Alexandra

Great site! The photos are gorgeous (as is the design!) and having the calendar is a terrific idea. Thanks for letting us know about this, Marc.

Chiapuris, your points about inadequate use of the full company and underchoreographed roles for etoiles are the two chief reasons why I find the use of contemporary choreographers by ballet companies ill-advised. In today's economy and efficient-at-any-cost cliimate of inspiration, it's even more dangerous than it was 40 years ago when the practice started. Someone's going to attend one of those nights, and then a Sleeping Beauty night, and say, "Why are we paying for this when these clever fellows can put on a whole evening with only 24 dancers?" Half-used pointe shoes last longer, too, and soft slippers, of course, longer still.

Thank you for this, Chaipuris. I always enjoy reading about what you've seen on your travels! I've only seen the POB Nureyev Sleeping Beauty on video (it was televised), and I agree that it's "more is more" -- I think deliberately so, that it's deliberately Baroque. It makes the case that "Sleeping Beauty" is the last great court ballet. Which is why the omission of the Apotheosis is so odd -- I agree. It would be so wonderful to see Louis XIV/Apollo descend on that stage! I have a very vague memory of reading in an interview that Nureyev felt the Apotheosis demanded a fountain, and that few stages in the world could provide one. I have a vaguer memory that that's why he staged it in Milan -- because there was a fountain. But I've never read any detailed accounts of the La Scala production.

What are the things you'll want to forget from 2004? The Worst List.

So, what good ballet memories will you take away from 2004?

Thanks for the news, Effy -- when is the gala?

Good thinking, Sandi! If I were a betting woman -- and perhaps we could have our Very First Ballet Alert! Online Gambling Whatsit -- I'd put my money on October.

Wow! Thank you, Sharon! Please come this way more often!! And if you happen to see other casts, don't be shy about telling us. You gave us a real sense of the production.

Hi, Sharon! Welcome to Ballet Alert! and thank you for posting, and posting the links to reviews. We'd love to know what you thought of the dancing and just something about the overall production -- it's a traditional one, I gather. You don't need to do a blow by blow description; that would take tiime! But you could tell us what you especially liked about it. Here are links to two more reviews, by Paul Parish and Ann Murphy on DanceView Times: DanceView Times

Me too! Calling all San Franciscan Ballet Alertniks.......

Thanks, rg -- it happens! Coda, we're very sorry this happened, and if you can remember what you posted and could post it again, please do.

Thalictum, what I posted is in several books and articles written in the '70s and '80s. I'm sure you've read the same material. One example that I remember was "Laurencia." One specific example is that Dudinskaya chose Nureyev for a partner even though he was much younger so that she could dance Laurencia again. But sorry. I didn't post that to start an argument or to deflect the discussion, but to give an example of how people who were conversant with the company at the time wrote about how dancers were groomed, as part of asking a general question of how any company with a repertory needs to train dancers and plan that repertory.

I had always read (mostly in books or articles about Nureyev) that there was a definite tracking system, that they identified potential stars early and treated them as such. I don't know what the inner workings are at all, but for a big institutional repertory company, it would seem that they'd have to plan. If one of your mainstays, say, is "Don Q," and you don't see a Kitri or a Basil, you'd have to try to develop or import one, I would think. (Although one of the points made in the Nureyev material is that there had been no one to do Chabukiani's roles, as much a matter of temperament as technique, and several ballets that had been out of repertory for some years were revived when Nureyev was old enough to dance them.)

Gorgeous! Thank you, RG. Okay. I'll bite. Why Koloman?

"Abdallah" is a modern staging. It was first done for Vienna and never danced in Copenhagen until the Toni Lander-Bruce Marks (with Sorella Englund and Flemming Ryberg) production. It's really a reconstruction, not a revival. According to the RDB website, "La Ventana" will be back in repertory May 21. This ballet hasn't been danced since the 1980s. I've opined about the RDB's productions enough, I think It's someone else's turn. I will say I admire, with one reservation (a small change in Gurn's mime in Act I), Nikolaj Hubbe's 2002 staging of "La Sylphide" immensely. The current productions of "Napoli" and "A Folk Tale" were danced at the 2000 "Bournonville Week", along with a disastrous new production of "Kermesse en Bruges." That latter will have a new staging this time, by Lloyd Riggins, and I await it with interest. My review of the Bournonville Week for Dance Magazine is here and Mary Cargill's, for DanceView, is here for those who might be curious.

Thank you, Mikhail, for posting this! (And do come around more often!!) And now a word from our sponsor Gossip rules reminder! We can't be sure that these nominations are the result of intense lobbying. I think we need to invoke the "gossip caution" on this forum. I know there are several regular posters who have inside knowledge, but often "inside knowledge" turns out to be...."backstage gossip" and not true. Thank you!

It's great to have so many opinions -- thanks to all for posting. I also wanted to slip in a quick welcome to Tammy. Thank you for delurking! I hope we'll hear more from you. This production has given us two new voices (so far); what a lovely Christmas present!

All I can say is that in the Ashton, I think it's in the choreography, the actual steps. The surface of it looks like a Romantic ballet; that's deliberate, he set it in the time of the music. But with Ashton (with any great choreographer, I think) one has to go below the surface. (That doesn't mean you have to love it; it's not a matter of preference.) What you're saying you see in the Balanchine (and I agree) is exactly what I"m saying I see in the Ashton. It's just done differently.

I don't think the point of it iis to show connubial bliss, though. Watch it again It's a very carefully choreographed conversation, the quarrel distilled into choreography; it's the contest of wills. He's insisting on being dominant, she resists, but eventually submits. And, as Mel quotes above (thank you!) the fairies' quarrel must be solved, or there will never be peace among mortals. So I'd say that's the point of Shakespeare's play, not an aberration. I'd also say, from what one reads about the way Ashton worked, he would made sure he understood that play to a depth that few others would reach. I know from the stories of "Romeo and Juliet" he had an image from the poetry for nearly every enchainement in that ballet.

Welcome to Ballet Alert!, MKB -- what a great first post! (And thank you for delurking. I hope we'll be reading you often!) I saw the production opening night, too, and, like MKB, was pleasantly surprised. I especially liked the first act (and the little boy who played Fritz was wonderful!), and the battle scene is a real battle scene -- the toy soldiers march in formation, and did it so well that they received a spontaneous, mid-march burst of applause! I also liked Erin Mahoney's Dewdrop a lot. I saw Mike's comments above (thank you, Mike!) Did anyone else go?

I thought of doing the same thing, Zerbinetta, although storing them on my hard drive rather than on CDs. That way, it would be easy to search. I saved my programs the first three years. I also had scrapbooks with every article I could find. Then I went to so many performances there were far more programs than there was time to even throw the programs into a shopping bag. Oh, how I envy those who kept performance diaries!

In my experience, proofs are the last chance to correct small errors. The writer has to pay for changes (unless they're printer's errors) -- a specific fee for each change -- and any change must fit on the page. This matches the experience of two friends of mine, one also with a university press and another with a major commercial press. In my case, there were quite a few small errors (and some never got corrected!) that may have resulted from misreading of my handwriting on the copyedited copy. There were a few very odd errors -- dates that had been changed to be incorrect -- thqt I changed back. I did make several substantive changes. I had forgotten to put in two things that could be squeezed into a sentence or two; I took out a paragraph on a page wherre that could fit. There were also two sentences that I decided weren't clear, and I changed them, and there were two things that I had learned since finishing the book that had to be squeezed in. But proofs aren't the place to rewrite. One of the proofs to my book turned up on ebay once (a friend the link to me, thinking I'd want to buy it; I didn't!) with a blurb suggesting that proofs often had the real scoop, things that had to be changed because of legal advice, etc. I doubt that would be true for most proofs; it certainly wasn't with mine (any questions of that nature were worked out during editing). The quick version for American publishers is that the author submits a manuscript. In a university press, that manuscript is sent to several "readers" who are experts in the field for comment, and to make sure that the materiall is solid and meets the standards of the press. Then the writer prepares a final manuscript, which goes to a copy editor. Then the writer gets to undo the damage done by the copy editor (mine changed every Danish word to German, for example) or make any changes; you are not encouraged to rewrite, but an editor might say, "this sentence really isn't clear." This final manuscript gets corrected and that's the proof. The proof gets corrected and proofread. Once, long ago, it would be proofread many times, but no longer, which is how a typo, or punctuation error often makes it to the printed page. As Farrell Fan said, this is sthe copy that gets sent out to reviewers so they can skim it and decide whether or not they want (or can) review it. They're honor bound NOT to review the proof, because it may contain errors. It's also sent out to critics, or other people who might be seen as experts on the subject matter, for "back of the book" blurbs, mini advance reviews. Helene, I hope you'll check a few places and see if there were changes, and tell us!

The "cultural patrimony" argument is a bit hard to take, since Soviet-era productions of Swan Lake excised every step choreographed by That Frenchman, leaving the acts credited to Our Russian Ivanov intact.

In the goodolddays principals often had exclusive rights to roles. Margrethe Schanne owned "La Sylphide" for 20 years (in Copenhagen), for example. It made a bit more sense during a time when dancers were cast in roles that they were suited to, instead of dancing every single principal role. If Schanne owned "La Sylphide," then somebody else owned "Napoli," someone else "Romeo and Julielt," etc. (Not saying I'd like to go back to this custom, but just that it wasn't unusual.) Often, too, the first cast in a ballet stays in the ballet as long as it continues to be a hit, and people go to the ballet expecting to see that cast. 20 years from now, someone might write a book about how that mean, pushy Baryshnikov owned "Push Comes to Shove" and no one else was allowed to dance it, but it wasn't exactly like that.

Thanks, Jorgen -- I hope you get to see some of these, and will report. It's good to see Silja Schandorff is back. It was my understanding that she had been injured.