oh my! where will i find the time to catch up on all this reading! i wish you guys would slow down a bit!!!
<P>anyway, thanks marie for the jessel quote - i LOVE the wayne sleep story, stuart (thanks for that!). these days, i'm sure the predicted height that any vocational ballet school would be most pleased to take, would have to be very different from what it was in 1979. in fact the predicted 5'1" dancer, might NOT get a look in, any more, at all...... that reminds me of lucette aldous, who is about 4' nothing - well actually 4'10" or 11". she went to the RBS from australia, way back when (1950's), on scholarship (no wrist test for foreigners!). then, of course was NOT able to be offered a job with their company when she graduated, because she was too short for the corps (where every new member began). <P>so she had to go elsewhere to look for work. fortunately she was successful, in a smaller company (rambert) where she had time to build her skills up to principal level - at which point she was THEN welcome at the royal ballet, as a principal - because as a soloist or principal, one's height doesn't matter so much - as long as one can find a suitable partner. as all our readers will know, nureyev considered her a desirable partner, so THAT couldn't have been a problem!<P>so the height thing has always been with us - its just that fashion dictates different heights at different times. when lucette was dancing, short was good - you wouldn't have been a desirable commodity as a dancer if you were over about 5'4" - but she was TOO short...it's a demanding world - fashion, that is.<P>jane grey - i'm in a rush, and my brain's a bit christmas/show scrambled, but i am not sure what your 'i'm a yank' post means - is it sarcastic? or not? i can't tell (sorry!), i.e. what exactly are you saying about funding, vis a vis government conditions on those funds? (not wanting to turn this into yet another funding thread, guys!). but just wanting to understand jane's points clearly.<BR>thanks.