GeorgeB fan

After seeing what a wonderful job ABT did with Mozartiana, I was wondering what Balanchine ballet would you like to see the dancers of ABT perform in next? At first I was going to go with "Jewel", but then I thought that too easy. So I'm going with "Robert Schumann's Davidsbundlertanze". I think it would be a fascinating challenge to the dancers, a challenge I think they could pull off. In the Suzanne Farrell role - the exclusive, unattainable muse who is bold, daring and dynamic, I think Nina Ananiashvili or Gillian Murphy could bring these qualities to life. In the role of the man who's desperate to capture her I see Guillaume Graffin or Jose Manuel Carreno. In the Karin von Aroldingen role - the loving and concern "wife" who dance with a touch of melancholy sadness but is always noble, I can see Amanda McKerrow or Julie Kent. In the role of her "husband" the man with a inward loneliness that drive him to a comforted madness I see Vladimir Malakhov. In the Heather Watts role - the spirited and vivacious lady who dances with an sense of abandonment, I see Xiomara Reyes, Monique Meunier or even Irina Dvorovenko. As her strong partner I see Ethan Stiefel or Marcelo Gomes. And finally in the Kay Mazzo role - the quiet lady, who dance with a simple romanticism and grace, I see Alessandra Ferri or Ashley Tuttle with Angel Corella as her captivated partner. That my choice. What do all of you think and what Balanchine ballet you will love to see ABT perform next?

This is very, very, very depressing!!!!! I was unable to attend Monday night's performance of ABT's Balanchine Celebration. I know I was going to miss some magnificent dancing, but from reading Michael brilliantly detail description of the evening it makes it never more depressing Well, at least I still the wonderful memories of last Thursday night's performance of the same program!!

I always loved Miranda Weese, she one of my favorite ballerinas at NYCB but she out did herself in Who Cares? Saturday afternoon. She's a beautiful and technically strong dancer, but she sometimes dances with her emotions close to the vest. But not at this performance. I don't know what happen, but she dance with a freedom and a happy abandonment that I don't think I've never seen in her. She seem to give herself totally to the music and choreography. It was a wonderful performance.

The names listed in the Saturday matinee program was Jared Angle, Stephen Hanna, Seth Orza and Henry Seth.

On Thursday evening Ashley Tuttle, a dancer I love very much, wasn't her absolute best in Theme and Variations. She seem to be dancing rather cautiously though the whole ballet and atm711 is correct she seem, at least that night, to be out of step. As for Angel Corella he was very good, but you can tell he was trying to hard to please. But to be honest I'm care of tired of ABT's production of this ballet. For the past couple of years the dancers in this ballet seems rather bore with it. I also wish they would give it a new production. The sets are too dark and rather cheap looking and the costumes are rather drab. Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux - in a word WOW! Xiomara Reyes was sensational. Technically and muscially solid, but for me what made her performance so wonderful was the pure joy you knew she felt dancing the role. She was having the time of her life and it showed in her sparkling dancing. And Reyes' energy and spirit certainly was contagious because Julio Bocca was just as terrific. Veronika Part's Mozartiana was beautifully perform especially in the opening movement, but it's clear she needs more work. But I believe once she become more use to the part she will triumph in the role. She's a true ballerina. I would love to see her in Theme and Variations, with new sets and costumes of course. As for Maxim Beloserkovsky at first I had to readjust myself - it was strange seeing him dance without his wife. Overall he dance well and was a reliable partner to Part. I only knew Ballet Imperial as Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2 as perform by NYCB. While there was always a since of grandeur it was always in the abstract. But with the set and costumes of the great Rouben Ter-Arutunian I finally see why so many people was upset at first when Balanchine streamline the production in the early 70's. Sumptuous. Nina Ananiashvili dominated this ballet as only an individual with great star quality. Regal, majestic, she was the embodiment of imperial russia in the form of dance. She was every bit the PRIMA BALLERINA ASSOLUTA. Marcello Gomes was very much Ananiashvili's noble cavalier. Princely and strong he had blue blood running through his veins. But the highlight of the ballet belongs to Monique Meunier. Dancing the secondary role as only a trained Balanchine dancer could. Speed, musicality, clarity, it was all there. Then that terrible fall. But in a blink of an eye she was up and dancing as gloriously as before as if nothing had happen. The enthusiastic ovation at the end of the performance for her was well deserve.

Boy, I have no ideal my message would create should a passionate debate! Not that I mind, I love it. I ask a question and all of you are giving me answers in your own opinion. But something tells me I need to make somethings more clearer. As for Gottlieb's capability as a writer, I've never question that. As I said in my second message on the subject, it's very clear this man is astute in his knowledge of ballet. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is his matter of writing. I just don't believe it's necesary to be as acid tongue as he is in his reviews. As for a reviewer being an educator to a dancer on how they should dance, maybe I should have been more clearer because I certainly did not mean to imply the role of critic as instructor on telling a dancer how they should be perform. But I do believe when a dancer reads a review of their dancing whether consciously or subconsciously, right or wrong they will think about it. And I do believe most dancers reads their reviews which is only natural - if you are doing something that others publicly criticque you're going to read it if for nothing else out of curiosity. But after reading some of the messages that Ari point out to me in early messages, Thanks Ari, I can see I open a Pandora's Box that maybe been best to have remind close.

Alexandra you made some excellent points. Here's my response 1. You're right, every publication does set their individual tone and I keep forgetting that. Of course the matter in which a newspaper or magazine writes, must enthrall the readers they wish to attract. As long as the writer is informative and knowledgeable he/she must or at least should reflect the tone of the newspaper or magazine they are writing for and more importantly what the readers have come to expect. And of course whenever possible, especially when covering any form of the performing arts, you should be entertaining. That's why I can understand Farrell Fan and Juliet comments about disagreeing with Gottlieb but still enjoy reading him reviews. Even I admit he's never boring, that's why I still read him! 2. I have never question Gottlieb's knowledge of ballet. It's very obvious this is a man who is deeply aware of the rich history of this beautiful art form. I'm glad you state this as an arguement, because I have to disagree with you on Gottlieb being entitled to the way he writes his reviews. I know this will go back to the tone a writer choose to write, but I still think there's no excuse for the cruel personal attrack that Gottlieb engage in when writing his reviews. When Gottlieb critique a dancer's performance is one thing. "She danced rather cautiously tonight...", "She did not capture the full beauty of the choreography..." That's a review of a dancer's performance. But when he says thing like, and I'm paraphasing, "That dancer is an embarrassment.." or "How she become a principal dancer I will never know...", I'm sorry but that's not a review of a performance but an unnecessary personal attrack on the dancer. I guess it's the teacher's training in me. We was taught there's two form of criticism - positive and negative. Positive criticism is to encourage and support. Negative criticism is to tear down and discourage. Now I know I'm taking a big leap from criticism with young children and criticism of professional dancers, but for me it still applies. I know it has a lot to do with wording, I mean two reviewers can see the same performance of a dancer, have the same negative reaction to it, but if one reviewer writes about it in a positive way and the other in a negative way, I certain the person that is the focus of the review would come away with more knowledge of what he or she should do too better themselves in their dancing from the positive criticism more so then from the negative criticism. In other words I believe you can get your point across more effectively with honey then you can with vinegar. 3. Having fond memories of dancers from the past is a wonderful thing and I do believe it shapes your love for the art form and how you look at dancers of today. I do that myself. I love Balanchine's "Davidsbunlertanze" (boy, try saying that name five times in a row), but my love of that ballet comes from the videotape of the original cast, save Kay Mazzo. I know, I know, you can't compare videotape performance to the richness of a live performance, but thats what I only have to go on. As much as I've enjoyed live performances of the ballet, none of them have capture the for me the beauty, the lyricism, the intellegence, the loneliness (no one will ever dance the Adam Luder part better then Luder himself!). But I'm not attracking those dancers who are performing the ballet today because they are not performing the ballet as exquisitely as the original cast in the way I believe Gottlieb is doing. As for romanticizing, yes I do believe we all romanticize the past, sometimes to the point we over romanticize what we remember. And I think that can be a disadvantage. By looking too much in the past you could overlook something wonderful in the present only because it's not capturing your memory of the past. 4. As for the grudge, you're right that is only speculation. But I do remember that feature story in Vanity Fair that Thelictum mention and it does make me wonder even more. Alexandra, your right, all criticism is subjective. This is after all one person opinion. The very thing I dislike about Gottlieb's reviews could be the very thing another person loves. And the fact that Gottlieb can get such passionate response from his readers, proves he's obviously do something right.

I just came off the New York Observer homepage reading Robert Gottlieb's review of the recent performances at NYCB and once again was taken aback by the coldness of his review. As I'm sure we are all aware of the fact that there are many ballet critics who have serious problems with how the repertoire of Balanchine and Robbins is being cared for, or how it's not being cared for, I should say at NYCB. Critics like Lynn Garafola, Tobi Tobias and Joan Acocella have spoken with great insight and eloquence about their displeasure with the company. Even when I disagree with them I certainly was able to respect and understand their opinions. The same can not be said for Robert Gottlieb. Don't get me wrong, many times I've read his reviews and find myself totally nodding my head with agreement with him. Some of his opinions about fixing the problems with NYCB I absolutely agree with like Gottlieb well known angry over Peter Martins' suppose ban on having former dancers come in to help coach roles they either created or became famous in to current dancers. Its the tone of Gottlieb writing that bothers me. Unlike Garafola, Tobias or Acocella critiques, Gottlieb seems to have a one man war against Peter Martins and NYCB. There's a cruel nastiness to his writing that in my opinion is not only unnecessary but also distracting. Objective criticism is one thing, plain out and out viciousness is another. That wouldn't be much of a problem for me if his reviews were in the abstract, focusing on the performance at hand. But he seem to take great pleasure on a more personal attack method. He seems to enjoy spotting a dancer's weakness and proceed to ripping them apart with a passion over it - poor, poor Yvonne Borre. Even when he likes a particular performance of a ballet or dancer he seems to be never able to give them full praise. "Tonight performance of such and such ballet was wonderful, but..." or "She danced well this afternoon, however...". When that's done once in awhile that's fine and understandable, but when it's done constantly I begin to wonder if there's anything this company can do to get full praise from this man. To me, the way he writes it's almost as if it's pure torture for him going to the ballet. If that's the case why go? If you just read Gottlieb's reviews a reader may think, what's the point of going to NYCB - obviously the company is no longer among the greats. He also seem to live too much in the past. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you are always judging the present with the standards of the past, I think you overlook some of the glory of today. When we look back on anything that has given us joy or pleasure, we tend to romanticize it, sometimes without us realizing it and I think that could be unfair. Choreographers like Balanchine & Robbins and dancers like Farrell, McBride, Verdy, etc. only comes along every few generations. To remember their uniqueness is something to cherish. But to expect that same uniqueness on other dancers in the present, sometimes ignoring that dancer's own special quality, and then becoming angry when they don't live up to your expectation is wrong and I believe Gottlieb sometimes does this in his reviews. As for the ballets themselves, I even know they are not being performed the same way they must have been perform when Balanchine and Robbins was alive to oversee them. But that is to be expected. No one understands their ballets better then the people who created them. Even the most brilliant stager who was there when the ballet was created, will never fully be able to bring out all the brilliance the way the creator of the ballet could. Do any of us truly believe Swan Lake is perform the exact way Petipa and Ivanov could stage it? Of course not! Just like no one can stage Les Sylphides like Mikhail Fokine could or Antony Tudor to Jardin aux lilas, Frederick Ashton to Symphonic Variations or Geroge Balanchine to Apollo or Jerome Robbins to Dances at a Gathering. Can the staging at NYCB be better? Of course, any and everything can be improve on. But to listen to Gottlieb you would think the ballets of Balanchine and Robbins are on their last legs thanks to Peter Martins and his stagers. And that's simply not true. I've seen performances in which Gottlieb rip apart that I find to have been perform beautifully, so well in fact I'm sure they could stand head and toe along with performances from the past. I sometimes wonder if Gottlieb has a personal grudge against Peter Martins or something, his reviews seem to me too be that personal. One that aspect I could be completely wrong, but I do wonder. O.K I'm finish with my rambling thanks.

The dancer of the moment it seems to me is Teresa Reichlen. From the winter season to the presence season, Ms. Reichlen has been given huge opportunities in one ballet after another and for the most part has raise to the challenge beautifully. But I hope Peter Martins doesn't rush her development. To quick a promotion can hurt a dancer development I believe as easily as waiting to long. That said I believe if Ms. Reichlen development continues as wonderfully as it is, my tea leaves tells me she'll be a soloists within two years. AS FOR CARLA KORBES - HERE'S A DANCER THAT HAS WAITED FAR TO LONG FOR PROMOTION. GET THEE TO SOLOIST MR. MARTINS! Another dancer to look out for and I'm surprise no one else has mention him so far is Daniel Ulbricht. He's a virtuoso wunderkind. Technically he's one of the strongest male dancers NYCB has had in a long time. Yes he's shorter then most ballerinas but there are some ballerinas he can be partner with like Megan Fairchild. With some more developing and guidance I think it won't be to long before he too will be leaving the rank of corp de ballet. Does anyone knows what happen to Pascale van Kipnis?

Personal for me, I love guest stars mainly for financial reasons. Its highly doubtful I will ever be able to fly off to France and see the Paris Opera Ballet. Unless the company travel to the New York area I will never see it. After hearing so much praise for Aurelie Dupont and Manuel Legris it was nice to see them for myself. As long as the guest starring is done in moderation I don't see any problem with it.

How could I have forgotten Violette Verdy! Thanks Leigh for remaining me of her. In fact a big thank you to all of you who have respone to my message. You all have been very helpful! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!

I'm going to see Dances at a Gathering on Saturday. I love this ballet. But I have a problem I hope someone will be able to help me with. For the longest time I've been trying to figure out what part (colors) did the original cast dance. If anyone can help me I would be deeply grateful. Thanks ALLEGRA KENT SARA LELAND KAY MAZZO PATRICIA McBRIDE ANTHONY BLUM JOHN CLIFFORD ROBERT MAIORANO JOHN PRINZ EDWARD VILLELLA P.S. If anyone seen the original cast performance, what was it like

I'm looking forward at seeing Ashley Bouder in Dances at a Gathering!

I was disappointed with last night performance. Mainly because of the television camera. Yes this was live television, but live television has dress rehearsel and its there when the television director does his/her camera blocking so to best capture the dance performance on TV. But it seem to me the director and his/her crew had no idea what to capture, how to capture or when to capture the best moments. This was especially apparent during The Man I Love pas da deux. As much as I love Wynton Marsalis, I did not watch the program to see him play the trumpet but the ballet. Because of the camera shot there was times I felt Nilas Martins and Alexandra Ansanelli was wasting their time because their performance seem to be a after-thought to Marsalis. A dress rehearsel might have also made the programers aware of the fact they was about ten minutes short. I think that could have been easily resolve by expanding the performance of Concerto Barocco. Instead of just having the middle section perform they could have had the final section perform as well. That way we could have seen more of Rachel Rutherford then just seeing her basically walking around the stage. Speaking of Barocco, I wish Peter Martins had switch Maria Kowroski, who didn't seem to me to understood the delicate musicality of the work, with Wendy Whelan who completely understand the brilliance of the choreography. Kowroski would have been better showcase in Brahms-Schoenberg Quarter. As much as I enjoy Vienna Waltzes and as wonderful at seeing Kyra Nichols perform in the final section, that ballet has been perform and to better effect on television before. The final movement of Symphony in C would have been a better choice at ending the evening. Not only is the final a crowd-pleaser but it would have been a nod to NYCB history. Symphony in C was the final ballet perform at the very first performance of the newly founded company. That said, I still enjoy some moments from the evening. The students from SAB in Harlequinade was wonderful. Balanchine is a great choreographer for childern. Sarah Jessica Parker was a gracious hostess who seems generously honored to be there. The same can not be said about Kevin Kline who seem uncomfortable, not quite sure why he was there or what to do. Many moments from the film tribute was nice especially the opening night of Lincoln Center. Balanchine and Lincoln Kirsten seem thrill at the start of a new period in the company's history. Liebeslieder Walzer was danced to near-perfection. And then there was Don Concertante. Not only was Yvonne Borre and especially Peter Boal wonderful, but the camera actually capture the performance beautifully. If only the director and his/her crew had done that thoughtout the entire evening.

I heart is full! I've just return from the State Theater after having one of the happiest experience at going to the NYCB! The Saturday Matinee performance (5/1) was just fantastic! I've been a long time lover of LaValse, but I think the ballet has never been danced as wonderfully as it was this afternoon. Rachel Rutherford as the Girl in White (while I wish Janie Taylor could have been well enough to perform Ms. Rutherford was very good), Robert Tewsley as her gallant suitor and Jock Soto as Death (no one danced attractive menace as well as Mr. Soto) made strong leads to a darkly romantic ballet. Ellen Bar, Saskia Beskow, Gwyenth Muller as the three Fates set the mood for the ballet at the very beginning. Eerie, mysterious, strange but more importantly danced with a sharpness, speed and clarity that seem to premeate throughout the entire ballet. But for me, the real discovery was Stephen Hanna! His dancing with the Fates was amazing, I don't think I've ever seen him dance with so much abandonment. He was great. In my opinion Afternoon of a Faun belongs to Alexandra Ansanelli! She just seem to understand that role better than anyone else I've seen dance it. The clarity, delicateness, wide-eye innocent as well as the small touch of sexual curiousity was all there to see. When Damian Woetzel kiss her on the cheek and she slowly raise her hand to touch her face, you truly believe that she just experience her very first kiss. The bouquet of flowers thrown to her at the end of the performance from a audience member was well deserve. The fragrance of french perfume was in the air when Aurelie Dupont and Manuel Legris from the Paris Opera Ballet brought the unique french style of dancing when the perform Sonatine. This may not be one of Balanchine's major works but you would not notice it with the way they danced it. They was in perfect harmony with one another. A wonderful performance. And as for pianist Elaine Chelton - Wow! I don't think I've ever heard anyone play the Ravel music played as beautifully as she played this afternoon. But the moment I loved the most was discovering Jerome Robbins' The Four Seasons. In the seven years of going to City Ballet this is the first time I've ever seen this ballet. I had no idea what I was missing! The entire cast brought out all the humor, athletic, creativity and inventiveness of Robbins' choreography. But more importantly they danced with pure joy and abandonment! You knew they all was having the time of their lives. The only dancer I've single out is Carla Korbes. Her dancing in the summer section was fantastic. When she and Robert Trewsley finish dancing their pas de deux, before the audience could applaud her, someone at the top of their lungs shout Bravo! And boy, was that deserve! When is Peter Martins going to wise up and promote her to soloist and start giving her more important roles. She certainly deserve it!

Leigh Witchel is a man!! I am soooo sorry! My mistake! Thanks for the correction.

When I first join this message board, I said the ballet I was most looking forward to seeing this season was Liebeslieder Walzer, because the first time I saw this ballet I was unimpress. Leigh Witchel wrote me a nice message welcoming me to the board and said she hope I will see Walzer with "new eyes". Well Leigh I saw Walzer last night (4/29) with "new eyes" and what my eyes behold was one of the most romantic and beautiful ballets I've ever seen! From the moment the curtain came up I was transported to another world. A world of refinement, elegence, beauty and most importantly romance. The beautiful set by David Mitchell, the sumptuous costumes by Karinska, the amazing lighting by Ronald Bates and Mark Stanley, Brahms' extraordinary music perform and sung to near perfection by Richard Moredock, Susan Walters (piano), Nancy Allen Lundy, Jennifer Roderer, Bruce Sledge and Jan Opalach (singers) all combine to create an atmosphere where love flourish supreme. As for the dancing of Darci Kislter & Philip Neal, Krya Nichols & Jock Soto, Miranda Weese & Jared Angle and Wendy Whelan & Nikolaj Hubbe - I can't possibly single anyone of them out for praise! My powers with the english language is not large enough to completely convey the feelings I felt watching them dance. Enchanting, elegant, graceful, alluring, majestic - these words simply don't come nearly close to describing the feelings inside me. As for George Balanchine, if there was any questions if he's a artistic genius who stands along side Picasso, Matisse, Stravinsky, Joyce and Louis Armstrong this ballet puts all those questions to rest. It amazed me watching Balanchine taking the dance of waltzing and gave it so many different variations of creativity and inventiveness. Every time I suspected he couldn't possibly top himself, he would wonderfully prove me wrong. Superb, simply superb. In Anne Belle's documentary Dancing for Mr. B: Six Balanchine Ballerinas I remember Maria Tallchief saying that George Balanchine is a poet and he taught them (his dancers) how to react and to become this poetry. I first couldn't quite understand that statement, but after seeing Liebeslieder Walzer, I fully understand. For Balanchine is the poet laureate of 20th century ballet.

I too hope no one was seriously injured. I was looking forward to seeing Janie Taylor in LaValse, but I think Rachel Rutherford is an excellent replacement. I'm just glad the casting for Liebeslieder Walzer has not change. I think the casting for this ballet is excellent.

Where's SUZANNE FARRELL EDWARD VILLELLA MARIE-JEANNE (is she still alive, I'm not sure) MARIA TALLCHIEF ARTHUR MITCHELL PATRICIA McBRIDE CONRAD LUDLOW (is he still alive, I'm not sure) VIOLETTE VERDY KAY MAZZO SARA LELAND JEAN-PIERRE BONNEFOUX HELGI TOMASSON ROBERT WEISS HEATHER WATTS IB ANDERSEN and other great names of Balanchine's dancers? Maybe they have not conform yet or maybe the press release only gave a small list of the former dancers who will be attending. But whatever the case is without them a reunion of Balanchine's dancer will just not be the same or have the same importance, in my opinion anyway.

My mistake. Thanks for the correction! The main disappointment I had was the fact that in the introduction there was no mention that this was the 100 anniversary of the birth of Sir Frederick Ashton. I know The Lincoln Center Festival will be celebrating him with several companies including The Royal Ballet performing his ballets. But I sometimes think Balanchince's year long birthday celebration is overshadowing Ashton's.

I thoroughly enjoyed PBS broadcast of ABT's production of Sir Frederick Ashton's The Dream. The corp de ballet danced, I believe, wonderfully. Craig Salstein was a terrific Bottom. He's point dancing was clear and sharp, not easy when you think a male dancer is not train to dance on point. Ethan Brown, Marian Butler, Carlos Molina and Stella Abrera was all wonderful as the confuse lovers. They may not have bought out all the humor, but they danced strongly and believable lovers. However as good as Molina was, I don't think he gave himself fully to the sexual playfulness as Marcelo Gomes did when ABT first perform The Dream a few years ago. Marian Butler is a dancer I must admit I have not payed much attention to. But here is an American dancer I believe if given the proper guidance and nurturing could eventually become a promising principal dancer, or the very lease a strong and reliable soloist. As for the leads - they would all in their own way glorious. Alessandra Ferri is one of the premier dance-actress. Her Titania was a perfect playfull and willful queen. She also has the most beautiful pair of feets I've seen on any prima ballerina. Just beautiful. Ethan Stiefel was nearly perfect as Oberon. Although I totally agree with Alexandra - his facial express sometimes made him look more like a madman than a noble king of the fairies. And has there ever been a more spirited, exuberant, brilliantly danced Puck as Herman Cornejo?The joy in which he danced that role was contiguous. The highlight of the evening for me was the pas de deux at the end. Television can never match the thrill of live performance, but TV can give you a close-up of the dance. Ferri and Stiefel was in complete harmony with one another: Ferri, soft and lyrical; Stiefel strong and noble. A near perfect performance of one of the most beautiful pas de deux ever created. ABT did Sir Frederick proud!

I still believe the reason we see so many foreign dancers in American ballet countries is the type of training American dancers are receiving in this country. That's not to say we are not seeing wonderfully strong technically skill dancers. We have them in truck loads!! But I think we all know in order to become a prinicpal dancer to any company you must be more then just an exceptional technical dancer. There must be a spark, a unique quality within that individual that seperate them from the rest and their ability to convey that to the audience. I think while Americans are being train to be strong technicians, they are not being train to be individualist. Now I know that cannot be taught, but maybe they are not being train in an environment that encourage them to be unique from others. As a school teacher I know you can teach an entire class of students the same material, some will understand the material better and faster, some will take a longer time to understand it and some may never gasp the material at all. But if you do not encourage students to think on their own, to help bring out their own uniqueness at solving a problem, to put their own personal stamp on a situation, the student will only follow the example the teacher set forth. In order words, if a teacher does not encourage individuality from their students you can't expect to see it in most students. Ballet schools in foreign countries, such as The Vaganova Academy in Russia and The Paris Opera Ballet School from what I've read does encourage individuality. The fact that most of the best known dancers in ballet are foreign born, I think says alot. I don't people think of Wendy Whelan a glorious dancer at NYCB in the same way as Darcey Bussell of the Royal Ballet. Speaking of NYCB, this company is made-up primarily of American born and train dancers. Some of whom I believe are the very best in the world. But I don't think many people think of them as star dancers. I think because NYBC has ever encourage the star system. Of course over the years NYBC has produce some of the most famous dancers the world of ballet has ever seen: Suzanne Farrell, Edward Villella to just name two. I think NYCB is unique in the fact that, unlike other companies, the main attraction for audience is more for the choregraphy of George Balanchine and Jerome Robbins then for the individual dancers. And I think the company encourage that way of thinking. Notice whenever NYCB advertise in posters or newspaper print they only advertise the ballets for a particular evening. Where as at ABT, which proudly foster the star-system, they put a greater stand on publicizing the individual performer. I think that has alot to do with the legacy of George Balanchine. As we all know Balanchine has had a enormous and profound impact on American ballet. And because he seem to put a greater importance on the choreography than on developing the "star system", it could be argued that NYCB is the only ensemble or repertory ballet company in the world, as being more important in the growth of a ballet company, most companies I believe has followed suit. And when you think of the fact that most artistic directors of American ballet companies are former dancers of Mr. Balanchine, they maybe following the example set by their mentor. So when they are looking for a possible star to attract audience they may feel they have to go to foreign dancers, because unfortunately they may feel their home-train dancers don't have the skills to develop into star dancers. Not bothering to develop and guiding them to greatness. After all a great dancer is not born, but develop.

Y'know Marga, I do remember reading there was a falling out between Martins and Farrell. That would certainly explain why the ballet have not been revived at NYBC. Thanks for reminding of that. And I hope when the ballet is revived by Ms. Farrell she will bring the production to the New York area. Do you know the reason for the fallout between these two. I think its sad that after all those years of performing brilliantly together, they would have major differences between one another today.

I think its great the Suzanne Farrell will be staging the ballet in Washington. After reading Marga explanation of what made the ballet unique from the others, thanks Marga, I really would love to see the ballet. But I don't live in the Washington area. Which makes me curiosity - is there a reason why Peter Martins could not have asked Farrell to stage the ballet for NYCB.

I was just thinking this. With NYCB currently celebrating the centennial birth of George Balanchine, why haven't Peter Martins revive Balanchine's version of Don Quixote? I understand this was one of his most important creations. And also from what I've read about it his version is very different then the standard version we see at ABT, Kirvo, etc. Does anyone know, or have an opinion, why this ballet have not been revive and what made it so different from the other versions of Don Quixote? Thanks.