Royal Blue

It was clearly not my intention to offend any human beings --or for that matter any animals and plants! But I edited the sentence. As far as a consideration of historical context is concerned I am all for it (in due course); but in this particular instance I offered my opinion and I'm finished with the issue. My latest post was in response to the one Drew wrote, not to Kathleen O'Connell's observations and opinions. Also, I am to blame for how this discussion came about, not Kathleen O'Connell. I apologize.

I'm not really disagreeing with you either. Nothing in this world can be taken entirely out of context. If you take a kangaroo and a potted cactus flower to a performance of The Sleeping Beauty neither of them will make any sense of what is going on onstage. So, yes you have to be a human being; and a member of the civilized community. You need (for example) to have a basic understanding of what a King, a Queen, a Prince, a Princess, a royal court and an aristocracy all are. But once we take that for granted-- The Sleeping Beauty is a celebration of life, humanity and --love! It suggests that we never truly come alive, never truly become aware of the endless possibilities this world presents us with or the dangers that confront us until-- we truly fall in love with someone. And that the only thing that ever has a chance to vanquish the everpresent darker forces in this world is the power of human love. Is this idealistic nonsense? Each of us has to decide for themselves. But it is worth remembering in the midst of all the celebratory dancing that we see and music that we hear that nothing comes about easily in this tale: how many years does Princess Aurora have to lie asleep? what internal and external struggles does Prince Desire have to undergo before he finds her? And there is nothing in Tchaikovsky's majestic music at the end to suggest anything otherwise than that being a Queen is no simple matter, and that Princess Aurora --now a Queen-- will give birth to a new Aurora ....The struggle between good and evil here is implicitly everlasting. You do not need to be a member --or be fond-- of the nineteenth century Russian landed aristocracy to grasp any of this. Nor do you have to be an expert in Russian socio-economic history, a Westerner, a One Percenter in the United States of 2016 .... And you don't really need to know all that much about choreography and music either. Deep down this is why people of all kinds flock to see this ballet. Its themes and messages are universal and have the potential to resonate within every one of us. It will continue to be so for as long as we retain our humanity. This is an example of an artwork that transcends the time that produced it. To say about something like The Sleeping Beauty that it is "an idealized depiction of the mating rituals of the landed aristocracy and is rooted in reality only to the extent that such a class existed" (my emphasis) does such a masterwork --I feel-- no justice.

Despite the distinction between classes that you draw, your words "idealized depiction..." reminded me of Austen's work and that is why I brought it up. I will say no more other than that if everything depicted in it was true it wouldn't be called "fiction". To me the phrase "is rooted in reality only to the extent that such a class existed" respecting classical ballet sounds very unequivocal. Great art deals with timeless themes and either transcends the time that produced it or it is not great, period.

Would you consider the novels of Jane Austen as "idealized depiction of the mating rituals of the landed aristocracy"? Are ballets like Giselle, Swan Lake, and The Sleeping Beauty included in these swaths? In your view should Jane Austen's novels and the works of the classic ballet repertoire be considered as great art? Isn't all great art --one way or another-- "rooted in reality"? Interesting information. I did not realize that this had been going on for a decade. I was surprised that quite a few people in the front rows of the orchestra did not stand up when she was feted at her farewell performance. Very illuminating post, thanks; and the photo of Somogyi is absolutely gorgeous. I have to add though that I find Tiler Peck equally superb in "adagio work". Veronika Part, I presume, is a Taglioni-type ballerina? And what about the tall blondes at NYCB? I guess this is an interesting differentiation --but by no means is anything set in stone.

I'm not as convinced as I appear. It is difficult enough to look into one's own mind, heart and soul --let alone another person's. A lifetime, it seems, is not time enough to get to "know thyself". But that is because the human mind, the human heart, the human soul are all by nature complex. My assumptions were that human grandeur is genuine and real, if elusive and mysterious; that it has something to do with all humanity and not just royalty; and that it has some connection with an individual's mind, heart and soul, and not just their physical appearance. Surely an artist --a ballerina-- who attempts to evoke it cannot be entirely mindless, heartless and soulless and yet successfully do so? Let's see, "exquisite proportions", "authority", "imagination", "grandeur", the various ballerinas, the fans of each one, the duty to do right by the choreographer and the composer of the ballet, the need to bring in a large audience to the theater and fill the company's coffers... --an Artistic Director's job must be an absolute nightmare trying to sort all this out! In the end it's all very subjective though: viewers will never agree on who has the most "exquisite proportions" etc. This "idealized... conception" has some bearing to the real world? This "emulation" is not a totally empty, meaningless exercise? And we do not all share the same "conception of what royalty is like" ? (Yours appears very set and vivid though.) It sounds that from your perspective the company is not in a position right now to present a truly first-rate performance of Theme and Variations. The ones who look more regal can't dance the part very well? Do you believe that Ms. Peck dances it flawlessly? I told you I was slow and proved it instantaneously. Well, they chose her to do Little Dancer for a reason. And she will not always look so young? This also has to do with her range. Last fall I saw her within a few hours in both Bill Irwin and Tiler Peck at City Center and Theme and Variations with NYCB; and I had no trouble enjoying each performance. I guess I must be biased after all. Did Somogyi ever do the lead part in Theme and did you enjoy her performance more than Ms. Peck's? Why did you pick Somogyi for the comparison? Was she a favorite ballerina of yours?

Are human grandeur and its evocation dependent then on a set of physical characteristics alone? Doesn't what is in a human being's mind, heart and soul have anything to do with it? At the end of the day, mustn't a dancer --no matter what she looks like-- show us evidence of the "fire of life" burning inside her to ever truly impress us? I stand corrected: I have no clue what the ideal physique and set of proportions are either in life or (especially) ballet. All I can say is that Tiler Peck strikes me as being a beautiful woman and that that in conjunction with her exquisite dancing --I see the "fire of life" in her-- and her evident commitment to excellence makes it a genuine pleasure for me to watch her work on stage. Ms. Peck, I believe, has shown "considerable artistry" and plenty of "authority" already-- though she should by no means, of course, rest on her laurels. Kathleen O'Connell, while I'm enjoying greatly what I see, I'm not sure how much I should trust my eyes, given that they are not as observant as yours and those of other posters! For example, I never really noticed that Ms. Peck had "a relatively large head and face" and "shortish limbs". Nor did I ever draw the connection between such features and lack of queenliness. But if we were to examine her closely enough, wouldn't we discover something unqueenly in just about every woman? In the immortal words of a character from a classic movie: "nobody's perfect!" There is nothing "subtle" about the difference you are pointing to in the wonderful images of Jennie Somogyi and Tiler Peck you provided us. I can see it clearly. In fairness, however, Somogyi is in an introspective, serious mode in the photo, while Ms. Peck --though still quite beautiful-- is in a playful, seemingly puckish one. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to see much of Somogyi before she retired, and there is no way for me to judge from such images whether her dancing would have provided me anywhere near as much pleasure as Ms. Peck's does. And I confess that I totally failed to grasp your point in the juxtaposed Little Dancer photos. The creature on the left seems to me a very, very lovely one; the statue on the right has me scratching my head! Why shouldn't the height and proportion of a dancer determine how they are cast given the drift of your remarks? Here I'm not being critical of you: I am simply curious and want to understand your point of view. Your post actually gave me plenty of food for thought. (How does our perception of the way various dancers look affect our response to what we see them do --the steps they execute; the movements they carry out; the poses they assume-- on stage?) As did your other wonderful one (#104) --to which I couldn't timely respond to. You and other posters on BA are hares; I am a tortoise.

That's interesting, regarding the hair. Blondes --and certainly the tall blondes in this company-- are awesome. But I think that this seems a bit shallow. Brunettes are awesome too! And I believe that Ms. Peck's physique is ideal for ballet. It's the reason why she is able to dance so well and make such a strong impression on the viewer in the first place.

All the more reason then to enjoy her performance in Theme and Variations at every opportunity! I was afraid of that, abatt. If height is the reason why such criticisms as lack of grandeur and queenliness are levied against her, then no ...she's never going to grow any taller. How tall was Wendy Whelan? Before she was injured I saw her cast in Diamonds. And if she was so good in the second movement of Symphony in C, and if Hyltin is also now doing it ...? I don't want to be misunderstood: I find all the tall ballerinas being given these roles simply magnificent! But I'm just wondering.... Is Ballo della Regina usually performed by shorter dancers? The casting for the upcoming Tschaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2 is fascinating! Mearns, Reichlen, and Tiler Peck all doing the same part??? So, then, in that ballet height is never an issue. It is clear that Ms. Peck has a talent for comedy and is being cast in soubrettish roles frequently. On the other hand, we shouldn't underestimate her abilities to portray serious depth and emotion. We just saw her, for example, in Liebeslieder Walzer. Then there's her work in Romeo + Juliet, La Sylphide, her supreme rendition of Columbine's haunting solo in the second Act of (oddly enough) Harlequinade....Someone please explain to me why, given her extraordinary gracefulness, she would not --with the proper training and coaching-- have made a remarkable Giselle over at ABT. Thanks to the MTA I was unable to catch Saturday afternoon's performance, but I would be totally shocked if your description, abatt, of Tiler Peck's debut in Ballo was in any way misleading or inaccurate. It's not that we are biased. It's that we see with our own eyes how splendid this woman really is!

Ballet just does not and cannot get any better than something like Theme and Variations with Tiler Peck in it-- "as" good, yes; "better"... no. I believe that as Ms. Peck becomes more conscious of the realities of the world and life's inherent bittersweetness --to wit, as she grows older-- she will display more grandeur and queenliness in the part than she currently does. But by golly, in that section of the work where the ballerina is supported by a line of corps members on pointe she exhibits tons of these characteristics already! Her dancing throughout is, of course, superlative. This is a great performance which I expect will become in a certain sense greater in the future! I saw this program three times and enjoyed Megan Fairchild in Ballo della Regina very much; but I also thought that on Sunday afternoon she was clearly struggling with the role a bit (she seemed at times to be trying to catch up to the music). In point of fact, she was by no means the only one struggling on Sunday. Abi Stafford and Rebecca Krohn were very uneven in Kammermusik No. 2. The former is unquestionably the weakest dancer in the principal ranks of NYCB, but I always end up (for the most part) enjoying watching her dance anyway. I cannot recollect though ever feeling more pleased by a spotty performance in a ballet than that of Rebecca Krohn in Kammermusik! It seemed to me that she was really making a heroic effort to master this part, and was actually quite superb in several sequences. I, for one, was very appreciative of her efforts. In the previous nights I had seen this program, I should point out, Krohn was outstanding in the "Elegie" section of Tschaikovsky Suite No. 3. Besides the obvious one, the one other performance I thought was flawless on Sunday afternoon was that of Ashley Laracey in the "Waltz" section of the Suite. Of the first three movements in this ballet the second is the one that most requires an excellent performance by the female lead, and on this occasion it got one from Laracey. Like all great dancers do, she was giving you the distinct impression that she was putting her entire body and soul into this. I wasn't at all surprised, because Laracey has always struck me as being one of the most artistic members of this company. To me this lady is a principal. When Kammermusik is danced by two such brilliant female dancers as those in the first cast it is a treat to watch. During last Wednesday's performance one of them tumbled early on, got up, and proceeded along with her extremely talented colleague to give a magnificent rendition of this somewhat strange work. I applaud the lady who fell especially not only for her exceptional work that evening (those spectacular grand jetes were breathtakingly awesome!) but for that on all the many occasions I have been fortunate enough to see her.

Negative feedback is inevitable both in and outside of the world of ballet, so you just have to brace yourself for it. You need to check out some of the reviews about dancers on BA and consider how you would feel if you were in their pointe shoes. But in general this is how you handle negative feedback. You look into the mirror and ask yourself whether what is being said about you is true. If it is, then you must accept it and try --if at all possible-- to improve yourself. If it is not, then you have absolutely no reason or excuse to allow it to rattle you. Personally, if I were a dancer I would consider any negative feedback I got more as a reason for remaining in the world of ballet rather than leaving it. Why else would anyone leave, you ask? For as many reasons as there are grains of sand at the beach, blades of grass and flowers in the countryside, books in all the libraries and bookstores of the world, fish in the sea, stars in the universe ....Ballet is very beautiful and rewarding, but we must always keep things in perspective: ballet is part of the world; the world is not part of ballet. A ballerina who never, ever wants to leave the world of ballet is like a Princess Odette who never wants to leave the lake or a Princess Aurora who wishes to never, ever wake up!

For anyone in the audience who saw Verdy and McBride (or any other great performer) in Emeralds and Who Cares? respectively this may very well be true --although I note the comments by Drew and Kathleen O'Connell. But surely a good chunk of the contemporary audience is not really seeking reinvention, reimagination or revivification of works it has barely experienced or done so with lesser dancers. And there is most assuredly nothing more vivifying that you can see at today's NYCB than Tiler Peck dancing in Who Cares?! (Personally, I find all her performances inspiring in part because I cannot imagine how anyone can do such stellar work day in day out without being exceptionally devoted to her craft.)

No matter what Balanchine may have felt, what counts is that all of us here like his "butterflies" and want to see them survive. The only difference is which portion of the glass we are going to focus our gaze on, and whether we have any cause to be optimistic going forward. jsmu, I knew beforehand that my questions have no quick and easy answers, but the information and opinions expressed in your posts and the one by Drew enable those of us who are relatively new to the world of Balanchine and NYCB to enlarge our perspective and broaden our horizons. Since I have been familiarizing myself with his works only in recent years, I particularly wanted to hear your views about today's dancers. You probably have never seen Don Quixote. I would certainly like to see that and as many others of Balanchine's ballets as possible. The conversation about Mozartiana and the different ways it has been interpreted mystifies me, I must confess. I just throw up my hands and simply just want to see it! There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that Verdy was a great artist and technician, especially since in recent months I had the opportunity to see her on DVD in a couple of works --Orpheus and Agon. So your observations about Sonatine were very useful and made perfect sense to me. However, I would rather see this ballet with anyone currently dancing at NYCB than not see it at all. To say nothing about the fact that I consider Tiler Peck to be phenomenal! Did I like watching her do those "bent knee piques and pointe steps"? Absolutely!!! Strength which is formidable and (particularly) invisible in a woman awes, I think. I would have loved to have been there yesterday; but I am also very, very happy to be here today.

I have a question about Glass Pieces for anyone in a position to know. All the movement that we witness in the first section of the ballet and the positioning of each member of the corps at all times are carefully laid out, right? There is no "Musical chairs" sort of thing going on here, correct? Because I think I detected someone ending up on opposite sides of the stage at two performances.

To be clear, which roles other than those in (presumably) Apollo and the second movement of Symphony in C did Balanchine create for "goddesses"? And who in NYCB's current roster has the "goods" to do these roles justice?

So, then, it would appear that Sonatine is an extremely esoteric work. Are some ballets so inextricably linked to the original artists that performed them that they are doomed to be quickly forgotten? Violette Verdy was evidently in her early 40s when this ballet was created. How can an American ballerina still in her twenties --forty years or so later-- be expected to grasp its "indescribable subtlety", and come across to the audience as being "insouciant/perfumed/sophisticated/piquant in that inimitable Gallic only-Verdy way"? And how, indeed, is a 21st century American audience without the slightest clue about any of this --those like jsmu in it excepted, of course-- supposed to realize what it is missing when viewing such a piece? I saw Sonatine for the first time this past week and was again --as always-- overpowered by Tiler Peck's "elegance". And what about the strength she evinced? Moving around the stage on pointe with the knees bent??? Ashley Bouder appears to be strong, and is very strong. (How can anybody in the company, let alone Erica Pereira, be expected to fill Ms. Bouder's shoes in the third movement of Symphony in C is beyond me.) Tiler Peck does not seem to be particularly strong, but she is very strong anyway. I thought that Joaquin De Luz was typically excellent in Sonatine.

Thank you, jsmu for enlightening me about this. I thought that I might have been viewing things a certain way because --as I am well aware-- I find myself very much under Ms. Peck's spell. Liebeslieder Walzer is obviously a work which begs for greater familiarity, and I hope that NYCB never leaves it long out of its repertory regardless of whether it is popular or not. I most definitely need to read Arlene Croce's essay. This time around I did not even prepare myself by reading the poems Brahms set to music! There are some moments in this ballet, like the duet of the Verdy/Nichols/Peck role at the conclusion of part one, which are incredibly haunting.

Since I have come to love Balanchine's works by following closely NYCB during the past few years, and since I am someone who by disposition is rather inclined to look back to the past (though I have no illusions about it and do not idealize it), I was very much looking forward last fall to finally seeing Liebeslieder Walzer. To my surprise I did not like it as much as I thought I would. Perhaps it was because of the need to become a little more familiar with this ballet, or the vantage point from which I was watching it in the theater. But after seeing it last evening for the third time this season from a far more advantageous spot in the auditorium I realize now what a gorgeous work this is. I overheard someone say during the intermission that they liked the second part of Liebeslieder better than the first. I am not sure about this, because both seemed --each in its own way-- splendid to me. I do think, however, that the performance of the second part was better last evening. The gentlemen --Jared Angle, Chase Finlay, Amar Ramasar and (perhaps most of all) Russell Janzen-- actually all looked pretty good throughout the work. I would say much the same about one of the ladies --Megan Fairchild. Rebecca Krohn and Sterling Hyltin, on the other hand, seemed to be more in their element in the latter half of the ballet --each of them having some very beautiful moments there indeed. This is one of those works that requires all the dancers --eight of them in this case-- to concentrate on what is happening on stage and avoid as much as possible giving the impression that they are playing to an audience. Even if they are facing toward the auditorium at any given moment they should not seem to be looking at the audience. One thing that I found regrettable during the performance of the first part last night was the way Ms. Krohn --unlike any of her seven colleagues-- seemed to be doing exactly that (in at least one of her duets). Frankly, I failed to grasp during the first couple of times I saw her exactly how exquisite Tiler Peck is in Liebeslieder Walzer. She seemed to be portraying some character (not simply dancing --and how sublimely she dances!) far, far more convincingly than any of the other three ladies. I was made to feel --through her performance-- that hers was the most fascinating of the four female "characters" we were watching on stage; and she became therefore the one whose mysteries of the mind and heart I would most have liked to unravel. I don't know this ballet that well. I wonder, would I feel the same way (that her role is the key one in Liebeslieder) if I were to somehow magically see every cast which has ever performed this work, especially the first? Once again I felt that Rebecca Krohn was outstanding in Glass Pieces. I enjoyed this performance of Robbins' work immensely. All the members of the corps --male and female-- were terrific. So was Amar Ramasar. Unity Phelan also impressed me again in Glass Pieces. I hope that she dances her part in Who Cares? on Saturday afternoon with plenty of confidence, because it seems to me that she has a lot going for her.

A program made up of Liebeslieder Walzer followed after intermission by Glass Pieces --two works of such contrasting music, choreography and overall atmosphere (including lighting, scenery and costumes)-- is actually a very neat idea. It makes you reflect about where we have been, where we are and where we are going --a journey through time (past, present, future) in one evening. I presume it was unintentional, but having two of the dancers (Krohn and Ramasar) appearing in Balanchine's imagined nineteenth century ballroom scene also cast in the second movement of Robbins' modernistic work made the entire thing more moving to me. Rebecca Krohn is one of the most frustrating NYCB principals for me, because I like her so much to begin with and want to like her even more ...but her performances sometimes come across (to me) as overly studied. On Wednesday she was fine in Walzer, but I thought that she was simply superb in Glass Pieces. Unity Phelan and Laine Habony also looked really good in the first movement of Robbins' work. Tiler Peck was also in the cast of Liebeslieder Walzer and was the primary reason why I enjoyed that ballet this particular evening so much. My appreciation of all of Ms. Peck's work verges on the stratospheric, so I second enthusiastically every observation abatt has made above about all her performances this season.

Last evening NYCB presented the third and final "All Robbins" program of the spring season, comprised of The Goldberg Variations and West Side Story Suite. I find the former work mind-bogglingly beautiful, and not a single minute too long! Despite several slight mishaps, this was a soul-stirring performance by the wonderful dancers of NYCB. The Goldberg Variations is filled with so many riches that it can easily absorb, in my view, a few such mishaps. Everyone from the beautiful Faye Arthurs to every corps de ballet member to Susan Walters (the pianist) deserves praise. All the leading men --Daniel Applebaum, Anthony Huxley, Joseph Gordon and Taylor Stanley in Part I; Tyler Angle, Jared Angle and Gonzalo Garcia in Part II-- were impressive, even allowing for some imperfect moments two or three of them had. But the leading women! Once again that lady in the light green costume --Emilie Gerrity-- mesmerized me with the beauty and elegance of her dancing. Ashley Laracey, a particularly graceful and poetic ballerina, made a most welcome return to NYCB in the part I saw Lauren Lovette dance equally splendidly a couple of weeks ago. Likewise, I was elated by the marvelous performance of Rebecca Krohn in Part II of the ballet (so far I had seen only Sterling Hyltin in this role). As I was watching her last night, and being aware of her condition thanks to reports by others in this forum, I thought that Maria Kowroski was understandably cautious --but still glorious! And on top of all this there was a perfect performance --so, what's new?-- from a perfect ballerina: Tiler Peck. Perhaps Jerome Robbins, since I understand he was very demanding with dancers, would have been infuriated with some mistakes made during last night's rendition of the Variations. But he couldn't have found anything to fault T. Peck with. Those bewildering, utterly amazing spins perfectly timed to the notes emanating from the piano, for one thing, were particularly awesome last evening. After experiencing The Goldberg Variations for the first time this year I am amused (and bemused) by the mixed reception this ballet has always received from professional critics and regular balletomanes alike, as evidenced by the fact that not a single poster here has yet commented about this spring's performances. Amused, that is, as long as we continue to be offered the opportunity to once in a while see it in its entirety, in all its magnificence and glory. When I saw this program two weeks ago I felt that the programming choice was woefully misguided. In the first place West Side Story Suite is a different type of work, even though it's by the same choreographer. Secondly, my feeling was that even as concise, as peerless, as impeccable a ballet as Concerto Barocco should precede, not follow The Goldberg Variations. (They got the order right during the winter season.) As I was watching the Suite that night --Georgina Pazcoguin as Anita was especially superb-- I constantly found myself thinking of the Variations. Despite being profoundly moved by the first work on the program yet again, I somehow relaxed during intermission this time and was able to fully enjoy the fantastic performance of the Suite by the NYCB dancers afterwards. Brittany Pollack, I should point out, made a notable debut as Anita. A terrific evening at NYCB!

Last evening's program --Symphonic Dances; 'Rode,o: Four Dance Episodes; Mercurial Manoeuvres-- was also presented last Thursday. I attended both nights. Largely because I enjoyed 'Rode,o more the second time I saw it (much like in the winter season), last night proved to be the more enjoyable one. However unoriginal it may be, Martins' ballet contains --interspersed with a few silly ones-- some very lovely moments. Because of this and the fact that I really like this musical composition, I don't find this work long at all. Its ending though is unquestionably awful! The choreography in no way does justice to the glorious coda of Rachmaninoff's opus. Teresa Reichlen was positively ravishing on both evenings, but the partnering with Zachary Catazaro was smoother last night. On the previous performance, for instance, some supported turns Reichlen did at the back of the stage during the latter half of the work were rather shaky, whereas yesterday they were exquisite. After last week's performance of 'Rode,o I was somewhat irritated with this work. I simply saw no real value or beauty in it. Sara Mearns is a great dancer and a lovely woman (hopefully the injury to her calf heals soon), but she does not look particularly good (during movement) in this costume. Additionally, neither she nor Daniel Ulbricht were at their best last week --both doing some very unsteady turns. Brittany Pollack looks much better in this role and with some further preparation would be able to dance it with more authority than she even did last night. Adrian Danchig-Waring, Gonzalo Garcia, Andrew Veyette, Taylor Stanley, Ulbricht --all were superb by her side. Carried along by the exuberance displayed on stage and the beauty of Copland's music I went with the flow and enjoyed myself very much. I'll always prefer a great deal more all that flowing hair and those streaming garments in Walpurgisnacht though! There was not the slightest difference or variation in quality that I could detect between the two performances of Manoeuvres that I saw. Each was phenomenal! All the elements that make up a ballet performance --the music and those who performed it, the choreography and those who made it come alive, the backdrops on stage, the lighting, the costumes, the color scheme-- came together to a powerful and hauntingly beautiful effect. Tyler Angle, Anthony Huxley, and the corps de ballet were splendid! As for Tiler Peck --may she always remain grounded, take all high praise and criticism in stride and continue honoring us with great performances for many years to come!

It is a bit unfair to compare the performances of the Danes at the Joyce this past January with those at NYCB, for obvious reasons. They brought to New York City about a dozen or so dancers from their soloist or principal ranks --every single one of whom proved to be extremely impressive-- to appear in works requiring knowledge of a style they have learned from early on. One of their two Madges was a former star ballerina who gave a virtually inimitable performance in the scene from La Sylphide shown there. Overall, the Bournonville programs at NYCB this past week have been delightful. The single exception was Sunday afternoon's Divertissements. The repeated incoordination of the four ladies (one a principal, three soloists, no less) whenever they were dancing together during the Pas de Six was --at least retrospectively, to me-- hilarious! It brings to mind Robbins' The Concert. Perhaps it was because of this turn of events that the Tarantella, which I think is an amazing joie de vivre piece, for the first time ever failed to move me --notwithstanding the especially fine efforts in it by Ashly Isaacs (even though she is not mentioned on the program) and Lauren Lovette. All three previous performances of the Divertissements though were generally very pleasing. La Sylphide is actually a very interesting ballet, whose plot is worth thinking about. Who is the Sylph and what does she represent? Who is Madge and what does she represent? NYCB's version of this work is very, very good. The scenery in Act I is somewhat plain, but that in the colorful Act II is arresting, if too modernistic. Compared to that of the 2nd Act of Giselle Bournonville's choreography in the forest scene may seem a bit simplistic, but it is nevertheless quite lovely. And the NYCB female corps de ballet performed it beautifully. Individually, I liked Joseph Gordon as Gurn, and Faye Arthurs as Effie best; but all the others were fine too and were well paired. Gwyneth Muller's portrayal of Madge struck me as extravagant, even by the standards of this production. Marika Anderson was a lot better; but Georgina Pazcoguin was absolutely riveting. The opening scene of Act II with the bubbling cauldron was most effective in the Sunday afternoon performance. After arranging Effie's marriage to Gurn, Pazcoquin made a dismissive gesture --as much as to say "you can all go to hell now"-- at both of them and James' mother, as all three were leaving the forest. This elicited some laughter from the audience. But this hardly amounts to this production having turned Madge into a comedic figure! After all, if this was the case that would make the this version of La Sylphide a complete travesty, no? (Is the Sylph's death supposed to be a joke?) Could this role have been done differently and more persuasively? Absolutely! Does it harm this production irreparably? I think not. Andrew Veyette, Joaquin de Luz and Gonzalo Garcia were all fine as James. The first two are stronger dancers, but Garcia managed a decent overall effort here too, attaining nice elevation in several instances. Speaking of which, one of the most remarkable moments during this run occurred during the Saturday afternoon performance. After Bouder's exceptional grand jetes diagonally across the stage, Veyette ran after her and made a truly breathtaking leap into the wings! Most importantly, the three Sylphs that I saw --Ashley Bouder (twice), Tiler Peck and Sterling Hyltin-- were all quite simply superb, both in terms of their dancing and acting. They all gave valid, interesting and moving interpretations. What these interpretations are depends as much on what is going on inside each spectator's head as on what is happening up on the stage. I ask again: who (or what) is the Sylph? Can viewers logically pass judgement on what Bouder, T. Peck and Hyltin are each supposedly trying to express during their respective performance without having a clear answer to this question themselves? Once more, I enjoyed very much watching all three. That said, Bouder's upper body is muscular, and she has very strong legs (that's what makes her for one thing such a great jumper). The primary characteristic she exudes in this as well as in all her other performances is that of strength. Hyltin, on the other hand, is very thin and consequently her body type is naturally best suited to convey airiness and lightness. Tiler Peck stands somewhere between them and represents the golden mean. Nobody can perform the incredibly fast turns she so often does without having great strength and endurance. And yet the leading characteristics she exudes are gracefulness and femininity. Tiler Peck has repeatedly demonstrated her extraordinary ability to perform rapid movements ever so... cleanly! But her real art and beauty are shown when she moves slowly. In particular she has a way of decelerating her motion which is truly magical to behold. Each sequence becomes like the blooming of a special flower right in front of your eyes. Or, if you will, like a line of a sonnet written in the air. Quite frankly this is especially effective because her arms, her upper body, her legs and, indeed, entire figure are so attractive. But since the goal of ballet, at least according to my understanding, is the creation of beautiful movement what exactly is wrong with that? A story ballet must somehow --by definition-- manage to convey its drama and meaning in large part through such movement. I for one witnessed plenty of that Saturday night. And Tuesday night and Saturday afternoon. And Sunday afternoon.

I have attended every performance of NYCB this week and perhaps in a day or two I'll make a few observations about each. But right now being under the strong spell cast over me by this evening's presentation of La Sylphide I simply have to say: Tiler Peck is ineffably graceful!

After one becomes familiar with MacMillan's version of Romeo and Juliet, the choreography for the balcony scene --one of the greatest in all of ballet-- becomes so intertwined in one's mind with the powerful music that one starts wondering whether Prokofiev also did the choreography for this or MacMillan also composed the music. Martins' treatment of the same material is incomparably poorer.

Eileen and cobweb, both of you are very generous and kind. Had I seen sz's excellent review of the 2/17/2015 performance (which somehow was posted after mine) beforehand, I would not have written my own. As a complete outsider to the world of ballet who has trouble describing clearly what he sees taking place onstage, I realize as soon as I try to write anything in this forum that I'm getting way in over my head. However, an outsider's perspective can sometimes be very significant, as well as amusing. I cite as a case in point Jerome Robbins' "The Goldberg Variations". Given the differing opinions about that ballet, I felt that it was important for me to express my appreciation of the work and the way NYCB performed it. So whenever I feel that something needs to be said I'll chime in.

Great ballerinas are not just surpassingly graceful. They are also exceptionally strong. Perhaps it is this juxtaposition of the tremendous strength next to the pronounced beauty they display whenever they are on stage that accounts for the special fascination some female dancers exert over us. They appear somehow to have mastered the confines of time and space. They move --while maintaining a beautiful posture-- from one point to another with the greatest ease and facility during a specified time period. They can speed things up or slow them down as necessary, and apparently with the slightest effort. And their clear, precise, yet fancy footwork is always perfectly attuned to the sounds emanating from the orchestra pit. Extra steps are never needed by them to reach the wings of the stage. In short, everything --their entire body and its movement through space-- seems harmonious, essential, inevitable ...perfect! I reflected about all of this after I watched Claire Von Enck's fine but premature debut in Tarantella last evening. Von Enck is a charming young dancer who needs a bit of time to develop her strength and endurance (the Koch theater stage was a little too big for her). This ballet was not scheduled for this season so preparations for its performance must have been understandably hasty. Anyway I am glad I saw it and felt the audience's warm response towards Von Enck and her partner (Sparta Hoxha) during the curtain calls was appropriate. Also on the program were Martins' Hallelujah Junction, ably led by Lovette, Garcia and Ulbricht, and Robbins' Interplay, which afforded an opportunity for some dancers who are not principals to get a little more stage time. Whatever mistakes were made during the later piece were amply compensated for me by the pleasure of watching the likes of Brittany Pollack and Lydia Wellington dance. Yet even on a quiet night such as this (both in terms of repertoire and performers appearing) one is likely to see something marvelous at NYCB nowadays. The classiest, most professional performance came last. Both the soloists and the corps made Robbins' Glass Pieces --with a splendid Maria Kowroski in Facades-- seem appropriately glorious.