jsmu

LONG overdue for Pazcoguin, a wonderful and magnetic dancer. Lovette, King, and Stanley all have lots of talent--King is, at her best, simultaneously soft and precise. Way too soon for Finlay, but one hopes the promotion will help him mature. Felicitations to all the promoted dancers.

The startling thing is that such an *accomplished* dancer (not just ridiculous balances but formidable turns of all kinds) is often trashed/'flamed'-- particularly when she has none of the toxic pretensions which almost invariably accompany far less accomplished dancers *cough* Somova, etc, etc, etc. *cough* Valdes would probably be excellent in several Balanchine roles--including Allegro Brilliante and Glinka Pas de Trois, which she'll sadly never get to dance...

Yes, I understood your raised eyebrow, Birdsall--and understood that you think of Shirinkina as an ingenue/soubrette. (I feel that neither the adjective 'lovely' nor the adjective 'beautiful' could ever be applied to the abominable and psychotically ill-behaved Battle, whose career finally all but ended due to a) her dreadful, incompetent, and unprepared 'singing' and b) her indescribable attitude--WELL documented, ad nauseam, all over the web and in reality.) I am hoping you will find that Shirinkina has far more virtues than her coloratura, so to speak. You are so lucky to see Big Red (Kondaurova) in anything--although Bizet Adagio would be better, smile. Have heard great things about Osmolkina *and* Vasnetsova-- and Tsar Saltan is a very diverting and spicy rarity which I think you'll love.... I am sure everyone on the board is jealous of you seeing that Beauty, which should be sumptuous.

She is a lovely dancer who should have a much higher rank in the company. Be grateful you're not seeing Skorik or Somova, since they are given anything and everything-- the more unsuitable the better. Mme. Hermine, thank you for posting the Kampa vids. I agree completely about unfounded and ignorant blanket generalizations, particularly those such as 'the Maryinsky is the greatest company in the world...' LOL! Kampa certainly is nowhere near the level--technically, artistically, or in any other way--of great Maryinsky dancers such as Kondaurova, Pavlenko, Tereshkina, Novikova, Kolegova, Matvienko, Vishneva (all of whom except Kondaurova and Pavlenko have danced Kitri, I might add)...it is hard to conceive of any PLAUSIBLE reason that such a young, unfinished, technically unstable dancer would be put in such a huge bravura role instead of one of the aforementioned ballerinas. Kitri is not a role for a novice to cut her teeth on.

Yes, Helene, but my point was that as Elizabeth Taylor famously said 'nothing deodorizes like success.' Of course there are going to continue to be bigots, racists, and hatemongers--but if you noticed the general public response to the idiot comments it was mostly outright dismissal, not to speak of horselaughs. The massive success and fame of Douglas and Mustafina goes a long way--even with idiots--towards demonstrating the absurdity of blanket racial hatreds; for one thing, they are in the public eye and held up as 'role models' as the phrase used to go, lol. Everyone's never going to be ready to sing 'Kumbaya,' but they can at least be discouraged from singing "Deutschland uber Alles" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."

Jane, it was terribly kind of you to post this. Reynolds is an indispensable marvel.

leibling, I'm so glad you said that about Severin-Hansen. She is a prodigious and stellar dancer, on par with anyone at a 'big company' and in fact more dazzling and accomplished than most 'famous' ballerinas. I have never seen a better Tarantella than hers (although sadly of course I did not see McBride), and if you liked Burkhard in Valse you would have expired at Severin-Hansen in the role--the circle of pas couru/grand jetes was transporting. She almost appeared to get higher AS she was descending , for a nanosecond. I think you would have adored her as Terpsichore as well--the opening night cast of Apollo was not as good as the second night cast. I'd have liked to have seen Severin-Hansen as Polyhymnia and in the Morris ('turning') role in Who Cares?, as neither of these parts is usually filled by a dancer completely up to the task, but she was great in the 'leading roles' of both ballets as well. the 'swimming lesson' at the end of the Apollo pdd was memorable.

Really? As someone who's spent a great deal of time in and out of gymnastics, I'm flabbergasted to hear about this. Mustafina was the sensation of 2010 Worlds, absolutely cleaning up. She also won quite a few Olympic medals last summer, and usually such medal success/recognition absolutely precludes discussion of race . I heard no comments ever about the skin color/background of Betty Okino, Dominique Dawes, nor Gabrielle Douglas, to mention the three perhaps most successful black gymnasts in the US, and god knows the US is not noted for civil discourse nor for colorblindness, to say the least. (I think we can leave the idiots' complaints about Douglas' hairstyle where it belongs--in the trash.....)

Quite right about Komleva, who was a vastly underrated ballerina. Asylmuratova was a marvelous Nikiya. I really cannot possibly credit Somova with being acceptable in *anything*, to say the least. Although Obratzsova is ravishing, I don't see her in "Diamonds" at all. I think she would be superb in the Paul role in "Emeralds," possibly in the Verdy role or as the "Rubies" ballerina as well, but "Diamonds" will be a stretch. of course, RB had Cojocaru do it, than whom I can think of NO ONE less suitable....oh, wait, Somova.....

Thank you, flipsy. indeed. the stupidity of Stahl presuming that NYCB is anything like a 'mother ship' twenty-five years after it ceased to be that for Balanchine ballets is really breathtaking. she is stuck in the late Eighties, at best, before Martins had had his effect. She probably is not even aware of the brilliance of many other companies (run by Balanchine dancers/disciples) in his repertory, and the fact that many Balanchine ballets have been best done by MCB or PNB for years..... It hardly helps to have Ashley Bouder and Tiler Peck at NYCB if Martins casts the likes of Yvonne Borree-- and even Megan Fairchild--in Square Dance, for instance. I think the very unsophisticated focus on the actual brutal difficulty of ballet comes, sadly, from the imbecility of the general public on the subject now. A close friend of mine took her niece to a ballet recently--first time for the niece--and the girl's first comment was 'Aunt Kathy, why didn't you tell me the guys in ballet were so RIPPED?!?!?' I rest my case. sigh.

Yes, Balanchine and Danilova worked extremely closely on many projects, including the Coppelia of 1974. It is very likely that Balanchine chivalrously downplayed his contribution to the 'Chopiniana' in deference to Danilova, who after all had been not only one of his first ballerinas but his common-law wife. It is, however, impossible to imagine the dreadful costumes having been Danilova's idea; one of her favorite words was 'perfume,' one which she used constantly in coaching, and there was nothing perfumed about the little exercise outfits this show was presented in. It is also hard to imagine Balanchine thinking such unflattering and brief excuses for costumes were a good idea in a ballet often thought to epitomize the Romantic ballet; probably von Aroldingen was right and, as usual, there was not enough money. That, supposedly, was why we were never given Balanchine's Sleeping Beauty.

MakarovaFan, nothing since could come close to equalling Ashley, Lavery, and Nichols in TPC#2. I hope you saw Nichols as the second ballerina (she was later one of the greatest exponents of the prima role)--unforgettable in the pirouettes with arms en couronne near the end of the first movement pas de trois. In those days ballerinas often 'graduated' from the soloist to the principal role in this ballet (as more recently with Reichlen and Bouder.) pherank, you are correct; it should be TPC#2 in this version. Chiffon, no mime, and no double saut de basques equals TPC#2, lol. It's one thing to have Agon or The Four Temperaments in black and white--for those lean 'modern' lines it is almost imperative. One of Balanchine's great flops was the restaged Les Sylphides of 72 which he called 'Chopiniana;' it had dreadful little leotards and short skirts, lending to the slow sustained lifts an air of 'indiscreet revelation' as a critic pungently observed at the time. von Aroldingen was one of the principals and recalls that there was a beautiful costume made--white, three layers/tiers, flouncy--which she tried on and loved. She further said that 'all those slow landings with NOTHING ON were VERY DISTURBING!' cubanmiamiboy--yes. although Balanchine saved some gorgeous steps from the divine 1953 Valse-Fantaisie (the manege of pas couru-grand jetes; the releves in arabesque...) unless one sees someone like Paul, Ashley, or Nichols in the 1967 version it is nowhere near as marvelous. Melinda Roy was also great in this--jumping was, of course, her thing. that manege was jaw-dropping when she did it--she almost didn't touch the ground.

cubanmiamiboy, I agree; this ballet desperately wants tutus and columns. The fact that Balanchine often changed his ballets in later years does not mean that the changes were always better (Mendelssohn, for example, was always dissatisfied with the Italian Symphony finale--the greatest finale he ever wrote!--and thank god he never tinkered with it.) ; in fact they were sometimes much worse (the horrendous deletions from Apollo being Exhibit A.) If there is any ostentation anywhere in this work of art, it is in the mediocre (for Tchaikovsky) score which Balanchine turned into a masterpiece--and it is most certainly present there. The grandeur of formal costumes is necessary for that and several other reasons; there are tons of great Balanchine ballets in just this kind of nondescript little chiffon schmattas (sigh) and they are fine that way (Allegro Brilliante, etc, etc.) The PNB costumes ain't Karinska, that is for sure, but they are still better than chiffon here.

Giselle is 'not considered a serious musical composition' by any professional musicians I have ever met, having been one myself for decades. That is putting it politely; orchestra members who are forced to endure it have far less complimentary comments on it, which would fill volumes. I have never heard of the musicologist from Oregon who wrote an apologia for the score of Giselle, but that sounds exactly like the sort of thing which musicologists now produce. Tilson Thomas, by the way, is anything but an authority to be cited on anything.

Several points: Tudor was a notoriously ugly, insecure, and vitriolic man, most particularly in rehearsals; several biographies and ,many, MANY dancers subjected to his abuse confirm this, including but not limited to Villella, LeClercq, Wilson, etc. ad infinitum. Therefore, being coached by Tudor was, to say the least, nothing like learning a ballet from Balanchine OR Ashton, both of whom treated their dancers with respect and both of whom had no interest in ugly public humiliations. I would venture to say that Kaye or Wilson would have been infinitely preferable in every way for any staging of his ballets. (sadly, of course, they are gone...) That said, he made masterpieces. They are not just a matter of fragile, evanescent sensibilities either ( although this is certainly a part of them); unfortunately, it requires formidable technical command to make them look good, and more particularly, to make them look easy. LeClercq turned down Caroline (how many ballerinas on earth would ever do that? LOL) , saying it was 'much too hard'......and she was not exactly a technical incompetent. I am very sorry to hear people unimpressed by Jardin, Leaves, etc, when it is the performances , as usual, which are at fault with these great ballets. I recall seeing Kirkland , when I was an infant, in Leaves--it remains indelible to this day, and no one has ever danced it properly since in the performances I've attended. I saw Fracci as Caroline, and the degree of emotional commitment, the beauty of line, the face alone, were epic. (At that time Fracci also had a considerable command of technique, which is something she is rarely credited for...) I certainly have never seen another Caroline on that level, though I'm sure Gregory and Sibley probably were, to name two ballerinas who danced it. Jardin certainly should never come off as second-rate recycled Freud--if that happens, you aren't seeing Jardin. Sadly, Tudor alienated so many people that it is not very surprising how ABT treated him. it is unjustified, and a dreadful loss that they have let their repertoire of his ballets fall into oblivion.

But of course if it's the chiffon costumes (ugh) it is NOT, in fact, 'Ballet Imperial'--without the column, the uniforms, the tutus, and *especially* without the mime, it is just TPC #2. Great ballet as well; completely wrong nomenclature, and extremely misleading to the audience. Yes, certainly steps change, and of course Balanchine himself changed steps for dancers (when Farrell had a bad knee, he removed the jetes in Terpsichore's role, to cite only one well known instance); this is different from dancers saying 'I don't want to do those steps; they're too hard....', and from changing the intention and affect of the ballet, as everyone agrees has happened with Barocco, Donizetti, TPC, and many other ballets. In the Balanchine Celebration twenty years ago (!) beautiful, intricate, virtuoso steps were omitted by the truckload from beautiful, intricate, virtuoso ballets like Glinka and Minkus Pas de Trois. This is not something the Balanchine Trust needs to encourage, to say the least. pherank is quite correct in saying that if a previous KNOWN version can be *correctly* restored, it can always be used. The gorgeous birth scene from Apollo, the omission of which is one of the genius Balanchine's few egregious mistakes (William Weslow is quoted in print as saying that Balanchine cut the birth scene, as he put Baryshnikov in a horrid coverup costume in Prodigal, so that Baryshnikov would *not* create a sensation in that scene. sigh. ) and something not explained away by a flippant remark like 'it's my ballet', LOL. Even Farrell protested when he cut it, as she says in her memoir.

rg, Robbins said somewhere that the boys had beards when he began the rehearsal process for Dances, and that he rather liked them. Prinz is extremely dashing with facial hair. This photo of Mazzo reminds us of how versatile she could be.

Absolutely, Natalia. I was so flabbergasted by the ballerinas and d'Amboise I neglected to mention the corps, which is beyond stellar in a perfectly 'American' way......Balanchine loved his ballets NOT to look like Imperial restagings when , as here, they were intended to be colloquial.

In addition, so far as I know, ABT still does 'Ballet Imperial' (as do MCB and PNB) which is by no stretch the same ballet as TPC#2, and it ain't just the lack of sets and costumes. Therefore, Tallchief was probably staging that ballet, which did have the double saut de basques; many companies seem to prefer Ballet Imperial. pherank, if you view the video of Western Symphony which has just been mentioned elsewhere in this same section of Ballet Talk, you see that schmaltz and goo were by no means always 'show biz', and that Balanchine's dancers in the Fifties had joie de vivre, brilliant technique, candor--and no goo. Re Kirkland complaining about Theme--I believe this was because she was so extremely hard on herself, and because she was one of the few ballerinas I've ever seen perform the entire ballet with brilliance and overwhelming beauty. Her performance with Baryshnikov can still be seen now and then on YouTube. it is breathtaking.

They may well have been taken out by Balanchine; he was known to revise and recast his choreography. However, as in his cutting of Apollo, this was not always a good thing; fortunately, the Balanchine stagers usually allow any version which was 'legitimately done', particularly the original version--unless the Trust has now become even more rigidly self-important, which is always a possibility. The double saut de basques were NOT part of the choreography for the second ballerina; Marie-Jeanne and Moira Shearer, who both danced the ballerina role brilliantly according to Balanchine, both recall them in addition to Tallchief specifically mentioning them.

That's the thing with this performance and the Paris Opera Ballet's record of "Jewels" that always drives me a bit crazy - it's Balanchine leaving all the prickly Balanchine business out. Both companies present the dances smiling and beaming and slightly apologetically, as if what they were doing were a little joke between the them and the audience. Rather than a dance that unfolds behind the proscenium of its own inevitable internal logic. Alicia Alonso in her "Theme & Variations" tutorial video makes an important distinction that holds for even that very extroverted ballet: now this part is presented for the audience and this other part is just before you two, very private. I don't mind the loss of intricacies, it's the layer of schmaltz that's applied - knowing smiles (which I've seen even in the 4Ts) and over-reverentiality, the feeling that the dancer is doing it for her or his resume (but of course everything has that stamp on it today). I thought Farrell Ballet was most successful with slow ballets like Somnabula, which they did quite movingly, rather than allegro works like Union Jack. Villella seems to error on the side of crispness, sharp hand movements, snazzy finish but I think that's a better bias for restaging, at least for fifties/sixties Balanchine. Kyra Nichols said that when she inherited old Balanchine roles, she stripped them - like an art restorer - of their previous interpretations, back to their bare bones and worked out from there. That might be a good way for a restaging to start. AMEN to everything here. That's one reason Nichols was so revelatory in almost every Balanchine part--she removed the barnacles and detritus, restoring roles to their former luster. The 'layer of schmaltz' indeed--it's hideous. everything is coated with goo. I also mind the loss of intricacies when it is a matter not of time and attrition (and the deaths of the dancers who really knew the choreography) but a matter of inadequate technique, as was the case for years at NYCB with Watts and Kistler. Watts and Kistler destroyed every role they touched in their latter years, and, sadly, as they were both intimates of Peter Martins, he let them both run amok for ages. They omitted whatever they could not do/could no longer do/could never do/did not feel like attempting, and developed truly awful 'personae' which they must have felt were more than enough compensation. This sort of thing is what has been killing ballets like La Sonnambula, which both the aforementioned dancers disgraced themselves in. All one need to is listen to Alonso, Marie-Jeanne, Tallchief, etc ad infinitum, to realize that the rigors and brilliance of Balanchine ballets do not withstand laziness, inadequacy, or cabaret turns (except when called for, as in Slaughter, for example, lol)....and that what they run into in staging is dancers who refuse often even to try. (cf Farrell's accounts of staging Scotch in Russia, etc.) Tallchief talks about staging Ballet Imperial at ABT (where one might reasonably expect proper and adequate technique, given its illustrious past?) and telling the young ballerina that she was supposed to do double sauts de basques in the finale. The girl said 'omg, that's what John Taras said--but I thought he was joking--it's so HARD--!!!!!' Sigh.

no, no, NO. I didn't realize my syntax was unclear; sorry. I elided a couple of words ('she is' after Osipova); the follwing sentence refers to what Osipova, though okay, was NOT..... in order of brilliance Osipova was not Bouder, who's terrific in it; not Whelan, who was the abstraction of wit in it; and most definitely not McBride, who was a goddess in it.

The idea of seeing four ballerinas this great in one wonderful ballet is inconceivable. Never again. Adams's legs were once compared to the Solingen scissors, among other flattering comparisons.....one can certainly see why. What amplitude. what beauty. Hayden also has gorgeous legs, in a completely different way.....and is funnier than anyone has ever been since in the Adagio, without mugging and with flawless technique. Kent--well. She was, on top of everything else, a jumper when she was young. LeClercq--where does one start? Superb in every particular. Balanchine cut the Scherzo not because the ballet was too long but because in the absence of Kent and Wilde he felt no one was adequate to the task (when one sees Kent's entrechats, one sees WHY.)..... it was revived by NYCB in the Eighties and early Nineties with Nichols, who was marvelous as usual--however that revival did not last long.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGH. such shallow plies, such careful and gutless penchees, such completely neutered angles (when there even are any.) Don't know who the 'tall girl' is but she is godawful in this role--not the slightest clue. I must disagree about Paris Opera in Rubies as well, sadly--Dupont, normally a great to very good dancer, was the WORST in Rubies I have ever seen her: coy, contrived, precious, WRONG IN EVERY WAY THERE IS. Her partner was not much better, and the corps was somewhat worse. Sigh. I also have not been impressed by Vishneva (also coy and contrived, albeit slightly less pretentious than Dupont --ONLY SLIGHTLY). Osipova was okay. Not even Bouder, much less Whelan, MUCH less McBride.

Horrifying prescience from Clifford (who is clearly not only a wonderful dancer but a highly intelligent writer) about this, but surely even he didn't anticipate MILLEPIED...... The dry comment from Clifford about 'Ms Neary choosing to use the same name for her company' , as well as his praise only for Neary's abilities as a stager and pointed lack of comment on her direction of a company, is matched by the lamentable number of comments about Neary's and Christensen's abysmal lack of skill in handling people; this has long been scuttlebutt among dancers and dance people, but it is sad to see it confirmed by so many people in print. From what has been written by several authors, including Kirkland and Ashley, Neary was an anointed Balanchine princess who fell from grace (her sister was a dazzling principal; she danced parts with the company while still at SAB, etc) and therefore left NYCB. Apparently, her attitude has not improved--far from it.