Talk:Balanchine method

Method, Style, or Technique?

I'm not sure "Balanchine Method" is an appropriate way to refer to this sort of ballet. The other 'methods' (Chechetti, etc) have set syllabi, with a progression through levels/grades, and are standardised by some organisation or another. Balanchine is more the style that he taught and choreographed in, but nobody yet has managed to codify it into a unified programme or method. Therefore I think it is more appropriate to consider the Balanchine classroom training a technique or a style, and I think a page move is due. But, I'm not sure which of the two is better. 'Style' seems to me the essence of how he choreographed, and the most common name for this, and 'technique' what is taught in the classroom. I guess I would slightly lean towards "Balanchine technique" for this article, to correspond with the classroom training of the articles for the methods. Any support or opposition for a move to either name? Just for reference, I have been training in Balanchine ballet including with SAB so I hopefully have some idea what I'm talking about. puppies_fly

I took out the anorexic comment because that is a personal opinion of the writer, it's not correct/valid and it's very insulting to any dancer who is naturally small and works hard to stay healthy and strong. I also removed the comment about forced turnout. For starters, all turnout is "forced" because it is unnatural body movement. Secondly, that is covered in the page about general ballet technique and in this way, Balanchine style does not differ from any other kind of ballet, so I am not sure why it even needs to be specified. You have to turn out in all forms of classical ballet. I also agree that it should be changed to style, rather than method.

I agree with the change to "Balanchine technique". I recently went to see the Don Quixote and on the program, it clearly states that: "The performance [...] has been produced in accordance with the Balanchine style R and Balanchine technique R service standards [...]. Besides, I had a substitute teacher (for a couple of classes) once who studied at the SAB and she tought us some of the differences between Balanchine technique and Vaganova (like the dancers never put all their weight on their heels), but I doubt that the Balanchine foundation has come with guidelines to teach the technique (which would make a "method" out of it). I believe that it would be more fitting to mention the style in a page dedicated to Balanchine as a choreographer. Gioland71 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the forced turnout comment, I do agree that all forms of classical ballet require a dancer to turnout, which may not necessarily be a 'natural' position for the human body. However, every person has a certain degree of natural rotation in their hips so it certainly does not have to be a 'forced' position. Some people even have 180 degrees of natural turnout. In the Balanchine technique, however, there is a strong sentiment that a dancer should extend their turnout beyond their natural hip rotation. I think it is accurate and fair to say that the Balanchine technique places a much stronger EMPHASIS on turnout compared to other methods. It's worth noting that the emphasis on turnout goes hand in hand with Balanchine's emphasis on flexibility- generally, the more your hips can rotate, the more range of motion you will have and the higher your legs will be able to go. The Balanchine technique requires extreme flexibility, so it is not surprising that it also pushes for extreme ranges of turnout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.62.189 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Balanchine Method" is not a teaching method and have flagged that statement as dubious. The term "Balanchine Method" is in actual use, though; it's commonly used to mean the style of dance invented by George Balanchine. IMO the article should be moved only if it can be shown that Balanchine "style" or "technique" is used more frequently than "method". Lambtron (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Was Balanchine Russian or Georgian?

I reverted an edit that changed the article to say Balanchine was Georgian, not Russian, but my edit was reverted by an editor who insists Balanchine was actually a Georgian who was simply born in Russia. I've read a number of reliable sources that clearly state that Balanchine was Russian, and the Balanchine article suggests he was Russian, yet the reverting editor is adamant that he was Georgian. What's the truth here? Lambtron (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See George Balanchine. He was an ethnic Georgian born in Russia. You argue about the fact what is well-known. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

By your reasoning, Martin Luther King Jr. was African, not American, because although he was born in USA his ethnicity had African roots. Please explain. Lambtron (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the word American is different with meanings such as Georgian, Russian, Japanese etc. as there is no American nation as such. There's no American ethnicity, even the word American does not always mean the one from the USA. American can mean Brazilian, Argentine, Mexican and Canadian as well if you go that way. But in this case George Balanchine was an ethnic Georgian who was born in Russian Empire in Georgian family. Georgians, Russians, Japanese, Italians etc. are an ethnic groups which hold their own cultural and lingual heritage what we cannot say about Americans. American which in one way can be connected to the US, may mean just a citizen of the United States and that's all. Stravinsky was Russian so would you name it an American just because he made his career in the US? Of course not. As Stravinsky was Russian, Balanchine was Georgian. It's all simple. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

His mother was Russian, thereby making him ethnically half Russian, right? If he was ethnically half Russian, and he lived in Russia, wasn't he predominantly Russian? Perhaps that's why reliable sources don't say he was Georgian. I don't really care whether he was Georgian or Russian, but you changed this without citing a reliable source or making a compelling argument. Lambtron (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The family line goes through father's side only in Georgians, so Balanchine was Georgian. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:OPENPARA, ethnicity should not be the primary characterisation here. Otherwise, one might ask why Alberto Fujimori, who is 100% ethnic Japanese and holds Japanese citizenship, is said to be "a Peruvian of Japanese descent." Lambtron (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You argue very simple fact. George Balanchine was Georgian, exactly the same way as Joseph Stalin was and many more. Everything's easy if you'd try to understand. And the ethnicity matters everywhere we want it or not. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This situation is addressed by WP:OPENPARA, which says to use "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Balanchine was Russian born, a Russian citizen, and studied ballet and became notable while living in Russia. WP:OPENPARA makes it absolutely clear that from WP's perspective, Balanchine was Russian (of Georgian descent). I understand and respect your desire to show that he was an ethnic Georgian, and Georgian family traditions may regard him as Georgian, but that's not relevant here. Unless you can cite reliable sources that show he became notable while living in Georgia, it's incorrect (in WP) to say that he was Georgian. Lambtron (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I have no nationalistic views here. He was just Georgian born in Russian Empire. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Then please explain why WP:OPENPARA does not apply here. Lambtron (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Should I also have to explain that Stalin was Georgian as well? Balanchine was ethnic Georgian born in Russian Empire who made career in the US, just like Diaghliev and Stravinsky. So why don't you put Stravinsky and Diaghliev into question? You seriously think that they were Americans? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the fundamental question: why does WP:OPENPARA not apply here? Lambtron (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem don't understand anything what I've said. By saying that Balanchine was Russian is wrong as he was Georgian. I think you don't understand what the word Georgian means. A person from Georgia and an ethnic Georgian is different. Balanchine was ethnic Georgian from Russia. A Chinese born in Russia or Italy does not make him Russian or Italian, as he/she would be only Chinese. Same is with Balanchine. And the WP:OPENPARA does not fit into this case as such. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is based on the fact that Balanchine was an ethnic Georgian from Russia, but WP:OPENPARA says "ethnicity should not be emphasized unless it is relevant to the subject's notability", and it's very clear that his ethnicity is not relevant to his notability. I hope this clarifies the issue for you. Lambtron (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

His mother wasn't Georgian, he wasn't born in Georgia, he didn't grow up in Georgia. he never lived in Georgia, none of his many wives/partners were Georgian, his career was in an art form that did not originate in Georgia, nor one that has been particularly influenced by Georgia, his work does not appear to have had a connection to Georgian culture or ethnicity. Did he even speak any Georgian? Beyond his father having been Georgian, there seems to be no obvious Georgian connections strong enough to label him "Georgian". I suggest just saying "Russian-born", and any further expansion on his ethnicity can be covered in the article content. Meowy 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

By "article content" I meant the George Balanchine article, not this article. Meowy 21:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Georgian claim is based on original research

A citation has been given to support the claim that Balanchine was Georgian (Bernard Taper's Balanchine, a Biography), but the source discusses his "Georgian-ness" only in the context of his Georgian ancestry. It's irrelevant whether he behaved like a Georgian, looked like a Georgian, had Georgian ancestors, or was proud of his Georgian ancestry. It is pure original research and a leap of logic to conclude that this source refutes the essential facts here: he was born in Russia, he lived in Russia, his mother was Russian, he studied/practiced/taught/choreographed ballet in Russia, and became notable while living in Russia. I agree with Meowy that "Russian-born" would correct this factual error in a satisfactory way. Lambtron (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason based upon the arguments here, and based upon what the facts seem to point to quite distinctly, that we should do anything but have the line read "Russian born." There is no good reason to classify him as "Georgian". It also appears that the talk page should be re-tagged for "WP Russia" rather than "WP Georgia" since the subject is in fact a Russian rather than a Georgian. For the mean time, I am going at the very least add the WP Russia, tag to this talk page. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this debate is a lot about the meaning of "Georgian". The dominant conception of nationality in Russia as in Georgia, for reasons that go back to tsarist and Soviet national policies, is one that is linked to ethnic origin, not to citizenship or residence. This cultural fact should not be neglected, and reading Taper's book, you can indeed see that Balanchine himself, and his Russian acquaintances, considered him at least partly Georgian for those reasons. See this quote of Balanchine himself, showing the complexity of his self-identification, in Taper, page 25, "'We Georgians are not Russians in culture, not at all', he sometimes declared in his Russian-flavored accent." For this reason, and taking into account that Balanchine was also Russian in many ways, I would suggest "Russian-Georgian" as a compromise version, with a link to Taper's book. If, per WP:OPENPARA, such a solution cannot be done, I think in any case that the talk page should keep both tags, "WP Russia" and "WP Georgia".--Susuman77 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has made me aware of the cultural issues in play here, but other readers don't have that advantage. WP:OPENPARA specifically addresses this problem by promoting consistency and common understanding. Without such guidelines, either (1) readers must have apriori knowledge of applicable culture, or (2) excessive adjectives must be used to clarify the cultural concepts. Readers can't be expected to have knowledge of a foreign culture, so without OPENPARA we must say something like "... the Russian-born, ethnic Georgian, USSR and American citizen, dancer and choreographer George Balanchine ..." (it's unlikely that "Russian-Georgian", or "Soviet-Russian-Georgian" would be widely understood). I agree that ethnicity, culture, accent, appearance, residence, citizenship, nationality, and self-identification should not be neglected, and they are not; they are discussed in George Balanchine. However, those biographical attributes aren't relevant to this dance-centric article. Here, it seems sufficient--and sensible--to simply say "Russian-born". That would be universally understood and uncontroversial, and in keeping with the goals of OPENPARA. Lambtron (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree - it is very off-topic for this article. I've been bold and removed "Georgian" (and just made it "Russia-born", rather than "Russian-born"). Meowy 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have read this discussion more fully before making my last edit. Apologies too, for not realizing that the Ottawa article was a fork. Great photos on your user page Lambtron, great to meet a fellow lover of dance. TrailerTrack (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, TrailerTrack, and I'm glad to meet you too. Keep up the good work! Lambtron (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision

My revision of the article tackles a number of key issues:

1. Style/technique/teaching method - That Balanchine is a 'style' of ballet as opposed to a technique or teaching method is not in dispute, however defined techniques and training methods have evolved from it, thus I have included all these terms, with the phrase that they are "attributed to" Balanchine solving the problem of defining 'what is' the Balanchine method. Should terms be excluded from the article simply because they were not devised by Balanchine himself? I don't think so. For example, the School of American Ballet was founded by Balanchine and whilst he did not create a 'Balanchine syllabus', he did devise a teaching method and programme of study based on his choreographic model, so it is relevant here. 89.241.61.127 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that all relevant information should be included. However, I think it's important to be very clear that Balanchine method is a dance style and nothing more. It's certainly relevant that there are numerous teaching methods and programmes for teaching the Balanchine style, but those methods do not constitute the dance style nor can I find evidence that those methods "evolved from" or can be "attributed to" Balanchine. To keep these distinctions clear, I've moved the discussion of training methods to a new paragraph. Also, no offence, but I've restored the original American English for consistency and because I can't think a good reason to change the entire article, especially since the topic is so, well ... American. Cheers, Lambtron (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of language, I was led to believe that standard English is preferred on Wikipedia, but it's all English to me so anything goes - On the key point though, I have to slightly disagree. Did Balanchine create a 'syllabus'... no, but did Balanchine devise a training programme/method to suit his choreographic model... absolutely YES. He founded the School of American Ballet and the teaching method that forms the core of its training programme, so its very existence is indisputable evidence that any teaching methodology emulating or evolving from that can be 'attributed' to Mr B. Has it been tweaked and revised over the years, yes, but does that mean it can no longer be attributed to Balanchine, no. Vaganova is the same, her methods have been disseminated to such an extent that very rarely is it taught in its pure form, but it is attributed to Vaganova nevertheless, so why can the same not be said for Balanchine. The only difference is the lack of a printed syllabus for Balanchine, but that doesn't negate the fact that Balanchine (as all visionary ballet masters do) had very strict ideas about how dancers should be trained to dance his work, hence the consistency of style/technique/training that exists from the moment a dancer joins SAB, through their schooling and on into their professional career with NYCB. This is why you can't create absolute distinctions between style, technique and method, because they cross over. The Balanchine arabesque for example is a stylistic thing, but it demands a very definite technique to achieve, and by default requires unique teaching methods, all of which have the same point of origination... Balanchine himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.132.191 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It could be reasonably argued that WP:TIES makes U.S. English preferred here, but even without that guideline we get the same result with WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:RETAIN. As for training programmes, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I don't doubt that Balanchine employed a teaching method; I've only said that his teaching method is not the primary topic of this article. Even so, I think it would be interesting and useful to discuss the teaching method he is thought to have created, if that can be done without resorting to original research. Also, I have no problem with attributing modern teaching methods to Balanchine as long as such attributions come from reliable sources. Lambtron (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)