pherank

Yes, I'm realizing that this will be pricey, but there won't be a way around the timing. I may have to take a taxi and not worry about being particularly close to McCaw Hall. Thanks for all this great info!

Hi Helene - sorry, I should have mentioned that it shouldn't be too expensive, and this would be happening at the beginning of June. "...microwaves and small fridges in the rooms" would be a good thing. ;)

I gave some advise to a forum member on where to stay in San Francisco, and now it's my turn to ask. ;) What is a good hotel to stay at near McCaw Hall in Seattle? (Preferably within short walking distance, but taking a taxi is OK.)

I can't say that I'm terribly bothered by Balanchine's remakes and redos, which always tended towards reduction and minimalism. That's just the way of the artist, and it's up to the rest of the world to take what they can from the different versions. It does bother me when it is assumed by the 'authorities' that the last known version is THE version and all others should be shunned. That's a total misunderstanding of creative process and art in general. My issue with the costumes in this particular version of Ballet Imperial is that the movement of the long chiffon dresses is often counter to the actual dance movements. I think a small diameter, stiff tutu would be appropriate: dividing the dancer's body horizontally, and revealing, not disguising, the particular movements in BI. There is an article on tutus that I remembered when thinking about all this. I think that Lopotkina's comment fits well: "My favorite tutu is the one I wear in the Pavlova and Cecchetti scene from Neumeier’s The Nutcracker. It’s a classical tutu, one that would have been worn by late 19th-century ballerinas in rehearsal. It was copied by Maryinsky tailors from Pavlova’s costume. It is light as air and it’s easy to move in. The classical steps come out better; all the positions line up logically and beautifully." --Lopotkina http://www.dancemaga...y-Favorite-Tutu The caveat being, (and I think I mentioned this earlier), that running beneath the arms of the other dancers could not be performed well in large, stiff tutus. Perhaps that wasn't part of the original choreography? But anyway, it's not a huge deal to me, though I would very much like to see the older version performed to compare the two.

I'm immediately reminded of the San Jose Ballet fiasco with Nahat being forced out to no good end.

I'm happy to have been of service. ;) MCB has 3 other videos of Imperial Ballet that are short segments (and professionally shot), but at least they are longer than the ususal 40 second segment. SOME companies understand the improtance of advertising the work in a meaningful way - if I saw clips like this on a ballet company website, I would definitely want to go see the actual performance. The 40 second 'commercials' show nothing of use.

I believe you are technically correct - MCB 'should' be using Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2 for the name, but Ballet Imperial is a great name that people have always reponded to. Balancine was in the habit of switching from poetic name to whatever the name of the music happened to be, when he reached a point where he seemed satisfied with his choreography. So the choreography truly becomes one with the music. I agree JSMU - sometimes the particular costume really matters, and relying on a stripped-down approach only goes so far. As Balanchine's method became more and more concerned with pure dance, the black and white leotards and white chiffons became the norm. It's not really one of my favorite things about Balanchine - it just happens to be.

Well some people would argue that almost no one working in classical music today would make a good fit. Which is kind of depressing. (And the Pop music world is going to be totally hit and miss since they don't think in terms of music for classical dance, period.) Leonard Bernstein was the last really good composer to venture into ballet music (my opinon), and it didn't always work out, naturally. And Bernstein was under so much pressure NOT to compose, and stick to the 'serious' business of conducting, that he wasn't able to create a vast catalog of ballet/stage scores. I wonder sometimes if some of the great film music composers would have the ability if they had been given the chance: Elmer Bernstein, Maurice Jarre, Henry Mancini, Michel Legrand, (and now Elfman). Because they absolutely understood working with moods and characterizations. Quincy Jones? Bacharach? John Williams? Maybe not. ;) Duke Ellington (with Billy Strayhorn helping him) would have been REALLY interesting. To me, it's a cultural issue, not one of talent. These days, musicians and composers are simply not groomed to create such music. Classical Ballet has become an exotic art in the West, and not really part of everyday life. But I don't see it being all that much different in Russia at present.

It's the old Quantity VS Quality situation. I don't think many people (often including dancers and dance administrators) realize quite how difficult it is to create ballet music that is worth a damn. Simply writing pieces with a particular dance rhythm is clearly not enough - there often needs to be a programmatic/cinematic quality to the score, since audiences want music that is emotionally exciting, and even intellectually stimulating. And the other issue is: How to create choreography that is appropriate to the score, and EXTENDS the score? Since we're really talking about two sides of the same coin. The choreography and the score have to appear to work together. Calling in Sir Paul, for example, to deliver some music isn't going to guarantee much of anything, since he isn't used to writing for dance productions, and has created relatively little orchestral music (and that is what this commision called for).

I totally agree on your various points. The San Francisco audiences are also a mix, though certainly weighted toward white, middle-aged couples. But there's more diversity than the uninitiated realize. I think it is important to add that young people certainly don't have a problem with archaic, 'mythical' themes either, if they are presented in a way that pulls them in (think Lord of the Rings, and inumerable spinoff films and mythic TV shows). The only strategy that will really knock anyone over though, is to create really solid ballets, with excellent staging, choreography, performances, and, first-rate NEW music. And that's what we're not seeing very often. Maybe Martins should invite Christopher Wheeldon to create a ballet with Danny Elfman as composer. That might reach the 30-somethings at least.

Yes sir, that would be an "extravaganza". Though I do wonder how the dancers could run beneath one another's arms wearing pancake tutus. That could have been disasterous at times.

No doubt for a very limited time - there is a YouTube video of the Miami City Ballet dancing Ballet Imperial in 2011 (not 2001 as marked): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdv681E8eyg Although the beginning is missing, most of the ballet looks to be there. "If Balanchine had any resistance to composing a “tutu and tiara” extravaganza, it does not reveal itself in Ballet Imperial. I think he had a ball making it. With an ensemble of sixteen women and six men, two female demi-soloists, two male demi-soloists, two female principals, and one cavalier, this was the largest cast for a classical ballet he had ever worked with, and he deployed them with bountiful zest and variety. The cup ran over. Within the first few minutes of the first movement, we see the ensemble in diagonals, diamonds, a huge circle of sixteen women, smaller concentric circles, a pinwheel, and plain old straight lines just for good measure. Although the technical challenges in other Balanchine ballets tend to be concealed within the choreographic fabric, in Ballet Imperial they are boldly, almost gleefully exposed. Or at least they are for the two principal women. Balanchine threw the hook at them. He was able to do so because he had in this company two extraordinary virtuosos—Marie_Jeanne and Gisella Caccialanza. Could he have conceived of an imperial ballet without them? I doubt it. But there they were, tossing off all the hardest stuff at allegro tempo—all kinds of pirouettes, jumps, and beats, small, intricate footwork, and moments when they just flew. I think especially of the pas de trois in the first movement, when Caccialanza and two men bound through space in big jetés with such force and amplitude so as to banish the perimeters of the stage. ...Ballet imperial is in three movements. The first is eighteen minutes, half of the entire ballet. Eighteen minutes is a very long time; in fact, it’s long enough to be a ballet unto itself, about the same duration as its sibling, Allegro Brillante, and Concerto Barocco. To keep the juices flowing, Balanchine develops the hierarchical structure of Petipa to an unprecedented degree. In the nineteenth century it was common to set the two principal dancers against an ensemble; those who danced their variations alone were soloists. Only rarely did the three ranks dance together at the same time. It was Balanchine who put them in constant interplay so that different gradations of technical expression could be savored all at once. The full stage picture divided among the many, the few, and the one or two creates its own musical and pictorial drama. And their entrances and exits, multitudinous in Ballet Imperial, also provide a gradual layering of excitement. Ballet Imperial adds an additional subculture, the demi-soloists. Interestingly, they don’t dance by themselves in this ballet; rather, they always accompany the higher-ups." —Nancy Goldner, More Balanchine Variations

It's pretty much guaranteed that Balanchine never heard "great genius of all time" during his lifetime. Certainly Stravinsky never did. I actually think that Balanchine made a wise choice in picking Martins and Robbins together to carry the company forward. They needed someone loyal to NYCB who knew the dancers and their method inside and out, and respected it enough to be the caretaker (Martins), and they needed someone to add important works to the repetoire (Robbins). It was asking too much to find a single person to do all that. Given the circumstances, it was a wise decision. The fact that Martins didn't turn out to be a great choreographer himself isn't the biggest deal as long as NYCB is able to get ballets from other, significant choreographers. In fact, none of the "sons of Balanchine" have turned out to be genius choreographers at their respective companies (SF Ballet, PNB, Miami City Ballet). That's life. Balanchine was also smart in telling Martins that fund raising was going to become a big deal in the future, and fortunately, Martins did not shy away from that side of things. It simply has to be done in the U.S., but it ain't art. ;)

I agree that overall, the segment was pretty well done (excepting the cringe-worthy, "great genius of all time" comment). I rather enjoyed the clips of Apollo (and Robbie Fairchild), and the emphasis on the strenuous nature of ballet. Emphasizing the physicallity of the art is something that is likely to work better with an American audience that feels little connection to the history of ballet, and the stories/myths that it often draws upon for inspiration. Also, Martins remarks about partnering were especially interesting to me. One line that struck me: "young people tend to see classical ballet as stuffy and inauthentic". Now, If that were true, I would argue that young people don't know what IS 'authentic'. ;) It's actually easy to argue that an art form that is passed down as a verbal/physical tradition from one generation to the next, and employing storylines that are deeply rooted in those cultures, is as authentic as one is likely to get with an art form. Peter Martins was certainly not 'wrong' in creating a ballet with Paul McCartney, but the important thing is TO MAKE IT WORK. And many people felt that the ballet wasn't a success. But whatever, they gave it a shot. It's all about putting in the effort, after all. RE: the loss of masters like Balanchine in the ballet world - I am reminded of Melissa Hayden talking about her realization (during the Stravinksy Festival, I believe) that Balanchine wouldn't be choreographing any more works on her, and that the primary roles would keep going to the young stars. And so, she decided to leave the company, because, what was the point, if she couldn't be a part of the creative process. What her generation didn't know, was that they were quite spoiled by circumstances, and that very few dancers are ever in a position to have a world-class choreographer create on them. NYCB has simply moved on to how things normally are - no genius in the house. Fortunately, art doesn't actually require genius to get done, just hard-working, caring artists. I recommend watching this 'extra' video of footage not in the 60 Minutes show - there's a short sequence of Tanaquil LeClercq and Balanchine at the beginning. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57552618-10391709/the-genius-of-balanchine-a-visual-breakdown/

Yea, it didn't do anything for me either but my real quibble was the timing of the triple penchée at the 6 min. mark. The whole thing was way, way off. It does get much better from there on out but that was certianly a disappointment. Welcome, Tara. There is definitely a lack of musicality at times, which tends to make balletomanes crazy, and in the segment you mention there's definitely a lack of awareness for what the other dancer's are doing. Looks like three soloists (the Muses) each thinking only about her own interpretation (and counts), but lacking the unity that Corps dancers must demonstrate. And that obviously has its drawbacks when dancing as a group to live music. ;)

Thanks Peggy - I look forward to seeing this production in the Spring!

Thanks for the heads up notice! I went ahead and booked a couple nights for one of the programs I'll be seeing. ;)

What an excellent overview of the performances! Thank you Natalia. I do think that this is a particularly strong generation of dancers, perhaps the best that SF Ballet has ever had. So definitely worth the effort to see them on tour. I seem to have the same luck with Masha - I end up seeing her in supporting roles rather than primary roles, and it's frustrating. ;)

I received the folowing announcement from SF Ballet today, and it might be off interest to ballet-goers in the Bay Area: Go behind the scenes at SF Ballet with Ballet 101! Want to expand your knowledge of ballet and meet the artists of San Francisco Ballet? Join us for Ballet 101, an immersive, five-session experience that includes lectures, demonstrations and discussions with ballet scholars, ballet masters, Company dancers, and more. You’ll also enjoy behind the scenes tours of the SF Ballet rehearsal studios and the War Memorial Opera House, plus the exclusive opportunity to participate in a ballet technique class for beginners with Principal Dancer Rubén Martín Cintas. Tuition is only $225, and space is extremely limited so don’t delay, register now! Ballet 101 meets at 455 Franklin Street from 6-8pm except where noted below. 2013 dates: January 7 January 14 January 28 5-7pm or 7:15-9:15pm February 4 February 11 Register Now! If you would like a more detailed description of the sessions contact Cecelia Beam, adult education coordinator, at cbeam@sfballet.org.

I'm not very big on Fisherman's Wharf - strictly a "lowbrow" tourist trap. ;) You might want to visit nearby Ghirardelli Square or The Cannery for the shopping. But as others have mentioned, Union Square, and further away, Union STREET, are great for boutique shopping or window browsing. One of the standouts regarding SF is the incredible number of excellent restaurants, and bars too, for that matter. For a city of its physical size, there's every conceivable cuisine to sample, block after block. And SF is a capital of the organic cuisine world. Jardiniere, right beside the Performing Arts Parking structure, is well known, and may still be good. http://www.urbanspoo...rby-restaurants I've also heard good things about Inn at the Opera.

I stayed at the Kabuki because I used to go to Japantown a lot, as I like Japanese arts and crafts. I love the Kinokuniya Bookstore, and Genjii Antiques too when it was still in business. The Kaubki is fairly cheap by SF standards, and it has room service for those in a hurry. Not bad at all (as they've recently remodeled rooms), but not great either. For that you've got to pay another $75 or more a night. I recommend using a service like Orbitz to find a deal: http://www.orbitz.com/hotels/United_States--CA/San_Francisco.hd4468/

I've lived in SF and just north of SF for many years, so I can definitely say that it is best to just take a taxi from the hotel/motel/B&B, and then after the performance, wait in the taxi line at the War Memorial, and chat with others about the performance. As you are "mostly older ladies", then it is best not to try to hoof it around the city center. SF isn't really a walkers city, in my opinion. Though I certainly did a whole lot of walking on those hills and city streets back in the day. But it is exhausting (and who wants to be covered in perspiration at the War Memorial?). I used to have to hurredly walk a block from a parking structure to 1 Market Street where the work office was, and one can work up a sweat that way. And it was just the one city block! I HAVE stayed at the Kabuki Hotel at Japantown and taken a taxi from there to the War Memorial - it is considered a short distance from Japantown, and the driver charged a flat fee for the imposition, but to actually walk the distance would have been a bummer - especially on the return late at night. Which program will you be attending?

Happiness is where you find it! I do enjoy Mad Men, Downton Abbey and that sort of thing myself. Enjoy your Preppers. ;)

Yes, there is always that problem. ;) I suppose you are better off saving up for ballet performances anyway - TV doesn't do much for mind or soul.

Definitely. I had forgotton how hallucinatory that (opening?) scene was. I think it is because they are using a wide angle lens to photograph all these forground figures - it makes the humans in the scene look plastic, and unreal, whereas the sky, clouds, and panorama are 'real'. A great looking film.