kfw

Good to read your comments, Jack. Yes, Renno was the pianist. And I probably overinterpreted Kronenburg's facial expression. I haven't seen her very often, and now looking at her photo in costume for Western Symphony in the latest Dance View Times, her expression is only a little less broad than what I remember from Pas De Dix. Ginny, if you read this, did you share my perception at all, or did nothing seem unusual?

Or else for MCB to take advantage of the knowledge and experience of a man Lincoln Kirstein himself invited onboard at NYCB.

I agree with Farrell Fan. Of course Kaiser's ballet programming could be a lot more adventurous; I'm disappointed by "Don Quixote" too, and I won't bother with "Othello." But the Kirov is bringing Forsythe in June, and he did co-sponsor the revival of Balanchine's "Don Quixote," and for those of us who love Balanchine, for all its limitations the Farrell company isn't just a pick-up company, it's a treasure. And I can't imagine that Kaiser chooses ballets to suit his own taste. From his position, intelligent programming has to consist first of all of what will sell.

What a great analogy, although in my opinion that an abundance of notes is more often a fault when it's characteristic of young players than of white players; to use jazz examples, I wouldn't say that Trane overplays in comparison with Miles, they just have different styles. But it's true, just as some artists don't use space around the notes as part of their phrasing, and play with relatively little dynamic range, some dancers punch out the steps without much modulation. But here too I'm wondering, technical ability aside, isn't this choice more characteristic of young dancers than mature ones?

whitelight, it's a pleasure to read your strong opinions. You can find "Sourcing Stravinsky" reviewed on danceviewtimes this week. As to what downtown dance fans might read, if my impression is correct that the work down there tends to be based more on concept than in movement vocabulary, I'd think that a lot of its devotees would read thoughtful magazines like TNR.

Yes, thanks for those "ambient details," Ginny (I like that). I wondered too if the size of the stage was a factor in the repertoire. I would have liked something atringent in the mix, but Bart, the audience reaction was quite positive. That was the case not just in the theater, but in the lobby, where I saw a lot more happy faces and heard a lot more more enthusiasm than I usually observe at the Kennedy Center. Give us a treat out here in the provinces, and when we say "thank you," you'll know we mean it. For some reason, it was only for the last two ballets that the lead couples came out in front of the curtain to take final bows.

Folks, my schlepp last night was a five minute drive and a five minute walk to Charlottesville's cobblestoned Downtown Mall. I wish I could schlepp to New York State and New Jersey!

I have just a few quick comments on the performance tonight -- Donizetti Variations, Sonatine, Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux and Pas de Dix, in that order. On paper the program looked uniformly light and unbalanced to me, but that's because I'd never seen Sonatine. As it was, while the dancing was at a high level throughout, I found the program unbalanced in that the second half didn't have the same impact as the first. Katia Carranza and Mikhail Ilyin were the lively lead couple in Donizetti. Except for one unsettled moment together and a spot of tentativeness on her part, both early in the ballet, they danced cleanly and with contagious joy. She in particular seemed to delight in carrying the ballet; she didn't give an entirely finished performance, but that only that made her confidence all the more delightful and touching. I don't know who danced the jokey solo -- if you're reading, Jack, Charlene Cohen was in the corps -- but she didn't overdo it. After watching Deanna Seay and Kenta Shimuzu in Sonatine I don't understand why this ballet isn't more frequently performed. Perhaps not many dancers can make something interesting of choreography so small-scaled and subtle, but this couple seemed completely at ease and for me the ballet was a quiet stunner, the emotional heart of the evening. The dancers managed to be both casual and elegant, and when it was called for he, along with Ilyin in Donizetti, had the most powerful technique of the evening. In Repertory in Review I see that Verdy wore white for this, and on Dance ViewTimes online I see it's still costumed that way at NYCB. Seay wore blue instead, darker on top than on the skirt, and matching her partner that way, and I thought this was very effective. The onstage pianist for the Ravel score provided the only live music of the evening. After Sonatine, Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux looked hammier than ever, but Mary Carmen Catoya and Renato Penteado made the most of it and brought the gala audience to their feet. Finally, Pas de Dix didn't much engage me except when Jennifer Kronenberg and Carlos Guerra were onstage, but while looking appropriately regal she also seemed to be having great fun, not just glowing but grinning, and a couple of times I was sure she was about to burst out laughing. Not only the principals but the whole company had great presence, and I hope that before too long they'll be back again.

You're right, bart, and thanks for the laugh. What could I have been thinking? Seriously, I'm not doing the creating, obviously, so it's very, very easy for me to criticize. But Young's and Byrd's work in particular sounds depressingly safe and paint-by-numbers predictable in spirit, not radical and challenging as it apparently means to be. What about movement vocabulary? Is there anyone out there (or are there lots of people out there) with a new and distinct style?

Well, perhaps you’ve been locked out or perhaps you’ve locked yourself out by educating your taste. I can imagine (though it’s such a pop culture cliche by now) relatively young and therefore unsophisticated audiences reading nudity and in-your-face sexuality as soul-baring and therefore “deeply moving” (NY Times). But an example of what might constitute a renaissance of creative excitement in my opinion is work that dares to stress the positive and the wholesome – work that dares to hope and to affirm. If I'm not mistaken that would at least be counter-cultural for contemporary modern dance, and from the point of view of attracting audiences, that would be daring. Susan Reiter reviewed Byrd’s “Beauty” in Dance View Times and mentioned To quote Lou Reed, it’s the beginning of a new age, OK, but while Reiter writes that Byrd means to "question [sleeping Beauty's] premise" and "investigate a broader idea of what 'beauty' is," she concludes, perhaps too kindly on that same unresolved note: " I'm certain Byrd has a lot of fascinating ideas." But what are they? As far as I can understand it, I have a hard time thinking of this stuff as anything but what Homans calls it: cynical, contemptuous of classic and beloved and proven-to-be-worth work, and in that respect not truly serious.

The article refers to four recent dance works, and as Homans describes them they range (in my words) from the banal to the putrid and pornographic. Ann Liv Young’s show, Michael at New York's Dance Theater Workshop, which drew praise in The NY Times: from the bump-and-grind to actual sex acts, with salacious commentary along the way. Donald Byrd’s Sleeping Beauty, also at the Dance Theater Workshop: an irreverent PoMo take on the classic tale, again with sex and trash talk, plus Byrd himself asking if Carabosse is like a terrorist. Homans faults choreographer, dancer, and media artist Dawn Stoppiello and composer and media artist Mark Coniglio of Troika Ranch for substituting technology for choreography, and finds Jennifer Monson's BIRD BRAIN, in which the dancers don't dance but "walk, crawl, paw at the ground, put clothes on and take clothes off" while another dancer eeks, burbles and somersaults, "utterly incoherent" despite the choreographer's intention to raise awareness of environmental. Why don’t reviewers “blow the whistle” on this stuff, Homans asks. Because of a “widespread feeling” that these are artists are “all we’ve got,” and so the public must be encouraged to support them for the sake of the future of the art, and because of a fear of being “politically incorrect, prudish, and behind the times.” I haven’t seen one single step of these dances, and it's been years since I've seen any live modern dance besides Merce Cunningham's company. Has anyone here seen this work?

Until April 23, BBC Radio 3 is streaming a new production of "Waiting for Godot," plus another drama inspired by Beckett.

Given the price of gas, I should probably apologize. :grinning-smiley-001: I look foward to hearing what you think of the article.

Writing in The New Republic, Jenifer Homans doesn't mince words. That's all that's available online to non-subscribers, and that's all I've read.

Here are a few highlights from Wayne D. Shirley's Ballet Review article: Erick Hawkins suggested commissioning Copland. Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge wrote Copland but didn’t mention a subject or title. The commission was to be performed in Pittsfield, Mass. Copland wrote back that before definitely committing himself, he “ought to know the subject matter of the dance piece, how long it should be, set for how many instruments, how soon it must be ready, etc.” Sprague wrote Graham saying that because other pieces would be on the program, the work should be not longer than a half an hour, and she wanted it to be “true chamber music,” for at most 10 or 12 instruments. She recommended “a small orchestra with one instrument of each kind, both wind and string, with piano.” Graham’s script bore no title except “NAME?.” and differed somewhat in plot and characterization from its final form. Shirley writes: “But . . the note the script sounds is the note that Copand was to catch.” Copland suggested a few changes which Graham made. When Graham received Copland’s score she described it in a letter to Coolidge as “Clear, open, and essentially Copland.” According a letter written by Erick Hawkins, “Ballet for Martha” – Copland’s working title – became "Appalachian Spring" when Graham read Hart Crane’s poem, “The Dance.” “O Appalachian Spring!” The program was switched to the Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge Auditorium in D.C., where the score of Apollon Musagete had first been performed, because wartime gas rationing had hurt recent atttendance in Pittsfield. There is more information at the bottom of this page.

I take this to mean that the company had a charismatic leader who became a charismatic leader annointed by the press as a celebrity. And I have to confess that I really don't comprehend why the loss of this figure should make a decisive difference while the work for which she gained her stature and fame still exists in living ("8 p.m. tonight" on easily accessible 55th Street) form. I ‘ve seen very little Graham live or even on video, so I can't begin to venture an opinion on the lasting worth of her work. But ever since I was a teenager, I've eagerly sought out critical opinion and then if possible sought out the work the critics praised. Did it sound difficult? Difficulty just promised greater reward if I could crack the code. Surely this spirit isn’t dead, least of all in NYC. I know it lives here on Ballet Talk. Is there just too much dance competition? Perhaps Graham isn’t perceived as relevant (but didn’t she make a few implicitly anti-war works?) -- the triumph of cultural politics over versatile movement vocabulary. Or it is possible that, as revered as she is, that papered house for last year's season reflects the relative significance, not the hipness quotient, of her choreography? Are today's critical champions somewhat blinded by nostalgia? (My own bet -- not likely). What little Graham I’ve seen didn’t thrill me, but if I had the chance I’d make it a priority to see more, in order to learn my history, and in hopes of revelation. I'm rambling, but to my mind the through line here is, to paraphrase milosor, does the company have a philosophy expansive enough that it can withstand fads and changing tastes over the long haul?

Speaking of branching out in different directions, how about morphing a company classic into an opera and presenting a hip, loving spoof of the company's founder? Janet Eilber, the new artistic director of the Martha Graham Center, doesn't lack courage and bold ideas. Teetering in Modernism's Temple, Minus a Goddess.

I just ran across Alexandra Tomalonis' interview with Hubbe in the Summer 1996 issue of Ballet Review (Nikolaj Hubbe Remembers Henning Kronstam), and he has some interesting things to say about this filmed La Sylphide. Not only was this his debut in the role, as Alexandra said earlier, but he hates his performance! Kronstam taught him the part, and "explained everything," giving him "great images," for example, "sometimes the ring is burning" and "sometimes the ring is heavy," but allowing him to choose among the given images. When the filming took place after only one rehearsal, Hubbe panicked, and Kronstam had to calm him down and encourage him. Later in the interview, however, Hubbe says that he first saw the ballet when he was five years old, and "had no hang-ups" about dancing James.

glebb, you've quite likely seen this, but the Winter 1999 issue of Ballet Review includes essays about the commissioning of Appalachian Spring and the creation of that ballet and Jeux de Printemps and Heodiade, that are very heavily interspersed with letters from the principals: Graham, Hawkins, Copland, and others.

ABT has received press attention in recent years for its unusually strong crop of male dancers. I know about the PBS special/DVD Born to be Wild, but has the company attempted to appeal to sports fans in its advertising by portraying its men as the remarkable athletes they are? I wonder if any companies have had success with that approach. On a side note, I find it heartening that here in Charlottesville, where for professional ballet we've been limited to two nights of Nutcracker and two nights a year by a regional troupe that brings mostly contemporary rep, a newly re-opened theater has chosen Miami City Ballet for this year's Spring Gala. And their ad copy is just a straightforward description of the company.

Today's NY Times has a story on Beckett's American publisher, Grove Press owner Barney Rossett.

Bart and Sandy, I envy you both. Sandy, I was fortunate enough to see that Lincoln Center "Waiting for Godot" with Martin and Williams and Irwin and F. Murray Abraham, and I loved it, more for the yuks than the darkness, although it was moving too. I remember Williams especially ad-libbing some funny bits, which I guess Beckett wouldn't have liked him doing. But if memory serves the production received mixed reviews, and perhaps that's why the proposed filming never happened. The film with Burt Lahr I've seen at the local university library, so if you can't find it commercially available, maybe you can see it the way I did. I also remember Barry McGovern's wonderful, chilling one-man distillation of the trilogy of novels, "Molloy," "Malone Dies,"and "The Unnameable" at Lincoln Center in '88. And my other favorite Beckett memory is the snippet of "Godot" that a couple of Trinity College students performed to call us to attention at the start of a "Literary Pub Crawl" in Dublin a couple of years ago. Wish I could get back there for the celebration. What a great topic. Thanks, dirac.

Bart, I'm sure you're right that the Tool is, um, useful. Dirac, thanks for setting me straight about who came up with "user." I can't think of another word that encompasses both "reader" and "listener", but I would have preferred even something cumbersome like "People who sought out poetry" or "Poetry Readers/Listeners." I mean, reading poetry ought to be useful in resisting unfortunate new language usages. (Perhaps like the one in that last sentence).

No doubt the tool will prompt some people to read serious poetry. But at the risk of being a snob, I must say I find this consumer mentality, this utilitarian approach to the art also to be observed in the Chicago Tribune's article, distasteful. Far better -- potentially far more enriching -- to sit down with a book of poetry and meet the poet.

Thanks for posting this, Cliff. I think of senior citizens as the most likely among us to have been introduced to poetry in school, and of course they have the most leisure time. So I'm surprised by the finding that people under 55 are more than twice as likely to read and listen to poetry (not the abominable term "use" -- the writer himself must not read poetry) than those over 55. The infirmities of old age must keep that number down. I wonder how many of the elderly who love to read and can still do so read poetry.