Alexandra

Thanks very much for that, sylvie. I'll look forward to reading about the other casts. Good luck with the exam, Lolly. I hope you get to see some performances as well.

Here's the release: VERONIKA PART TO JOIN AMERICAN BALLET THEATRE AS A SOLOIST Veronika Part, a soloist with the Kirov Ballet, will join American Ballet Theatre as a Soloist effective August 1, 2002, it was announced today by Artistic Director Kevin McKenzie. Part will make her debut with ABT during the Company?s tour of Japan, September 12-22. Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, Part began her early training in rhythmic gymnastics before entering the Vaganova Ballet Academy in 1988. She joined the Kirov Ballet in 1996 and was promoted to soloist in 1998. Part?s repertoire with the Kirov Ballet includes Nikiya in La Bayadère, Queen of the Dryads in Don Quixote, Myrta, Moyna and Zulma in Giselle, Raymonda and Henrietta in Raymonda, Lilac Fairy in The Sleeping Beauty and Odette-Odile in Swan Lake. She has also danced roles in George Balanchine?s Apollo (Terpischore), Jewels (Emeralds and Diamonds), Symphony in C (second movement) and Serenade, and in John Neumeier?s The Sounds of Empty Pages. Part was the winner of the BALTIKA Prize in 1999.

Thanks again! A question -- are the "adorable sprites" locals or imports? I hope Farrell Fan and Bobsey will ring in shortly. It's so much fun to read these

Interesting about Holmes -- thanks, Renee. The Finnish Ballet used to be very "Russian" and moved more to contemporary ballet/dance in the past decade. Maybe this is going back to THEIR roots Terry, I'm sorry -- I missed your question when you posted it. I don't know much about the Scandinavian companies except the RDB (and I've posted enough of my opinions on that company's history and what's happened to it!). But from the little I do know, the Swedish Ballet has a continuous performance history nearly as old as the Danish. Bournonville's father danced for them in the late 18th century! It has had several very distinguished directors -- including Anthony Tudor and Erik Bruhn -- but seems to change its stripes with each new director and hasn't developed a continuity of repertory. They've had a huge turnover of directors, too, in the last 20 years or so. No one seems to stay for more than one term, and several didn't make it through one term. In the last three years the company had a very modern dance tilt -- and I think that was a part of its personality for much of the 20th century. I am told that there are at least two resident balletmasters who are excellent stagers. I saw the Swedish Ballet when they were on tour here a few years ago and was struck by how different they looked from the Danes. The bodies, especially of the women, were rather stolid; the Danes select for speed and line. The Norwegian Ballet is quite young -- 25, 30 years? -- and small, compared to the others. I've only seen them perform once, in Copenhagen, several years ago and I'd call it a small, regional European company. Renee, I'm not familiar with Schroeder -- nor, save for Uwe Scholz, any of the choreographers you mentioned. Are they ballet choreographers, or modern dance? Scholz is one of the very few contemporary Europeans who works in classical ballet now. The few of his ballets I've seen I didn't find very inspired, but I haven't seen enough too judge. Estelle, another thank you -- I'd missed several posts. It's nice to have them all in one place.

I don't think it's a frivolous quest, by any means. If any art form is about beauty, surely it is ballet! People with interesting, rather than beautiful, forms and faces, if they also have artistry, have a place too, of course, but Solor isn't dreaming of 32 plug uglies going down that ramp

Thank you for that, Calliope. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I agree. If there's any point to criticism (besides the main one, to me, which is of recording an event for history, acknowledging that it happened, and giving some flavor of what you thought of it) it is that. This thread has gotten more into criticism than any "casting crisis" at NYCB, but I'd like one more slightly OT word on that. BW, I don't think you're at all alone in disliking harsh criticism. I think this, like all things, is a matter of sensibilities. Some people ONLY like "mean reviews" and some would prefer that only, or mostly, pleasant things be said. There's a piece (with permission!) on the main site by Joan Acocella called "What's Good About Bad Reviews" which gives one critic's view of things and which might be interesting to readers. Here's the link to that -- http://www.balletalert.com/reviews/acocella1.htm There's a companion piece "What Critics Do" that also may be of interest. Sorry for the diversion

Thank you for that, Calliope. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I agree. If there's any point to criticism (besides the main one, to me, which is of recording an event for history, acknowledging that it happened, and giving some flavor of what you thought of it) it is that. This thread has gotten more into criticism than any "casting crisis" at NYCB, but I'd like one more slightly OT word on that. BW, I don't think you're at all alone in disliking harsh criticism. I think this, like all things, is a matter of sensibilities. Some people ONLY like "mean reviews" and some would prefer that only, or mostly, pleasant things be said. There's a piece (with permission!) on the main site by Joan Acocella called "What's Good About Bad Reviews" which gives one critic's view of things and which might be interesting to readers. Here's the link to that -- http://www.balletalert.com/reviews/acocella1.htm There's a companion piece "What Critics Do" that also may be of interest. Sorry for the diversion

I don't think critics are supposed to mince words and tiippytoe around and say, well, gosh, she must be such a nice person but her stage presence, well, it's a bit bland. One has to use clear language to get across points -- and even reviews that, to me, are very clear are often misinterpreted -- and the shorter the space, the stronger the language. I also think that, at its base, criticism is WRITING. It's meant to be read, not as a judgment delivered from on high, or a report from a doctor ("Bad news. it's cancer. I give you about a week," which could perhaps be better phrased) but the reaction of an individual, who, one hopes and expects, has seen more ballet than the one night he or she is reviewing, although that's not always the case these days. One may pull punches when writing about a student workshop, but it's not necessary to do so when writing about a major company. I liked the asides. I viewed them as a way to get across an opinion using very few words, and those opinions are very consistent with Gottlieb's past writings (and, on those two particular dancers, of many others.) This is obviously a biased view from a critic, but I think critics have a right to get angry. If I were one of the British critics who'd watched the Royal Ballet grow from six girls in a church basement to the powerhouse it was in what Croce called "the high sixties" and had to watch what has been allowed to happen to it over the past two decades, I'd be foaming at the mouth more often than Crisp, I think. When you love something, it's very painful to see it destroyed. And it doesn't help a bit that those who didn't see the company during those high periods think that everything is just fine. Michael, I can think of at least one other place where "who you know and who is pulling the strings will get you more mileage than it will here. Everything is political here." I think it can be worse in small places, where there's no alternative and no escape -- and no Observer, because all of the newspapers have been corrupted, too.

I don't think critics are supposed to mince words and tiippytoe around and say, well, gosh, she must be such a nice person but her stage presence, well, it's a bit bland. One has to use clear language to get across points -- and even reviews that, to me, are very clear are often misinterpreted -- and the shorter the space, the stronger the language. I also think that, at its base, criticism is WRITING. It's meant to be read, not as a judgment delivered from on high, or a report from a doctor ("Bad news. it's cancer. I give you about a week," which could perhaps be better phrased) but the reaction of an individual, who, one hopes and expects, has seen more ballet than the one night he or she is reviewing, although that's not always the case these days. One may pull punches when writing about a student workshop, but it's not necessary to do so when writing about a major company. I liked the asides. I viewed them as a way to get across an opinion using very few words, and those opinions are very consistent with Gottlieb's past writings (and, on those two particular dancers, of many others.) This is obviously a biased view from a critic, but I think critics have a right to get angry. If I were one of the British critics who'd watched the Royal Ballet grow from six girls in a church basement to the powerhouse it was in what Croce called "the high sixties" and had to watch what has been allowed to happen to it over the past two decades, I'd be foaming at the mouth more often than Crisp, I think. When you love something, it's very painful to see it destroyed. And it doesn't help a bit that those who didn't see the company during those high periods think that everything is just fine. Michael, I can think of at least one other place where "who you know and who is pulling the strings will get you more mileage than it will here. Everything is political here." I think it can be worse in small places, where there's no alternative and no escape -- and no Observer, because all of the newspapers have been corrupted, too.

Thanks for that, Saveta (thanks to all, of course, but this was a First Time at the Kirov post and I thought deserved special mention ) I think you've caught what happens when we realize a long-held dream: we may quibble, but, on balance, it's just wonderful to be able to see it.

Surely there are exceptions! Mezentzeva springs to mind.

I don't hear anything strident either, dirac. Nor cruel -- and Gottlieb isn't writing for a mass market daily, but a relatively small publication with a sophisticated readership that's accustomed to reading passionate criticism. I also think the piece is also not claiming to be a history of the company, but a view of what's happening now. I don't think Gottlieb is saying that, minute by minute, ballet by ballet, everything in this or that decade was perfect -- it never is. (I remember wondering why some of the dancers Ari mentioned were still around when I started watching, too, but, then, I never saw them younger; and at least two of those dancers were, I was told, Robbins dancers. Balanchine didn't act unilaterally on hires and fires. On the other hand, I never forgave him for promoting Heather Watts ) He's saying this is what he thinks is happening now. I'm still pondering what seems to be a general feeling that critics write to give advice. I disagree -- to a point. I don't think if a critic writes, "What are they doing giving that role to Kickerina when Modestina is obviously suited to the role?" s/he expects Maestro to slap himself on the forehad and say, "Of course! What was I thinking?!!!" and make the change. On the other hand, when eight out of eight critics write, say, "That new guy is not going to get away with American marketing ideas in our town. Putting three too-alike ballets on the same bill and giving them a cute name is not goiing to fly," they could be said to be sending a message that there will be a stand against a particular policy. A personal story: an early review of mine made me very wary of writing anything that could be taken as advice. I wrote of a young modern dancer, performing in a large, converted movie theater, that he and his partner seemed rather pale onstage. (This was intended to be an observation, not a prescription.) When next I sawhim -- in a church basement about the size of 16 pews -- he had more makeup than I've ever seen on a human being. I crawled out of there, imagining that he was explaining to all the friends that went backstage -- in a manner of speaking -- saying, "Why are you wearing three bottles of green gunk on your eyelids?" that he was just taking a critic's advice

I don't hear anything strident either, dirac. Nor cruel -- and Gottlieb isn't writing for a mass market daily, but a relatively small publication with a sophisticated readership that's accustomed to reading passionate criticism. I also think the piece is also not claiming to be a history of the company, but a view of what's happening now. I don't think Gottlieb is saying that, minute by minute, ballet by ballet, everything in this or that decade was perfect -- it never is. (I remember wondering why some of the dancers Ari mentioned were still around when I started watching, too, but, then, I never saw them younger; and at least two of those dancers were, I was told, Robbins dancers. Balanchine didn't act unilaterally on hires and fires. On the other hand, I never forgave him for promoting Heather Watts ) He's saying this is what he thinks is happening now. I'm still pondering what seems to be a general feeling that critics write to give advice. I disagree -- to a point. I don't think if a critic writes, "What are they doing giving that role to Kickerina when Modestina is obviously suited to the role?" s/he expects Maestro to slap himself on the forehad and say, "Of course! What was I thinking?!!!" and make the change. On the other hand, when eight out of eight critics write, say, "That new guy is not going to get away with American marketing ideas in our town. Putting three too-alike ballets on the same bill and giving them a cute name is not goiing to fly," they could be said to be sending a message that there will be a stand against a particular policy. A personal story: an early review of mine made me very wary of writing anything that could be taken as advice. I wrote of a young modern dancer, performing in a large, converted movie theater, that he and his partner seemed rather pale onstage. (This was intended to be an observation, not a prescription.) When next I sawhim -- in a church basement about the size of 16 pews -- he had more makeup than I've ever seen on a human being. I crawled out of there, imagining that he was explaining to all the friends that went backstage -- in a manner of speaking -- saying, "Why are you wearing three bottles of green gunk on your eyelids?" that he was just taking a critic's advice

Thanks very much for this, Lolly -- good to see both of you here Sylvia, I hope you'll report on your mother's reaction too -- 40 years without a ballet. I can't imagine it I hope you'll both keep us posted on the summer season -- and others, too, of course. Jude, are you seeing any of these programs?

The terms "Opera-comique," "vaudeville," etc. had to do wit the licensing system of Paris theaters in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (after that, I can't speak for them; they wandered off by themselves). Only one theater was allowed to perform opera; it had a license to perform operas. (A dramatic work completely in song.) Wanting to cash in on opera's popularity, the enterprising folks in the boulevard theaters invented new genres so that they could get a license. The story was sung, but instead of recitative, the connecting dialogue was spoken -- voila, opera-comique. I think there was even a genre where the connecting dialogue was sung and the big speeches were spoken, but I this is from books I read when I was getting my masters ten years ago and it's fuzzy (Vaudevilles were ballets that incorporated popular songs in their scores to cue the action. )

This is an odd piece for the New Yorker -- an extended review (of the Kirov-Mariinsky's production of "Jewels" as seen in Washington DC last winter) that serves as a preview (of the company's performance of the same work that's still to come in New York). But it's a very interesting piece, I think. I'd be especially curious as to what our Russian posters (and lurkers ) think of Acocella's take on the respective Kirovian and Balanchinian virtues. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/televisio...crte_television There's more to the article than this, but these are some of the comments on differences in style:

This makes two Gumerova fans (at least) -- I'm intrigued. I remember here in Washington a few months ago as a giant , rather awkward Princess Florine and the tall girl in "Rubies" I found her engaging, but very raw. I was struck, Juliet, that you thought her fragile -- I wouldn't have imagined that possible from those earlier performances. (Not quibbling, as I didn't see the "Swan Lake." Just curious ) I'm sure Manhattnik went to this one, too, and I hope he'll write in between breaks to work Any others?

Thank you, Terry! Press releases are postable so here 'tis. SAN FRANCISCO BALLET ANNOUNCES DANCER PROMOTIONS AND NEW COMPANY MEMBERS SAN FRANCISCO, CA, Wednesday, July 10, 2002 ? San Francisco Ballet Artistic Director Helgi Tomasson announced today the promotion of three Company members and the addition of seven new dancers for the 2002-2003 Season. Gonzalo Garcia and Vanessa Zahorian have been promoted from soloists to principal dancers and Nicole Starbuck has been promoted to soloist from the corps de ballet. Pascal Molat and Sarah Van Patten will join the company as soloists. New corps de ballet members are Brett Bauer, who joins directly from San Francisco Ballet School, and Jaime Garcia Castilla, Margaret Karl, Jonathan Mangosing and Mariellen Olson, who were all apprentices last season. The Company roster now stands at 69 dancers. Also announced today are two changes to the artistic staff of San Francisco Ballet. Ballet Mistress Elyse Borne will depart to continue staging Balanchine ballets for the George Balanchine Trust. A member of the artistic staff since 1997, Borne has staged Balanchine ballets for San Francisco Ballet, including last season?s premiere of Jewels. Sandra Jennings will join the artistic staff as ballet mistress. Jennings danced as a soloist for George Balanchine's New York City Ballet and most recently served as ballet mistress for Pennsylvania Ballet. As a repetiteur for the George Balanchine Trust, she travels extensively throughout the United States and abroad staging Balanchine?s ballets. In addition, she has taught as a guest teacher for San Francisco Ballet School?s Summer Session since the summer 2000. All changes effective July 1, 2002. Promotions Born in Zaragoza, Spain, Gonzalo Garcia joined San Francisco Ballet as a member of the corps de ballet in 1998. He trained in Spain at the school of Maria de Avila before enrolling at San Francisco Ballet School in 1995, the same year he became the youngest dancer to win the gold medal at the Prix de Lausanne competition. He joined the Company in 1998 and was promoted to soloist after the 2000 Repertory Season. He has danced principal roles in works such as Balanchine?s Prodigal Son and Symphony in C, Tomasson?s Prism and Tuning Game, Lubovitch?s Othello, Wheeldon?s Continuum, and Robbins? Dances at a Gathering. He received the Princess Grace Award in 2000. Born in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Vanessa Zahorian trained with the Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet. She apprenticed at the Kirov Ballet prior to joining San Francisco Ballet?s corps in 1997, and she was promoted to soloist in 1999. This past season she danced leading roles in such ballets as Tomasson?s The Sleeping Beauty, Nutcracker, and Prism; Balanchine?s Symphony in C, Symphony in Three Movements, and Theme and Variations; Julia Adam?s Night; Christopher Wheeldon?s Sea Pictures ; among others. Zahorian has earned numerous awards including the Erik Bruhn Prize at the Fifth International Competition in 2000, the Best Young Soloist award at the Nureyev International Ballet Competition in Budapest in 1996, and the bronze medal at the Second International Ballet and Modern Dance Competition in Nagoya, Japan that same year. A native San Franciscan, Nicole Starbuck trained with Margaret Swarthout at Marin Ballet (now called Marin Dance Theatre), Mary Paula Ballet in Petaluma, and San Francisco Ballet School before becoming an apprentice in 1994. She joined the corps de ballet the following year, and has since danced featured roles in Tomasson?s Swan Lake, Giselle, Romeo and Juliet, and The Sleeping Beauty; Balanchine?s Symphony in C, Symphony in Three Movements, Theme and Variations; Yuri Possokhov?s Damned, and others. She performed in the world premiere of choreographer Julia Adam?s Thirteen Lullabies at the Bay Area Dance Series in the summer of 1996. She was a finalist in the International Ballet Competition in Jackson, Mississippi in 1994 and was awarded third place in National Foundation of Arts Competition the same year. New Company Members Pascal Molat joins San Francisco Ballet as a soloist from Les Ballets de Monte-Carlo. Previously he worked with the Royal Ballet of Wallonie and the Royal Ballet of Flanders. He has performed a diverse repertory, including works by Karole Armitage, William Forsythe, and Jiri Kylian. Principal roles include Romeo in Romeo and Juliet, the Nutcracker in The Nutcracker Circus, and the King in La Belle, all choreographed by Jean-Christophe Maillot, director and choreographer of Les Ballets de Monte-Carlo. New soloist Sarah Van Patten trained with Jacqueline Cronsberg at Ballet Workshop of New England. She became an apprentice with the Royal Danish Ballet in Copenhagen in 2000, and was hired as a corps de ballet member in 2001. She has danced soloist roles with the company in several ballets, including Peter Martins? Hallelujah Junction and Balanchine?s Symphony in Three Movements, and she was cast as Juliet in John Neumeier?s Romeo and Juliet. As a student at San Francisco Ballet School, new corps de ballet member Brett Bauer has performed with the Company in such ballets as Jerome Robbins? Fanfare and Tomasson?s Giselle . He trained at the Kirov Academy in Washington, D.C., and the National Ballet School of Canada, and he has toured with Suzanne Farrell Ballet Company. Jaime Garcia Castilla, Margaret Karl, Jonathan Mangosing and Mariellen Olson, who worked as apprentices with San Francisco Ballet last season, have been contracted as members of the corps de ballet for the 2003 Season. As apprentices, the dancers took Company class and performed corps de ballet roles in the Company?s diverse repertory. Jaime Garcia Castilla trained at the Royal Conservatory of Professional Dance in Madrid. He won the People?s Prize at the International Competition in Zaragoza, and the Prize of Excellence and the Contemporary Dance Prize at the 2001 Prix de Lausanne. Born in Stockton, California, Margaret Karl began studying at San Francisco Ballet School at the age of eight. The Keith White Memorial Scholarship supported Karl?s studies at the School from 1997 to 2001. In January 2001 she was awarded a cash prize from the National Foundation for Advancement in the Arts. Jonathan Mangosing received much of his training at San Francisco Ballet School. The Christopher Boatwright Memorial Endowed Scholarship supported Mangosing?s studies at San Francisco Ballet School from 1997 to 2001. Mariellen Olson trained at San Francisco Ballet School, San Jose Dance Theatre, Tuzer Ballet in Richardson, Texas, and Dance Theatre Seven in Marin County. New Apprentices Tomasson has named five new apprentices for the 2003 season: Courtney Elizabeth, Whitney Herr, Ashley Ivory, Emily Tedesco, and Brett VanSickle. Courtney Elizabeth received her training from Charlotte School of Ballet in North Carolina, North Carolina Dance Theatre, and San Francisco Ballet. Whitney Herr trained at Ballet Arts in her hometown of Tucson, Arizona, prior to joining San Francisco Ballet School. Ashley Ivory studied at Contra Costa Ballet Centre before joining San Francisco Ballet School. She toured with the Company on its tour to Spain in the summer of 2001. Prior to joining San Francisco Ballet School, Emily Tedesco trained at several academies in her home state of New York: the School of American Ballet, Ballet Arts Theatre, Carousel Cities Youth Ballet, and the Dance Shoppe. Canadian Brett VanSickle comes directly from American Ballet Theatre Studio Company, where he danced a variety of works including Julia Adam?s The Shroud. Previously he trained at the National Ballet School of Canada and the Hamilton Ballet School. Name Change Please note that soloist Catherine Baker will now go by her married name, Catherine Winfield. The dancers are currently preparing for a four-city United States tour that takes them to Reno/Lake Tahoe; Orange County, California; New York City; and Washington, D.C. San Francisco Ballet will present its annual free performance at the Stern Grove Festival on Sunday, July 21 at 2:00 p.m. Subscriptions are currently on sale for San Francisco Ballet?s 2003 Repertory Season, February through May at the War Memorial Opera House. For information, call the Ticket Services Office at (415) 865-2000, or visit www.sfballet.org.

You're welcome -- I hope you enjoy them. There's more to the site than the message board, too, and you might be interested in some of the material in our Ballets section http://www.balletalert.com/ballets/ballets.htm So far, it's all been by Mel Johnson, and on the Petipa-Ivanov ballets. He did a terrific job with these, I think (and I'm hoping for many more, from him and others ) and there's a lot of information in there that was new to me!

There's a video! Royal Ballet, c. 1956. Fonteyn and Somes -- and, alas, I forget the who was Benno. rg, or someone else, will know, I'm sure. What's really interesting is that the Act II pas de trois had an analog in Act III -- with Von Rothbart taking part in Black Swan "pas de deux." (And there were huntsmen in Act II. So much has been vacuumed out.) John-Michael, you may be interested in checking out some of our Archives. We had a "ballet of the month" discussion group for awhile, and those discussions are preserved in the Archives, filed under the name of the ballet. Doug Fullington, especially, who's a musicologist and reader of Stepanov notation, very generously contributed some wonderful posts.

I thihk there have been extreme technique--moderate technique swings in the past. Late 18th century, extreme technique; early Romantic period, (Taglioni, Bournonville) moderate technique. Late 19th century, extreme technique (all those Italians with pointes of steel bounding off marble floors). Early 20th century -- Fokine, especially -- almost anti-technique. Don't get caught turning. And definitely technique subservient to artistic expression. Ashton, always the middle man, loved virtuosity, but used it like a spice. Balanchine, once accused of being all technique, all the time, seems positively chaste today. Technique subservient to artistic expression in a different way than Fokine, but still primarily interested in artistic expression. I think much contemporary ballet is exactly analagous to your punk/garage band description, dirac

I thihk there have been extreme technique--moderate technique swings in the past. Late 18th century, extreme technique; early Romantic period, (Taglioni, Bournonville) moderate technique. Late 19th century, extreme technique (all those Italians with pointes of steel bounding off marble floors). Early 20th century -- Fokine, especially -- almost anti-technique. Don't get caught turning. And definitely technique subservient to artistic expression. Ashton, always the middle man, loved virtuosity, but used it like a spice. Balanchine, once accused of being all technique, all the time, seems positively chaste today. Technique subservient to artistic expression in a different way than Fokine, but still primarily interested in artistic expression. I think much contemporary ballet is exactly analagous to your punk/garage band description, dirac

Good points, lilliana. My advice to both parents and dancers who can't stand to read negative comments is to stay away from message boards. It's like eavesdropping -- and I'm sure you've heard the "eavesdroppers hear nothing good of themselves."

I don't think critics, at least most critics, write in the hopes of influencing company policy, but to report and analyze what's going on. Ari made a lot of interesting points (no surprise ) but I remember the history a bit differently. I don't remember a slew of aging ballerinas taking up dressing room space, nor do I remember Martins being a breath of fresh air. He fired Kent, and that's it, as far as I remember it. And as for the dancers who "deserved" to be promoted, I remember several people I thought were well placed as senior soloists getting promoted, while the fresh crop of demis died on the vine. (I'm sure dancers at the time would have different comments, but I've interviewed very few dancers who didn't think he or she should have had this or that role, or who didn't have a complaint about who got promoted when, or, if they're not a principal, a dozen reasons, all to do with company politics rather than talent, why they weren't leading dancers.) I think keeping dancers on because of loyalty -- well, that's the way the world worked in his day. You didn't toss people out like kleenex when you're tired of them, or when New Director 99 takes over, the way it's done now. I admire him for that -- and he used the older dancers. I really don't think it's fair to charge Balanchine withi "nepotism" for Tallchief, LeClerq, Farrell, et al There's a difference between falling in love with your muse, and turning Talentless Wonderova into a muse, and he certainly wasn't sentimental about keeping his wives, or interests, dancing after they'd past their expiration date. (One of the charges I do remember being raised against Balanchine was that he got rid of dancers too soon, at the tender age of 35, instead of 40 or 45, as in other companies.) While I remember several discussions about "inappropriate casting" -- Linda Yourth and Nina Fedorova come to mind (I don't mean to imply there was any musing going on, just that they got a lot of principal roles that those outside the company found inappropriate) I don't think it was pervasive. Von Aroldingen was seen by some as a bad classical dancer, but she was a character ballerina, a rare species, and some of the roles Balanchine made for her were wonderful. They suited her admirably, and enriched the repertory.

I don't think critics, at least most critics, write in the hopes of influencing company policy, but to report and analyze what's going on. Ari made a lot of interesting points (no surprise ) but I remember the history a bit differently. I don't remember a slew of aging ballerinas taking up dressing room space, nor do I remember Martins being a breath of fresh air. He fired Kent, and that's it, as far as I remember it. And as for the dancers who "deserved" to be promoted, I remember several people I thought were well placed as senior soloists getting promoted, while the fresh crop of demis died on the vine. (I'm sure dancers at the time would have different comments, but I've interviewed very few dancers who didn't think he or she should have had this or that role, or who didn't have a complaint about who got promoted when, or, if they're not a principal, a dozen reasons, all to do with company politics rather than talent, why they weren't leading dancers.) I think keeping dancers on because of loyalty -- well, that's the way the world worked in his day. You didn't toss people out like kleenex when you're tired of them, or when New Director 99 takes over, the way it's done now. I admire him for that -- and he used the older dancers. I really don't think it's fair to charge Balanchine withi "nepotism" for Tallchief, LeClerq, Farrell, et al There's a difference between falling in love with your muse, and turning Talentless Wonderova into a muse, and he certainly wasn't sentimental about keeping his wives, or interests, dancing after they'd past their expiration date. (One of the charges I do remember being raised against Balanchine was that he got rid of dancers too soon, at the tender age of 35, instead of 40 or 45, as in other companies.) While I remember several discussions about "inappropriate casting" -- Linda Yourth and Nina Fedorova come to mind (I don't mean to imply there was any musing going on, just that they got a lot of principal roles that those outside the company found inappropriate) I don't think it was pervasive. Von Aroldingen was seen by some as a bad classical dancer, but she was a character ballerina, a rare species, and some of the roles Balanchine made for her were wonderful. They suited her admirably, and enriched the repertory.