NiniGabriel

Well said.

Again, I'm sorry for breaking a thread dedicated to the memory of a great ballerina, a unique and very important dancer with my objection. I didn't want to achieve that. And Lynn Seymour didn't deserve that at all!!! I was a little touchy here because I misunderstood an expression. That triggered my sense of justice, but as it turned out, it wasn't meant that way. And so I don't want to go into the many things that have been said by you about Marcia Haydee. There would be a lot to tell, because I was fortunate enough to be able to experience numerous performances with this extraordinary dancer in the 80s and early 90s, some of them still as a teenager on my parents' opera subscription... But this is about Lynn Seymour. And as I wrote a few days ago, she made a great impression on me, even though I only saw her on TV and only in excerpts. How much more must she have had this charisma on stage!!! So I totally understand how much Lynn Seymour is valued and praised by all of you. @Sheila C I can envision Lynn Seymour as Tatjana very well simply because I think she was able to fill the role with all the body language and emotionality at her disposal. She wasn't a dancer who cared about dancing "correctly" but executing the steps in the right way in relation to the role - and that's very important to do justice to Cranko's choreography (and equally, of course, MacMillan's). (Something that I, who grew up with the Stuttgart tradition, miss in quite a few dancers and companies when they dance Cranko...)

Since this is a thread about Lynn Seymour, I didn't want to name it. But yes, of course I'm speaking of her.

I'm really sorry if I misunderstood the post. Sometimes I find it a bit difficult to understand every subtlety in a foreign language. So: When I read "how many others?", it became "who else?" in my mind. And that's really not what it says. (On top of that, another post mentioned Lynn Seymour as the first real dance actress. I was about to respond then too...) So all of that together probably triggered my response. In any case, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone here.

It is perfectly permissible to look beyond the cosmos of British ballet to see that there was - even at the same time - another great dramatic ballerina (and, at almost 86 years of age, there still is). And the major roles in major ballets created by this other dancer are certainly no less numerous: Tatjana, Katharina, Julia (all John Cranko), Das Lied von der Erde/Song of the Earth, Requiem (both Kenneth MacMillan), Voluntaries (Glen Tetley), Marguerite, Blanche (both John Neumeier), Vergessenes Land/Forgotten Land (Jiri Kylian), Wien, Wien, nur Du allein, Die Stühle/Les Chaises, Isadora (all Maurice Bejart). And these are just the very famous roles in ballet pieces, which are also performed by other companies/dancers worldwide and which spontaneously came to my mind... Maybe I'm just a bit too sensitive when it comes to the terms "best", "only" etc., because art isn't a sport. Maybe I'm just very proud of the ballet company in my hometown (Stuttgart) and therefore can't let the comment stand. In either case, please forgive me. For my reply should in no way belittle the merits of a Lynn Seymour, who I consider to be one of the pre-eminent dancers of her time and who, as Kenneth MacMillan's muse, also created more than one important role in more than one important work.

This is really very sad news. I've unfortunately never had the pleasure of seeing Lynn Seymour dance live, but I can remember all too well recordings of the pas de deux from Kenneth MacMillan's "Romeo and Juliet", "Manon" and "Mayerling" on TV documentaries, who even made it onto German television. What an amazing ballerina she was, able to express emotions beautifully with her whole body! I could even experience that on the screen. A great loss for the ballet world! RIP

Yesterday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a longer article entitled "For the history books, both remain: dog shit and genius" about how the choreographer Marco Goecke and his work are currently being dealt with. There was also a report on exactly this decision by Berlin. Unfortunately, the article is only available in German and can only be read with a subscription. Here the link: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/marco-goecke-hannover-ballett-kritikerin-1.5764380 In summary, it was a plea for separating action from art. The central message was that ballet would be tantamount to amputating itself if Goecke's pieces were locked away. Finally, this conclusion is drawn:

On BBC Four: Sunday 5th March, 7:40 pm : "Revisor by Crystal Pite and Jonathon Young" It's just a repeat from 2020 but I missed it at the time so now I'm really looking forward to finally being able to see this piece. By the way: I was very happy when I noticed a few years ago that my cable provider in Switzerland also made the BBC programs available. Allows me to get a glimpse of British ballet without having to travel, for which I am very grateful...

And to avoid misunderstandings here: I don't mean it in the sense that a dancer can do whatever he wants. But more in the way that the creator of the choreography should be open to the individual interpretation (= creation) of the dancer. The same should also apply to the artistic director or the rehearsal director. After all, everyone is individual and that should also be seen on stage. IMHO... (Unfortunately, there's no denying it: I'm speaking more from the point of view of John Cranko than George Balanchine...) 😉

Oh dear. Three different opinions on how to carry out the steps... That means: High time to find your own way! But it's often easier said than done...

Yes, it's really interesting to think about why Bejart changed the original title of the piece of music in French and English and used it as a singular. For me in particular because the piece is always written in its original German name, i.e. in the plural, when it is performed in Germany (Stuttgart). I assume that he wanted to express that the four songs together form ONE SINGLE "Song of Life", corresponding to the "plot" in this piece, which is not explicit but clearly to be understood in this way. I absolutely agree that the piece needs experienced - or at least very expressive - dancers who have figured out why each step is being danced in order to convey the meaning of the choreography. But it doesn't have to be "older" dancers only. One of my all-time favorite casts was Richard Cragun and Tamas Detrich in Stuttgart in the 80s. At that time, Marcia Haydée (and thus the Stuttgart Ballet) had a special connection to Béjart. Richard Cragun's portrayal of the role of "front" dancer touched me deeply every single time. How he expressed life in all its facets with his gestures, looks and of course steps. And "behind him" Tamas Detrich as a much younger dancer, as if he were the younger self (or at least the memory of it) and at the same time an angel of death. Back then I watched every performance when I had the time. Each performance revealed different nuances. Lively and quite spontaneous. And unfortunately I am not able to put into words what I saw and felt. But I really miss not being able to experience the performances with these dancers again... (Which doesn't mean at all that I'm not looking forward to new dancers bringing these roles to life!!!)

Thank you LinMM for your kind reply to my post! I really didn't intend to pit classical ballet and modern dance against each other. On the contrary, I am very fond of the diversity of people's very different ways of expressing themselves through dance - and I couldn't have found a better word than "umbrella" to describe exactly the connection between this diversity. You're absolutely right, it's a bit unfair to reduce classical ballet to just legs. That wasn't what I actually wanted to say either. I love the way the ballerina plays with her arms in the Adagio and, being a dance fanatic who grew up with John Cranko's pieces, of course the dramatic expression of the face and body. But there are certain steps in classical ballet, such as entrechat or pas de chat or even some grand jete, in which the position of the arms is less important for expression than for stabilization, at least that's my impression. I'm happy to be improved, especially since I only did ballet for a year or two when I was a little girl. Marco Goecke on the other hand - and I actually wanted to make this difference clear - emphasizes the movements of hands, arms, upper body and face in his choreographies as an essential means of expressing emotions and actions. Nevertheless, I can also make out references to the steps and movements of classical ballet in his work. Last but not least, I'm with you - and I already wrote this yesterday - that tastes differ and that it's absolutely fine with me if someone doesn't like a certain style or a certain work. In fact, with my post, I just wanted to explain a little what I, as a German, love about Goecke's works and how I perceive them. That's all. And while I'm at it, I would also like to thank the operators of this forum from the bottom of my heart! I found it on recommendation a few years ago. And even if I was just a silent reader for a long time, the many writers enriched me a lot with their comments and reviews and also carried me through the pandemic with all the references to dance performances that were available online at this time. Otherwise it would have been a terrible drought without all the usual theatrical moments on site.

@Emeralds Marco Goecke's style of choreography is probably not immediately and easily accessible when looking at dance from the perspective of the very leg-oriented classical ballet. Because in his choreographies the arms and hands and the upper body and the face play a main role, they move quickly in a multitude of small and sometimes broken gestures and postures and facial expressions, so that the mind practically cannot keep up with intellectually processing them. If you allow yourself to feel the dance moves more like a flow of "moving thoughts", like human reactions to the emotions inherent in the music, then they can hit you deep in non-verbal awareness. This is how I see (or rather feel) and appreciate Marco Goecke's pieces. And yes, it takes outstanding virtuosity to dance Goecke's pieces. During his time as resident choreographer in Stuttgart, he often chose dancers for a new creation who had never worked with him before, and there were differences to be seen in the extent to which the dancers were able to implement the requirements of the choreography. But nothing changed for me in the genius of his work.

Sorry, I really don't want to sound like a know-it-all, but I'm pretty sure the pas de deux you're referring to wasn't a Marco Goecke piece. It sounds a lot like "Little Monsters" by Demis Volpi, another former resident choreographer at the Stuttgart Ballet. At the Stuttgart guest performance in London in 2013, if I remember correctly, two solos by Marco Goecke were shown, namely "Fancy Goods" and "Äffi", danced by Friedemann Vogel and Marijn Rademaker respectively. "Äffi" is danced to the music of Johnny Cash, in "Fancy Goods", premiered at the birthday gala for Reid Anderson in 2009, several giant pink feathers are very prominent... As for the pas de deux with Badenes and Camargo, I see it the same way. A nice little piece, but far from a masterpiece...

You are right in your objection. At this level, however, I can also say that popularity does not exclude great art. And ultimately we can argue ad infinitum whether Marco Goecke's work is great art or not. And whether said critic is right or not. We will not find the only "truth".

Sorry for only now responding to your reply. As I said before, it can happen that someone finds a work of art "poor", i.e. someone does not understand it or does not find access to it. Or that someone doesn't like this kind of art. But to assume that this critic fully understands the work and finds it "poor" would mean, on the other hand, that a large body of critics and a large audience are totally wrong and imagining the genius and depth of the artistic expression. May be. Or actually rather unrealistic. But in the end it is probably like a German proverb says: Kunst liegt immer im Auge des Betrachters (Art is always in the eye of the beholder).

Maybe we should stop talking about ballet when it comes to the art form of dance. In my opinion, Classical Ballet should be seen as just one possible form of artistic expression through dance, but not as the only true one, no better or worse than others such as Tanztheater, Modern Dance or Modern Ballet. Of course tastes differ and there is nothing to criticize if you don't like something. Sometimes you need more time to absorb or understand new, unfamiliar things. Sometimes you don't get access at all. Especially since dance, as an art form that is perceived more through body language instincts than through intellectual, word-based understanding, makes it particularly difficult to subsequently put the feelings into words. In this respect, Ms. Hüster is not to be criticized if she doesn't know what to do with Marco Goecke's choreographies or with the way he expresses himself through dance. In my opinion, however, it is objectionable if she publicly announces this lack of understanding with derogatory terms in a national newspaper.

Sorry, I did not imagine of this being my first post here, but I found the quote on twitter and would like to share it.