Hans

0:41-44 - He does a grande sissonne en avant followed by a quick ballonné with the left leg and then steps into a grand jeté en avant

0:48 - Another grande sissonne en avant

0:52-54 - Double rond de jambe en l'air sauté

0:58 - Glissade, entrechat-cinq, glissade, jeté battu (if you want to get really specific, it is glissade derrière de coté sans changée, but that is quite a mouthful!)

1:07 - Pirouette en dehors

Altynai Asylmuratova. She is still one of my favourites.

NYCB has, as far as I know, more than one studio, so they could (in theory) hold several classes with different teachers--maybe a general warm-up class, men's and women's technique classes focusing on personal corrections and technical maintenance and development, and then a challenging classe de perfection at the same time, before rehearsals begin, and the dancers could choose what they need that day regardless of rank. Of course, this does not factor in things like paying more teachers and more pianists, or any other issues I may not be aware of.

There is a thread regarding the issue here: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=29912

Some NYCB dancers also take the advanced classes at SAB. They don't really get corrections there as the teachers are focused on the students, but it isn't as crowded. It's also an opportunity for the men and women to have classes appropriate for their technical needs.

I've heard of the company, but I've never seen a performance. A former teaching colleague danced one of the Shade solos in their 'La Bayadère'.

I believe several of our members watched Kirkland quite frequently in New York, and I hope they will post their thoughts as well.

Notice on WB's website: http://www.washingtonballet.org/about/arti.../johnGoding.htm

I worked with Mr. Goding for several years in WB's performances of Mary Day's "Nutcracker". He was delightful on the stage and teaching company class. A very sad loss for Washington Ballet.

Anyone else watching? Dessay in particular sounds wonderful, IMO.

That's another one I'll be skipping. I haven't seen Nutcracker in years, and I couldn't be happier!

I'd be happy to see Lilac Garden, On the Dnieper, The Dream...not all three on the same triple bill, though.

That would be great, Hans, but remember the conservative presenters. I'm afraid that we were spoiled with the recent Royal Ballet 3ple bill of imaginative offerings. Will we ever see anything like that again? Instead, it will most likely be Nutcracker Suite, Don Q highlights and a predictable Tharp (if we're lucky). A lot has changed in one year.

I know, but if we don't ask for good ballet, we won't get it. I guess The Dream would be a little odd to do in January, but Les Patineurs would be perfect. I don't think they've brought that for a while.

I'd be happy to see Lilac Garden, On the Dnieper, The Dream...not all three on the same triple bill, though.

I got very excited when I saw the Sylvia photo, and seeing that they were bringing R&J was such a letdown. I won't be going to see them on this visit.

This is extraordinary! When was the last time that a ballet dancer was a guest on one of the late night talk shows? Perhaps it has to do with the ghost of Ed Sullivan roaming the theater named for him (where the Letterman show originates).

Didn't Wendy Whelan dance the Sugarplum Fairy variation on Letterman a while ago?

Didn't she mention that her contract said attending company class was optional? In that case, as long as she kept up her technique, I don't see why that should be counted against her, unless it was known that would be a problem. I've had contracts with ballet companies that stated company class was mandatory, so I don't think it's that difficult to stipulate if an AD wants the dancers to attend.

I am hopeful that I will get up to New York some time! I've been wanting to go for a while now.

On another note, imagine if ABT did start programming more Ashton and Tudor. Combined with all the Balanchine and Robbins NYCB could perform, NY would truly have an embarrassment of choreographic riches!

I ended up not being able to go, so I am very thankful for all of these reviews! I have the Sylvia DVD with Bussell, but there is nothing like a live performance.

I'm not disputing Hans' statement that Balanchine reacted to dancers asking for more to do with the same "if I don't let them do anything new maybe they will just go away." He did indeed. But in his case I think that was his way of letting them down nicely. When pressed or backed into a corner he could be brutal enough to make you wish you hadn't asked. I'm thinking of some of the stories in the I Remember Balanchine book.

I understand, but that was another era, and even so, I still think it's unproductive. It makes more sense to me to say, "I wasn't really happy with how you were dancing this past season. You need to work on X, Y, and Z, and you have X amount of time to improve them or your contract will not be renewed/you won't be promoted/I won't recommend you for a raise/&c" (depending on how serious the issues are). There is no need to be brutal, just state the facts and be specific. That's how it has been in every day job I've had, and I was always under the impression that it would be illegal to fire me without a documented history of unsatisfactory performance and a chance to improve. I understand that in the ballet world one can be let go at any time, for any reason (unless one is a soloist or principal, apparently, which surprises me) but I still think it would help both dancer and AD to be clear about any problems and to give a reasonable amount of time to fix them. That way everyone knows what is going on. The dancer doesn't have to try to read the AD's mind to understand what s/he needs to work on, and the AD doesn't have to pray that the dancer just leaves before s/he has to fire him or her.

And yes, I realise that taking a reasonable approach is not something that is likely to occur to many people in the ballet world, but I can dream!

I understand that this sort of thing is common in other places and can be justified, but that doesn't make it right, especially given that ballet dancers have such short careers. Giving them the option of finding better roles and more fulfillment elsewhere instead of stringing them along for years seems as if it would be much more productive for both the company and the dancer.

When a long time corp member is not getting featured roles, when she asks for more challenges and is basically ignored, that's the directors way of saying "maybe it's time for you to move on to somewhere else."

Would it be better for the director to have a sit down meeting with the corp dancer and spell it out in black and white? Yes, of course. Why don't they? I suspect because the director is not fond of confrontation, doesn't have the time or simply hopes that the dancer gets the various hints that have been sent their way, thereby saving him that uncomfortable talk. It is a rather cowardly way to go about it but definitely not unordinary.

Isn't he pretty much doing what Balanchine did? One hears that Balanchine never fired anyone, just stopped casting them and eventually they would go away. However, Martins' saying Sophie could learn featured roles and then not following through strikes me as lying to her face. It may avoid confrontation or saying something difficult, but when you are the AD, sometimes you have to say difficult things, such as "I don't see you advancing with us beyond where you are now." It's a responsibility that comes with the position. He said it to Aesha Ash, so why not Sophie? Because he wanted her to stick around as a lower-level corps member until he could hire some apprentices? Maybe that would fly in the 1970's when AD's were supposed to be considered semi-divine by the dancers, but these days people want the truth. I think Martins has been ignoring the world outside Lincoln Center for quite some time now, and while I can't really blame him, I think he does so at his peril.

Re: views of NYCB as stuck in the past, I think they have put themselves into that situation. The fact that Balanchine (and Robbins) were creating new, exciting, high-quality works was used as a reason to dance with NYCB for a very long time, and NYCB/SAB still promote themselves as being at the forefront of balletic innovation when they are not, and haven't been for over 10 years. To dancers who were born after Balanchine died and have watched NYCB dance the same repertoire for decades, with a sprinkling of new middle-of-the-road choreography that isn't really very good or interesting, NYCB would look staid. Don't get me wrong: I think NYCB should definitely dance Balanchine and Robbins, but pretending that they're the latest thing in ballet when they are really a Balanchine/Robbins museum (not a bad thing!) is not going to fool anyone, especially dancers who know people in other companies like Cedar Lake, go to see new work, &c. Based on the interview, it looks as if Sophie might fit in well at a place like PNB, with its emphasis on more modern choreography, but of course she also mentioned that she'd like to stay in New York. Whatever she decides, I wish her well.

I think she is also absolutely right about NYCB isolating itself from the rest of the ballet & dance world.

Men with beautiful feet include, IMO, Peter Boal, Yuri Soloviev, Andris Liepa, Laurent Hilaire, Manuel Legris (not a high arch/instep but a nice line and used skillfully) Marcelo Gomes, David Hallberg, and others. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any differences in the use of the foot between men and women--the foot points and presses against the floor in essentially the same manner. Men must appear to have more "weight" than women in their movements, but I think that has less to do with the foot than the way the rest of the body is used. I will say I do not like too much hyperextension in a male dancer as it makes the line appear less solid.

Regardless of the dancer's actual age, isn't it most important that she be able to "project" the appropriate age for the part? Like many ballet dancers, Ansanelli appears (onstage, anyway--I haven't seen her in person) rather younger than she really is. As much as I enjoyed her dancing, I really thought she came across more as a young woman than a mature, married lady with a 12-year-old son.

Sandy, I agree. I could understand checking one's phone after the announcement (which occurs after the lights are dimmed) is made just to be certain it really is off, but other than that, yes, one ought to turn it off as soon as one walks into the auditorium, in my opinion.

kfw, I wish I could tell!

The following article was posted yesterday by user "theballetbag" on Twitter (where else?):

Welcome to the tweet seats: Twitter at the theatre

It's all the rage, but should we be tweeting during a performance? Ruth Jamieson thinks so – just along as you play by the rules. That means no spoilers and don't call it tweatre.

Read the article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/mar/1...twitter-theatre

For my part, I disagree with Ms. Jamieson. Using a mobile phone in a theater is incredibly rude, and cupping one's hand over the screen does very little, if anything, to diminish the brightness. I don't understand why she thinks it is somehow rude to one's followers not to tweet about a performance in real time--surely people will understand that one cannot send text messages during a show. And if they don't, I would not be inclined to gratify such a selfish and inconsiderate desire. At the last ballet I attended (Manon at the Kennedy Center) I did send out little one-line Twitter reviews during the intervals, but it would never have occurred to me to attempt to do so once the lights had gone down! I would hope that an usher would put a stop to such behaviour immediately.