kfw

Thanks for the recipe, Leonid. That looks like a lot of work, but I want to try it if I can find whole plums in syrup.

I reread the Nutcracker section of the book this afternoon, which records Balanchine’s thoughts about the ballet, the story behind it, and his memories of childhood (which he must have had in mind when he choreographed his version of the ballet). Since it’s Nutcracker season, here are a few excerpts! Balanchine then talks about how “fantastic” Christmas was in St. Petersburg, when the city was “all dark and strange somehow." Anna Kisselgoff’s reviewed the book when it was published back in 1985: http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all. It's no longer in print, but copies can be found through the Amazon link at the bottom of each Ballet Alert! page (purchasing there helps support BA).

I thought we already had a thread about the videos from this tour, but I don't see it now. So . . . Theme and Variations is here. Square Dance is here. And In the Night is here.

Yes, and the one moment it wasn’t was the worst part, in my opinion. I don’t know what Stahl’s point was in asking Martins about criticism of his choreography if she was going to let him get away with the old what-do-the-critics-know-? nonsense. Was anyone expected to buy that? But I wasn’t looking for an expose’ or bashing or anything necessarily critical at all. I just would have liked something with a point of view, or at least a focus, not to mention fewer misleading statements. I suppose that in the spirit of Thanksgiving I should be thankful for the previously unseen dancing clips.

I remember both Part and Vishneva in the principal's role in 2005.

I thought it was a strangely unfocused piece, as much about Peter Martins as about its ostensible subject, and with a few laughably simplistic if not risible assertions, for example that “saving [classical ballet] from becoming a dying art form has fallen on the shoulders of Peter Martins” and, earlier, that “just about everyone thought [NYCB] could not survive,” period, “with the loss of George Balanchine,” the implication being that Martins saved it, period. Oh, and something to the effect that Martins made “Apollo” popular. What was the point of the piece? Apparently that Martins has brought NYCB “into the 21st century,” “sustaining the legacy of the great George Balanchine.” Was Stahl trying to advance a point of view? She noted that the audience is greying while other forms of dance are attracting renewed attention. Martins then offered an explanation, which seems to be that audiences have slipped because the Cold War is over. (In other words, people were coming to see "heroes," not ballet). He then basically contradicted her, claiming (falsely) that the company has “sold our houses, all the time.” That's journalism? Why run this piece now anyhow? I suppose it was a halfway decent introduction to the company for people who’ve never paid it any attention. I just expected better of 60 Minutes.

I think, rather, that thanks are in order for all you do to maintain this site.

But...why do we need to identify everything...? Can't we just enjoy it...? When I started watching ballet, or listening to classical music or watching masterworks on museums I was too little to know anything about identification. My senses were exposed, just as it is supposed to happen, and the rest is history. Is that a foreign concept already...? Sure. I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. Art obviously requires more of its audience than entertainment does, and if a work of art has lasted for generations, it's probably work making the effort required to ( sooner or later) enjoy it. Some level of identification with the art or the artist is part of that enjoyment, I think, but it shouldn't have to be there at the start to spur people to approach acclaimed work.

That's especially bad news for anyone who wants MCB to mount a ballet made in and about a time of princes urged to marry, and swan hunts. Those times are not coming back, so we can't expect to see that one again (or to relate to it if it did). Right. Give me please art to take me away from the world I live in, art to provide me with another world for a while, to return me changed. Amen to that. I don’t object to attempts to extend the ballet language, although I tend to dislike most attempts I see (give me jumps, not bends and arm whirls). But when people start talking about “speaking about the world that we live in,” I want to ask what’s changed about the human condition. If audiences can’t relate to swan maidens and princes, whose fault is that?

The company doesn't post casting, but their ad in this morning's Washington Post shows Natalia Magnicaballi as the Siren in Prodigal Son. That's a great sign.

That's like when people find out I'm a jazz fan and tell me about the time they saw Kenny G.

Ballettalk.com, eh? Well, a few people trying to go to that non-existent site may eventually find this one.

Doesn't that miss the point of Tallchief's coaching in that session? (sound of my gnashing teeth here) Jack, the other thing Boal said about Tallchief's coaching was that she found the choreography that's danced today to be very consistent with what she herself danced.

In the recent Pacific Northwest Ballet program for the Guggenheim's Works and Process series, Peter Boal noted that originally at this moment the man was "completely bent forward so that "most of Terpsichore's upper body was on him" and the move wasn't nearly as tricky to perform. He also said that when the pas de deux was taped for the Balanchine Interpreter's Archive, Maria Tallchief stressed two things, that Terpsichore didn't look at Apollo here but was constantly aware of him, and that she constantly moved her hands. His comments come at about the 24:25 mark, after which Carla Korbes and Seth Orza demonstrate the move as it's done today.

As unfortunate and inappropriate as Kaiser's language was, I think it's understandable in that he felt he was being called a racist.

It's wonderful to hear from someone who saw the first performance, atm711. Marcovici (and Taylor) did move me, and in memory still do. It was the Dark Angel that disappointed, especially because in the person of Jonathan Stafford, he was of smaller stature than Marcovici’s Orpheus; also because of the rust color of his costume, which the black and white shots hadn’t prepared me for. Between the two, I found the character physically unimpressive and a little cartoonish looking. Likewise, the Furies struck me as the Funnies. Still, given the historical importance of the ballet, I was thrilled to see it again. I’m curious about what you or anyone else who was there thought of Chase Finlay’s Apollo earlier. He sure does look the part, but even apart from his stumble, there were moments where he didn’t seem quite on the music. I expect he’s given better performances in the role.

Even dropping the "Mr" and "Ms" though, and using the surname by itself, seems to me to make it less stuffy, if one doesn't want to go the whole way to first names. As a child, I remember being told that referring to a woman by her last name was rude. Nowadays I often hear men refer to each other or to another man by last name, and I sometimes do the same, in the rough teasing way that men have with each other. As for addressing strangers or referring to them in print, I find "Mr." and "Mrs". respectful and not at all stuffy. I've had guys half my age refer to me as "man," and I know they meant no disrespect, but neither did they show the respect they should have, and I think that's unfortunate - not for me, but for them that they don't have in their bones that automatic respect for age - even middle age - that my generation was taught.

Kirstein's 30 Years: NYC Ballet, which lacks photos and so is a much smaller and more comfortable to handle book, has the same text. Searching through the Amazon link at the bottom of this page, I find copies available at ridiculously cheap prices. Personally I like the chronological format, and the "imaginary diary" is a useful device to advance it.

Wonderful news, indeed. Strange to see Buddy Guy and Led Zeppelin both honored in the same year, but maybe the idea is to highlight the connection.

I agree. I just wanted to clarify my own point.

Nothing. But Kelly probably gave some guys who weren't the courage to dance too, and that's all to the good.

Gene Kelly, bad role model! Actually, the following from the NPR piece shows him to be a wonderful, liberating role model:

Nothing, in my opinion, but physical attractiveness can momentarily distract me from the actual choreography. bart wrote: Very nicely put, as usual. "A way of experiencing physical reality in terms of larger (possibly "higher") meanings and values" is not a bad way of defining a lot of ballet in general, although the experience isn't always conscious. This features bits of Symphony in 3 Movements and Duo Concertant danced barelegged, beginning at the 48 second mark.

I love the handmaidens, and that's the term I've always associated with them as well. That's how they were referred to in the program notes for the '72 Stravinsky Festival (reproduced in Nancy Goldner's commemorative book The Stravinsky Festival of the New York City Ballet). Funny that in his book Thirty Years, Kirstein writes of the Muses, whom he has named but not referred to by that term, that It's clear there that he isn't titling them "handmaidens," but I still find the term curious given that the ballet has other, actual . . . er, handmaidens. "Goddesses" strikes me as really inappropriate, even if it may be technically correct, because it seems a higher title than "Muses" (although the muses are goddesses as well).

You're of course quite right about the UK's role in the Industrial Revolution and the miserable conditions the poor suffered during it. But there are times to tell the hard truth and times, not to whitewash, but to celebrate what merits celebration, and I think the Olympics is one of the latter.