Marta

Congratulations, Ivy.  Excellent review.  I've read a lot about this company but have never seen them. 

11 minutes ago, nysusan said:

The tempo was probably not entirely at the discretion of the conductor. I recall that when this production was new it was described as being done "our way" (NYCB's way) and found this on their website:

"...Martins' version is streamlined into Two Acts, that combine the drama and beauty of the original choreography with the speed and energy for which New York City Ballet is known."

The music has always been played at breakneck speed, especially the fairy variations. For me this is always the low point of the production because it robs the variations of their meaning and often makes the dancers look ridiculous. Its just impossible to keep up with those tempos and the fact that NYCB always ignores the port de bras is just insult packed upon injury. 

Over all though, I like this production. I like the projections, I like the costumes, I like the use of children and, of course, I love the Garland Dance!

I recall seeing Means the Lilac fairy role several times and she was always amazing & expansive. Also Bouder dispatching the Rose Adagio like it was the easiest thing on earth.

I'm going to my first performance tomorrow night & very much looking forward to it. 

I saw the production when it was new and after one viewing I never wanted to see it again.  As  Rock said, those tempi made this beauteous score into something very different.  There's no sense of breath or air in the music,  I really missed the port de bras and epaulement despite  that I know NYCB is not known for dancing with the upper body.  Maybe Martins should have streamlined some other classic with "speed and energy".  I did like the garland dance and the many children, but no amount of lovely costumes or clever projections would draw me to a ballet.  

7 minutes ago, Amy Reusch said:

I live in a university town in Connecticut and most people here have no idea who Balanchine was and have never heard of him.  For those not familiar with US geography, Connecticut is a small state adjacent to New York, practically bordering the city (in Seattle, an American born cashier asked me if Connecticut were next to Tennessee).   Having grown up in the NY  metropolitan area and then lived for a decade in Manhattan before living in other parts of the country, I can tell you, the rest of the country is not a less densely populated version of the city.  The gap in what is known about dance inside NYC vs outside NYC is extraordinary.   

 

However,  in these other parts if the country, the populace have heard of the New York Times.   They all know who Picasso and Bach are, why shouldn't they know the major names in dance?   A great many also know the New Yorker.

Is it possible that the NY Times & New Yorker dance writers are trying to write for the rest of the country as well as New York City, and this is why they mention Balanchine's stature?  

You make some excellent points, especially about the household word status of Picasso and Bach.  I live in Boston and know intelligent people who have never heard of Balanchine or read the New Yorker. They have no interest in dance or opera, visual arts or music.  I do think the NYT writers try not to assume a certain level of dance knowledge or sophistication of their readers.

19 minutes ago, FPF said:

I was also relieved.

19 minutes ago, FPF said:

Thank goodness he is not a possibility IMO. Lord knows we don't need to see more of his choreography.

Makes my day.

54 minutes ago, DC Export said:

Has anyone seen video footage of Porte et un Soupir? I'm so intrigued from what I've read about it, but I have no idea what it looks like. 

I saw this ballet a few years ago with Kowroski and Ulbricht.  It was spectacular!  They were perfect in this work, as they are in most ballets.  It was on a program with newer and very new ballets, but it was the most radical and most creative work in the whole performance.  It is quite static spatially and some think it's related to Agon or The Cage.  I don't see that, other than the movements are very angular  Really you can't take your eyes off it for a second.  Go see it! 

Thanks for posting this, cubanmiamiboy.  Clifford said it was a home movie, yup. If only the quality were a little bit better! I was just reading through this thread and just about every youtube link led to a frowny face "sorry, this video is no longer available".  There are still some terrific clips of GK on youtube, though.

On 1/23/2019 at 10:50 PM, nanran3 said:

Ramasar was fabulous in Agon and is greatly missed, I agree.  Also I agree with your other assessments and imagine that Stanley was nervous and being perhaps more careful than he will be later on when he has more experience in the role.  I am bewildered that the Angle brothers are still performing with the company.  I saw Jared doing Serenade tonight and Tyler doing Mozartiana.  I understand loyalty to long time company members, and I get it that they are good partners, but they are no longer appealing physically.  When Joseph Gordon came onstage tonight to dance Tchai Piano Concerto #2, we finally saw an elegant, fit and handsome young man with clean and athletic technique.  That's what this company needs in its male dancers.  Do they need to go across the pond to Denmark to find another gorgeous Dane like Ib Anderson?   

I like Taylor Stanley but haven't seen him dance much.  I thought his Apollo was fine but definitely lacking in the "wild  half-human youth" quality, as well as the godlike nobility.  His facial expressions didn't help the interpretation, not that I think Apollo should ever be smiley.  You mention Ib Andersen whom I saw once as Apollo and he was wonderful!  I wonder if Stanley and others making their debut can hear the "footsteps of giants" behind them.   I always enjoy Tiler Peck although I don't think Terpsichore is her best role . I also like to see a taller dancer-- have to confess a preference for the  "goddess" type.  Woodward and Pollack were both good. Kowroski was magnificent in Agon.  There is no one greater!  I've seen her in Agon several seasons ago and she is still memorable. Although I think the Angle brothers are both declining, I was surprised that Angle in Agon was satisfying and more than just a good partner. Megan LeCrone also surprised; she is clean, precise, light. Only the tense facial carriage is a negative. Huxley in Agon was spectacular, I loved him!  Although I don't think Orpheus is an easy work to love, it has a poetic aspect that I found appealing. I really liked Garcia's performance and he's never been a favorite.  Yes there are some silly aspects to the ballet and parts of Noguchi's design are ugly or awkward. It's always interesting to see an unfamiliar Balanchine.

6 minutes ago, vipa said:

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't find Stanley incredible. I like him in some things but find him a bit light weight in others. The NYCB is still adjusting to the loss of Ramasar and Catazaro, as well the retirement of DeLuz and the technical decline (in solo, white tights works) of the Angles and Veyette. There is also the injury of Adrian D-W. It's a strange time for the male ranks in NYCB. 

As far as leaving for fulfillment, maybe Stanley will. Some dancers look at the rep of Balanchine, Robbins and new works that NYCB offers and want to eat all of it up. Others find more fulfillment in a constant diet of new works. That's the way it goes. Dancer's leave companies. I loved Ana Sofia Scheller, but San Francisco Ballet seems a better match for her.

I think Taylor Stanley is a fine dancer. I  have to say I haven't found him incredible, although I'm very happy to be seeing him in Apollo instead of Garcia.  Garcia has never moved me in any role.  Agree that the decline of the Angles and Veyette is quite glaring.  While I liked Catazaro, I was underwhelmed by his Apollo last year.  I think Joseph Gordon is terrific!

1 hour ago, vipa said:

I agree. Farrell has a great reputation as a coach and has run her own company, but I don't know if she would take on something as massive as NYCB. Kent surely has wonderful information to convey as a coach but I don't see anything to indicate that she could run a company.

I think someone else mentioned Maria K. I don't see that as a possibility. She has no experience running a company not even small projects such as the ones done by Ulbricht, Bouder and some others.

How I would love to see Farrell as AD, but I also don't think she's inclined to take on NYCB.  Her age has been mentioned as a  signifcant minus.  Neither Kent, Kowroski or Ringer are  likely possibilities to me.  Are we going to be completely surprised by the final choice?  I'd be shocked if it were Woetzel.

I love this ballet and have watched the youtube clip possibly hundreds of times.  Makarova and Baryshnikov are sublime together.  They created the roles and in some way "possess" them as no other dancers can.  Do you also like the solos and the ending duet?  There are some interesting comparisons on youtube of other dancers in the solos, emphasizing to me that the original is the gold standard.  

On 1/22/2015 at 6:14 PM, California said:

But both Dancers and (to a lesser extent) Nijinsky give us footage of performances we otherwise don't have. Dancers has considerable footage of Baryshnikov and Ferri in Act II of Giselle and Nijinsky has some of the reconstructed Sacre and Faun. Given the paucity of recordings of legendary dancers, this alone makes them worthwhile.

I completely agree. Both films had corny and trashy plots, but still worth seeing for the dancing.

I love Balanchine's Nutcracker the most.  I also love Baryshnikov's film and have seen it dozens of times. I've seen both the Maryinsky and Bolshoi versions on film and disliked both intensely, despite wonderful dancers.

Wonderful film that I'd never seen. Thanks for the link!

17 minutes ago, cobweb said:

Well, posting from intermission at The Balanchine Years, all I can say is that if it turns out to be Lopez, I hope she’ll bring Kleber Rebello with her. More later on the other thread. 

Signs aren't pointing to Lopez because she was in the company while Balanchine was still living.

Thank you so much Katia for posting this.  I love Makarova.  I'm watching it now.

Maybe there are mystery candidates that none of us have yet mentioned.  All of the mentions are unlikely. Either happy where they are, have no experience,  too old, combinations of those.  Woetzel to me would have been the best choice, but I would be very surprised if he left Juilliard. I agree with fleurfairy that the interim team is managing very well yet I don't think they should remain permanently. Many people have advocated for Jon Stafford. Lopez or any other woman shouldn't be considered because she ticks the female and minority boxes. 

1 hour ago, canbelto said:

I must say after watching those Farrell clips that I can't imagine anyone else doing this ballet. It should be noted that when Farrell returned to NYCB Balanchine tried reviving Don Q but ultimately dropped it from the repertoire. For one his relationship with Farrell had evolved and the ballet just didn't sell well no matter how many tinkerings he made.

That is exactly how I feel. Farrell created that role, and without her it's another ballet. 

4 hours ago, l'histoire said:

Farrell owns the rights to Don Q, or did (I don't entirely understand how the Balanchine Foundation works - it's possible she's since signed over 'her' rights to them? Same thing with Meditation). But at that point in time (when NYCB was considering doing Don Q again, back in the 90s or early 2000s, non?), she wasn't "invited" back to stage it - they asked if they could perform it (and she apparently said 'no'), because no one other than her had the rights TO perform it without going through her. I'm pretty sure this was pretty explicitly taken up in a New Yorker article, though I don't have the time to lay hands on where this was spelled out in detail. 

I'm quite sure you're correct.  When I read that Farrell was invited back to stage DQ and refused, I thought that couldn't be right.  Somehow this ballet without the original cast doesn't seem "viable".  Not that I ever saw it in the theater. Clifford has clips of it on youtube however.

Thanks for posting this, Ivy.  This video is  wonderful for those of us who couldn't see it in person.

1 hour ago, canbelto said:

Every year NYCB accepts about 4 or 5 apprentices into the company. Some do not get corps contracts. Other graduates go to ballet companies around the country and around the world. It's sort of like how the Vaganova Academy is a feeder school for the Mariinsky but that doesn't mean that Vaganova grads necessarily go into the Mariinsky.

Good point, you're right.

14 minutes ago, canbelto said:

First of all "Balanchine style" encompasses a huge range, as does "Robbins style." Dancing Agon is very different from dancing Coppelia, just as dancing Glass Pieces is different from Dances at a Gathering. Second of all very few SAB alumni get jobs with NYCB. Their training is meant to be all-encompassing and they go to all different dance companies around the world. Third of all time didn't stop in 1983 -- NYCB repertoire now has many pieces by contemporary choreographers. 

True ... except for point two.  Very few SAB alumni get jobs with NYCB?   I thought it was more like very many.

23 minutes ago, vipa said:

Drew, thank you. You said much of what I was thinking. Yes, it's important to get dancers who Balanchine choreographed on coaching, and do it quickly for obvious reasons. We all have to acknowledge that memories aren't perfect, but a sense of energy, style, musicality should be mostly accurate even if some steps were changed for different dancers. I too think Peter Martins did much right, but have seen Farrell's company - please have her coach soon. 

At the same time we have to acknowledge that change happens. Truthfully, I've enjoyed performances of Square Dance more now than I did in the "good old days" because of developments in technique. Balanchine didn't have Ashley Bouder, Tiler Peck etc. to choreograph on. We don't know how he would have change things, or what he would have done. 

I was trained, as a dancer, by people who were in the NYCB during the Balanchine years. They have both passed away. Let's get as much knowledge as we can before it's too late.

Drew and Vipa, thank you both.  I was also struck by the interim team's invitation to the great dancers who have returned to coach.  I recall the video clips of Verdy just a few years ago coaching Tschai PdD. What a fabulous treasure for a dancer!

30 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I gave up when he used the term "colored dancers" while opining about diversity.  We stopped using "colored" when we took it off the water fountains 50 years ago.

I don't expect the next AD to be a Social Justice Warrior, but I do expect that AD not to be tone-deaf when it comes to matters of race, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.

(And lest someone cite Clifford's age by way of excuse, he is only about seven or eight years older than I am.)

OK. Now I will go be cranky elsewhere.

Mamma mia!  I can't believe anyone still says "colored".  That definitely disqualifies him. Also, as someone here said, he seems to have neither interest nor much awareness of contemporary choreographers like Ratmansky, Peck, etc.  I doubt he would be the successful candidate. However, I said that about the current occupant of the White House too.

55 minutes ago, Rock said:

I believe it's all about having a "tag" - the theory being people are more inclined to buy a program with a "tag" on it - All Balanchine, All Tschaikovsky, All New, 21st Century - Barocco/Balanchine/Broadway - any name they can think up helps sell the evening, or so the theory goes. I suppose it's true but boy do I miss rep. It was so thrilling to have a different mix every night. 

I never loved the theme idea that NYCB came up with 10 or more years ago.  I do love the all Balanchine or the Balanchine B & W but as Vipa said, I also would be thrilled to see a program with an indisputably great Balanchine and two new works, or two by other choreographers, new or not.  I'd be curious to know which programs had higher ticket sales.