Michael

Which male, or female ballet stars for that matter, have names that would be widely recognized throughout the world today, particularly by people who are not dyed in the wool fans? I'm not sure if it's just Americans who can't meet that test.

A major ballet company needs a strong, dominant personality in control, and that person must (I think) be ballet master or artistic director. It doesn't matter what you call it so long as they are choosing and training the dancers, running or at least overseeing company class, choosing the work and overseeing the stagings. If you have the right dominant personality, it works well. Power abhors a vacuum. Someone must be in charge and, since it's ballet you are staging, it damn well better be someone who is steeped in that craft. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited March 22, 2001).]

CD,on reaching some more solid description of the boundaries of Semicharactere Classique, I think maybe we have to conclude that this category of danseuse is just more porous and more widely defined than danseuse noble was and is. Greater definitional certainty might not be attainable. Classique seems to includes both Florine and Aurora. Apparently Classique developped because of the need to hybridize. Danseur/Danseuse Noble was too restrictive. A need was felt to have a softer and broader class, including relatively tall, but not very tall or extremely tall dancers, that extended over a wider range of roles and included all sorts of dancing (allegro, adagio, and legato effects) but that stopped at outright character portrayal and more grotesque dramatization. So they called it "Semicharacter Classique" and pulled together a lot of roles which, at the extreme ends at either extreme (short and tall, allegro or adagio demands too) can become hard to reconcile under one roof. There are always hard cases on the edges in drawing a line in any discipline. A judge once wrote something like (my paraphrase) that "At dawn or dusk, it's hard to tell whether it's night or day and maybe you could say both. But that doesn't mean that light and dark don't exist or aren't different from each other."

If the Lilac Fairy is, at the outset, defined as the example of the Danseuse Noble emploi par excellence, then Aurora must be treated as a Classique role. (You see, CD, "juxtaposed" isn't so difficult, now that I've thrown in a "par excellence" or two).

But adagio and allegro (as classifications of dancers) are one step removed from Danseur Noble and Classique/Demicharacter, aren't they, with the latter classification system being based upon physical proportions such as hight and line? So aren't we really using a different system of classifiction when we discuss dancers as allegro dancers or adagio dancers? And Alexandra, do I really understand you that there are no female danseurs nobles, no danseuses nobles? So isn't allegro vs. adagio ballerina in fact a good way to class female dancers?

Of course, much of this strikes at the very ability of anyone to say anything, except positive things, about a performance. If you shoudn't say that the casting was poor; if you shouldn't comment on the dancers appearance or physical characteristics; if you shouldn't comment on whether a piece looks unrehearsed or sloppy -- what is there left to comment on? Or is the prevailing sense that nothing negative, nothing critical should be said? But, then, is the nonetheless o.k. to say positive things, such as that the casting was good; that the dancers appearances were beautiful; that the piece was tightly presented and well rehearsed? I doubt anyone would object to that. So it's really critical comments on these subjects that are being declared off limits. In particular, the question of whether you can comment on dancers' appearances (weight, posture or anything else) is a very difficult one. It can be argued that nothing, absolutely nothing, is more central to a ballet performance, or to a dancer's merit, than their appearance. It's the base upon which all else builds. We usually disguise it by calling it something like "line" or giving it some other neutral code name. You simply cannot declare this completely off limits and preserve the ability honestly to judge what is being presented on stage. Even if you disagree that "nothing is more important than this" (and I may have put it too extremely), certainly it's very relevant. It's not something that simply doesn't matter. What dancers look like, though, is highly sensitive because it depends, not on what a dancer can change, but on their God-given characteristics. And we have learned from social intercourse that it's unkind and cruel to comment negatively on such things. But how can you really analyze ballet without touching on it? The problem here seems more to be one of finding the limits of civilized discourse. Maybe what you could say in privacy to a friend you sit next to should not be published or posted on the web. I don't have the answer. But I think some comment on weight or style must be allowed. The second part, how they move, seems fairer game. This is a really interesting topic and I hope more people post. I'm catching a plane and will look again Sunday night. One other thought - unfair criticism is untruthful criticism, criticism motivated by bias, malice or other secondary gain, and/or criticism that can't be objectively defended. One is obligated not just to give conclusions, but the supporting observations, so that the reader can herself or himself analyze what you've seen and why you are saying what you are. But if that too is falsified or biased? No way out of this labyrinth.

When the Australian Ballet performed at City Center, New York City, for a week about two seasons ago, they had some very impressive dancers. I remember that there was one tall, blond male dancer, a danseur noble type cut from the Peter Martins mold a bit, who impressed. And among the women, Nicole Rhodes and Justine Summers were very striking. I wish we had the opportunity to see more of them.

I haven't heard she's hurt and loved what I did see of her - Donizetti Variations, Davidsbundlertanze, Episodes, even Stabat Mater, among other things. In the realm of pure speculation, could it be that Martins is trying not to over-stress his key dancers? A year ago Weese, Van Kipnis, Meunier, and Ansanelli all missed the spring season with injuries (the latter two missing the fall and winter also). There was a lot of criticism of Martins for over-using his dancers, particularly his younger ones when they were on a popular roll, until they broke down. This year he has avoided this. Only Jennie Somogyi, of everyone, danced last fall and this winter to the point where you wondered how they could continue to take it. And Jennie too was rested a good deal after about January 20th.

Thank you so much for taking the trouble to post that. Unable to travel to Boston and see this, I appreciate very much your review.

It's a particularly good topic Liebs, because it gives us the chance to console ourselves for the end of the season by instantly reminiscing about it. Re Janie Taylor -- I think she showed dramatic progress at the moment when Martins committed to her (or at least it happened contemporaneously with that). The transformation was astonishing. Taylor suddenly lost that strained look on her face. She stopped over-attacking and practically kicking herself in the head with every grand jetee. Instead she just began to dance. And with her gifts, that was all it took. A very important accomplishment for the company has been the virtual remodeling of the corps de ballet completed this year. There has been huge makeover in the company here and also at the soloist level, with the departure of Samantha Allen, Stacy Calvert, Riolama Lorenzo, Michelle Gifford, Aura Dixon, Jennifer Porteous, Chris Wheeldon and others over the last two years. They've been replaced with an influx of young dancers from the last two SAB classes, and also by bringing forward a number of other dancers who previously were not used very much. Elizabeth Walker, Amanda Edge, Elena Diner, Saskia Beskow, and Deana McBrearty have provided continuity and stability among the women, while Pauline Golbin and Dena Abergel stepped up and became regular demi-soloists and Ellen Bar, Laura Paulus and Jamie Wolf were used more prominently. Among those who came forward out of the deep shade were Aubrey Morgan and Andrea Hecker. Among those destined for bigger things, Kristin Sloan, Ashley Bouder and Rebecca Krohn. Among the newestcomers, Faye Arthurs, Amanda Hankes, Megan Pepin and Glenn Keenan (wasn't she beautiful leading the corps off stage in a semi circle in baiser de la fee?). Among the newest apprentices, Tess Reichlen, who danced two times a day and sometimes three ties a day during Nutcracker season. Among the men, Andy Robertson (back from his stint at ABT), Andy Veyette, Aaron Severini, and Antonio Carmena (Wow, is he talented). It's an impressive and large scale change and the fact that it has largely passed unnoticed is a tribute to the ballet masters and mistresses. This is the soul of the company. I think Eva Natanya had a real breakthrough season, night in and night out. I began to look forward to seeing her. No matter what else was going on, you could always watch her and see great dancing. If I had to forecast a next promotion to soloist, it would be her. If it were done purely on merit, it would definitely be her. And Rachel Rutherford also deserves to move up. My biggest disappointment this season was the the sustained under-use or non-use of Monique Meunier. To me she is a kind of "bell weather" for the company. When Monique is dancing regularly and dancing well the company is usually dancing at its peak. The periods when she not being used or not being well employed tend to coincide to an uncanny degree with the periods when the company is flat. She is, I think, one of the keys to NYCB. Her talents and employment are unique. Along with Jenny Ringer she leavens the loaf, and I think it's a major failure of NYCB management that they haven't managed, after all this time, to integrate her completely into the company and to give her a sufficient sense of just where she belongs. Another disappointment was the injury to Dana Hanson in mid-winter. She too was having a breakthrough season and would, I think, have been made soloist by now if she had not hurt herself. I'm hoping she's back in great form this spring. The programming for the spring season is great, by the way. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited February 27, 2001).] Edited at Michael's request; his modem is down and he couldn't make a correction. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited February 28, 2001).]

Silja Schandorff last year in her guest performance in PM's Swan Lake at NYCB. From the moment I first saw her standing in the wings, awaiting her first entrance, backlit and silhouetted in blue light (I had a far foward partial view seat in the First Ring) she had this aura. It was that afternoon, after that performance, that I found Ballet Alert on the web, by typing Schandorff's name into a search engine.

Tinsley danced in the afternoon as one of the soloists in Symphony in Three Movements. She was quite good as her attack was suited to the piece. But I'd hate to see her limited to that kind of employment. It would be easy, because those Balanchine Vampire-Woman roles suit Tinsley's hard side. But I remember Jennifer Tinsley, before she got both hurt and promoted at almost the same time (two years ago?), as also having a softer more feminine side that was quite appealing. Before her promotion (Leigh, you are absolutely right) she had more of a clearly defined role in the company -- if I remember correctly, being used especially in some of Robbins' starker and more modernistic works and in many of the big corps roles that are now danced by Walker and Edge. And she was appealing in the latter.

Does anyone have examples, among dancers working today, of ones whose placement is particularly good? CyngeDanois mentioned Susan Jaffee. Anyone else?

Thank you very much CyngeDanois. What is a bit confusing is how comprehensive the term is, since it includes so many things at once. I heard (or read) someone say that a particular dancer's placement needed to be "more forward." I wonder just what if anything you would understand by that.

I wonder, what is a good definition for the ballet term "placement"? Just what does it mean? Can someone give some sound examples?

Kay Mazzo is also now (along with Peter Martins) co-director of the faculty at the School of American Ballet, so she's deeply involved with the company and responsible for developing all its young dancers. She's a great teacher with a very kind, patient, and non-Grand-Dame-ish way with kids.

One of the greatest things about Balanchine for me is how, in pas de deuxs, something intense always seems to be happening, only you can't say what it is. In the pdd in Agon, for example, or in many passages in Serenade. Something happens that is almost supra-rational or supra-narrative, something resonant which the viewer is left to infuse with emotion and meaning. My struggle with Scotch Symphony the other night was that I did not sense anything to be happening between the couple, I felt Askegaard to be present, but those broad fourth positions, arms karate-chop wide, preparing for every pirouette, in Nichols' part seemed to get in the way for me and I just wondered. I've really got to see this again. A problem for the ballet viewer is that few things in art are more subjective seeming than "nothing happened for me" or "nothing seemed to be happening." [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited January 05, 2001).] [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited January 05, 2001).]

I haven't seen the interview Alexandra speaks of. But it seems to me that LeClerq was very reticent and never spoke much about her years with Balanchine after her paralysis, what led up to the divorce, the Suzanne Farrell episode, and other things. If there was anyone who could really have told about many things, it would have been her. But she appears never really to have spoken. And that (tact, taste, grace, loyalty, privacy) is emblematic of what must have made her the sublime dancer she was.

Leigh - I think Tracy is the best Sugarplum I've seen this year. She's got command of herself and I particularly noticed how much time and room she found within the choreography, never making it seem rushed, but the opposite. She made it seem spacious, so that she could pause within it and phrase her steps with a rubato quality even. It's wonderful when you see a dancer do that.

I found the statements at the end, implying that Tudor actually needed to be forgiven for leaving Britain during the war, offensive, stupid, parochial and chauvinistic. That a respected critic can be making them in the year 2000 shows precisely why anyone might want to leave the U.K. at any time, even today.

The image of Stiefel at the beginning of the Prodigal Son, was like "Leave it to Beaver meets Sodom and Gomorah." I thought Kent and Belotserkofsky very good in Lilac Garden on Saturday afternoon. Kent played it very straight and very sad at the beginning. But I would have liked more real passion when the role called for it - but that's not a color in Kent's palate. That quality was what made Shelkanova so wonderful in the role last spring. Belotserkofsky, though, was just superb on Saturday. What a beautiful violin concerto score Jardin Aux Lilas has. That's where it all starts. The ballet feeds off of and explicates the contrast between the passion of the violin score, very like Elgar's violin concerto or Sam Barber's, and the repressed emotion and limited and constricted range of motion of the characters. Until one or two brief passages of intensely poetic motion, as it were, break out with such force. I wonder what it would be like to see this performed really well. The violinist and orchestra played this piece very well. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited October 31, 2000).]

I was there and so were one or two other Ballet Alert people whom it was good to see. The first portion of the evening can be characterized as great moments (pdds) of classical ballet. Pdd from Sleeping Beauty (Jaffe and Malkov - an odd couple) Black Swan pdd from Swan Lake (Dvorovenko and Belotserkofsky). Tumultuous ovation -- She really is their prima ballerina now and their gala crowd knows it. They've been told! I love her -- I too am a fan -- but I was struck again by how individual, even a little strange she is. That some of her movements, flows ending in a particularly bowed line, gestures and twists, are a bit distorted, pushed beyond things, with her primary technique sometimes going by the board. She's not a Vaganova nor a NY dancer. Hard to say. But oh how amazingly that woman moves. And what turn out. Tschai Pdd (Balanchine) - (Paloma Herrera paired with Marcello Gomes). Gomez was surprisingly good as Paloma's partner. He is well matched with her, bigger physically than her prior partners, which is a good thing for, as a very knowledgable friend pointed out, she's not fifteen years old any more. Paloma had surprising nuance in this Balanchine. Though she looks a little heavy right now and the lack of attention to her upper body was evident as usual. On balance, though, I thought it was one of her more appealing moments outside of her Kitri repertory. Grand pdd from the Nutcracker - Ashley Tuttle and Angel Corella. Tuttle was simply brilliant. It was clear, in juxtaposition with everyone else, that she is the real classical ballerina of this group. The finish of each step and gesture, right to the fully realized brushing motion of each pas de cheval, were a joy to behold. I held my breath. The way she holds herself. The spring in her runs off stage. I know no one else will agree with this. But my God, she was a dancer from a different planet than the other women. You recognized classical technique and finish as beautiful, as worth aiming for, disciplining oneself to achieve. Georgina Parkinson would have been proud. Finaly, the finale of Theme and Variations (Balanchine) danced by Gillian Murphy and Giuseppi Picone. They're both very striking and the ensemble of the corps and soloists was also quite good. Ekaterina Shelkanova, what a joy to see. I'm looking forward to seeing this fully performed this week. The second part of the program was Prodigal Son, with Ethan Stiefel and Julie Kent both totally miscast - Kent even more than Stiefel. Stiefel at least came to life about the time he got stripped of his possessions, and even before that, when sitting and lusting after Kent while the gnomes gambolled. But it's really not a role for him. At the beginning he appeared half Parsifal, half frisky puppy. The best performances were by Sascha Radetsky and Vladislav Kalinin as the prodigal's friends. The entire performance, though, was just plain boring. But maybe it was me? Who can tell when you're bored. I'll see it again. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited October 25, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited October 25, 2000).]

I think the biggest "cultural divide" in ballet is between those audience members who love the pyrotechnical, acrobatic, circus trick side of dance performances, and those who actually dislike that element, and the crowd's surefire ecstatic response to it, intensely. It's more than a cultural divide. It becomes an outright cultural animosity sometimes. In support of Mr. B Fan's comment (not that he/she needs my support) I also feel that newspaper and magazine critics often have a subtle, quasi-political agenda and bias, and what I love about this web site is that this site provides the antidote - access to an informed more wide-spread opinion. But why shouldn't critics have bias? Everyone, absolutey everyone comes at things with a bias. Even on this site, you get to know who generally likes what. About all you can expect from anyone is that the viewer/commentator actually be aware of their own bias, be out front about it, and/or try to compensate for it.

It's striking, Estelle, that -- despite the mixed and sometimes critical reactions of the U.K. press -- almost all of the actual audience members who posted on Ballet.Co totally agree with your assessment. A very different and much clearer picture of the audience's reaction to these performances emerges after one reads your review and the other UK postings, than after reading the official notices. The audience itself (and an informed audience at that) seems to have loved it. It's also striking how well the specifics of what you observed resonate with the observations of people who regularly watch the company - i.e., the elgance and classicism of Peter Boal, Wendy Whelan's brilliant gifts and the occasional difficulty of employing her in certain roles, and (above all) how beautiful, rich and welcome the companies repertory is compared to existing only on a more or less steady diet of 19th century "classics." Ah, I shall certainly be broiled for the last one -- Biased? Sure, I am. Isn't everybody, in one direction or another? [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited August 24, 2000).]

McCauley's criticism makes good reading, whether you agree or disagree, because it is so detailed. Note, though, that McCauley's criticism of Martins seems to be concentrate on Martins as "ballet master" -- of the way the company is now performing the basic elements (tendu and turn out)-- the things drilled and honed in company class. That's what McCauley concentrates on more than on Martins' role as company director, mounting new choreography, etc., including his own. I wonder what he thought after the Edinburgh performances. Some of the British press seemed to me to have covered the festival as if they were seeing Agon for the first time.