Jump to content


Roster Changes


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Old Fashioned

Old Fashioned

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 10 July 2004 - 03:09 PM

The dancer roster on the website has been updated, leaving out dancers who will not be returning next year, although new dancers or dancers who have been moved up through the ranks have not been added yet. As expected, Broomhead, Gumbinner, D. Walsh, and Priolo have been left off. Other dancers not present on the roster are Naomi Glass, Sharon Teague, Anne Harshbarger, Amanda Jarman, Arkadiy Orohovsky, Jessica Pohorilla, and Ingrid Zweifel. These do not include apprentices. I'm quite disappointed that Glass will not be returning. I had been looking forward to her return since she was absent the majority of this past season due to a pregnancy. Teague and a number of amazing corps members will also be missed.

#2 Old Fashioned

Old Fashioned

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 10 July 2004 - 07:28 PM

Oops. For some reason or another the current roster isn't completely accurate, and Sharon Teague is still with the company, but Sally Rojas is not. Everything else should be correct, except for new dancers. The website doesn't show apprentices, but all of them are being promoted to corps members except for Barry Kerollis and Travis Bradley, both of whom have found jobs with other companies.

#3 Old Fashioned

Old Fashioned

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 14 August 2004 - 08:28 PM

There is a small article in tomorrow's Chronicle about promotions and dancers who have left (I receive the Sunday paper a day early; I'll post a link as soon as it appears on the website). It confirms the leave of Naomi Glass and Sally Rojas. Leticia Oliveira is promoted to the new rank of "first soloist"; Kelly Myernick and Ilya Kozadeyev to soloist; and Kristina Harper to another new rank of "demi-soloist." I feel these promotions are well deserved, especially on the parts of Oliveira, Kozadeyev, and Harper (haven't seen enough of Myernick to make a judgement), but is anyone as confused as I am as to why these new ranks were created? :blushing: Is this a first for an American company?

#4 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,242 posts

Posted 15 August 2004 - 07:45 AM

I don't know if it's a first here; I hope someone will. European companies have ranks such as first soloist, second soloist, coryphee (the Royal Ballet is one). And Paris makes a distinction between etoiles and premiers danseurs -- and THEN you get to the soloists.

During the Romantic Era there were even more ranks -- whether you were in the first, second or third quadrille of the corps de ballet mattered. And certain groups had certain privileges -- if you were a coryphee, I believe (I'm writing this from memory, so if someone wants to look it up and finds this is wrong, please feel free :blushing: ) you couldn't be made to dance in a group larger than eight.

Interesting move for Houston to make -- especially when they seem to be turning way from the Stevenson model of mostly full-length ballets (where such ranks might be useful) to the new! contempo-ballet model, where most of the ballets are danced by no more than a dozen dancers, and it doesn't matter what rank they are!

#5 Old Fashioned

Old Fashioned

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 15 August 2004 - 08:53 AM

Interesting move for Houston to make -- especially when they seem to be turning way from the Stevenson model of mostly full-length ballets (where such ranks might be useful) to the new! contempo-ballet model, where most of the ballets are danced by no more than a dozen dancers, and it doesn't matter what rank they are!

My point exactly. Is it really necessary for such distinctions to be made?

Here's the direct link to the article: Welch boosts Houston Ballet's corps

#6 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,242 posts

Posted 15 August 2004 - 09:08 AM

Maybe they'll start getting a repertory where such distinctions are useful :)

#7 carbro

carbro

    Late Board Registrar

  • Rest in Peace
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,361 posts

Posted 15 August 2004 - 03:24 PM

This reminds me of Ballet Nacional de Cuba's roster as it appeared when they visited the Met in the '80s -- about seven or eight ranks of dancers from a supposedly classless society. :rolleyes:

I guess one way or another, for better or worse, a heirarchy will always emerge.

#8 GWTW

GWTW

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 17 August 2004 - 10:13 AM

Perhaps it has something to do with money... :) In an increasingly corporatized atmosphere, it is easier to justify differences in salaries if the dancers are also in different ranks.

#9 Old Fashioned

Old Fashioned

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 17 August 2004 - 12:24 PM

Good point. Although of course Welch says the reason is:

to encourage dancers who perform featured roles but may not yet have "the complete vocabulary" to be principals or soloists. "The jump from soloist to principal is very large," he says. "I wanted to have intermediate levels."

He didn't seem to have a problem casting apprentices in principal roles, though. :)

Particularly in the case of Oliveira, who is obviously an important (and a favorite among Houstonians) member of the company, that GWTW's reason might apply.

I do like the fact that the corps is being slightly increased and there are fewer principals, which will give each of them more performance opportunities of a single role instead of having a number of dancers share it. We'll still have to wait and see if this is actually the case...

#10 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,022 posts

Posted 24 December 2004 - 02:25 AM

Barry Kerollis, now dancing with PNB, played one of the fathers in the party scene in Act I of The Nutcracker this afternoon. While it wasn't much of a dancing role, he really caught my eye in the scene. It's deep into the season, and by this time, a lot of dancers could be bored with the role, but his vibrant stage presence stood out.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):