kfw

And if so his attitude wasn't entirely different from Balanchine's, was it? Balanchine didn't put much faith in his dances surviving in forms he'd call his own. Reading the Time Out interviews, I'm struck too with Cunningham's lack of interest in revivals. It seems he only really took an interest when he found something he wanted to change, and if memory serves, Balanchine is also said to have been indifferent sometimes. For both men, the main thing was the new work, was in the process of creation much more than the finished product.

But the Graham company had a long layoff related to those legal issues, didn't it? Isn't that a major reason why the performances are relatively weak now, that lapse in time when class wasn't being given and the dances weren't being rehearsed? Once broken, it's difficult to reforge the link. If the company hadn't been disbanded, it wouldn't have faced that problem, and the quality of its performances wouldn't have dropped off so precipitously. I didn't see ABT in "Duets" last year, but I've seen the PBS program in which they did it in the 80's, and while I enjoy it, the dancers don't look like Cunningham's own. How could they? I also wonder how many ballet companies are going to be willing to do Cunningham, and how often. How much of a draw will his work be? Even here on this site full of serious ballet fans, relatively few people participate on this or other modern dance threads. Perhaps the best we can hope - can "dream the impossible dream" of - is that a new or relatively unknown modern dance troupe will specialize in Cunningham, surviving on the attendance and support of Cunningham fans, and giving dancers the chance to immerse themselves in the technique.

They did Les Noces in 1999. I don't know if they've done it since.

Thanks a lot for that link, rg. It was a foregone conclusion that there would be a wealth of new press coverage this month, but who could expect 14 sizeable interviews in one place? Macaulay has written about the first two of six final perfomances here: http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all (For some reason my laptop won't let me post links the usual way), and we can dare to hope he'll be given space for the final two evenings, as he was given space for all three nights at BAM. I’m sorry that I can’t get up to New York for any of the Park Avenue Armory performances, but I suggested the other day to my Merce-o-phobic wife, who insists they aren’t dancing because they aren’t moving to the music and it isn’t music anyways, that with all my tapes, DVDs and downloads I could mark the company’s end on New Year’s Eve by approximating an Event right here at home with simultaneous showings of different dances on the television, laptop and I-Pad. And wouldn’t my virtual Cunningham Event be more realistic if she would join me for awhile and then walk out? “I’ll be in another room” she said sweetly. I was only joking, but I guess she wasn’t taking any chances.

No they didn't. Of course hard drug use for jazz musicians in the 50's was practically de rigeur, and addiction an occupational hazard. Not a lot stood out for me this year, although I enjoyed everything except the Diamond segment (but I agree, you can't not like the guy), which I fast-forwarded through. One of the funniest moments was when Stephen Colbert came out to begin the Yo-Yo Ma tribute, stopped and waved, then strode offstage, reappearing quickly and miming a great "The podium's over there? OK." I've still never seen a funnier KC Honors speech than what Steve Martins gave for Paul Simon in 2002.

I was impressed by the amount of time CBS gave to the band paying tribute to Rollins, and to its two tenor saxophonists, Joe Lovano and Ravi Coltrane, who did some serious blowing. As a point of comparison, it was as if for the Balanchine tribute in 1978 they had broadcast bits of Agon and Kammermusik # 2.

Interesting to hear that RB management feels that "Cojocaru doesn't have the style to dance this production". That's a point of view that I hadn't heard before. But then, I don't follow RB reports very closely. I saw this production of SB at the Kennedy Center in DC just a couple of years after it debuted. Cojocaru led it off and danced Aurora twice to great acclaim. I also recall seeing Nunez, Lamb and Marquez as Aurora and Cojocaru was my favorite by a mile. I wonder what the RB considers to be stylistically correct at this point in time... I saw both of Cojocaru's performances plus Lamb's, and Marquez's in rehearsal, and likewise loved Cojocaru's best. If she doesn't have the style, why did she alone get two performances in D.C., plus the DVD appearance? Is she a diminished dancer since she came back from the neck injury? Someone must think so.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

1964 revision? Has that been talked about here? I assume the revision was because of the move to the bigger theater. Mel and Jack, thanks for sharing your memories of Mother Ginger.

Over on the Miami City Ballet Nutcracker thread, bart wrote I too was surprised by how understated this was. I think I read somewhere that Ms. Ginger's antics had become increasingly exaggerated over the years (so perhaps that colored my expectations), and I wonder if at some point the order was given to tone them down. Perhaps some longtime NYCB watcher can provide some perspective here. carbro maybe? Was Scordato's performance typical, or do some of today's dancers play it broader?

I enjoyed reading your impressions, Eileen. None of the amateurish filming and staging really bothers me, but I find Clara annoyingly stiff. In regards to acting, I think Balanchine told different people different things, but in any case it seems he was referring to dance roles, not non-dancing character roles like Drosselmeyer. It is amusing to see Balanchine ham it up. I thought Adam Hendrickson last week was pretty restrained compared to Balanchine, and Hendrickson was the one whose characterization needed to be seen far into the theater.

Amen to that, and thank you for saying it. I dislike dressing up, in part because I run hot and tend to perspire.I'd be happiest in jeans, which I usually wear to open rehearsals. But it would detract from my pleasure in the occasion if everyone wore jeans to performances, so, I never do myself. The loud conversations about personal issues right up until the curtain comes up, the checking of cell phones right up until the curtain comes up and as soon as it goes down . . . these used to detract from the occasion for me. I've become used to them, but I still think they're bad manners.

It's not fair to make a grown girl cry -- I wish this had been on the program when the company was here. We saw it a few years ago in Seattle and people still talk about it. It's the one that knocked me out most the first time I saw it at the Kennedy Center. (Squaregame had that effect this time). Nancy Dalva has a nice article on it at her site. There is a short clip on You Tube as well.

Yes, and as part of this, as we know, he wanted them not to play it safe. Which is why Martins' playing it safe with a careful ballerina for the Sugar Plum Fairy is so antithetical to the spirit of Balanchine.

Thanks for posting this, Helene, and thank you, Michael. Medici.tv had a video of the Roaratorio revival available for streaming for awhile, so we can hope the Cunningham foundation will eventually make it available for purchase. How wonderful in the meantime to have those large photos. The open wings, the dancers watching from the wings or from the stage when not dancing themselves, and “even the active dancers [. . . ] presented in a relaxed and impromptu manner that had the spontaneous air of a rehearsal” are elements that remind me of "Squaregame," and that added to my pleasure in that dance when the company presented it a couple of weeks ago at the Kennedy Center.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but the perception of formality and tradition as stuffy and elitist strikes me as a failure of the imagination bordering on judgmental. If it just takes a few nice clothes for a newcomer to fit right in, I don't see how the dress code is elitist. Imagine the outcry if the hip-hop dress code was criticized as slovenly. And what sort of looks might a guy in a suit get at a hip-hop club? If one set of standards is stuffy, I don't see why another is.

My thoughts exactly. But what does it say about Martins as a director of a company founded by George Balanchine, if he chose Fairchild because she and De Luz could be counted on not to make mistakes? In my opinion, nothing at all complimentary.

I felt for her since she was trying out a new role, but I thought both questions and answers were dull.Funny that she asked Fairchild and the children pretty much the same questions that Ripa had the night before. I was amused, though, that she asked Colby Clark about the school test he'd taken yesterday, a test Ripa had referred to. Clinton's interview filled time that the night before had been used for interviews with NYCB technical director Perry Silvy, with Daniel Ulbricht, and a feature on Mother Ginger, kids included.

Watching last night, I realized that what I love best about it is not the story, charming as it is, but sometimes overly cute, or verging on it. What I love is that those are real little kids (duh) putting on that show. During the taped intermission feature Gabrielle Whittle talked about how the kids cry when all 42 shows are over. It's imagining how those kids must feel that moves me. The big screen was a big treat Tuesday night, but also - maybe I'm misremembering - I thought some of the shots were from further away last night.

Not being a New Yorker, I'm not a regular, but I've seen the company enough in recent years to have been very disappointed with Fairchild's casting for the very reason you mention.She's appropriately sweet, but she doesn't project a lot. Her onstage personality, at least when I've seen her, is like her speaking last night - a little on the quiet side. My top choices would have been Mearns, Peck and Kowroski (who's dancing it this afternoon) in that order.

Another tip-off will be if Mother Ginger drops her mirror. I didn't actually see that occur, but as she was leaving the stage the kids were looking the other direction, and then Fritz stepped down and picked it up. I have what may be the minority view among balletomanes on the First Act of Balanchine's production. I was impatient with it on first viewing, but I nowadays i find it all very touching,

Thanks for starting the thread, Ray. I look forward to reading what you think of the book, all the more so since you used to dance.

Thank you for that clip, Mme. Hermine. My memory of this ballet had mostly faded away, but not my memory of Goldweber in it. As to the comments here, it's always so delightful, but so extra sad, to read that the deceased was such a fine person.

To me dressing up for the transmission is a confusion of the occasion similar to applauding as you would at a live performance. One is one, the other is the other. (I do think it would be appropriate to dress if it was a premiere or a special showing.) The occasion is the performance, and if the performance is special to people, they dress up. (Or if, like me, they prefer to dress down even on special occasions, they may dress up out of consideration for other members of the audience).

It seemed clear enough to me, which is why I wrote what I did. You are free to correct me of course.