Dale

OK. now I can comment. I'm affraid I jumped right in there without thinking. I guess the good thing is Meunier might get a chance to dance in Symphony in C, 2nd mvt. I'll never forget seeing her in that role at the SAB workshop in 1989. I've been to workshops before and since, but she gave such an extraordinary performance. I think she's a special dancer, one that is alive on stage and makes you feel alive when leaving the theater. I think she had two peak times at NYCB -- the first coming during the Balanchine Celebration when she performed the lead in the first movement of Bourree Fantastique and in Who Cares?, and then a few years ago when she used to team up with Igor Zelensky to tear up the stage in the last movements of Western Symphony and Brahms-Schoenberg quartet. I think she captured Suzanne Farrell's abandon in the gypsie finale of the Brahms-Schoenberg better than anybody else. Her debut as the Siren in Prodigal Son with Hubbe was scintillating. The two were scorching. Well, she did so many rolls well -- Hypollita, Swan Lake, the pas de trois in Agon, the girl in green in Dances at a Gathering, the lead in Cortege Hongrois, Slavonic Dances, the Sugar Plum, Stars and Stripes... So, I think she will be missed at NYCB as I believe she is a true Balanchine-style dancer. However, I'm hoping she'll get more of a chance to perform and get a nice partner too. I don't see her in Tudor or Ashton, but how about Don Q., Theme and Variations, Myrta in Giselle, Swan Lake, Symphony in C. Maybe ABT will give another shot at Prodigal Son, this time with Meunier as the Siren. Good luck to her.

I might be crazy, but I really love the costumes from the old productions. They're gaudy and over the top, much more like vaudeville than the all-the-pale-colors-must-match produtions of today.

Well, I'm glad the Ashton programs are such a hit (My tickets for both are this week and next Monday). Hopefully, it will push ABT to bring on more Ashton.

Here's the Mariinsky's picture gallery for the new/old Bayedere production to look at while reading Jeannie's review: http://www.mariinsky.ru/en/info/gallery/bayadere_new

Well, if you're waiting for a big debut, Ansaneilli might be doing Theme later this month.

Good points Manhattnik. I guess it's my own opionion that I'd at least like to see Marcovicci in a few cavalier-type roles. To me, he has nice height, is good looking and owns the requisite technical skills. But, you're right, he hasn't been cast in any prince roles. Mmm..I think he's done a few not-quite successful Nutcrackers. But we've seen the women cast early in important roles and against type and the men don't get that chance. Boal danced Mozartiana with Farrell's group, but has not done it in New York and Neal did Apollo with the SF group, as well, but not in New York. And considering who we've seen cast as Apollo...

I've always seen Fayette as a Conrad Ludlow type, and has done a few of his roles in Midsummer Night's Dream, Emerlads, Concerto Barocco, and Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet. But, I agree, I was a little surprised at his promotion. Although, I do think he's acquitted himself well, such as in Western Symphony 1 mvt., when needed to pull out some turns and jumps. I guessed Marcovicci would be a principal eventually, but, as Manhattnik pointed out, he is a bit more uneven than Millepied. I always thought Marcovicci's partnering skills would need to improve a bit before taking over the cavalier roles his looks and talent should bring him. But Peter Martins has been slow to cast the younger men in the top roles. I was sure last year that Millepied or Marcovicci would be cast in Prodigal Son, but it didn't happen. During the Winter season, Woetzel did all the Theme and Variations. I would have thought someone such as Phillip Neal or Millepied would get a chance. Maybe this season. Who do you think will be promoted to soloist take to fill the three men's spots? Carmena, Jason Fowler, and Craig Hall possibly?

I think all of those are wonderful. Thanks for the update Amanda. I think the promotion of three men to principal points to the need for top-ranked men. Now, I hope we'll see them in things like Apollo, Prodigal, Theme etc... And, of course, I'm very pleased about Rutherford. She's lovely.

Very well put, thank you.

Very well put, thank you.

Dirac, I think, considering what she said about them, she should mention dancer's names. I don't think she should make disparaging remarks, yet protect herself by not using the names. It also allows the reader to see examples of what Homans is referring to and to judge Homans' taste. For ex. if one of these dancers who is "contriving emotion or using fake ornamentation" is Ms. Dancer I've seen, I can judge for myself and look for examples. I might think, "Yeah, Homans is right. Mmm..." or I might think, "I've seen that dancer and I disagree." It don't think she backs up her opinion with many examples at all. I think it benefits Homans rather than the dancer or teacher that she doesn't mention names. Manhattnik, I agree. I don't know when museums became such a bad thing, maybe at the same time when to be called a Liberal or Intellectual was disparaging. Where would NYCB be if it suddenly lost the right to perform all those old "museum" pieces?

Dirac, I think, considering what she said about them, she should mention dancer's names. I don't think she should make disparaging remarks, yet protect herself by not using the names. It also allows the reader to see examples of what Homans is referring to and to judge Homans' taste. For ex. if one of these dancers who is "contriving emotion or using fake ornamentation" is Ms. Dancer I've seen, I can judge for myself and look for examples. I might think, "Yeah, Homans is right. Mmm..." or I might think, "I've seen that dancer and I disagree." It don't think she backs up her opinion with many examples at all. I think it benefits Homans rather than the dancer or teacher that she doesn't mention names. Manhattnik, I agree. I don't know when museums became such a bad thing, maybe at the same time when to be called a Liberal or Intellectual was disparaging. Where would NYCB be if it suddenly lost the right to perform all those old "museum" pieces?

Interesting posts all. My opinions are closely alighned it would seem with Ari's. But first, I question the article as a work of journalism. Is it an article on the erosion of Balanchine's school and company, or an opinion piece. If it is an article, it seems to be one made without any outside reporting. That's bad journalism. The article would be richer if Homans had interviewed a few other people. But this is not a surprise, as she has done the same thing in her work for the New Republic. Is it a column? If it is, she should at least establish her credentials so the reader can place and weight her opinions. What is reference for viewing the company? So she was a student at SAB in the 80's. She doesn't make this clear in the story. Has she been watching since the 60's, the 70's? It would have helped me take her points more seriously if I knew what performances are her reference points. In addition, I found her writing more than a bit cowardly. She mentions that the school no longer has the perfume-spreading Russian teachers. Does this mean the current teachers are at fault? Suki Schorer? Kay Mazzo? Jock Soto or Peter Boal? She mentions some NYCB dancer, "struggles to find more, as if she knows something is missing. But she ends up contriving emotion with breathy flourishes and fake ornamentation." Homans doesn't have the guts to mention the dancers by name. Which one is contriving emotion or using fake ornamentation? The older Russian teachers are gone. They couldn't live forever. I'm sorry as I'm sure they were inspiring and had much to impart. But Homans does not suggest a solution to replace them. Should the company hire some teachers away from St. Petersburg, whose "Vaganova" teachings might be different than the "Imperial Russian" technique taught by Danilova and Co? I do believe they have had a few visiting Russian teachers and I think it is a good idea. One idea that has been brought up on these boards is that those dancers who receive a solid education elsewhere, but come to SAB for a year or so of polishing, prove to be better off in the long run. Why is this? It has been suggested that SAB, by way of those charming Russian teachers, taught a solid Imperial Russian technique to its students, who then learned the Balanchine Style in company class. Now, the Balanchine style is being taught at SAB, or so I understand, which it wasn't meant to be. There is another belief that it is Stanley Williams' influence or trust in his method and what he stressed at the school that has somewhat changed the company's accent from a Russian one to a Danish one (although he himself was taught by a Russian). I have noticed that NYCB does have a lighter touch than it did during the 70s and 80s. There was a certain gravity in movement (maybe the difference between hitting flatter vs. hitting with top spin in tennis) 20-30 years ago. That might be Williams' influence or Martins'. About the world that these "Russian" teachers showed to the dancers might be something we can never get back. Unfortunately, it's a different world. "Being real" is where it is at now. Suzanne Farrell was taken to museums, introduced to important people and told stories about the Ballet Russe by Balanchine. According to Robert Garis' book, she was bored by it as a teenager. About 15 years later in Winter Season, it was noted that she and Balanchine both favored gourmet food. Now, she takes her students to museums and talks to her about the important people she met. Is she the only one? I don't know if Peter Martins talks to Janie Taylor or Jared Angle about the artists and writers he met during the 70s or incourages them to go to the museum so they can see the poses of Agon, Apollo or Concerto Barocco in the greek vases. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It takes two to tango. There are some dancers at NYCB who do a lot of research of the ballets they dance, and others who go their own way. Homans brings up the idea of former dancers such as Villella, D'Amboise, Farrell etc.. coaching at NYCB. 1) I'd love it, but 2) they have there own companies. Yes, Farrell was fired and hardly utilized while she was there. That's awful and I definitely believe that she should have a place in the company and personal differences should have been put aside or worked out. And I would love to see, as Villella did in Miami, NYCB have the dancers for which certain ballets were created for come in and coach. In interviews, dancers raved about working with Tallchief or Von Aroldingen doing the Balanchine Foundation interpreter project. I think the ballerinas would benefit from, for example, working with McBride when Coppelia re-enters the rep. I'd like to have these people feel at home at NYCB for other "interpreters" have a few guest runs. NYCB doesn't have McBride, D'Amboise, Hayden or Farrell. But it does have some very good coaches. I've watched Leland, Hendl, von Aroldingen, Martins and Lavery work and I've seen good results. People lauded the coaching the Kirov got when they put on Jewels. Yet, those are the same people who coach the ballet at NYCB. They also are staging Balanchine's ballets all over the world, they can't be incompetent or the Balanchine Foundation wouldn't use them. However, I believe Alexandra makes a good point. Use it or lose it. In many of the new ballets over the years at NYCB , dancers hardly have had to use their "classical" technique. Class also is important. I remember reading that Balanchine and Williams wanted a step done correctly, but also that it should have a certain special quality. NYCB had had a guest teacher for several years, now Merrill Ashley does most of the teaching this season. I've read that she gives a good, hard class. Are the dancers taking it? As Dirac pointed out, there are others that believe the company has turned the corner. I would like to see the Balanchine and the Robbins (whose works, by the way, have been coached by his personally selected crew way before he died, so I don't know about a decline), and a few other rarely seen ballets by others, including Martins, given more rehearsal time. I'd like to see revivals, but revivals with proper coaching and time. Some ballets that were brought back for the Balanchine Celebration (such as Bourree Fantastique or Haiff Divertimento), but were hardly shown in subsequent seasons until they've been out of the rep for almost 10 years now. Instead of programing Tchiak. pas de deux again and again, why not Minkus Pas de Trois or Glinka Pas De Trois? I haven't seen Robbins' Mother Goose Suite or Martins' Concerto for Two Solo Pianos in ages. Try a reconstruction such as Cotillion (already done for the Joffrey) or À la Françaix, which is notated. There's a video of it staged by Eglevsky. I've poured out a lot here, hopes it make sense. I don't think this article tread any new ground or offered any solutions.

Interesting posts all. My opinions are closely alighned it would seem with Ari's. But first, I question the article as a work of journalism. Is it an article on the erosion of Balanchine's school and company, or an opinion piece. If it is an article, it seems to be one made without any outside reporting. That's bad journalism. The article would be richer if Homans had interviewed a few other people. But this is not a surprise, as she has done the same thing in her work for the New Republic. Is it a column? If it is, she should at least establish her credentials so the reader can place and weight her opinions. What is reference for viewing the company? So she was a student at SAB in the 80's. She doesn't make this clear in the story. Has she been watching since the 60's, the 70's? It would have helped me take her points more seriously if I knew what performances are her reference points. In addition, I found her writing more than a bit cowardly. She mentions that the school no longer has the perfume-spreading Russian teachers. Does this mean the current teachers are at fault? Suki Schorer? Kay Mazzo? Jock Soto or Peter Boal? She mentions some NYCB dancer, "struggles to find more, as if she knows something is missing. But she ends up contriving emotion with breathy flourishes and fake ornamentation." Homans doesn't have the guts to mention the dancers by name. Which one is contriving emotion or using fake ornamentation? The older Russian teachers are gone. They couldn't live forever. I'm sorry as I'm sure they were inspiring and had much to impart. But Homans does not suggest a solution to replace them. Should the company hire some teachers away from St. Petersburg, whose "Vaganova" teachings might be different than the "Imperial Russian" technique taught by Danilova and Co? I do believe they have had a few visiting Russian teachers and I think it is a good idea. One idea that has been brought up on these boards is that those dancers who receive a solid education elsewhere, but come to SAB for a year or so of polishing, prove to be better off in the long run. Why is this? It has been suggested that SAB, by way of those charming Russian teachers, taught a solid Imperial Russian technique to its students, who then learned the Balanchine Style in company class. Now, the Balanchine style is being taught at SAB, or so I understand, which it wasn't meant to be. There is another belief that it is Stanley Williams' influence or trust in his method and what he stressed at the school that has somewhat changed the company's accent from a Russian one to a Danish one (although he himself was taught by a Russian). I have noticed that NYCB does have a lighter touch than it did during the 70s and 80s. There was a certain gravity in movement (maybe the difference between hitting flatter vs. hitting with top spin in tennis) 20-30 years ago. That might be Williams' influence or Martins'. About the world that these "Russian" teachers showed to the dancers might be something we can never get back. Unfortunately, it's a different world. "Being real" is where it is at now. Suzanne Farrell was taken to museums, introduced to important people and told stories about the Ballet Russe by Balanchine. According to Robert Garis' book, she was bored by it as a teenager. About 15 years later in Winter Season, it was noted that she and Balanchine both favored gourmet food. Now, she takes her students to museums and talks to her about the important people she met. Is she the only one? I don't know if Peter Martins talks to Janie Taylor or Jared Angle about the artists and writers he met during the 70s or incourages them to go to the museum so they can see the poses of Agon, Apollo or Concerto Barocco in the greek vases. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It takes two to tango. There are some dancers at NYCB who do a lot of research of the ballets they dance, and others who go their own way. Homans brings up the idea of former dancers such as Villella, D'Amboise, Farrell etc.. coaching at NYCB. 1) I'd love it, but 2) they have there own companies. Yes, Farrell was fired and hardly utilized while she was there. That's awful and I definitely believe that she should have a place in the company and personal differences should have been put aside or worked out. And I would love to see, as Villella did in Miami, NYCB have the dancers for which certain ballets were created for come in and coach. In interviews, dancers raved about working with Tallchief or Von Aroldingen doing the Balanchine Foundation interpreter project. I think the ballerinas would benefit from, for example, working with McBride when Coppelia re-enters the rep. I'd like to have these people feel at home at NYCB for other "interpreters" have a few guest runs. NYCB doesn't have McBride, D'Amboise, Hayden or Farrell. But it does have some very good coaches. I've watched Leland, Hendl, von Aroldingen, Martins and Lavery work and I've seen good results. People lauded the coaching the Kirov got when they put on Jewels. Yet, those are the same people who coach the ballet at NYCB. They also are staging Balanchine's ballets all over the world, they can't be incompetent or the Balanchine Foundation wouldn't use them. However, I believe Alexandra makes a good point. Use it or lose it. In many of the new ballets over the years at NYCB , dancers hardly have had to use their "classical" technique. Class also is important. I remember reading that Balanchine and Williams wanted a step done correctly, but also that it should have a certain special quality. NYCB had had a guest teacher for several years, now Merrill Ashley does most of the teaching this season. I've read that she gives a good, hard class. Are the dancers taking it? As Dirac pointed out, there are others that believe the company has turned the corner. I would like to see the Balanchine and the Robbins (whose works, by the way, have been coached by his personally selected crew way before he died, so I don't know about a decline), and a few other rarely seen ballets by others, including Martins, given more rehearsal time. I'd like to see revivals, but revivals with proper coaching and time. Some ballets that were brought back for the Balanchine Celebration (such as Bourree Fantastique or Haiff Divertimento), but were hardly shown in subsequent seasons until they've been out of the rep for almost 10 years now. Instead of programing Tchiak. pas de deux again and again, why not Minkus Pas de Trois or Glinka Pas De Trois? I haven't seen Robbins' Mother Goose Suite or Martins' Concerto for Two Solo Pianos in ages. Try a reconstruction such as Cotillion (already done for the Joffrey) or À la Françaix, which is notated. There's a video of it staged by Eglevsky. I've poured out a lot here, hopes it make sense. I don't think this article tread any new ground or offered any solutions.

Thank you Kate. It is an interesting look at the size of both companies.

I think NYCB gives a nice night for the retiring dancer to remember. I'll never forget the way Peter Boal kept on pushing Alexopoulos ahead to receive applause that usually goes to the larger role of the Prodigal and the tears Alexopoulos shed when the cavaliers of the evening came on and brought her flowers. Of the other moments of the evening, the company gave another strong performance of Vienna Waltzes. Re: Nichols vs. Kistler in the last section. Personally, I had never felt either was exactly perfect Kistler had been too sunny while Nichols too sensible. But it is a role for the, I don't know how to put this, but the top dancer, the flagbearer, so to speak. And, in the end, I think both succeed in the role. Nichols plays is somewhat straighter than Kistler, who has a sometimes eccentric take on the role. I've seen her miss in the Der Rosenkavalier section, but this season she was definitely a hit. re: Tchiak pas de deux -- A casual observer thought Woetzel cared only of his solos and was too lax in the partnering sections. I thought he wanted it to look risky. It did, too risky. I didn't see Ansanelli hurt herself, but I don't think that would explain the partnering snafus. She looked better than fine during her solos.

I don't have much time, but I thought I'd put down a few notes on Monday's All Tchiakovsky program of ABT at the Met. Theme and Variations -- Gillian Murphy and Ethan Stiefel. This should be a good ballet for the two, both trained in the Balanchine style. Both were very strong in their solos. The pas de deux was OK, but had all sorts of additional "romantic" tinges that I've not seen in either the ABT version or the later one done at NYCB. I had read that Igor Youskevitch used to try and be more romantic in sections and that Balanchine would say something like, "No. Don't look at her so much. Less romantic." But I had never seen the ballerina bow to her partner at the start of the pas de deux. Thankfully, the obsession with long balances that sometimes mars this ballet when done by other ballerina at ABT was not present. It was a good, low-key performance. Tchiakovsky pas de deux was nicely done by Amanda McKerrow and Vladimir Malakhov. I was hesitante even to buy this night so I could avoid their usual cloying performance of this ballet, but I was delightfully surprised. It was gentle and musical. An interesting contrast to the high-flying, risky performances done recently at NYCB. It's odd but good for comparisons that the three Balanchine ballets being done at ABT are in the NYCB rep this season and both companies are doing versions of Midsummer Night's Dream. The grand pas de deux from Act II of the Nutcracker was given a practically perfect performance by Julie Kent and Jose Manuel Carreno. Watching Carreno was like witnessing a 10-for-10 shooting night in basketball, or a batter who goes 5-for-5 in a baseball game. He was in the zone. The thing that kept this performance from being like a computer was the dancers' personal glamour. Sleeping Beauty -- Rose Adagio, Act III. Paloma Herrera appears to be having a resurgence and had a strong showing in the Rose Adagio -- more musical, more aware of the dancers around her. She only had a little blip during the last set of balances as she appeared lothe to take her hand away from the first suitor and the others had to catch up, with the orchestra slowing down the last turn, so Ethan Brown could get Herrera all the way around in time for the dancers and music to end together. However, I'm not sure I like this bit taken out of context in a program such as this...at a demonstration, or a highlights gala or introduction to the arts type thing, fine, but not at the Met. I'd rather ABT find another pas de deux or short ballet. I almost feel the same way about Act III or Aurora's Wedding. The sets are awful, the costumes laden with glitter and the McMillian staging/choreography ponderous. ABT needs a new Sleeping Beauty, or an old one, but not this one. Still, the dancers coped well. Marcelo Gomes and Stella Abrera were gold and diamond, Xiomara Reyes and Joaquin De Lux did the bluebird pas de deux (OK, but he was muscling his steps), and Jaffe and Acosta the Grand Pas de Deux. Jaffe performed as we have come to expect and should go out in style this season. It was my second look at Acosta and it's a pleasure to watch him. The biggest thing I noticed about him this time was physical strength in partnering. I'm sure his ballerinas feel very secure.

Ari, I'm glad you enjoyed the performances. I enjoyed reading your views. You liked Lindy Mandrajieff, well so does P Martins, he's casting her in a few things and she's doing Jenifer Ringer's role in Prism. The comments on Tchiak pas de deux were interesting. Your right about the turning combination. I really miss them when replaced by straight fouettes. On Monday at ABT, Gillian Murphy did the fouetté/pas de bouree piqué sequence and Ansanelli, Whelan, and Weese do so as well. But the Kirov dancers do straight fouettes. It seems to be something that Balanchine allowed an option. Melissa Hayden does not do the combination in the two tapes I have of her and I had seen Patricia McBride do it two different ways. Farrell had always done the combination, as did Kistler and Nichols. I wonder what goes into the decision to do what and what was done originally by Verdy. Didn't Conrad Ludlow originate the male role in Tchiak pas? The best partner, he certainly did not have the virtuocity of Villella. Maybe the male role was changed when D'Amboise and Villella did the part.

Manhattnik, I like what you've just posted. One of the reasons I've always loved watching Igor Zelensky was the beautiful way he had of presenting his ballerina when he wasn't touching her, the way he would align his arms and head to compliment hers when they were standing side-by-side. Peter Martins did this as well and it creates great harmony on stage. Herrera showed her appreciation as well with one of her better showings that I've seen and during the curtain calls, when she indicating each partner individually.

Ah, Manhattnik, I'm glad you got here first. I know you love galas! One of the best bits for me was Tchiakovsky pas de Deux with Murphy and Gomes. She lagged a bit in the fast parts but was so commanding and musical in everything else, as Gomes was. Without embelishing the solos in this work as some of his co-workers do, he was quite super. At NYCB, this piece sometimes gets very frenetic as the orchestra whirls out of control and the dancers sprint to keep up. But here, everything was at ease, yet the ending was exciting -- even the slight bobble on the second fish dive added to the thrill. Another highlight was the Dream. I hadn't seen this ballet in awhile, and it took me a bit to stop feeling for the Balanchine choreography. In addition, I have not seen that much Ashton so I am not attuned to his brand of musical expression. However, I really enjoyed Stiefel (who did dance Oberon at NYCB, but was, in my opinion was overshadowed by Boal) and Ferri. It's a shame it didn't get as much applause as the big jumps and turns. Reyes performed a variation from La Fille Mal Gardee. Despite owning the Australian Ballet performance, I've never seen the ballet so I don't know which variation, but it was pretty enough. Malakhov's dancing in the Olga/Lensky pas de deux with Tuttle almost made me want to see the ballet this season. Ditto on Manhattnik's thoughts on the Corsaire excerpts, Giselle and Manon. But because I was finding doing the Manon pas de deux again tiresome, I actually liked Walk This Way. Why can't anybody choreograph some new gala fare? Symphony in C looked ragged and nobody seemed to be able to keep up at the end. And, yes, NYCB has been awesome in this ballet this season.

I might have missed this, but Evgeni Ivanchenko is listed as dancing with the Bolshoi during the company's Washington D.C. visit. Is he just guesting? Is it a different Ivanchenko or has he moved from the Kirov to the Bolshoi?

Correlazione, Opus 19/the Dreamer, and Vienna Waltzes A strong program. Correlazione is an early Diamond Project effort by Miriam Mahdaviani -- one of the more successful DP choreographers. The ballet showed of Mahdaviani's skill of showing off the classical vocabulary with a sly, quirky twist. It's danced to baraque music by Corelli and costumed (Holly Hynes) in desert colors with a pointalistic print. Janie Taylor was her usual aggressive self, hardly contained by Albert Evans' handling. Rachel Rutherford was beautiful and mysterious in the adagio with James Fayette. Carrie Lee Riggins and Lindy Mardradjieff showed off nice turns in the demi-solo roles. Teresa Reichlen stood out in the corps for her beautiful, long-legged line. Woetzel and Whelan were excellent as usual in the Robbins' ballet. I'm affraid I don't have much more to say about the performance as I've seen this ballet with this cast many times recently. Vienna Waltzes was a pleasure, espcially with Monique Meunier looking like a lovely pink rose in the first movement, Ringer and Hubbe in the second, Charles Askegart and Helena Alexopolous in the fourth and Kyra Nichols returning from maternity leave in the finale. The entire ballet looked in good form after being coached by Von Arlondingen, P Martins and (I think) Sarah Leland. Meunier was light and lovely in the opening section, partnered well by Robert Lyon. She had a touching moment when, after all the ladies are rejoined by their men, she looks around, waiting for her late escort to arrive. When he comes to her side, she sneaked a look as if suddenly realizing how much she missed and loved him. Afterwards, the shyness and modesty of true emotion tinged Meunier's performance until she and her partner rushed off the stage. Ringer's performance in the second movement (Furhlingstimmen) is fresh and delightful (with lilting rubato), reminding me of her dancing in the Spring section of the Four Seasons. Some have made the section where the soloist shields her face very dark and dramatic (overly dramatic was the critisism leveled at Heather Watts), but for Ringer, it was just a game of hide-and-seek during a picnic in the woods. Hubbe does not have the hops he used to, but the jumps were musically articulated and he matched Ringer well. It is said that comedy in ballet is one of the hardest things to get off so it isn't a surprise that the third movement is sometimes hit or miss. When I was little and I first saw this ballet, I was totally amazed by this section. Could the same Balanchine of the first two movements be the author of the baudy bar maids and ridiculous fops in the the third? Maybe because I know the joke now, I'm less astounded. Kathleen Tracy and Kipling Houston were fine, as were the six corps memembers, but I think the timing needs to be tightened to really have the section catch fire, such as the last move when the men crawl up the women pretending to look up there dresses, the women shouldn't shoo them away until the very last moment. Alexopoulos used to play the widow in the Gold and Silver Waltz as a total vamp but now, practically on the eve of her retirement she has the right balance between flirtaciousness and graciousness. And it was wonderful to have a real man back in the role in Askegard. Since Peter Martins withdrew from the part, not many of his replacements matched his manliness and presence (Soto definitely could, but he's been in the first movement). To me, Nichols is a bit of a strange fit with the lead in the Der Rosenkavalier section. As Croce once wrote (I think), Farrell is wit personified while Nichols is reason inflammed. Well, Farrell was mystery personified in this ballet. Nichols makes it work because...well, she's Kyra Nichols, one of the great ballerinas. The role does need a true ballerina and, possibly, a mature one. Maturity was brought up to me during the section where the principals from five sections come together and dance in a circle. Rare now, all were adult. Not old, but mature artists in the sense that they know the difference between performing and just dancing. Not that I don't enjoy and look forward to young dancers getting a crack at the big parts, but for once we weren't seeing a "really good job by a dancer one (or two) years out of SAB." A very wonderful evening ended with the dancers whirling in white satin and white tie and black tails and the lights blazing.

Good reviews from all, and it saves me from having to describe the Bigonzetti piece. About the Bigonzetti piece, I thought it was Nacho Duato on point shoes, with a lot of ragged arm movements, pulling and pushing, and some rolling around. Having looked forward to seeing this work, I was disappointed by (as Cargill would put it) the "take that you bitch" aspects of the choreography. Several times the men put there hands around the women's necks and pulled them up onto pointe. It looked unfortable and violent. It was a big part for Millepied, who I think excells in slimy roles. I liked the pas de deux between Kowroski and Fowler best. Ansanelli and Marcovici danced well (as did the entire cast) but I was less engaged with the choreography of their sections. The first of the two Martins' ballets was pleasant but dull. Maybe good for SAB, it was simple and elegant. Watching it, I was thinking that it was made for the sole purpose to get Kistler (a personal favorite) on stage, and whether it did both of them a disservice. Thankfully, it was short. The second was, as Michael put it, all about Taylor. I was first betwitched by the strange red sparkly thing around her head and wild look in her eyes. It was very erotic and I sort of made a story in my head, something I don't normally do to abstract works. But she looked to me like a firebird, or at least some exotic creature. The Evans piece was interesting. The three female dancers he used are some of my favorites. After an opening that belied his novice status as a choreographer (mostly unisons from the three couples), I was very impressed with the three pas deux and solos that followed. Arthurs showed off stunning extensions while Korbes did some moves that I thought would seriously injure her. With Ethan Steifel's quotes in Dance Magazine that the Diamond Project ballets could kill for all the extreme things the choreographers want the dancers to do ringing in my head, I watched as Korbes, on flat foot, dipped down so her legs were at 180 degrees and then she walked her hands outward -- stretching her body unbelievably. Red Angels is one of the most successful Diamond Project ballets and especially enjoyed Alexopolous' performance before she retires next week. All four dancers were wonderful. The Jeux de Cartes re-costuming was interesting. I loved the tutus (tiny white velvet with either red diamonds and hearts or black spades and clovers). The principals were the face cards -- the woman's outfit is mostly black, with black tights but I thought the men's were a little busy and even made the slim Millepied look chunky. I was in the fourth ring, so I didn't get the full effect of seeing all the costumes against the green card table, but it should look good on TV later in the month.

I chose Balanchine because it is the work I've seen from this time period. I do like the Fokine rep, but not as much as Apollo or Prodigal Son. The only Nijinska I've seen is Les Noce, which I enjoy. But I'd love to see Chopin Concerto with Danilova and Tallchief, but that is not from this time period. Now, Nijinski's work has left me cold (I saw the reconstructions several times at the Joffrey). Unfortunately, I've hardly seen Massine (only Gaite Parisienne at ABT and on a short Danilova tape, and a snatch of Good Humored Ladies), so I would definitely list him as the choreographer I'd most like to see works from this era. From what ATM711 wrote and from what I've read, Massine's works were very dependant on those whom originally performed them. Not that the ballets themselves are not strong enough, but that a certain art of performance recquired for Massine's works is missing from today's dancer.

As Paul wrote, lots to chew on here. So I'll start with the last few posts firsts. I agree with Manhattnik that I don't think NYCB was "over." Re: Paul's comment on the drop off. I would say that Balanchine's style became a bit different after moving into Lincoln Center. As has often been written, the larger stage needed dancers who could move faster and bigger. So as Melissa Hayden once said whereas Balanchine once devoted an hour in class to the articulation of the foot, he focused more on these aspects that would be important in a large house. Croce has written about ballets that looked better at City Center than at NYST. Instead of smaller experimental ballets, Balanchine "experiented" with the blockbuster (Union Jack, Vienna Waltzes). I think he was still developing, but just not in the same way. To see the change, I found it interesting to watch the recently released Pas de Dix on the Maria Tallchief Bell Telephone Hour tape. Not having seen the ballet at NYCB since around the Balanchine Celebration in 1993, I could again note the differences between it and Cortege Hongrois, how Balanchine exchanged tight, brilliant turning passages with tiny beats and sharp jumps for something that was much more flowing, big...a sort of lyric but heroic style. Could he have decided that in a big house the audience wouldn't appreciate the tiny detailed things he had choreographed before? Lots to agree with Morris Neighbor's post about the Balanchine Trust (but I think it deserves noting that Mr. B left the ballets to the individuals and they formed the trust, except Taras. I don't know if Mr. B ever envisioned that he would be a trust with copyrights etc...) and the lack of resistance to Mr. B's work later in his career. It's hard to believe that Symphony in C got bad reviews. Maybe the NYCB became an insititution when John Martin loved everything Balancine did, instead of dismiss it. That's a part of being an insitution, along with things that had been mentioned already, such as the Ford Foundation, being a part of Lincoln Center, the success of the Stravinsky Festival. Re: about staffing and losing that loving feeling around the State Theater. I'm don't have enough knowledge about how many people it takes to run a company the size of NYCB. But someone once noted that Balanchine's job was easier than Martins and Robbins (when he was co-director) because he could just go to the board meeting and say, "I want this. We'll do it." And because of who he was and how he was, he was able to make it work or they gave the thumbs up more easily. He definitely earned the right. It's been suggested by even Martins' detractors that it really needed two or more people to do what Mr. B did so easily. On the other hand, I've seen Martins coach Balanchine and the results are excellent. I believe he had a hand in coaching the recent performances of Symphony in C, and it looks very good. So if he needs four or five assistants to coach more, then lets start hiring. I do think NYCB has been taking an active role in trying to find the next choreographer, as pratically all companies are. I don't think it is a sign of the company's demise that other companies are dancing Balanchine. They are looking for rep too, and for some (such as the Bolshoi, Kirov, Perm etc..) they didn't have the access to his works before. So the Kirov has a few of his works in its rep. It balances out because the Pittsburgh Ballet, which had a large amount when Patricia Wilde was in charge, now has less. I think one of the big problems at NYCB, which may foster this "non family feeling" is that there are now so many people in the organization (not dancers, administration) that, not only weren't around pre-1983 [you can't live forever or work forever], but don't know about that era. For example, I attended, as some others on this board had, the symposium a few years ago at the State Theater with Martins and Farrell moderated by Lesley Stahl. As a journalist and a ballet fan, I was kind of annoyed by her lack of knowledge of the company and history, even as far as the two dancers she was taking with. Later in the event, she admited to starting, but not finishing the Martins' and Farrell's autobiographies while doing research for the interview. Fair enough, maybe she's just starting to get into the ballet. But then I read that she had just joined the board of the NYCB. How can we expect that the PR writer for the company will place importance on the past when the people who have a say in running things don't know any better? How many others on the board are like Ms. Stahl? In addition, the interview with Irene Diamond in the playbill was somewhat disturbing. She basically said she gets tired of ballets such as Sylphide and Swan Lake, she wants to see new works. Not that I don't appreciate her contributions or her opinion, but if these are the sort of people surrounding the brain trust of the company, it's not surprising there might be a lack of interest in keeping older ballets alive.