Drew

I also would be interested in hearing from people who were there. Below is a link to the video the Guggenheim posted on youtube:

This discussion of the Mearns/Phelan Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto no 2 rather interests me from the 'outside'--that is, I wasn't at the performance. Most importantly I would say that NYCB, as one of the world's great ballet companies and the standard bearer for Balanchine dancing, should always be dancing its Balanchine repertory as if for "maybe fewer than 30 true Balanchine lovers." or even for just one. That said, I can't say I'm outraged reading about what happened--it's a live art form and circumstances aren't always ideal--decisions get made in the heat of the moment, Moreover, Mearns is a great ballerina who probably more than 30 people in the audience were excited to see--or had bought tickets for especially etc. It's also not surprising that some here report enjoying the unexpected character of the performance. (Especially easy for true NYCB lovers to enjoy when they are able to see the ballet multiple times during the season etc.) But I still wouldn't sell the larger audience short. The company actually has a rather knowledgeable audience, including a subscriber base very familiar with the dancers and at least somewhat familiar with the repertory. Even less knowledgeable audience members may have been puzzled by the appearance of yet another soloist in the ballet when only two featured ballerinas are listed in the program-- especially puzzling when Phelan didn't take a bow. And I have found that even inexperienced ballet-goers sometimes have an intuitive sense when something isn't right. Having seen Mearns' Diamonds last spring (ravishing pas de deux --one of the greatest, most expansive and most moving, that I've seen--and truly grand in the finale--but visibly struggling through many allegro passages and supported turns etc.) I can attest that, for my taste, she is currently worth seeing under any circumstances. Greatness will out. But I can very much understand the frustration of ballet lovers whose enjoyment of Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto no. 2 was partly interrupted by the back and forth of the lead ballerina in a ballet that is so much ABOUT the lead ballerina.

It's a pleasure reading about these performances--thanks to all of you writing. Also: Phelan is a heroine!

Petal seems to have entered the rep of several companies. There may be others—that is the one I know about. And The Crucible which premiered in 2019 and was revived and taken on tour by the Scottish Ballet several years later. i have no idea whether Crime and Punishment will be any good or, good or not, whether it will appeal to ABT’s audience or pull in curious non ballet-goers but Pickett seems to me an interesting choice —not unworthy of a major company. (I haven’t seen much of her work—and think of her as more contemporary/dance theater than neo-classical, but have definitely liked and admired some of what I have seen.) Edited to add: Looking at some Vail dance festival videos, by chance I just saw that a work she created for DTH over a decade ago (When Love) was danced at Vail just a couple of years ago.

I wish their touring program included Wartime Elegies.

I have long loved Laracey who would surely be beautiful in Mozartiana and, in my opinion, pretty much single-handedly saved last fall's revival of Orpheus from being no more than a dimly lit bore. But having seen Nadon recently in Diamonds and Rubies and in Concerto Barocco last fall--the latter my first time seeing her dance live--and having given the matter calm, rational, and sober consideration, I would KILL to see her in Mozartiana.

Sometimes unexpected strange moments land memorably--and make for an exciting if unusual evening. Especially in a live art form that is performed by big personalities. This was the era of Nureyev (cough) and Cynthia Gregory smoking a cigarette during Grand Pas Classique (she was protesting the way she was cast)! Of course, demanding to start over a variation in Agon would be appalling --grounds for firing as far as I'm concerned--but I can't get quite as outraged about Don Q pas de deux especially danced outside the full length ballet. I don't approve of what Godunov did, would dislike a star dancer who made that sort of thing a habit, but I bet if I had been in the theater that one night I would have enjoyed the ride and applauded wildly.

I like the score a lot--though it has a rather grim cast for a traditional fairy tale. But I am posting to give a hearty "amen" to the pleasures of the Lavrosky version. At least on video It looks terrific. At some point the whole thing was posted -- with Krysanova as a guest artist--and that's when I watched it. I thought she was a pitch-perfect Cinderella. Probably some large measure of credit goes to Messerer and the design team for the production's success too.

She accomplished so much in her short life--very sad news.

It is finally not his personality that concerns me, but his actions and his words in this episode and a ballet world willing to overlook them almost as soon as they occurred. (The phrase “and was never made to” was directed at the ballet world. But I do remember that he lost a position.) Yes, I know this story from the press. I still consider the reference to Hüster, whatever her faults may be, a deflection. And if you were to persuade me that she was the nastiest and most unqualified ballet critic that ever lived, then I would still consider it a deflection or, worse, victim blaming. I understand that you want to give me context, but it particularly offended me when Goecke himself turned his (non) apology into a verbal attack on her. Had he indeed merely verbally attacked her at, say, a press conference, as opposed to physically attacking her, I might question his professionalism but I might also have had some sympathy at his lashing out. I will say that if he has since authored a more thoughtful and self-reflective apology—one that doesn’t allude to Hüster’s faults or claim grandiosely to be taking action on behalf of artists—then that might make a better impression on me than his earlier “apology” and I would be happy to be made aware of it. Since I have only seen a bit of Goecke’s work and that via video, I have also been trying to imagine whether my views would change if Goecke were my favorite choreographer. I don’t believe they would change, but the balance of regret vs. irritation in my feelings about the episode and how lightly it has been taken might be different.

No, as far as I know, you are right. Goecke only hit and humiliated a woman dance critic and then “apologized” by saying she deserved it and claiming high-minded motives — a desire to begin a “conversation.” I guess that, as an excuse, this almost does seem “very funny” in its absurd bad faith. Of course he IS the first dance artist in the history of the world to have received stinging reviews 🙄. I will repeat that I am not opposed to come-backs and second acts even for Goecke. I am not advocating he be banished from ballet for all eternity. But this guy never took and was never made to take even an intermission—nor did he craft an apology worthy of the name. He lost a gig or two, while maintaining plenty of others and has continued to see his work performed all over the world. The behavior of artists from decades ago—Tudor, Robbins, and even Balanchine—does indeed seem to have included actions that would not be acceptable in most theaters and schools today. The key word being …today. Ballet can’t change its history, but it can change how it does things moving ahead.

Ahhh...those Biedermeier Yankees....

I am afraid I do not have an answer for you and until I saw the question raised by fans who saw Misseldine in London I don’t think I have ever heard this discussed —worse, I don’t think my eyes really ever picked out the hint of red on the costume. But I didn’t want you to think people hadn’t seen the question or were not pondering it. I tried to see if there were any interviews with the designer Zack Brown discussing the production, but though there may have been I could not find them. An allusion to Odette’s heart—or perhaps a wound from Rothbart’s capture of her (which ABT’s production shows) is possible, as well as the shape suggesting a beak,but it also might just be a design choice and/or to capture light in a certain way…I am sorry not to have a better answer,

It seems to me she thought Godunov danced well (and more than well) at the Bolshoi in the style the company and its repertory needed/wanted—and therefore that it was somewhat ironic that he chose to defect, since defecting implied he himself had some feelings of dissatisfaction with his career there. At least that is what an observer would conclude —that he wanted different artistic opportunities than the Bolshoi offered. Obviously, at the time he defected, it was not the case that he could return or dance on both sides of the iron curtain. It may well be that when she wrote her review she was not aware of the casting limitations put on his career under Grigorovich that @Meliss mentions. Today, I can go online and check out Bolshoi casting in some detail. In 1979? Hardly. Also she may have been more concerned with what she saw on stage than what was happening behind the scenes anyway. If I remember that essay correctly—I don’t have time to search it out and reread—she complains that although Semenyaka was a very turned-out dancer she didn’t always use her turnout and Croce seemed to blame that on the impact of the Bolshoi aesthetic on Semenyaka’s more purely classical St. Petersburg background: I guess that would be an example of her thinking a dancer’s talent was not being properly cultivated. Or that she thought a dancer did not entirely fit at the Bolshoi. I am not defending this, just remembering it as an example of things she discussed. I consider Semenyaka one of the all time great ballerinas and have no opinion about the state of her turnout during that long ago tour. I was supposed to see her in Swan Lake with Godunov, but as he had defected by then, I saw her with Kozlov who defected later on the same tour! The performance was sold out. I did not have tickets and it was like a warzone outside the theater as numerous fans like myself struggled to find someone with an extra ticket they were willing to sell. (Not scalpers—just someone whose companion got sick or some such. Scalpers had, according to rumor been offered unheard of prices for the performance earlier in the week and I would not have been able to afford anything of the kind.) “Warzone” is an exaggeration, but while I was outside the theater my sister was in a line inside the theater waiting for tickets that sometimes got turned back to the box office. Several people in line in front of her insisted on two seats together and she was able to buy the individual seats that they kept turning down. But by the time she did so, it was past curtain time; she came racing out of the theater and, since I was across the street, she shouted that she had tickets—and then, people who thought she was selling them swarmed her waving money in her face. They were not happy, even almost angry, when they realized she had been summoning me because she had just bought tickets for us. In the meanwhile I was sure we had missed the first scene, and would not be seated until intermission, but the curtain was being held for some reason we did not understand (not for us of course!!). Shortly after we got to our (separate) seats, the company announced over the loudspeakers they would not begin the performance unless Godunov’s wife was permitted to leave the U.S. (Her plane was being held at the airport while U.S. officials clarified that she genuinely wanted to leave—a long drawn out affair.) Fortunately, the company was making an empty threat and the curtain did go up. Altogether, the performance started about 20-25 minutes late — really not that much, but all the drama made it feel longer. The performance itself had strange elements too. Semenyaka and Kozlov had evidently not had much time to rehearse. From where I was sitting downstairs I could hear her occasionally say something to him out loud in Russian, as if giving him instructions. It was, without a doubt, my craziest experience attending a ballet performance: I was still a teenager and did not always have restrained emotions (still don’t, but I am older and a little wiser). Anyway: The nerve wracking two hours in front of the theater pleading with strangers to sell me any extra ticket (though most people were pretty sympathetic—Semenyaka was already almost a legend); the hopelessness I felt when it was curtain time; the sight of my sister racing from inside the theater then seeing her mobbed by other fans who thought she was selling. Then getting to my seat and hearing the company announce that the curtain might not go up at all, and then hearing the ballerina talk out loud to her partner in the middle of Swan Lake no less….BUT the greatness of the performance—Semenyaka’s greatness — makes this more than just a memory of zany ballet fan experiences at the height of the dance boom and the Cold War. I was dazzled by the whole company—when the opening scene waltz started I remember thinking how fabulous they were. I was even more awe-struck by Semenyaka’s dancing. (I don’t think video does her justice.) And yes, for sure it would have been great to see her with Godunov. So um, back to the topic. It was a tour where it became hard to separate art and politics and in that sense I guess Croce had a point about politics becoming a focus of attention, but certainly there were artistic triumphs!

Sometimes but sometimes not until later…and also almost never for soloist roles. Also even when announced one didn’t know what the result would be until later. But the brochure can be the beginning (just the beginning) of getting a sense of what was happening in a company. My explanation would not be substantially different from what @Helenewrote above. Another way to put it might be to ask whether the artists are being developed to their full potential? Or are their talents being used properly?