Classical ballet pedagogy has developed through distinct methodologies, each codified by influential teachers and reflecting the aesthetics of its time and culture. Four of the most prominent are the Vaganova method (Russian), the Cecchetti method (Italian, via the UK and beyond), the Royal Academy of Dance method (RAD, English), and the Balanchine method (American). All share the foundational danse d’école vocabulary of classical ballet, yet each emphasizes particular technical and artistic qualities. For example, the Cecchetti school is often characterized by simple, clean movement, whereas the Vaganova system encourages expansive upper-body expression and grander extensions. This article examines each method’s historical origins and key figures, its current institutional and geographic strongholds, its distinguishing technical principles (from port de bras and épaulement to use of turnout, footwork, speed, musicality, and overall philosophy), and the critiques that have been voiced about each approach. The analysis is presented in a scholarly tone for an expert readership of ballet pedagogues, choreographers, dancers, and researchers, drawing on major pedagogical texts and institutional practices to inform the comparison.
Vaganova Method (Russian School)
Historical Background
The Vaganova method was developed in the early 20th century by Agrippina Yakovlevna Vaganova (1879–1951), a former Imperial Russian ballerina turned master teacher. Vaganova graduated from the Imperial Ballet School in Saint Petersburg in 1897 and danced under Ballet Master Marius Petipa during the twilight of the Imperial era. Dissatisfied with aspects of her own training, she retired from performing in 1916 to focus on teaching. Beginning in 1921, at what was then the Leningrad State Choreographic School, Vaganova synthesized the best of the French Romantic ballet style and the Italian virtuoso technique (embodied by Enrico Cecchetti) with the Russian Imperial heritage. She spent decades refining a unified curriculum, ultimately codifying it in her 1934 textbook Fundamentals of the Classical Dance and the 1948 Basic Principles of Russian Classical Dance. These works set out a comprehensive syllabus specifying when and how each technical element should be taught. After Vaganova’s death, her disciples – notably Vera Kostrovitskaya and Vera Volkova – continued her legacy, ensuring the method’s preservation and propagation. Vaganova’s pedagogy transformed the former Imperial system into a scientifically structured curriculum, and she is credited with “revolutionizing the art of ballet” through the technique that now bears her name.
Institutions and Global Use
Centered at the Vaganova Academy (the former Imperial school) in St. Petersburg, this method became the cornerstone of Soviet and now Russian ballet training. It remains the predominant syllabus in Russia and much of the former Soviet sphere. Legendary companies like the Mariinsky Ballet and Bolshoi Ballet still draw on Vaganova training for their dancers. Beyond Russia, the method’s influence is widespread: it has been adopted in countries such as Ukraine, China, and Germany, often via state conservatories or private academies led by Russian-trained teachers. The State Ballet School of Berlin, for example, is a flagship institution outside Russia that bases its training on Vaganova’s system. In the United States, there is a growing trend of prestigious schools and conservatories incorporating the Vaganova methodology. (Notably, the Kirov Academy of Ballet in Washington, D.C. was established specifically to teach pure Vaganova technique in the West .) Many of the 20th century’s ballet luminaries – Anna Pavlova, Galina Ulanova, Rudolf Nureyev, Natalia Makarova, Mikhail Baryshnikov, and even George Balanchine – were trained in the Vaganova or its precursor Imperial system, underscoring this method’s far-reaching impact on ballet performance and pedagogy worldwide.
Technical Principles and Stylistic Traits
Vaganova training is characterized by a harmonious full-body approach to ballet technique. The method seeks to engage the entire body in every movement, giving equal attention to the upper body, legs, and feet. A signature of the Vaganova style is the expressive, fluid port de bras coordinated with épaulement (shouldering and head positions) and a strong, supple back. Early training heavily emphasizes épaulement: Young students practice a series of codified port de bras exercises to develop beautifully coordinated arm movements emanating from a well-supported back and core. This produces a characteristic breadth and plasticity in the arms – Vaganova's arms are soft but not limp, always moving with an undercurrent of energy and precise shaping through the hands and fingers. The torso is highly involved; dancers learn to initiate movement from the upper back and to use the head and eyes to complement the line, creating a sculptural “harmonious shape” in motion. Turnout is developed gradually but thoroughly, always from the hip joints with no distortion of the knees or ankles, and the method insists on proper placement to enable both virtuosity and longevity. Footwork is another foundation: even the simplest exercise, the battement tendu, is treated with great importance as the basis of all classical steps. Vaganova's technique demands that the foot articulates through the floor with precision – “You could do a dissertation just on tendu”, one pedagogue noted, to convey how a correct tendu teaches alignment and strength for the entire body. Jumps and allegro work are built up methodically; Vaganova (who herself was celebrated for powerful jumps) emphasized deep plie and ballon (jump elevation) with coordinated arm movement to achieve explosive yet soft landings. Indeed, arms in Vaganova are not merely decorative in grand allegro: they are functional, helping propel the dancer (for example, the arms sweep through the first position and lift with the leg in a grand jeté, then anchor the landing in arabesque in concert with the plié). Musically, the Russian style is often described as lyrical and symphonic – students are trained to “execute movements as musically as possible”, with a breadth that matches the phrasing of the music. Adagio movements in Vaganova class are sustained and grand, developing strength and balance, while allegros can be very brisk but always coordinated with expressive upper-body phrasing. The overall aesthetic philosophy is to achieve “a harmony of movement and greater expressive range” by cultivating total awareness and control of the body. The Vaganova method thus produces dancers known for their quiet power, controlled strength, and regal carriage – their technique is “deeply internalized,” giving the impression that their bodies naturally breathe classical movement after years of highly structured training. In performance, graduates of this school often command the stage with a combination of precise academic technique and emotive, dramatic presence, reflecting Vaganova’s goal to unite “intricate footwork and artistic expression” in equal measure.
Critiques
Despite its proven success, the Vaganova method has drawn a number of critiques and debates. One common criticism is that the system overemphasizes physical conditioning and perfection of form. Because the syllabus is so rigorous about when and how each skill is introduced, detractors argue it can become rigid – requiring, for instance, two years of intensive basics that “are very hard to endure” for all but the most committed students (many drop out early if unprepared for the discipline). This reputation for strictness has sometimes translated into harsh training environments. Investigations into certain Vaganova-based state schools (e.g. Berlin’s State Ballet School) revealed a “culture of fear” and overzealous physical and verbal discipline by some instructors. Such issues are not inherent to Vaganova’s principles but can arise when teachers push the ideal of “perfection” to abusive extremes. Another critique relates to the stereotypical “Russian ballerina” physique that Vaganova's training is said to emphasize. The method’s focus on ideal lines and high extensions, combined with the legacy of the Soviet selection system, has perpetuated the belief that a ballerina must be thin and long-limbed; this, in turn, has been linked to unhealthy body expectations in some schools. Critics from other ballet traditions sometimes claim that Vaganova-trained dancers, drilled to uniformity, may lack individualized artistry or adaptability. Indeed, as some scholars and dancers point out, Vaganova schooling doesn’t guarantee a fantastic dancer – personal musicality and creative nuance are needed beyond perfect technique. There have been instances of highly athletic Russian-trained dancers being viewed as flashy or lacking softness by Western observers, highlighting a stylistic divide: e.g. Bolshoi (Russian) graduates are sometimes faulted for explosive power without the refinement seen in Mariinsky (also Russian) or Western-European dancers. Finally, some have noted that outside the complete ecosystem of Russian ballet (with its state-supported academies, carefully selected students, and lengthy training days), attempting to implement Vaganova pedagogy in ordinary dance studios can be impractical or “not foolproof”, and might produce mediocre results if the full context is missing. In summary, while the Vaganova method is lauded for producing strong, expressive classical dancers, it has been critiqued for potential rigidity, an intense focus on ideal physicality, and an arguably narrow definition of excellence – factors which educators continue to debate and address in adapting the system for the modern ballet world.
Cecchetti Method (Italian School)
Historical Background
The Cecchetti method is one of the foundational schools of classical ballet technique, codified by the Italian maestro Enrico Cecchetti (1850–1928). Cecchetti’s approach emerged from the Italian tradition and the teachings of Carlo Blasis – a 19th-century ballet theoretician famed for his rigorous treatise Traité élémentaire, théorique et pratique de l’art de la danse (1820) . Enrico Cecchetti was born into a dancing family and was trained by prominent pupils of Blasis (Giovanni Lepri, Cesare Coppini, and Filippo Taglioni), inheriting a strict, anatomically precise classical technique. As a virtuoso performer, Cecchetti astonished audiences across Europe with his brilliant pirouettes and grand allegro – he famously created the role of the Bluebird in Petipa’s Sleeping Beauty, showcasing his light batterie and multiple turns. His performance career took him to the Mariinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg and later Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, but it is as a teacher that Cecchetti made his greatest mark. Between roughly 1890 and 1910, Cecchetti served as maître de ballet at the Imperial Ballet School in Russia and private tutor to stars like Anna Pavlova, while also mentoring Vaslav Nijinsky, Tamara Karsavina, Alicia Markova, Léonide Massine and others. These illustrious pupils carried his influence into companies around the world. In 1922, near the end of Cecchetti’s life, the Cecchetti Society was founded in London by his devotees (including Cyril W. Beaumont, Stanislas Idzikowski, Margaret Craske and Ninette de Valois) to formally record and preserve his method. Beaumont and Cecchetti collaborated on a definitive manual, A Manual of the Theory and Practice of Classical Theatrical Dancing (1922), which systematically laid out Cecchetti’s exercises and principles. Through this codification, Cecchetti’s method – sometimes dubbed the Italian school of ballet – became a structured syllabus that could be taught internationally. Importantly, this method introduced the model of standardized daily classes and levels, a concept that has influenced all modern ballet training. Cecchetti’s legacy as a pedagogue is profound: he is recognized as “one of the key contributors to modern classical ballet”, revolutionizing teaching practice at a time when training had often been haphazard and unstandardized.
Institutions and Countries
After Cecchetti’s death, his method continued to flourish through formal organizations. The Cecchetti Society, initially independent, later became a branch of the Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing (ISTD) in the UK, ensuring the syllabus would be examined and updated for new generations. To this day, Cecchetti training is offered in many top ballet schools and remains especially strong in the UK and Commonwealth countries. The Royal Ballet School in London and its early 20th-century faculty (led by de Valois) drew heavily from Cecchetti principles, and British ballet absorbed what Dame Ninette de Valois called “the important aspects of [Cecchetti’s] teaching” into its academic tradition. Canada’s National Ballet School and Australia’s National Theatre Ballet School likewise historically incorporated Cecchetti classes, thanks to figures like Margaret Craske (who taught in Canada) and Madam Lucie Saronova in Australia. Today, Cecchetti International is a network with branches in the United States (Cecchetti USA and the Cecchetti Council of America), Australia, Canada, Italy, and South Africa. These organizations train and certify teachers and conduct graded examinations from beginner through professional levels. There are annual Cecchetti conferences and even an international Cecchetti competition that showcases students who often go on to major companies. While no single opera-house company uses the Cecchetti method exclusively now (most national schools blend methods), the Cecchetti syllabus and its focus on pure classical technique remain highly respected. It is often said that Cecchetti training produces versatile, clean dancers who can adapt to various styles – indeed, the method’s alumni range from classical icons like Alicia Markova and Rudolf Nureyev to modern dance pioneers like Paul Taylor, who took Cecchetti classes to improve their fundamental placement and musicality.
Technical Principles and Style
The Cecchetti method is renowned for its holistic, scientific approach to ballet technique. It is a “strict form of training” with a rigorously planned class structure: Cecchetti prescribed specific exercises for each day of the week, ensuring that all parts of the body are worked evenly and all key stepfamilies are regularly practised. This curriculum leaves little room for improvisation or personal deviation – the goal is for dancers to internalize correct ballet principles so thoroughly that technique becomes second nature. As Diana Byer (a prominent American Cecchetti authority) describes, “Cecchetti is about dancing, not athleticism. It’s about developing skill, not just talent. Skill is in the details – the turn of a wrist, the use of the eyes – more than the height of a jump or number of turns”. This captures the method’s emphasis on purity, balance, and coordination over acrobatic display. Hallmarks of Cecchetti training include:
Balance and Line: Dancers are trained to develop a strong sense of aplomb (upright balance) and a clear body line. The placement is classical and pure, with no exaggerated mannerisms. Cecchetti’s adagios and port de bras (he codified 8 set port de bras exercises) instil a “wonderful feeling for line and the use of head and épaulement”, as Sir Frederick Ashton once praised. The torso is held but not rigid – there is an ease of movement, with the upper body allowed to breathe and incline naturally (not stiffly erect) while maintaining core control.
Anatomical Precision: The method places great importance on understanding anatomy and proper alignment. Turnout is always taught as emanating from the hips (never forced from the knees or feet). Positions like arabesque are achieved without contorting the lower back; instead, Cecchetti training teaches that the arch of the back “starts between the shoulder blades, not over-compressing the lower spine”. This anatomically sound approach prevents injuries and builds a “deep respect for the body” in dancers. Dancers learn the why behind each movement, reflecting the method’s intellectual, almost “scientific” outlook.
Even Development & Coordination: A core tenet is that no part of the body is neglected. Cecchetti classes devote equal attention to jumps, turns, adagio, and petite allegro, often repeating barre exercises in the centre to reinforce stability. The same combination might be executed with the left and right sides and at varying tempos, ensuring symmetry and adaptability. Movements are introduced in a logical progression only after prerequisite fundamentals are mastered – for instance, students must demonstrate strength in simple pirouettes before more complex turns are attempted. This progressive training builds a solid foundation and a dancer who is strong yet supple “in a way that does not distort the body”.
Musicality and Quality: Cecchetti method has a strong musical component. Dancers learn to “serve and respect the music”, not merely to stay on beat. In fact, musical sensitivity is built into class exercises: teachers might have students perform a port de bras to a lilting waltz, then repeat it to a staccato pizzicato, learning to alter the quality of movement without changing tempo. This trains dancers to respond to music’s mood and phrasing – an artistic skill that contributes to the method’s reputation for nurturing not just technicians but true dance artists.
Purity and Clarity: Many in the ballet world describe Cecchetti's style as “clean, pure, classical”. There is an avoidance of “flash or affectation” – for example, leg heights and extensions are not pushed past classical positions for their own sake; multiple turns or virtuosic jumps are certainly achieved by Cecchetti-trained dancers (Cecchetti himself was a virtuoso), but the method insists on form and clarity above all. Quality is valued over quantity: “Do the exercise correctly once rather than many times sloppily” is the prevailing attitude. This yields dancers with refined, unfussy techniques who can be moulded to various choreographic styles because their basics are so sound.
Overall, the Cecchetti method aims to produce dancers who are well-rounded and versatile. Its structured, repetitive exercises instil muscle memory and a unified classical style. But as Byer notes, the “rigid discipline” eventually frees the body: once a dancer’s technique is thoroughly secure, they can dance with full freedom on both physical and musical planes. This balanced marriage of discipline and artistry – “grounding artistry in truth and sincerity” – is considered the magic of the Cecchetti method.
Critiques
Although admired historically, the Cecchetti method is not without its critics or challenges. One frequently cited concern is the strict rigidity of its curriculum. Detractors argue that the set syllabus, with prescribed exercises for each day, can lead to a routine-bound approach that leaves little room for individual creativity or pedagogical flexibility. This “no room for improvisation” aspect, while ensuring consistency, might stifle teachers who wish to tailor classes to the unique needs of their students or address spontaneous observations. Similarly, some modern educators feel that an over-emphasis on meticulous theory and correctness can make training overly academic – potentially producing dancers who are clean but somewhat mechanical or lacking spark if musical/artistic coaching is absent. There have also been historical critiques about the method’s demand for strict hierarchy in learning (for example, that students must drill basic adages and allegros for years following the set progression). In fast-paced contemporary competition circuits, this gradual approach is sometimes viewed as old-fashioned; gifted students might chafe at waiting to attempt pyrotechnical feats until the syllabus permits. In practice, however, many Cecchetti organizations have updated their curricula to counter this critique: for instance, Cecchetti Ballet Australia has “adapted the curriculum to be more balanced and age-appropriate” and now offers both recreational and vocational tracks, acknowledging that one size may not fit all. Another point of contention is that the Cecchetti style, with its restrained purity, lacks the flamboyant amplitude seen in Russian or Balanchine-trained dancers. Some observers from those schools might describe Cecchetti-trained dancers as too modest in presentation – focusing on correctness at the expense of daring virtuosity or expansive port de bras. That said, others argue the opposite: that Cecchetti’s stress on coordination and basic virtuosity actually equips dancers to perform any style (indeed, Cecchetti graduates have excelled in companies of very diverse styles). In general, direct published criticisms of Cecchetti are rarer than of other methods; its standing in ballet history is highly respected. The more common “critique” is perhaps that its influence waned mid-20th century in favour of newer systems (like Vaganova and RAD), leading some to question its relevance. Yet, as noted by choreographer Frederick Ashton and others, Cecchetti technique imparts fundamental skills that “if properly absorbed – will be of incalculable use throughout a dancer’s career”. In recent decades, the method’s advocates have worked to keep it relevant, addressing concerns by modernizing the syllabus and emphasizing that Cecchetti would himself have evolved with the times. Thus, while one can argue that an overly dogmatic use of the Cecchetti syllabus might become inflexible, the method’s core strengths of safe, sound technique and musical artistry continue to be valued, and its stewards seem mindful of balancing tradition with innovation.
Royal Academy of Dance Method (English Style)
Historical Background
The Royal Academy of Dance (RAD) method, often synonymous with the English style of ballet training, was born in 1920 out of a desire to raise the standard of ballet teaching in Britain. In the early 20th century, British ballet lacked a unified pedagogy; to address this, an influential group of dance leaders convened in London. On 18 July 1920, Philip J. S. Richardson (editor of Dancing Times) organized a famous dinner at the Trocadero Restaurant with five eminent ballet pedagogues, each representing a major school of the time. They were Phyllis Bedells (English), Lucia Cormani (Italian), Edouard Espinosa (French), Adeline Genée (Danish/Bournonville), and Tamara Karsavina (Russian/Imperial). Also present were luminaries like Ninette de Valois and Anton Dolin. The outcome of this meeting was the formation of the Association of Teachers of Operatic Dancing of Great Britain, which would become the Royal Academy of Dance. Dame Adeline Genée served as the first President and the founders pooled their international expertise to devise a new unified teaching syllabus. This cosmopolitan origin makes the RAD method essentially a hybrid: it merged elements of the French, Italian (Cecchetti), Danish (Bournonville), and Russian techniques into one examination syllabus. Over the ensuing decades, the RAD set about publishing graded curricula and conducting exams. By 1935 it received a Royal Charter, becoming the “Royal Academy of Dancing” (now Dance). Key figures in the Academy’s early development included choreographer Sir Frederick Ashton and teacher Margot Fonteyn, who helped shape its artistic direction mid-century. The RAD grew into one of the largest dance teaching organizations in the world. It codified not only classical technique but also the inclusion of free movement (influence of natural dance/ballroom) and character dance (national folk styles) as part of a dancer’s training. For over 100 years, the RAD has been a central force in ballet education, known for its structured exams and teacher training programs. Today it remains headquartered in London but is truly international in scope, reflecting its mission from the start to create a method accessible beyond any single company or nationality.
Institutions and Current Usage
The RAD method is not tied to one state ballet company but is implemented via a vast network of registered teachers and studios across the globe. As an examination board and teacher training organization, the RAD operates in over 85 countries and has more than 13,000 members worldwide. Each year, around 250,000 students participate in RAD ballet exams at various levels – a testament to its reach. The method’s popularity is particularly high in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth nations (Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, etc.), but it also has a strong presence in the United States, Europe, and Asia. For example, in Germany alone, there are hundreds of RAD-certified ballet teachers, even though German state conservatories use different systems. The RAD’s graded syllabus (from Pre-Primary up to Grade 8) and vocational syllabus (Intermediate Foundation up to Advanced and the Solo Seal Award) provide a clear progression for young dancers, whether they are dancing recreationally or aiming for a professional career. Many private ballet schools and conservatories incorporate RAD exams to benchmark their students’ progress against an international standard. It’s not uncommon for a student to do RAD exams in parallel with other training – for instance, a dancer at a local studio in Dallas or Melbourne might take yearly RAD exams even if their daily classes also include Vaganova or Cecchetti influences. Some renowned institutions, like Canada’s National Ballet School in its earlier years and various royal ballet academies worldwide, historically used RAD as part of their curriculum, especially for the lower levels. However, many top-tier schools (e.g. the Royal Ballet School) have since developed their own syllabi, using RAD more as an external examination benchmark or for teacher certification. Nonetheless, the RAD’s reach into the private studio sector is unparalleled. It provides syllabi not just for ballet technique but also enforces a Code of Professional Practice for teachers (covering ethics and safety). The Academy’s focus on teacher training means that its method is disseminated by instructors who have undergone rigorous courses and assessments. In summary, RAD is currently known as a global standardizer of ballet education, providing a common language and set of expectations that connect a small ballet school in Texas with one in Singapore or Nairobi. This global adoption speaks to the method’s adaptability and comprehensive structure.
Technical Principles and Stylistic Traits
Because the RAD method was formulated by synthesizing various national styles, it tends toward a balanced, middle-of-the-road classicism, avoiding the extremes of any one school. The emphasis is on sound technique, musicality, and clean execution of fundamental ballet vocabulary. Some key features and philosophies include:
Gradual, Detailed Progression: The RAD syllabus is known for being “meticulous and methodological”. Dancers progress slowly but surely – difficult steps (e.g. multiple turns, advanced pointe work) are introduced only once a strong technical basis has been achieved at preceding levels. As a result, early grades focus on basics: proper posture, turnout, placement of arms and head, simple allegro, etc., with a high standard of correctness expected. This systematic layering instils habits of clean technique. While some have viewed the slow progression as conservative, the intent is to ingrain fundamentals and prevent students from developing bad habits or injuries by attempting feats beyond their training. In the words of one RAD leader, it is a “safe method” that prepares students for the demands of contemporary dance without sacrificing health. Indeed, the syllabi are periodically reviewed with input from dance medicine experts to ensure age-appropriateness and physical safety.
Integration of Artistry: Unlike a purely technical curriculum, RAD incorporates elements aimed at developing the expressive side of dance. From Grade 1 onward, the “free movement” exercises (influenced by early 20th-century natural dance) allow students to move more fluidly and interpret music without the constraints of turnout or classical positions. Similarly, character dance (adapted folk dance, such as Hungarian czardas or Polish mazurka) is part of the syllabus, which not only broadens musicality and rhythmic skills but also adds dramatic expressivity and stylistic versatility. These components encourage dancers to perform, not just execute. The RAD ethos holds that artistry should develop hand-in-hand with technique. Thus, even in exams, candidates are judged on performance quality and musical response, not just mechanical accuracy. This holistic approach produces dancers who are often praised for their “grace and refinement” and the ability to adapt to both classical and neo-classical choreography. Ashton’s and MacMillan’s choreography for The Royal Ballet – marked by nuanced épaulement and emotive depth – influenced the Academy’s aesthetic values, aiming for dancers who are versatile and artistically engaged rather than showy.
Attention to Detail and Etiquette: The English style has traditionally been associated with polished manners and elegant understatement. In RAD training, considerable attention is paid to the details that cultivate this polish: the precise placement of fingers in bras bas, the carriage of the head, the way a dancer enters and exits the studio, etc. Port de bras in the RAD method tends to be soft and unexaggerated, reflecting influences from French and Cecchetti schools. There is an emphasis on balance between fluidity and clarity. One teacher described RAD as aiming for dancers who are “incredibly clean, versatile, and strong, yet healthy – without losing the discipline and drive for excellence”. The result is often an efficient, unaffected style that can read as somewhat more reserved than the high drama of the Russian school or the daring of Balanchine, but it is highly adaptable.
Musicality and Performance Skills: RAD examinations require dancers to perform set pieces (solos or group dances) with music, and from early stages, students learn to connect movements to musical phrasing. This instils a reliable musicality. Additionally, the structured exam system itself ensures students perform under a bit of pressure – standing up in front of an examiner develops a certain poise and focus. The method strives to give even “average students a love and knowledge of ballet” while also preparing talented students for the professional stage. In effect, it teaches a dancer how to be a student and eventually a professional: knowing class etiquette, practising with consistency, and measuring progress.
In summary, the RAD method’s style is often described as classically elegant and pedagogically thorough. It does not espouse ultra-high extensions or extremes of tempo; instead, it seeks a “refined elegance and meticulous attention to detail” in execution. Because it is cherry-picked from several traditions, one might say RAD dancers get a bit of French speed and precision, Italian/Cecchetti clarity, Russian port de bras, and Danish/Bournonville footwork, all in moderated form. The broad scope of its syllabus (including non-classical elements) also tends to produce dancers with well-rounded skills and fewer technical gaps. By design, the method can cater to a wide range of student abilities – it can “permit the average student to develop and enjoy ballet, while also preparing an outstanding student to excel professionally”. This flexibility in approach is a defining trait of RAD’s philosophy in contrast to the more specialized original intents of Vaganova or Balanchine.
Critiques
The RAD method, particularly as an exam system, has faced various critiques over the years. One prominent criticism has been that it was overly syllabus-bound and exam-focused, potentially at the expense of spontaneity or individual creativity. Some teachers (like John Byrne in a 2022 Dance Australia opinion piece) have questioned “the present approach to teaching syllabus to students,” suggesting that an over-emphasis on drilling the set exercises year-round for exams might not serve the best artistic interests of dancers. In the past, RAD syllabi were sometimes seen as rather rigid; students and teachers had to follow the book closely, possibly leading to rote repetition. The Academy has responded to this by revamping syllabi – as Artistic Director Gerard Charles noted, the latest curriculum “intentionally removed the rigidity of previous syllabi,” freeing teachers to focus more on students’ developmental needs rather than just mark schemes. Still, detractors argue that any standardized syllabus can become a “one-size-fits-all” solution that may not challenge exceptional students enough or may bore those drilling for annual exams. Another critique relates to the paced progression of RAD levels. The method is unapologetically slow and steady; however, in today’s dance world, some feel it may delay exposure to harder tricks until a relatively late age, which could be a disadvantage for students eyeing early competitions or auditions. (For instance, a 14-year-old in Vaganova training might already be proficient in multiple pirouettes and grand allegro, whereas an RAD Grade 5/Intermediate student of the same age might still be perfecting single pirouettes and basic jumps due to the syllabus’ sequencing.) This has led to a perception in some quarters that RAD training does not produce “virtuoso” teens as quickly as, say, Russian or American schools – essentially a critique of being too conservative. On the other hand, many RAD defenders counter that the graduates catch up quickly because their basics are solid and injuries are fewer. There is also the question of whether focusing on exam scores and certificates is healthy for a young dancer’s psyche. Some worry it might encourage external validation over internal artistry, or that teachers might “teach to the test.” The RAD has tried to mitigate this by marking not just technique but also musicality and performance quality in exams, and by stressing that exams are optional goals, not the end in themselves. Another area of critique historically was that the RAD method, being an amalgam, lacked a distinctive identity or flair. Some traditionalists from other schools might have viewed the English style as too bland or Anglicized, neither as bravura as the Russian nor as pure as the Italian. However, given the success of British ballet, such criticisms carry less weight today. Finally, it’s worth noting that the RAD method has evolved significantly – what one might have critiqued in the 1950s (when it was very much an exam factory for the emerging British ballet scene) is not entirely true now. The organization invests in teacher education, emphasizes dancer health and enjoyment, and encourages a more open-minded use of the syllabus (for example, advising teachers to use the set exercises as just one part of training, supplemented by open classes). In summary, critiques of RAD often revolve around its standardization – the very factor that is also its strength. The Academy’s challenge has been to maintain high standards and consistency without becoming inflexible. As ballet’s “gold standard” syllabus, it will likely always face debate, but its widespread adoption and continual updates show an engagement with those critiques over time.
Balanchine Method (American School)
Historical Background
The Balanchine method, or the American style of ballet, was pioneered by George Balanchine (1904–1983), a Russian-born choreographer who reimagined ballet for the 20th century. Trained at the Imperial Ballet School in St. Petersburg, Balanchine (born Georgii Balanchivadze) had a solid Vaganova-era foundation, graduating in 1921. He danced briefly in Soviet Russia but left in 1924 with a small group of dancers, eventually joining Serge Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes in Western Europe. By the early 1930s, Balanchine had absorbed not only the Russian academic heritage but also modern influences and a keen interest in music (he had studied piano and music theory in Petrograd). In 1933, he met Lincoln Kirstein, an American patron with a vision to establish a home-grown ballet tradition in the United States. Balanchine moved to New York in 1934 and co-founded the School of American Ballet (SAB) that year. SAB became the laboratory for what would be a new approach to ballet training – one tailored to Balanchine’s revolutionary choreographic ideas. In 1948, Balanchine and Kirstein also founded New York City Ballet, which, fed by SAB graduates, became the flagship company of the Balanchine style. Unlike Vaganova or Cecchetti, the Balanchine method was not set down in a single syllabus text during Balanchine’s lifetime; rather, it was disseminated through his teaching, the classes he led for his dancers, and later the writings of his protégés (such as Suki Schorer’s book On Balanchine Technique). Balanchine’s goal was to push ballet’s technique to new extremes to serve a neoclassical aesthetic: stripped of old-world theatricality, energized by jazz-age dynamism and modern music, and capable of expressing pure dance in concert with music. He often said, “See the music, hear the dance.” To achieve this, he reworked basic movements – tendus, pirouettes, port de bras, etc. – in unconventional ways that better presented line and speed to an audience. By the mid-20th century, the Balanchine method had cohered into a distinct style, handed down by teachers at SAB (many of whom were former Balanchine dancers themselves). It’s considered “recent” compared to the older European methods, but it completely changed ballet training in the U.S. and influenced dancers worldwide with its bold new look.
Institutions and Spread
The nucleus of the Balanchine method is the School of American Ballet in New York City, which remains the world’s leading Balanchine training centre. SAB’s curriculum, while including general classical training, emphasizes Balanchine’s stylistic particulars and produces almost all of New York City Ballet’s dancers. Other American companies with direct Balanchine lineage also established their own schools teaching this method – notably the Miami City Ballet School and the Pacific Northwest Ballet School (Seattle). These companies were founded or directed by Balanchine alumni (Edward Villella in Miami, Francia Russell and Kent Stowell in Seattle) and maintain strong ties to his technique and repertory. The Pennsylvania Ballet in Philadelphia, though stylistically a mix, had teachers from Balanchine’s circle and its affiliated school (The Rock School) historically included Balanchine training. While many U.S. regional schools primarily use RAD or a mix of methods, Balanchine influence in America is ubiquitous – even where not explicitly taught, one often encounters teachers stressing speed or line in a way that nods to Balanchine. Internationally, the Balanchine method as a comprehensive training is less common, since it is so closely linked to specific Balanchine repertoire. However, as Balanchine ballets entered the repertoire of companies worldwide (through the Balanchine Trust in the late 20th century), dancers and teachers globally became familiar with aspects of the style. It’s not unusual now for a graduate of, say, the Paris Opera Ballet School or Vaganova Academy to attend a short Balanchine seminar to learn the stylistic adjustments needed for certain roles. Still, no national school has replaced its core curriculum with the Balanchine technique wholesale – it’s primarily an American specialization. In summation, the Balanchine method’s institutional strongholds are the major American ballet schools and companies that descend from Balanchine’s direct lineage (NYCB, Miami, PNB, etc.), but its aesthetic influence is felt worldwide whenever a Balanchine ballet is staged.
Technical Principles and Style
The Balanchine method is instantly recognizable for its speed, energy, and bold lines. Balanchine took classical technique and stretched its limits to complement his modern, often plotless ballets. Key characteristics include:
Extreme Speed and Attack: Balanchine choreography demands the ability to “utilize more space in less time”, as one description puts it. In class, this translates to quicker tempos in combinations, very fast footwork (especially petite allegro), and rapid transitions. Jumps are performed with a sharp attack and brisk cadence; allegro combinations might string steps together with barely a breath in between. To facilitate this, Balanchine stressed very deep pliés for maximal push-off power, and conversely, a forward poise that enables instant movement. Dancers are trained to keep their weight over the balls of the feet (imagine a slight lean forward) so that they can move or change direction at a split-second’s notice. This weight distribution led to the famous instruction, “slip a piece of paper under your heels,” not to literally never lower the heels, but to ensure the feeling of lightness and readiness in footwork. The result is phenomenal speed and agility – Balanchine dancers seem to fly through combinations that others would execute more slowly. The precision of musical timing is paramount; steps are often synced to surprising musical accents (Balanchine was a master at finding syncopation and quicksilvery phrasings in the music). Overall, the method produces an aggressive, forward-driving energy in movement that was quite novel compared to the stately académie of old.
Expanded Lines and Unorthodox Positions: Balanchine famously altered certain classical positions to achieve a longer, “cleaner” line on stage. One example is the arabesque. In traditional European technique, the hips and shoulders stay square to maintain symmetry; Balanchine, however, often has the dancer open the hip of the working leg, allowing it to lift higher and extend farther back. This creates the illusion of a more extreme arabesque line (the leg soaring upward with the hip slightly tilted). The trade-off is a deliberately asymmetric line, which Balanchine embraced for its visual impact. In a side-by-side comparison, a classical arabesque (left) versus a Balanchine arabesque (right) reveals the latter’s lifted hip and longer silhouette. Likewise, Balanchine modified turns: for pirouettes en dehors, he often preferred a deep lunge in fourth position with a straight back leg, rather than the usual bent back knee. This straight-back leg position challenges the dancer’s turnout and strength, but it creates a strikingly linear preparation and can generate faster momentum for multiple turns. Another signature is the dynamic use of the arms and hands. Balanchine port de bras tend to be more open, stretched further out from the body, with less conventional curvature. He introduced what some call the “Balanchine flick” or “broken wrist” – the hand is allowed to bend back slightly at the wrist with fingers splayed (the so-called “claw” handshape). This was the opposite of the tightly grouped fingers of the Italian/French style. It gave an angular, modern look to the upper body. Balanchine even had his dancers practice with objects like golf balls in the palms to achieve the right rounded but not closed hand shape. Arms could also do things not found in standard syllabi: for instance, crossing in front of the body during transitions (such as when moving from low fifth to high fifth, the arms might sweep through a crossed position). All of this contributed to an “unconventional, asymmetrical, abstract” port de bras vocabulary that matched Balanchine’s modernist vision.
Emphasis on Length and Stretch: Balanchine wanted dancers with long lines – he famously liked very tall, long-legged ballerinas – and he trained them to dance tall. Extensions were high (developpés to the ear became common in his company earlier than elsewhere), and splits in leaps were fully 180 degrees. Even when standing in the fifth position, Balanchine dancers often cross their feet more tightly than normal, so that no gap is seen (sometimes called a “Balanchine fifth”). This hyper-crossed fifth and the extreme turnout required for it gave a uniquely taut look to his dancers’ stance. Additionally, Balanchine emphasized moving through space: big travelling steps cover more ground, and grand jetés are pushed for distance as well as height. The overall look is one of extension – everything is a bit longer, more stretched, more “on full throttle” than in other techniques.
Musicality and Phrasing: Balanchine’s credo was that dance and music are inseparable, and he trained dancers to have acute musical responsiveness. The method stresses precise musical timing – being exactly on the note or even daringly ahead of the beat for attack. Balanchine would choreograph steps for every little note, and dancers had to learn to count music intricately (his famous collaborations with Stravinsky exemplify this complexity). The class exercises themselves sometimes mimic this; for example, quick tendu combinations that teach dancers to fit three movements in a single beat, etc. Importantly, the Balanchine technique also encourages a distinct energy change to match music dynamics: explosive and staccato when the score is sharp, luxuriantly drawn-out when the music suspends, etc. In lifts and partnering, Balanchine’s choreography was daring (one-arm lifts, off-balance catches), which in training meant dancers (male and female) had to develop bold attack and fearlessness alongside finesse.
Aesthetic Presentation: The Balanchine style is closely tied to a certain presentation: minimalistic and modern. Dancers often train in just leotards and tights, as in Balanchine’s “leotard ballets” (e.g. Serenade, Agon), which puts their pure physical form on display. This has no direct impact on technique execution, but it does condition dancers to perform without relying on heavy costumes or stories. Balanchine also had idiosyncratic preferences like where dancers should spot their heads during turns (he sometimes told dancers to spot front, at the audience, for chainés across the stage, rather than the conventional direction of travel ). Such details, while quirky, are part of the method’s heritage passed on at SAB. Even grooming can be considered – Balanchine liked women’s hair in high buns to elongate the neckline. All these contribute to a distinctive stage look that is inseparable from the technique.
A concise summary of the Balanchine technique often highlights “extreme speed, deep plié, an emphasis on line, unconventional port de bras, and an athletic dance quality”. Indeed, Balanchine training produces dancers who are ultra-fast, precise, daring, and musically sharp. They tend to have a dynamic, “go-for-broke” performance energy that audiences find thrilling. It is a technique tailored to Balanchine’s choreography, which rarely stops for poses or balances but flows continuously, often at a breakneck pace. As such, it diverges from traditional methods that might hold a position to show academic form. Instead, the Balanchine technique treats even preparatory or transitional steps as part of the dance. (As an example, in Balanchine’s class, a simple port de corps forward isn’t a restful stretch; it is performed as a “fully artistic movement” with aesthetic intention through the whole motion .) This philosophy can be summed up as making every moment dance, not just the highlight steps.
Critiques
The Balanchine method, especially in its early days, attracted considerable controversy and critique, both from traditional ballet circles and from health-conscious pedagogues. One major criticism was that some of Balanchine’s technical demands were potentially unsafe or anatomically risky. For instance, traditional teachers often cited the Balanchine jumping technique – with the weight so far forward and the heels seemingly not fully lowering between jumps – as “unsafe,” fearing it could lead to Achilles tendon injuries or strain. Balanchine dancers’ habit of keeping heels slightly off the ground and torso tipped forward in jumps was viewed with alarm by adherents of older methods who prioritize full heel-down landings for joint health. (Balanchine veterans have countered that this critique is a misconception – that heels do touch down, just very quickly, and that if properly trained the technique is not injurious. Nevertheless, it remains a point of debate, and some non-Balanchine companies explicitly retrain dancers coming from NYCB to soften their landings differently.) Another common critique is that Balanchine’s style distorts classical positions and thereby sacrifices some of ballet’s purity and elegance. Detractors describe the open hips in arabesque or the aggressive turnout and line as “too angular and harsh”, arguing that it breaks the academic aesthetic of symmetry and moderation. The port de bras, with its crossed wrists and flared fingers, has been called “overly flowery” by some traditionalists who prefer the simple classical positions. These observers feel that the Balanchine upper body can look mannered or affected, deviating from what they consider classical simplicity. There is also the notion that Balanchine training produces very specialized dancers – superb in Balanchine ballets, but sometimes lacking in adagio softness or romantic style when put into, say, a Petipa classic. For example, Russian coaches have occasionally commented that importing a Balanchine-trained dancer into Swan Lake can be jarring unless they modify their port de bras and pacing. This feeds a critique that the method is somewhat “one-dimensional,” optimizing for speed and athleticism at the expense of nuances needed for other repertory. Indeed, Balanchine himself choreographed in a neoclassical mode that often eschewed the dramatic pantomime and delicate rubato of 19th-century ballets – some critics worry that a steady diet of Balanchine training might leave dancers less equipped to slow down and imbue those older roles with gravitas (though many SAB alumni have successfully adapted in other companies). Furthermore, within Balanchine’s own circle, there have been inconsistencies and debates about the technique. After Balanchine’s death, different protégés sometimes taught slightly different “Balanchine” styles, leading to arguments – for instance, Suki Schorer’s codification in her book was reportedly disputed by other former dancers on certain fine points. This suggests the method was never codified as strictly as Vaganova or RAD, making it somewhat subjective and variable depending on the teacher. Another critique rooted in the method’s physical expectations pertains to aesthetics and inclusivity. Balanchine was known to have a very particular ideal body type (ultra-long legs, thin, hyper-flexible, etc.), and some feel his technique is geared to those physiques – potentially marginalizing dancers who don’t fit the mould. The extreme turnout and extension demands can be punishing for dancers with less natural facility, possibly leading to overwork or injury if attempted incautiously. Finally, there’s the philosophical/artistic critique: Balanchine’s approach was accused in the mid-century of being “cold” or “devoid of emotion” because it focused on choreography and music over narrative. Some traditionalists lamented that the Balanchine style prioritized form over feeling, turning ballet into a kind of plotless, athletic display. While this is more a critique of Balanchine’s choreographic aesthetics than the training per se, it intertwines – the training produces artists who excel at that modernist clarity, which might not please those who crave old-style theatricality.
It should be noted that many of these criticisms have softened over time as the Balanchine method proved its worth. Dancers trained in Balanchine technique have led companies around the world and audiences have come to appreciate the vibrancy they bring. Nonetheless, companies outside NYCB often do moderate Balanchine-trained dancers’ technique when they join (e.g. encouraging a fuller, softer port de bras or a more academic placement for non-Balanchine repertory). The Balanchine Trust’s strict licensing (while meant to preserve the integrity of its ballets) has also been critiqued as stifling organic growth – a related tangent being that some feel the “Balanchine style” is frozen and guarded too tightly, rather than evolving. In essence, the Balanchine method’s critiques highlight the tension between innovation and tradition: it broke rules and created new ones, which inevitably drew pushback from the old guard and caution from anatomists. Yet, as one writer put it, Balanchine “completely changed the course of dance history”, and his method – controversial or not – has undeniably expanded ballet’s technical frontier.
Comparative Reflections and Conclusion
These four methodologies – Vaganova, Cecchetti, RAD, and Balanchine – encapsulate much of ballet’s pedagogical diversity. Each arose in a different cultural milieu and was shaped by unique artistic priorities. Historically, the Russian Vaganova and Italian/Cecchetti methods aimed to codify and perfect 19th-century classical technique (one after the Russian Imperial age, the other from the Italian tradition), whereas the RAD method sought to standardize and blend techniques for broad dissemination in the 20th century, and Balanchine’s method was a forward-looking re-invention of technique to suit contemporary choreography. Geographically and institutionally, Vaganova remains dominant in Russia and Eastern Europe, Cecchetti survives through dedicated societies and has left its imprint, especially on English ballet, RAD is ubiquitous globally as a teaching framework, and Balanchine’s is concentrated in certain American companies but recognized worldwide wherever his ballets are danced. Technically, each method emphasizes a different facet of ballet’s rich language: Vaganova marries strength with lyrical expression, Cecchetti prioritizes purity and coordinated academic rigour, RAD aims for a balance of safe technique and cultivated artistry, and Balanchine revels in speed, bold lines, and musical vitality. The methods have influenced one another as well – for instance, Vaganova incorporated Cecchetti’s virtuosity, RAD incorporated Cecchetti and Vaganova elements, and Balanchine (trained in the Vaganova system) in turn pushed the technique to new extremes. It is telling that many modern ballet companies no longer swear fealty to one school exclusively; instead, they seek dancers who can adapt to multiple styles. Directors today often “don’t want to see an extreme bias toward one style; they’d rather be dazzled by a strong foundation on top of which any style can be layered”. This reflects the contemporary consensus that there is value in all these methodologies.
Each method has faced critiques, but those critiques often highlight the strengths of the others. The Russian method’s intensity and uniformity are offset by the English method’s inclusivity and balance; the Cecchetti method’s rigidity is countered by Balanchine’s freedom and dynamism; and where Balanchine’s style is questioned for breaking tradition, the Cecchetti and Vaganova remind us of the importance of foundational principles. For an expert in the ballet industry, understanding these methodologies is crucial – not to choose one “best” style, but to appreciate how different training systems produce different artists. A Vaganova graduate dancing next to a Balanchine-trained dancer in the same company may have noticeably different port de bras or attack, but they each contribute something unique to the art. Indeed, many top professionals today have a hybrid background (e.g. initial RAD or Cecchetti training, followed by Vaganova-based finishing school, then later Balanchine coaching for specific roles). The trend in ballet pedagogy is toward cross-pollination: summer intensives expose students to new methods, and teachers often certify in multiple syllabi.
In conclusion, the Vaganova, Cecchetti, RAD, and Balanchine methods should be seen as complementary threads in the fabric of ballet training. Scholarly comparison of their history and techniques reveals how ballet has evolved – from the courts of Italy and France to the imperial studios of Russia, to the trans-Atlantic creation of an American vernacular. Each methodology carries forward certain enduring truths about ballet (the necessity of turnout, the centrality of musicality, the pursuit of both strength and artistry), yet each inflects those with a special accent. Critiques of one method by proponents of another have, over the years, fueled improvements and adaptations, ultimately enriching the pedagogy for everyone. In the final analysis, the ideal dancer of today might be one who embodies the best of all four: the expressive soul and powerful technique of a Vaganova artist, the precise clarity and holistic understanding of a Cecchetti graduate, the well-rounded musical training and finesse of an RAD student, and the fearless speed and inventive flair of a Balanchine protégé. Ballet is an ever-evolving art, and these great schools of technique continue to inform its future – not in isolation, but in dialogue with one another, carried on through the teachers and dancers who bridge their differences in pursuit of excellence.
Sources:
- Agrippina Vaganova’s synthesis of French and Italian schools; her codification of a complete syllabus and emphasis on full-body harmony; traits like expressive port de bras and strong jumps; contemporary use in Russia, Europe, and America; criticism of rigidity and physical stress.
- Enrico Cecchetti’s development of a strict, Blasis-inspired method focusing on clean technique and coordination; its codification by Beaumont et al.; qualities of balance, poise, purity, and injury prevention through sound anatomy; global spread via Cecchetti societies; critique of rigid structure vs. holistic artistry.
- Royal Academy of Dance’s founding by a cross-section of European experts in 1920; its blended syllabus and focus on basic technique and gradual progression; worldwide adoption and standardized exams; inclusion of free movement and character for musicality; criticisms of exam-driven teaching and past rigidity (addressed by recent reforms).
- George Balanchine’s creation of an American style marked by extreme speed, deep pliés, elongated lines, and modern musicality; specifics like open-hip arabesque and unconventional port de bras (e.g. “Balanchine hands”); training hubs at SAB and related companies; critiques about safety (e.g. jumping technique) and departure from classical norms, versus its celebrated innovation and influence.
