This regional writer is getting to the point where he's harming dance by over simplifying the US national dance scene through a local perspective and an almost childish need to rank cities in categories not clearly stated:



more

What a terrible, pointless article. We know he liked certain things and not others, but we don't know why. The LA Times's classical music reviewer recently did a similar tour of four east-coast orchestras, and turned in a more detailed, evocative account of his visits. What Rockwell wrote would be appropriate for a quick, late-night posting to one of the dance forums, but for the New York Times?

--Andre

I never thought I would hear a Van Manen work described thus:

And is he implying that Beethoven's music shouldn't be used for dance?

If we remember that Rockwell is brought to us by the same people who brought Jayson Blair and Judith Miller to the front pages of The New York Times, it will become a bit more clear. Authentic knowledge, (not to mention empirical knowledge), is not a requirement for boldly holding oneself out as an expert to be read and considered by millions daily. Being interesting and provocative is more important than substance and accuracy. Rockwell is a music critic. He may as well crossed over to being a restaurant critic as a dance critic. It makes as much sense.

I'm expanding this topic to be a more general debate on John Rockwell's articles, since another one appeared in today's NY Times:

More

And he strikes again... While the premise of the article is intriguing, it's another classic Rockwell mangle of facts, fiction and opinion.

To compare the Balanchine tradition with Petipa and Bournonville is shaky at best. The former two traditions are hundreds of years old, as compared to barely fifty for Balanchine (as far as the NYCB), and developed in different eras. And for that matter, neither have emerged intact. Petipa has been tweaked and changed by every choreographer and AD who has put on the ballets and Bournonville has changed and some of his works have been lost, despite being performed in the same theatre by the same company. And the ballets probably would not be performed so well today if there had not been a foreign influx into the company, for covering a population of just 5 million people, the RDB school has not produced enough new Danish dancers to keep up the size of the company. And in the ultimate test of foreign acclimitization, the new production of "Kermesse in Bruges" is being set by an American.

Plus, to define Balanchine as American is to ignore the fact that his style derives heavily from what he grew up with in Russia and experienced while working in Copenhagen. He was the original blender of styles, and the teachers that he attracted to SAB reflected that - Danes, Russians etc.

Also, the US never has been a country of one dominant ballet school or company - like Denmark or France or Russia, to some extent, so there never was (nor will be) one distinguishable American style. If you want to see American dance, look to the Native Americans - the rest of us are but immigrants of one generation or another.

Kate

Yet another pointless article, as he writes himself in meandering circles with limp-noodle reasoning. Is his editor even conscious?

He also neglects the fact that the Russians were eclectic dancers as well, with the French Petipa, Italian Cecchetti, and Danish Johanssen all training dancers in Russia's golden age of ballet, and that they took and fused together the best elements of each style.

--Andre

Actually ksneds, Balanchine often said in interviews that he was a direct, artistic descendant of Petipa. He often said that he felt was picking up where Petipa left off. One can see this quite readily in such works as "Jewels", "Raymonda Variations" and "Symphony in C", among others. All have an elegant, refined classicism. Of course, some of Balanchine's more "modern" works look like a radical departure from Petipa, such works as "Agon", "Concerto Barocco" and "Four Temperments". Maybe Balanchine meant his work was part of an evolutionary process. But he always referred to Petipa as his artistic father, so to speak. And on another note--I'm sorry to say I have to agree wholeheartedly about Hans van Manen. I don't think I've seen one work of his in 30 plus years of watching dance I've thought was any good; but hey that's just my opinion. I could never figure out why he was so successful. I was always highly underwhelmed. As far as the Beethoven business...well-respected choreographers, Paul Taylor among them, have often stated that they are hesitant to use certain works of Beethoven's for choreography. I think the idea is that those works are in the "canon" of musical masterpieces, and these works are complete unto themselves, that using them for choreography requires a deep knowledge, respect and understanding of the works. Which perhaps this person felt that H. vanManen did not possess.

Certainly Beethoven's music would present challenges to choreographers, perhaps that is why his only ballet, The Creatures of Prometheus, has had so few productions. In a very long career of watching ballet I've seen only one, by the most musical choreographer of them all - Ashton.

Trina, I too place van Manen more as one of the group of choreographers, like Duato etc., who are expanding the envelope that Kylian began pushing but I have to say I find both of Rockwell's commentaries very disheartening and actually silly. Have you read both articles in detail? I have not yet found one dance person who didn't cringe at either article.

Here comes another one
more...