nanushka

An interesting tidbit in today's New York Times piece on unions in the #metoo era: Probably a very good idea to get that pinned down.

I sat in orchestra G for a Scotch Symphony shortly after it was reported by several people here in that same ballet and heard only one tiny squeak that whole performance, so it seems to be inconsistent.

Actually, this is the final paragraph of the article: It's not 100% clear from that and the rest of the article that the characters themselves are going to do the singing, but that's what "film musical" suggests to me. It's possible the singing and dancing could be a naturalistic part of the dramatic action, though (e.g. if Carmen the character were a professional singer/dancer). The article also notes that Melissa Barrera (Carmen) is currently starring in a film adaptation of the musical In the Heights.

An elf? I've generally seen Oberon referred to as king of the fairies, in both Shakespeare criticism and many other sources. (Obviously Wikipedia is not a definitive source; I offer that just as an easy link to additional sources.) Is there some source that suggests Balanchine conceived of him as an elf, not a fairy? ETA: Are fairies larger than elves? That of course is a whole separate question — and not one I have the expertise to weigh in on!

She doesn’t seem to be doing it, only the divertissement. ETA: realized maybe you meant -a- Hyltin Titania.

Eight, in fact!

Right, gotcha. I wonder how much of a given it was that they'd do Harlequinade for a full week again this year. I know there's a tendency (usually justified) to bring a new piece (especially a full-length) back for a second year, but I wonder if it was ever considered for one of the half-week slots. Harlequinade doesn't have the same sort of box-office appeal as, say, Whipped Cream. May not have been a very wise decision.

Miserable attendance for Whipped Cream? Was it that bad last year? I knew it was less well sold than the first year but thought it ended up getting still decent audiences.

Agreed! I don't understand why ABT is doing Whipped Cream again. If one idea is that this production could become a reliable, family-friendly money maker à la Nutcracker, even just thinking slightly longer term it would seem to make sense to wait a year (assuming they're not planning to do it four years in a row!). Some kids who've been too young to attend would grow more into it, and some families who've attended and loved it would be even more eager for its return.

I assumed they were a good deal different (have never seen NYCB's) — no?

🙋‍♂️ Yup, that's me. The Met season used to be the highlight of my dance-going year — indeed, one of the highlights of my year, period. This year I'm barely aware it's begun. I'm skipping Harlequinade, skipping Whipped Cream (loved it, but we've had it two years in a row already), seeing one Ratmansky mixed program, then nothing else until Jane Eyre — which, based on the few clips I've seen on social media and elsewhere, I would typically run not walk away from, except I've been dying to see Tom Forster do a full-length lead at the Met.

August, usually. Probably the second or third Sunday, I think? The three main seasons of 2019-20 (fall, winter, spring — but not Nutcracker) will go on sale at once for single tickets.

Yes, if production A is based on a core text and later production B is based on that same core text, it does not follow that production B is "reproducing" production A. These two statements... and ...are not synonymous.

Better yet, we have Ratmansky’s own words (emphases added): It is clear from these comments that, while the Bakst designs were the basis for Ratmansky's physical production, he viewed Petipa (via Sergeyev), not the 1921 production, as his choreographic urtext. He clearly viewed any departures from the original Petipa choreography and style (to the extent that he was able to discern Petipa's intentions) — including those that brought him in line with certain elements of the dancing in the 1921 production, such as the fish dives — as just that: departures, changes, accommodations (he uses all three of those terms). That would not be the case if, indeed, it were true that, in terms of choreography... As has been pointed out, a ballet production has multiple distinct (though certainly interconnected) elements: It is clear from Ratmansky's comments that he had different intentions when it came to those different elements — and particularly when it came to the last (choreography) in comparison with the preceding two (scenery, costumes).

Right. So both the 1921 production and Ratmansky's production were based on an earlier source. I’m not aware of any published commentary indicating that Ratmansky was aiming to reproduce the 1921 Sleeping Princess in terms of choreography. Rather, it’s my understanding that he was aiming for Petipa, via Sergeyev (the closest he could get).

There were also two different versions of the Lilac Fairy's variation danced, as I recall.

Is this correct? The set and costume designs of Ratmansky's production were based on the Bakst designs, but I understood his choreography to have been an attempt to reach back earlier, not to replicate what was danced in 1921. I believe he acknowledged that the fish dives were ahistorical. (And at least one cast performed it without them, as in the original.)

That's not her only listed performance, nor even her only listed performance in Whipped Cream (the other is on May 29). She has two Swan Lake performances as usual, for instance — among others. ETA: Her full schedule is listed here.

One of the first things I remember ever noticing about Aaron Sanz was his gorgeous use of hands (I don't even know what it was in — just a corps part in one of the Balanchine-Tchaikovsky pieces, I think), but I can imagine how at some times, in some roles, that might be too much.

No problem. I look forward to reading your take on the book!

There is a thread dedicated to Apollo's Angels here:

I’m curious if anyone saw Scotch Symphony both Tuesday and today and if today’s performance may have been more satisfying. Bouder’s shoes only squeaked a bit that I could hear and the adagio was better than I’d expected. I wouldn’t call her a delicate sylph but then this is Balanchine not La Sylphide, and she did have more lightness than I’ve often seen from her. (And few facial Ashleyisms except in bit of the final movement.) Gordon was lovely. Alec Knight’s dancing is so large — on some kicks to the front he got his leg a good foot higher than Lars Nelson, it seemed. India Bradley was in the corps and while I always like her dancing she was noticeably behind the beat compared with others onstage. I know Mendelssohn doesn’t give Balanchine a ton to work with in the final portion of the finale but I find the ending sequence so disappointing. After the bower, there’s hardly any real inspiration in the choreography. I like when the man kind of throws the woman to the side into something like a pas de chat, but otherwise yawn. Overall though I do love the piece, and it’s a great opener. It was my first time getting to see it live.

So as part of the arbitration process, NYCB would never have had an opportunity to make a case that it was? What, then, was the evidentiary basis on which the arbitrator would have made his or her determination?

Possible — but what makes this a more likely explanation of the events than any other?

What do people think of Baily Jones? She's debuting the Scotch Symphony soloist role (I'm assuming — she's listed third), and I don't recall her dancing from any times I may have seen her.