nanushka

I don't know the SFB performance schedule. Assuming MK were to become an ABT principal, would she be free to perform at other times in addition to the spring season?

I agree, though the partnering is also an issue. It's really too bad that he's kind of become a principal "in name only."

And, we should say, Simkin's. I have a friend who got tickets to this specifically after seeing his Bluebird the other week.

Wow! Okay, so the Ratmansky production's wig for the Queen is actually toned down in comparison! What a beautiful image! Thanks for posting.

I went back and reread some of last year's spring season Swan Lake thread today, and it made me realize just how much BA "airtime" has been taken up this season by discussions of the state of the company, of casting, of behind-the-scenes matters, etc. Certainly there have always been topics on the forum such as this one, and certainly the discussion of such matters has always played a role even in the production-specific threads. But I really got the (completely unverified, unscientific) sense that the proportion of time spent discussing actual performances and what was seen onstage at the Met this year is much lower. Seems like a clear sign (as if we needed one) that this company is not in very good shape. It was also interesting to be reminded of what happened during last year's SL run: after stepping into Acts III-IV for an injured Gillian on Monday night, Hee Seo picked up Cojocaru's SL on Friday at very short notice (5 pm or so the previous day), leaving many subscribers unable to make exchanges. After dancing that night's SL, she and Bolle again danced the very next night. Quite reminiscent especially of this season's R&J drama!

Or we would be, if they cared a bit more for what we think and how we feel about them as an organization. That's another thing I'd add to the list of necessities for ABT to renew itself: cultivating a stronger relationship with audiences through, among (many) other things, subscription/exchange/etc. policies that make sense and that, while they may not benefit the company financially in the day-by-day short-term record books, could certainly benefit them longer term.

Fair enough (though I'm among those who appreciated the opportunity to see the original choreo and thought it was quite striking). But that's quite a different message from "That's a No-No in my balletomane book."

You've said yourself, above, that the Russian tradition is no fish dives, and Ratmansky (a Russian) is explicitly returning to the original Russian tradition of this ballet's earliest years, as it was performed in 1890 and notated in the decades that followed. Given that, and the fact that nothing we've seen has indicated that either Herman or Sarah are unable to perform fish dives any longer, and given that an announcement was made well in advance that these two would perform what was identified as having been the original choreography -- well, I think Occam's Razor gives us our likely answer. Granted, that's no proof. But my inclination is to give these dancers the benefit of the doubt.

Very well put.

I'm not sure I understand your system of "ratings," miliosr. What do "+1" and "-1" mean? And why, for instance, is Veronika Part "-1 in medium term" while Gillian Murphy is "+1 in long term" when they are separated by only a year in age? I certainly did not see in Veronika's recent Nikiya a dancer who is moving toward retirement at a noticeably faster pace than Gillian.

Yes, and as Ratmansky made very clear in many interviews, the choreography was from the earlier notations. There were similarly two different versions of the entire Lilac Fairy solo that were done, both of which came from the notations. Some of these distinctions (and even some of the other features, like chaines on demi-pointe) may well fall out of this production over the years, but I think it makes sense, on a first offering, that he'd want to offer as complete a picture of what he found in the notations as possible.

I agree with much of your overall assessment, cubanmiamiboy. Just a note each on these two points. I believe Ratmansky was facing the task of keeping the evening within (roughly) a three-hour limit, both for union/overtime reasons and for the general comfort and enjoyment of the non-balletomane audience. He left out the march that opens Act III (one of my favorite bits of music -- I love the music that opens all three acts, each exciting in its own way), and he likely left out the repeats of the panorama music (as well as the solo that follows) for the same reason. I suspect this was a trade-off for reintroducing the Act III variations. He likely wanted to keep in as much of the dancing and mime as possible, and saw the orchestral parts as more expendable. Second, it was announced well in advance that Lane-Cornejo would do the original choreo for the Wedding PDD. Like Helene, I doubt that this was because they were unable to do the fish dives. I'm not even sure that it was they who opted out, as Helene suggests. It may well be that Ratmansky wanted at least one cast to do the original, so it could be seen. I thought the original version was quite lovely, and I preferred it to the less-than-stellar fish dives I saw from Boylston/Gorak and (to a lesser extent) Murphy/Whiteside.

Shocking that the prospect of "dancing" more Bathildes and SB Queens was perhaps not enough (if indeed she is leaving) to convince Leanne Underwood to stay at ABT!

The story would have been far more newsworthy and had far more of an impact in the days following Misty's likely promotion. The WSJ could very well have waited a few weeks and published it then. At that point, actual events would have occurred that would constitute news. This is a classic PR move, and it forces McKenzie's hand (as if it needed much forcing at this point). If he passes over Misty for promotion now, he looks even worse than he otherwise would have, and in the eyes of an even wider audience. If I'm right, and if the woman who handles Misty's PR (who has shown herself to be quite excellent at her job in the past) played a role in getting this piece published at this time, this is "a bad thing" (though nothing very new) for journalism and for the integrity (or what remains of it) of ABT's decisions about promotion, but it's a brilliant move for Misty. And that's true even if you think (as I do) that her promotion is inevitable at this point -- because this means it will make an even bigger splash when it comes, which only boosts her PR even more.

Well, there's also her dancing. Yes, it's often good and sometimes even very good. But I don't think we can say it's without "fault." Certainly it's part of what she's often criticized for. The criticisms aren't always so shallow or baseless.

I know. I'm surprised the masses who hated The Tempest (and the slightly smaller masses who hated R's Firebird) haven't chimed in yet.

Looking at the overall casting for this week, I have to say I don't think I've ever been less excited about a Swan Lake week at ABT. (And I usually consider it one of the highlights of the season, despite its ubiquity.) I'm depressed about the prospects for this company.

It's true that's all unknown to a lot of people outside the dance world. That doesn't make it "news," or worthy of an article. Let her get promoted; then write the article. Then the actual "news" will have happened. No reason why this article couldn't have appeared a month from now -- except if you're working in p.r.

What is the "news," exactly? That some people think something should happen, which hasn't happened yet? That's called a whisper campaign -- it's not news. And it becomes much more than a whisper campaign when you get someone in the WSJ to write an article about it. It becomes pressure publicly exerted.

Definitely the way to go.

This part is essential! I would say that ABT marketing is a disaster, but it doesn't even exist in a sufficient form to be given that term. They seriously need help in this area. When it comes to ABT renewing itself, this is essential!

I would love to see a double bill of Ratmansky's Firebird and Tempest -- though I realize I am in the minority on that!

I'm thinking, for example, of a video I've seen on YouTube of Veronika Part dancing in Baltimore Ballet's Nutcracker back in 2007. Not one you mentioned, but (I'm guessing) not a ballet academy either, and what I imagine one would call a "regional company."

I suspect cobweb may have been thinking of the types of companies that ABT principals themselves often get flown in to for yearly Nutcrackers. That's not uncommon, is it?

I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that Misty Copeland will be made principal at the end of this season. The box office and her PR team have made that a fait accompli, in my opinion. And fine, I understand that issues other than pure talent and skill need to be considered and accounted for. How I actually feel about and interpret her promotion when it happens, though, will be completely dependent upon who else gets promoted along with her. Does either Stella or Sarah get promoted as well? (I have a really hard time imagining Kevin actually doing that, but setting that aside.) If so, then I'll consider it a fair deal, the sort of concession that needs to be made for the viability of the art as a business.