This end piece begins with this:
Have you ever gone to a performance, then read a review of it the next day and wondered whether the critic was at the same performance as you -- or even in the same theater? Opinions vary of course. And usually there are certain indications that the reviewer was present-there are no egregious errors of fact, only those seemingly of opinion or, more subtly, taste. What may appear "stylish" to one person may certainly not appear "stylish" to you. And after all, "stylish" is a tricky word, isn't it?
I wish I could give you a link to the whole article but it doesn't appear to be available on line.. Mr. Barnes goes on to say :
He specifically rebuts Jennifer Homans' NY Times article, of 5/26/02, and initially refers to her "a woman I had never heard of"... This comment is just the tip of the iceberg. ;)
Not only is the company dancing as well now as at any time since 1950, but Martins has maintained the company's heritage and its heritage spirit in the most exemplary fashion.
I don't know if you're all too tired of this subject to even comment - however, I thought it was rather odd that Mr. Barnes, or Dance Magazine's editors, waited until Novemeber to publish this. What do you think?