cargill

A friend of mine was at the first performance, and swears that one of the male dancer's pants began to split at the crotch, and that, after a quick exit, he returned with a large safety pin holding the seam together.

I just keep the innards and put each season in a big brown envelop (that I steal from work), and file the envelopes alphabetically and then chronologically. However, if I see a lot one season, the programs are all mixed up, and to find something I have to sort through them all. Plus, there is no way to tell what was danced which season. I cannot tell when I last saw Raymonda, or who danced it, which I would like to know. So all in all, its not a great system, but it doesn't take up a lot of space.

I love Liebeslieder, but I really don't think it will survive, the nuances are just too difficult, even now to get a really good performance of, and once those legs start shooting up all the time, the graciousness of those costumes and the differences between the lst and 2nd halves will be lost. But I will include it anyway. 1. Liebeslieder 2. 4T's 3. Concerto Barocco 4. Serenade 5. Western Symphony (because I think it is practically dancer-proof.) 6. Divertimento no. 15 7. Emeralds 8. Theme and Variations 9. Ballet Imperial (with proper costumes and the mime restored!) 10. Syliva pas de deux, because there should be a pas de deux and the music is so goregous.

I found the Dance Ink articke, from Vol 2, no. 1, April 1991, in case anyone wants to check. Its called You Say "Potahto", and is fun to read. She does argue for SereNADE, on the basis that it is an American ballet, and the music is not SereNOD for Strings. So do we want to talk about pronouncing Agon? Mary

Well I am Rakmaninhoff (I can't even spell it!), which is hard to believe, because he snubbed Balanchine, and Balanchine didn't use his music. Obviously I should drink more vodka.

Well I am Rakmaninhoff (I can't even spell it!), which is hard to believe, because he snubbed Balanchine, and Balanchine didn't use his music. Obviously I should drink more vodka.

Joan Acocella once wrote an article on how to pronounce it, and the jist of it was that logically is should be sereNADE, as in the English word, and that sereNOD was affected and pseudo-French. I have always said NADE after I read the article (I don't remember where it was, or if I still have it--I will check), but however you pronounce it, it is a beautiful ballet. I was just rereading Danilova's autobiography (which isn't indexed, boo hiss) and she has a paragraph on what she thinks Serenade is about, which was really lovely.

I agree with everything, but just wanted to add that when I started writing, I tried to keep in mind the kind of reviews I like to read and tried to think about what I liked about them. The main thing I felt about reviewers I liked was that they explained and tried to justify their opinions. Even if I didn't agree with them, I could learn a lot. Reveiws are journalism, too, so they have to be interesting and well written. Style is important, but style without content is just embarassing. The best advise I can think of it to read a lot of critics and think about what you like and don't like about their writing.

Manhattnik, great point. I hadn't thought of that, but you are right. Though I don't suppose that theme was really intentional in the programming.

It was Goriacheva that substituted at short notice for Lunkina in the first movement, and she was stunning, I thought. I think the first movement really has to be danced by a real ballerina--it was Maria Tallchief after all who did it here. It should absolutely sparkle. The only time recently I have seen it (I didn't see the recent ones) really do that at NYCB was a few years ago when Somogyi danced it. I know she worked briefly with Tallchief for the Balanchine Foundation tapings, and that might have had something to do with it. AS for Dances at a Gathering, Robbins wrote a short letter to Ballet Review saying in no uncertain terms that it was just about those dancers dancing in that space, and no one ever paid any attention to him. Though in some ways, it does seem to be about the dancers doing it, because it changes so when the casts change. I did an interview with Peter Boal (which I hope will appear sometime this spring), and he talked about Robbins coaching him as the boy in brown. Boal said Robbins explained the opening by saying that the brown boy was an older man returning to a place he remembered. I can't quite remember exactly how he put it, but it was definitely about a feeling.

I thought the January 8th night was full of imitations--Wheeldon imitating Balanchine, Balanchine imitating Petipa, and Kowrowski imitating Farrell. But since the people being imitated are great, it was a fun evening by and large, though I agree that Jenifier Ringer didn't smoulder enough. And the rinestone tiara really looks out of place.

Somogyi danced Hypollita during last year's run of Midsummer Night's Dream, and she was staggering, her turns were alternately signals and doubles, and stop on a dime, while she was holding a bow and wearing a cape. She almost stopped the show. But for me, the real revelation was her second act, where Hypollita usually disappears. She was so noble and so gracious, but without effort that it was impossible not to watch her. But I kept thinking she should have been doing the pas de deux. A few years ago, she danced one first movement in Symphony in C, and again, I thought it was amazing, truly regal. I wish she would do more tutu roles--she really does have the Kyra Nichols aura.

I do agree with dirac when she said Tobi Tobias was talking about a trend, and using the US examples that she knew as illustrations. And I think promising dancer is sometimes confused with real ballerina. She is saying, I think, that companies, especially NYCB, are full of talented dancers, who are not necessarily being fully developed, and I must say I did agree with her examples. Not to get personal, but Weese is a beautifully endowed dancer with a wonderful technique, but for me, at least, she seems to be holding something back in the more classical (tutu)roles, not really making them her own. And Korowski is a wonderful commedienne, but to me she doesn't communicate more than physical attributes in works like Serenade. Yes, she has an astonishing arabesque, but, as I wrote about another of her performances, it doesn't seem connected to her heart. And if, as Danilova said, the main characteristic of a real ballerina is modesty, Ansanelli is far from approaching ballerina status, since she often (though not in the works Wheeldon made for her) seems to be more interested in making the audience notice her than in what is going on around her. Ashley Bouder is another phenomenal talent, but at this stage is nowhere near a real ballerina in the traditional sence. There is a really disturbing pattern at NYCB of the disappearing principal--it seems people are promoted and often never used. Dancers have to grow in a role, dancing it over and over. When I was interviewing Maria Tallchief, she said she thought Somogyi was one of the most talented dancers ever to join NYCB, but so far, she seems to just the thrown on at the last minute. The Stars and Stripes at the gala last November got almost no rehearsal time, and that is no way to develop real potential. I think Tobi was saying that the disappearing ballerina is mainly the fault of company directors. Again, we have no idea of all the issues facing them--financial, etc., but can only judge by results, and though NYCB, ABT, and others have wonderful dancers, I too think ballerinas are thin on the ground.

Alexandra, not to get off the track, but it was my understanding that quite a lot of people did feel that Fonteyn was no Markova, (including Ashton at the beginning) and thought Markova's leaving was the worst thing that happened to de Valois. But to get on track, I do agree with much of what Mr. Crisp said, especially about bland critical writing. As for the break in tradition, I was really struck by the report in ballet.co that in an interview, Cojocaru reported learning Symphonic Variations very quickly, from a tape of Cynthia Harvey, and from reading notes while riding the subway (or rather the underground!) It was so stunning to think that at the Royal Ballet someone was dancing that major, difficult and subtle role not having grown up watching it, and seeming not to understand that it is more than just a certain type of epaulment. I would have thought that reading about WWII would be more revealing than just watching a video, or that talking to Harvey, who after all did learn it from Ashton, might have been arranged.

One thing that struck me most about the new/old Kirov version was its moral seriousness; it could be seen as an extensive meditation on the difference between justice and mercy, with of course, mercy winning out. There is sometimes a little of this in Western versions, but even the old Royal Ballet Sergeyev version cut a lot of the King's mime scene, it seems to me. So I think fundamentally, it has changed from the original, maybe not so much choreographically or structurally as the others (poor Swan Lake!) but I think there is a big difference in approach between the King as an important figure torn between two ideals, and Sleeping Beauty as an excuse for lots of very beautiful dancing.

I have somewhat confused ideas on this, having argued both sides with people! There has always been some sort of government sponsorship of the arts, it seems to me. It is just that so much of the government in previous days was centered on an individual, and his taste ruled. (Yes, or her!) And that government certainly engaged in censorship of some kind--Shakespeare could not have written a pro-Richard III play. The idea that great art cannot survive any sort of restraint is just not true--Verdi was constantly being censured, and managed to produce great works. The idea that government is obligated to support so called cutting edge works seems in some way say that art has little power--if you argue that the figure you are opposing can support you without fear, then your opposition is weak and ineffective. Governments nowadays are usually run by bureaucracies, so the idea of individual taste, which helped support so much of our great art, is not there, and art to get grants has to conform to some generalized measurable standard--like so many minorities, so much outreach, etc. Europe has subsidised art to a much greater extent than the US in the 20th century, but it is hardly a Renaissance over there. I do think government has an obligation to save great works of the past, and I have no problem with the fact that most of them were produced by men! And I do think governments can support the arts in more effective ways that just handing out selected grants. Performing arts need cities, it seems to me, and cheap seats for lots of people. The rush to the suburbs, encouraged by the US government, means the audience is much more scattered and isolated, which makes it harder for the performing arts to experiment and fail. I also think if there is official support for the arts, the community has to have some general agreement as to the purpose of the arts. It is only fairly recently that the idea became accepted that art should challenge, upset, push the envelope, etc. The old idea of ennobling, comforting, exalting people seems a bit mawkish, but if people don't believe that old idea, they have to make coherent arguments against it.

I only saw Verdy dance once, in Tschaikovsky pas de Deux as a guest for London Festival BAllet and it is somehting I have never forgotten. It was so musical, so lilting, and so joyful. I have never been able to forget it during a performance, so am always disappointed when I see it again! There was a brief film clip of her at Lynn Garafola's exhibit on the NYCB at the New York Historical Society dancing the pas de trois from Agon and her arms were so lovely, she ended with an elegant little trill through her whole body, which I have never seen anyone else do. I think the homage to Verdy evening is a wonderful idea, and she should coach it!

Well, as Arlene Croce once wrote, (I think it was her anyway), if you don't like the Shades scene, you don't really like ballet. It seemed sort of like a puff piece on a deadline than an honest investigation of what it is in ballet that appeals to people. I think I understand what he means by its artificiality and unnaturalness, but that applies to a number of art forms, and not just Western art forms, either. All in all, a trivial article.

I saw the full Wendy Wasserstein version in New York (at least I think it hadn't been modified yet), and nobody has any right to complain about confusing who hasn't seen that one! Believe me. It had something to do with illusion and reality, and dreams and dolls. There was originally a Dew Drop, too, who wore a little beaded flapper cap. But what I remember most is that there were no children, just dancers dressed as children behaving badly, so that these poor male corps members had to run around acting like naughty children. It looked like a very very bad Jerry Lewis movie with Lewis playing all the parts.

I thought the Hungarians were wandering Gypsies, who roam from ballet to ballet stomping and twirling their hair. I once suggested a Soceity for the Prevention of Gypsies in Ballet, which I think is badly needed, especially in ABT's Don Quixote. Does anyone remember ABT's The Red Shoes--I think that had the most absurd gypsy dance I ever saw.

Another things I find vulgar is the current habit of cranking out many more supported pirouettes than can be done easily. It always makes me think of a rusty can opener.

Another things I find vulgar is the current habit of cranking out many more supported pirouettes than can be done easily. It always makes me think of a rusty can opener.

I certainly agree with all the names mentioned (except modesty and Guillem aren't words I would use in the same sentence!--not that Drew did), but my nomination is Kyra Nichols. She seems so focused on the choreography and the music that she seems completely unaware of the audience. For me, at least, she dances so fully and generously, but without any sort of flash. Jennie Somogyi has the same sort of inner glow as well.

The first time I encountered curtain calls during a variation was the Russians, after the fouettes in Swan Lake and Don Q; so far it hasn't crept into American performances. Not only is it tacky for the ballerina to stop mid-variation and act like the audience is a cow to be milked dry, it really cuts into the overall excitement of the pas de deux. The man has to start his turns cold, and the audience has no chance to watch the coda build. By the actual end, they really applaud less. But I think it has been bred into them--I remember when Ananiashvilli and Liepa were briefly guesting at NYCB and did one of the flashy pas de deux at an NYCB gala, she stopped the music for applause. Other than that, wrist flicks, Albrecht rising from his death bed, and Zakarova doing Aurora are my definitions of vulgar.

The first time I encountered curtain calls during a variation was the Russians, after the fouettes in Swan Lake and Don Q; so far it hasn't crept into American performances. Not only is it tacky for the ballerina to stop mid-variation and act like the audience is a cow to be milked dry, it really cuts into the overall excitement of the pas de deux. The man has to start his turns cold, and the audience has no chance to watch the coda build. By the actual end, they really applaud less. But I think it has been bred into them--I remember when Ananiashvilli and Liepa were briefly guesting at NYCB and did one of the flashy pas de deux at an NYCB gala, she stopped the music for applause. Other than that, wrist flicks, Albrecht rising from his death bed, and Zakarova doing Aurora are my definitions of vulgar.