Helene

Thank you so much for those links, aqualia2008!

On the contrary, it's like Harvard offering a tenure-track Assistant Professorship to a particularly brilliant and gifted newly-minted Harvard PhD, because full professorships are granted either to those who've gone through the tenure track or who are leaders in their field, which newly minted PhD's, however brilliant, are not. Another university might offer that PhD an Associate Professorship (with tenure), a well-funded lab or his or her own, a less competitive and political career path, and/or a more congenial work environment to snag him or her from Harvard, even if s/he's never wanted to be anywhere but Harvard, has been educated there for a decade, has deep roots in the area and to the institution, and has mentors who are watching his or her back, but sees that only one in 12 of the department's Assistant professors ever get tenure and that the powerful department head marginalizes the PhD's subject matter or methodology. Any Vaganova graduate has had years to see what Fateev prizes and what his or her career trajectory and working conditions are likely to be, and that future, with rare exception, has been grim for Vaganova graduates at the Mariinsky under Fateev, which, to me, is the main point behind Zozulina's article as well as detailed documentation in this thread. I don't see any previous reference to Zhiganshina's weight, and after seeing her in her very recent graduation video, if Fateev is concerned about it, it's another reason for her to run far away as fast as she can.

And yet, no one has answered why Fateev would cast Zhiganshina so prominently in the Company if he wanted to insult her, or how a company can offer dancer corps contracts, but not attempt to hire them, since Zozulina made no mention of any provisional terms for the dancers from several years ago.

Thanks, Ismene Brown

yudi, thank you so much for the beautiful photos and your thoughts on the performances. Thank you, too, Caesariatus. You probably haven't this post up thread, because Katenka joined Ballet Alert! after I did my morning check for new registrants, and I just made it visible:

This is a discussion board. Members are here to voice their opinions, however popular or unpopular. Whether they piss anyone off or delight them is generally of no concern, as long as the site rules are followed. There are no sacred cows here, and even the most knowledgeable scholar with the most degrees who's been published for 50 years can be criticized, period. Alastair Macaulay can be criticized, Arlene Croce can be criticized, John Percival can be criticized, Edwin Denby can be criticized, Zozulina can be criticized. Disagreeing with a specific point or an article does not mean that the source is being dismissed wholesale: it means that the poster disagrees with a specific point or article. I asked how Zozulina could at once say that dancers were offered corps contracts, but on the other hand management didn't try to hire them. No one has come forward to say that this is rhetorical or her Russian readers would understand that she's paraphrasing a Soviet general or administrator or referring to a famous case. Neither Zozulina nor anyone else has addressed why Fateev would cast a student so prominently with the company, but then offer her an insulting contract. No one's come forward to say that she won a prize that included performances with the Mariinsky, for example, and that it wasn't Fateev's choice. Of course we understand that things are different in Russia: if only a noted scholar in the West could complain about a dancer's rank, and the company would respond with a promotion.

It seems the theater heads have persuaded Medinsky to reconsider the proposal to make the supplementary grant money (see above) project-based and let the theaters use the money to supplement salaries. Ismene Brown summarizes with commentary, and then provides translations: http://www.ismeneb.com/Blog/Entries/2014/7/31_Theatres_fight_back_over_salary_grants.html Urin speaks about salaries, as does Filin in this blog entry by Brown from the beginning of July: http://www.ismeneb.com/Blog/Entries/2014/5/12_Filin_speaks_of_life_before_and_after.html

Here's the link to the ABT roster, which is in such an annoying format: http://www.abt.org/dancers/default.asp It's so nice to see Isabella Boylston's photo on the first (Principals) page. I'm surprised to see Bolle still listed, though, considering how little he dances in NY.

For those of us who won't wait that long, amazon.uk will ship to the US, amazon.com has third-party sellers (currently UK, France,and Florida) with offers, and, for those who prefer e-books, amazon.com is selling on Kindle, while taking pre-orders for physical book. Curry's company performances at the Met in the '80's were among the greatest performances of anything I've ever seen. I've gone the Kindle route and have started to read the book.

It's not a matter of debasing arguments: I don't understand how a company could offer corps contracts to top Vaganova graduates and simultaneously not attempt to hire them. This sounds like a contradiction to me, unless one is living in Orwell's "1984." I am trying to understand if Zhiganshina was offered what all Vaganova graduates were offered, if she was offered what all or almost all top graduates were offered, or if she was unique in being offered probationary terms. I am trying to understand why anyone, based on precedent and history, would expect different treatment for her, since it's presented as fact that she should be given preferential treatment and scandalous when she was not. It also seems like a contradiction that Fateev is so bent on ignoring her that he gave her principal roles as a student for which dancers wait years. What explains her prominence? Did she win some special prize that forced him to give her the opportunity, or did he choose to cast her that way? If he chose to cast her that way, why, if he was planning to "humiliate" her once she graduated? If he wasn't interested in her, why not simply ignore her, as far as the main company is concerned? As far as creating a new Academy to Fattev's standards, they don't have to, as it's been documented here that he's recruiting dancers that were trained in other schools and casting them prominently, while great Vaganova-trained talent withers on the vine. I have no idea what Tsiskaridze will produce if he makes changes to the faculty and/or curriculum, or if he'll even last long enough in the position to impact the Academy much. (I expect that he will be offered the AD position at either of the two main theaters soon.) The claims of exceptionalism for the Mariinsky, the Mariinsky and the Bolshoi, and all Russian companies have been made many times, but the attitudes of the students at School of American Ballet are no different than those of the Vaganova graduates: almost all of them are there to dance a specific style and repertory for their affiliated companies, which are, by far, the most prestigious in the company style. Throughout their training, they've all be exposed to what the Artistic Director likes, whom he promotes, what he needs for the company at any given time, company politics, etc.,and it usually doesn't dissuade them from wanting to dance for the home company. They choose to go because it is their dream since they were a child and considered the Promised Land for their style, even if it's a bad fit or even if another company would be a better fit, offering more opportunities, a schedule less prone to injury, more opportunity to tour, etc. At SAB, all of the graduates taken into NYCB, no matter how prominent, are offered apprenticeships first and have to make it up the ranks to Principal. (Some of them, like Kathryn Morgan, danced principal roles as apprentices.) Before NYCB understood that it was cheaper and a good tryout period and created the apprentice level, all SAB graduates started as corps members, even if like Patricia McBride or Darci Kistler, they were promoted to Soloist and Principal very quickly. If it comes to the point where top students leave because other companies make better offers than Peter Martins, perhaps he will compete contract-wise, like the Bolshoi did with Zhiganshina. From an institutional standpoint, it might be better to let one go than set a precedent. It's not as if Fateev has never hired a Vaganova-trained dancer back at a higher rank, or, like Esina, in a better situation as a guest. Think of what it says about the Mariinsky that with all of the strife at the Bolshoi -- all of the allegations of favoritism, of unequal compensation, of selective permission to dance elsewhere to supplement a paltry salary, where five corps members are forced to share apartments -- the top Vaganova graduate chose to go there because despite getting undreamed-of opportunities as a student, she took a basic contract offer as something a noted critic and scholar described as an insult.

I am listening to the Balancing Pointe podcast with Ellen Bar, Part 1, and at about the 18-minute mark on the iTunes download, Bar talks about knowing Jordan Pacitti from the SAB dorms and about his interest in fragrance back then: http://balancing-pointe.com/67-ellen-bar-nycb-director-media-projects-former-nycb-soloist/

There are a lot of roles in the Tarantella from "Napoli," so we're sure to find out how they do. The last time I saw Ballet Arizona dance Bournonville was in 2007, at the Orpheum Theatre, where "Flower Festival from Genzano" and "Konservatoriat" shared a mixed bill with "Rubies," and "The Golden Section." Several of the dancers who were standouts in those performances, especially Ginger Smith, Vitaly Breusenko, and Joseph Cavanaugh, are no longer with the company. Actually, looking at the corps list for Konservatoriat makes me sad: so many dancers have retired or gone one to dance elsewhere, Beau Campbell among them. Only Kanako Imayoshi and Tzu-Chia Huang, who danced in the corps when they weren't dancing Victorine, Kendra Mitchell-Dahl, and Ilir Shtylla, still with the company. Michelle Vagi (then Mahowald) and Tzu-Chia Huang are such different dancers now, and I hope there's a way I can get to Phoenix to see the program and that they are cast. Natalia Magnicaballi didn't have the style, but she's such an individual dancer, that it's like watching Farrell, who brought Farrell to whatever style the ballet is in. The two who "got" Bournonville in those performances over seven years ago and are still with the company are Astrit Zejnati and Imayoshi. At the handful of programs I saw at the Orpheum Theatre, since there's no pit, the only time I heard live music there was when the wonderful Russian pianist, Alexander Izbitser, played Shostakovich for Ib Andersen's "Preludes and Fugues." "Napoli" comes with the magic words: "with the Phoenix Symphony at Symphony Hall."

My questions still stand: were those terms different than any other Vaganova Academy graduate? If different than in years past, did the change apply as of a specific year? Academy graduates who have been hired into the corps have been cast in soloist roles, whether or not they are slated to rise up the ranks. She graduated in June and signed with the Bolshoi Ballet. When does she start with the Bolshoi?

There are more Americans studying in Russia that you'd think, because you've never heard of them, or you don't actively "Friend" them. A dancer, no matter how immersed in social media and self-promotion, doesn't earn a Red Diploma with her thumbs.

On its Facebook Page, PNB just published a photo of Maria Chapman (Kennedy) and her new daughter, Eleanor Cavendish Kennedy, born in July: https://www.facebook.com/PNBallet/photos/np.246465218.688777437/10152373509783952 Congratulations to the Kennedy family Edited to add: I've just been given a heads up that you have to be logged into Facebook to see the photo. You don't have to "Like" the PNB page to see it, though.

We're all waiting with bated breath.

In figure skating, there are moves, like the Biellmann and Natasha spins, that were performed by skaters years before they were revived and named for famous practitioners. Depending on the ballet, there can be a wide range of notations, descriptions, score notations,and ballet master notes and notebooks that tell, or purport to tell, what Petipa choreographed. (The latter two used heavily and with great effect in PNB's "Giselle." ) There's a lot we know through the treasures of the notations and their expert interpreters, as well as descriptions from the time and other source materials. The question is whether there were any early source materials for this jump in particular.

I've experienced it on another forum, and I can't say the experience was a good one.

Yes. I was surprised to see "Carmina Burana" paired with two other works in the first place, because while there's no intermission, it's very long and usually preceeded by one, which is now the plan.

I love his stuff. I'm glad I hoarded his candles, now that he's focused on skin care It's got to be a lot easier to sell from a store rather than having to ship everything individually, plus there's the walk-in business.

Merrill Ashley referred to it that way in her book. Balanchine wanted something big and unexpected in "Ballo della Regina" and she remembered this jump Plisetskaya did.

I am not arguing that the origins of ballet did not stem from court patronage. The evolution of ballet in the 19th and 20th centuries did not require always require court patronage. By 1669 the Paris Opera was privatized, eight years after Louis XIV established and patronized the Academy. La Scala was built to replace the Royal Ducal Theater, which burned down, and was paid for by the box owners at the old theater, even if Empress Maria Theresa was the patron founder. And the Royal Ballet existed as Sadler's Wells, a private company, for the first 25 years of its existence until it was granted the name "Royal Ballet" by Royal Charter. Queen Elizabeth is the company's patron, but not remotely in the sense that the Medicis or Catherine the Great were patrons. New, complex art forms like jazz and hip hop (which you deride) have evolved without any type of royal patronage. No one is arguing that classical arts are not less popular now than they were in the past. The past, as far as the height of popularity of ballet (and other dance) in North America was the '70's, which was well into the latter half of the 20th century. You are arguing "household names" as a criteria for the first time in your last post. It's rather difficult to follow an ever-moving argument.

Petipa ordered his music by the yard. Stravinsky wanted to know exactly how many seconds the pas de deux in "Orpheus" should last. There is plenty that is formulaic about the best classical ballet, the best opera -- da capo, anyone? -- sonnets, mythical and religious themes in painting, etc. There are conventions in all types of artistic forms, including masterworks. And most of the dancers on SYTYCD who attempt hip hop look are better-trained versions of you trying to do entrechat six like Roberto Bolle, and are about as believable and authentic. There's a reason why SYTYCD rarely has anyone but tap dancers assigned tap -- like it's counterpart jazz music, another great, complex art that didn't spring from the well of the Renaissance courts -- and anyone but animators assigned to animation. Tap dancers and animators spend years perfecting their forms of dance. Is Mondrian revolutionary or evolutionary, even if you don't respect the skill or vision involved? I must have misunderstood your earlier argument: I thought you were saying that we were missing the great patronage that would cause a revolution in the arts, not that we were talking about evolutionary works -- here described as "derivative" -- in the classical arts. I'll happily address mid-to-late 20th century and beyond "derivative" works. Stravinsky (d. 1971), Shostakovich (d. 1975), Barber (d. 1981), Ives (d. 1954), Carter (d. 2012), Glass, and Adams, to name just a few, wrote masterworks late in life or continue to do so today and are widely performed. Ashton (d. 1988), Tudor (d.1987), Balanchine (d. 1983), Robbins (d. 1998), Forsythe (when he was still choreographing ballet and stretching it to the limit), Wheeldon, Ratmansky all choreographed masterworks and the latter two are still creating them, and all but the first two are widely performed. These are just the obvious suspects. The "refined" arts had continuity partly because of three phenomena: the academy and subsequent professionalization of ballet, which is why it didn't die out as court performance, churches, which kept "refined" music going without dependence on private orchestras, and the primarily 19th century practice of public concerts, where "refined" music moved from castles and estates, where Beethoven and Mozart were popular composers and soloists, and if their stuff, or Verdi's or Puccini's, weren't popular, they didn't get to present many of their works. Organ grinders churned out Verdi melodies in the street, and people rushed to the shows if they pleased. The Paris Opera Ballet churned out new work and saved almost nothing. Had Lucien Petipa not brought "Giselle" to his brother in St. Petersburg, it would have been lost, because the French weren't even thinking that there was a "refined" legacy to save. Now we're simply in the realm of taste if you dismiss everything painted or composed after the mid-20th century. There's closer to critical consensus about early-to-mid 20th century works, because there's distance to their staying power, and no time to reconsider, as, for example, Mozart fell off the map until revived by Mahler and Mahler fell off the map until revived by Bernstein.

From a four-part, seven-section interview on YouTube, soprano Tamara Wilson speaks with mezzo-soprano Jamie Barton about weight in opera:

Jordan Pacitti has just opened up a facial and retail space at NW Work Lofts (3131 Western): http://www.queenannenews.com/Content/News/Breaking-News/Article/Former-PNB-dancer-finds-new-stage-in-skin-care/26/539/36108 Congratulations to him