Drew

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.)

I'm very interested in hearing responses to the performances as well--especially Ringer's and Bouder's debuts.

Fortunately, we have always had a pretty big variety of opinions about Martins and NYCB on this board. Heck! I myself once put in a good word for his choosing to ask Kirkeby, who is a highly regarded modern artist, to design his Swan Lake.. But I admit, Oberon, that I was disturbed when you suggested that people actually want a young dancer to fail or are Martins "Haters" -- an expression I have never seen on Ballettalk though I have seen it on other boards...When defending NYCB or Martins on this board, I have certainly had people strongly disagree with me, but I have never felt they were policing my views or attacking me personally. So, likewise, I think it's important that people can criticize the company without feeling that they will be accused of bad faith or ill intentions. People who care about NYCB (whatever their opinion of this or that dancer, policy, or artistic director) have more in common, for the purposes of this board, than not.

Yes -- when I referred to lack of performance experience this is all I meant. I have no problem with debuts per se and quite enjoyed Monique Meunier's debut as Odette/Odile a few seasons back. I also share the opinion that it is likely that injuries and illness have played a role in this casting decision, but on the face of it, it remains a peculiar one.

Ah...I didn't know how to describe technically the fouette/step sequence in the fourth movement...Oberon put it much more clearly. My original perception of Stafford's dancing in that section is what it is--it looked to me as if she was insecure and off balance as she moved through the sequence. But I do appear to be the only person who saw it that way. As for fouettes ruining a performance, poor fouettes alone don't necessarily ruin a performance for me either--as mentioned before, it depends on the overall context.

I'm sure everyone on this thread wishes Sarah Mearns success in her debut, and I trust (or hope) she is being rehearsed and coached carefully, but this is very peculiar, not to say gimmicky casting. Fast-tracking ballerinas does seem to be in fashion in a number of ballet companies these days and, certainly, letting talent languish is a bad idea. But Odette-Odile is not just any bit of fast tracking, and rehearsing and coaching are not the same kind of preparation as performance. The latter is one kind of preparation Mearns decidedly lacks. Obviously the company believes she can make a "splash" and perhaps she will--and more power to her if she does--but Odette/Odile, perhaps more than any other of the great nineteenth-century roles, calls for a certain maturity (even in NYCB's somewhat abstracted and modernized version).

Just a side note about fouettes -- all of us who have been going to the ballet a long time have seen quite a bit of travelling which does not, all the same, make it a good thing. However, in the fourth movement of Symphony in C there are a series of fouettes that are choreographed deliberately to move (or travel) forward along a diagonal line set up by the corps--which is a different matter. Done strongly it's quite wonderful--a razzle dazzle moment that looks instead like pure, free dancing. I thought Stafford looked insecure doing the turns, and I have never elsewhere thought she looked insecure: effortful and as if she were not fully centered and, therefore, actually falling--not stepping--from one turn to the other; others who have posted thought she looked fine and since this isn't entirely a matter of opinion, it's possible that I may simply have "misread" her technique. That said, in the finale the four ballerinas are supposed to be turning in place in a row--I don't doubt some ballerinas travel in this sequence from time to time, but when the finale is done right they are turning in place, in a line, and together. Opening night Stafford was noticeably getting out of sync with the others as she travelled forward in a way that was not particularly controlled but, when I looked at her, starting to skid very slightly forwards and sideways...So, while admiring many of her technical capabilities, I remain skeptical about her fouettes opening night., and indeed, don't think she was nearly as strong in this role overall as she was in Fearful Symmetries (or, indeed, as other dancers in this role). Maybe she will be in the future. I'm responding in such detail to Oberon's comments not to jump on Stafford, who is a very accomplished dancer, but because I disagree with the implied view that "travelling' is somehow a non-issue in fouettes. As for the "cook's tour" etc. -- the person who coined that phrase was hardly offering praise. Some ballerinas do deliberately, in a controlled and even manner, travel forward as they do fouettes. At least I have seen that in nineteenth-century ballets calling for 32 (far more than called for in Symphony in C) -- and, when well done, that can even look quite sensational. But when ballerinas doing fouettes are wondering off to the side, stiffening their body, travelling forward in an uneven, uncontrolled manner or any of another dozen things or more that can go wrong -- well, that's a problem whether the dancer is Margot Fonteyn or a completely unknown corps de ballet dancer. Depending on the context -- the ballet, the interpretation, the quality of the ballerina's other dancing, even her personality--it may not be a very big problem of course. To say the least, the compensations in a dancer of Fonteyn's calibre dancing Odette/Odile, or of any great ballerina in a major role, usually minimize the importance of that kind of flaw, but it is a flaw.

I guess reactions to opening night are going to be all over the place. I will say first that I get to see very little ballet these days (though I used to see quite a bit), and --for the most part-- that does make me less critical than I might be otherwise, both because I'm so pleased to be seeing any world class dancing and because my eye has to readjust to taking it all in...But with that disclaimer... I brought modest expectations to Barocco, and was very pleased, even pleasantly suprized, by the performance. I more or less agree with what has been said in this thread about Borree's weaknesses in the lead (though they were more apparent to me Wednesday evening) but she, Rutherford, Evans and the ensemble did succeed in showing you the ballet--and it is a very great ballet. I've seen Borree cast in roles where she literally obscured the ballet, so I consider this performance to be one of her best. In much of the adagio she was quite lovely, etching images in the air. I also agree with Michael's remarks about Rutherford whose pointe work did seem occasionally weak to me--as if she did not get entirely ON point until after a little extra effort--but whose upper body had a rich, expansive quality that also made a nice contrast with Borree. I also enjoyed the dancing of the ensemble dancers who all appeared engaged; they certainly included experienced corps members. I don't doubt many ballet talk posters have seen better performances of the ballet, but I found this a fine, genuinly satisfying performance. Fearful Symetries was pretty sensational. I have only seen a handful of Martins ballets (and had mixed reactions to them) but this has always been my favorite and one that I genuinely like. Seeing it opening night and a second time Wednesday confirmed that opinion. Certainly, dancers with personality and a little "edge" to them (e.g. Bouder or Somogyi) definitely add a dimension that the choreography does not otherwise compensate for. (A poor dancer can wreck any performance, but--for immediate example--Barocco danced well makes Borree look better; Fearful Symmetries doesn't particularly help Abi Stafford, though she, too, danced well--very well in fact.) Anyway, the ballet has drive and complexity, but , for my taste, also enough in the way of contrasts and development to work very well as a "work." I was delighted to see Somogyi back on stage and dancing so effectively. (I am editing this post to add: Bouder was fabulous--exciting, sensual, and precise: there were lifts where she changed position so quickly in the air you couldn't see the transition--the effect was amazing. I think I must have left this out the first time I wrote this post because...well...one simply says "Bouder" and that seems to be all there is to say.) Wednesday evening with Bouder out and replaced by the much less compelling Megan Fairchild, the ballet maintained my interest but I found myself focusing more on the men. I thought Ramassar (new to me) and De Luz were fabulous. I used to enjoy De Luz at ABT but still could not get over how quick, sharp and vivid his dancing was here. I found Hanna (also new to me) less supple and less effective than the others though still able to hold his end up as it were. The trio of men in red, and most especially Ullbricht, were also great. Tuesday night was the first time I understood why people are so excited by Ullbricht. As others have commented, a lot of care seems to have been brought to this revival. All the dancers on stage (even those I was not as impressed by as others) appeared in top form and deeply connected to what they were doing. I thought Tuesday's Symphony in C was good though not great. I found Ringer lovely though. She may not have been in the very best shape I've seen her and not giving the kind of wonderful performance that made her Sugar Plum Fairy so extraordinary--but I'm puzzled by Michael's reaction, since I thought she was far from being in bad shape and dancing quite nicely. (I've seen her much heavier.) Whelan and Neal gave a very fine account of the adagio, though short of transcendent--lacking perhaps a final bit of supplenesss in the transitions (?)--but still quite elegant and moving in a restrained way. I found Whelan's footwork less than razor sharp in the finale, but she is too fine a dancer not to be worth watching in anything. Fairchild I enjoyed as long as she was dancing solo, but found ineffective when she was being partnered. I had a similar reaction to her Sugar Plum Fairy, but in that case the problem was clearly that she has not yet developed as an adagio dancer; in the third movement of Symphony in C, the problem seems more to be a lack of explosiveness. (Though she does somehow look "freer" when she dances solo.) Abi Stafford, who did a good job in Fearful Symmetries genuinely seemed a weak link to me. In the fourth movement, she has to do a series of traveling fouettees along a diagonal (at least I think that's what they are) and she seemed to fall out of every one. She also doesn't have the stage personality that the opening of the fourth movement would seem to call for, though I too like her "unaffected" quality--it runs the risk of looking affect-less. At the end of the ballet when all four ballerinas are performing fouettees, she was travelling forward seemingly unable to get centered. I will say she seems much more "grown up" as a dancer than when I saw her several years ago. (I also found myself wondering whether Martins had cast her in Symphony in C so she would be forced to learn how to fouette...) Most importantly, I thought the corps and demi-soloists were giving engaged, lively performances -- performances worthy of the ballet. I also noticed, without recognizing, a tall, gorgeous fair-haired dancer in the first movement -- who (as I realized after reading Oberon's post) must have been Teresa Reichlin. More please! Anyway, for me, this was a pretty fulfilling evening of dance. Two great ballets--a third that I enjoy and consider very good--and some good, some very good, and even a bit of great dancing.

I was at the performance Oberon just described, and wanted to add a few words about how wonderful Ringer was as the Sugar Plum Fairy. The role suits her temperament perfectly. At this performance her warmth and graciousness just filled the stage and her dancing seemed the perfect -- lucid and natural -- expression of those qualities. When the little angels followed after her early in the second act they seemed like so many emanations of her presence. I have not seen this production more than a half-a-dozen times, though usually with strong casts, and this was the first time I saw the pas de deux danced without a moment of residual awkwardness. But that is perhaps the least I could say. Ringer danced with a combination of classical authority and freedom that not only brought the second act to a gorgeous climax, but that seemed to draw the ballet towards further reaches of feeling and beauty--something promised, I always think, by the music, but very rarely achieved. One shoudl give credit , too, to her cavalier Philip Neal. Reading over what I've written, I'm a little bit embarrassed, but will let it stand, because I really thought this was a great performance.

OKOK--I can't comment on the bit of rehearsal you saw or this run of Farrell Ballet performances, since I didn't see either. But if you enjoyed Serenade with the Washington Ballet, chances are you will in the future find lots more Balanchine to enjoy. No one has ever claimed Clarinade was a major work, so I can't honestly say that I'm shocked that you were underwhelmed by it. Conceivably, if you had already come to admire a lot of Balanchine you might have found it interesting to see something in a "minor" vein... though it sounds as if the general mood of the ballet may not be your cup of tea. It is also true that once one sees a lot of major ballet companies one realizes that loud point shoes are a recurring problem and sometimes, contrary to expectation, the greatest companies can be the worst. (A lot depends, too, on where one is sitting and the theater acoustics etc.) It's not ideal, but most ballet lovers come to overlook it. This forum actually had an entire thread devoted to the subject recently! I can't do links, but you could probably track it down. I have always found La Source delightful--it's meant to evoke an earlier, lighter style of classical dancing (French nineteenth-century rather than Russian), but certainly not meant to be a parody. In a musical performance, the second soloist can seem as if she is riding on air. Obviously, I haven't the faintest idea why it struck you the way it did, but I would echo what others have said about the dangers (and unfairness) of making judgements based on rehearsals. I would particularly emphasize that Farrell's company is something in the nature of a laboratory rather than an institution: it doesn't have a long performing season or a school. These dancers aren't rehearsing roles they have known for years or even been watching others dance for years. So watching a rehearsal may be a little like tasting fruit that isn't quite ripe (as opposed to watching a skater "run through" a program without jumps). I assume that makes Farrell's rehearsals all the more fascinating for some watchers--those who are curious about the process of developing the performances--but it may make them less approachable for others, especially if they haven't seen much ballet to begin with. Of course, I'm just speculating--but I thought you sounded sincerely baffled by the gap between your experience and that of others, so I thought I would give it a try.

I saw Farrell dance the lead in the second section of La Valse--"the girl". That performance occured towards the end of her career and she didn't have as much sheer power as she had had earlier; but the overall dance-drama built up almost imperceptibly and at the end I found the performance pretty overwhelming. I had assumed she danced the ballet earlier in her career as well, but don't know. (Most of my ballet books continue to live in storage...)

Wow and super good for her! I, too, think that allowing for a period of transition is a good idea--as long as she doesn't get stalled or "lost" in minor roles. Ansanelli has a presence and sense of drama that may serve her well in the Royal repertory but her dancing also has an edge that is, to say the least, outside the Royal norm. Anyway, wow! Very glad she has found a worthy home for her enormous talent. (I'm impressed, too--for the umpteenth time--with Monica Mason's decision making...)

Hmm...perhaps I'm not always the best judge of whether or not my opinions count as quirky.

On stage Saland often had a resemblance to Kirkland. This was not just a physical resemblance -- I think Saland was actually more "drop dead" gorgeous than Kirkland -- but in her dancing. I'm afraid I don't have the "eye" or technical knowledge to break it down more than that, but I don't think this is a quirky opinion, since Croce commented on it as well.

kfw -- I don't begrudge NYCB a little advertizing hype (though it tends to make me wince too) but I would add in response to your last point that John Cage IS one of the most important American composers...To whom? well, Merce Cunningham for one. Cage's long collaboration with Cunningham guarantees him a mention, if not a long discussion, in any serious history of twentieth-century dance. Histories of twentieth-century music (or of the vagaries of the twentieth-century's avant-garde) are at least as likely to consider him "important."

Helene -- Hope you have a wonderful time. I am someone who never got over Paris--absolutely, for me, the most beautiful city in the world. (I even remember thinking--'this can't be right...it's such a cliche, but no! I really do feel this way!') Now, unfortunately, it has been some years, but I keep the faith and, to speak more soberly, if you like it a tenth as much as I do, you will have a very fine time.

Thanks for these reports about the Royal Ballet's "La Sylphide." I am also pleased to read about Pennefeather. (I just wrote a somewhat high minded post on another thread about ballet as an art form, so I hope no-one laughs at me too much if I say I saw Pennefeather during a trip to London this summer, and I thought he had serious hearththrob potential. And...um..oh yes...he seems to have a potentially very elegant classical line as well.) I have seen Cojocaru a few times now, and I don't remember thinking she had "ugly" feet--they did seem a little stubby looking perhaps--I assume they are very small. But perhaps it's more of a drawback in Bournonville.

This is largely a response to Oberon's last post...Strangely enough I have always found ballet to be an art form where even relatively inexperienced spectators often can and do tell the difference between carefully prepared and ideally cast performances and less carefully prepared and ideally cast performances. They may not know enough to say "well, x step was fudged and she left out z and when Suzanne did it...blah, blah, blah" but (in my experience) they are slightly bored by (for example) a horribly undercast and underprepared Concerto Barocco yet absolutely sit up straight in their seats and express awe when they see a scrupulously performed Monumentum Pro Gesualdo--hardly a more "accessible" ballet than Barocco. (I am referring to an actual example of a non-ballet goer experiencing NYCB in my company and having these reactions.) So, I don't think it's true that all these issues we are discussing only make a difference to a tiny percentage of ballet-goers. It may not make a spectacular difference to a great many people, but I don't think it's a non-issue by any means. In a way, the result can be even more depressing, though, because with little dance experience to draw on...some audience members may come to the conclusion that "Barocco" just IS a boring ballet as yet another friend of mine once did. Like Oberon, however, I don't agree that Martins just lets all the Balanchine ballets languish--I would say, the quality varies. A few seem to have been done very well pretty consistently under Martins (say, A Midsummer's Night's Dream)--at least in my somewhat limited experience. And, by very well, I don't necesssarily mean they look the way they looked twenty five years ago (for one thing, I don't have that good a memory!), but they look vivid, alive, powerful --and, of course, recognizably continuous with Balanchine's vision insofar as I (or others) do remember it. Still, even though I'm often closer in my opinions to the defenders of the company than those who are entirely disheartened, I do take strong exception to the idea that caring about the state of the Balanchine repertory and the losses it is suffering is merely a matter of snobbery. And I also strongly question the implication--perhaps not intended--that if everyone is having a good time at the ballet, the more critical voices should muffle themselves, because they have nothing substantive to offer the discussion. Great art inspires intense attention. Those who love it and know about it attend to subtleties that may even be unrecognized by others --and they should do so. How disrespectful it would be to ballet to think otherwise. Ballet Alert is a forum for amateurs and fans (like myself) as well as for professionals and scholars who come together because of a commitment to the seriousness of the art form. As a serious art form, it merits attention and concern for its traditions, not just cheerleading. (And, there are plenty of other places in the world where any interest in the arts at all is considered snobbery.) Ironically, as I noted above, I give Martins credit for doing a lot of things right. So, for example, his openness to Wheeldon who regularly gets better reviews than Martins himself, shows a lack of pettiness when it comes to a younger classical choreographer that one might not necessarily have anticipated--and it has been good for the company. His closed door policy to modern dance choreographers such as Mark Morris is, at any rate, largely consistent with the company's history (Episodes being a notable exception) and something I myself support. We also tend in our minds to compare NYCB to the best it can be, and forget just how bad it might have gotten in the wake of Balanchine's death. Nonetheless, I strongly believe that the discussion itself and the passionately felt concerns of those who are disappointed with Martins' leadership is not merely the product of snobbery. Moreover, though I begrudge no-one a good time, I would draw no long-term comfort AT ALL for the fate of NYCB from the sound of cheering audiences as the curtain falls on fabulous, performances--such as the company often gives--of mediocre works...I do want to see the best ballets danced the best--and, as I began this rather long message by saying, when that happens, when the best works are danced the best, I believe that even the most uninformed audiences immediately know the difference.

Bobbi -- I'm guessing the hyperbole was intentional, but I will still go ahead and say that I don't think it's remotely likely that in five years ABT, which has been presenting 2-3 Balanchine ballets each year pretty regularly for a while now, will be dancing more Balanchine than NYCB which dances well over a dozen Balanchine ballets every year. I am also less sanguine about the "regional" companies bearing the brunt of preserving the Balanchine legacy than others on this board: even if it's true that sublime Balanchine performances are being offered regularly at those companies they haven't the resources to operate on the scale of NYCB. (I myself haven't seen these non-New York based companies much and I reserve judgment on the little I have seen--a San Francisco ballet Jewels and a Farrell Ballet company performance a few years back--both of which had lovely qualities, but neither of which, in my opinion, set a standard of performance.) I do not mean these remarks as a defense of Martins who has made plenty of decisions about how to continue the Balanchine legacy within today's NYCB that raise questions for a serious admirer of Balanchine. But if I really believed that Balanchine would "live" elsewhere in glory--heck, I would have less reason to be concerned about NYCB. (I also think Martins has made good decisions he doesn't get credit for...) The opening night issue is not one it would have occured to me to be outraged about because this opening leads directly into a month of Nutcracker and yet another opening (of the post-Nutcracker season) with two major Balanchine works on the program. But reading over this thread, I have come to feel sympathy for the outrage. An official opening night speaks to the company's way of projecting itself to the public, of announcing what matters to it--and in that respect "No Balanchine" feels like yet another public display of (what often comes across as) Martins ambivalence about his role as Mr. B's successor.

I missed Fonteyn in the role entirely, and for me, the model Odette--and, indeed, model Odette/Odile was the very different Makarova. Like others I admired Van Hamel in the role, but it is not a performance that became fixed in my memory (perhaps because I only saw her dance the role once). However, another ballerina from an earlier generation, whose name I think should be added to the discussion is Ludmila Semenyaka's. I also only saw her dance the role just once, but for a variety of reasons it was one of the most memorable performances I have ever seen. Semenyaka was a "cooler" Odette than some ballet goers may like, but I found her magnificent; the sheer beauty of her arabesque at the end of Act IV transcended the somewhat banal Soviet happy ending to become an embodiment of otherworldly purity and beauty. Well...that's how I remember it! (She was also a magnificent Odile and in the third act pas de deux danced the single most exciting coda I have ever seen--utterly secure and exquisitely placed while dancing with simply inhuman speed.) I see less ballet these days than I used to, but of today's ballerinas I especially regret not having seen Lopatkina, Dvorovenko, and Part in this role--and having seen Bussell only when she was very young. Among the ballerinas today that I have seen (Kowroski, Meunier, Kent, Ananiashvilli and Guillem) only the last two seemed to take command of the ballet and give a fully fledged ballerina performance. For me, though, Guillem's performance was the more distinctive and poetic. (When I see something that qualifies in my eyes as "ballerina" I don't like to get too hung up on rankings, but if I had to rank, I would still name Makarova and Semenyaka as the best Odettes I have seen.) I certainly enjoyed aspects of the performances given by the other dancers I mentioned. Kowroski at her most moving turns her long, long legs and slowly unfolding extensions into controlled-yet-wild expressions of Odette's desire, but the two time I saw her I didn't always feel that her qualities carried equally through the whole ballet or even through the entirety of the white acts. But she is certainly, along with Guillem, the one person in the list I gave of Odettes I have seen (and still dancing) whom, given the chance, I would be eager to see repeatedly in the role.