Helene

I think the exceptions are the two women's solos and the pas de trois, which are more relaxed. (Although I don't think grins are called for anywhere in Emeralds, just like I don't think "Come hithers" and seductive glances are appropriate in Diamonds.)

I don't know much about Mr. B's politics but didn't Suzanne Farrell say that Balanchine told her she absolutely had to vote for Hubert Humphrey in 1968? Or am I imagining things? The context was that he almost always told her to vote Republican, except that he was so put off by Richard Nixon that he told her to vote for Humphrey. It was so unusual for him that she noted it in her memoir.

Weren't they terrific?

What is your argument for your assumption that we are wearing rose-colored glasses? I don't see a case in your posts for Balanchine being considered any less important or any less of a genius. What do you think we're missing?

I did see the early performance as well; my friend's daughter was in one of the Level III groups. I agree about Kendall Britt's interpretation in the later performance. He was so vividly directing everything that was going on around him on stage. It was a very dramatic performance. I wish he was able to join PNB. Memphis is getting a terrific dancer.

Apollo, Prodigal Son, Concerto Barocco, Ballet Imperial, La Sonnambula, Palais de Cristal, Danses Concertantes, Baiser de la Fee, Theme and Variations as well as the lost Cotillon and original Mozartiana were all choreographed before he had a core of dancers that he had trained from scratch, and on dancers that he trained as he went along. It really wasn't until the 60's that he had a company that was comprised mainly from the fruits of his school. He was a master of creating training ballets to get dancers to move the way he wanted, from tendu to the huge quality of movement he expected. Apart from the Paris Opera Ballet and Royal Danish Ballet, there were few companies with the kind of schools that would have hampered him, in my opinion. In many other companies and opera houses, I think he would have been given freer reign to bring up the quality. I think that there is a good chance he could have had an independent school in Europe while choreographing for a number of companies as a free-lancer, which is really what he did in America. Russian teachers, especially from the Ballet Russe, had a lot of cachet.

Sar was on everyone's mind after the day's performance, starring as Oberon in the Scherzo from A Midsummer Night's Dream and as the Dancing Master in Konservatoriat. Diaz, sadly, didn't dance, and the annoucement was a small blip in the program.

As a political conservative, there are several countries in which he might have worked during WWII that would not have been politically correct.

There are reviews of the DVD on this thread, 4 pages and growing!

Another gem mined from Striking a Balance by Barbara Newman, this time in the words of Desmond Kelly:

Doesn't the definition of "genius" preclude the notion of "many others"? Probably, but not 'several others.' Who are these "several others" in your view?

Why would these dancers not have followed him to Paris or wherever he was post-Paris? I don't think he would have stuck with it long-term, but as former head of the Paris Opera Ballet, he would have been a formidable "player" in Europe. Again, he was adaptable, and was willing to work from scratch. When his dancers threatened a strike in the 70's, he said he'd just go to Switzerland where he had been offered the artistic directorship of a small company, leaving behind the institution and school he had built from scratch. The taste of the American audience had been created by the tours of Pavlova and the Ballet Russe earlier. American Ballet Theatre was educating the tastes of the New York audience. The first incarnation of Ballet Society was mean for a small, discerning audience thatwould put their time in the hands of Kirstein, who offered them a package of ballet, art, and film -- apparently the only thing he wasn't able to deliver was an LP -- where subscribers had no idea what they'd be seeing in advance. (Very clever marketing, to create a self-satisfied group of early adopters, with their air of exclusiveness.) According to Guest, Paris Opera Ballet languished when Diaghilev's Ballet Russe became the toast of Paris, and the company hurriedly played catch-up. What would have been more appropriate than being run by one of Diaghilev's key choreographers? Why is placing Balanchine in Europe a "measure of true place?" Would Balanchine's genius have been any less if he had only choreographed Apollo and Prodigal Son and had died of tuberculosis? Who thinks Schiele or Büchner were any less geniuses because they left a limited number of works behind after dying young, or Tudor, for having left a relatively small legacy of ballets? Recognition of dominance and influence for any talent or genius of the theatre, where other human beings and performance spaces are required, is dependent on a certain amount of luck of time, place, and resources. However, "influence" and "genius" are two different things.Another alternative is that had Balanchine stayed in Europe, he might have been hired freelance by a number of companies, and as they realized the thinness of their rep, may have clamored for Balanchine to stage his works and create new ones. There may have been a core Balanchine rep throughout Europe, without him having placed a foot in the US, and it would be US companies that would be applying to perform his work. Even with a theoretical relatively short stint as head of Paris Opera Ballet, I think this is a reasonable scenario: the étoiles that were happy with the classics would dance the classics. Balanchine would create works for the dancers that followed his way and were interested in working with him, with a lead or two whom he developed through his other work (Tallchief, Moylan) to show the way. As his works became more important and captured the public eye, they would become more dominant in the repertoire. In the classics, the traditionalist étoiles would dance the leads, while Balanchine would create his own Garland Dances and variations for his young up-and-coming dancers, and his work would be integrated into the full-lengths. Eventually, the old-guard and he would clash, and he'd take a core of "his" dancers with him to the next place. Companies went to Balanchine for his works. He did not go door-to-door to peddle them. Today they apply to the Balanchine Foundation for his works, just as they apply to the Robbins Foundation for Robbins'. Companies want more ballets than they are given permission to perform, because they aren't ready technically or artistically, or if they are, they can't support the numbers (Vienna Waltzes) or finance the strict requirements for scenery and costumes (Liebeslieder Waltzes). The Balanchine Foundation isn't actively "marketing" Balanchine. Why would Europeans care who Americans think is The Genius? It wasn't an Evil Plot of Balanchine and his "followers" that caused the Royal Ballet to trash the Ashton legacy, while NYCB did not trash Balanchine's, or at least not until Balanchine was firmly rooted across the US and the world. Why is it Balanchine's fault that American Ballet Theatre did not continue its relationship with Tudor, or that another non-Balanchine affiliated company did not make Tudor an offer he couldn't refuse? Who do you think are among the body of geniuses that Balanchine's legacy is overwhelming?

I think this is true, but only to an extent: he was able to instill his technique in Tallchief and Moylan, for example, when he worked with the Ballet Russe. He already had Tallchief from the Ballet Russe. It’s hard to say whether he would have had Farrell or Adams, if there was a viable alternative and a choreographer who was willing to take Americans into his company. Farrell’s mother was ambitious; I can’t imagine that she wouldn’t have taken her to Switzerland, if that was where the action was. Probably not LeClerq, if he were working for a state company at the time of her training, since she was not yet a star.Both Maria (1947) and Marjorie (1957-61) were étoiles with the Paris Opera Ballet, and with a ballet master sympathetic to American dancers, there might have been more, at least as long as he could have stood being there. The dancers we wouldn’t have are the ones who were developed because of the Ford Foundation grant, and who like Merrill Ashley, we allowed by their parents to become dancers, because the FF grant gave ballet credibility. But Tricolore wouldn’t have been a dud. Other Americans learned to love ballet through American Ballet Theatre and tours of The Royal Ballet, Bolshoi, and Kirov. (Not the same, I know.) But there would have been two generations of Europeans who would not have been subjected to as much faux ballet. That is true, unless he landed in Switzerland. He may also have gotten work in Latin America, at least for a few years. I don’t think Kirstein would have forgotten about him if he hadn’t come to America, and Ballet Caravan was Kirstein’s doing, originally while Balanchine was otherwise occupied. I agree. Ballet in America was not just Balanchine, although it seems that way now. Considering that Balanchine had all of these and still the miracle of Ballet Society/New York City Ballet came to fruition attests to his patience and focus; it was nearly two decades after he was in that right place at the right time that he had a ballet company of his own for ballets.If Balanchine had one characteristic, it was that he was adaptable: to the pool of dancers, the physical space, and the budget. I don’t think America saved him or made him great. He often told incoming corps members that he would now teach them to dance. Imagine what he could have done with a group of dancers with the level of training they received in Paris. He was reared in a royal institution. If he had been able to last at PB post-war to 1960, it would have been interesting to see if Nureyev would have stayed in Paris instead of going to London, which would have caused a whole different chain of events in ballet history. Balanchine choreographed Le Palais de Cristal in 1947 for the Paris Opera Ballet, and staged Apollo, Serenade, and Baiser de la Fée for the Company. I don’t think he would have had a problem finding an audience in Paris. The question is whether he could have put up with the Company for long. But I don’t think he’d have had a problem in the post-war years, and even a relative short stint would have established him as a Ballet Master in one of the world’s oldest and greatest companies. That would have created demand for his services throughout Europe, at the world's great theaters, at a time when many companies were state-subsidized.

I think the answer is yes, because there was a lot of opportunity in post-war Europe, and it is possible that he would have been able to go back to Paris Opera Ballet after Lifar had been discredited and before he was reinstated.

Were the NBoC performances during the period when she and Mejia were out of NYCB (spring 1968-1974)?

We are very glad you decided to join us, RobinV1333. Your post on Mary Day was a wonderful tribute to a great woman of ballet.

Having taken Striking a Balance off the shelf, I'm having a hard time putting it back, and with Antoinette Sibley's quote (from the book) on Ulanova still in mind, I seemed to remember that there was at least one other account of the impact of the 1956 Bolshoi visit to London. Rereading the chapter on Christopher Gable, I found another reference: I think this ties directly into the recent discussion on technique.

And Adrienne Diaz, another graduating member of the Professional Division, was also asked to join the Company, according to the School Performance program.

The Kirov and Bolshoi opera and ballet will perform in London this summer. In today's Links there's an article in the London Times which quotes Gergiev as saying "'I am not at war, not with the Bolshoi or the Hochhausers.'" I hadn't been following the developments, and while I had heard of the Hochhausers as the Hurok(s) of London, I didn't know the details of this particular reference. I did an MSN search, and found an article by Norman Lebrecht from March. It appears from this and several other articles I've read, including the one in Links, that it was the opera that was in question, not the ballet. I agree with Lebrecht's assessment particularly since the Company is not performing the politically dictated version of Lady MacBeth of Minsk (Katerina Izmailova) side-by-side with the original. I find it ironic that the Soviet version loathed by the composer is being presented in a seemingly last-minute anniversary "tribute" to him.

You can also go to the top of the thread and click "Forum Options," then "Subscribe to this forum." You'll then be given notification frequency options, (default is "Immediate" notification), and then click the button at the bottom of the page to subscribe.

Peter Boal said in a post-performance Q&A that promotions would be announced at the beginning of the new season, which begins 16 September.

amazon.co.uk has the book listed as: # Hardcover: 288 pages # Publisher: Faber and Faber (20 April 2006) # Language English # ISBN: 0571227953 which matches the amazon.com specs. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0571227...ateway&v=glance

From today's Links and an interview by Toni Tobias with Julie Kent reprinted in ArtsJournal: