nanushka

Just curious, which roles were created on her? I haven't been following ABT long enough to have a sense of this.

You may well be right, Helene, but let me offer a brief example of just one possible impact I can imagine. In this time of aging audiences and donor bases, arts organizations need to be thinking about ways of attracting new, younger audiences and donors. This is precisely the demographic that is most attuned to the sorts of non-professional voices I described above. And this is also the demographic that, particularly in a place like NYC, is most attuned to social issues such as race. If ABT in particular, and ballet more generally, gets bad press (and I use the term broadly -- again, to include voices beyond the legacy media) about being racially exclusionary (as opposed to just being racially exclusionary -- which of course it has been all along), it's not unreasonable to think that those potential audiences and donors may be turned off and keep away in larger numbers than they otherwise would. This has the potential not just to put ABT "back to business as usual" but to inhibit future growth. And I don't think it's unreasonable to think that McKenzie and the board are cognizant of that possibility. You've said several times that there is no "finite date" for Misty's promotion. But in the world beyond those who are in-the-know about the workings of ABT, the sense of a finite date has indeed been established, for example by articles such as the WSJ one that began this thread. (That's one of the things that I think is unfortunate about that article's appearance.) If others are promoted next week and Misty is not, there will be a sense that she has indeed been passed over, denied promotion. McKenzie could certainly say, "not ready yet, maybe later, we look forward to the day we can." But we all know that an organization rarely has complete control over its message. Those other voices I've discussed could well write the narrative that gets heard -- and, again, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it's at least possible McKenzie and the board are aware of and concerned about that possibility. I'm not saying it's a sure thing that this is something they're worried about. I'm saying it's not unreasonable to think that it is. Do I believe that Misty deserves to become an ABT principal? No. Do I believe that, if she does, it will be solely or even primarily because of race-related pressures that McKenzie et al are experiencing? No. Do I believe that it's at least possible they are feeling such pressures? Yes.

In my opinion, Gorak is far more deserving of promotion than Hammoudi, even just one year after his promotion to soloist. But yes, I suspect that Hammoudi may well be next in line.

Nowadays the "legacy media" is not all that matters -- not by a long shot. Just because something's not on network television or in mass circulation through print media doesn't mean it doesn't have impact and authority. I know that here on Ballet Alert there are still strictures against citing "non-professional" critics, bloggers, cultural commentators, etc. But in the world at large, those voices really do matter. One doesn't need an editor or a magazine/newspaper byline anymore to play a big role in the broader cultural conversation of issues such as this. And if enough of those sorts of voices begin responding -- well, yes, a groundswell can occur.

That's an explanation of Parrish's departure. Perhaps angelica's question was a genuine one. Does anyone recall the circumstances of Golding's departure from ABT?

Tonight's Swan Lake was a mixed bag. I'll begin at (or just after) the beginning. The evening really began in earnest with bar 5 of the prelude, when the principal clarinetist (listed in the program as Jon Manasse) took over from the serviceable but undistinguished principal oboist. Infusing the second four bars of the piece with truly insightful phrasing and truly embodying the music, here was a genuine musician -- rare in this pit during the two months following the Met Orchestra's departure. Throughout the evening, Manasse's occasional solo phrases brought life and freshness to every piece in which he was featured, however briefly. Seriously: listen for him next time. I noticed this on Wednesday as well. He really stands out. Okay, on to the dancing. The first thing I did on opening my program was to look at the PDT casting, hoping to high heaven that it'd be Lane-Brandt-Gorak. And it was! And they were phenomenal. I haven't seen a better PDT in a long time -- perhaps ever, in my 8 years seeing this production. I never saw Cornejo-Reyes-Cornejo dance this live. Certainly there have been standout performances in the past -- e.g. Ricetto, on some evenings -- but as an ensemble, this one was a true highlight. I've praised Joey Gorak's dancing on numerous past occasions, so let me just add one new observation: his double tours. Wow. He is a perfect spinning needle in those. Perfectly upright, vertically elongated, yet totally compact, and super-fast. Exceptional. And one observation about Sarah Lane: when completing each pirouette, she has a way of keeping her leg tucked up extra-long, giving a sense of fully completed movement, seen through to the very last possible moment. Skylar Brandt did the entrechats exactly as choreographed (i.e. what Luciana Paris on Wednesday night did not do), and looked great. I've always felt bad for poor Benno in this production, as he gets wheedled into dancing again right after the PDT's conclusion, and tonight it really took a toll. Gorak almost let the corps girl (does anyone know who she was? I was a bit too far away to tell) fall right out of his hands (or, hand, rather, as it was one of those slightly tricky spins where he takes her hand above her head) onto the floor. Audible intakes of breath from me and many others at that moment, but they saved it. One unfortunate effect, though, was that this made the other corps girl "falling" during the Danse des coupes a few minutes later seem even more unfunny than usual. I'll get to the principals in a bit, so moving on to Act II. The cygnettes did it! Bravi to Cassandra Ternary, Luciana Paris, Courtlyn Hanson, and Gemma Bond. They got through those dastardly four measures (the return of the music's A section with the hops to stage right -- forgive my lack of proper vocabulary) in time with the music! (Admittedly, the conductor was gracious and slowed it down a bit for those bars -- but still, I'd prefer that to steps so obviously behind the beat, as so often happens with this company's cygnettes.) We got another very well paired duo as the two big swans tonight: Devon Teuscher and Stella Abrera. Still, I missed Melanie Hamrick's grace and luxuriousness (from Wednesday night) in their solo. (I know, I know -- Stella has those qualities too! But tonight I just wasn't seeing it quite as much as usual.) Act III. Same Neapolitan duo as Wednesday night, Gabe Stone Shayer and Jonathan Klein. Someone apparently talked to Jonathan after that performance and told him to get his act together and get on the beat, so there was no longer as much lag time between Gabe and him. But really, most of that number I spent looking at Gabe's feet. Have you seen that French and Saunders ballerina sketch (recently mentioned on another discussion thread, by the way) where Saunders recites, "Good toes, naughty toes, good toes, naughty toes"? (See here.) Well, Gabe has ​very naughty toes. Perhaps I was particularly attuned to this after watching Joey Gorak (who has very good toes) dance. But really. Point those toes! Lift that arch! Among the four princesses in the waltz with Siegfried, Cassandra Ternary really stood out. She has such presence onstage, giving each gesture and step a small bit of meaning or intention that makes it really sing out. Gemma Bond was the Italian princess, the one who rises on pointe and is drawn to Rothbart after he's seduced the other three. Well, tonight, when drawn in, she was taking steps reminiscent of a toddler learning to walk. Slow and uneven. What a difference from Renata Pavam, who used to rise up and just be sucked in with speed and delicacy in her quick steps. James Whiteside definitely has a lot of potential as Purple VR. Technically, he's got it. And he is such a showman. This is one place where his...shall I say, "non-classical" side career really serves him well. He is a real showman. In that respect, too, the best I've seen besides Marcelo (and, once, dim yet pulsing in my memory, David Hallberg). But I do wish he'd use the space around his body more generously. When reaching out his arms to draw in the girls, I want to see him draw them in with the full extension of his arms. That wasn't happening tonight. (His gesture of dismissal, sending them offstage before the start of the Black Swan PDD, was magnificently commanding, though!) Part of the problem was tempo. Here, as elsewhere throughout the evening, David LaMarche was conducting very much on the fast side. At times, I was very happy with this. When Gorak came in during the PDT coda, the music hardly slowed down at all; usually, it's a jarring shift there. The same thing often happens when Odette comes in during the Act II PDD coda; but here too, tonight, the shift was less jarring than usual. I really liked this. (And both Gorak and Kochetkova were equally up to the challenge.) But at other times, it seemed as if quick tempi were being used to allow dancers to speed through their dances in an "impressive" but not truly fulfilling manner. This was most a problem during the Act II adagio. Which, really, was more like an andante. So this bring us to Kochetkova and Cornejo. This was only my second time seeing Kochetkova live. (First was this season's Sat. eve. Bayadere, with Sarafanov.) It's nice to see a dancer whose technique you don't have to really worry about at all. Her style, though, I think leaves something (I won't say "much") to be desired. There are definitely some good attempts at characterization happening there. But I don't see her really luxuriating in any of her movements as I'd like to. (Ok, yes, I'm coming off of Veronika's performance. But still.) Everything is a bit too clipped. She doesn't seem to have the music deep within her. And this problem was exacerbated by the fact that the music was really too fast. The same was true in Act III, both in the first movement and in her variation. And at times she didn't even take the time that the music allowed her. At the end of the Black Swan PDD's first movement, for instance, she got into her final position nearly a full beat before the music's conclusion. Throughout the evening, too, I felt her leg in arabesque or any sort of extension was droopy. It seemed weighted down. This was most apparent in Odile's hops backward into arabesque during the coda, where it almost seemed she'd trip over that back leg, so close it was to the floor. (I also had in mind the pair of photos that abatt helpfully posted upthread, comparing Misty and Gillian in the iconic pose. At this moment, Kochetkova's leg was drooping at around 40 degrees.) As for Cornejo. Fine, but not his best. After Wednesday, I missed Cory's cleanness and expansiveness and careful control of line. The characteristic Cornejo bravura is still there in part, though diminished. But there was also some occasional sloppiness (e.g. tours tilting to the side) -- again, perhaps exacerbated in comparison with Gorak, who was near perfection. And really, not much more clear characterization than from Cory. Perhaps some of my experience was affected by the fact that, after sitting very close on Wednesday night, tonight I was up in Dress Circle -- the first time I've seen SL not from Orchestra. Well, let me say that for this particular production it is not a great perspective. Two problems: (1) the swan corps is so depleted (really? only 18 swans come out at the start?) that it really looks like Swan Pond, not Swan Lake; and (2) the floor "design" really just looks like algae growing on the surface of standing water, simply adding to the Swan Pond effect.

Wonder if ABT noticed she'd scooped them and they asked her to change it for the time being? (That's of course assuming there's news about her on the horizon.)

My money's on Copeland and Kochetkova becoming ABT principals. I will be very surprised (though, in either case, happy) if either Abrera or Lane is promoted.

That is indeed useful to keep in mind. One common narrative runs, "Misty was basically one of KM's so-called 'flagship soloists,' not destined for promotion, until her PR campaign boosted her career and put her on the principal track." A counter-narrative then runs, "Misty was on her way to bigger roles and a more prominent position in the company, beginning with her assignment in Firebird, but a serious injury sidelined her for awhile; now she's back, taking on bigger roles, and on her way to likely promotion." Of course it needn't be purely one or the other. It's quite possible the truth is somewhere in between -- or that there are other narratives altogether that one should consider.

So you'd prefer that the company not only brought in fewer guest artists but also had fewer non-American regular principals on its roster? That'd be quite a change from decades of its tradition.

Interesting, because I don't think of Shevchenko as fitting that description (lots of tricks with not much musicality or expression).

Or it shows good (or, at least, prior) planning (if she knew it was possible she didn't get through them and wanted a back-up plan ready). Either explanation seems equally possible to me. Either way, it's good that she handled it in a way that many (if not most) observers seem to think worked out okay.

Monday night, it was reported here, was Gorak, Lane and Brandt. I don't recall which of the two variations Lane usually does, but the part in question occurs in the coda and is done by whichever woman dances the 1st variation (Luciana Paris on Wednesday night).

canbelto, I really don't think kfw is making a point about Misty's debut in particular. kfw is making a point about language usage (see above posts). The same point could be made (though I wouldn't make it -- because I have no problem with this use of the word "honored") about someone's attending any event of significance for which one has purchased a ticket. Not everything is a dig at Misty or her dancing!

Better than saying you're aggravated, right? (Sorry -- couldn't help myself.)

Not asking anyone in particular -- especially since, from dirac's most recent post, it sounds like dirac may be tired of the conversation. My aim was merely to parse your earlier statement, the one that seemed to be the object of particular criticism (and which I found to be, for the most part, insightful and well articulated), and to open up its terms for further conversation, should anyone care to take the bait.

This seems to me like more of an impressionistic description than an analysis. Let's take it piece by piece: Is Misty engaged in what might be termed "a PR offensive"? Has Misty's PR campaign included "accusations of racism"? Has Misty's PR campaign included "a false claim to singularity"? As part of a PR campaign, are accusations of racism and/or a false claim to singularity "an appeal to something besides merit"? (Note: That would not exclude an appeal to merit as well. But is "something besides merit" part of the appeal that's being made?) Are accusations of racism and/or racial groundbreaking highly effective today? Will we ever know whether Misty's promotion (should it come) was earned solely on merit? If so, is it unfortunate that we will never know that?

"To honor," as a verb, means to hold in respect or esteem, to confer distinction upon. (I'm referring to American Heritage, 5th ed.) "Honor," as a noun, can (among numerous other things) mean "great privilege" -- as in, "I have the honor of welcoming you here." I believe that kfw is quibbling over the nowadays quite conventional and idiomatic (but, to language purists, somehow distasteful) transformation of the noun's meaning into use as a passive verb or predicate adjective -- i.e. saying "I'm honored" when one means one feels privileged. (Forgive me, kfw, if I'm wrong, and if in fact you are making a quite different point.) In other words, Damian Woetzel was not being held in respect or esteem, and was not having a distinction conferred upon him, therefore he was not "honored." But he did feel it was a great privilege, I assume, and I assume that's what he meant. And now that I look back upthread, I see that kfw originally used the noun form in citing Woetzel, not the adj/verb form: "And Damien Woetzel felt it was an "honor" to be there." So I'm not really sure what the problem is. Did it, to him, feel like a great privilege to be there? If so, I think his use of language is perfectly correct. Edited to add: Literally, of course, it was not a privilege ("A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit") for Woetzel to be present at the event. That, too, could be the object of kfw's criticism. But again, when one says, "It's an honor to be here for this special event," one is generally understood to be saying, "It feels like a great privilege to be here -- I feel lucky to have been present for this occasion." So again, I don't see a problem. Our language is perpetually being used in ways that are not strictly literal.

I think you are assuming that those of us who approach Misty and her story with an attitude of skepticism -- not in the sense of disbelief or suspicion, but in the sense of questioning and agnosticism -- are in fact extremists in opposition to your views, believers in the statement that "Misty Copeland is a Big Honking Liar." I would not have an interest in such a discussion among "the like-minded," and when I have encountered such I've found it tiresome. If you read what I have written upthread I think you will see that I am not of a settled mind when it comes to many things Misty. Based on my first-hand experience of seeing her dance, I do not think that she deserves promotion at this time. But this discussion has not primarily been about that question, nor was it ever (I think, based on its topic) intended to be primarily about that question. There are many other issues surrounding this individual that are interesting and, I think, worthy of discussion -- and on many of those issues, my mind is not at all settled or made up.

I think this gets to the crux of the issue. I said upthread that I wasn't convinced she was lying. But this is the point that leaves me unconvinced she was not lying. A definitive claim without any due diligence done to ascertain its truth -- that seems problematic to me.

Again, a point that I think is a very good one. I still don't see how she would get from this lack of knowledge to making a definitive statement like the one she made in the 2008 interview. That leap seems problematic to me.

Doesn't the very act of making the statement -- ""They've never had a black woman make it past the corps de ballet" -- suggest that one has looked into the history?

I agree with what you say here, but I also don't see anything in kfw's posts that contradicts this. Perhaps I'm missing something.

I don't see how this is "left out" in kfw's post, the one that I think was mainly under dispute here. I emphasize in bold below: What exactly in this post is being disputed?

Any reports on Thomas Forster's Purple Rothbart Tuesday night? Would love to hear how that went. Thanks!