Tuk's teacher, Richard Glasstone, is widely regarded as one of the main authorities on cecchetti work now. as gavin intimates above, the syllabus work is composed by a panel of examiners/authorities, in the spirit of what they understand to be cecchetti's intentions, taking onboard the developments over time of our better understanding of physiology, sports medicine, teaching methodology, etc.<P>in my experience it is an ongoing and completely unresolvable argument amongst teachers, examiners and so on, to what extent if any, the successive panels over the years succeed in compromising between all the demands on them, in creating such a syllabus. history and tradition vs. progress and development, etc....<P>maybe it is a popular nmisconception, too, that any of the cecchetti syllabus is Cecchetti's own work.....i have always understood that really only the Diploma can be loked at as Cecchetti's work.....i think someone above agrees with that, or says something similar...is that a fair comment, do you think? things like 'temps de courante', and 'pas de chaconne' etc (in the 'old' major syllabus) are presumably watered down versions (forgive me!) of the full exercise one finds later....?

Having read some of the above discussion I think it might be best to describe how the various class, grade and major syllabi fit into the conception of the Cecchetti work.<P>It is true that few of the exercises that appear in the manuals I listed in an earlier posting appear in Intermediate. In fact only demi grand rond de jambe and grande preparation pour pirouette en dehors are what would be described as "traditional exercises." This though has to be understood within the context of the Maestro's legacy.<P>The various Cecchetti manuals contain a wealth of material, which give the work one of the widest movement vocabularies in ballet. There is also great variety in the use of shape, space, level, direction and dynamics as well as movements where the body is taken away from the vertical alignment. I would be inclined to argue that in many ways it is the balletic form most sympathetic to contemporary/modern dance forms, particularly Cunningham.<P>However most of the available material is intended for an advanced dancer and is well beyond the scope of a child taking his or her first steps in class. So the various syllabi have been developed to try and lead the student towards the goal of being able to take on this complex but rewarding series of exercises. Thus the standards, grades and much of the lower majors are not Cecchetti's work but inspired by the target that his work set. Once the "traditional exercises" are introduced they are taught in their full form, although the nature of the process of "handing down" the knowledge does tend to mean that subtle variations in settings do occur.<P>However there is no doubt that the Cecchetti work as seen in classrooms today is different from when the Maestro died in 1928. The aesthetics of ballet have changed in the intervening 72 years and the demands on the professional dancer's technique, even in the classical repertory, have altered. The most apparent, though not the only example, is the much greater leg extension demanded. To not teach this at the higher levels would be to ill equip the student dancer for a career as a ballet dancer and so high extensions have become a feature of many of the exercises. As with many of the ballets seen on stage this has a substantive effect on the dynamics of the work.<P>As such changes occur the question of whether the work remains Cecchetti's arises. Perhaps it would be best to try and see this from the perspective of the Maestro's place in ballet history. Cecchetti taught dancers to perform professionally on stage. The method is littered with pieces of various ballets brought into class to be worked on, practiced and perfected for performance. He is recorded as not having liked some of the choreography his pupils performed but he knew his job, how to prepare them for it. That was why Diaghilev trusted him as his company's teacher. It may seem strange to speculate what Cecchetti would teach if he were alive today but perhaps, just perhaps, his classes would include steps from Ashton and Balanchine's ballets and maybe even Forsythe's!<P>As I pleaded before, it is vital to keep the Cecchetti heritage a living thing.<P>Best wishes<BR>Tuk<P>Bellow, as promised, are the remaining exercises in the intermediate Cecchetti syllabus.<P>ALLEGRO (SET ENCHAÎNEMENTS)<P>5. ASSEMBLÉ, TEMPS LEVÉ<BR>6. JETÉ, TEMPS LEVÉ<BR>7. PAS DE BOURRÉE EN TOURNANT<BR>8. SISSONNES<BR>9. GLISSADE ASSEMBLÉ<BR>10. PAS DE BOURRÉE OUVERT<BR>11. TERRE À TERRE BATTERIE<BR>12. BRISÉ DESSUS<BR>(GRANDS CHANGEMENTS TO SHOW EXTENT OF VERTICAL ELEVATION)<BR>13. DEMI-CONTRETEMPS, ASSEMBLÉ ÉLANCÉ<BR>14. GRAND JETÉ EN TOURNANT<BR>15. CABRIOLE DEVANT<BR>16. TOURS EN DIAGONAL<BR>a. POSE TOURS EN DEDANS (GIRLS)<BR>b. PETITS PAS DE BASQUES EN TOURNANT EN DEDANS (GIRLS)<BR>c. PETIT TOURS (GIRLS AND BOYS)<P>UNSEEN ENCHAÎNEMENTS<P>STEPS FOR BOYS<P>1. ASSEMBLÉS SOUTENUS AND DE SUITE<BR>2. TOURS EN L'AIR TAKEN FROM A CHANGEMENT<BR>3. GLISSADE JETÉ<BR>4. ÉCHAPPÉ BATTU<BR>5. TOURS EN L'AIR TAKEN FROM A RELEVÉ<BR>6. TOURS EN L'AIR TRAVELLING EN DIAGONALE<P>TEMPS DE POINTE (BARRE)<P>1. STEPPING UP TO POINTES<BR>2. DEMI-PLIÉS AND RISES<BR>3. TENDUS AND RELEVÉS<BR>4. RELEVÉS<BR>5. ÉCHAPPÉS<P>(AU MILEU)<P>6. TEMPS LIE EN AVANT AND À LA SECONDE<BR>7. RELEVÉS<BR>8. PAS DE BOURRÉE PIQUES<BR>9. PAS DE BOURRÉE COURU<BR>10. POSÉ COUPÉ AND EMBOÎTÉS<P>DANCE<P>REVERENCE OR BOW<P>Incidentally sorry about the typos in my last posting. "Reaming" "and indecently", where on earth did they come from. Time to see an analyst I think!<BR>

very funny Tuk! <P>'reaming' had me stumped - but fortunately i didn't see 'indecently'! <P>this is a marvellous post - your commentary on the issue - very interesting (and i agree with you). <P>Q: this INTERMEDIATE above, is what used to be ELEMENTARY - right? <P>i know we've talked of it above, but i want to be crystal clear on this, as it's going to require some thought, for me to remember to speak of it this way! <P>i wonder - IF you have a minute, Tuk (no rush!) - if you could start a thread to explain to us about one of the underlying reasons for changing these names - what you spoke to me of, about the english education system, and how levels are called, and credit in the school system, and so on? that would be most enlightening. it MAY mean that other societies follow suit, i suppose.<P>thanks so much again, Tuk - i just love to be kept informed of 'new' (to me) stuff, when i know it can absolutely be relied on as factual, which is how i feel when it comes from you.

Tuk - do you recall the other night you ICQ'd me and wrote about your last 'sting' of teaching for the year?!? - i think the analyst - or the typing teacher - IS due for a visit!

Gavin - It would be fun to know of a combination actually set by Cecchetti. Did you ever have a combination - say a center combination of an intermediate level - that your teacher said was directly from the maestro? <P>If so, would it be possible to state it?<P>From Marguerite Ellicott (the teacher of mine who was a student of Alexandra Baldina) she did give a combination from her. It was simple but effective which I detailed in an earlier thread on this board.<P>So, Gavin if possible, I would be interested in hearing if you have such a one straight from Cecchetti.

A: Right

Thanks Tuk!

am curious which of your teachers it was, gavin, who was taught by cecchetti? <P>was nora roche taught by cecchetti, or would she have been too young? she's dead now. there would have been rambert (who glasstone studied with), and de valois and markova, too. <P>considering he only died in 1928, and was teaching in london up to the time of his death (though not for long), it's a wonder there aren't MORE people who spring to mind as having met and/or been taught by him....after all, those named above are either dead or around 100 years of age...you'd think there'd be SOME people who might have been, say, 15 then, who would be ....oh, NOW i get it! - if they were 15 around 1928, they WOULD be 87 now - my maths skills have atrophied with age!<P>what about people like, for example, mary-jane duckworth (not suggesting she is 87!) --- but therefore she too would be too young. even beryl grey, who i might also have suggested, would be too young...<P>that's a nice feature of gretchen ward warren's 2nd book (on master teachers) - the way she gave a 'family tree' of teachers, of each person she interviewed.<P>enough.... better get on with the day!<P>basheva, i'll leave your question for gavin, since that's who you've asked, but my understanding is that the diploma work (daily classes) referred to in posts above (all of which i have notated here on my library shelf) are cecchetti's own exercises.