Kathleen O'Connell

I just got back from the Wed matinee performance of "The Little Humpbacked Horse" : Shklyarov was delightful -- a beautiful dancer with charm to burn. If I were an AD in need of an imported male principal, I sure would be running around behind him waving a pen and a contract. The guy would be total box office catnip. Loved Obraztsova's Tsar Maiden, too. Vasily Tkachenko danced the Humpbacked Horse instead of Grigory Popov, and was very winning -- TLHH is often asked to match Ivan step-for-step, and while Tkachenko isn't quite the dancer Shklyarov is, he held his own, even when Shklyarov had the charm dialed up to 11. The costumes are awful and the sets look like they were slapped together in a middle school shop class. I suspect the production was intended to look whimsical, but it just looks bargain basement. The decision to screen-print cartoonish gypsy faces onto the gypsy dancers' overly baggy t-shirt style tops is only one of several bad ideas. The Princess of the Sea's sea-weed skirt was nice, though. I wouldn't necessarily want to cut Shchedrin's score, but the ballet as it stands could either use some tightening or a bit more invention. (Sometimes it looks as if Ratmansky is at a loss as to how to fill up the sixteen bars of music he has left before the next transition.) But there's great stuff in it, too. The scene with the Tsar and the Wet Nurses and the underwater scene definitely put me in mind of "Namouna," however, which has become my favorite Ratmansky to date.

Alas, none of these patterns were very visible from where I was sitting in the orchestra (Row 0, Seat 20) -- it looked like one big melee. Worse, I couldn't see the cradle clearly -- it was blocked by the line of the corps. I only knew where it was from its (dinky) purple canopy. Seat 20 in that row is only ten seats in off the right aisle and there are 8 seats more to the right of it, so it's not an extreme side seat, or at least shouldn't be. I wonder if the folks sitting three or seats to my right even knew there was a cradle there at all. Don't they sort the views out when they make the model sets? It shouldn't be hard to do. All I could think of was that they decided to make the fairies do double duty so as to avoid having to cast additional divertissement roles. Is that too cynical? The overture and the entr'actes started out promising, but yes, the tempos sure did get pulled all over the place once the dancing started. Edited to add: I was positively SHOCKED at the amount of talking going on during the entr'actes -- talking out loud, for heaven's sake, not even whispering. Lots of phone checking , too. Because it's boring to sit in the dark and listen to Tchaikovsky, I guess ... I saw them Wednesday night and thought they were pretty wonderful. I walked out thinking that I might someday see a more brilliant Aurora than Cojocaru, but not one I loved more. I too was especially taken with the way she smiled at the departing cavaliers! It was such a lovely touch -- and a lady always says "thank you" to her dance partner before moving on to dance with another

Indeed, but it does make me wonder what would happen to the Cunningham rep if they were to follow the NYCB model of keeping the company doors open long past the death of the founder. That's an easy one to answer, look to the remnants of the Martha Graham Company. That's where they'd be in five years tops. Well, not necessarily. The Graham company went through hell and back with the whole Protas debacle -- I'm not surprised that they didn't come through unscathed. I'm afraid that a lot of the Cunningham rep will be lost forever without a company dedicated to its preservation. I was in tears when I saw them perform CRDSPCR at the Joyce knowing I'd probably never see that wonderful work ever again.

This. From Daniel Watkins' New York Times article: I think it speaks volumes about NYCB's artistic bankruptcy that someone in the company's administration is actually arguing with a straight face that eliminating a huge block of good seats so that they can force more of the audience to sit in poor seats (and that's what those far side seats are) will somehow "create a more vibrant performance atmosphere." What marketing consultant came up with that one? I could see them raising the prices of the good seats in the 3rd and 4th rings by some reasonable amount and at the same time dropping the prices of the poor seats in the orchestra and lower rings by a greater percentage in the hopes of squeezing a little more revenue out of ticket sales and perhaps persuading some folks to move further down in the house. And better seats should cost more than poorer seats, But arguing that this will somehow enhance the audience's performance experience? That's about the most self-serving argument I've heard this week.

$2.50 to use the ladies room?

Well, I was assuming that they would attend in supervised groups, and arrive prepped in advance via some decent curriculum materials like the ones put together by the University of Michigan for their UMS Youth Performance Series.

Maybe I'm naive, but rather than let those rings sit empty I'd fill them with students (of all ages) and build the audience of tomorrow. Surely there's a foundation or two somewhere who could be persuaded to throw a few bucks NYCB's way for the opportunity. Have a conversation with City Center of Music and Drama (Koch Theater sublessee), Lincoln Center (Koch Theater lessee), or New York City (Koch Theater Lessor) about a break in facility fees in exchange for making those seats available to the Board of Ed. To me, throwing away those empty seats is like throwing away good food. There are a ton of kids in the metropolitan area who will never see the inside of a performing arts venue but need to. The powers that be -- the NYCB Board, the big donors and foundations who support the company, our elected officials -- could make that happen if they really wanted to.

That's really not much, though, when you consider he's been making pieces regularly for the last 35 years. And, if you look at the companies, most of them are "in the family," so to speak. I think he's been making the same 2 or 3 pieces regularly for the last 35 years. They just get different music, costumes, lighting, and titles.

Just curious...have any other companies asked him to create works for them or restage works he originally did for NYCB? I can't think of any. Telling... I think Martins' Swan Lake and Octet were originally done for the RDB, no? Edited to add this from Wikipedia: "He also did the choreography for the Barbie movies Barbie in the Nutcracker and Barbie of Swan Lake."

The Met's a peculiar place. The acoustics in the Family Circle (the uppermost ring) are actually splendid -- better, I think than in the front of the orchestra -- but the action on stage does look like it's taking place in a galaxy far, far away. It's not exactly an immersive theatrical experience, but I've enjoyed opera from up there. I can't imagine sitting there for the ballet, however. I have no idea what NYCB is thinking. Do they save any money by closing down the top of the house? If not, why not let folks sit there? (I know I'd vastly prefer the front of the third ring to the back or sides of the second. But then I prefer the mid-back of the orchestra to the front, so I my seating preferences may be unusual.) A half-full house is a half-full house no matter how the audience is distributed. The follow up subscription brochure I got does show pricing by section up through the second ring, but states that "new subscriptions are not currently available in Orchestra E or the 3rd and 4rth rings" and shows no pricing for those sections. Do they perhaps plan on transitioning subscribers further down into the house so that they can free up the top of the house for sales of much cheaper single tickets? In other words, if you want good cheap seats you have to take your chances with single ticket purchases -- you can't lock them in with a subscription. During the recent contract negotiations, the dancers' representatives kept mentioning "the broken subscription model," but didn't say much about how it was broken. I'd love to know what they meant. Perhaps this latest tactic is a way of grappling with whatever the perceived problem is.

Well, the Yanks may be the exception -- they sell out every game at home and often do on the road as well.

I've been told that I excel as a drip, too

Did you click on the box? (I know that sounds obvious ... but I thought I'd mention it just in case -- it's a pretty plain looking screen.)

Browser issue, maybe? (I had to enable java scripts to get it to work in mine.)

Most of NYCB's audience, I believe, is repeat customers who have been attending for years or decades. There are only a few Yankees games per season in New York, whereas NYCB has 16 weeks of rep tickets to sell, 7 performances per week. That's a whole lot of tickets to unload to customers who have seen most of these ballets numerous times in the past. The Yankees, like all major league baseball teams, play 162 games in a regular season, half of which are at home and all of which are televised. Yankee Stadium seats 50,000 (52,000 if you count standing room), so I don't think scarcity really explains the ticket prices at Yankee stadium. Even a seat at the tip-top of the grandstand will set you back $30. The sad fact is, live events are expensive -- even when a lucrative television contract provides a substantial subsidy! Although ... you can see some mighty fine dance (and bona-fide downtown dance stars) for next-to-nothing at venues like Dance Theater Workshop or, for a little bit more than next-to-nothing, at venues like the Joyce. You'll likely get recorded music and minimal sets and costumes, and yes, sometimes the choreography is just plain awful. But it can be just plain awful at Lincoln Center too ...

I'm pretty sure that the perpetrators of some of the program notes I've been subjected to recently have used this handy tool: Arty Bollocks Generator Try it for yourself! Here's what I got: After you've given the generator a few spins, it's pretty clear what the basic template is, but it's fun anyway.

I past seasons NYCO regularly shared productions with other companies -- Houston's production of Handel's "Ariodante," e.g.-- and each season almost always included a production or two from the Glimmerglass festival. Some of their own productions might have been shared or hired out to other companies as well, but I haven't checked. They threw their money at some real clunkers, though. They replaced a lovely and perfectly serviceable production of "Don Giovanni" with a dodo they abandoned after just one season.

And here's one to an article in this week's NY Observer on the same topic: http://www.observer.com/2011/06/why-city-opera-may-bite-the-dust-and-what-that-means-for-new-york/ Must be the topic of the week ... I don't know if I'm more angry or more sad.

Dirac, I think in this case you can assume that the ROH is catering directly to its core subscribers/individuals. In the UK we have several Dowager Marchionesses, which is a title in itself. So when the current Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury, Bute, Queensbury, Lansdowne etc etc etc books her tickets online (or has some flunky do it for her) she'll get a lil frisson of delight to see that the ROH subscriptions department has catered precisely to her title. Now that's customer service. There are that many of them? Well, never mind then. It's not nearly exclusive enough. I'll have to pick something else. In the meantime, Call me Madam! ... и пожалуйста, товарищ Симон Г.

Not unless they add "Tovarich" or "Citoyen" ...

Tired of plain old Mr., Mrs., Ms., and Miss? The "Title" dropdown box on the Royal Opera House's registration form provides some handy alternatives, and since it is a required field, one cannot, must not leave it blank in a sentimental fit of democratic fellow-feeling. So many to choose from! "Princessin"! "Viscondessa"! "Prof Dame"! "Marchesa" is very pretty, but I think I'll opt for "The Dowager Marchioness of ..." (One presumably fills in the blank with the appropriate fiefdom. Note to self: grab name of fabulous sounding fiefdom before they're all gone, like all the best domain names and email addresses.) I'm guessing "HE The French Ambassador M" is already taken. Harumph! I see there's no "HE The French Ambassador MME"! Perhaps a Mme Ambassador is expected to know how to type in the rest. There's no Her Hon Judge, either, just His. The patriarchy lives on ... One may select "Duke of" and "Earl," but not "Duke of Earl," alas. These folks are so trusting ...

Peggy, I'm not a 100% certain on this , but I think the title is also known as "Limpid Stream" and there are some recordings of that. Someone who speaks Russian (or knows music better than I do!) may be able to confirm this. It's possible the translation/transliteration has some variables to it. The work (Op 39) is know as both "the Bright Stream" and "The Limpid Stream." There's a recording of it on the Chandos label with Gennadi Rozhdestvensky conducting The Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra. (It's available on Amazon as both a CD and a download.) The Russian title is Светлый Ручей (Svetlyi Ruchyei) -- Светлый is usually translated as "bright" but can also mean "clear" or "light (in color)."

I believe it indeed was. (She's not listed on the roster in the 2011/2012 subscription brochure.) She gave a beautiful performance and took a well-deserved solo bow in front of the curtain. I still remember her wonderful performances in Part II of "The Goldberg Variations," "Dances at a Gathering" (Mauve), "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (she was my favorite Hermia), and "The Russian Seasons." She took over Ringer's role in the latter for a while, and I was very taken with the way she danced the first of the Autumn songs. (It's the one where the woman in green climbs and climbs towards what seems to be paradise with the help of three men who could be angelic spirits.) The text describes an eden where birds sing and angels sit on blooming flowers and Ratmansky's choreography suggests that the woman in green (or her soul, perhaps) gets a look at it. Rutherford's village maid took it in with the delighted wonderment of a country girl in the big city for the first time, and it was just perfect. I'll miss her!

Congratulations to Bar! Getting "New York Export: Opus Jazz" funded, filmed, and on-screen was a real achievement, and I'm glad it's opened up a new career for her. According to the article ViolinConcerto linked to, Bar's last performance will be this Sunday in "Vienna Waltzes" -- and I'm more than a little wistful that I won't get to watch her dance anymore! I still remember her performances of the Lilac Fairy in Martins' "Sleeping Beauty," the "Bransle Gay" in Balanchine's "Agon," and the Apache Dancer in Wheeldon's "An American in Paris." She was the reason to sit through Eliot Feld's "A Stair Dance" -- relaxed, self-possessed, and alive to the theatrical possibilities of the simple (or at least simple-seeming) movements Feld had given her to do. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that she'll be in the performance of Vienna Waltzes I'm seeing on Saturday ... I for one would have liked to have seen her as the lead in "Gold und Silber Walzer" -- she had the right kind of glamour for the role.

I had a similar reaction when I saw this pair at the Kennedy Center last month. I've seen Kowroski in the role before and I love her in it, but the two of them seemed to be dancing on two different dynamic levels. I missed Hyltin's Terpsichore, but I'm not surprised by Macaulay's criticism. The role is not without playfulness at times, but it needs gravitas too, and that doesn't seem to be within her natural personality onstage, at least from what little I've seen of her. Perhaps I'm wrong. Well, here's a dissenting opinion - I absolutely loved Kowroski, Mearns and Askagard in Concerto Barocco. Yes, Mearns danced the 2nd Violin with a vitality that we don't often see and with very strong attack but she also showed a wonderful response to the music. Most importantly, she and Kowroski seemed to be on the same wavelength in the way they heard and responded to the music, something that has been missing in most NYCB pairings in this piece for the past several seasons. I felt that Kowroski and Mearns also shared enough phsical & stylistic attributes - the expansive phrasing, the endless arabesque - that their appearance was complimentary, and the fact that Kowroski's interpretation was more lyrical and Mearns was more dynamic simply served to differentiate the two violin strains. Loved it, loved it, loved it! I also really loved Fairchild & Huxley in Square Dance on opening night (Fairchild's stage presence has deepened and her feet were so beautiful here) and Fairchild & Finlay in Duo Concertant. She brought a lyricism and vulnerability that I just don't see in Hyltin, though she has other gifts. What kfw said about dissent! In truth, nysusan, I liked both Kowroski and Mearns, too! But I would have preferred to see one or the other as 1st violin paired with someone else as 2nd violin. I always think of the 1st violin as the Queen Bee and the 2nd violin as the Warrior Princess who just happens to be the Queen Bee's best friend. To my eye, both Kowroski and Mearns are Queen Bees -- I want to see both of them in the pas de deux-- and thus putting the two of them together as 1st and 2nd violin somehow throws my ballet universe out of whack. Of course, your mileage may vary, and that's the beauty of multiple casts. I have lots of fantasy pairings for CB -- Teresa Reichlen and Kaitlyn Gilliand, Ana Sophia Scheller and Brittany Pollack -- though they might not actually work in the theater.