Alexandra

I have to agree with you on Chenchikova, Juliet. If she seemed sloppy, it must have been because she was dancing with no sleep on a sprained ankle, knee and back, with the flu! (My first Chenchikova performance was "Swan Lake" and I can't remember ever seeing such fouettes.) Also, thank you for your remark about Manhattnik and spitfires I wasn't calling M a spitfire, just suggesting a permissible retort to someone who posted one's favorite dancer was dull!

Solor, I'm sure there are others like you -- I know we have one or two posters who'd be happy only to WATCH the 19th century classics (We have more balletgoers here than dancers, by the way.) I agree with Victoria, though, that most dancers, especially American dancers, want as varied a repertory as possible. You'll have to start your own company I've talked to very few dancers -- two, to be exact -- who felt the way you did. Both were in major companies, and weren't happy, as they put it, dancing so many ballets that didn't use their training. Both left the field.

Thanks -- there have been suspicions about this site. I don't want links to a bootleg site here -- even though I know they are kindly meant So I'll ask people not to link to any site that violates copyright laws, and will delete future references without notification.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to post -- I'm sorry, I don't know, so I can't answer you, but I hope someone else can.

I thinik moving it rather than closing it might better further discussion Solor, this topic has come up before so there might not be as many responses as you would like, but we've had a lot of new people join since the topic was last discussed -- so, pro and con, what do you think?

Solor, we have a whole forum devoted to the Kirov Ballet -- look in the International Ballet Companies group here. http://www.balletalert.com/forum/forumdisp...p?s=&forumid=63 There are several reviews by posters. We also have a special forum on Bayadere, although it hasn't been very active. http://www.balletalert.com/forum/forumdisp...p?s=&forumid=91 One thread starts with a very detailed press release from the Kirov about the changes in the ballet. http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...=&threadid=5965

Now THAT might make an interesting letter to the editor, Calliope. I think Dance Mag thinks of Barnes as The Most Important Dance Critic in America But they always want to reach the young......

Now THAT might make an interesting letter to the editor, Calliope. I think Dance Mag thinks of Barnes as The Most Important Dance Critic in America But they always want to reach the young......

Thanks And of course, it's perfectly ok to disagree with anyone -- "Dull! That little spitfire?", for example

What we have agreed here is not to chastise or criticize other posters for their opinions or the way they're expressed. If the Moderators feel that's necessary to do, we'll do it.

On the downside, it's frustrating to write something and wait three months -- or in one noted publication, three years! -- and have it come out Official notice that I'll withdraw from this thread now -- I've tried to explain reasonings and possibilities but I don't want to argue with anyone, nor make someone hesitant to post. So if anyone wants to question Barnes' bashing Homans, or critics bashing critics (or the reverse, of course), please jump in

On the downside, it's frustrating to write something and wait three months -- or in one noted publication, three years! -- and have it come out Official notice that I'll withdraw from this thread now -- I've tried to explain reasonings and possibilities but I don't want to argue with anyone, nor make someone hesitant to post. So if anyone wants to question Barnes' bashing Homans, or critics bashing critics (or the reverse, of course), please jump in

BW, on the timing, I doubt there's anything sinister about it. There's a three-month lag time, for starters. Or it could be timed to the beginning of the season. Or Barnes had written several columns in advance to cover the summer. Lots of reasons. For possible reasons for being "dismissive" of Homans, see above

BW, on the timing, I doubt there's anything sinister about it. There's a three-month lag time, for starters. Or it could be timed to the beginning of the season. Or Barnes had written several columns in advance to cover the summer. Lots of reasons.

The question of Barnes as "lap dog" is different from bashing other critics, to me. (And I agree. He wrote the infamous line, in response to Arlene Croce's "The ballets have their hearts cut out of them": "The ballets have never looked better, and I went to medical school." (Both are paraphrases). Kevin, I think Barnes has been supportive of Balanchine's choreography from the beginning. And, of course, when a critic supports an artist whom we respect, or who is generally respected, the "lapdog" label is never thrown. I'm just being a Devil's Advocate here -- I'm not an admirer of Barnes -- but would anyone call Arlene Croce the company's lapdog? Sometimes a critic continually praises an artist because they genuinely admire him. Re the Times coverage, to me it also seems relentlessly positive. I have no idea what the Times' editorial policy is, but at the Washington Post, there is absolutely no editorial directive, and I've never felt pressure from an editor to be positive, or told that something I wrote was too negative. Actually, if anything, there's a hint in the other direction, perhaps unintentional, from the headline writers, at least. Once I got a "Another Wonderful Giselle" headline (that is NOT a paraphrase).

Kevin, I think Barnes has been supportive of Balanchine's choreography from the beginning. And, of course, when a critic supports an artist whom we respect, or who is generally respected, the "lapdog" label is never thrown. I'm just being a Devil's Advocate here, but would anyone call Arlene Croce the company's lapdog? Sometimes a critic continually praises an artist because they genuinely admire him. And in the case of Balanchine, obviously many would argue there were grounds for that admiration.

Interesting about the black listed critics in San Francisco, Rachel. There are examples in New York, too -- John Simon, of NYMagazine was denied tickets at one point. The Martha Graham Company press people threw a hissy fit -- love that phrase -- at several critics. Both were short-lived. I checked The Slotkin Letter, btw, and the one review I read was extremely detailed -- pages and pages of the action described, and then criticism. I didn't find anything offensive at all about the tone. Re critics getting free tickets, I think that often strikes people as odd at first, but think about it. The press don't pay for their seats at the White House briefings. Nor for ringside seats at fights, nor those skyboxes at other games. Dirac's mentioned book reviewers. The tradition is a journalistic one. There's private (in the case of the press briefings) or limited (in the case of theater tickets) access, and, as the writer of the article under discussion pointed out, the theater would like to have some control over where the critic sits, so that s/he can see what's going on. (It's not to their advantage to have someone buy tickets in the fourth tier, or have a seat behind a pillar, and fuss all the way through the review that s/he can't see.) There are conflict of interest problems, or there can be, but I think these go beyond the free ticket issue. It's when a reviewer is a friend of the artist, or otherwise protective. Or the reverse, has a personal grudge against the artist (say he ran off with your daughter in the dead of night -- a totally hypothetical example!) and takes it out on them in a review. That's unethical, even if the reviewer paid $500 for the ticket that enabled him/her to do it.

The question of "back up" is often raised, and I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents here, too First off, commentary is commentary, not a historical piece with footnotes. In newspapers and magazines (as opposed to scholarly journals) it's all about the writing. One has to be responsible, but you're writing to be read, and if someone wrote a piece that said "Sentence A contradicts Sentence B, and if one remembered the performance of January 15, 1982 in comparison with the one on April 12, 1976," everyone would stop reading. Secondly, there are space constraints. I've noticed several times in comments about an article or commentary readers mentioning that an article about ballerinas today dealt only with ABT, what about other companies? etc. It's not possible to be comprehensive. It's like a term paper. Don't write about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Stick to what happened on this street on this day.

The question of "back up" is often raised, and I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents here, too First off, commentary is commentary, not a historical piece with footnotes. In newspapers and magazines (as opposed to scholarly journals) it's all about the writing. One has to be responsible, but you're writing to be read, and if someone wrote a piece that said "Sentence A contradicts Sentence B, and if one remembered the performance of January 15, 1982 in comparison with the one on April 12, 1976," everyone would A, say who cares? and B, stop reading. Secondly, there's space constraints. I've noticed several times in comments about an article or commentary readers mentioning that an article about ballerinas today dealt only with ABT, what about other companies? etc. It's not possible to be comprehensive. It's like a term paper. Don't write about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Stick to what happened on this street on this day.

These are all interesting questions, and they're good to be raised, although a bit dangerous. I don't want to bash either Homans or Barnes -- I don't blame anyone for being ambitious; like the recent situation in a certain great ballet company, the problem lays more at the feet of the people doing the hiring than the hiree. There was a lot of inside baseball discussion at the time this piece ran as to whether the editors even realized that this was contrary to what was being written elsewhere in the paper I certainly can't say. Or they may have wanted to publish a piece by a new voice -- I think that's fine, although I think there ways to do it besides just plunking it down. I think that causes confusion -- it obviously has. Is this one section of the paper sending a message to another? Is it coincidence? Is it a deliberate contradiction? Or just, "Hey, what a fun piece. Let's be provocative!"??? Once upon a time, when there were lots of newspapers, it wasn't as big an issue. One paper could be rabidly pro-Martins, say, and another just as rapidly anti. And there would be a few in the middle who would neither have to defend, nor attack, his directorship generally, but review each program on its merits. (What a novel idea!) When there's basically only one newspaper in town, it complicates things.

These are all interesting questions, and they're good to be raised, although a bit dangerous. I don't want to bash either Homans or Barnes -- I don't blame anyone for being ambitious; like the recent situation in a certain great ballet company, the problem lays more at the feet of the people doing the hiring than the hiree. There was a lot of inside baseball discussion at the time this piece ran as to whether the editors even realized that this was contrary to what was being written elsewhere in the paper I certainly can't say. Or they may and wanted to publish a piece by a new voice -- I think that's fine, although I think there ways to do it besides just plunking it down. I think that causes confusion -- it obviously has. Is this one section of the paper sending a message to another? Is it coincidence? Is it a deliberate contradiction? Or just, "Hey, what a fun piece. Let's be provocative!"??? Once upon a time, when there were lots of newspapers, it wasn't as big an issue. One paper could be rabidly pro-Martins, say, and another just as rapidly anti. And there would be a few in the middle who would neither have to defend, nor attack, his directorship generally, but review each program on its merits. (What a novel idea!) When there's basically only one newspaper in town, it complicates things.

Calliope, I think there's an objection to the soundness of that piece. There are young critics who have more of a context. The best way I can explain it to you is this: 50 years from now, someone may well write, "September 10th, September 12th, what's the difference?" It's only two days, but a world of difference. It's possible to write accurately about a historical period through which one has not lived, but it's hard. And as an editor who has been encouraging the young and the rash for more than 20 years (I've often published the unpublished and have given several critics their start), I can say that an editor should give guidance. The problems with Ms. Homan's piece wasn't the opinion, but the details and the logic. (The issue of whether a contrary opinion to the resident critic should be published is a separate one.) And the context. Gottlieb's piece in the Observer was very negative, yes, but one cannot accuse him of lacking context. And Holman's piece also struck many as being formulaic -- it's the same piece she wrote about ABT, only the names are changed. Start with a bold statement -- the age of glamour is dead! How can we expect our new dancers of today to measure up to the past! The age of the ballerina is dead! -- and then meander through the unconventional wisdom (saying what many people have said elsewhere, but cobbling them together in the way that reminded me of a student paper: all the facts are there, they're just not quite put together right.) and coming up with the conclusion that There Are Ballerinas! Read both pieces analytically and I think you'll find them quite similar (was the ABT piece in the New Republic? I can't remember. I know we discussed it here.) I don't mean to defend Barnes categorically, by any means (I've found him often too eager to praise his friends and bring that kind of personal element into dance criticism) But I think when one hits one's 70s one is entitled to speak out -- many other people wanted to, I think, but couldn't. Even those who are no fans of Kisselgoff were bothered by this piece. In the interests of full disclosure, I must add that I have not read Barnes' piece, and so what I've written on these two posts is, in a sense, completely objective! (I'm dealing with the issue in theory, not the reality of the piece.) I can't find the current issue -- when I do, I'll read it, and I reserve the right to come back in and say, "Good, grief! This is way over the line!!!!"

Calliope, I think there's an objection to the soundness of that piece. There are young critics who have more of a context. The best way I can explain it to you is this: 50 years from now, someone may well write, "September 10th, September 12th, what's the difference?" It's only two days, but a world of difference. It's possible to write accurately about a historical period through which one has not lived, but it's hard. And as an editor who has been encouraging the young and the rash for more than 20 years (I've often published the unpublished and have given several critics their start), I can say that an editor should give guidance. (The issue of whether a contrary opinion to the resident critic should be published is a separate one.) And the context. Gottlieb's piece in the Observer was very negative, yes, but one cannot accuse him of lacking context. I don't mean to defend Barnes categorically, by any means (as others have written, I've found him often too eager to praise his friends and bring that kind of personal element into dance criticism) In the interests of full disclosure, I must add that I have not read Barnes' piece, and so what I've written on these two posts is, in a sense, completely objective! (I'm dealing with the issue in theory, not the reality of the piece.) I can't find the current issue -- when I do, I'll read it, and I reserve the right to come back in and say, "Good, grief! This is way over the line!!!!"

I missed this one yesterday -- thanks for posting it, dirac. I think it's an excellent article, and hope that anyone who has questions about: why do critics get free tickets? What is a critic's responsibility? What does a theater expect from a review? Etc. etc. etc. will read it -- and please discuss, of course

I think the question of critics "bashing" other critics is a thorny one. On the one hand, what we write is published, and is fair game for comment. On the other, there is a hesitancy for one critic to correct another critic -- if one reads something in a review that one thinks is inaccurate, it's bad form to write a Letter to the Editor calling attention to the inaccuracy, for example. If a critic takes a position on a ballet that's different from your own, I think it's petty and unprofessional to say so publicly, and usually when it's done, there's a private agenda. (I've been the butt of this 2 or 3 times, once ten years ago by someone whose article I had rejected for DanceView, for example. Luckily, everyone I knew guessed that!) "Ms. X's notion that the new 'Swan Lake' is the best ever is pathetic," for example, or even the indirect (following a review that says this) "There are those whose who actually believe that mime is relevant to our modern times." If you think the "Swan Lake" is brilliant, say so; forget what Ms. X says. And if you hate mime or think it drags the ballet down, write that. But nevertheless moreover and however, there is the notion of policing one's own profession, and Mr. Barnes has a right to think he is in that position, particularly on a back page column in Dance Magazine. Ms. Homan's piece caused an enormous amount of comment, along the lines that Barnes mentions, among critics. There's a big problem now in journalism and publishing with editors who are not general experts on cultural matters, say, as would have been the case 30 years ago. Then, the editors would have seen the company themselves and had a context in which to put an article submitted by someone they don't know. Now, few do -- and that, coupled with the, "Hey, who's to say? Everybody has an opinion. We have a hole to fill" attitude, has produced a lot of puff pieces championing, for example, a choreographer who's about ten years, or lifetimes, away from being "perhaps one of the greatest choreographers of our time." I think those editors need to know that someone is reading what they publish and will speak out when necessary. I'd held off writing because I hoped that more readers would respond -- we always get the critics chiming in on critic questions, but it's much more interesting to see what the rest of you think