Drew

Thanks. I understand why critics and fans get carried away when they see a wonderful young dancer, but I often wonder if the superlatives aren't a bit "premature." But, my goodness, I wish I had been at the performance! I'm looking forward, too, to hearing about the others...

This seems to be a good month for Giselle -- reports on ABT performances in D.C. are glowing, and I have just finished reading reviews of the Royal Ballet's Giselle posted as Links...The accounts of Wildor, Rojo, and Cojocaru are all very positive -- of Rojo and Cojocaru actually something more than just positive! Have any Ballet Alert posters seen their performances. I would be very interested in hearing about them...

Leigh Witchel -- I think your scenario is plausible, but I actually have enjoyed versions where Albrecht too is obviously in some way "wrong" for Giselle. (His love for her need not be played all that "spiritually" -- I don't know that Gautier, of all people, would have pictured it that way.) I could even imagine a production in which, from a certain point of view, Hilarion IS the right pairing for her -- which is exactly what makes Albrecht attractive. (Whatever their earlier origins, by the mid-nineteenth-century the dark/light codings did have ethnic and racialized connotations -- Just take a look at some of the 19th century illustrations of the Nibelunglied in which the bad guys are uniformly semitic in terms clearly corresponding to nineteenth-century cliches...so for twentieth century productions, although I think it's fine to draw on physical contrasts for particular casts I'm not sympathetic to it as a way of building theatrical or "moral" symbolism for a production as a whole.)

I got very used to Albrechts who were young and heedlessly in love and then I saw Nureyev's -- towards the end of his career -- which I remember much as Cargill describes it. He was tremendous -- really overpowering. I admit I don't remember quite that degree of coldness (laughing at Giselle), but sheer arrogance and self-absorbtion certainly...and absolute unwillingness to acknowledge Giselle in any way once he was caught. Until she actually collapsed. It added greatly to the depth of the entire drama. The two performances I saw (Festival Ballet in D.C.) he did exit the stage at the end of act I with a kind of aristocratic flourish, but it was clear that he carried the weight of what he had done with him. (My recollection is that after the first terrible realization he went into a kind of rage and swept off stage with his cape waving behind him.) By the close of act II as he fell to his knees and the light of dawn struck his face, one felt an entire lifetime of knowledge, grief, and remorse had passed before one's eyes. Nureyev had the most extraordinary expression of wonder and realization (call it self-realization) on his face. An awe inspiring performance. Since seeing it, I have always found the more tender, loving Albrecht approach less interesting. I recognize, of course, that it suits certain dancers better, but the ballet itself becomes more complex if the Albrecht grows in self-knowledge -- if Giselle's forgiveness makes him into a different person. (Even that forgiveness itself becomes more meaningful -- because more difficult -- if Albrecht is something more than another victim of circumstance.) Felursus: I thought the original production of Giselle (w. Grisi etc.) concluded with Albrecht returning to a forgiving Bathilde's arms. [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

Just an anecdote...I saw a Giselle at the Met. towards the end of one of ABT's spring/summer seasons and the audience was clearly not a ballet audience, not even a subscriber audience, but primarily a summer, "tourist" audience. (I didn't do audience interviews, but such was my impression.) It seemed to be full of people who had never seen Giselle before, but were engaged -- and they burst into applause when the wilis circled Hilarion. They clearly thought it was a big theatrical "moment." It was a little odd -- I had never heard people applaud that moment -- but sort of charming since it seemed quite a sincere spontaneous response... [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

Very envious of those who saw this performance -- just wanted to chirp in with a note re laughing at Giselle. I have sophisticated theater-going friends who attend a huge range of music performances and some modern dance as well but do NOT see much ballet: they attended an ABT Giselle about two years ago and when they told me about it, they couldn't hide how silly they found most of it, the pantomime in particular. (I am sure they were polite enough to keep quiet during the performance, but they admitted to doing imitations of the mime for weeks afterwards...for a laugh!)

Yiddish words probably have appeared on this board before -- but here are some more: Mazel Tov!

Ed Waffle -- I'm curious: when you go to an opera in a language you don't understand, do you read the libretto first? or a synopsis? do you follow the supertitles (if there are any)? Do you ever listen to recordings of the music before -- or for that matter, after -- the performance? I know from your posts that you are extremely knowledgeable about music and opera -- I can't help but think that when you walk into any kind of musical theater performance (including ballet), even if it's a world premier, you have a wealth of "internal" program notes you can bring to bear on what you are seeing -- knowledge about opera conventions, knowledge about the composer, etc. Do you think you would feel quite the way you do now if you didn't have that experience and knowledge? When you first started attending performances did you feel the way you feel now? (I'm not being rhetorical -- I'm really asking.) Of course, choreographers have the right to judge how they want their work framed -- or not -- for an audience, to decide what's appropriate, what's useful etc. As it happens, I don't think anyone believes that a ballet (or opera) should in any way depend on some external, explanatory apparatus. But if a program note can help prepare an audience to see or hear better, why not? There seems to be a lingering suspicion that it's somehow getting in the way of the audience member's pure, spontaneous response -- but ultimately there's no such thing as a pure, spontaneous response. Someone who truly "knows" nothing (hasn't read reviews, hasn't seen other works by the same choreographer, etc.) will simply import knowledge or assumptions they have from other fields and experiences to the experience of the performance. Of course notes can be done badly -- ANYTHING can be done badly -- but they can also be done well and even sharpen people's perceptions. (And for the live theater most people want their perceptions sharpest when they are watching the work, not just trying to remember it.) A more general thought. In many respects we live in a "culture" (hate the word) that does a lot to blunt people's capacity to respond to anything that requires a real capacity to perceive. Whether we're looking at something we consider art or entertainment -- literally, most of us don't know how to watch, how to listen, even how to respond viscerally etc. I think that's one of the things that has to be taken into account by theater/music/dance directors of all kinds even when they are hoping audiences will "just" respond to what's on stage etc. A great work of art should be an education in perception in and of itself, but it needs a context in which it can be perceived in the first place. Leigh Witchel is making (I think) a more pragmatic and modest point, but it seems to me partly linked to these larger questions... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited April 06, 2001).]

I'm a pretty academic type and like to "know" things, but I admit I get bored and discouraged if notes are super long or detailed HOWEVER I wholeheartedly endorse Leigh Witchel's view of this matter. Something to help situate the audience -- to "welcome" them into the work and into the theater -- seems very appropriate. Sometimes, I even find choreographers a trifle disingenuous when they take a more austere approach. It's not exactly as if they don't want or even expect a certain coterie of people to know what is going on...I know who Edwin Denby "is" but until reading Alexandra's post here just now, I didn't know anything about his life, certainly not that he had done gymnastics and, well, I'm sure that at a performance of Taylor's Roses, the work would seem much more resonant to me -- at any rate less arbitrary -- with that knowledge. Surely, Taylor is partly assuming that "some" of his audience will get it, "some" of his audience will know who Denby is. He may sincerely not care if they all do, and yet...if the choreography and choice of music has been partly determined by a relation to Denby, these things are meant to be part of how the work affects one. That doesn't mean it doesn't also have to work on its "own" terms -- but even the way audiences respond to "pure" forms is conditioned by their prior knowledge, experience, etc. It's a very naive purism that thinks otherwise. And, I might add, a very naive view of audiences that thinks a mere program note will necessarily prevent them from coming up with their own ideas about what they are seeing. Having a little framework can actually heighten one's perceptions... Last year I saw Richard Foreman's Nietzsche play. (Not everyone here may know Foreman's work -- it's sort of cross between popular, satirical farce and super-intellectualized experimental theater.) He probably assumes an audience that knows something about Nietzsche, but his program notes gave one a sketch that situated you even if you didn't know anything and helped you to "get" some of the play's allusive gags; at the same time it didn't go into much detail -- you didn't feel like you were in a classroom, and certainly the audience was "free" to have its own responses/interpretations -- and, of course, real Nietzsche scholars would still get many more of the jokes and allusions than someone dependent on the program note. This seemed to me to hit a nice balance. P.S. I'm a slow writer, and by the time I posted Jeannie had also posted -- making still more forcefully the point about coteries and "insider" audiences... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited April 05, 2001).]

I had a good friend who was just starting a professional dance career in the early 80's -- she studied at SAB and at the North Carolina school for the performing arts (name? it's a top place -- Bissell was there for example.) She left ballet in part because of the craziness she experienced around body image etc. At SAB there was constant invocation of Mr. B's name to enforce certain types of image on the girls. When she was eleven she was told, for example, "Mr. Balanchine likes girls who wear make-up." Did Balanchine say this? For that matter, does it seem so bad? (it's just make-up...) I honestly think it's hard to judge, but the cumulative effect she observed was not positive. She knew several people -- I can only be anecdotal, not statistical -- who had serious, health threatening, issues with food and self-image. And she herself found things pretty destructive and left ballet although she did have professional opportunities. Obviously, someone else might have handled the situation differently; ballet isn't responsible for every individual's personal problems and decisions. But if, as CygneDanois suggests, things are a different now -- with less emphasis on thinness -- that's a good thing, and the occasional spotlight on some of the more extreme cases seems to me, also, to be a good thing IF it means that ballet schools and teachers are a little more careful about what can go wrong with their students -- or companies with their dancers. For that reason, Segal's article didn't irritate me as much as it did some others here. And I didn't think he was implying that ballet schools didn't have the right to make ANY physical demands. Certainly, ballet per se is not at the center of taste/image formation in the U.S. -- but as someone who cares about and loves ballet, I do want attention paid to these issues IN the ballet world. For that reason, too, the fact that Segal or someone else writes an article emphasizing thinness in ballet rather than, say, gymnastics or modelling, seems legitimate to me. Ballet does/has changed over the decades -- partly in response to its own formal, artistic developments, partly in response to wider social/cultural changes. (I remember my first response to a picture of Pierina Legnani that I saw in a book given to me as a child: "she's fat.") Presumably, Segal means to be a little over the top, because he wants to make a polemical point -- to be part of the debate...I do NOT mean that this is some distinguished or important article (certainly not), but I also think fans, parents, and ballet students may be a little undereducated about just how stressfull, intense, and unhealthy certain aspects of ballet "culture" can be. And I'm not persuaded they have to be, to get great results. Lincoln Kirstein's evocative language of young women dancers as devoted nuns etc. is lovely to read, but hardly practical or realistic...

Rtnty -- do you know if the Nijinsky version has an unbroken performance tradition? When the Joffrey revived it (ca. two decades ago) the company's publicity suggested that some reconstructive effort went into the project. The Robbins version, on the other hand, does have a consistent, unbroken performance tradition. And it is very acutely and suggestively related to the Debussy music. If one knows about the Nijinsky version, it even acquires an additional layer of meaning from that "intertext." Robbins deliberately re-imagines the ballet studio through the image of the erotic dream world of Nijinsky's faun -- the effect can be ironic and sensual. Even if one doesn't know anything about the original Nijinsky ballet, the overall mood of the Robbins works rather well. (Mallarme's poetry in general is full of mirror imagery that overwhelms and freezes characters and events -- e.g. "Herodiade" -- and it wouldn't surprize me if Robbins had that in the back of his mind, too, when he created his ballet, even if it isn't directly derived from the Faun poem. But that's speculation on my part.)

Perhaps this is one of those "tone" things that's hard to get properly over the internet -- but I assumed the article was a joke, and a rather nasty one at that. (Ross Stretton boasting of bagging a 'roo or a koala bear? The Arts Council using the term "re-education?" unlikely.) But people's responses on this board sound as if they aren't reading it as a joke...Anyway, if someone were to ban the use of live animals for theatrical productions I'd have mixed feelings about it. Animals add atmosphere, but they often do look really miserable. I don't think anyone is about to ban Swan Lake or, for that matter, censor Grimm's fairy tales. On the other hand, they may be trying to satirize the animal rights lobby out of business. And if that's the case, I'm with the animal rights lobby. But perhaps everybody here is joking and I'm the straight man... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited April 01, 2001).]

If Protas were the trustee, perhaps he could be sued, but if he owns the copyright that's a different situation. Since Graham willed the works to Protas, I assume he isn't merely "responsible" for them -- as a trustee would be -- but actually "owns" them...That's what makes the situation so tricky. If it were to be successfully established that Graham's works were done "for hire," I assume one result would be that future contracts between choreographers and companies would include negotiations on just this point. (In academic publishing the copyright often belongs to the publisher not the author -- however very little in the way of money and even less in the way of genius is usually involved.)

Lydia-Diaz Cruz was certainly the most memorable Dying Swan I have ever seen -- but mostly what I recall is that she had the boneless, squiggly arm thing going more than any ballerina I have ever seen. Her arms didn't just ripple, but shimmered and curved in great waves of movement. But I saw this many years ago, and the same performance today might well make me giggle rather than weep...Kirkland gave a surprizingly restrained and pure performance of the ballet at a Carnegie Hall gala. (This was during one of the more troubled periods of her career -- and of all things she had put on weight.) But, today, it is precisely restraint and purity that I would find moving in this role. But this is one question about ballet history that allows of a dogmatic answer. Without question -- the greatest Dying Swan was Anna Pavlova.

Well -- I'm an amateur here -- but I very much like the suggestion that Ivanov's choreography for Odette looks forward to the neo-classical ballerina. I find it especially persuasive because it's a role in which (in my opinion) the neo-classical silhouette, including the high extensions popular today, doesn't seem to distort/change the choreography to the extent it does in Sleeping Beauty. Odette just seems to allow for an entirely different "plastique."

I find Alexandra's comments about classifications being part of Balanchine's "background and education," something that impacts his work even when he's not deliberately invoking it, to be useful for thinking about this. Otherwise, reading this thread, I have been a little skeptical about bringing traditional emploi to bear on his work. I'm partly won over, but only partly, because so much of Balanchine's vision seems to have been organized around his relations, as a choreographer, to particular dancers. The process suggests a very different idea about what a choreographer does, even what he "is" than more generically oriented conceptions. I know Balanchine described himself as craftsman/cook -- but that's obviously a bit of rhetoric and maybe even deliberately obfuscating... I also started thinking about a relatively recent exhibit of Picasso portraits (at the Guggenheim??); it essentially defined Picasso's "periods" as a portrait painter through his relationships to/visions of different women in his life. The portraits did arguably have some relation to traditional "types" in the history of painting -- but the curators made a pretty persuasive case that the types were overdetermined by the more particular creative, and at times personal, relation that unfolded between artist and "subject." Ballerina roles are not just "portraits" but I think something similar occurs in Balanchine's work ... albeit in the context of formal problems specific to ballet. (Against my own argument, one might respond that in both cases -- Picasso and Balanchine -- the way they related to particular women was influenced by the way they "saw" their art, not the other way around.) Certain Balanchine roles "descend" from nineteenth-century ballets. Leight Witchell mentioned Theme and Variations and Sleeping Beauty. But in the nineteenth century ballerina "type" is already a very complex affair in which the individual ballerina/star seems to be put her stamp on the genres to the point of redefining them (pun intended -- think Taglioni). And a great Aurora is not necessarily going to be able to dance a great performance of Theme and Variations -- and vice-versa. With the Bolshoi, Ananiashvili and Uvarov did, in my opinion, dance the second movement of Symphony in C, a descendant of Act II of Swan Lake, as if it WERE Act II of Swan Lake and the result -- not uninteresting to watch -- inadvertently exposed the gap between Balanchine and Ivanov...Ironically, it may be because Balanchine superimposed his own vision so thoroughly on the genres that his ballets allow so successfully of being transformed by different dancers of different types: Marie-Jeanne to Farrell... For the above reasons, I think a family tree of dancers would, in a way, be the most appropriate way to try to figure out what is happening (or not) with Balanchine roles and "type." Ideally, it would include the dancers he first worked with, including the first ballerina-wife, Tamara Geva...and certainly include figures like Toumanova (Mozartiana, Cotillion, roles that point forward to LeClerc and Farrell) and even seeming exceptions like Losch who was not really a ballet dancer. (Perhaps there is a bit of the neo-romantic, Tchelitew designed ballets Balanchine did for her in something like the Elegy that opens Tch. Suite Number Three?) One other aspect that would have to be added to the Balanchine mix -- "American" types! Heroines from movies and musical comedies. Didn't he tell Kirstein he liked the idea of coming to the country that gave the world great girls like Ginger Rogers? (Bit of a joke perhaps, but not entirely.) There may only be a handful of ballets in which this becomes explicit, but certainly it's implicit all over the place...Shades scene in Bayadere refracted through Ziegfield... In trying to think of Balanchine ballets where more traditional types may be active -- I wondered about A Midsummer's Night Dream but quickly found myself confused. I'm confident describing the act III pas de deux as classique, Puck as demi-caractere, Bottom as character or even (with donkey's head) grotesque...But Oberon? short, fast, danced by Villela also seems demi-caractere? Yet with Boal certainly became Classique...If there were such a thing, Titania -- a tall role -- seems like a noble seen from a comic point of view? but perhaps her dancing and her fairy status renders her classique? In tone the lovers seem demi-caractere -- they almost fit with a straightforward eighteenth-century definition of demi-caracter...Hyppolita, though, would seem like another noble. Maybe it's only my ignorance that makes this seem so tricky...I actually thought of this ballet because I do think, whatever the traditional emploi, Balanchine does have a kind of "amazon" soloist that often returns in his ballets ...and in AMND -- and Coppelia -- we get her literally. (Less literally, the tall girl in Rubies...) One other thought. Apollo was mentioned above as a demi-caractere role; I wonder if Orpheus could be considered a noble role...This ballet was revived, not too successfully, for Baryshnikov and then recast with Martins. I have been told by a someone I trust --I'll repeat for a private forum only-- that Balanchine later thanked Martins for his performance. I realize that without more detail, people may doubt whether to trust the anecdote so I'll just add that, in my own opinion, the rather elegant, weighty, and archetypal Martins performance, was considerably more effective than Baryshnikov's. Baryshnikov seemed to give the role a deliberate pathos that is far from "noble" and that, precisely, did NOT work. He "acted." He was ligher than Martins, too, in the quality of his movements throughout the ballet. The Orpheus story does fit the noble mould, since it involves a heroic-human quest that elevates the hero above ordinary humanity. I don't know who created this role (my ballet library and I are separated), but that would, of course, fill out the picture... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 24, 2001).]

I saw Lezhnina dance Aurora when she was still with the Kirov and quite young -- She was, I think, possibly the most "right" Aurora I have seen. (However, it is NOT a role in which I have seen too many genuinely great, or even successful, performances -- and I missed Fonteyn and Kolpakova altogether.) What I remember most about the performance was the "crisp," and pure, classical lines, the sheer crystalline geometry of it, as well as Lezhnina's youthful radiance. A description that perhaps accords with what Andrei means by "classique-ingenue" (?). For me geometry (literally) is a big part of Sleeping Beauty. Though I don't quite know how that intersects with "emploi." Lezhnina's lines were not really "square" but they were nothing like what we are presently being served up as the Kirov norm!! I don't have the memory or technical knowledge to characterize the look, but as a fan, I felt as if I were seeing something that at least approached the "ideal" Petipa angles. A kind of textbook simplicity, nothing look strained or "extra" stretched etc. The body was harmonious -- you weren't drawn to look at the leg or the torso, but the whole "figure." I would never have thought of comparing Lezhnina with Fugate (whose Aurora I missed) except in the very general sense that Fugate's line was more classical, more restrained than other NYCB dancers. Fugate was also warmer and more womanly than Lezhnina (at the time I saw Lezhnina anyway); I associate "coolness" of temperament with Kirov -- or should I say Leningrad -- classicism and, specifically, the way the company danced Sleeping Beauty over a decade ago. Temperament may be more a matter of sensibility than "emploi" but if classique is a somewhat "hybrid" category anyway, one might say that Aurora grows into a more "noble" type of classique. Even in a "cool" performance, the contrast/development of her three big set pieces -- from the allegro entrance to the grand pas de deux -- is supposed to show differing facets of the dancer. And the choreography/music arguably moves towards a greater 'grandeur' of style or presence in the final act. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 22, 2001).]

Well, somebody's loss is going to be somebody's gain -- very nice to hear about Terekhova. I never saw her Myrtha -- unfortunately -- but did see her in a very few performances with the Kirov in the early eighties. She was fabulous! In her Paquita variation she managed to seem at once elegantly meticulous and utterly spontaneous. And yes, the jump! Watching her I occasionally felt as if I could better understand the historical connection between Maryinsky/Kirov and Balanchine. As it happens, I did, a couple of years later, see her dance a very engaging Scotch Symphony. Off topic, I know...let's just say I don't doubt she made a GREAT Myrtha.

Well, somebody's loss is going to be somebody's gain -- very nice to hear about Terekhova. I never saw her Myrtha -- unfortunately -- but did see her in a very few performances with the Kirov in the early eighties. She was fabulous! In her Paquita variation she managed to seem at once elegantly meticulous and utterly spontaneous. And yes, the jump! Watching her I occasionally felt as if I could better understand the historical connection between Maryinsky/Kirov and Balanchine. As it happens, I did, a couple of years later, see her dance a very engaging Scotch Symphony. Off topic, I know...let's just say I don't doubt she made a GREAT Myrtha.

Nowadays, too, a different formula for thinking about dance "classifications" inflects a lot of writing/discussion -- one that emphasizes the choreographer. Critics and observers talk about "Balanchine ballerinas" or "Tudor" specialists, "Bournonville" or "Macmillan" dancers. While everyone knows that a Balanchine ballerina includes a Kent as well as a Farrell etc. the phrase does still conjure up certain, sometimes quite specific ideas. I think the shift or difference between talking about a "classique" and talking about a Petipa ballerina is interesting because it's not just a different way to define dancers but reflects a different way of thinking about ballet/choreography. It puts the expression of singular artistic vision at the center of the process, rather than what one might call genre or generic considerations. And it describes the dancer as a vehicle of that vision. (Loosely speaking, it's a more "modern" attitude -- and, of course, "modern" dance far more than ballet has organized itself around a series of singular artistic visions...)

I would certainly call Wheeldon promising -- I would, for example, genuinely like to see Polyphonia again. (Based on what many here and elsewhere have said, I gather that Mercurial Manoevers was a still more successful work...unfortunately I missed it.) There are skeptics like Julip, but certainly "promising" isn't an absurd claim. In the early eighties I saw a whole slew of John Neumeier works (danced by his own company and the Stuttgart) several of which I found interesting/good. Just one example: as a full-length story ballet I thought Dame aux Camelias was considerably more interesting than the Cranko works in whose wake it, more or less, was following. (In the past when I have mentioned a ballet or choreographer less commonly admired on this board, I have been asked to explain myself -- so, here's what I can offer from memory: I thought the drama and dance was integrated in ingenious ways, including a ballroom scene after Marguerite has given up Armand in which each dances with someone else while obsessing about the other. I remember (vaguely) the actual choreography of the scene as simple but musical, with a sort of restrained, repetitive quality that played very nicely against the crazed emotions. I also remember a clever, meta-theatrical scene in which the characters attend an opera and there is a stage within the stage. I have long since forgotten choreographic detail, but I decidedly thought the movements and differentiation of the pas de deux were more sophisticated than Cranko.) Anyway, I haven't seen anything by Neumeier since the early eighties -- and I can't swear my opinions would be identical today -- but I find it hard to believe that he has done NOTHING in the last ten years that I would like... Many don't consider Tharp (even on point) a "ballet" choreographer -- in my opinion a great deal of what is distinctive about her choroegraphy works better w. modern dancers -- but I wouldn't completely banish her from ballet consideration and, specifically, wouldn't mind seeing In the Upper Room again... There are also new works from the last ten years that, without being very distinguished, have at least shown me dancers developing in interesting ways -- e.g. Kowroski in Tomasson's Prism, Hubbe in Martins' Jazz. I'm not a fan of either of these works -- and I'm not waiting breathlessly for the next Martins or Tomasson ballet, but I don't think it was a waste of time for these dancers to have these roles set on them. Their talents were being deployed and developped not just commandeered or exploited. In a way, this is defending merely competent choreography, when the question was about works that are genuinely "good." But the question was raised in the context of a discussion of Farrell's "company," its potential repertory, and a remark about ballet moving "forward." Even traditional or specialized companies need to produce some new works if only to keep their dancers creatively engaged in different ways than (re)stagings can do. The marketing question also arises, but the need for premiers and "events" has led to an OVERproduction of new works -- I don't deny that. But I don't think the last ten years has been an actual desert, just a very, very dry landscape. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 17, 2001).]

Nanatchka -- very glad you mentioned Calegari. A beautiful dancer and one whose career seemed to end prematurely...

Diaghilev all but pulled that sort of thing off, and even managed to replace one interesting choreographer after another (more or less) while he remained in charge. Come to think of it, Salzberg -- or perhaps you WERE thinking of it -- when asked just what he did for the Ballets Russes, Diaghilev's answer was "je regle les lumieres" [imagine accents] -- that is, "I do the lighting." For the record: I share this board's skepticism (ahem) as to whether the Boston Ballet is about to initiate a whole new era in balletic creativity. (There were complaints about Holmes bringing in Wheeldon? Wheeldon may or may not be over hyped -- I liked the one substantive work I've seen -- but most people would consider getting Wheeldon a coup, especially in any attempt to become one of "the top ten" ballet companies. Royal Ballet credits anyone? NYCB artist in residence? For the next couple of years, Wheeldon premiers almost guarantee some national press coverage. And wouldn't the big bucks audience that supports the Boston Symphony be more appreciative of a ballet company that the national papers felt they had to cover? That came out a bit of a rant...Oh well, whatever my Boris Kochno fantasies, I'm not in charge either...) [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 13, 2001).]

I saw a Fracci-Bruhn Giselle in which Gregory danced Myrthe, but what fragmented memories I have of that performance do not include Gregory. (I do remember that I liked her in the role, but -- though opinionated -- I was a child.) At ABT two seasons ago, I saw Gillian Murphy in the role and thought she was excellent -- not (yet) Van Hamel/ballerina quality -- but a fine performance. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 13, 2001).]

I saw a Fracci-Bruhn Giselle in which Gregory danced Myrthe, but what fragmented memories I have of that performance do not include Gregory. (I do remember that I liked her in the role, but -- though opinionated -- I was a child.) At ABT two seasons ago, I saw Gillian Murphy in the role and thought she was excellent -- not (yet) Van Hamel/ballerina quality -- but a fine performance. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 13, 2001).]