"In my opinion, the biggest ballet companies at your conference cloak themselves in a faked historicity to justify devouring more than their share of the dance world's money and attention. And for what? Increasingly distorted versions of less than a dozen ballets created during the 19th century. If there were less than a dozen antique symphonic masterworks in the orchestral repertory, could we justify public subsidy to keep the classical music establishment on its feet? Of course not. So why not demand that the audience that keeps ballet shackled to a very short list of warhorses pay the full cost of their pastime and turn public dance funds to better uses?"

Lewis Segal

Further contributions will follow later in the week.

"I find hard-sell athleticism marketed as high culture, standards of style, expressivity and refinement discarded because they're deemed too expensive to uphold and the best ballet-trained choreographers so disgusted with classical business-as-usual that they redefine themselves as contemporary outsiders. "

Yes.

He brings to his argument examples of performances of composers - but the renditions we hear today of Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, etc., are not as they were originally written or composed. Time has changed them, too. While I do agree that (as Mr. Segal says) ballet sometimes seems simply a menu of ever increasing feets/feats of physical bravua, I still see new and interesting interpretations by new and interesting dancer/artists. It's not quite the desert he would have us believe.

When a company such as the Bolshoi tours to Mr. Segal's part of the world, Southern California, it is not subsidized by any government to which Mr. Segal pays taxes. The Bolshoi may be subsidized by the taxpayers in Russia (are they still subsidized?) and if those taxpayers choose to do so, and think it worth their while, I for one am grateful. As for ticket prices there are other places to sit than the prime orchestra seats, including standing room, matinees, discounts for seniors. The test of an art form is not it's ticket price.

It is possible, in the best of all possible worlds, to enjoy even classical 'rehash' danced superlatively, by a world reknowned comany, and ALSO enjoy Mexican Ballet Folklorico and the several other ethnic varieties to which Mr. Segal alludes. One does not make the other either less or more enjoyable. It's a salad.

LAST EDITED ON 11-01-03 AT 09:11 PM (GMT)

LAST EDITED ON 11-01-03 AT 09:02 PM (GMT)

"Sorry, I can't be more use to you" writes Lewis Segal as he signs off. I love the way he underestimates his contribution to the debate!

In the first paragraph of his letter, Mr Segal gives reasons why he might be "the least qualified professional critic" to write about ballet in the 21st century. For a start he cites the fact that there is no genuine full-time professional ballet company in Southern California. He then mentions the fact that his fellow citizens mostly prefer watching other forms of dance; in these he finds deeper expressive values than in most of the best imported ballet. As far as ballet is concerned, it seems as if he is saying "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".

But, moving to the final paragraph of his letter, where he almost quotes those immortal words, we find that Mr Segal regards the occasional ballet performance as something to be cherished. This is the kind of performance he wants to see on a regular basis if companies are to be given financial aid; the kind of performance that is "as profound or life affirming" as a fine performance of Bach or Beethoven.

Could it be that Mr Segal is not, after all, a million miles away from the Artistic Directors of the world gathered in conclave at Snape? Perhaps he should have been flown to England to address the conference! Surely it is precisely because there is an awareness that the future direction of ballet is uncertain, and that there is a dearth of new work of quality, that the whole event is taking place at all. Mr Segal has obviously not enjoyed what he has seen recently on the ballet stage, but when he takes to task those artistic directors who are "cramming 21st century stunts into what they misrepresent as 19th century classics" he is only saying what many others have said regarding matters of style, taste, and interpretation. Later, he complains of "increasingly distorted versions of less than a dozen ballets created during the 19th century". Amen to that: it does seem as if some artistic directors simply aim to see how many ways they can re-invent ballets too well-known to name, often with bizarre results. There is more to (balletic) life than this.

Mr Segal clearly feels in tune with the Moscow Stanislvsky Ballet; this is an interesting company, but I'm not sure that "The Snow Maiden" (a work he cites) is a ballet in which you would find a great deal of depth, pleasant though it is. However it is obviously that company's ability to engage a wide audience that Mr Segal finds appealing. And this is where much of his complaint lies: he sees audiences as a problem. He speaks of "the audience that keeps ballet shackled to a very short list of warhorses" saying that they should "pay the full cost of their pastime". Earlier, he writes that ballet in his neck of the woods either "doesn't exist or is primarily a diversion for expatriates and their circle". It is easy to imagine the scene; a wealthy audience knowing what it likes. This sounds very similar to corporate entertainment as we know it. We have seen a great deal of debate about public subsidy for the arts, especially at the time the ROH was doing its best to alienate public opinion, and Mr Segal's letter touches these matters. However, while some in this country suggest the American option for financing the arts through gifts rather than public subsidy, one has to ask how this would affect repertoire. If Mr Segal's option of not subsidising performances of 19th century classics were to be put into effect, contact with the core audience for dance would obviously be lost.

I guess that audiences for ballet in this country include a much wider social spectrum than Mr Segal is used to; he seems to have the idea that those who can afford to see ballet in Western Europe (and North America) "tend to be much older and more conservative then the population as a whole". This is not entirely true of the UK when you compare the cost of seeing ballet with other entertainments/sporting events, and is indicative of the context in which he is working. I would be interested to know how the cost of a ticket for the ballet compares with admission to a baseball or football game in the USA. Perhaps he should do a temporary job-exchange with one of our noted dance critics (any nominations?); it would be interesting to see how his opinions developed.

No doubt Mr Segal feels that he is living in a milieu similar to late 19th century Paris; he is, as he says, waiting to be shaken by the new Diaghilev, Fokine, Nijinsky, and Nijinska. Alas for Mr Segal, the dawning of such a new golden age seems more likely to happen further East then Los Angeles (reasonably enough, it would seem), though it is important that such critics are aware of what they would like to see in their own neighbourhood; criticism does have its part to play in audience education.

I hope Mr Segal does get the opportunity to review the new Diaghilev and company when they tour Southern California; he can make sure that his wealthy conservative audiences are well prepared!

The cost of a ticket to the ballet is definitely comparable to the cost of a football/baseball ticket in the USA - and there are different cost choices in each. Just as the audience for a football game is not all young and violent, not all of the ballet audience is old and conservative. I see a great many young adults in the ballet audience. They are just not screaming as at a football game. Why do we assume that it is axiomatic that the makeup of the audience would be so different?

Though I have at times been among those who have decried the often over-emphasized athleticism in ballet of today, it is only when that athletcism is at the expense of artistry. But this is not a recent event - it's how the 'royale' became the entrechat dix as done by Eglevsky, which is already quite some time ago. Nijinsky didn't hold back on his grand jetés - nor was he asked to. It's the impetus that led the ballerina to go from demi-pointe to full pointe, and a single pirouette to evole into a double. Ah, yes, and those famous fouettés when first performed were not sneered at as athleticism, but were emulated ad infinitum.

Things will change, we can't stop the technique dead in the water. It is only when it is at the expense of artistry - and that subjective conclusion can only be an individual decision - that it's progression rather than progress.

LAST EDITED ON 12-01-03 AT 05:04 PM (GMT)

Thanks for the response; I'm glad to know that, like me, you see a varied audience at the ballet. I'd also expect to see a similarly wide-ranging mix of people at sporting events. It seems that Lewis Segal doesn't enjoy the same richness of experience.

Regarding technical advances, I agree that these will obviously continue to evolve; it is natural to want to explore new paths. Sometimes such technical advances have gone hand in hand with new artistic goals. The development of pointe work, for instance, allowed the ballerina to appear as the Gautier-inspired creature of the poet's imagination; the elusive spirit of the air. However, when Fokine was expounding his ideas for the development of ballet (and regaining what he saw as having been lost) he criticised those who seemed to be simply interested in developing the 'steel toe' as he called it; he wasn't keen on dancers impressing by their strength and endurance.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding Fokine's arguments and his undoubtedly acute sense of what constituted the essentials of ballet as an expressive art form, Pierina Legnani's introduction of her favourite feat of performing 32 fouttés into the 1895 Swan Lake (she had already included them in a performance of Aladdin in London and Cinderella in St Petersburg) was bound to cause excitement with a display of such virtuosity; of course others would follow. That's fine when the virtuoso moment fits into the scenario. Where I take exception to current performances, though, is the habit of paying undue attention to such moments; for example, in the Kirov production the music is halted after the fouttés so that Odile can go off stage and then return to milk the applause. That is reducing ballet to circus tricks. I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis Segal has had his fill of such productions, where the showcasing of technical feats takes precedence over production values. I've also come across programmes consisting of assorted virtuoso pas-de-deux where 32 fouttés would be greeted with the same screams and yells as you get at a skating competition when someone lands a Triple Axel. Enough said!

Another example of the misuse of physical prowess is what British ballet-writers habitually refer to as 'a vertiginous extension'. The tendency to use these indiscriminately in 19th century works just because the dancers can manage them often seems to be the equivalent of playing one of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos at breakneck speed just because the players are able to do so. On the other hand, if you take a moment such as the end of 'Apollo' in the version from 1978-9, when the music is drifting quietly towards its close and the muses in arabesque suggest the rays of the sun, any uneven movement in achieving the highest extension required (Calliope, I think - and it certainly is a high extension) disturbs the serenity of the moment.

I'm sure we are in agreement on this - and I'm equally sure that poor Mr Segal has to make do with a somewhat limited programme of ballet in S. California.

Lewis Segal might not get to see home grown (Los Angeles indigenous) ballet, but he does get to see a number of major companies that pass through quite regularly in his part of the world. While seeing a great number of performances can sharpen the eye, it doesn't necessarily sharpen the focus. I get the distinct impression from his letter that the ballet is not his favorite genre.

I ask myself after reading his letter, if I would want to be a ballet dancer in a major company performing "Swan Lake" and at the mercy of his pen. I am not saying he can't give an adequate picture of the performance, but does his pen come to the theater with anticipation or does he come to the theater thinking "another rehash?"

Bringing up the final tableau in 'Apollo' is very illustrative of the discussion at issue; the varying degrees of arabesque in that picture are intrinsic to the design of the choreography. Altering that approximates blasphemy.

Another place I would assert in which I find the super-extension to be against the artistic values of the choreography, is when a full 180 degree penché is inserted in 'La Sylphide' as the sylph bends over James as he sits in his chair. The modern 180 degree penché destroys the design of the entire picture, it even disrupts the drape of the romantic tutu on the ballerina's leg. At 180 degrees, it is suddenly around her waist.

So, I agree, the technique can, should, needs to advance, but not at the expense of the artistic values. But, that too, can be subjective can't it? I suppose there are some who could put forth a worthy argument for a full 180 degree penché in 'La Sylphide.' I would enjoy hearing that argument.

There are some companies that will not allow for bows after every feat of physical prowess. If the dancers simply dance on and the music continues, the audience soon learns to hold applause till the end. We don't applaud every musical florish at an orchestral concert. But, even here, I suspect that this behavior is old. Didn't the claquers at the Paris Opera in the 19th century make a habit of this?

What was immediately apparent was the influence Nijinsky's style had on
some of Bronislava Nijinska's later choreography.

Another point of information I'd like to share is that I've understood that Lewis Segal has made it his business to become informed about Asian dance forms, doing a fair amount of travel to Asian countries to see the works in situ. Since there has been a highly active Pan-Pacific dance program at UCLA for quite some time, this is quite a logical direction for Mr. Segal to take. UCLA's Ethnomusicology Program was responsible for the initiation and training of some of the most emininent 'grand old men' of the Asian ethnomusicology world today, the music for which often proceeds cheek by jowl with the dance tradition, frequently courtly in origin.

As someone who shares this enthusiasm, I have a definite sympathy for
the contrast in emphasis that Asian dance/theatre traditions provide the spectator. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Segal had the contrast
in mind when he wrote, but that is speculation on my part.

With the announcement that Ethan Stievel is assuming the role of
Artistic Director for Ballet Pacifica and that Amanda McKerrow and
Robert Hill are assuming active roles as teachers, coaches and
repertory rehearsals, Mr. Segal may well have an opportunity to see
a varied contemporary as well as classical repertoire on a more
local basis.

I noted in the list of missing artistic directors the name of Helgi
Tomasson as well as Peter Martins. Both of them are involved in winter
seasons, which makes it difficult for them to drop direction and super-
vision for the English countryside. When the first such conference
was held, in Canada, it was in either early or mid-summer, which would
have been a more feasible time for both directors.