Ray

Boo to the article writers/NYT fact-checkers (if any) for letting "Philadelphia Ballet" slip by--especially since the Times has covered extensively Wheeldon's Swan Lake with the PENNSYLVANIA Ballet!

One of my great disappointments as a corps dancer was that there was not more pride in being part of the corps, the team. I found this to be especially true of the male dancers, who seemed never to know how to LOOK at the other dancers to keep in line, etc. The paucity of male dancers in the field breeds a very entitled perspective among some guys, I think. I always envied the corps women's ability to cohere and, seemingly, to intuit where they needed to be in relation to others in order to create a greater whole. OF COURSE, however, there were many, many exceptions to this generalization, as you can imagine!

Well I see I've engendered quite a conversation on taste and classicism. Big topics! My concern was more local, and I probably should use less loaded terms. So here goes. Dancers seem to make a show of bowing to tradition, judging at least by the popular view of ballet culture (think of Danilova "passing the mantle" in The Turning Point). As a dancer, I certainly felt that we were a serious bunch compared to show folk, singers, or musicians. But I do think the image of a "weighty" tradition does turn some away from looking at ballet--again whether it's "true" or not, or however one might define "tradition."

I'm not talking about the actual value/maintenence of traditions, I'm talking about attitudes. That's the irony of it. Even bad choreographers take on the matle of tradition as if they are guarding the holy grail--believe me, I've worked with my share of these tiresome guardians of "ballet purity" who breathe life into the old SNL "bad ballet" moniker. There is more of a diversity of approaches to/digressions from traditions in the music world. Even as standards are in some cases absolute, people can do crazy things and it's still "classical music."

What about the idea expressed in the article that the "weight of tradition" is something that discourages people from seeing/liking ballet? I think the operative word in this criticism is "weight": generally speaking, the ballet world holds the notion of its tradition in a kind of hushed reverence that can seem tediously sentimental and even cultish to an outsider (and sometimes to me, now that I'm long retired--and "deprogrammed," haha).

That's EXACTLY what I thougth when I read that review, Helene. I'm sure that that formula won't die with Rockwell's departure, but he certainly wore it thin while he was there! I *wanted* to like him--he held the promise of contextualizing dance on a par with the way other arts writers contextulaize their objects of criticism. But he just didn't have enough expertise in dance, sad to say. I know that ballet-goers have been particularly disappointed with him; his knowledge of modern (and other forms of) dance was similarly, frustratingly limited too.

Thanks for the correction, rg; of course it was McKenzie. I don't know why I thought of Barbee as I sat down to write; same generation as McKenzie, I guess. There were very few NYCB people there whom I recognized--and I *did* stop into the reception, briefly.

I wondered about this too. One thought I had, though, is that during the Croce years, the magazine made a concerted effort to "Anglicize" ballet terminology--for instance, saying "on point" instead of "en pointe," and, more generally, not italicizing terms like plie or jete (the logic being that they are the terms for the steps, not foreign words for them). I have a vague memory of Croce discussing this, I think (can anyone corroborate this?). And it would be in line with the magazine's Strunk-and-White editorial philosophy of clarity and unpretentiousness. But after all that I think Helene's right: it might just be an error! I think I've taken this even *further* afield!

Did anyone else attend the Dance Magazine awards last night? I did and was pleasantly surprised at the "show," which I feared would be overblown and pretentious. The awardees included the late Todd Bolender, Gelsey Kirkland, and David Howard, with videos and performances. (The other non-ballet awardees were Eiko and Koma and Joan Myers Brown.) The video presentation for Bolender included great pictures and text about his early life; Suki Schorer presented the award (reading a statement by Jacques D'Amboise about Bolender as a dancer--very interesting!) and Bill Whitener accepted the award on Bolender's behalf. Dancers from the Kansas City Ballet danced a silly pas de deux from Bolender's Souveniers; I wished they had danced from his Still Point instead. David Howard was introduced by Natalia Makarova who charmed the audience even though she was COMPLETELY unprepared to speak. Howard was elegant, eloquent, and terse; I came away, though, wanting to know more about his life. His award was preceeded by Yuriko Kajiya and Jared Matthews from ABT (and his students) dancing the adagio from Act 3 of Coppelia. The high point of the evening, as you can imagine, was Gelsey. Never content to rest on her laurels (represented in the amazing video footage--more about that later--and the sheer novelty of her presence), she delivered a carefully worded and moving speech, breaking several times in tears. Victor Barbee presented her award. The footage of her dancing, from Theme, Romeo, and Giselle, was both amazing and infuriating: while the clips from Theme and Romeo were professionally done the clip from Giselle was a bootleg, no music except for an added piano soundtrack. That infuriated me b/c it reflects the sometimes sad state of documentation in our field--that great dance performances in the established repertory are only furtively captured while other performing arts performances are exaustively recorded. Needless to say, though, I was happy to see this clip, of Giselle's variation from Act I, which drew gasps from the audience. It wasn't like watching an old ballet film and saying (perhaps only to yourself) "OK she was good but dancers today are so much better"; I can't imagine anyone today performing those steps better than she did. I'd love to hear what other attendees thought.

I know I posted this earlier on another thread, and while it is strictly anecdotal and far from a statistically siginificant sampling, it is very relevant to your wondering, bart.A dancer I knew was once asked about a her reaction to a rough review. She replied, "Oh, I never pay attention to the reviews. I know that whatever I do, Kisselgoff won't like it and Dunning will." What *bothers* me, though, is the polarized nature of the response: "she likes me" or "she hates me." And Leigh, I wonder if you could elaborate on the assumptions behind your statement: "offering suggestions is pointless; they aren't taken nor appreciated (and they shouldn't be.)" Why/why not? Never ever? Sometimes, it's sad to say, critics just point out the elephant in the room... Ray

profile in the NY Times, by Alex Witchel. She's a talented and brave woman, Twyla Tharp, and wise enough to not look to critics for her validation. She's had flops as well as hits before. So does everyone. I look forward to reading reviews by dance critics. Let's be honest, though: do you know of any performer, creator, dance co. director, or presenter who reads a bad review and then says, "Gee, maybe I should think about what this critic said and go back to the work and fix it"? In my admittedly narrow experience, they seem only to like the critics who praise them *unconditionally*; all the rest "don't understand what we're doing" or "don't know what they're talking about," etc. So while Tharp may be notable for not looking to critics to validate her, do you think creators/presenters/performers ever take negative criticism well, i.e., constructively? Trying to provoke, as ever...

No comment from anyone here on the SCATHING review in the Times on Tharp's Dylan musical? Those theater critics are pretty good at being mean!

To add fuel to this (or other) fires, did anyone read a more recent incarnation of Croce in an article from the Guardian (UK)? Here's the link: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1882642,00.html [moderator please repost as necessary/appropriate]

Are we omitting Marcia B. Siegel and Deborah Jowitt from this discussion b/c they focus on modern dance?

Did they give you details about what they liked or didn't about the various performances? Most felt, as I did, that the POB perf. was refreshing because you could see the steps completed in the choreography--many that Rubies is often performed by many companies as a "throw away" and they've stopped taking it seriously long ago (I exaggerate for emphasis). I should clarify too that most of my ex-dancer friends focused their praise on the pas de deux dancers--many did not care for the soloist woman. (A very unscientific poll, to be sure!) They did not miss the "punching" out of the steps that some of the commentators here seemed to miss. As far as Emeralds was concerned, there was a generally tepid response--and Pujol's "emoting" bothered many: most expected to see more sang froid and less joyeux. (By the way, I think saying her style hearkens a new way of performing Balanchine is overreading the mannerisms of a single performer a bit. Although I was heard by many to say that after I saw the Kirov prima do Diamonds as a Russian tragedy!) THIS IS ALL TO SAY that the POB performace was excellent and that all of the ex-dancers' crits were prefaced by acknowledging the general gorgeousness of the dancing ("those feet," etc.).

I've noticed that among my former dancer friends, POB's Rubies is the winner hands down, while non-dancer balletomanes--some with considerable viewing histories--favor Emeralds. I wonder what accounts for the difference?

Well put. And I notice that all around the country it didn't air until 10pm. GOD FORBID they should pre-empt "Antiques Roadshow," episode 294,049.

In the POB program my favorite was Rubies. It's so overexposed, and often danced poorly, but in this version I could see phrases and shapes, not just punched-out steps. Emeralds was disappointing in that they chose to omit the final movement that B added. And what's with the crazed open-mouth smiles? Perhaps b/c it is the "French" section of Jewels my expectations were too high. Diamonds pas just wasn't lush enough for me--esp. after seeing the Kirov's recent performances. (I disagree strongly with a previous poster who disliked the Kirov's Diamonds; I thought the Kirov's performance of the work was a revelation--previous to seeing it I tended not to pay much attention to the corps work, but I thought they really made something of it.)

I think that's true to an extent, about the scene considered in general. But both Ohad Naharin's and Yasmeen Godder's extensive experience in American contexts--in their training as well as performance experiences--complicates any easy assessment of the influences of their work. Or, rather, it should!

The latest New Yorker has an interesting article on symphony conductors, and if you go to the website, there is a video: http://www.newyorker.com/videos/060821onvi_video_conduct

I meant the "Sticky: Links" section of "Modern and Other Dance"

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/dancing/ Moderator: please move this post if it should be somewhere else, like "links."

I may be getting OT in re eggcorns, but here goes anyway: in an early grad course on the novel my ballet background intruded into class discussion in a funny way. I raised my hand to talk about Cervantes' Don Quixote and I referred to the novel as "Don Q" to strange looks all around. Good thing I didn't have a fan at hand!

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this question: what's happened to Gloria Govrin? Last I knew she was out in SF directing the Ballet's school; her name, however, was not in the Company's program this summer at LC Festival.

Awesome! One can never have too many "synergies" .........