Sonora

Yes, I was surprised at the size of Boston's budget; I would have guessed Houston would surpass Boston. I don't understand the logic of hiring new dancers (at the recent, artistic directorless audition) to replace those let go; it doesn't seem to be a move toward consolidation. From the dancers' perspective it's somewhat of a leap of faith - although they know what to expect in terms of rep for next season, a company without an artistic director is in a somewhat weakened position, no matter who else claims to be in charge. Certainly not a position to enfold - much less develop - a new group of dancers. [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Sonora ]

It's amazing that, still, no one has come forward to accept responsibility for firing the dancers. If it was a responsible decision, I would think there would be no reason to deny the action.

I'd be interested to hear your impressions of their Duo.

Thank you, Leigh. Your review was helpful!

I recently saw a performance of Balanchine's Duo Concertant (staged for Ballet Arizona by Sean Lavery), and have been wondering about it ever since. What a lovely ballet, rich and rewarding! I see that NYCB intends to present it several times during the season, however to my knowledge it has only infrequently been performed (I could be quite wrong about this). I would like to hear more about Duo Concertant - from people who may have seen it danced in the past, at City Ballet or elsewhere.

Living about as far from New York as Yvonne does, I, too, am grateful for the perspectives on ABT's season. It seems to me that both Lilac Garden and Prodigal, two ballets I love, must be meticulously and passionately coached as well as very carefully cast. I would be curious to know who is responsible for coaching them... Prodigal I have actually only seen on video, with several casts. One fairly poor quality performance video of Ib Andersen in the title role, with Merrill Ashley. It was remarkably moving.

Alexandra, I don't think you need to explain the difference! I think it would be quite interesting to see Farrell's interpretation of Bejart, whether or not one considers him an outstanding choreographer, because of her own apparently positive connection with him.

I am thinking also of the many wonderful dancers from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Someone already mentioned Karsavina...to be able to go back in time to see Vestris, Bournonville; to see either of them teaching...to pop in on a rehearsal of the Ballet Russe...this is a game we used to play: what would you give to go back in time just for a day?

Yes, I hate to sound negative but it does seem that technique is what is being presented to audiences, and what is required of dancers, over what you might call artistry (I don't know of a better word offhand). I think it's part of a general cultural climate, at least in the U.S. I do feel that in order for ballet to remain vibrant both dancers and audiences have to be given something more substantial to think about than just technique. This is a huge responsibility, I think, that falls on the shoulders of all those who are teaching and coaching and staging ballets, and also those who write about dance.

I cannot comment with any authority on Makarova! But while having roles created for you or at least being able to dance good ballets are vital to a dancer's development, I think coaching is in a way paramount. A good coach not only passes on his/her intimate knowledge of a ballet - knowledge that cannot be transmitted on paper or through video - but creates a physical and emotional bond with the dancer that I think is somehow vital, in that it allows the ballet to really live. I believe that even the most inexperienced dance audience can sense when those physical and emotional 'links' from present to past are absent. They may not be able to pinpoint exactly WHY a performance is dissatisfying. But I think audiences will know something is missing. This is true for classical ballet, modern, etc.