Drew

My thanks as well volcanohunter --

I also found this, as Andre Yew said, refreshingly frank--and without sounding the least bit sour. And it does seem that one way or another (guest appearances, tap dancing with her daughters, or bully pulpits)) dance is a going to remain a big part of her life for a long time.

The pas de deux that led to the pillow/pregnancy in Tiller in the Fields might be worth reviving--perhaps for a gala in Tudor's honor. Personally, I'm most curious about Echoing of Trumpets with Romeo and Juliet a close second. However, Lilac Garden is my favorite of the Tudor ballets I have seen--including one performance with Kirkland as Caroline. (I found her performance very moving.) The Leaves Are Fading with Kirkland was, as I remember it, a transcendent experience--but from all reports the ballet has quite survived quite beautifully with other casting. I hope they do revive it for the centenary.

I think a strong and powerful Juliet could be effective (in Macmillan's version at least).

I saw Souvenirs as a kid too--with my Mom. It was the closer on a program danced by the Harkness ballet. It definitely had lots of "silly" and we loved it!

I'll add my thanks Mme. Hermine--let's hope at least a little of that can be passed along to ABT's dancers...

Mme. Hermine -- From what I saw of Kirkland throughout her career, I can well believe she danced a transcendent Aurora in London. If you have the time (and inclination) to discuss your memories of it...well, that would be lovely.

My memory is that Kirkland only danced Aurora once with ABT in New York. I remember a review by David Vaugn that said that in her 'present condition' (or some very similar phrase) she was not up to all the demands of the role but that the vision scene was "exquisite." When Baryshnikov directed ABT, he cast her in the Sleeping Beauty Act III pas de deux, programmed as an excerpt. I missed reviews of the performances she gave in London, but read a John Percival review of another dancer that compared the dancer unfavorably to Kirkland, noting that Kirkland was able to tell a story through the choreography that progressed throughout the ballet. But I don't think at that point (very late in her dancing career) her technical prowess compared to what it had been at her height. The what-ifs of Kirkland's career are so excruciatingly painful to me that I try to suppress them, but I'm inclined to think that had her health and spirit held together for the full career one wishes she had had, she would have developed an unforgetable Aurora. I do strongly agree with Carbro that it would be great if Kirkland were to work with dancers on roles that she did have a chance to develop--Giselle, Leaves are Fading--which Tudor created on her-- and others. (Perhaps Raymonda too?? A Kirkland-Nureyev Raymonda received an absolute rave--a you-had-to-be-there-to-believe-it-rave--from Clive Barnes.) I should add that I don't consider reviews to be gospel, but I saw enough of Kirkland's dancing myself to believe the rave reviews when I read them.

Art076: Thanks for the additional background. But it doesn't really alter my disappointment about the company's delay in updating their system for online purchasing of tickets. Choosing one's own tickets may be relatively new to the arts world, but many arts organizations are making it possible and, indeed, have been doing so for a while--including the Met which, you mentioned, originally developed Tessitura....Certainly, I don't expect NYCB to have the most up-to-date techno-geeky website in the world--but I would like them to keep up with the Jones's. Or, say, the New York City Opera. On the "business" end, I'll mention that when I know I can get good seats--that is, seats that I myself consider good--I am likely to buy more (and more expensive) tickets. I can't be the only person who feels that way--and as Sandik notes, happy customers are returning customers. Since this post is a little irritable, I'll add that I arrange my ballet going from out of town and cannot buy tickets at the box office unless I wait until the last minute--which is nerve wracking when one has travelled hundreds of miles to see a particular performance and sometimes (though not always) means quite mediocre seats or, admitedly much more rarely, no seats. For many years, of course, we had no such technology issues to complain about since the technology didn't exist and certainly wasn' t dreamed of by me. But it does exist now and I wish the company would treat it as a priority.

An out-of-towner series would interest me as well (especially if there were several weekends to choose from). I can imagine the logistics of it would be tricky for the company but perhaps not insuperable (?).

I have dim memories of Balanchine's Gaspard de la Nuit (for the Ravel festival) as a ballet that would qualify as "creepy"--it had a sort of gothic theatrical quality and I vaguely recall images of hanging...I'm hoping others remember the ballet better than I do.

If the ticketing software is currently the same as was in place in late 2005, then I think it could definitely use improvement. For the Metropolitan Opera and Covent Garden, one can see exactly what seats one is purchasing --and try other seats if one prefers. But when I bought tickets on the NYCB site last year I was not able to see what I was buying--they wouldn't even guarantee a section; I had to wait until the tickets arrived in the mail and they weren't the section I had asked for which had sold out. Since the Met and Covent Garden have similar complexities (subscribers, house seats, etc.), I don't feel particularly charitable about this either. In any case, thanks for the heads up--Come the first of August, I will be checking out the new site and certainly look forward to being able to navigate it more easily.

nmdancer: Although ballerinas sometimes present a flower to their partners, they often don't -- even in the case of true "partnerships" which Ferri and Carreno have, I assume, yet to develop. I wouldn't read anything into it. (It IS fun to see a ballet like Romeo and Juliet from the front row... though I get frustrated in the front because one often can't see the feet properly.)

Jane Simpson's Vishneva/Ruzimatov anecdote recalls a remark of Erik Bruhn's--a partnership should be a 'love affair on stage' (underline 'on stage') not a 'bad argument.'

Last summer I saw soloists from the Royal Danish Ballet at the Sadlers Wells in London. I enjoyed them very much but, on the whole, did not think they compared well with the groups I saw back in the eighties (though I always love Tina Hojlund). I had read strong praise for Thomas Lund, but was not as impressed with him as I expected to be until at a certain moment in mid air, during a leaps forward with the back leg in attitude he suddently tilted his head and upper body just the barest hint more than the other dancers and opened his arms before him just the barest hint more as well: suddenly the jump was beautiful and beautiful in a way that no-one else's was. I don't know if this is exactly what is meant by epaulement, but certainly that slight angling of the upper body over the working leg as he went through the air completely transformed the jump from a well executed stop into something free and expressive. In the past I had read (usually in newspaper articles) that Bournonville does not emphasize epaulement the way the Russians do, but it does seem to call for "whole body" dancing...

I am also trying to plan a trip to see the Sleeping Beauty in D.C. and as of today (the 12th) the Kennedy Center casting lists give only the Aurora/Florimund -- has anyone seen word elsewhere about other casting (Lilac Fairy in particular)? I can make some educated guesses, but was hoping people might have heard or seen something. Thanks --

drb- thanks for your detailed review, especially the account of Evenfall. I don't know when I will get to see it, but am definitely curious. Re: The Red Violin: I remember Martins' interview before the Diamond project a little differently than you do--I recall him saying he gave other Diamond Project choreographers the first choice of which dancers to work with, EXCEPT for Somogyi--whom he definitely wanted.

I have exactly the same scrolling problem with the NYCB website mentioned above. (I'm another person who does not use explorer.) Outside of that problem, I have also found the website generally difficult to navigate--even the various menus sometimes leave me more perplexed than anything else. As a result I practically never visit the site. I was particularly irritated, too, when I tried to buy tickets through the website. I don't live in New York and last year, for the first time, I used websites to buy tickets to the Metropollitan Opera House and the State Theater. I found it easy and convenient to buy tickets to the Met. -- I was able to determine exactly what seat I was buying and more or less easily try out some alternatives before I made my purchase. I was also able to make multiple purchases with just one purchasing/mailing "fee." (Buying tickets from Covent Garden was even easier.) Buty NYCB? I did not find the system anywhere near as easy, though I guess it still counts as convenient, and not only could I not pick a seat, I could not even get a guaranteed section. I also somehow ended up paying two separate purchasing/mailing fees even though I was buying two tickets together for the same performance at the same time. I assume I myself made a mistake that led to the extra fee--but somehow on other websites that particular mistake has never come my way. Since it is not as if the Metropolitan Opera (or Covent Garden) doesn't have the same box-office complexities to navigate as NYCB, I find it outrageous that the company cannot do better. No artistic genius is required to solve this problem...no Balanchine website legacy is there to weigh heavily or Oedipally on his successors....no rival computer coaches whose talents have been banished from the State Theater . There is no (good) reason the company can't solve this. (But I see my irritation is such that I am way off topic. Well, let's say that if I found the website easier to navigate I would check out the front row center photos which sound well worth a look.)

I thought the Rockwell article made Martins' detractors look bad without making Martins look good. Regarding Martins, it almost read as damning with faint praise. However, I don't know that that was the intent. My memory of the Diamond project's early publicity was that the exclusive focus was to be on choreographers working in the classical/neo-classical idiom. Whatever stretching of the dancers was involved was to remain within the framework of the company's primary 'aesthetic.' Why exactly Morris wasn't invited (or even whether he wasn't invited) I have no idea. I know he has had success working in the classical idiom though I also know observers who feel he is fundamentally not a ballet choreographer at all even if he uses some classical materials and works with ballet companies. (Similar debates have occured over Tharp's work.) In recent years, the Diamond Project seems to have become more openly eclectic (Stroman?)--and there were always some borderline cases. For myself, I would be happy to see a Mark Morris work at City Ballet--though I won't hold my breath. When Martins includes himself and, now, Wheeldon as part of the Diamond project he seems to be following Balanchine's approach to festivals--in which he and Robbins worked side by side with Taras and D'amboise and Clifford and Bonnefous etc. etc. all of whom were creating (to say the least) lesser works side by side with the company's 'masters.' I rather like the idea that under the rubric of a festival everyone becomes part of it--famous, not famous, infamous--etc.

Solor -- I think you answered your own question . I'm guessing most of the books I mention below are at least known to you by name. I read Romola's biography when I was young, and I found it very readable...Lincoln Kirstein worked with her on it behind the scenes. For a more standard, "respectable" biography with the kind of information you seek, you have probably already been directed to Richard Buckle...Nathalie Krasovskaya's (translated from the Russian) is supposedly good on his life in Russia. If you want to read something less tendentious than a wife's or a sister's memoirs perhaps start with these. (Not that scholarly biographers don't also have their own "perspective" ...) I should think, though, that Nijinska's memoirs must have a lot of useful information (perhaps Marie Rambert's as well). But I have not read it. Of course, memoirs (like biographies written by spouses) tend to be less than disinterested and probaly contain numerous inaccuracies. But that doesn't mean you won't learn a lot. Actually, even their very tendentiousness can be informative. For me, the best book on Nijinsky is Kirstein's _Nijinsky Dancing_ but it really is a meditation on what made Nijinksy a great -- and a historically important -- dancer and choreographer by someone who knows Nijinsky's work exclusively through photographs and the writings of others. Nonetheless, it was the first book on Nijinsky I read that gave me some "feel" for his art. However, when it comes to biographical details, well, no...I wouldn't recommend it.

Vassiliev and Bruh: absolutely two of the greatest male ballet dancers ever. I saw Vassiliev only once and then only in very pared down and carefully paced choreography. Even so, wow! he made an unforgettable impression. I was very fortunate to see Bruhn in two major roles (Albrecht and Frantz) towards the end of his (classical) career. I also saw him a few more times dancing character roles. Bruhn had an absolutely pure style. For me and many others it would be no exageration to say that his dancing exemplified the Platonic ideal of classical ballet. I also remember a Dance Magazine interview with Baryshnikov shortly after his defection in which he mentioned Bruhn--I can't quote the exact words, but he said something along the lines of 'we saw Erik Bruhn and he showed us that even an assemble can be a major event.' (Please imagine an accent over 'assemble'--I have never figured out how to do the accents properly.)

I saw Kirkland in Baryshnikov's Nutcracker numerous times including, one Washington Christmas season, four times within two weeks. Each one was different even when the partners were the same (which was not always the case). One of the few examples that is strong in my memory: one evening in the pas de deux/trois, she supported herself against her partner's shoulder while on point and her working leg brushed against the other moving from behind her to in front of her and back with the utmost delicacy, holding the leg quite low; a few nights later she performed the same phrase with greater emphasis and took the leg higher. Both times looked equally controled, lovely, easy and natural. Still, the inflection was quite different. (The video obscures the moment altogether by giving a close-up; the video is, in any case, a very poor testament to her Clara.) Based on everything I have read, including Kirkland's own writings, I believe Kirkland WAS a demon of preparation, but I suspect that the preparation somehow enabled her to respond with ultra sensitivity to the moment in which she was dancing. Certainly when I saw her--mostly after she joined ABT--she was the least predictable or robotic dancer imaginable. She noticeably responded differently to different partners. And, as has been noted by others on this board in other threads, Kirkland was also a dance risk taker who sometimes took very noticeable spills--and what I recall about those spills is that (in story ballets at least) she would get up from those spills "in character," as if Clara or Swanilda or whoever had taken the fall and was picking herself up off the floor not the dancer Kirkland. And that, in itself, is testimony to a kind of living spontaneity in her performances, however meticulously prepared they were. Unfortunately my memory isn't sharp enough to detail much about how I think she "grew" in performances--I suspect memory has even blurred some performances together. But I did see a Swanilda early in her ABT career danced with Baryshnikov that was ultra exuberant, electric in its flirtatious chemistry, and technically smashing and saw another much later with Charles Ward that seemed tinged with more ethereal and vulnerable qualities...very, very beautifully danced with Kirkland drifting down like a feather from the high lifts that (the very tall Ward) managed, as it appeared to a viewer, effortlessly. I wouldn't exactly say she "grew" in the role--the early performance with Baryshnikov could hardly be bettered. But these were two gorgeous performances very differently conceived.

A beautiful performance by Kistler tends to put one in a good mood...

She was one of my favorite soloists at ABT. (I never really got to see her dance principal roles though I know she did.). At a time when the quality of solo dancing in the company was somewhat unpredictable, she always delivered strong, polished performances with real personality. Very sad news...

My reaction to seeing Vishneva for the first time was very like Buddy's. But I would add that neither of us has to hedge our admiration too much...Vishneva has an international reputation as one of today's ballet greats--a view I obviously share, though I, too, have only seen her dance twice. Those performances several years back: Giselle and Tchaikovsky pas de deux with the Kirov at the Met. I was completely dazzled. I don't think I ever saw the choreography of Giselle's Act I solo so wonderfully danced: but Vishneva also remained convincingly "inside" the ballet. She also offered thrillingly wild-looking (yet utlimately controlled) turns on Giselle's entrance in Act II. I know that when she danced Giselle with ABT last summer, Rockwell in the Times could not stop raving about the performance; recently when he did his overview of dance highlights of 2005, she was, more or less, the highlight of his list of highlights. I believe there are dissenting views on her dancing -- people who don't admire her as much as some of us who are posting on this thread -- but she would most emphatically not qualify as someone who just happened to shine spectacularly on a certain night. She has been far too widely admired by far too many people to consider one of her great performances anomalous. Those who don't like her, don't like her--and they could give you their reasons themselves--but that is not because they are seeing different performances. I'm not saying Vishneva has never had an "off" night, or that some nights may not be extra special--just that she is a ballerina of established quality...who typically can be counted on to thrill those susceptible to her qualities. (When it comes to one time special magic -- when a more ordinary dancer outdoes her or himself in a given performance...I would say it's thrilling when it occurs and, for me, certainly qualifies as a "great" performance; still if a dancer really only peaked like that once or twice in their career and was otherwise merely, say, a solid dancer, then I would not desicribe them as a "great" dancer per se. As already noted, I do consider Vishneva a great dancer.)