Alexandra

I must say I'm very glad to read something positive about Herrera! She's been going through a rough patch, and I hope it's over.

Thanks very much for all these reports. Dale, I hope you called 911BT (the Trust). I know Dale knows exactly what this means, but I wanted to add a comment about her comment on "Theme and Variations" being classroom steps only because I know (from teaching) that this is a phrase that's widely misunderstood. My modern dancers in the aesthetics course really truly believed that ballet choreographers looked up steps in a book, while modern dance choreographers created steps out of their bodies. The term "this is a classroom exercise" used to be used, in Balanchine's day, to refer to choreographers "after Balanchine" who basically took a class, or section of a class, and put it on stage, or whose choreography was so dull that it was the visual equivalent of scales. However, it became misunderstood and is now applied by some (not by Dale ) to anything by Balanchine or Ashton that is recognizable, even to the uninitiated, as classical/neoclasical ballet. I now return the message board back to the Met watchers More comments, please! As always, whether you just want to write a few sentences and/or and are new to ballet, or whether you want to write a lot about a performance -- either is fine! The most usual comment I get when I try to encourage people to post what they saw is, "But there are so many knowledgeable people there, I don't feel as though I should." Yes, you should!!!! Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, and it's always interesting to hear another take on a performance, a dancer, or a ballet.

I think there are dozens of Toni Bentley's in dozens of corps all over the world. Back in the Ballet Russe days, there really wasn't a corps in the sense that we think of it today. They did "Swan Lake" 2nd act and "Les Sylphides," but the other, character ballets had roles for everyone and someone in the corps would have a dozen small parts. The Royal under Ashton seemed to accommodate both. Reading the roster of Ashton's last season, one sees a list of names, nearly all of whom became more familiar later as soloists or principals. It seems the corps was more of a training ground, than a job in and of itself, which it is in other countries. I think NYCB is, and was, like that (training ground). I have to say, remembering that there are people from many countries who read this board, that the notion that other corps would "crumble to dust" if faced with the challenges that NYCB faces does not take into account the very different aesthetics that rule elsewhere. Not every company thinks that it's noble in and of itself to throw dancers onto the stage unrehearsed, and to schedule more ballets in the repertory than it can possibly rehearse, and the notion that this is absolutely better than anybody else anywhere ever is something we Americans certainly wouldn't tolerate it if we had to hear it, constantly, from Russians or Parisians. I'll always argue that quantity is not, in and of itself, "better" than quality, and NYCB might well crumble to dust if faced with dancing the repertory of other companies -- and having to dance them in that style, not just do the steps. They couldn't do "La Bayadere" or "Folk Tale," to name two, and I wouldn't want to see them in Ashton's "La Fille mal gardee, either." This doesn't mean it's not a great company, but .... Company partisanship is fine, but I really do think it needs to be placed into context.

Doug, there were some things in the first act that were unfamiliar to me (I haven't seen the Bolshoi's yet, but we're getting it next season). They certainly aren't in the Nureyev-for-Paris. The second act (betrothal-and-death act) looked very much like the Kirov. BUT, strangely, the ballet doesn't have anything of the same feel as the Kirov's did when under Vinogradov's directorship. This seems consciously old-fashioned and melodramatic (in the acting) and cooly classical (in the dancing). It's an odd mixture, but it worked for me.

A belated thanks for this, Michael -- I was Royaling and missed it when you first posted. And thank you for being brave and posting your revisions of opinion -- I think we all go through those. p.s. Baiser a gloss????? Who did you see in it?

When I heard people who'd seen this company say that the corps was Kirov level, I said, "Yeah, right." Well, in the Shades scene it was darned close. It's astounding what this company has accomplished in such a short time. The rest of the ballet wasn't quite up to that, but still very good for this level company (It's about 15 years old, and it's starting in a country, Korea, with no tradition of Western classical ballet.) The first two acts (it ends with Shades. There's no closing, temple-crashing scene, and I think this version desperately needs it) weren't up to that but I still found them fascinating. Doug, have you seen this production? It looks SO old-fashioned. Lots of processions. Lots of mime. Much more classical than Romantic -- it's the first time I've seen a Bayadere that I felt was consciously modeled on Greek tragedy. There's the conflict between Priest and King, and one small bit that I'd never noticed, a very Aristotelian way of dealing with a slave. When the servant brings in the snake basket, the leading fakir, who likes Nikya, knows what she's doing but can't stop her. He can shoo her away, but he can't take the basket. He creeps to the Brahmin and implores him to help. A very small, very touching moment. The Gamzatti was one of the best I've seen. I'll have to fill in names later; this company was completely new to me. Both Gamzatti and Nikya looked very young. Gamzatti was proud, but a real princess, as angry at Solor's slight to her rank as to her person, not just a bitch. Her dancing was four performances short of top-of-the-line. (Somewhere between extremely promising and etoile.) Nikya was excellent in the second act dance and death scene; a bit "after Komleva" on the Kirov video, I'm guessing, but extremely moving. She wasn't the strongest Nikya in the Shades scene I've ever seen but, again, in a year or two, she may well be. The Solor....well, nothing is perfect. Stiff, both in dancing and acting, but a good partner. This is a company building from the ground up. There are Russian names among the Koreans, but the company doesn't look like a baby Kirov. Actually, there's something about them that's closer to Paris in their restraint. This ballet will be danced again, with different casts, over the weekend, and I doubt it's sold out, although the house was full last night (party night; tepid audience. They didn't even clap for the scenery, which is quite splendid.)

I agree with the posts above about NYCB, and think it speaks to a conscious decision on the part of the company to keep its own style and NOT internationalize. (One can argue how much they're keeping the style. I remember one of McBride's last performances in "Raymonda Variations," and she was seemed so extreme compared to everyone else, I thought she looked like a guest in her own company. But they have a definition of what is acceptable and what is not, and they look for dancers who fit it.) European-trained dancers don't fit in. Few are sought, and fewer last. The Royal Ballet, the first of the big companies to consciously internationalize its style, jettisoned much of its tradition in favor of what "everyone else" (i.e., ABT, I think) was doing, changed what was taught in the school (!! Think of SAB suddenly going RAD), and started bringing in people from all over the map. The Royal Danish has done the same thing, only they did it almost overnight. I'm sorry economic conditions in Russia are so harsh, but it may be the only thing saving the Kirov and Bolshoi. Paris is Paris

Thanks very much for posting this, Jeannie, and please feel free to make comments -- I think people will want to know what you think about the general quality of the competitors, not to mention the winners

The articles from the Boston press are over on Links, but I wanted to pull this quote out from T.J. Medrek's piece: "First and foremost, the board needs to hire a new CEO from the dance world. It's trendy these days to look to business to find leaders of big arts organizations. Babcock, at least, brought an impressive-on-paper background in arts administration. But clearly his lack of experience in the particular world and special psychology of dance and dancers was a big factor in the current mess." No kidding! I hope everyone who hires executive directors sees this piece. If you know an board members and want to email it along........ BTW, I hope the many Bostonians who checked the Boston Ballet threads won't be too busy attending Babcock farewell parties to go to the Royal and tell us about it (on Recent Performances.)

The next issue, several weeks overdue, will be back from the printers' tomorrow. It's a double issue. In past years, the seasons preview has dripped well into the fall, and takes up the bulk of several issues. We wanted to bring you all that information, but thought it might be more useful, and more palatable, if it were all at once -- or at least, as much as possible. There are several companies whose schedules we haven't yet received. This issue contains, in addition, an article by Victoria Leigh on what teachers look for at summer intensive auditions, an interview, by Mary Cargill, with Duncan Cooper of Dance Theatre of Harlem, and some photos by Edwin Bacher from the Mariinsky International Ballet Festival. And LOTS of what's going on next season. I gave each company a page this time (some two pages, some half, depending on the info.) Thanks for your patience! You should have it by the end of next week. If you're not a subscriber, we can fix that. Click the link in my sig line.

Why can't the Stars hop from company to company, pleasing audiences and choreographers, but leaving the rain forests alone? (I wonder if choreographers really are that eager to work with Guillem? Often they don't want to work with Stars. Too difficult, too fully formed, too much themselves.) [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I think in the great corps, there's individuality as well as uniformity. I don't have a photo handy of the Kirov corps, but we have one of the Paris Opera Ballet corps on the main site (a press photo from "Swan Lake.") http://www.balletalert.com/ballets/Petipa/...ke/swanlake.htm When I first looked at it, I thought, "How beautiful, they're all alike." Then I looked at each dancer, and saw there were subtle differences (not just in bodies and personalities, but in the way the hands were held, etc.) I think in a company with a School (not the building), in one where the dancers are used to dancing together, this is what happens. (And I agree with Michael. I've always thought/read/heard that Balanchine liked a messy corps -- or at least hated corps that were so uniform that the dances looked like robots.) [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ] [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

The guest artist as competition and measuring stick point you raise is a good one, I think. IMO, it's generally a good idea. Perks things up. With the Royal, though, these aren't guests. They're permanent. Some, like Stiefel, dance with several companies, but for the others, this is home now.

Just curious, but I'm wondering if one of the differences is that children at the schools in Paris and St. Petersburg are given constant feedback as to where they are in the pecking order, and what their career potential is. I think by the time they graduate, they know they're on star track, or will have a chance at character roles when they're 35, if they hang in there, or are going to grace the Lake for life. But Americans -- corps is not in our makeup. We're all going to be stars. (Also, NYCB corps was never a corps in the way POB and the Kirov -- and the Royal, once -- was, but 99% of its core repertory uses a small group of dancers, almost demisoloists. Probably for the reasons discussed here and above.)

Nioradze is amazingly durable, isn't she?

Cassidy returned and did the Somes role in "Symphonic Variations" second cast as well as Colas on the Sunday matinee. I hope some of our British posters can answer your other question

I was surprised to notice how few English born and trained principals there were with the Royal these days. (I know in the Glory Days half the principals came from Commonwealth countries, but they had RAD training and the style was uniform.) Of course, the Royal hasn't been RAD for awhile now, and it sure shows How is this viewed in England? Or elsewhere, for that matter. To me, it's not a matter of keeping other nationalities out, but of stylistic uniformity. (If you're born in Turkey or Norway or Uganda or China, that's fine, if you grow up in a company's school, or have a teacher who grew up in the school.) If you go to see Paris Opera Ballet, do you expect to see French dancers? Do we want to see New Yorkers dancing with the Kirov or Bolshoi? I got a press release from Cincinnati Ballet that said 46% of their 34 dancers were non-American. That, too, was a surprise. This isn't as much a matter of style, of course, as of jobs. They can't find 34 American dancers in Cincinnati??? What do others think about these, and other, ramifications of the current hot internationalization trend?

I think these are all good points. Context, time, experience ... and yes, where you are sitting I agree, Amanda, it does matter sometimes, and I think your forest and trees analogy is quite apt. I wanted to focus on one thing that Terry said about Yoshida (not to pick on Yoshida, but to illustrate the different perspectives point). Terry wrote: "I also think there is a time factor involved with these opinions. I think I've seen Yoshida since about 7 years ago and to be very honest, I wasn't very impressed with her in the beginning. And then I saw her in Don Quixote, Sleeping Beauty, Giselle, and then I began to really see her wonderful qualities that I hadn't realized before. Of course, it could go the other way around." I'd agree. Often when one first sees a "subtle" dancer (especially when one is first going to the ballet) one simply doesn't see it. It's the grinning fellow with the big jump that catches the eye. Ten years later, we may completely reverse this -- or Person B may like grinning jumpers and Person A may like smallscale dancers for a lifetime. On Yoshida, there's at least one other aspect to the diamond, though, and I thought Anna Kisselgoff articulated it the most clearly of those I've read so far: that she looked overcoached in a pseudo-English style. (The overcoached is a quote, the rest is paraphrased.) I don't know whether or not she's overcoached, but I could see the rest of the point. If you look up Ashton in a book, it says "soft, subtle, small English style." Yes, he's subtle (we'd have at least ten definitions of that), which means that the Widow Simone's clog dance is balleticized music hall, NOT, as it was performed here, music hall plopped down in the middle of a ballet. And yes he's soft, in the sense that the line is never hyperextended; the line is stretched -- stretched far -- but never to the fullest possible extent; 98% percent, perhaps, so that the movement isn't stopped, there's the possibility of further movement left. And he doesn't whap you in the face with angles. But he's not small. This is where memories and films agree -- I was shocked to see film footage of the Royal (Sadler's Wells) in the late 40's. Very small dancers dancing faster and bigger than I've ever seen. So someone seeing Yoshida who's sick of seeing dancers who seem concerned only with tricks might see her as a breath of fresh air, others who remember what the ballet once looked like will think, "She's not really getting it," a third (another opinion I heard here quite a lot) that the softness is external; she's got a sharp technique and learned to soften it, rather than it all coming from within, which impresses some as "fake." And a fourth just won't see her because someone else catches their eye. (And of course, there are at least six more views, to get our ten.) [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I think there's a fine line between "bias" and "strong aesthetic stance." I'd credit RG with the latter (disclaimer: we've been friends for years. I write this not to defend, because he doesn't need defending, nor to discourage negative comments). I don't know how a writer can get this across, and maybe it's not possible. I think there's a difference between having a personal vendetta against someone (choreographer, artistic director, dancer) and having a strong view -- a way of seeing and thinking about an art form that's as integral to one's being as religious beliefs (for, to many of us, this is our religion). I think the full review, as Dale said, is quite clear WHAT Greskovic doesn't like about the production and WHY. For what it's worth, I've never noticed a particular stress on Kyra Nichols in his writing, certainly not at the expense of other dancers. But, like watching performances, reading is in the eyes of the beholder

I've been working on the season's preview piece for Ballet Alert! and was struck by how varied the ballet offerings are in the San Francisco area. I don't think they're trying to "counter-program" or compete, either, but there are so many companies, with such different visions. San Francisco Ballet, of course, has a mix of full-lengths, the artistic director's ballets, and the rest a mix of new (mostly contemporary dance) works and a few standards, if not quite classics -- and they're getting "Dances at a Gathering" next season. A mainstream rep, one might say. Then there's Ballet San Jose of Silicon Valley. I'm giving it Ballet Alert's Most Original Repertory for the season -- I don't mean this is to my taste, but just that it doesn't look like any other rep. A full-length ballet by Flemming Flindt that was a bomb in Copenhagen ("Legs of Fire"), a story ballet about one of Denmark's most interesting ballerinas. Roland Petit's "Carmen" and "Graduation Ball." !!!!!!! And "District Storyville," a modern dance from the 1930s about happy hookers and their clients (when they see the huge satin covered bed, they bounce on it.) A new ballet by the artistic director and "Apollo." Talk about something for everyone! The Oakland Ballet, once known for its interesting revivals of older 20th century ballets is under new directorship -- Karen Brown, who danced with DTH. This rep looks heavily tilted to contemporary dance, with a token ballet or two. I haven't gotten the reps for the Michael Smuin's company (where showmanship reigns) or the Diablo Ballet (another mostly contemporary troupe). One might say that pure classical and neoclassical ballet gets short shrift here (I don't think Tomasson's productions of the classics are top drawer, or even second drawer) but it's certainly a varied and distictive rep. The modern dance scene is equally diverse.

I don't think so. At least when I was trying to train myself to see more clearly, I don't remember doing that. But I did do something similar to what you mentioned when I first started studying Danish ballet. It was all so different from what I was used to, and since I was reading about it in English, I was mostly reading people who were judging it by non-Danish standards. For about two years, I only watched Danish ballet (trips there -- I was working then -- or Danish videos, until I had developed "Danish eyes." Meaning I could look at their performances, or photos, and it looked "right" to me -- not the ONLY way to dance, but a totally acceptable way to dance. When that was set, then I could go back to looking at other things. (That was one reason I didn't write for the Post for two years.) I realize that's a rather esoteric experience.....but you asked

This just in from our news desk: Statement by Boston Ballet Board Chairman John Humphrey regarding today's announcement about Jeffrey Babcock accepting the deanship at Boston University's School for the Arts. "It was announced today that Boston Ballet General Director and CEO Jeffrey N. Babcock has been appointed dean of Boston University’s School for the Arts. On behalf of the Ballet's Board of Trustees, I congratulate Jeff on his appointment to such a prestigious institution. We are saddened to see him leave the company. He has attracted many wonderful people to the Ballet and made many important contributions over the last three years. "The Board will implement a search for Jeffrey's replacement immediately and we hope to name a new CEO by early this fall. In the meantime, Jeffrey has agreed to continue to serve the organization during the transition. Dr. Babcock and I will work together with the Board to insure continuity and stability during the search for his successor. "In a time of change, it is important to focus on the exceptionally positive news at Boston Ballet. The company’s production of Sleeping Beauty was artistically grand and attracted large audiences. In addition, subscription renewals for next year are ahead of this time last year; the renovation of our MetroWest studio in Newton is moving forward this summer; and we are fully engaged in an international search for a new Artistic Director. I am confident the Ballet, with Jeff’s help, will continue a clear, direct path in the next several months."

I've gotten a couple of emails that began this way -- most in jest, but it's a phrase we hear often. The assumption is that if I think that a particular couple has no rapport and you don't, then either: you were there a different night, or sitting close, while I was sitting far (or vice versa), or (getting a bit huffy now) had never seen the ballet before or, if you had, had certainly never seen La Sublimova in the role. The first inkling we get that there's something wrong with this logic is when the friend above DOES see La Sublimova, sitting next to you, on the same night, and both of you have had a good night's sleep, and s/he HATES La Sublimova and doggedly prefers La Nadirova who, of course, you think looks like a ... I was about to say chicken in pointe shoes; that's where I'VE been this past weekend. (The Royal's chickens were lovely.) The Royal week here was especially interesting to me because I talked to so many people either at intermissions, or otherwise, each with widely varying backgrounds -- from those who'd seen the Royal since the 1930s to those whose acquaintance was more recent -- and different perspectives on what makes a good, not to mention great, performance. For such a modest, pleasant dancer, Yoshida turned out to be a lightening rod here. Several times, I'd hear someone say, "Dullest dancer I've ever seen" to be met with an astonished -- "I can't remember when I've seen a ballerina I was so taken with. She sparkled!!!" We've seen a wide range of views on the board -- as almost always happens, we nearly all agree on the big picture and disagree wildly on the details. Someone wrote on another thread that this is what makes this board valuable, that there are so many opinions, and I agree. In the old days, there would be six, up to ten, newspapers in a city, each with a review, and often the papers had two or three reviewers, so you had the chance to read lots of different takes on dancing. I'm curious as to what people think about this issue. What makes the difference? It's often not how many performances you've seen, or even who they were; it can be where you're sitting, but usually isn't. Also, what do you think when you read ten different opinions of something you haven't seen OR something you have (and you have an 11th view)? I think sometimes people think there is only ONE way to look at something -- it's either good or it's bad; there's a right or wrong to it, and there are some rules, or some expertise, that will solve the puzzle. I think there are only different perspectives -- a performance is like a diamond, and you'll see something different depending what angle you have, and the fun is trying to decode the angles. What do you think?

Another thought on comparisons coming out of the "Fille" discussions. It's good to remember (so thank you, Samba) the necessity for being clear. Although this is nearly impossible to do in a newspaper review (I had 380 words for three casts.) It's probably not helpful to say "Yoshida's dancing wasn't as big as Ann Jenner's or Laura Connor's or Leslie Collier's" -- because "big" can mean so many different things. I liked Yoshida's neatness, but my memory saw more space between the legs when executing the steps by the ballerinas I saw in the 1970s and '80s. (I never saw Nerina and I'm not offering the subsequent generation as "definitive," just as people who danced the role in a particular way that made sense to me.)

I don't think I have any categorical "Noes" Every time I formulate one, I'll see a performance that shatters it, or at least expands it. Although this isn't a NO list, it's at least a "No until you convince me otherwise" list: 1. NO to thoughtlessness or perfunctoriness -- in staging or choreography or dancing. 2. NO to smoothing out small steps, linking steps, making everything look all alike. 3. NO to sensationalism (I'll just copy in Bournonville's choreographic credo and say YES to all of it. "Novelty soon grows tiresome but the beautiful endures.") 4. NO to faux classicism. (Ballets that look like ballets but, once you strip them of their costumes and take off the pointe shoes, they're not.) 5. NO to vagueness -- in steps, style, miming. I'm not quite sure how to phrase this for choreography, but it's a cousin of Leigh's "no ballets that should be essays." No generalized writhing around; I need to know what hell you're in, or remembering. And of course, NO to wrist flicking Leigh, when I was in a graduate dance department (where I didn't stay to finish a degree) in 1978 I took an aesthetics course, and one of the things we had to do was draft an aesthetic statement. I typed out The No Manifesto and then put "Yes to all of the above"