Olatunji

Was the Gladstein book at any point the one you are talking about? The inference that the thing is probably a vanity publication and that no one knows where it is and that it was supposed to be published only xx years following his "passing" intrigues. The reference at another site suggests that it is in content and reference a bit touchy;why? Is it a good danse read?

Excellent question, in re the flat artistic direction model. Reminds elders of the Denham/Novak mess for Ballets Russe. Wherein the mildew and rodents appeared to be, albeit in cahoots with Miss Nina, the only contented. Locally the other AD out model was the Oakland company, of some few years past, or so I am told. At that locus there is now a new feller doing the job, however. Can it be true that the Fry was essentially the only support of the Company?

Even so the Boardroom is already full, sorry.

Dear Mine gosh, I think we and you are perhaps being had. The quote is quite amusing, yes. That a mall paper, unless somehow compelled to print this child's sqwawk by an IMPORTANT parent, contains such exclusive stuff along with the cream, chicken, cilantro and celery adverts is just too much. Then again there was the once reported case with SF Ballet where a fat kiddee was rejected for Nutcracker, I seem to recall, and suits were threatened by the litigious parents, whose lipid state was not reported. There was no follow-up to that which is remembered here. I like the nertz bit. The genuine subject, interfering boards, is important.

I saw Virginia Johnson dance twice only. Once in my country and some time years later here at Stanford during my residency. Each time she was amazing, as were most of the dancers. In the first, in my country, she was in terribly correct ballet costume and then at the Stanford performance she was in a ballet by Revueltas wearing fetchingly a snake suit with a surprising swedish dancer.