nanushka

True. He opens himself up to criticism from multiple sides. ("Maybe he wasn't enough of a man to take it.") ("Maybe he was being homophobic.") (“Maybe he isn’t fluent in English.”) (etc.)

True, I think. But taking Vs1's comment to be referring to the alleged victim (which your original reference was not), I think it does make sense. Edited to add: Actually, I think Vs1's original comment may have been about Copley, and then we switched to talking about the chorus member.

Though of course he might not have fully anticipated the effects of his choice. So it has to have been thought worth the risk at the time, and he could have different feelings now. Just a possibility, I'm not suggesting that's necessarily the case.

I love seeing Sara Leland in a number of Clifford's video's, including that Valse Fantaisie. She has such a delightful air.

Beautiful. Dowell was my proto-danseur. I watched him on the Royal's Swan Lake video with Makarova at age — 10? 12? — and have loved his dancing ever since.

He might. But his supporters might not. That could definitely be a major factor in that complexity. I'm worried for the company.

To be completely pragmatic, without regard for anything else for a moment, I feel like this is bad for the company. This transition is not going to be smooth.

Wow! This makes me really wish I'd seen her live!

Very true. Our "baseball" cards are going to need two entries for height, because of course one wants to know both!

Thanks for the link, dirac. (Love love love that video of Tanny in Faun that's linked there.) Photos can be tricky for comparing height, because there's the angle/perspective issue, plus figures are rarely standing straight up, and usually multiple figures are slouching (though of course that's not the right word, especially for dancers!) to varying degrees and in differing ways. (E.g. It's hard to judge from the photo of Tereshkina and Vishneva above, though I think canbelto's estimate is probably about right.)

Yes, and she does not look particularly short in the video of that piece, but I figured from seeing her a few rows down from me recently that she was somewhere around there (though her height may have diminished a bit in age).

Oh wow. Thanks, I was particularly curious about her, as I thought she looked quite tall and I definitely have a thing for tall ballerinas. Thanks for the pics, canbelto.

Until some enterprising and tech-savvy BAer comes up with a phone app that can serve as the ballet equivalent of baseball cards, giving us full stats for all our favorite dancers at the touch of a finger, I thought I’d mine the collective wisdom of the site to get some info on a few dancers whose heights I’ve been curious about. My ballet-going has been geographically limited and was, until the last decade or so, quite irregular, but I’m a ballet-on-YouTube junkie, and so there are a lot of dancers past and present whom I’m familiar with only from video—a medium in which height seems particularly tricky to discern at times. (It seems easier with some body types than others.) I’d love to hear any info or estimates anyone has for the dancers below. Does anyone else have others they’d like to know about? (I’m sure I’ll think of more to add to my own list.) Allegra Kent Tanaquil Le Clercq Agnès Letestu Monique Loudières Galina Mezentseva Viktoria Tereshkina Thanks in advance for any info!

Photographs can convey (or at least suggest) values through their formal features, it's true. One isn't seeing the body; one is seeing a particular representation of the body, in two dimensions, with a whole variety of compositional techniques coming into play.

Completely get that. Not the word I would use. But the image is striking, and not in a completely comfortable way (for me).

Hmm, yes, at least on her back those don't look like muscles to me, they look like ribs — more prominent than I can remember seeing on any other dancer.

Despite your caveat, CTballetfan, you've written a remarkably vivid report of your impressions. Not having seen this ballet myself, I nonetheless found this really valuable to read. So thanks!

Good article. Nicely hits various facets of the issue in a short space.

Is it possible that he's represented by the same union but not only in conjunction with his specific job at the Met? I work in a field in which unions play no role whatsoever, so I'm rather stupid when it comes to how they work and are organized.

I agree, though perhaps not for the same reason. To my mind, someone made a stupid mistake then paid a relatively modest and commensurate price for it. Onward...

Also, if much of the sourcing for that is still coming just from posts and comments on Norman Lebrecht's blog (I haven't seen any other sources referenced here), that site is notoriously troll-infested (using the term respectfully in its official sense, of course), and the comments there are mostly based on gossip and hearsay. There aren't really any content standards there like we follow here at BA. Lebrecht is also far from objective on the issue (he's far from objective on many issues, and really has historically demonstrated serious problems when it comes to basic things like facts): his first post was titled "EXCLUSIVE: WHY PETER GELB FIRED UNCLE JOHN COPLEY." It was completely based on hearsay, presented as fact, and subsequently contradicted by the second Times article (which included reference to Copley's having not disputed that newspaper's account). I haven't seen a more representative sampling of the opinions of people in the business, but I also haven't looked. Perhaps there are other forums where a more representative sampling of views is being voiced; perhaps many of those would still be in favor of Copley, I don't know. But I also get the sense that not many in the opera world are even really talking about it. My partner works in that world, has coworkers with connections across many different organizations within it, and knows far less about the topic than I do just from reading this forum. (That said, I don't dispute the possibility that there are pockets — even large ones — of outrage; one member here has referenced such sentiments being widely expressed. I'm simply reporting what I've experienced.)

How can it be "beside the point" to cite laws when "the point" being made (at least, I believe it was the point aurora and I were both making in the context quoted here) is that a given action is an example of the type of behavior that constitutes sexual harassment under the law? (If anyone wants to make specific suggestions as to how the law should be changed, that's another very big discussion that could be had; personally, I don't see a need for such changes at this particular time.) It is true that a single instance such as Copley's would likely not be actionable under the law, which typically requires behavior (which may include acts of speech) that is "so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment." Copley's remark was likely not "severe" enough to fit the standard, but it is precisely the sort of remark that, as part of a pattern of similar or identical behavior, would indeed be actionable, and I'm sure has been successfully prosecuted in many cases. But whether it is legally actionable or not is irrelevant to whether it was acceptable for him to have been fired, as kylara7 has quite rightly pointed out: Whether for moral or pragmatic reasons, or both, the Met did not want to be the sort of workplace in which remarks such as Copley's are seen as appropriate; it fired him; problem solved. Copley lost out on a week or two of work for what he did.

I don't think that's what aurora was saying at all, though I could be wrong.

I'm sorry, could you please explain what "theory" you are referring to? I'm not sure which theory I have proposed. My recent posts have asserted my opinions only, I believe. I was referring to the chorus member's right to decide for himself, of course, not to Copley's (note spelling). I haven't been putting myself in anyone's shoes. I've been asserting that people should be able to walk in their own shoes. That principle has been central to my arguments all along. I presume that the chorus member acted in what he felt to be his best interest.

In my opinion it is no one’s right but his own to say or determine what’s best for him. (Even if he cannot say it in English.) And in my opinion it is often a sign of privilege to think that one’s own views of what is best for others are superior to theirs. That is just my opinion.