Alexandra

There's room for spleen in ballet too, Ari. Great topic! Can we only vote for one? Seriously, I think there are ballets that need a rest, and when we see them again we'll be ever so grateful. Both for the rest, and to see them again. I have a long hit list, but I'll take the 5th.

Oh, Roma, please, never hesitate -- no review like this is ever "too late." It's wonderful to have reports of performances that most of us will never see. It helps us keep up with what's goinig on around the world -- thank you!

I can't help, Grace, except to say -- Great Idea. Thank you for this. I'm sure it will be very helpful for a lot of us.

A helpful colleague sent me these, from [Friedrichs Ballett-lexicon 1972] Virginia Zucchi: Parma 1847 -- Monte Carlo 1930 Pierina Legnani: 1863 --1923 . Carlotta Brianza: Milan 1867 -- Paris 1930 Carlotta Zambelli: Milan 1877 -- Milan 1968 Irene Sironi: Milan 1873 -- Como 1961(?) Luigia Cerale: near Turin 1859 -- Vienna 1937 Caecilie Cerri: Turin 1872 -- Vienna 1931

On the other hand -- realizing that speculation is ridiculous, because somewhere, probably in Italy, there is an Answer to this, we have a photograph dated 1928. Let's wait for Jane to come in in the morning -- which, for her, is only a few hours.

Yes, of course, but then that date would have to be right too. This is getting interesting. A colleague of mine checked the "authority terms" at the Dance Collection and they also list the death date as 1923. I haven't tried the LaScala archives (hint hint)..... Editing to add that Dick Andros's page has Virginia Zucchi dying in 1930, and being on the examinations panel at La Scala until her death. Obviously one of the dates is in error, and, as often happens, many people have picked up the original error and repeated it. Whicih one remains the question

A quick web search shows everyone (except a certain Ballet Alert!) giving 1923. But "everyone" is mostly personal web pages, and they may have all picked that up from Koegler, which came out in 1980, I believe. Chujoy (Dance Encyclopedia) and Wiley (Tchaikovsky's Ballets) also give 1923 though. Chujoy was probably there, and I'd trust Wiley to check more than one source. Unfortunately, Cohen and Al aren't pristine. Find the correct information in the Volkova entry, for instance. But then, I've been told that Koegler has a date or two off as well.

Koegler (Oxford Dictionary of Ballet) has it 1923. Where did you find 1930, Mel?

Then what are Hubbe and Tewsley doing in the third movement of Symphony in C? Rhetorical question, of course.

Welcome, su-lian! Your opinions are most welcome and I hope we shall be reading more of them

I think your Sandra Bullock theory may have merit, Jeannie. Often, I think, people like the dancers who look the most like what they're used to seeing. Alexandrova is more like American dancers than others in that company, in face, body and approach. The flip side of that is that Russians may well be looking for something else.

Not a clue, I'm afraid -- but I did forward this to a colleague who may (although he's not quite old enough to have been at that gathering). I also have to confess ignorance of many of the Italian names. Are they all dancers, do you know? (I'll try to do a search later if no one does.) Thank you for posting this, Jane. It's a lovely photo. I want the hats!

Bravo, Hans. It is indeed clear. You've also hit on something that goes to the root of many disputes or misunderstandings about ballet. The more one knows, the more refined one's eye becomes. To you, the difference between RAD and Vaganova fingers is the difference between Carabosse and Desire. To the general audience, they're fingers. And the rest of us are somewhere in between. When I read late 19th century letters or commentary I am Giannina Green at the way they can distinguish among styles -- about ten times the number of styles we have today. They could not only tell the style and the school, but WHICH POB teacher had trained the dancer. I once saw a film about the training at POB, and there was a class of young girls, probably 10 and 11, moving their heads. That's it. Turning to the left, turning to the right, looking up, looking down. To the music, coordinated with arm positions, of course. And it hit me (duh!) that what the class was doing was building muscle memory so that later, when they needed to turn their heads (and god, they were gorgeous ) the muscles would do it automatically; they wouldn't have to think. ABT does have a style in the sense that the company has opinions on things, and knows what it wants. I've heard complaints from Vaganova-trained dancers that the company "de-Russianizes" them. BUT as long as the dancers come from many different schools, they'll never have a very refined style, because you can't teach 18 year olds from scratch. This, combined with moving into the Met and the emphasis on the big steps at the expense of the small ones, is the company's current classical problem right now, to me.

What a terrific idea, FarrellFan. (As are many of your ideas ) Peter Boal, because, as I once wrote in a review, he's the company's "clarion classicist." Albert Evans, because, although he doesn't have many roles, there are several that he has defined for his generation. Nikolaj Hubbe, because he makes everything he does look interesting. And Woetzel, because he's the company workhorse and tremendously popular. Gosh, three of these are Americans. Isn't that curious? And there's nothing regular about these guys, or what they dance, or how they dance it.

Paul Taylor lets his work be used by ballet companies all the time and yet is on record as saying that he disliikes ballet. (He's entitled.) Modern dancers often condescend to ballet in their public musings. Basically, the company line is: it's dumb, it's too pretty, it's just steps, it's mindless virtuosity, etc etc etc. But gosh, they can turn, can't they? So let's take that facility and..... I'd note that probably the public dance figure who is the most hostile to ballet at the moment is Mikhail Baryhsnikov, who seems to take every possible opportunity to blast ballet as archaic and boring. There are some modern dancers, of course, who do love ballet and genuinely appreciate it. And there are ballet people who condescend to modern dance -- anybody can do it, it's clumsy, etc. But there is definitely hostility out there, I agree, and I also agree that it's out of place in a show about ballet. I think when someone makes a remark like that, it indicates that he/she assumes everyone is in agreement on the matter; it's a "truth." And of course, everyone and anyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But if the people putting this program together really believed in BALLET, not cute guys dancing, there would have been a different slant, I think. There's a school in New Yorik, especially, whose belief system is "Modern dance and Balanchine are good. Everything else is negligible." I know many people like this. And I think this shows in today's media coverage of ballet. What there is of it. I'm waiting for "Big and Hairy: The Three Tenors Get Down and Dirty."

I did too, atm. I thought I'd discovered a wonderful site that was a mock The Times (of London) not only for the headline, but some other tidbits in the article as well. (And I'd missed the Sir Elton John appointment and thought that was a real howler.) There were other articles in the sidebar: "Shuttle crash caused by God," etc. that reminded me of my adored, lamended satirewire that did this kind of thing.

Before this gets completetly out of context, no one said that Morris was hostile to ballet. Justafan said, several threads up:

I like the Yiddish novel example, Leigh . Apt in several ways -- good new ballets are probably as plentiful as good new Yiddish novels! (And I agree with what you wrote, obviously.) I do wish we could get away from thinking that "he's not a ballet choreographer" means "he is not a good choreographer." Apples and melons. Morris Neighbor, I think there are quite a few modern dance choreographers who hire dancers with classical training because, as Tharp once said, "I want the best technique I can get." And they use that technique, but in a different way than a ballet choreographer would use it. The concern isn't with stylistic niceties, linking steps. I don't think Morris would claim that he's from the Balanchine heritage, though.

I agree about short Princes -- part of it is carriage and part of it is attitude. Two of the most famous danseurs nobles who were "too short" were Erik Bruhn and Rudolf Nureyev. They may not have been 5'11 or taller, but when they were on stage, you were In The Presence.

I know he has had knee surgery once. I don't know of any others (that doesn't mean there aren't any; I just can't verify them).

Another cousin to this idea is one I've long had for Etudes -- during the fouette conttest they just keep going until there's only one left standing, er turning, and she gets to be the ballerina and finish the ballet.

Thank you, Francis -- yes. I was remembering the anniversary gala.

Not forgetting Lilac

Thank you, Francis. This is a program I would liked to have seen. Am I in a time warp, though? I thought Patricia Barker had retired at the end of last season -- is this her last season?

Nearly everyone who choreographs to baroque music seems to see it as an opportunity for tag teaming; they get caught up in the rounds and never let them go.