melange

California, I found a link to a hopefully current pdf seating chart on the new website. When you go to the "Buy tickets" feature on a particular date, instead of clicking "Choose seats," click "Give me the best available seat." Once there, you will see at the top right, it says - faintly - "View Seating Chart." This opens the pdf seating chart. The reason I discovered this, you see, is that the "Choose seats" feature simply refused to load, so I was forced to go for the best available seats. I note that the repertory list is missing a number of works, including Prodigal Son, Opus 19 The Dreamer, The Four Temperaments and La Sonnambula (though Night Shadow is listed) and I presume that NYCB is working on more elaborate entries for some of the major pieces. The pronunciation guide on the old site is gone and should be put back in the education section. I like the look of the new site, though, and I think once NYCB works out the bugs and gets more information uploaded, it should be great.

I rather prefer the current version of Apollo, although, admittedly, maybe because I'm just used to it. One of the things that moves me the most about it is the finale; the way Apollo turns and slowly walks away, followed by the muses, ending with the sunburst pose. It fits the music perfectly and it seems to me that Balanchine took a very nice flourish and turned it into something truly extraordinary. See the contrast by watching Baryshnikov do the current finale here: http://vimeo.com/40893884 Then watch the same thing in an earlier version here (it's at the 1:51 mark). By the way, to anyone who saw the Baryshnikov performance live: you have my undying envy.

Very droll, Bart! It was irritating to see Philip Neal and Chuck Askegard leave, while Millepied stayed. He was the last of the deadwood in the principal ranks, in my view. I wonder who, if anyone, will be elevated in the near future?

This is slightly off topic, but has anyone heard what seating horrors NYCB may have in store for us during Nutcracker season? I ask this because I will have my annual flock of guests in December and The Nutcracker is one of those "things-to-do-while-in-New York." I typically have not had trouble getting as many as four decent seats on short notice for the season off-peak, but given what's been going on lately, I wonder if NYCB is planning to gum up the works this year. It will be dreadfully inconvenient if I am not able to get tickets in the usual straight forward way.

I think from this clip that the score sounds better than a lot of "serious contemporary classical" that's being commissioned these days. It also sounds to me like Sir Paul's been listening to a lot of neo-classical Stravinsky.

The marketing department's reply to ViolinConcerto is actually a masterpiece of corporate pablum--it explains nothing and it promises nothing. It even leaves NYCB an opening to resume the status quo ante if the new policies should prove not to be a box office philosopher's stone. As someone whose task it sometimes has been to blow fairy dust in the face of a disgruntled client, I must compliment K. Brown and her henchmen and women on such a soothing piece of vapidity. Trouble is, neither ViolinConcerto, susanger, nor, I suspect, anyone else, is buying it...

California, thank you for that link; I had completely missed that article. I wonder how many of NYCB's board members really are balletomanes?

In a way I feel sorry for Peter Martins. Don't wait for the punchline; I'm not joking! Martins is the public face of NYCB and thus the one at whom the brickbats are hurled in this whole price rise controversy, but I suspect he has absolutely nothing to do with it. The rather abrupt appointment of Katherine Brown and Martins' rather stilted rhetoric of its announcement at the time suggested to me that the company's governance was unhappy with his stewardship of NYCB's finances and yanked his responsibility therefor when the extent of the company's financial woes became clear in 2008/2009. Not all of his financial management might have been bad, you understand. By way of example, the New York Times noted in its recent article on the dancers' union dispute that the company in practice had disregarded the cap on weeks for which an injured dancer would be paid and I thought that Martins, being a dancer himself, may have winked at the cap and paid injured dancers for far longer. This is nice for dancers, but not for penny-conscious board members. At any rate, if my suspicions are correct, it must be frustrating for Martins to be Katherine Brown's whipping boy. While only time will tell whether Brown will put NYCB in the black, the company's marketing efforts over the last year strike me as merely thrashing about in a desperate attempt to find the silver bullet solution, and this seat-pricing scheme is yet another manifestation of this, though far more disruptive for audience members that last year's "Meet the Principal Dancers" nonsense. May I take the opportunity here to ask for help with a misconception I may have concerning NYCB's governance? I am of the impression that the Board of Directors is largely a ceremonial body, a place for celebrities and ladies-who-lunch to hob-nob with one other, but that the real decision-making power lies with the advisory board, a much smaller body composed of influential business people. Certainly this is the case for other arts institutions, but I don't know if it is so for NYCB. Does anyone have any insight?

Helene, after seeing your post, I looked into this further and it appears that it may well be. I haven't seen the Delouche films, but only found the clip while trolling the Internet for commentary on Liebeslieder Walzer (as one does). Now I think I shall have to watch the Delouche films at once!

I don't know if anyone has posted this before (my search skills are poor), but here is a relaxing nine minutes of Violette Verdy teaching POB dancers Liebeslieder Walzer, a favorite of mine. The video follows the Chinese beverage commercials. http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/cmDjjl_CZk4/

Thanks for posting this. Now I can express my inner Tracey Emin.

I was worried that Maria Kowroski might have injured herself in Thursday's Diamonds, and so was greatly relieved when the curtain rose on Jewels Saturday night without an announcement that she was replaced. Normally, I find Diamonds to be a bit bland, but when the lead couple is very good (for example, last night, as well as with Philip Neal and Wendy Whelan last year) their extended pas de deux can a real treat. Last night Kowroski and Chuck Askegard danced it beautifully. His partnering was flawless and both executed their solo jumps and turns superbly. She looked glowingly at him throughout and he glowed back at her. I found the performance somewhat poignant in its way because it's one of the last times I'll see the Chuck and Maria Show, a traditional pairing I love. The stately latter portion of Emeralds, featuring the four principals and three soloists, ending with the three men kneeling, makes this my favorite act of Jewels. I thought it was danced with great sensitivity last night. Antonio Carmena was impressive, making quick, clean jumps and showing particularly good chemistry with his two solo women, Erica Pereira and Ana Sophia Scheller. But the standout in this section for me was Jenifer Ringer's strong, yet delicate and unhurried solo. She's obviously worked off the sugar plums, because she seemed to float through it. In particular, I was captivated by a series of dreamy arabesque turns. She is a mature and thoughtful dancer with that wealth of experience to bring something special to a role and who still has the physical capability to execute it—a golden spot in her career. A fun aspect of Rubies was the contrast between the styles/body types of the two principal women, Ashley Bouder and Teresa Reichlen. Both were fantastic, with their intricate footwork, tremendous speed and spectacular jumps. A slight disappointment was Gonzalo Garcia, who struck me as a bit stiff (not bad, but not of the same caliber as the principal women). To be frank, I haven't been happy with the Rubies leading men I've seen since Nikolaj Hübbe (Joaquin De Luz, whose dancing is normally jaw-droppingly good, Garcia, Mr. Portman). I'd like to see others in the company get a crack at the principal male role. All in all, a fantastic night in a fantastic season.

I too was at the May 3 performance and, sadly, share your view that Wendy Whelan is not as flexible as she once was. I had already noticed this in a few of her performances last year and I fear the twilight of her career now may not be unimaginable. On a more positive note, I am excited to hear that Chase Finlay's Apollo was a great success and I am champing at the bit for tomorrow's matinee. Perhaps devotees of the unabridged version of Apollo might smile at the thought of a young dancer making this work his breakout role.

Phooey!! I was sooo looking forward to watching Marcovici carry a picket sign during his sarabande in Agon tonight.

I love to see promising young corps members given a crack at marquee principal roles and can't wait to see what Finlay does with Apollo. Peter Boal's and Nikolaj Hübbe's are large shoes to fill, though.

Thank you for drawing our attention to that excerpt, Neryssa - it's convinced me to buy the book. The description of Frances Schreuder's presence at the funeral and burial was positively surreal; if the rest of the book is this vivid, it ought to be a page turner.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think Millepied has more than a little talent as a dancer and on those occasions when he's actually dancing he can give a very satisfying performance. By way of example, I thought his performance of Rubies opposite Janie Taylor last winter was, well, a jewel, as was a rendition of Concerto DSCH the year before. I agree in every respect with the above characterization of his choreography, though, and while I admire his zeal in wanting to make ballet, he shouldn't do it. Heaven forfend that he should harbor thoughts of becoming NYCB's artistic director some day, for if this came to pass we'd never be free of his works. I think the term for littering, choreography-wise is "aporrescation," from the Ancient Greek words ἀπορρίπτω; "to throw away, discard" and ἐσχᾶτιά; loosely, "outlier," the eponymous refuse foisted off on NYCB by Wayne McGregor.

One way you might do this is to tap into the bottomless reservoir of knowledge that is a certain segment of NYCB audiences. I have been helped considerably over the years by conversations with strangers sitting on either side of me, many of whom are only too happy to give pointers or to share their thoughts on a work. Ballet appreciation for a neophyte certainly can be enhanced by a little primer before the curtain goes up. In the 1980s, I had the good fortune of sitting regularly next to or near an elderly lady who understood ballet down to the core of her DNA and who had been a devotee of NYCB for many years (she would talk about Maria Tallchief, Arthur Mitchell and others). Once she realized I was a rank amateur (that took one second), she would explain steps and movements, and alternatively tell me what to watch for or quiz me afterward about what I had or hadn't seen. I know this is a bit of an extreme example, but one can learn a lot from even a casual conversation. So if the opportunity arises at a performance to talk to a knowledgeable audience member, you should take it--who knows, you might even be talking to someone from this board.

Kathryn Morgan reported on Twitter (http://twitter.com/KMorganNYCB) that she expects to be out at least until the spring season. I hope this is just a small bump on her road to principal dancer.

So are we to assume then, that AGMA's objection to Moves simply is an attempt to gain leverage during contract negotiations? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot see how objecting to Moves does anything good for NYCB's dancers, as squelching the project (i.e., tour with the entire company or not at all) would deny them the opportunity to have additional off season work while giving them extra practice dancing the company's repertory with one another, as they would during the season. Since Peter Martins intends to rotate the casts, one cannot say that Moves will be an extra opportunity for a privileged few dancers, to the exclusion of the rest of the company; it's just that the entire company won't touring at a time. Moreover, Moves cannot be anything but good for NYCB, as it will expose the company to a wider audience that may know little of NYCB, or ballet itself, and if Moves captures additional interest in the company, it may result in additional attendance, to the benefit of the company's coffers. Surely the union understands that this cannot be anything but a benefit to the dancers as well, particularly when one recalls how AGMA could do little but sit by and wring its hands when NYCB culled its corps in 2009, ostensibly for lack of funds? A union has the responsibility, indeed the duty, to get the best deal possible for its members, so anything AGMA can do to gain a tactical advantage in contract negotiations is fair play, I suppose, but to object to a scaled down touring company simply because it doesn't include the whole company is simply taking sugar plums out of the dancers' mouths, isn't it?

Wendy Whelan weighs in on Black Swan. Now whose perfume do you suppose it was she stole? http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-04/black-swan-movie-ballerina-wendy-whelan-reviews/full/

Thanks for that link, jmsu; the article was spot on. Speaking of movies, while it wasn't exactly a ballet movie, Waterloo Bridge did feature a fine ballet stereotype in Maria Ouspenskaya's tyrannical ballet mistress.

I've noticed this as well. Macaulay goes on and on about Kathryn Morgan's figure, for example, and I sometimes think his dislike of Wendy Whelan is motivated by her exotic appearance - though I don't recall his actually having said so outright. What is clear, however, is that his preference is not limited to conventional body types. For example, he has a warm spot in his heart for Savannah Lowery. I know you'll all be dewy-eyed at the tenderness of the compliments he paid both her physique and her dancing in his February 17, 2010 review: "Ms. Lowery is a big, strong, broad-framed dancer, learning elegance and refinement the slow way, and occasionally clumsy. But in the whole company there is nobody who communicates such glee in dancing full-out to music. Frequently her dancing has more color than several more conventionally proportioned women who share the same repertory, and there are roles — the soloist in the first movement of “Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet,” for example — in which her incisive force seems definitive." (I think another role in which Lowery radiates an infectious joy is the chief peasant girl in Cortege Hongrois -- she is lovely.) Without saying that Macaulay actually does or does not do this, I will say that to dismiss a dancer out of hand simply because of his or her physical appearance deprives one of the opportunity to enjoy what may be a very satisfying performance.

Quiggin's post, No. 19 in this thread, brings back a memory. One thing that has intrigued me about this whole imbroglio is how quickly and definitively our Internetty, Diggy, Facebookey, Twittery age has enabled it to take on a life of its own. Within hours of Alastair Macaulay's article hitting the whateversphere, we were hit with a firestorm of invective. I don't remember anything like this in the wake of Joan Acocella's 1996? review of one of Wendy Whelan's performances, in which she commented that Whelan "looked like a famine victim," and asked "where is her mother?" (I searched in vain for the article; if someone has a link to it, I'd ask that you please post it). It seems to me that Acocella's comment about Whelan's physical appearance was every bit as snarky and provocative as Macaulay's comment about Jenifer Ringer's. However, it appeared at the tail end of the ballpoint-to-foolscap age, when the capability to give instant angry responses and the fora to view them were limited, so we did not see anything like what we have seen in the past 72 hours. I'm afraid I have to give Macaulay a bit of a pass on this, at least in principle. Although I have loved Wendy Whelan since she was in the corps, I am also forced to admit that her scrawniness occasionally has been sufficiently outlandish to distract from the enjoyment of her always superb dancing. Given the visual aspect of ballet, I do not think discussion of a dancer's physical appearance is necessarily off limits, nor do I think that a good turn of phrase to describe it, even if somewhat mordant, is out of order either. It would have been far more brutal if Macaulay had taken the literal approach and said of Ringer simply "she's tubby." Judging by the discussion of past critics in this thread, Macaulay certainly did not invent harsh criticism, nor do I think his comments set a new dismal standard for gratuitous nastiness. What made me purse my lips, though, was that I know Ringer's medical history, and that Macaulay did not do what a critic ought, which is talk about how she danced that performance.

In a strange way, the the dancers to the left in rg's snapshot above remind me of that sequence in Symphony In Three Movements when the corps girls run around in a circle with arms out, airplane-like. To touch on a point raised earlier in this thread, I think that, to be relevant, any revival of PAMTGG that Peter Martins or Benjamin Millepied might make necessarily must include those current TSA security screening procedures that, of course, did not exist in 1972.