nanushka

My point is that after 10 minutes of searching, this neither showed up nor is it, the most comprehensive article to date, specific enough to answer any of those questions. Nor was it a feature article written at the time to note that ABT had its first black soloist, something newsworthy, entirely appropriate, and hardly patronizing.

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.

I wouldn't expect to find the info in a review, but it would certainly appear in a feature.

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

She is in fact the third to hold this ranking (admittedly an abysmally low number overall), having been preceded by Anne Benna Sims in the 1970’s and Nora Kimball in the mid-80s.

By the same token I will never trust that people who excorciate Misty's performance aren't letting their prejudices about what O/O should look like, their aesthetic preferences for a thin, "white" body, and how a ballerina should "behave" cloud their judgments. Falling off pointe, traveling on fouettes, cutting short the 32, are things I've seen many major ballerinas do. And many of the criticisms are so personal and vile that I doubt they go way beyond not liking how the ballerina dances. So it cuts both ways.

Racism isn't just George Wallace bellowing about segregation forever. Attitudes can be subtle and they can come out in ugly ways and I think we've seen that in some of the Misty discussions.

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.

...Just now I noticed how I first explained why some might take more issue with Misty's "lying" rather than David Hallberg's "lying" because that was the topic at that moment - even though I do not believe in them lying either, in the heat of the moment I just forgot to mention that in my post. After that it got all focused on the "lying" and I failed to take a step back and clarify that it's all just in case someone assumes both are lying which isn't necessarily true...

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

Thanks for the clarification, Helene. And this:

*The reason these aren't specific is that I just spent 10 minutes on google trying to find the names of the other two black female soloists, so I could look up when they were at ABT. With no luck.

is certainly a telling detail!

Once again, I don't think either was lying, given that there's no proof that either spoke with intention to deceive.

My standard is the same for both.

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?

So it's okay to lie as long as you "earn your rank"? Hmmm. Like I said, interesting.

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.

Interesting how there always a million and 1 excuses for Hallberg and other dancers but not Misty. Very interesting.

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

Eh. Noone wants to call this backlash seen in some people for what it is to be honest. For instance, David Hallberg has articles in the NYT, Washington Post and elsewhere proclaiming himself as the "First American at the Bolshoi". He's said it in various recorded interviews even quite recently. Yet nary a peep from the same people typing up long winded negative essays about Misty's "First Black Soloist at ABT" mistake even though she's since corrected that going on 2(plus?) years now.

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.

Since the discussion was technique, sidwich's quote selection does not misrepresent the majority opinion posted here, regardless of what members may have thought about other aspects of her performance.

I'm not sure that's accurate.

Very first review posted:

Part was triumphant! She not only gave us a technically secure Rose Adagio she surprised me with jetes that were practically worthy of Sizova and was ravishingly beautiful throughout.

Second review posted:

I agree, the dancing, was exceptionally good. Part was magnificent -- regal, pure, and except for a little problem with deleve in her Vision variation (the same choreography Vishneva danced at the opening night gala), completely solid. She did not play it safe in the Rose Adagio, taking her time to hold the arms en couronne between each suitor. But it was her noble bearing and exquisite line that made this a performance to savor.

Third review posted:

I can only echo what Susan has already mentioned. Watching Veronika's Rose Adagio was as heart-poundingly exciting as watching Olympic figure skating. All the talk up until that moment about whether or not she could do it made for an unpredictable, on the edge of my seat performance. She not only succeeded in executing the steps and balances, she exceeded everyone's expectations for what she is capable of. People stood up and applauded when she completed the Adagio.

I haven't read the rest yet. But that's just an alternative sampling.

Since the discussion was technique, sidwich's quote selection does not misrepresent the majority opinion posted here, regardless of what members may have thought about other aspects of her performance.

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.

This was 2007, so in the year leading up to her promotion to principal. And I'm not so sure how much of her promotion to principal was an uptick in her technical abilities, and how much was McKenzie moving away from casting her in pieces to which she was not suited like Sleeping Beauty.

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.

I also know I saw her do one of the best Auroras I've ever seen. It remained in her rep until that production was dropped in favor of this one. And she has been given other technically challenging roles since: Le Corsaire and Don Q.

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.

Several of you have mentioned different choreography performed by Part and Abrera in the Lilac Fairy role. I saw two performances of SB, both with Part. Can you give us a couple of specific examples?

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.

Hallberg eventually sort of acquired a sort of mannered iciness to some of his performances, like it was more important for his cape to flutter perfectly as Romeo than anything else.

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).

It would have been great fun to hear Beverly Sills referred to as "Bubbles" at a Board meeting of Lincoln Center. "Bubbles will now give her overview of this year's budget. Bubbles, the floor is yours!" LOL

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!)

I know that, in all honesty, I can react to technical flaws or lapses differently from dancer to dancer. I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. I loved Ferri for the amazing dramatic truthfulness conveyed by her entire body as well as her face. I think of Cojocaru's unique imagination, Mearns - never hold back, go for it intensity. These and few other dancers have an artistry that is so special and transcendent that a technical lapse or flaw seems minuscule. With dancers of less artistry (and that would be most) I look more at how they are doing each step, and flaws become more important. I know lists of great artists might differ but I wonder if others feel the same way.

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'm not a ballet expert by any means, but what Abrera did at that matinee was still much much harder than what Part did.

This is probably getting way too off topic, and I don't want to veer off into discussing the discussion, so I'm done after this post.

Again, I enjoy Part. But I think we all tend to be nicer (myself included) about the technical deficiencies of dancers we like or connect with, and are much harder on those dancers we don't feel a connection with. It's human nature. I'm guilty of it as well. I'm not saying Copeland doesn't deserve much of the criticism (I think she should be able to complete those fouettes by now) but things are never either 100% perfect or 100 % dreck. 99% of dancers fall between those extremes.

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

Reports from CA state that she initially did the Lilac solo that Abrera did, but she could not complete it, hence the change to the other notated solo.

I am not trying to rip apart Veronica Part, I really do like her in most things.

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.)

(I refuse to use the nicknames, too. These dancers are not my "friends")

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.

What about Veronika Part with her technical weaknesses? (I happen to love her dancing.)

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.)

You took the words right out of my mouth, nanushka, and you said it better than I would have. Balletomanes, especially, feel a unique degree of intimacy towards their most beloved dancers. I wonder whether the fact that they expose their bodies to us tends to drop the barriers that normally exist among strangers.

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.