas for music, costumes, etc. We want something like EFX from
LasVegas. All ideas are welcome!!!! Thanks in advance
Nanatchka
>Our studio is planning a production number around a circus theme. Does
>anyone
>have any ideas
Is anyone else experiencing cognitive dissonance, or is there something about
Lincoln I don't know?
> We want something like EFX from
>LasVegas. All ideas are welcome!!!!
Las Vegas, Saratoga, what's the diff? Shooting craps, riding crops.
Send help, and a definition of "EFX,"
Nanatchka
todd
Who's Stuart? I read the essay by LK published in a little book by the
School of American Ballet. Granted, the war between ballet and modern is
over and there is significant crossover between the two aesthetics. But, my
main point is that SAB still trains dancers in such a way that they only
know how to move using the highly stylized Balanchine/Martins/NYCB
technique. This is fine if you're going to dance with the NYCB or other
major dance company in America, but the majority of SAB students won't. I'm
saying that the training isn't as well rounded as it could be and I'm
speaking from first hand experience. When I attended SAB ten years ago I
learned nothing about anatomy, alignment, or any other technique for moving
the body save ballroom dancing. I can understand wanting to keep the
technique pure, but perhaps it's time to see if the amazing technicians that
come out of this institution could be even better! Even after dancing in
the NYCB for four years I found it difficult to make the transition into
'modern' with only my ballet technique behind me. Ballet was and still is
a great foundation and I wouldn't trade my training in for anything; I
simply think that the training is incomplete.
Alexandra Tomalonis
Regardiing the message about NYCB's training being incomplete, query. Why
should a ballet school train dancers to be modern dancers, or show dancers,
or any other kind of dancer except a ballet dancer? I'm all for all kinds of
dancers, and all kinds of dancing, but ballet is ballet, and I would argue
that the school for a great ballet academy should only have to be concerned
with training dancers for the company it serves. It seems to have worked for
the Kirov, Bolshoi and Paris. Why not New York?
alexandra tomalonis
ballet alert!
todd
VLeigh7023 wrote in message
<199807181356...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>If the teacher explores movement, searches for the
>movement motivation, energy patterns, efficient use of muscles, and
generally
>teaches with knowledge and is able to communicate that knowledge in order
to
>train dancers who THINK and not just do, then any system or syllabus can
work
>as a basis for producing a "dancer" (as opposed to a "ballet robot").
Yes, the thought processes and energy patterns are essential.
>The technique of ballet makes extreme demands on the body, and not all
>of it can be made to be totally harmless or even to make sense. It is, of
>course, an unnatural art form. But I do think that there are things which
can
>be done to improve on the way it was taught in the past, and I also believe
>that there are people out there doing just that!
May I ask whom? It's not that I don't believe you, I would just like to
know who these teachers are and where they're teaching. I wish I had had
more classes like this before I began my professional career.
Nice comments. Thank you.
Leigh Witchel
I think you raise interesting points (From what I gather in yourr
followup, you dance for Petronio's company?)
I'm not sure that any ballet training can actually make a dancer ready to
take to the stage in a modern piece. The center of gravity of a ballet
dancer is so much higher - and it needs to be to do ballet correctly.
Most ballet dancers I know who moved over to modern because they found it
more interesting still took several years of retraining. Not training,
REtraining. Ballet needs to be unlearned to a point. I don't think a
ballet academy can provide that sort of education and serve its own
interests effectively.
Also, in the case of all dance, I believe that a dancer will find their
training is repertory driven. About the only exception to this is release
technique in fact, which seems more driven by its teachers than its
choreographers. My point is that changes in dance training come with
changes in repertory both to individual dancers and dance as a whole. The
Balanchine style of training arose because there was a repertory to
support it, the same with Graham, Cunningham and Taylor. I think we will
find in the future that real changes in dance training, if any, will come
with the advent of real additions to the dance repertory.
LAW
--
Leigh Witchel - d...@panix.com http://members.aol.com/lwitchel
Help support Dance as Ever's performances on September 24-27, 1998 at Pace
Downtown Theater in Manhattan! Check out our raffle and auction at
http://members.aol.com/dnceasever
Sandi Kurtz
> Hello Todd -
>
> I think you raise interesting points (From what I gather in yourr
> followup, you dance for Petronio's company?)
>
> I'm not sure that any ballet training can actually make a dancer ready to
> take to the stage in a modern piece. The center of gravity of a ballet
> dancer is so much higher - and it needs to be to do ballet correctly.
> Most ballet dancers I know who moved over to modern because they found it
> more interesting still took several years of retraining. Not training,
> REtraining. Ballet needs to be unlearned to a point. I don't think a
> ballet academy can provide that sort of education and serve its own
> interests effectively.
>
> Also, in the case of all dance, I believe that a dancer will find their
> training is repertory driven. About the only exception to this is release
> technique in fact, which seems more driven by its teachers than its
> choreographers. My point is that changes in dance training come with
> changes in repertory both to individual dancers and dance as a whole. The
> Balanchine style of training arose because there was a repertory to
> support it, the same with Graham, Cunningham and Taylor. I think we will
> find in the future that real changes in dance training, if any, will come
> with the advent of real additions to the dance repertory.
You're on to one of the keys in the development of dance technique
(and the little I know of other art forms, technique in them as well),
but I would make one shift in emphasis -- technique and repertory usually
seem to develop simultaneously. Especially in the case of modern dance,
whose history is so much more recent, the core of the technique is often
created and modified as the repertory is choreographed, to the extent that
in Graham classes, standard chunks of the class are named after their
source in the choreography.
sandi kurtz
becca
X-29162-Poster: becca <be...@aros.net>
At 08:19 PM 7/18/98 EDT, you wrote:
>X-29140-Poster: Ch...@aol.com
>
>Our studio is planning a production number around a circus theme. Does
anyone
>have any ideas for music, costumes, etc. We want something like EFX from
>LasVegas. All ideas are welcome!!!! Thanks in advance
what is your budget??
ewa
100...@slime.atmos.washington.edu>,
Sandi Kurtz <san...@slime.atmos.washington.edu> wrote:
>On 19 Jul 1998, Leigh Witchel wrote:
><SNIP of part of Leigh's post>
>> Also, in the case of all dance, I believe that a dancer will find their
>> training is repertory driven. About the only exception to this is
release
>> technique in fact, which seems more driven by its teachers than its
>> choreographers. My point is that changes in dance training come with
>> changes in repertory both to individual dancers and dance as a whole.
The
>> Balanchine style of training arose because there was a repertory to
>> support it, the same with Graham, Cunningham and Taylor. I think we will
>> find in the future that real changes in dance training, if any, will come
>> with the advent of real additions to the dance repertory.
>
picking up Sandi's post:
>You're on to one of the keys in the development of dance technique
>(and the little I know of other art forms, technique in them as well),
>but I would make one shift in emphasis -- technique and repertory usually
>seem to develop simultaneously.
<SNIP>
>sandi kurtz
This seems to be true across several art forms. In the first half of the
nineteenth century in Italy, a time when the bel canto operas of Rossini,
Bellini and Donizetti held the stage, (along with the work of other
composers who wrote like them, but who are less remembered today) florid
singing with elaborate ornamentation of the melodic line was the norm.
Technique included light, quick, agile runs and leaps, sparkling flourishes
and trills. When these works slipped from the repertory, the vocal
technique necessary to perform them was no longer dominant and passed into
disuse. Occasional revivals of bel canto (currently in vogue, ditto in the
1950's) which include comparing the current practice with that from the last
century, recorded in great detail in vocal texts by singers such as Garcia,
Lablache, Vaccai shows just how much technique and repertory are
intertwined.
The same case could be made for the latter nineteenth century--not only
versimo and the development of the dramatic voice, but also Wagner and the
Bayreuth "park and bark" school of performance.
and now, back to ballet--
ed waffle
michigan, u.s.a.
ope...@ix.netcom.com
becca
X-29249-Poster: becca <be...@aros.net>
I think this is correct to a degree:
If you study at SAB, one must understand that that is the style you will be
stuck with, until you change..And the change will take a good year or more,
even going into another ballet technique/style.
If one thinks a ballet dancer should be proficient in modern, that is not
true. the disciplines are so different, it is like trying to have a ballet
dancer be a fabulous jazz dancer, with out changing and studying a long
time to get the style.
I have seen my students go from being up in the air ballet dancers to
getting into a much more jazz oriented field. They come back and try to do
the ballet classes again, and look so weird!
The fields are different, one can not do everything, not with out
retraining, and understanding.
Bek
becca
_______________________________________________________________________________
___
Try Our ALL NEW Phone Sex Line... Choose from a wide variety of Fantasy's,
including Hard
Core Whores, New York Teens, Sweet Tight Virgins aGIGO+ sn 452 at craybbs vsn
0.99.970109 46a72ddd
_______________________________________________________________________________
___
Try Our ALL NEW Phone Sex Line... Choose from a wide variety of Fantasy's,
including Hard
Core Whores, New York Teens, Sweet Tight Virgins aGIGO+ sn 452 at craybbs vsn
0.99.970109 UUCP
From: becca <be...@aros.net>
Subject: Re: Lincoln Kirstein
Estelle Souche
X-29295-Poster: Estelle Souche <eso...@gyptis.univ-mrs.fr>
Alexandra Tomalonis <ale...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Regardiing the message about NYCB's training being incomplete, query. Why
>should a ballet school train dancers to be modern dancers, or show
>dancers, or any other kind of dancer except a ballet dancer?
>I'm all for all kinds of dancers, and all kinds of dancing,
>but ballet is ballet, and I would argue
>that the school for a great ballet academy should only have
>to be concerned with training dancers for the company it serves. It seems
>to have worked for the Kirov, Bolshoi and Paris. Why not New York?
My knowledge of ballet training and ballet technique is too
small to enable to enter the discussion, but I'd like to add
just one detail about Paris, since you mentioned it.
Since Claude Bessy became the POB dance school director
in 1972, she changed quite a lot of things in the organization
of the school, and one of the changes was that she added
several classes which weren't ballet classes: mime,
character dances (usually with Russian teachers),
singing, "solfege corporel", jazz dance... Some of these
classes are useful for some of the roles of the classical
repertory (for example for character dances), and she
also often says in interviews that since not all of the
POB former students can enter the POB at the end of their
studies, it's better for them to be able to adapt themselves
to other styles. I don't think that the only purpose of
such schools is to form dancer for the company it's associated
with- it's also to enable as many of them as possible to get
a job as a dancer (or another job- Claude Bessy also has insisted
on the students' academic studies, one generation ago most
POB dancers didn't finish high school, while now most
of them do). The Paris Opera Ballet only hires a few students
every year, since the average age is young and there are
very few dancers retiring per year, so that many students
have to find a job in other companies, and since there
aren't many other ballet companies in France, many
of them have to go abroad (such as for example the NYCB
dancer Sebastien Marcovici) or to dance with less ballet-
oriented companies... Some POB dancers also chose to
leave the company and to dance with non-ballet companies
(such as Raphaelle Delaunay and Anne Rebeschini who now
dance with Bausch's company in Wuppertal, or Olivia
Grandville who danced with Dominique Bagouet and now
has created her own company).
Moreover, the POB repertory is quite large, and includes
modern works (such as Bausch's "Rite of spring", Ek's
"Giselle", etc.) But this is probably different with
a company like the NYCB, whose repertory remains mostly
Balanchine and Robbins-oriented.
Estelle
todd
in to City Ballet and they're more than likely going to enter another
company with a far more varied repertory. Or a company with an entirely
different style. I agree with you. The purpose of a large ballet school
should not be just to train dancers for the company it's associated with.
Besides this, SAB rarely trains anyone for the company from day one.
Usually they attract dancers with good basic training already in place and
in a year or two it's on to the company. There are exceptions of course.
(Peter Boal)
Alexandra Tomalonis
Paris, I know that practically every ballet school has classes in jazz,
character, etc., in addition to academic classical dancing, but I think the
difference is that in Paris (and Russia?) is that there is agreement among
both teachers and dancers that the basic style is classical; that's the
foundation. I think when you have that, adding classes in other styles is
fine. Also, in the older European schools, there are teachers who watch over
the pupils' entire development, integrating the different classes.
I'm not writing as a teacher, either, so maybe this is harmful to dancers
physically. What I was trying to say was that there are some dancers, I
think more so in America than elsewhere, and in the companies hwo are now
imitating American companies because they prize what they see as American
vesatility, who try to learn modern-ballet-jazz-tap and everything else all
at once, before their technique is set, and that they then have no primary
classical style.
>
VLeigh7023
<be...@aros.net> writes:
>
>If one thinks a ballet dancer should be proficient in modern, that is not
>true. the disciplines are so different, it is like trying to have a ballet
>dancer be a fabulous jazz dancer, with out changing and studying a long
>time to get the style.
>
>I have seen my students go from being up in the air ballet dancers to
>getting into a much more jazz oriented field. They come back and try to do
>the ballet classes again, and look so weird!
>The fields are different, one can not do everything, not with out
>retraining, and understanding.
>
>Bek
>
>
I'm afraid I have some disagreement with these statements, Bek. Our students
in Florida were trained in jazz at the same time they were being trained in
ballet. Naturally, since most of them were more serious about ballet, that
training took precedence, and they had quite a lot more ballet than jazz,
however, they were quite proficient in both areas. I believe that they would
have been just as good in modern, too, if that training had been available to
them. (We had no modern teacher in the area who we felt was qualified, which is
why we did not give them modern.) They were able to do both forms well because
of the teachers they had and because the training in ballet did not restrict
them to only one way of moving. Well trained dancers, whose bodies have become
the kind of instrument which allows them to move in many ways, and whose minds
are open, can become versatile enough to do almost any form of dance well. (I
am speaking here of those students who were potential professionals, with at
least some degree of talent and natural ability.) I'm not saying that they
won't need additional training to move from the ballet studio to a modern
company, but we did find that our students could go directly into Broadway and
jazz companies. (One is now enjoying a very successful career as a
choreographer for shows in Florida and on cruise ships.) Nor did I ever find
that their ballet suffered as a result of working in jazz or show dance. This
all depends, of course, on HOW ballet is taught. (See my earlier response on
this thread for some thoughts on that.)
VLeigh7023
>
>May I ask whom? It's not that I don't believe you, I would just like to
>know who these teachers are and where they're teaching. I wish I had had
>more classes like this before I began my professional career.
>
>Nice comments. Thank you.
You're welcome! I really do believe there are more out there than I know
about, although not enough :-)
A lot of my training came from JoAnna Kneeland and Ruth Petrinovic, who
developed the program at Harkness in the 60's. JoAnna was a fine dancer from
South Africa, who trained me (in Florida) the last three years before I went
into ABT. Ruth Petrinovic was a dancer/dance educator, American but raised in
Brazil, who supplied the anatomical and kinesiological knowledge to JoAnna's
creative ideas about teaching, derived in part from many many hours of
studying films of top dancers, often in slow motion, trying to determine the
movement motivation and the energy patterns. During their years at Harkness
they trained a number of teachers, including David Howard, Maria Vegh, Claire
Duncan. They also trained the Harkness dancers and trainees, many of whom are
out there somewhere teaching now. (Larry Rhodes was one, and I think, although
not sure of this, that Finis Jung was there.) There were many more whose names
I don't know or don't remember. The work they did was the basis of my
teaching, although of course I continued to dance and study with other
teachers, and later, as a teacher, study lots of other things that contributed
to my teaching of ballet (kinesiology, music, stage movment and other movement
theories, etc.) I will say that I was very fortunate to also have the first
decade of my teaching career at a University dance program, where I was able to
work in modern dance, theatre, musical theatre and opera, as well as ballet.
All of these things contributed enormously to my development as a teacher.
So, that is essentially what I am talking about in my response to your original
post! Thanks for asking :-)
ewa
Estelle Souche <eso...@gyptis.univ-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>X-29295-Poster: Estelle Souche <eso...@gyptis.univ-mrs.fr>
>
>
> My knowledge of ballet training and ballet technique is too
> small to enable to enter the discussion, but I'd like to add
> just one detail about Paris, since you mentioned it.
> Since Claude Bessy became the POB dance school director
> in 1972, she changed quite a lot of things in the organization
> of the school, and one of the changes was that she added
> several classes which weren't ballet classes: mime,
> character dances (usually with Russian teachers),
> singing, "solfege corporel", jazz dance... Some of these
> classes are useful for some of the roles of the classical
> repertory (for example for character dances),
> <snip>
> Estelle
Solfege Corporel--now that really sounds intriguing, since solfeggio, as I
understand it and was taught it, is a system of ear-training and sight
singing in which one is trained to recognize and reproduce the intervals
between notes on the scale and between a given note and its tonic. When
music was still taught in the schools (at least in the parochial schools of
Chicago) it was part of what we learned. Also very valuable for amateurs
singing choral music. One learned the most basic harmony--the diatonic
scale and the relationship of one part of it to another.
Wondering how this is related (if at all) to what is taught at the POB
school, since the learned skills of sight singing do not seem translatable
to dance training--although this is most likely just my lack of knowledge of
what dance training really is.
all the best,
becca
X-29344-Poster: becca <be...@aros.net>
Most Companies that are Rep. companies have schools that give much more
open basic classic ballet training..The type that a student and dancer can
quickly adapt to other forms.
A company such as NYCB, is very specialized, and therefore must have
dancers trained in a special way to move in a special way.
These dancers have a difficult time even adjusting to another Rep. company
without a great deal of losing the "che-che+ learned at SAB.
But it is not too easy for any modern dancer to pick up ballet and become a
ballet dancer.
So, the whole argument can be reversed on its side.
Why should it be the ballet dancer trying to adapt to modern..
Ever see a modern or jazz dancer trying to learn how to really do excellent
ballet..forget it.!]
Bek
> Alexandra Tomalonis <ale...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Regardiing the message about NYCB's training being incomplete, query. Why
> >should a ballet school train dancers to be modern dancers, or show
> >dancers, or any other kind of dancer except a ballet dancer?
> >I'm all for all kinds of dancers, and all kinds of dancing,
> >but ballet is ballet, and I would argue
> >that the school for a great ballet academy should only have
> >to be concerned with training dancers for the company it serves. It seems
> >to have worked for the Kirov, Bolshoi and Paris. Why not New York?
>
> My knowledge of ballet training and ballet technique is too
> small to enable to enter the discussion, but I'd like to add
> just one detail about Paris, since you mentioned it.
> Since Claude Bessy became the POB dance school director
> in 1972, she changed quite a lot of things in the organization
> of the school, and one of the changes was that she added
> several classes which weren't ballet classes: mime,
> character dances (usually with Russian teachers),
> singing, "solfege corporel", jazz dance... Some of these
> classes are useful for some of the roles of the classical
Nanatchka
>Try Our ALL NEW Phone Sex Line... Choose from a wide variety of
I don't think Lincoln went in for that kind of thing, but who knows?
Nanatchka