nanushka

Yes, I understood your point. I was just providing the info (i.e. the dates -- though still inexact -- of their being at ABT, which you'd originally said you were unable to find) in case you had still not found it.

The info (though inexact in terms of dates) is in the article by Theresa Ruth Howard that I linked to upthread:

Certainly something more than just an objective analysis of the quality of Misty's dancing is happening in some of those responses that are at times, as you say, excoriating. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that there is a whole range of possible biases that may be motivating those responses. A reaction against Misty's race is just one possibility. True, some may not want to see anything other than a white body onstage. But others may not, for example, want to see their own personal favorite dancers get overshadowed by a dancer they think is overly self-promoting. And still others may have quite different subjective reasons for finding Misty intolerable. My point is not that any of these biases justifies an excoriating description of Misty's dancing. My point is that one should be careful not to assume that those with whom one disagrees are driven by the darkest possible motives. Discussions such as these break down when people begin jumping to conclusions about the hidden meanings behind others' words -- especially because, as I've noted, there's a tendency to assume that others have more extreme opposite views than is necessarily the case.

That's a really illuminating example of what I had in mind in post #118 above, Moonlily!

Thanks for the clarification, Helene. And this: is certainly a telling detail!

There is a difference between saying, "I do not believe X was lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive," and saying, "I believe X was not lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive." I wonder if this difference is at the root of some of the debate between Helene and kfw in this discussion thread. Helene, which of those would you say best articulates your mindset in relation to Copeland and to Hallberg?

I don't read Moonlily's statement as an assertion that's it's okay for Hallberg to lie. I read it as a proposed explanation for why some people are more willing to make excuses for Hallberg than for Copeland. I think one thing that happens in a discussion such as this, where people on both sides are emotionally invested in their arguments, is that statements get interpreted as meaning more than they actually say. In other words, one has a tendency to assume that the person one is conversing with has a more extreme set of views (in opposition to one's own) than they may actually have. Sometimes that's true, and there are people involved in these discussions who have firmly made up their minds on one side of the issue or the other. But there are a lot of people involved in these discussions who are genuinely interested in working through ideas, and their statements can easily be misinterpreted as being more rooted in an ideology than they in fact are. (I think this has happened at times in the context of this particular discussion thread.) I think it's important to try to see what others' words actually say and mean on their own, to the extent that that's possible. (I readily acknowledge that misinterpretations can easily occur and that I have been guilty of them.) Online communication is tricky, because we don't have each others' body language and tones of voice to guide us in interpreting their words.

What excuses have been made for Hallberg's false claims?

I actually just recently read one of those "long winded negative essays" about Misty that made reference to her false claim in direct comparison with David Hallberg's false claim. Sometimes the "They criticize X for Y when they never criticized Z for Y" claims make a very good point -- but sometimes, when one looks, one finds that they did in fact criticize Z for Y as well.

In anticipation of this week's Cinderella performances, I've been reading through this long-defunct set of discussions of the 1969 RB video and of Ashton's ballet more generally: http://balletalert.invisionzone.com/index.php?/forum/144-cinderella-video-royal-ballet-1969/ I've learned a lot and encourage others who may be interested to take a look.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Very first review posted: Second review posted: Third review posted: I haven't read the rest yet. But that's just an alternative sampling.

A comparison was made about the technical deficiencies of a dancer on the eve of her (likely) promotion to principal and those of a dancer two full years before her promotion. It's true that the reviews quoted by sidwich and some of those on this thread describing Misty's technical problems are similar in tone. But given the difference in timeframe, I'm not sure how apt a comparison this is or how much it tells us.

Veronika was promoted in the summer of 2009, actually, so two years after the SB debut. It was reported that she would be leaving ABT at the end of the 2008 Met season, but she ended up staying, and a year later she became a principal.

Yes, she continued to dance Aurora every time it came back and never had anywhere near the degree of difficulty she reportedly had at the premiere. (I did not see that performance, but I've heard from one who did -- and who otherwise loves her dancing -- that it was definitely a low point for her.) Many saw this (along with Nikiya and O/O) as one of her signature roles.

It was actually a totally different variation, so it doesn't really boil down to alterations in steps. The variation Veronika ended up performing in NYC contained a fair amount of mime elements (gestures toward the crib, etc.). I saw three different Lilacs: Teuscher, Part, then Abrera. Teuscher did the more challenging variation, including a particularly tricky step in the latter portion -- perhaps someone with more technical knowledge can describe it. I just remember it included something like a pirouette leading into a shift to the other foot for something else. (Sorry to be so unhelpful in that description!) Teuscher didn't look wholly comfortable with it, but she managed it. When I saw Abrera dance it the final weekend, she altered this step -- there was no longer the tricky shift from foot to foot. But overall she did the more challenging variation that Teuscher had, while Part's was quite different.

Yes, I agree, canbelto. "Mannered" is a good way of putting it. In the year or two leading up to his move to the Bolshoi I really felt this was happening. His dancing began to seem self-regarding, and self-consciously "Art" (with capital and quotes). As a performer, he began to feel very remote. (There was no longer a sense of the "intimacy" I've described elsewhere on this thread. Let's say I began to think of him only as "Hallberg," never as "David.") And this has been enhanced by his more literal remoteness in recent years (he seems to never actually end up dancing with ABT anymore).

Given what Sills' personality seems to have been, I can actually imagine her loving that! (And, in a rather different way, I can imagine Callas loving being called "La Divina" to her face!)

Oh, to be sure. And it works both ways. There are times when I'm willing to put up with less artistry, dramatic imagination, etc. for the sake of enjoying a performance that is technically magnificent. Nearly every performance is a trade-off, isn't it? There have been very few performers in the history of the art, I imagine, who have truly "had it all," leaving nothing to be desired.

I completely agree on all points, regarding both Abrera's more challenging variation and the critical tendencies you describe.

Yes, that's correct. And Abrera altered the trickiest of the steps in the performance in NYC (the last Sat matinee) that I saw too (though she didn't change the whole variation.)

Again, I'd just point out that this is not what the use of nicknames by devotees for performing artists has typically signified or implied and that it's a tradition that goes back centuries. Some choose to talk in this manner and some don't. No problem. But I don't think we should misconstrue or mischaracterize what others are doing with their language.

One of the reasons I assume it took some time for Part to get promoted to principal was the technical weaknesses that marred her performances. These really subsided around the time she finally became principal -- after waiting so long, you may remember, that she came very close to leaving the company the year before. I can't guarantee that they subsided (for the most part) before her promotion (I don't have a firm enough recollection of the timeline), though that was possibly part of what allowed it to finally come. In any case, while she is still not a particularly strong dancer technically, I would not say that, in general, she "could not do the steps or choreography." (Some might point to the recent substitution of an alternate Lilac Fairy variation for her, and I grant the point -- though this was also justified given that there were two different variations in the notations, and she did the easier of the two -- which was also the more dramatically expressive, in keeping with her strengths.) In any case, for the past 5-6 years she has been much stronger technically than she was 7+ years ago. And I don't think it's at all true that "you won't hear [Part's weaknesses] mentioned." (Note: I'm not making any comparisons to Misty or others here. I'm merely responding to your above question.)

And I should emphasize that said devotees would generally not even think of addressing those performers by such names IRL! Perhaps that makes it seem more okay, or perhaps that makes it seem worse. Again, I don't think any disrespect is either intended or produced by these traditions. I think it's quite natural and harmless and even endearing.

Same here -- I'd love to hear more. I've long had mixed feelings about Boylston (really admiring some of her performances, or at least some parts of some of her performances, while being turned off by others); and I've always enjoyed Simkin as a solo dancer. I saw their SL a few years ago and felt they weren't quite ready for prime time but that there were definitely some good elements.

There are centuries-old traditions among the devotees of many performing arts of referring to certain artists (especially, but not exclusively, when they are beloved by those devotees) with names that would normally indicate a greater degree of intimacy than in fact exists between those devotees and artists. I don't think this is a sign of disrespect, infantilization, or any other particularly bad thing. I think (if I may be permitted to psychologize) that it's rather a quite natural result of the intense sense of intimacy that those artists evoke in us through their performances. It's part of the indefinable, strange magic of the performing arts. We feel connected to them, even to those whose performances we don't particularly love.