kfw

Aren't they still using the original costumes (credited in Repertory in Review to Nicolas Benois), or reproductions of them? Thanks to everyone for the reviews, by the way.

Not a very pleasant association, no. I find the name rather pretty, though. I guess what's in the back of my mind is "raven-haired."

Thanks, sandik. I’ve only read Kristin Schwab’s piece in Dance Magazine so far, but I find it pretty unfortunate. She notes that Dance discontinued performance reviews in 2011, but doesn’t say why. Then she clunkily refers to “a post-60s-70s dance boom era.” Then she claims that because dance programs have relatively short runs, reviews are “certainly not to help a potential ticket-buyer decide if they’ll take the plunge,” as if what’s programmed alone is of potential interest, and not the dancers, who can be seen on other programs as well. Then there is more ugliness about “how we digest art” and “consume” our “dance content” today – on Twitter, of course. Then an unattributed pronoun (it), then vaporous clichés about “humanize”-ing dance and its “cultural elitism.” Then she complains that “too much text” (not even “too many words”) ruined the Times’ piece on dance and Instagram – that’s like complaining that the dancers put photos on their Instagram sites. Articles consist of words; they’re written for people who like to read! Skipping over more bad grammar, we get to her opinion that demystifying dancers will make more dance fans. Well that’s the strategy dance companies have taking with many of their YouTube videos, so it’s worth discussing, but is it working? She doesn’t say. And what’s her point – who needs dance criticism if Instagram and artist diary pieces like Tharp’s last week sell tickets? Then more muddle about how another writer said that “dance is a barometer of the great discussions happening in our world. We need to make that connection clearer.” Never mind that a barometer is not a connection, how _is_ dance a barometer? The “connection” is not clear, but I suppose she’s referring to contemporary work with social commentary. I guess I’m just flabbergasted that the editor of a major dance magazine would approve a piece this poorly written and poorly thought out. Good writing has spurred me to spend money on music, dance and art, and even to take an interest in a whole art form (opera). Not this stuff.

Thanks for the broadcast link, Helene, and also for your opera reviews, which I always really enjoy. Going , for anyone interested in Fiona Shaw's marvelous production of The Rape of Lucretia, at Glyndebourne, you can see it online through Saturday.

Chelsea Inn on west 17th is charming, but if I was to stay there again I'd get a room in the back. I don't know about today, but in 2011 it was next door to a dance club.

Wow. Imagine an about-to-be director of a theater company admitting to not understanding the characters of Hamlet or King Lear. Never mind even if she planned on staging the plays. Would she get the job? If Rojo has so little feel for classic material that's classic in part because it's so universally understandable, should she even be dancing the role, much less direct a company that stages it? I ask this not knowing a thing about how the ballet has looked under her direction, so perhaps I'm all wrong. But the concept boggles the mind. I also ask this having stopped watching today's Bayerische Staatsoper livestream of Manon Lescaut after one act. Are characters from previous eras really so hard to relate to without cheesy "updatings" to make them relevant?

Thanks for the link. Clicking on the photos at the bottom of the About page brings one to the museum's Instagram site, and a comment beside the photo of Raven Wilkinson promises an interview with her "next month." I'm looking forward to that.

Lupone's response was great, but what in the world are "breaches of audience conduct" "for" things that sound like the breaches breakdowns of proper conduct referred to?

Presumably Peter Boal himself, since he was in it for so many years. Here's what he told the NY Times when he went back to NYCB to dance Drosselmeier this past December:

Thanks for the link. Here are a couple of video clips featuring Dara Holmes: one, two. Here is one about Nicole Zadra. Here is a clip featuring Jasmine Perry when she was a 14-year-old at SAB. And here is a podcast interview with Olivia Boisson.

Yes, improvisation is at the heart of any full-fledged jazz performance. I would only add that very few jazz groups improvise throughout an entire "tune." Written arrangements and so-called head arrangements are the standard jumping off points for the improv.

I just watched the video without having read this and wondered if I saw not just Balanchine but also Kirstein (at the 42 second point, and later as the middle bust). Now I see Tchaikovsky too. I hope I'm right about Kirstein, but in any case I love the concept!

Helene wrote: LOL. I knew I shoulda read the fine print. I understand that you still greatly object to things I’ve said, but you didn’t have to write what you wrote above, and I thank you for it. dirac, when I refer to gender bias as a pet PC theory, I’m not denigrating the theory, and I’m not minimizing gender bias and its prevalence. I’m taking issue with the way you deployed the theory. Earlier this evening I wrote more on this and on the rest of what you say, but I’m going to go with the short version: It would bother me too if I thought Copeland was the subject of unfair criticism; I would push back against that criticism too; I respect you for pushing back against what you think you see; but I don't appreciate the way you've argued.

Well, the subject of Seo and Kochetkova is a red herring, obviously as is the fact that talk of Copeland is avoidable. I could argue the point, but you haven’t even made an argument yourself. As for saying something vindictive about Copeland, you give no examples because there are none. Neither did Pique Arabesque when asked, just as canbelto couldn’t quote me saying there is no racism in America when challenged to do so . . . etc., etc., etc. Instead of a concrete, specific instances you mutter vaguely about “beatings and insinuations” and “some quarters,” and bring in another pet PC theory, gender bias (sure gender bias exists, but the point is you can't just trot it out, you have to show it). If you want what you say to be taken seriously, be serious. Sandik wrote that “We cannot get any further with these issues if we keep taking offense at the conversation.” I make it a point in debates and discussions here and elsewhere to respond to every point addressed to me, where by rebutting it or acknowledging its validity. If I’ve left any unaddressed, that’s been unintentional. Some people in this country, still, don’t just speak their minds in debates; they also look for common ground and look for good motives and good reasons on the other side. That’s the way we get further on any issue – the way a debate sheds light and results in both sides understanding the other side’s view and maybe even modifying or changing it – not by one side (much though not all of it in this case) taking potshots, then taking refuge in sarcasm and generalities or fading away entirely when challenged, and then resurfacing later to cheer on the next guy trying the same strategy.

No, actually the critique you made was that my comments evidenced racism. No one here to my knowledge has disputed what you wrote about, which is obviously true. Saying something is illogical isn’t the same as showing it’s illogical. A claim isn’t an argument. The alternatives I see your claim depending on are that Copeland is either too pure a soul to use an obvious advantage, or too dumb to know she can. Neither needs rebuttal. In other words, if someone gives way to pressure, that means there was no pressure. Plisskin is welcome to defend his own criticism if he or she can. Quote me saying something vindicative about Copeland. And show me someone whose character is entirely above criticism. Such people don’t exist. Respect means praise when it's merited, which I have given over and over, and it means criticizing when that's merited too. I know little about Kotchetkova and Seo, for the simple reason that they’re not in the news. I guess I’m a racist anyhow for knowing more about Copeland.

Kindly quote me as saying or suggesting as much. Also explain why I would say in the post you are apparently responding to that "I'm a firm believer in affirmative action" if I think there is no racism in America. And then either apologize or put more words in my mouth.

I get tired of having to correct internet psychologists who are just sure they know what I mean by having to note what I’ve actually been saying all along. First of all, I have nowhere said or suggested that African-American dancers need help succeeding in dance, or in any other profession. In fact I have more nearly said the opposite, while others have argued that racism is still a barrier to black success in the dance world. I haven't had the good fortune to see Lauren Anderson or Alicia Graf dance (although I have noted that the most exciting dancer in a 2013 Nutcracker I saw was African-American), but I’ve enjoyed Albert Evans and Craig Hall and Carlos Acosta, and – on video – Arthur Mitchell. Your suggestion that my criticism reflects an underlying belief that blacks are inferior to whites is pure and ugly fantasy. Neither have I disputed the obvious, that many people greatly enjoy Copeland’s performances. Neither I do not “think” Copeland's promotion is “the culmination of an affirmative action/PR project, abetted by our 21st century culture of "political correctness." What I believe – and the way you can tell this is because I’ve actually said it – is that while Copeland worked very hard to deserve promotion through her dancing, by portraying herself (no doubt because she believes it) as having had to overcome racism to make it to soloist, she put McKenzie in the very difficult spot of opening himself and the company – to the same people who see racism in every criticism of her dancing – to charges of racism had he not promoted her. Of course he may very well have thought she deserved promotion, pure and simple. But given that opinions of her dancing vary widely (oh, I know, the people who don’t like it are just racist), whether that’s true is anyone’s guess. What we see on this board is "a strain of polite" and sometimes not so polite insistence on finding what one wants to find, on reading racism into pretty much any criticism of Copeland, period. Helene wrote: I’m a firm believer in affirmative action. I’ve also noted at least once here that political correctness has very honorable roots – as you say, it’s rooted in empathy and respect. It’s humane. But let’s be real: every good political position can be held for good or bad reasons, or both good and bad reasons simultaneously. Every decent person wants to right wrongs and show minorities equal respect, but every human being, unfortunately, also loves to feel morally superior. Political correctness has become a term of opprobrium because it too often excuses the second.

I imagine that if ABT held a press conference, 9 out of 10 questions from the press would have concerned Copeland and her promotion. And then come the the next round of promotions, what would they do then, hold another? I wonder how many news organizations would show up. Since they didn't hold their own conference, Copeland almost needed to hold one of her own to answer all the inquiries she'd inevitably get.

Without going into more detail, because as Helene says we've been over and over it recently, I'll just say that my own objections are neither said with vehemence nor made to everything she says or does. Again, there is much to admire about her, and I admire it. And despite the objections I do have, I'm happy for her that she's achieved a goal she's worked so long and hard for.

You sure do insist on seeing it though. abatt has answered your latest salvo very well.

I didn't say anything here about how suitable Copeland's body is for ballet, nor does the post I quoted seem to be about it. I prefer a slimmer dancer, but that's my problem, not Copeland's.

Hmm. Awfully suspicious way of putting it though. (Both sides can play the parsing game. Parse Not, Lest you Be Parsed. ) And I'm sorry you yourself actually do enjoy seeing people (supposedly) reveal bad things about themselves. Could that by any chance be a reason _why_ you see it so often? Also, I will ask again, what exactly is wrong with that statement?

I’m curious, who said that? Also, what exactly do you object to in it? Does “bodies” sound objectifying, is that it? I don't like the sound of that either, although the focus on bodies sounds like an academic, i.e. like the people who are quick to see racism all over the place. Otherwise, I don’t know the context, but what you’ve quoted here sounds like another way of saying “some people prefer to see minority dancers.” Do you actually disagree that in Copeland’s case some people are coming specifically to see an African-American dancer?? And as I asked canbelto, what in the world would be wrong with that? I also found it curious that a statement you found racist made your day. That sounds like you enjoy seeing people be racist.

Good points.

Thier “approaches”/observations aren’t mutually exclusive, but Cooper’s a reporter, not a critic, so it would have been inappropriate for him to express an opinion as Harss did. canbelto wrote: In other words, since it’s not a stretch, you know it’s true. I think what’s actually a stretch is that a homophobe could stand to go to the ballet for a living. Also, Croce’s aesthetic criticism stands or falls on its own merits, not what you think is her motive for it. Otherwise, your implicit defense of “the liberal agenda” would make your dismissal of Croce’s criticisms suspect in turn.