Kathleen O'Connell

I don't have any data on this, but I suspect these live broadcasts might have the opposite effect, viz., encouraging people to go to the theater to see these ballets live. Wasn't that the rationale for companies all over the country staging Swan Lake, after people had seen the movie? Even now, people can buy (or rent) DVDs with Balanchine's Nutcracker or the ABT version with Baryshnikov/Kirkland. And last year, the cable channel Ovation had a Nutcracker marathon with many versions shown in December.

Having taken my 5-year-old great-niece to several ballets in the last couple of years, the live performances are irreplaceable. We first watch a DVD of the ballet with her so she knows the story and what to expect. But she is excited beyond belief at the prospect of seeing live dancers, getting dressed up to go to the theater, going out for lunch with her grandmother and great-aunt, etc., etc., etc.

I think the more important issue for regional companies is realistic pricing, as Colorado Ballet has done. It just makes so much more sense to fill the house, even with tickets at 30-40% off, and introduce people to the theater experience, as opposed to the crazy practice of closing off tiers at NYCB.

I hope your suspicion is correct. I do think that there's a difference between wanting to see a live "Swan Lake" after seeing "Black Swan" and wanting to see your own local company's version of "Swan Lake" after seeing a live broadcast of, say, the Bolshoi's. I'm hoping like crazy that HD broadcasts give non-balletomanes the fever to see dance live, but I am concerned that companies that rely on bread-and-butter warhorses to fill the house might see the audience taper off after a star-studded, "event" HD broadcast of one of the same warhorses blows through the local multiplex. (I'm also concerned that a newbie audience might find a well-danced local version disappointing for all the wrong reasons -- no stars, no big sets, less pyrotechnically thrilling dancing, etc etc etc, but that's a different matter.)

I'm not so worried about DVDs or television broadcasts because they aren't the same kind of "let's all go to the theater for something special" event that an HD broadcast is. There's only so much of that kind of festive energy to go around in a busy family's life, and if it gets channeled into HD events, there might not any left over for local live art.

Dirac -- I think our posts must have crossed in cyberspace -- as you can see, I too am worried about the disparity in production values ...

I love that this is happening. Also found it interesting that the blog post on NY Times pointed out the opposing view point that it could dilute the audience. I am of the completely opposite viewpoint. I think that very few people who will go see this in their respective cities outside of New York would have been able to travel to the city to see it live. Therefore, we are drastically increasing the audience, not diluting it. Just my opinion. Also, in my mind it is never a bad thing to give more people the chance to see quality art. Thank you NYCB for finally jumping on this bandwagon. Let's hope it is successful and that we see it more and more.

I think it's great, too, but I AM concerned about audience dilution -- though not dilution of NYCB's NY metro area audience. Rather, I'm concerned about regional and local ballet companies that rely on their own Nutcracker performances to fund the rest of their seasons. What if the local audience opts for the NYCB live theater broadcast instead? What if it's such a success that it becomes an annual tradition? A live theater broadcast of a major company's Nutcracker goes after a local company's bread and butter in a way that a live broadcast of, say, "Jewels" or "Vienna Waltzes" wouldn't. Smaller companies aren't likely to perform either of those ballets, but an "event" theater broadcast of them might whet the local appetite for more live dance. (Of course, it could also just whet the appetite for more broadcasts with stars.) An NYCB (or ABT) Nutcracker might serve as nothing more than a substitute for the one live dance event certain audience members would think of going to.

Please, someone, tell me I'm being all henny-penny about this ...

I didn't find much to like in the music, sets or musical connections to the choreo in XOVER.

One distinctive thing about Cunningham's work is that there are no connections to the choreography. Music, choreography and sets are created separately.

You can see this in action in the DVD of "Split Sides," a 2003 work comprising two 20 minute dance segments ("A" and "B"), two sets of music (one by Radiohead and another by Sigur Rós), two set designs (one by Robert Heishman and one by Catherine Yass), two sets of costumes (both by James Hall) and two lighting plots (both by James F. Ingalls). The order in which each element is used is determined by an onstage toss of the dice. So, for instance, dance segment B might appear first, to the music of Radiohead, in the first set of costumes, with Yass' set, and the second lighting plot with dance segment A performed to the music of Sigur Rós, in the second set of costumes, with Heishman's set, and the first lighting plot. There are 32 combinations in all, four of which can be seen on the DVD. (Plus the two orderings of A and B in silence, which the DVD offers as an additional option -- a real one in the case of Cunningham, since he choreographed them in silence.)

"Split Sides" isn't my favorite Cunningham work, but the DVD is fun to play around with.

Since it's Friday, 10/28, I assume I'm typing this on the upgraded site. Looks good! I really like some of the changes -- the calendar of upcoming performances in the right sidebar for instance (if it was there before, I never noticed it) and the "view new content" options in the left sidebar.

Thanks, Helene!

Since it's Friday, 10/28, I assume I'm typing this on the upgraded site. Looks good! I really like some of the changes -- the calendar of upcoming performances in the right sidebar for instance (if it was there before, I never noticed it) and the "view new content" options in the left sidebar.

Thanks, Helene!

OOPS! I see I posted this to the wrong thread! I'm reposting it to the (I hope) correct one ...

Everyone sounds pretty irritated with Millepied and dismissive of the recent turns his career has taken. I agree that it was long past time for pretending he was a principal dancer at NYCB, but since he is retiring as a dancer, I'm up for some nice memories, too -- including the first time I saw him dance which was at an SAB workshop performance. He was dancing in a new Robbins work and made an excellent impression: one instantly saw that he was very talented and I felt nothing but giggling delight at the appropriateness of his name for a ballet dancer--a point that I vaguely remember Clive Barnes was not too high-minded to make.

It seemed to me at the "height" of his dance career, he had the potential to become a go-to leading man for NYCB--especially as Woetzel's career was winding down. That is, he showed himself to be someone with presence who could impress technically and pair effectively with ballerinas. In recent years, I had given up thinking he would realize that potential or even return to his career as a dancer, but when he was dancing with NYCB I was pretty happy to see his name on a program. I certainly have never held his good looks against him.

His choreography? I have not had the chance to see any of his ballets--and read mixed reports about them to say the least--but if he can find creative things to do with a musical about competitive standing-in-place that will be a triumph of sorts.

Drew, I too have good memories of Millepied as a dancer. I still remember one of his performances of "La Baiser de la Fée" -- he wasn't as pyrotechnically thrilling as De Luz in the work's long, taxing male solo, but he better captured its poetry. He was always good in Robbins. At 34 he still had some years of good dancing in him, and I'm sorry he decided to take another path.

Per the linked article, one of Millepied's current projects is the choreography for a new musical entitled "Hands on a Hardbody." I confess that several thoughts inappropriate to a wholesome board like this one flashed through my mind when I first read that title. But, per Playbill, here's what the musical is really about:

According to a La Jolla casting/audition notice, "Hands On a Hardbody is a musical based on the documentary film of the same name, about a truck competition in rural East Texas. In the contest, hardscrabble contestants are invited to a local car dealership, to place their hands on a new Nissan truck. The contestant who can stand the longest without removing his or her hand from the vehicle gets to drive it off the lot. What initially seems like a frivolous, even kitschy stunt becomes a true test of wills."

I'm having a hard time imagining how one might choreograph a story in which the key plot driver is who can stand in one place longest without moving, but that's presumably why they pay Millepied the big bucks.

Maybe the Balanchine Trust is afraid that Beyoncé will steal all of Mr B's best moves. "First she came for Bob Fosse, and I didn't speak out because I was not Bob Fosse. Then she came for Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker and I didn't speak out because I was not Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker ... "

Seriously, I understand the various Trusts' desire to insure that the choreography in their custody isn't stolen or bastardized, but how likely is this to happen just because a major company produces and distributes a video through legitimate channels? Maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine that a reputable company would add a work by Balanchine, Robbins, Tudor, Cunningham or whoever without securing the requisite license to do so. And I don't think they're going to produce bastardizations along the lines of the hilariously-titled Chinese Harry Potter rip-offs. Are the Trusts perhaps concerned that no one will be interested in producing works live--and paying royalties for the privilege--if a video version is available for streaming on NetFlix or Amazon? Somehow, I don't think locking masterpieces up in the vault is going to put butts in seats.

Are they concerned that the company affiliated with the Dolly Dinkle School of Dance will mount a rip-off of T&V because Mme Dinkle happened to see a clip on YouTube, or, heaven forfend, downloaded the whole thing from The Pirate Bay? Are they afraid that Dancing with the Stars will lift stuff wholesale from "Who Cares"? That Kanye West's next ballet-themed video will rip off the adagio from "Symphony in C"? I understand the vigilance needed to protect intellectual property rights -- but as J. K. Rowling's experience shows, simply standing athwart the barricades shouting "no" at digital distribution is futile. None of the Harry Potter books are available as legitimate ebooks, but fans have scanned them all and used readily available software tools to turn them into ebooks in any and every format that you can find and download for free with two mouse clicks.

The Joyce is so small that she needs to widen the company's reach, and live streaming is a good way to do it.

And the company is unusual enough that this kind of simultaneous feed doesn't feel as radical as it might if this were another group.

It occurs to me that, while there's usually a blackout on television broadcast of sports events in the same city where they're happening, if the game sells out sometimes they lift the ban -- they're already got as many people into the arena as they're going to get, why not get some broadcast visibility as well (not to mention the ad revenue)

The Metropolitan Opera doesn't appear to be too concerned about its live HD broadcasts cannibalizing the theater audience: you can catch one of the live HD broadcasts in at least 7 theaters in Manhattan plus several others in the outer boroughs.

I'm glad Morphoses is giving a live feed a try.

Bumping this up, here's another Times article, courtesy of dirac's Links forum. It's in the print edition of the Sunday Times.

Thanks, dirac.

A preview of Morphoses' engagement at the Joyce by Claudia La Rocco in The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.c...rges-ahead.html

Quote

This new approach reflects Ms. Lopez's desire to find a sustainable framework for generating new work. But whether the company will develop a viable or truly innovative alternative to established models remains an open question, as Ms. Lopez readily acknowledges.

The support and excitement engendered by the first Morphoses (pronounced MORE-pho-zees) is notably muted now, and the company's long-term outlook remains uncertain. Its annual budget is a little under $500,000, down from $1.2 million during Mr. Wheeldon's final year, and the company still needs to close a $275,000 gap for this year. There are no gigs booked beyond the Joyce, though Ms. Lopez said she is in discussions with several European festivals.

I found this particularly interesting:

What it is now is something of an experiment. Ms. Lopez does not intend to hire a permanent replacement for Mr. Wheeldon. Instead, she sits alone at the helm, operating under a curatorial model of sorts. The plan is to rotate in a new resident artistic director each year, with each tenure revolving around a single, collaborative project. (The Swedish choreographer Pontus Lidberg is to follow Mr. Veggetti and will create a live companion piece to his 2010 dance film "Labyrinth Within"; Ms. Lopez is in talks with two theater directors for the third year.

...

Once "Bacchae" and subsequent works are completed, the goal is to license them to other companies. Beyond generating income for Morphoses, this allows for the projects to have a life outside of a short New York run. It also bolsters the repertories of other companies that are seeking to attract new audiences but can't or won't take the full financial risk of generating less traditional, interdisciplinary projects. [emphasis mine]

I'm pulling for her.

Sadly, because of how Live from Lincoln Center works, a DVD release is extremely unlikely. The contracts they do with the performers and producers only allows one or two repeat airings within a certain time frame, and no DVD/Video release (I knwo there are a lot of things, includinga lot of great musical theatre productions, I'd love to have). A few years back for a Live from Lincoln Center anniversary, PBS released a press statement that they WERE working around this and many of the most classic performances would be released on DVD--but I've heard absolutely nothing else about that. (I believe the old Dance in America series and Gret Performances performances *can* be released on DVD, though only some seem to get a release).

A good example of a release from an old Live from Lincoln Center is the ABT Giselle with Baryshnikov and Makarova. The original broadcast was on June 2, 1977 (rebroadcast just once a few days later). I'm looking at my VHS tape and it has a 1988 copyright by Lincoln Center; that seems about when it was finally released. I don't believe it was ever released on DVD, but at least they got the VHS out. It must have taken a lot of time to go back and get all the needed releases, but this shows it can be done. I had always understood that the original contracts with performers in that era didn't anticipate the resale market. I've just assumed that the program that included T&V in 1978 wasn't as promising commercially. But it could be released alone as an iTunes download, once they got the releases. I still hope they manage that some day.

Sigh. No one makes any money when stuff moulders in the vaults. I can understand the reluctance to go through the effort and expense of digitizing and releasing analog media when physical distribution is involved -- I assume that there's the real risk that the costs involved wouldn't be recouped. But it seems to me that digital distribution changes the value proposition. For one (obvious) thing, the cost of making, storing, and shipping disks can be eliminated. But equally as important, programs can be sold on a pay-per-view basis (via iTunes, Amazon, Google, whatever) and thus priced more attractively. Many members of this list might be willing to pony up $20+ for a DVD of Kirkland dancing T&V, but a lot of people wouldn't be. They might be willing to pay $2.99 however to check it out once, however. I know I'd pay $2.99 to check out a choreographer, company, or dancer I didn't know, but I probably wouldn't part with $20 for the privilege.

Also, when it's easier to steal something than it is to buy it at a fair price, people are going to steal it. If they haven't done so already, dance and opera fans are going to start making their hoards of VCR'd and DVR'd performances available via torrent sites like The Pirate Bay where take-down notices can be cheerfully ignored. It would be preposterously easy to download that T&V performance from YouTube (where take-down notices do mean something) and get it out there via a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol like BitTorrent. As iTunes, Amazon, and NetFlix have demonstrated, people will pay to stream stuff if it's easy and (relatively) inexpensive to do so, even if they can find it for free elsewhere.

Who are the top two classical ballet choreographers working today? Presumably most fans would answer: Christopher Wheeldon and Alexei Ratmansky. The first emerged at NYCB and did his first major works there; the second emerged elsewhere but has choreographed breakthrough ballets there, works that greatly enhanced his reputation in the States at the very least and have been re-staged elsewhere.

I also wonder whether either would have had these opportunities with NYCB if the company had not kept up its devotion to having constant premiers. I'm not saying most have not been mediocre--by all accounts (and from what I have seen too) they have been; but I'm not sure waiting around for 'a Wheeldon' works if the Wheeldon never gets opportunities to shine before anyone knows he IS a Wheeldon.

I think that the number of new (and mostly awful) new works at NYCB has gotten out of control. I recall that years ago there was generally one new work presented during the winter season, and one new work during the spring season. Personally, I would prefer to wait for one excellent Wheeldon work or Ratmansky work every two years or so, rather than be bombarded with junky new ballets by Stroman, Taylor Corbett, Millepied and so on. Apart from being a waste of financial resources, these new ballets divert the talents of the Company's foremost dancers to works that are going to shortly end up in the vast garbage bin of discarded ballets, instead of employing those dancers in the pursuit of learning and performing important roles in the rep.

Drew - I think you're right to point out some of the good things we've seen at NYCB recently. The dancers do look terrific , the Balanchine and Robbins rep seem to be getting more time and attention, and we got delirious, delicious "Namouna." But , but ... it still feels like the company's lost its way.

Abatt -- I agree that that too much dreck has been hoisted onto the Koch theater stage of late, but I'm not convinced that the main driver is the number of new ballets in and of itself -- although shovelling six premieres into a single festival is tempting fate.

I'd happily see NYCB patiently crank out a new ballet or two a season, season in and season out, as part of its mission. And it wouldn't trouble me in the least if for every masterpiece you got a clunker, a worthy effort, and a couple of decent if not earth shattering repertory staples. I wouldn't mind them throwing money, time, and talent at evening-length story ballets either if it were done with a vision to take narrative ballet to wherever it is it needs to go now. What does trouble me is the amount of blood and treasure thrown at "event" projects -- "Ocean's Kingdom" to be sure, but also "The Seven Deadly Sins" and "The Architecture of Dance." And not because of the money per se, but because it suggests the following:

1) The board is unwilling to support the patient accretion of good repertory the hard way, work by work by work, year in year out, with honest failures along the way and no big buzz for the gala.

2) There is no overarching artistic vision fuelling the creation of new work. The company's artistic management is either so uninspired by its own artform or so unsure of its own imagination that it has to fall back on spurious links to its Blanchine / Kerstein heritage (e.g. "The Seven Deadly Sins" and "Estancia"), forced collaborations ("The Architecture of Dance"), allegedly edgy and "modern" versions of brand-name story ballets, and themed festivals to get new ballets on the stage. The only masterwork that came out of "The Architecture of Dance" was "Namouna" -- the one ballet with no connection to Calatrava and no newly commissioned score. That speaks volumes about letting talent go where its vision takes it, not where the marketing gimmick du jour needs for it to go.

3) No one's bold enough to risk real failure. They'll commission something from a brand-name hack, hand money to starry outsiders with no theater experience, or throw gigs at company alumni (the dismal new backdrop for "Scotch Symphony," e.g. -- not just choreographic commissions) only to get predictable failures. Stella McCartney doesn't know how to design costumes for dance? But she's so famous! Whoocouldanode!

4) No one seems to have figured out how to use the Choreographic Institute as a farm team for new talent.

5) The company keeps lowering buckets down into dry wells. What made them think that "Frankie and Johnny and ... Rose" was going to be any good after they'd seen "Blossom Got Kissed"? The company's artistic management needs to get out more: there are other choreographers who could hand them vernacular / musical theater style works if that's where they want to go. And I could write ten pages on what's wrong with the bone-headed instance on Per Kirkeby.

And miliosr, I agree that the company seems dazed and confused when it comes to its misson. But I also think that if it had a solid artistic vision (instead of a marketing plan), it could maintain the existing rep, mount new works -- including audience-pleasing story ballets, and toss a few money-making bon-bons out there besides and still keep its integrity intact.What they're doing now is starting to smell of desperation.

I have also long appreciated the fine line and superb energy, musicality and ultimate respect for the music and choreography of Christian Tworzyanski. Unfortunately, I believe that he has been in the corps for too long -- since 2003 -- to be promoted. I would love to be proven wrong on that. There have been some superb dancers who have spent a long career in the corps, and been happy doing it. There was a seminar many years ago (early 1990's I believe) of corps men. One of them, Peter Naumann, who may have been there the longest, specifically said that it was his preference to perform as a corps member, and he, like Christian, had it ALL -- and I think he may have been taller. So, you never know.

Are there any other dancers who have been promoted after 8 years in the corps? I assume if someone is a standout, he/she will be promoted quickly, after a few years at most. Is 8 years in the corps fatal to promotion? That if he were going to make it, he would have made it by now? Sometimes dancers mature later. Hope you're wrong.

Wasn't Merrill Ashley in the corps for a long time? Or was she stuck in soloist "limbo"? I can't remember...

I think Heather Watts was in the corps for about 8 years, finally got promoted to soloist and was then promoted to principal within the same calendar year or something like that.

You might consider contacting each company's volunteer guild (or whatever they call their volunteer organization). I know that the NYCB Guild has from time to time sold old programs at its gift bar. The organizations might have other uses for them as well -- maybe even just putting them in a "free kittens" box so that nostalgic members can rifle through them and take what they want.

WNYC's John Schaefer discusses "Ocean's Kingdom" with Jennifer Homans. She is not a fan.

Beatles 2K11: Paul on Pointe

P.S. For our young members who may not have heard of "Rube Goldberg," here's an example of his work:

http://hhe.wikispace...be-goldberg.jpg

Not to mention the Mousetrap game! I loved it. When one of my uncles told me the end result was a real "Rube Goldberg contraption," I assumed he meant it as a compliment!

Oh, I love Rube Goldberg, and Mousetrap!

The machine at my local bookstore is a newer version than the one in the video, and it is indeed slightly less bulky. I first saw it in use not long after they received it, and so it wasn't in use all the time. It takes a while to warm up (like those old xerox machines!), and so they were kind enough to call me when they knew "my" book was coming up in the print queue. I rushed over so I could watch -- I am really a geek.

The EBM at MacNally Jackson seems hardly larger than one of the more elaborate corporate photocopiers. It has been given a place of honor by a big window right at the front of the store and next to the cafe.

Thanks for the video, sandix. The shot of the contraption that produces these books (at the start of the film) reminded me of the early in-house publishing ventures started by many American corporations. The first equipment was Rube-Goldberesque, cobbled together from various components to produce large reports, manuals,promotional material, and the like. You needed hard copy to begin with, but the machinery 'xeroxed," collated, and bound (spiral binding). One could also do layouts for catalogs, etc., with similar looking machinery. (With those, since they were often in color, you had to go to a real printer.)

All of this was analogous to a medieval monastery having its own scriptorium. Keeping the process in-house was thought to be cost-effective. Very quickly, however, better machinery came along. It was quite expensive, so the work returned to outside suppliers who had the volume to afford the investment.

I expect that the technology in this video clip is already being surpassed.

Oddly enough, this week's Economist has a full-page ad for Xerox. (They still exist !!!) It caught my eye because it reminded me of those old days. "We focus on translating and delivery Ducati's global publications. So they don't have to." Shows a helmeted delivery guy on a Ducati motercycle, loading up with bright red printed manuals. The setting is a small room that looks an awful like those old "xerox rooms" of the past.

Plus ca change .... etc.

P.S. For our young members who may not have heard of "Rube Goldberg," here's an example of his work:

http://hhe.wikispace...be-goldberg.jpg

Not to mention the Mousetrap game! I loved it. When one of my uncles told me the end result was a real "Rube Goldberg contraption," I assumed he meant it as a compliment!

I haven't used this service through mail-order, but I did want to raise my hand for my local 'print to order' outlet. The University Book Store in Seattle has an Espresso book machine (no, not the coffee kind, though they do that too!) -- it prints softcover books from electronic media. The final product is close to a trade paperback in quality (not quite as nice, but better than the standard paperback). I haven't really investigated any dance offerings, but I was able to find a text through Googlebooks of a novel I read in high school, and have never been able to find again. They had several different versions of the file available, and you could look at sample pages to check things like font size and image clarity. I get the impression that these are digitized copies of existing books (rather than plain text files) -- you would have to watch out for bad copies, but honestly, it was astonishing to see the machine print and bind a book I thought I'd never have the chance to read again.

You can watch one

-- I know it sounds kind of geeky, but I'm a book girl.

Nerd that I am, I loved that video -- although somehow I was expecting more moving parts ...

McNally Jackson Books in Soho has an EBM, too, which you can use to print your own books or one of the titles in their print-on-demand library.

I was enchanted by this note on their website:

Once you find the book(s) you're looking for, you can order through this website, email bookmachine@mcnallyjackson.com, call the store directly at (212)-274-1160, or come on in and see the machine in action. If you're hoping to come in and watch your order be printed (which is still no small thrill, even for us) you may want to check to see how busy we and the machine are on a given day. [emphasis mine]

I have to confess that I've pretty much gone digital for plain-text books and publications that aren't graphics heavy. (I even started reading "Pride and Prejudice" on my smartphone when I was trapped in a waiting room without my Kindle and three people fighting over the one very dogeared back issue of People lying around ... It is a truth universally acknowledged that a former English major in possession of a good chunk of downtime must be in want of something to read ...) But some books either demand to be read on paper or can only be read on paper (i.e., no eBook yet if ever) -- and if it's out of print, perhaps EBMs will come to the rescue.

For those of you who might want to hear Paul McCartney's "Ocean's Kingdom" for yourself, WQXR (WNYC's classical music sibling) will broadcast the work on 105.9 FM and WQXR.org on Wednesday Sept. 28 at 8 pm.

You can read a write-up about the work on WQXR's website here and listen to WQXR host David Garland's interview with McCartney as well. There are also video clips from some of McCartney's other forays into classical music.

The four-movement Ocean's Kingdom has been recorded by the London Classical Orchestra and will be released on Oct. 4, a week after the first run closes in New York (it returns in January). This is McCartney's fifth foray into classical music, after the Liverpool Oratorio (1991), Standing Stone (1997), Working Classical (1999) and Ecce Cor Meum (2006).

I'm guessing that it's the London Classical Orchestra's recording that's going to be broadcast, not a recording made during an NYCB rehearsal or performance ...

A friend has bravely ordered both books so we shall see...

Please report back! I would love to see books-on-demand turn into a real option.

I just found these two books about the RDB on Google - so far as I understand you order them and they make a copy specially for you - which is presumably why they are so very expensive.

Has anyone tried this sort of thing and can give some idea of what quality to expect?

You can look at some of the pages online and there are some wonderful photographs in the first one. Click on PREVIEW BOOK.

The Royal Danish Ballet in Photographs

Interviews with 10 RDB dancers

Jane - I haven't tried a print-on-demand book myself, but you might find this article from Publisher's Weekly informative:

Amazon: Shoddy-On-Demand

The article's author was shocked by the poor quality of the photos in the on-demand book he purchased through Amazon and ended up buying a used hardback as a supplement. (He apparently didn't realize he was getting an on-demand book when he ordered it and paid the equivalent of a fully-priced trade paperback. Amazon did offer him a refund when he complained.) Not that the RDB books you've found on Google will have the same quality problems -- but it's something to be aware of, especially since the photographs are of interest to you.

In defense of Gershwin, he came to long compositions late and still had much to learn when he was composing "Rhapsody in Blue," although I like it anyway. There is no question that writing a good pop song is harder to do than it looks, though.

I didn't mean to disparage Gershwin's long-form compositions -- I just wouldn't trade away the songs for any of them. I do think much more highly of his orchestral efforts than McCartney's, although both of them have added undisputed treasures to the world's hoard of songs. It's funny, I could listen to "An American in Paris" all day (well, almost) but "Rhapsody in Blue" just doesn't grab me in the same way.

Abatt. In your opinion, does this work have legs (in the sense of remaining in the repertory after the publicity has passed)? Will new audiences, attracted to a pleasant McCartney score and elaborate costuming, stick around to experience more serious work?

I ask partly because I am still befuddled by Miami City Ballet's investment a few years in a costly, elaborate and much-hyped Elvis Costello/ Twyla Tharp work which went nowhere and which, it's my guess, will not return.

Your question could start an interesting thread. Is "pop" music suitable to ballet? What should come first? The music or the dance? What are some examples of successful ballets done to pop scores? Who has or could in the future write a great pop score? Can great choreography transcend and enrich a pop score? Is Gershwin a "pop" composer? What about Mozart?

Was Gershwin a pop composer? Absolutely -- those fabulous standards were first and foremost pop hits. And good pop is really, really hard to do. In fact, I find Gershwin's standards are far more satisfying than "Rhapsody in Blue." In some cases - Gershwin's for instance -- it's not a question of choreography transcending a pop score, it's a question of the choreography living up to it.

Lots of choreographers have done terrific work to pop tunes -- Tharp is one of them, and so is Paul Taylor. I know, I know, it's not "ballet," but there's no reason it couldn't be.

And while in the subject...does anybody knows who's the black female dancer in the Snow scene from Balanchine's "Nutcracker" DVD...? The inclusion stands out even more particularly because of the whiter than white nature of the sequence.

Cristian -- I believe it's Andrea Long. She danced with NYCB for about 8 years during the late 80's and early 90's then moved on to Dance Theater of Harlem.

Oh how sad! I only heard Licitra sing at the Met once, alas, but I still remember how his voice rang out in that big old barn. Shortly after his Met triumph subbing for Pavarotti, my husband and I went to Cafe des Artistes for lunch on a whim, and there he was at the next table being wined and dined by a couple of fervent impresarios hell-bent on roping into some project or other. As theater, it was as impressive as what took place on stage at the Met.

Rest in peace ...