Marc Haegeman

The entrances of the ballerinas are usually spine tingling moments for me (and for the ballerinas as well): the unveiling of Nikiya has already been mentioned (truly magical). I would add the entrances of Giselle and Kitri in "Don Quixote": the first very gently, the second fiery, yet both in their own way thrilling moments, immediately creating the atmosphere. Two of the grandest entrances in classical ballet, perfectly prepared by the music, can be seen in "The Sleeping Beauty" and in "Raymonda". Some other thrilling favorites are: - the final moment of the Rose adagio, especially the four hair raising promenades en attitude, when I can't help wondering if Aurora is going to make until the very end; - the moment in "The Nutcracker" (by Vainonen or Grigorovich) right after the battle with the mice, when Masha first sets eyes on her ugly nutcracker now turned into a handsome prince; - the closing scene in Lavrovsky's "Romeo and Juliet" when Romeo lifts the supposedly dead Juliet high above his head, slowly walking up the stairs and when Prokofiev's music thunders right through your whole body; and I could add so many more...

Balanchine's influence is undoubtedly less important in Europe than it is in America, yet I always felt that he left such an indelible mark on 20th-century ballet that many choreographers coming after him would have worked in different way if they hadn't known him, just as most composers in the 2nd half of the 19th century (and even later) are in a way tributary to Wagner's music, whether they liked him or not, whether they admitted it or not. It's also interesting to note that the Dutch National Ballet in Amsterdam is with New York City Ballet the main treasurer of Balanchine's heritage. The Dutch company has more than 20 works of Mr. B. on its repertoire and every season has at least one of his ballets programmed. Even smaller companies like the Royal Ballet of Flanders in Belgium are not unfamiliar with Balanchine ("Four Temperaments" can be seen this year). And at least one Belgian choreographer, Jan Fabre, is tributary to Balanchine. And yes, even the Russians are making progress. Now that a leading company like the Kirov is exploring his repertoire more and more, perhaps even out there they will see the light. That said, it still is a fact that Balanchine remains an "American" choreographer, just as much as Neumeier and Forsyth remain "European" choregraphers for Americans. Some of Balanchine's work is little appreciated over here (not to say hardly ever shown): for example "Stars and Stripes", "Western Symphony", or "Union Jack" are forbidden territory for most of us or at best considered expensive jokes. Even (and by this I am somewhat indirectly answering your question of some while ago, Alexandra) his reputed "Nutcracker"; some people over here will say that Walt Disney might have done a better job on that one. Whatever, future of ballet, genius, popular -- fine, as long as you are in the right part of the world.

With his ballets, new works as well as stagings of the classics, Grigorovich provided, in my opinion, one of the most convincing answers of a 20th-century choreographer to the problem of how to present the tradition of academic dance in a for a contemporary audience fully acceptable guise. Yet, in doing so, Grigorovich never got away from the classical structures. That's why some critics considered him to be too traditional -- thanks for the compliment. Grigorovich's "Nutcracker" is one of the best I've ever seen. Vinogradov and Eifman tried or try to give answers as well, but in their cases I fully understand your hesitation concerning their classification, Alexandra. They started from the academic dance idiom as well, yet deliberately reacted against it and travelled away from it (in Eifman's case quite far) by introducing alien ways of movements, patterns, shapes, gymnastics (something Grigorovich never did). As with many western choreographers, who influenced these Russians, some people call this an "enrichment", others... well, will think differently. However, the end-result is completely different from the starting point (of course next to some more "modern" pieces Vinogradov did also his versions of "Coppélia", "Cinderella", "Fille mal gardée" etc which are still in a classical mould). If somebody wants to call the pieces of Vinogradov and Eifman "ballets", that's fine with me. Yet, are they still "classical" works, that's another question. Perhaps, I can answer this one this way. In 1995 Forsythe scrapped a commission to create a new work for the Royal Ballet, because he felt the classically-trained dancers of that company would in his opinion be UNABLE to dance his choreography in an acceptable way. -- Sounds to me, that Mr. Forsythe had at that point completely forsaken his roots. Regarding Grigorovich

You are quite right Estelle, Rudi van Dantzig's "Romeo and Juliet" is a classical ballet, as is his "Swan Lake", but that doesn't necessarily make him a neoclassical choreographer. Van Dantzig's "Romeo" is rather exceptional. It was a commission from the Dutch National Ballet he first turned down -- indeed, it was to alien for him. When he eventually did the ballet (somewhere in the mid-sixties) he followed Lavrovsky's staging, used Prokofiev's music, and thus proved Ashton was right when he remarked that "Anybody could get up and do Romeo and Juliet, it's all there structured for you." By the way, I don't think Van Dantzig's "Romeo" is that uninteresting Estelle; it's quite comparable to MacMillan's version of the ballet, only it's less well known. Of course, it won't be for his "Romeo and Juliet" or his "Swan Lake" that van Dantzig will be remembered in books on ballet history. Pieces like "Monument for a Dead Boy", are more like it, and are quite a different kettle of fish. The same could be said about the other famous Dutch choreographer Toer van Schayk. It's not because his "Nutcracker and Mouseking" is a purely classical ballet, that van Schayk has to be considered a neoclassical artist. Those works are probably merely escapades for them. Where to classify these guys then? Well, perhaps Alexandra's term "hybrid" is an idea.

Some months ago BBC television devoted a whole evening to dance. The first programme of the evening "Dance Ballerina Dance", hosted by Royal Ballet principal Deborah Bull could have been an introduction to ballet, yet, surprisingly, turned out to be a lecture on feminism. Ms Bull is obviously frustrated by the fact that every woman we see in ballet is created by... a man. In the history of ballet, she argues, women are exclusively seen through men's eyes. And she names Petipa, Ashton, MacMillan, Balanchine, and Forsyth (in that order) as supreme examples. Ms Bull hopes to live to see the day when ballerinas will be created by women choreographers -- women through women's eyes... and men through women's eyes. All of you, women ànd men, will of course remark that Ms Bull in her eagerness to make her point omits a few women choreographers, producers, and directors here and there, yet I guess her message is crystal clear: ballet is definitely not what it seems to be; it's all part of the fiendish male plot. Part of the issue was raised again a few weeks later, in the video review section of the ballet.co.uk site. Cause of all the frustration (the reviewer is a guy, by the way) was this time the video film of well-known "Le Corsaire", as danced by the Kirov Ballet. The ballet was on that occasion described as "absurd and decadent", and... the plot as "incredibly sexist." And I always thought of this ballet as innocent fun. Well, ladies, do you think it's really as bad as this? Do you take it as an insult as well because Medora is abducted on several occasions? And, more seriously, is the fact that Petipa and Balanchine were guys bothering you also? And, gentlemen, no need to say that we will defend our ground if we have to.

Great performances in 1998? At first I would single out some Kirov Ballet performances (thanks for reminding us, Kevin!). Altynai Asylmuratova and Farukh Ruzimatov were absolutely fantastic in Fokine's "Sheherazade" last Summer during the Kirov summer season in the Austrian Graz. Irina Zhelonkina, also from the Kirov, was nothing less than sublime in "Chopiniana." Zhelonkina is hardly known outside the Kirov company and it's easy to see why. She's not one of those long-limbed, towering girls who now rule the company, and many will probably consider her to be an 'old-fashioned' dancer because she doesn't indulge in those stylistical aberrations which now abound and are being sold for classical ballet. Her identification with especially the romantic characters is remarkably complete, while her evocative power is absolutely magnificent. In Paris a nice surprise came from Isabelle Guérin, who was unforgettable in her debut as Manon in Kenneth MacMillan's "L'Histoire de Manon." Partnered by an equally inspired Manuel Legris and surrounded by a brilliant company, this Manon was gripping from start to end. I also enjoyed enormously a great Elisabeth Platel in Nureyev's "Raymonda", which was shown in Opéra-Bastille in the beginning of the year. Platel is moreover a 'tragédienne' of the highest order, as was pretty obvious by her "Giselle" and by her Nikiya in "La Bayadère" (but this last one was already in 1999). Finally, I would like to mention Larissa Lezhnina (former Kirov) from the Dutch National Ballet in Amsterdam, who was a great Cinderella in Ashton's ballet.

Some interesting things have been touched here. Listening to ballet scores, especially those from composers like Lovenskiold, Adam, Minkus etc, is usually complicated by the existence of different versions of the same score. The music of these composers has been "re-orchestrated", "re-arranged" and "completed" at will, often by musicians who did their utmost to prove they could do better. One example: listen to Minkus' "Don Quixote" in the arrangement of Patrick Flynn, as played on the famous Baryshnikov/Harvey-video, and listen to the score on the Kirov Ballet video (with Terekhova and Ruzimatov) of the same ballet. Of course, Minkus will always remain Minkus, but hearing the music in its original form, without the later additions, may give quite another impression. No, "Don Quixote" is not vulgar and crass, the orchestration is not thick and heavy, it has light and charming moments, with beautiful scoring for the woodwinds, it doesn't have any stylistical inconsistencies in its instrumentation, it uses interesting decorative counterpoint, etc. In short it's a completely different affair. "Good" or "bad" music? Well, let's begin by listening to the original scores without all the layers of later additions and alterations, and start the discussion from there. Yes unfortunately, as Alexandra remarks, one doesn't usually hear great orchestras play ballet music. The Royal Danish Orchestra is one noticeable exception, as are the Kirov and Bolshoi Orchestras. And they DO care for the ballet music they play: Adam, Minkus, Tchaikovsky, Glazunov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Asafiev, you name it, they play the music with conviction and without contempt, they make you believe in the music. Hearing Tchaikovsky's "Sleeping Beauty" for instance, played by the Kirov Orchestra is a tremendous and unforgettable experience: right from the start the sheer power and drama, the broad gesture, the multitude of colour in the music, it takes you by the throat and never lets go for the rest of the evening. And there again, suddenly, you hear all those things in the score you never heard or never remarked before. And so we arrive at the issue of the taped music again. To some it will sound snobbish, but once you've heard live music-making like this... sorry for the tapes.

Some things in this debate, which is really getting too long, still need to be made more clear. I don't think anybody implied that: taped music = bad ballet company orchestra = good ballet company 'we can only afford taped music' = 'you better stay away' It is not because ABT performs on tour, in open air, with taped music that ABT is not a great company; same for the Kirov on tour in America. And no ballet company, big or small, good or bad, should cease to exist because it can't afford to pay an orchestra. Nobody said anything along those lines. And the use of orchestra or tape doesn't say anything about the quality of the company. The issue here is that live music is by far PREFERABLE to playback of whatever quality, and that it's a PITY to have to watch ballet without live music, for the reasons that have been stated, by Alexandra and others, already a long time ago.

It is one of the many things most people really don't understand about ballet lovers: "How can you possibly see the same ballet more than once???" "And three La Bayadères back to back?" "What 6 Sleeping Beauties? You are... "(something)-- "Why do you do that for -- It's always the SAME!" I guess you realize by now, Giannina, with your 'shock-therapy' of Corsaires that it is NOT the same at all. I agree with Alexandra that it is the best way to learn a ballet, as well as the artists involved, especially when the company is big enough to present different casts. Automatically you start to compare, and a dancer who seemed brilliant on the first night, may even turn out to be the worst of all after several nights. It also tells you a lot about a production. I once saw 14 Kirov-Nutcrackers in a row, and the last one I enjoyed even better than the first, even when everybody was saying this Vainonen version is no good at all. But after that third Nutcracker by the Royal Ballet, I was relieved to see that final curtain coming down. But whatever, Giannina, if you really dig a ballet, go and see as many as you can. The real fun only starts the second night...

Yes quite, Paul, let the ballet-going public decide what they want to see or not. The public has been doing nothing else, here in Western Europe. The last ten years or so we have been treated to several visiting companies from Eastern Europe, Russia (I guess they appeared in the USA as well). The first time the company presents 'Swan Lake' with almost no sets (you know, 'Well-filled ballroom' says the program for the third act, and there is nothing but a chair on the stage), dusty costumes, a hissing tape that makes so much noise that you wonder if the house is on fire -- and I won't say anything about the quality of the artists involved. Yet, everybody is fooled, partly also because the company sometimes appears under a "borrowed" (read: "false") name of some other more illustrious company ("Kirov", "Bolshoi" seem to be favorites), which allows them to ask even more money at the box-office. But the second time this company appears here, hardly anybody is fooled anymore and the house remains painfully empty. The public has decided. The company won't even think of appearing a third time. And the ballet world became a little poorer again. Nobody decides who "can" and who "can't" go on tour, nobody decides about "good", "the best", and so on. But heaven forbid if that would be the only way to see ballet.

Great idea (and this is of course another thread -- sense and nonsense of touring), to expand the visibility of a ballet company through touring. But not at all costs, I think. The result is at times anything but benefitting the world of dance. For instance, it's sad to hear from people, who went to see a ballet performance of some visiting company for the first time in their lives, that they came back with a big disappointment because of the obvious poverty and low-standard of the whole event. Even before the final curtain came down they already had made up their minds: This was the first and last ballet performance they would ever bother with. Indeed, "Is ballet only THAT?" As could be seen a couple of years ago when "The Stars of the Kirov Ballet" were touring the USA for several (some dancers said "endless") weeks in a row, with taped music: is this the proper way to get acquainted with ballet or with a famous company? As for the hi-tech efforts to "recreate" the orchestra, with even manipulating the speed of the music by computer and so on, that really sounds frightening. For when the computerized ballerina?

I can understand, Barb, that when you had to sit through a performance of the Nutcracker with a French horn solo in the Spanish variation, you ended up with a severe headache, simply because it's usually played by a TRUMPET. And although I agree about the unlimited possibilities of sound recording and reproduction at present, using taped music in a ballet performance is like playing soccer without a real ball. It's really no use doing it. Besides, most ballet companies won't even consider investing in the first-rate equipment needed for reproducing decent sound. Many ballets which are available on commercial video were filmed with playback, by the way. Even the applause is playbacked. This also explains why sometimes a variation or a solo, where the dancer has to start and the music has to fall in at the right time, is missing on the tape, simply because the technician wasn't able to push the button of the player at the right moment... How ridiculous can you get?

I am not sure, Alexandra, whether the "Raymonda" with Kolpakova is commercially available now; in any case my copy comes from a BBC-broadcast of some 20 years ago. As far as I know it never appeared on cassette in Europe, though it may have in the US or Japan. As for Soloviev, I guess it's rather a Russian/Western difference. Yuri Soloviev is idolized in Russia. For Russian ballet people, Kirov as well as Bolshoi, he is a genius, a god. In the West I think he is hardly known, let alone correctly valued. In the West he is also overshadowed in fame by Nureyev and Baryshnikov. Over here, Soloviev is at best remembered as a Kirov dancer from the sixties with a nice jump. That's about as correct as saying that Tchaikovsky is the composer of the "1812" ouverture. The rare films (from Russian TV) that exist of Soloviev show something more than that (besides the "Sleeping Beauty" there is "Grand Pas Classique", "Flower Festival at Genzano", "Spectre de la Rose", "Blue Bird", "Black Swan Pas de deux", variations from "Le Corsaire", from "Laurencia", and some others). He indeed jumps higher than anybody else, possessing a unique 'ballon', but what really impresses is the overall quality of movement (he is a true legato-dancer, linking the most intricate movements and steps), the continuously perfect placement and technical finish, the effortlessness and the gentle power of his whole being. Yuri Soloviev was not only a phenomenal technician (some argue he even put Baryshnikov in the shade), he simply represents classical male dancing in its purest form. Dramatically Soloviev may look (for 1999 eyes) old-fashioned, yet I find his subdued and introspective Désiré in the "Sleeping Beauty" rather convincing. As for his partnering abilities, the greatest Kirov ballerina's of his time (Kolpakova, Komleva, Sizova, Makarova) remind him in glowing terms. His untimely death in 1977 (by suicide) reportedly was a severe blow for Kolpakova, whom he had been partnering regularly. Every ballet lover should at least have seen the films of Soloviev's pas de deux and variations once in his life, because they show more than anything else what ballet is about. If a compilation of these films would exist on a tape, that would undoubtedly be my all-time favorite. "The best Russian male dancer" ?? -- Absolutely. And finally, Alexandra, never call Soloviev a "nice demicaractère dancer" when Russians are present, they might take offense.

Ballet videos that rank highly on my list are: "The Nutcracker" with Yekaterina Maximova and Vladimir Vasiliev from 1978 at the Bolshoi. This version of the ballet by Yuri Grigorovich is one of the very few to match the sweep and ardour of Tchaikovsky's music. It also features two magnificent artists at the height of their abilities and the tranformation of the doll into the prince is one of the truly magical moments of ballet on film. "Raymonda" with Irina Kolpakova and Sergei Berezhnoi from 1978 at the Kirov, simply because it highlights one of the really great Russian classical ballerinas. The staging by Sergeyev is a model and the Kirov-company is simply glorious. A lesson in style. "The Sleeping Beauty" with Alla Sizova and Yuri Soloviev from 1964, also Kirov Ballet. The superb Sizova is hardly known in the West, yet her interpretation of Aurora is one of the most convincing on film, while Soloviev is considered to be the best Russian male dancer ever. Also features the famous Natalya Dudinskaya and a young Natalya Makarova. A dream.

It's surely great to hear about the Wildor-Sibley relationship at the Royal Ballet. Is this an exceptional case ? I was in any case surprised to find out that in the Kirov Ballet some principals do not even have a coach. How do they manage ? They work on their own, sometimes assisted by a fellow dancer. A company that takes such pride in its lineage of reputed ballet masters should at least be able to provide proper coaching for all its soloists. No wonder that some dancers in the company feel slighted.

Indeed, we are two generations away from the great artists, though the gap shouldn't be as wide as it is now. But it seems to be a favourite policy of many artistic directors to evict artists who could fill the gap. Experienced dancers are carefully neglected, if not actually sidelined. We saw what happened in the Royal Ballet. The situation in the Kirov Ballet is not very different. Beginning artists no longer have "living examples". Film and video may give some idea what a dancer of a previous generation looks like. Yet, the dancers of the new generation admit without blushing not to bother with those old performances. Why should they, anyway? What they do on the stage is cheered and encouraged. Mentality changes, so does the public. Many witnessed the different taste of the balletgoers in Russia nowadays. The ones who used to go in the old days can't afford it any longer to watch a performance in the Maryinsky or the Bolshoi. Those who fill the theatres today, the new rich, definitely want to see different things. Even a world-class ballerina like Altynai Asylmuratova is no longer appreciated in Russia (somebody like Kolpakova or Komleva probably wouldn't stand a chance), after all she doesn't go for the flashy tricks and the cheap circus acts. And above all, she is in her late thirties and that's far too old... "Technique" and style are no longer going hand in hand in Russia either, it seems.

I would like to add a few things with regard to the situation in the Kirov Ballet. First of all, I don't think anybody has doubts about the talent of the artists considered. The Kirov has talent aplenty... The question here is rather, is it used in the most profitable way? Secondly, the older dancers, magnificent, first-rate artists in their time, are still around to instruct the new generations as well as the established dancers. Asylmuratova too still works daily with her coach, as indeed do all the others. So what's going wrong then? I don't have the answer right here, but let's conclude with two remarkable things. What's the influence of a coach on his/her pupils nowadays? I would be tempted to say, very little. I don't see the "mark" or the "stamp" of a coach on his/her pupils anymore. You can no longer possibly say: "This dancer is definitely a pupil of coach X". On the contrary, artists with styles that are as different as black and white seem to be coached by the same person. Also, ways of moving, styles (some will call it modernization), that were totally alien to what the coaches have always been defending in their time, are now accepted blindly. Finally, the presence of coaches doesn't prevent the dancers from permitting themselves a degree of interpretative freedom, which frequently distorts the boundaries of tradition and style. For example, London 1997, Kirov Ballet, four Giselles in a row, four different, in many ways fascinating, interpretations: Asylmuratova, Makhalina, Zakharova, Dumchenko. Yet, only one of the four, Dumchenko, seemed to have more than just a superficial eye for the romantic image which - correct me if I'm wrong - this ballet still demands (or perhaps this is no longer the case at the end of the 20th century?) The others, no matter how remarkable in their own way, took liberties with plastique, style and characterisation (even the dresses were all different) which added nothing at all to the romantic spirit of the ballet, but were actually completely beside the point. Many will argue that these individual approaches are proof of artistic personality. Maybe so, but at the same time the essence of a work, be it romantic, classical or neo-classical, is neglected and eventually lost. So, what are the coaches doing?

Alexandra, I am glad you recognize the development of young dancers as the central problem in classical ballet nowadays(absence of adequate directorship, or "management" is the other main problem that's wrecking many companies today -- though that could be the subject of another topic). Sadly, the Kirov Ballet, rightly proud of its tradition, is not immune to this flaw either. Attending rehearsals can be instructive for this matter. I'm not throwing stones at anyone - it's really too painful - , but when during a studio rehearsal a leading ballerina has to admit in tears that she has forgotten every single step of the ballet she is supposed to be dancing in the evening, then I guess there is something seriously wrong with the training. Everything was gone. And of course, anybody can have a blackout. But then you realize that this person isn't even twenty, and yet she is supposed to master a repertoire which normally for somebody of thirty-five would already be a major achievement. Everything is going much too fast. Nobody is instructed to watch examples anymore. None of the youngsters has or takes the time to watch a performance by an older colleague, who is sidelined anyway. The phenomenon of "living examples" is disappearing. Add to that the strain of endless touring, the responsability of being a "star-ballerina" at twenty, and you easily understand that some performances are anything but satisfactory. But still, she can lift her legs behind her ear and she has a nice smile... The general ballerina of today? I'm afraid so.

Alexandra, a while ago you asked for some new men from the Kirov Ballet. Well, here goes. Somebody to look out for is Andrei Batalov. He is a phenomenal technician, has a huge jump and an incredible ballon, but... he is also quite small, which is unfortunate in a company dominated by tall girls. Still, try to see him now. Promising is also young Andrian Fadeyev. Blond, with boyish good looks, more prince-like than Batalov, clear footwork, a good jump, and a nice legato-quality in his dancing. Might develop in a first-rate artist. Quite a spectacular dancer is Vyacheslav Samodurov. He is about the opposite of Fadeyev. Where everything with Fadeyev is crystal clear and well-structured, with Samodurov it looks like improvised and even sometimes chaotic. Samodurov is also rather small and doesn't have the presence of a true danseur noble. An interesting new face in the Kirov Ballet is Ilya Kuznetsov. He is tall, powerful and convinces as prince or nobleman. The Kirov hasn't been giving him a lot of opportunities so far, still Kuznetsov is better than many others. I also like to mention Islom Baimuradov, who is mainly a spectacular character dancer (Espada in Don Quixote, Nurali in the Fountain of Bakhchisarai). Finally, there is Yevgeni Ivanchenko, one of the dullest faces you ever come to see on a stage, yet loved by the ballerinas for his reliability as a partner. Very tall, strong, but unable to show any emotion in front of an audience. But, yes, he is still very young.

Irina Shapchits is living in Belgium now. She and her husband Mikhail Zavialov dance with the Royal Ballet of Flanders. They both left the Kirov Ballet in 1995, have been dancing for two years in Germany, and finally arrived in Belgium. Irina hasn't lost anything of her magic, but I'm afraid if you want to see her Steve, you will have to come over to Belgium... For your information Steve, there is an interview with her on the internet (Check the site http://www.kirov.com)

Well, Alexandra, I still have to see a performance where any of the newest generation of Kirov dancers will do a better job than Makhalina, Asylmuratova, or indeed any of the dancers you named (you might have added Irina Shapchits, always forgotten). Lopatkina, and Dumchenko in a lesser degree, are the only ones of the newest generation who can stand the "test" by watching their performances back to back with those of older dancers like Asylmuratova, Makhalina, Nioradze, or Ayupova. But not Vishneva, Zakharova, Amosova, Gumerova. Not in a million years. The trouble with the young dancers at the Kirov Ballet nowadays is that they are much too soon in their careers confronted with too many roles. Before they are even twenty they already danced all the major roles in the repertoire, without ever getting the time to absorb. The result is often a complete lack of identification with the role, blandness, and boring performances that all look the same, whether it is Giselle, Romeo and Juliet, Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux, or Symphony in C. And yes, Dale, Makhalina is a great ballerina. If you have the chance watch her in Raymonda, Paquita, Anna Karenina, or La Bayadère, those will give you a better understanding of her than some Swan Lake or Giselle pas de deux taken out of its context. Or try to watch her in rehearsal. You might be in for a fascinating experience, I'll tell you. Indeed, Makhalina used to take liberties with the text, especially in classical parts (though that too has been exaggerated by a certain tendency in mainly the British press), but anybody who saw her these last years will admit that there is a profound understanding in everything she does. Everything comes from the heart. And that seems to become something of a rarity too. Honestly, I don't know if the Kirov is better than it was 5 or 10 years ago, but if it is, than I seriously doubt it is because of the youngest principals.

"The Great Ballerinas of our time". Can somebody tell me on what grounds Anna Polikarpova was selected? I would rather nominate Yulia Makhalina of the Kirov Ballet, or why not Uliana Lopatkina ?