Jack Reed

hockeyfan228, I wonder if you're working from a poor fax or photocopy; the short word below Max Blechman's name on my program is merely the conjunction and, below which are listed the names of the five corps girls and eight corps boys. But my information corroborates yours, otherwise. And Orchestra seat N127 was no one's special seat; I sat in M131 myself that evening, and in M127 the evening of 30th April. I sometimes wound up near or next to Lincoln, but that was in the middle of row A in the First Ring, so I thought his seat was 110 or 111, but maybe he ranged around a bit. A117 is at the right aisle, not as good IMO, but one one could slip into easily, like A101-104, which were reserved for company use; Robbins and others would slip into and out of those in the course of an evening, I noticed. As for Balanchine's "seat", in attending about 300 performances, I think, at the State Theatre during his lifetime, I never saw him sit in the house, although I once saw him en route to, I suppose, the First Ring (to watch Karin in Brahms-Schoenberg); sometimes I had a seat so far to audience right I saw him on the high stool in the second wing on our left (stage right) where he was said to sit (after the first few years or so in the State Theatre). kfw, you can be sure there were red eyes on stage as there were in the audience; I myself was not in the best shape to judge performance on the 30th, but my notes show that at some subsequent performances as dancers who had been subbed reappeared their performances were okay except for shaky supporting legs and expressions looking like being on the edge of tears. Mme. Hermine, my memory of what Kirstein said is exactly the same as what Robert Gottlieb says in his recent biography of Balanchine: "I don't have to tell you that Mr. B. is with Mozart and Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky." (And, as Gottlieb goes on, "If any thought could have helped, it would have been that.")

He was in it that evening, and also 26th April and 3rd May, according to my programs.

silvy, I'm as enthusiastic as the others! Except that I don't have Spanish, I would wish to have been there too, or to see a video. Inviting the audience to close their eyes whilie listening to Symphony in C was brilliant! I have one question, about a small detail. Where did you find the reason for Martins dancing with Farrell that evening?

I noted two subs that afternoon, in The Four Seasons, and that evening, besides the ones we've mentioned, three more in Magic Flute. That's eight altogether, which sems like a high number. (It was a rough day. I heard that some couldn't dance and some had to, under the circumstances; Gottlieb says Karin von Aroldingen, who had been with Balanchine day after day at the end, was one who had to.)

Mme. Hermine, it appears from your post that the NYCB press office has records of the printed casting and announced cast changes (in Symphony in C, Daniel Duell subbed for Jean-Pierre Frohlich and Lisa Hess subbed for Judith Fugate). I was there, too, and I noted in my program that Peter Martins replaced Sean Lavery unannounced. In his recent biography of Balanchine, Robert Gottlieb explains: "That evening, Suzanne Farrell went on in Symphony in C. Martins was hardly dancing any longer, most of his time devoted to running the company, but when she asked him to dance with her that night, he readily agreed." (p. 181) (In Holding on to the Air, Farrell's account is more detailed and, of course, more deeply felt, and may be Gottlieb's source.) Edited to add the reference to Farrell's book.

Paquita, I thought your post might go better in Announcements or Anything Goes, inasmuch as the performances haven't quite happened yet. And that way, you're more likely to arrange to meet some BT'ers, too, I think, if that's on. But I'm not a moderator... Enjoy the program! It looks like a good one.

I'd just like to urge the New Yorkers here to avail themselves of an opportunity to broaden their experience of Balanchine performance by attending at least one SAB Workshop performance the first weekend in June, if they haven't already thought of that. Of Balanchine, there's only a performance of Western Symphony this year, but I'd say, go and compare and constrast the dancing there with what you see at NYCB, because comparisons are often revealing and often help you to get more out of whatever you're doing, and this is an opportunity you don't have the rest of the year. In spite of being somewhat "logistically challenged" by living here, I've often done that myself, and I've always greatly enjoyed it, especially the ballets prepared by Suki Schorer, and also by Susan Pillare. For further information, call 212-769-6600 or visit www.sab.org. But as to the main topic of this thread, my answer to the question is, Yes, performance quality has dropped, and my reason for giving that answer is that, as far as I can tell, NYCB seldom if ever dances Balanchine's ballets as he had them danced, a way I consider part of the ballets themselves, about as much a part as the steps are, many of which, I'm told by people with sharper eyes and better memories than I have, have also disappeared. I'm sorry, oberon, but I don't think NYCB is Balanchine's company, if it doesn't look like it.

My friend and I would like to thank you both for your suggestions. (He accepts that his timing was not the best, but it wasn't his own, as I suspected.) Would you like to know what he saw, and how he liked it? He went to a performance of the Mark Morris Dance Group at BAM, and found it humane and generous in spirit, sometimes humorous, especially Morris's own part in it, though the choreography tended to be "staccato" and lacked the complex patterns of "Balanchine." (I don't know what Balanchine he's seen.) He agreed with my suggestion that patterns may be more visible from a center seat; fearing he'd be too far back in the balcony, he took the right end of the fourth row in the orchestra. In particular, he thought the first dance, [From Old Seville, for Morris and Lauren Grant], was a good opener and liked its novelty as a "sketch," set in a bar as it is. He likes to see the sweat and hear the gasping and puffing of performers; to him, this is "reality," in contrast to the transcendant aspects of dance I savor (things a camera can't see, for example). Part of what interests him watching dance is watching "human machines" doing impossible things. (I think he means that dancers seem both human and something else besides.) He also was "gratified" to see the banter among the dancers in the stage-right wing, and enjoyed seeing Morris watching the performance from there. He grants that partial view means that sometimes you have to imagine there is another couple, say, performing symmetrically to the one you can see, and that a balcony seat would let you see the performance space as an open volume. His firm has a project in Washington, so he'll be making more visits there, and your advice worked out so well, I think we'll try this again!

I recall reading that Mr. B's comment on Bejart's Sacre was, "You can't do it, but it's the best one." I haven't seen much Bejart, but when I saw his company do it years ago, I thought I saw where Balanchine was coming from when he said that. (Of course he never saw Paul Taylor's setting.) And Monumentum/Movements! Last time she presented that, it was superb! I expect to be there. (Think again, kfw.) As for Kaiser dictating to Farrell, she has a titled position there, her troupe is not just booked in. I think he's smart enough to want to keep her happy, not to tell her what to do.

So the MET orchestra and the ABT "orchestra" (a pickup group not kept together) are separate and different. Thanks for the clarification, zerbinetta.

Joan Acocella reviews the Martha Graham Dance Company at City Center, Mark Morris Dance Group at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and the Nrityagram Dance Ensemble from India at the Joyce Theatre, for the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/dancing/a...509crda_dancing The "hard-copy" version includes a full-page photo of Graham dancer Fang-Yi Sheu the on-line version omits.

Ambulatory scenery, eh? Yes, that shouldn't upstage the dancers. Treefrog, you've just summed up why this old, old ballet is still on! Part of my definition of great is that there's something inexhaustible about the thing, whatever it is, maybe except for some who've become hopelessly jaded old cynics...

Right on, Mel! FWIW, the passage is in Denby's 1965 article on Don Quixote: Describing the five-movement divertissement in the throne room of the Duke's palace, Denby writes, "Some demi-caractere steps..., extremely virtuoso, are based on the frug in the same sense that the Fairy variations of Petipa are based on the can-can." The article appears in Dance Writings on p. 487; originally it appeared in the July 1965 Dance magazine. Regarding Fred Astaire, Balanchine was twice asked, with some hostility I think, who his favorite male dancer was. I infer the hostility because Nureyev and Baryshnikov, respectively, were dancing for ABT at those times and packing the houses, and the questioners wanted to put Balanchine on the spot by making him name one of these stars of the competition's company. Ha! Not so easy! Each time, he replied, without hesitation, "Fred Astaire." I, too, would be glad to read a summary of your lecture, silvy.

I haven't yet seen MCB's Nutcracker, although if I lived in south Florida I would be sure to. Balanchine's is the most magical treatment I have ever seen, and friends here who have seen MCB's say it's faithful to the one we saw under Mr. B's direction in the good old days. But as to the main question in this topic, just off the top of my head, I'd say Ballet Imperialwith Mary Carmen Catoya and Renato Penteado was such a high of the season, it was a high for many seasons and even compared to some other companies! I haven't seen anything so good so fully and beautifully achieved in a while. But La Valse with Deanna Seay and Mikhail Nikitine was literally wonderful, full of wonders; it's just not quite as great a ballet, in my book. And then there was Afternoon of a Faun with Jennifer Kronenberg and Carlos Guerra; that was memorable, too. Cheating a litle now by consulting my "notes" - my scribbled-over casting sheets - I'm reminded of two very fine and very different Sonatines, Caytoya's gleaming one and Seay's luxurious one, and Francisco Renno's directly expressive playing of the piano. And the opening-night cast of Divertimento No. 15, in which Catoya, Penteado, and Kronenberg were outstanding, gave a performance on such a high level it left me a little unhinged. For me, an unreassuring low came with Trey McIntyre's The Reassuring Effects of Form and Poetry, in which the tricky choreography didn't seem to me ever to go with the direct and flowing music, but at least the dancers always looked good (or better) in it. (I hope they enjoyed its challenges.)

Well, Farrell Fan, we can dream, can't we?

In my fantasy, if Suzanne Farrell were to consider me suitable for coaching, I would gladly let her pick the role(s)! And as for the roles I'd avoid: Most of Martins's, because there are so many events flowing by in the music that he doesn't reflect in his choreography.

Female pas de trois, I thought. For what it's worth, I think I can account for "Clap Yo' Hands'" elimination: NYCB was dancing Who Cares? at Ravinia (the Chicago Symphony's summer location), and the first night, there was this long pause when the tape of Gershwin's recording was supposed to play, and then they danced the final number; the second night, the tape started to play backwards, and the girls started to dance! Irving rapped on his music stand with his baton, averting artistic catastrophe, and the girls, pouting, flounced off, looking very disappointed. My theory is that Mr. B got ticked off, decided, The Hell with it! and took it out.

I want to add an observation I made in the lobby and foyers, etc.: This was not an elderlyaudience: Very few white or gray heads in the crowd. Hmm... (I didn't look around much last night, as I was with friends.)

Tonight (Saturday the 23rd) I had a rather better seat than last night, two rows closer to the stage and about 2/3 as far off the centerline, and when you're in the fringe area, every improvement in reception makes a big difference, even though you're still in the lower balcony, and I found the whole evening's performance more present, vivid, and effective than last night's. So that's my caveat, and that said... Some of the cast was the same: I enjoyed Cornejo's Peasant pas even more, was even more wowed by Lopez's dancing of choreography I felt even more strongly needed replacement with something possibly as showy but somehow more pastoral or folksy, but where there were changes I preferred McKerrow's greater lightness and vivacity, Carmen Corella's fuller dancing as Myrta, once she got past the early icy stuff, which she also realized - made real - very effectively. I agree that Part was remote emotionally; Corella had intensity without passion, consistent with the role, in contrast to McKerrow's shifting character as Giselle - quite a big role in the range it requires as well as the plain physical endurance - McKerrow was quite impressive this way too, when I think back on it, as well as moment by moment as it was happening. Tonight's Hilarion was Sascha Redetsky, not quite so impressive a technician to me as Saviliev, nor on the other hand did he give a coarsened performance of the role one could take - in fact, going farther than ballet-a-holic's hint - or even prefer as being more in character. I think the real problem here may be one of preparation of the role - when you have the resources Saveliev showed us he has, they might this time have been better directed into realizing a coarser character in the story and providing more interest by contrast with the others. If I remember correctly, Maxim Beloserkovsky achieved that as the Seracen prince in ABT's Raymonda last June; as tonight's Albrecht, he was somebody else, a nobleman. Tonight's conductor was David LaMarche, and the results sounded as good as last night, or better, possibly because, sitting farther forward, I did not have as much of the upper balcony above me to cut off some sound. I've been looking in the program to find something about this orchestra; I assume ABT uses the Met Opera orchestra in New York, which plays the opera season currently. Does anyone know who these musicians are? They're good, and well prepared.

I've just returned home from Friday evening's performance, and I suppose I can start by apologizing to Treefrog for not noticing any soldiers, really, the dancing stage center kept me engrossed so the whole time. Julie Kent was unstinting always and ranged from lovely to pretty phenomenal, matched (in the latter respect) by Jose Manuel Carreno. Actually, the habit of keeping my attention riveted to stage center, already established early in this ballet, served me well in the Peasant pas de deux, where Erica Cornejo was lovely, also, especially in her second variation. (She earned some approving soft vocalisations from the dance veteran next to me, too.) Carlos Lopez, however, performed some bravura-style material which seemed less in keeping with the pastoral character of the ballet's first act than I have seen previously, but I have no quibbles with the quality of his performance of it. Very impressive indeed. And it's worth mentioning that Gennadi Saveliev, in the role of Hilarion, brought a technical excellence to it we don't always see there. Overall, I had quite a good time, although I was nevertheless aware of a certain heterogeneity in the choreography I haven't always felt, for exmple when watching the Makarova-Baryshnikov video, and this was confirmed by a keener observer with a better memory who also confirmed that Carreno's second-act variation was the same one Baryshnikov introduced, for what that's worth. Oh, and it was a pleasure to hear a live orchestra (under Charles Barker's direction) without thickening amplification.

We thank you all! (Is that BT review of this year's program?) Anybody else?

Thanks, carbro, I knew it wouldn't suffice just to check a few web sites of the companies I could think of on my own! I hadn't thought of Mark Morris, and while I don't recognise anything reputedly tops on the program, MM usually looks musically more aware than, say, PM, to me, and the mixed bill might be part of a good beginning for someone a little green to the art of dance anyway. (I agree about the timing, but that's likely set by his employer, who's probably paying the freight.)

A friend of mine, an architect from Vancouver, with some musical sensibility and general culture, lately tells me he's in DC tonight (Monday) and in NYC the rest of the week, through Saturday at least, and wonders if there's anything in ballet he "must" see in either place. ABT is here this week, just his luck, but maybe there's something at the Kennedy Center (where I'm about to check)? Paul Taylor? Merce? I'll check those too, but maybe I'll just send him to the Metropolitan during the week. Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Clapping is my chosen method, as loud as possible if the performance warrants it (unless the people in front of me turn around and express displeasure, as happens sometimes) and hands over head for added carrying of the sound to the stage. Sometimes a bravo/a/i or two, if there's not too much water in my pipes. What's the farthest I'll go to show my appreciation? I'll write out a check, and send it to the company...

I enjoyed the joke. Thanks, Treefrog! But I have a sinking feeling. We're experienced, in the know, right? We get the humor. Would we have as big an experience, would anyone, if Giselle et al, "simplified"? Do we go to Giselle for the story, or for the dancing? I can choke up at the end of Act I of Giselle, depending how repentent or converted the cad Albrecht is portrayed, but there's lots and lots of dancing in Giselle, and getting people in by telling them the melodrama seems to me like false pretenses: They can feel betrayed, because there's so much else. Would I inveigle a murder-mystery fan to go to an operatic tragedy for the plot, and have them run out because all those people do is stand around and sing? (Better the fan should see film noir.) Maybe I take all this too seriously, but on other threads we've been discussing that there's not enough money for an orchestra and that maybe ballet can be sold to men as athletics. Won't most of us agree that if a dancer looks athletic, they're not quite up to what they're doing? So an approach that promotes ballet as something other than what it is seems to me somewhere between manipulative (and unworthy) and doomed to failure. That's where my sinking feeling comes from.