Thank you very much ballettowoman for the information on the video. I am not familiar with this particular video nor Mde Faye, but I do look forward to seeing it.

I am a little confused about your explanation regarding her background since neither Messerer or Zakharov where teachers or dancers in Vaganova Academy or Mariinsky Theatre. Messerer was Bolshoi trained as well as having danced with the Bolshoi Theatre. Zakharov graduated from Petrograd State Ballet School, but this was pre- Vaganova. He did complete theory courses in Leningrad at the Theatre Technicum, as well as GITIS. These are all very fine credentials indeed, but not the same as Vaganova credentials. One is not better than the other.

The Western world has accepted for close to 70 years the catch phrase, Vaganova. I do not know why, I only know that Vaganova Academy itself acknowledges a difference between what went on and is going on in St. Petersburg from Moscow and the rest of the Soviet satellite countries. It is indeed difficult for the Western world to adjust to the idea that if it is not trained in or by Vaganova Academy it is not Vaganova. It is similar to the idea that only in Paris Opera School, are the students trained by the Paris Opera. Others schools in France, I believe teach the French method? Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

I am only trying to find a way to explain the difference in terminology. There is Bolshoi training and Vaganova. The major differences are in the usage of the arms, how the hands are held, but there are differences. Both are lovely, I am not saying one is better or worse. This is why the dancers from Bolshoi do not look like the dancers from Kirov and visversa.

Hi, I moved the last couple of posts to this thread in Studio:

http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001265

Vrsfanatic,

You know, I AM confused about what you CAN call Vaganova and what you can't... This is the reason why I copied that specific sentence exactly as it was on the cover. "She studied at the Vaganova School of Russian Ballet with Messerer, Zakharov and Armasevskaya." Maybe the person writting the cover was like me, and just supposed it was correct? ) it will be the same technique/vocabulary...etc... What I find actually difficult to detail is what could be called 'French technique'!! (it is only called this abroad...) In France, we have schools with different styles according to each teachers , so you would very much put this forward on your CV, but if you say 'have trained in the French technique' it will not get you far!

So it's the credential of your teacher that matters, more than what the style truly is -the French method, as you call it abroad is then more a melting pot of French teachers, using their own styles... Only conservatories would follow the exact same syllabus and POB; these 2 are related, but do not use exactly the same technique, a bit like Royal Ballet and RAD. Apart from those conservatories then, you could argue that each teacher would have different standards (true) and that they're not all good (true too, but you'd also have to consider the fact that teachers in France cannot teach unless they have the 'diplome d'etat' which is a bit like a teaching diploma in the RAD method)... I don't know what it would correspond to in other methods... It's quite expensive, but more importantly, VERY hard to obtain (esp. as a first time candidate).

I've always thought of France as having a style, regardless of what technique the style was based in or on, which had more of a basis in temperament and personal characteristics than in pedagogy. It has seemed in the past that some people, in a desire that everything should have a proper label, have designated the term "French style" as encompassing a type of technique rather than a style. What are your thoughts on this?

Hi, I'm closing this topic so that we can focus the discussion in the other thread in Studio, repeated here for convenience:

http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001265