 the male dancer
written by Bill at on 22.02. at 06:46:36 - as answer to: Re: Cecchetti/R.A.D./Vaganova: 3 ways of saying the same thing? by an >Hi Bill!>You asked "Is there a book or a website that compares the terms used by the three major schools of ballet?">I have never found one, and don't believe there is a "cross-walk." Actually, the differences between these three schools are subtle differences in the positions and movements, "variations on the basics.">But you also left out Bourneville and what I called the Modified American Plan (a conglomeration of variations on the basics. Balanchine did not, in my humble opinion, develop variations on the basics, but developed an overall "look." Martha Graham and many other great Americans did, in my humble opinion, the same as Balanchine. Other notable choreographers, like Bejart, really choreographed a combination of variations on the basics...they made unique performances, just like Balanchine, Graham, etc. took their "look" and made unique performances).>What you have to do to understand the differences between the basic schools is to study the syllabi of each school, along with instructional tapes that are true to each school. After you spend a few hours comparing only, say, the arabesque position of Cecchetti to Vaganova to others, you will see the variation on the basic position, and then you have to study how different the movements are that achieve that position. The leg really doesn't move into the Cecchetti arabesque derriere in the same way the leg moves into a Vaganova arabesque derriere.>Once you understand these differences and how choreographers use them, you can do one of two things: (1) Become a critic and criticize every little movement and position as unflattering for the specific dancer; or, (2) Sit back and marvel at the way different dancers and different cheorographers use the positions and movements of dance.>anonymous Anonymous, I had indeed forgotten about Bournonville when I asked the question. But the question was prompted by actual experience. I go to two different studios for classes that suit my schedule and skill level. On Mondays and Saturdays I have an instructor who was trained by a dancer who was taught by Vaganova herself. In these classes, I'm perfecting (or trying to, at least) something that Ms. A calls "flic-flac." The moving leg begins at sur le cour-de-pied on the front of the supporting leg and whips out, very quickly, into second. The movement does brush the floor a little bit, but doesn't seem to be a true frappe. In any case, the leg returns just as quickly to sur le coup-de-pied, but behind the supporting leg. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, however, Ms. K calls the exact same thing the "royale." Ms. K was educated at North Carolina School of Dance and has been all over the map as a professional dancer. But she hasn't proclaimed herself to be a disciple of any single school. She did explain the fascinating provenance of the royale. It is so-called because it was introduced by the Sun King himself, who was having trouble while trying to learn something else (I forget what, though). The royale wasn't exactly cheating, but it was an incomplete version of this other thing. Rather than show up the king or correct him, Louis's courtiers immediately began to imitate what he was doing, and so it was named and became a standard. Now, though, if the Russians call this movement "flic-flac," who calls it "royale," and are there yet other terms for it? Answers to this message:
|
