kfw

Here's blogger Brian Appleyard's explanation of meh's origins.

Acocella has said essentially the same thing, quoting a company member to the effect that Martins gives an easier class, and concluding that "we are seeing the results." Greskovic, in a 2002 piece on the same subject wrote that

I don't know of any other playwright who has been translated into as many languages and is part of standard curriculum, advanced scholarship, and performance as Shakespeare, nor has been adopted informally as a national playwright by other countries, such as Russia and Germany. If not the world's greatest playwright, Shakespeare has proven to be the most important playwright of the last half millenium by those standards.. That's the sense I get from it, that he's not ranking Shakespeare, Mozart and Balanchine but referring to how they're ranked by the general populace. He at first only writes of Shakespeare's being "accepted" as England's best playwright, and of Mozart likewise being accorded supremacy soon after his death (which was considerably before the time of most of composers who'd be mentioned in the same breath). He goes on from that first comparison to call Balanchine "a growth industry," not the greatest choreographer of all time. Of course he does later write of "Balanchine’s supremacy" and that of Shakespeare and Mozart, but then a short while later he laments that Balanchine's contemporaries are being eclipsed in the same way Jonson, Marlowe and Masinger were. All in all, he could have been clearer.

Thanks for an interesting point, sz, but I'm interested in what you and other longtime observers think of this paragraph: We've read this sort of thing over and over from Croce and Grescovic and others.

I interpret that thanks as meaning "thank you for shopping here" and not as subservience, especially since I reply with my own "thank you."

I understand, and I'm sorry for not making that clear. How could I have forgotten till now that aggravating favorite of politicians and talking heads, "the American people" (most of whom, I believe, are "Americans")?

That's true. On the other hand, some people aren't skilled at reading tone of voice and context, and from these people, an honest answer is in effect a compliment because it's an expression of trust. Of course sometimes you walk away wondering whether you've been confided in or taken advantage of.

The cover of the Autumn 2008 issue of DanceView features a photo of Natalia Osipova in the Bolshoi Ballet's revival/reinvention of "Flames of Paris." Osipova's wild-eyed Jeanne holds the Tricolor as she herself is held aloft (twirled about?) by the mixed crowd. Marc Haegeman's long article on the history of this ballet and this current production is for me one highlight of the issue. Another is Michael Popkin's long consideration of Edwin Denby, illustrated by a photo portrait of the critic, white-haired, white-bearded and eyes closed against a backdrop of bedding. Also in this issue, Denise Sum, who I don't remember reading here before, reviews the National Ballet of Canada's 2007-2008 season, and Mary Cargill interviews ABT's Craig Salstein. This issue also has an expansive season review of ABT at the Met by Carol Pardo, and "reports" from New York, London, and San Francisco by Gay Morris, Jane Simpson and Rita Felciano respectively. I love the way DanceView gives writers the space to write at length and in depth, and illustrates each piece with large black and white photos. DanceView is the print sister of danceviewtimes, and subscriptions are a great way to support that online magazine and Ballet Talk, both founded by Alexandra Tomalonis.

In his "Thirty Years/New York City Ballet, Kirstein writes that In the Miami City Ballet: Program 1, Balanchivadze's "Swan Lake", "4 T's"..and... thread cubanmiamiboy writes: Kirstein also writes that in Ter-Artunian's redesign

"Skill sets" for "skills." "Price point" for "price." "There is something fundamentally wrong with that" instead of just "that's wrong" when what's wrong is obvious.

You betcha!

Absolutely, and at this moment in time, I personally like your substitution. Sorry. A couple of months ago, online, I found a cheap copy of "She Literally Exploded: Daily Telegraph Infuriating Phrasebook," a compilation of "spoken insults to the intelligence" put together by two Daily Telegraph journalists. Is there a British language convention I'm not familiar with, or is that an intentionally irritating title?

That's a good one. Waiting doesn't make one a waitor or a waitress. Another phrase that bugs me ("This dress bugs me" -- thanks for the laugh, Jim Jarmusch) is "let's not go there." I don't know who first said it, but it showed personality then, I'm sure. By now, what's wrong with the descriptive "talk about" or "discuss"?

The Daily Telegraph today brings the comic relief language lovers need so we'll literally die laughing: Oxford compiles list of top ten irritating phrases 1 - At the end of the day 2 - Fairly unique 3 - I personally 4 - At this moment in time 5 - With all due respect 6 - Absolutely 7 - It's a nightmare 8 - Shouldn't of 9 - 24/7 10 - It's not rocket science. I don't often hear number seven here on the American side of the pond, but I've been guilty of the sloppy number eight. My own, personal list includes "going forward" for "now" or "in the future," and "go away" for "end," as in "when might this this recession go away?"

I think if they buy a ticket for a program with three ballets, they'll know "Swan Lake" is a one-acter. I like your first suggestion, "Balanchine's Swan Lake," although I'd prefer "George Balanchine's Swan Lake," because I think that flows better.

MSNBC just showed a clip from the roast, with Obama saying that Emanuel trained in ballet and "was the first to adopt Machiaveli's The Prince for dance. It was an intriguing piece; as you can imagine, there were a lot of kicks below the waist."

The program for SFB's Kennedy Center performances does note the Bach: "Music by J.S. Bach orchestrated by Anton Webern (Ricercata, Fugue in six voices from The Musical Offering)."

I found the first act stronger than the second as well, but I found the ending powerful because it was so understated. I knew about the masses in the two cities. This quietly, and not at length, gave us one voice and one family.

Everyone has GOT to give this experience a try. The theater we attend is full of real opera goers, though probably stacked more in the direct of elderly retirees than one might find elsewhere. They (we) may chatter, wander around, and even eat lunch in our seats before the production, but the silence and immobility in the seats is almost 100% when the performance starts. The videography -- on the very LARGE screen -- is amazing. It's well beyond what we got used to on Great Performances, for instance. I've seen them all so far and can't recall a single false moment, camera error, or directorial blunder. It's not really "live," of course, and it's no substitute for sitting in a theater. But it's miles ahead of your average dvd or even your average theatrical performance on film. It seems to be a new category. I wish I had the skill to put this into words. I found this afternoon's Doctor Atomic broadcast powerful and absorbing. No, the sound wasn't quite live, and we missed the full effect of the ambient sound effects used to supplement the orchestra in this production, which apparently seem to come from multiple directions at the Met itself. And I could have used a slightly bigger screen, one that would have filled the entire width of the stage at our lovely historic theater here in Charlottesville. But the filming -- or rather, videography, as you say -- was just fantastic. Occasionally we got a shot far back enough to just see Alan Gilbert's hands as he conducted, but most of the time it was mid-range and closeup views that made the most of the plot, and of the acting, which was reallly outstanding, especially that of Gerald Finley and Sasha Cooke at Robert and Kitty Oppenheimer. Each broadcast has a singer for a host. I loved having Susan Graham interview Finley just after his big aria at the end of the first act, and John Adams was up next. To anyone actually at the Met for one of these broadcasts, beware the cameras! Just before the overture we saw one couple in what looked to be an intimate conversation.

I wish I could remember the other dance references during the roast, but I was laughing too hard at all the other lines. The whole roast can be seen here on C-Span.

Hmm. You might try it in Opera if you have that. I didn't experience either problem. Thanks, drb!

Wow, emiliennne! Good things are worth waiting for. Thanks. I'll comment on a few things you said because they reminded me of my own reactions. I too have only seen Liebeslieder on video, but I agree with everyone that the personalities weren't fully delineated. Yet something from Alastair MacCauley's review of this program sticks with me: "Perhaps the tragic and transcendent aspects of “Liebeslieder” — its dramatic weight — can emerge only where dancers have achieved the authority of being familiar year-round to their audience?" I take him to mean that the full dramatic weight of the ballet can only be felt when the dancers are well-known, and really, that's a keen but common sense observation: the more experience we have with particular people, the more we understand them in a particular situation. Having seen the Farrell and most of the dancers in this staging year after year, and remembering them, even during my two viewings of this ballet, in other much different settings -- Erin Mahoney-Du in Clarinade especially, and Matthew Presscott, at an age where he looks so much more mature every year and even more so with his relatively tamed hair here -- I found these performance plenty rich. I saw characters, not projections. I take the point that the singers weren't fully integrated into the setting, but, more than that, what dimmed the illusion for me was the simplified set. I would have preferred a more detailed room, like the ones in the recorded and broadcast NYCB performances. As for Ragtime, although this second version as reconstructed was made on Farrell, I thought of her only in retrospect, and that'a a tribute to Holowchuk. I guess she was nervous in Pithoprakta in New York, but I've never seen her look that way in D.C., and she kept me laughing with delight all the way through this ballet. But even on second viewing, and from close up, the choreography was less interesting than on first viewing from the back of the orchestra. It was fun to see the orchestra onstage, and to see Ron Matson get into the spirit of things and shimmy a bit as he conducted. I agree that the pas de deuxs lose too much by themselves to make The Balanchine Couple a fully satisfying program, but of course when it's Balanchine, one can't complain. I think Runqiao Du has the temperament for, as you say, a quietly majestic Apollo, and after seeing him do yeoman work in ballet after ballet, I'd love to see him get a shot at the full role. Here, I didn't think he had much of a chance. In her review in danceviewtimes Alexandra praised Kirk Henning as the Poet in La Somnabula, but I didn't care for his performance. Perhaps I was too close, or perhaps I couldn't get past the memories of the wonderfully ardent Jason Redick in 2003 with this company, but Henning struck me as less enthralled than puzzled, and when he pushed the Sleepwalker he seemed downright rough, almost as if he was toying with her. I didn't see a sympathetic poet, I saw a frat boy. The Unanswered Question was my favorite piece in this program as well, and Holowchuk is suitably remote for it. Oh, to have seen Kent! I wish Farrell would stage the whole ballet sometime. I saw Erin Mahoney-Du and not the more commented on and praised Rockefeller in Agon, but I felt the same competition with an edge of menace you mention, and that made this one of the best Agon pas de deux's I can remember, far more dramatic than the relatively NYCB bland version with Whelan and Evans this March. Meditation with Magnicaballi just went by me this time. She is well cast for this, if not in the first bloom of youth, and if it had been programmed first (not that it should have been dramatically) I would have been better able to concentrate, but Farell has brought this at least 3 times now, and I've probably seen a half a dozen performances, and apart from its historical background, I find it all too swooney. Boal made it memorable, but I think it would take star casting to make me care again. Thanks to everyone for their reviews. I enjoyed them all.

It's still there. This is a ballet and a score I wanted to see and hear again, right away.

Was this the telecast where Kirkland was interviewed during the intermission? As I recall, she was still in full costume and the interviewer asked her something like 'Does it get easier each time you dance?' and Kirkland sort of groaned and said 'It never gets any easier'. That's the one. He asks her how she feels emotionally after a performance and she answers "so relieved that it's over" and says T & V has always been "very difficult" for her and "it hasn't gotten any easier or any better."

I don't know how he did it, but Marc Haegeman has seen it already! No, wait, that's from a review of a London performance in March. The actual debut took place the week before at the Kennedy Center. Once in a while in Washington, we get lucky. Hmmm ... I saw the "*" for "First Time in Role" and thought it meant, you know, "Debut" ... Perhaps Taylor danced the Russian Girl in London and is moving on to Waltz Girl in Copenhagen? Sorry, I should have been clear. She danced the Waltz Girl. Perhaps she'll be the Russian Girl in Copenhagen.