beck_hen

Her performances in Baiser de la Fee divert with de Luz touched a deeper core of emotion. I think that piece may be considered minor in the Balanchine canon but their work (and the music) made it one of the favorite things I've seen at NYCB. I was convinced after that she's worth following, since, as carbro mentions, she also has a solid technique.

Absolutely, there are many types. I love the twinkle in Maximova's. They are so quick. She looks so pulled up in her shoes, hopping on pointe is easy for her. I don't think there is anyone whose allegro is as good as hers now.

Susan, I'll definitely defer to your viewing history on Makarova. I got my critical impression of that typology reading this board—of course tracking down exactly where... As you discuss, it is unavoidable that a dancer's interpretation be guided by and tailored for her physique; I think that is the main issue here. Makarova's extensions, her sinewy limbs, her boneless arms, her curved shapes—I guess they are copied, parodied and taken over the top by others, the ultraswans. Also, on the video, her performance feels calculated rather than spontaneous (I suppose her interpretation was carefully honed over time). That and the ultraslow tempos (pet peeve) put me at an emotional remove. Calculation and slowness—endemic to the imitators. I doubt Murphy will find much that is useful by studying her further, while I think looking at Fonteyn might help. For example, on the verticality issue, she may be better off not pushing into a six-o'clock penchee, but instead creating a more old-fashioned line in arabesque with a forward torso (\, not l). And Fonteyn's use of more understated, spiritual, simple facial expressions would also suit her. How did dancers more similar to her solve the adagio problem? I don't know the answer because I don't feel like I see a compelling range of interpretations in the theatre, and everyone seems to love the gumby ballerinas now anyway. I would just like to see someone do the absolute opposite.

Fun. On a frivolous note, this reminds me of an episode of America's Next Top Model where the contestants had to film a commercial in Catalan, and most of them were excruciatingly bad! Gwyneth seemed to deliver her line well. The commercial as a whole is too romantic and surreal ever to be seen on American TV, I think.

I've finally watched the two pas de deux from the video (as opposed to live-performance viewings). I'd actually been putting it off because of reading this thread, and was in no way as disappointed as I'd been led to expect. I am a close watcher and fan of Gillian Murphy. Actually, I was converted slowly over time. If you look back at the video of her Odalisque variation in 1999, you see she has already made gigantic strides. She had the pirouettes but her presentation was inadequate and stiff, inferior to Kirov interpreters and to her colleague Sandra Brown's 2nd Odalisque. Her Act 3 Sylvia this year was entirely warm and radiant, down to the fingertips. I can only agree with the others that she is a slow developer (and that this O/O was premature), but is also greatly worth waiting for. Growing up after Makarova retired, I never had the chance to see her perform, or appreciate her mystique. By the time I saw her Odette on video, for whatever reason, the magic didn't happen for me. I grew up on the video of Makhalina's Odette, which I continue to enjoy. However, I have begun to lose respect for her interpretation. It doesn't make dramatic sense to be so wholly birdlike. It even seems a bit self-indulgent. I'm wearying of the tyranny of the ultraswans. Gillian would actually be better if she toned down the "swaniness" in her Odette and returned to a pre-Makarova model, where possible role models include Danilova, Fonteyn and Gregory. I thought all her positions were gorgeous but simply don't suit her persona. On the Black Swan, I'll just say I think she should take the time to risk reworking her fouette technique. I gather she mastered fouettes intuitively at a young age, and I agree they could be much cleaner and prettier. That would dispose of an easy mark for her detractors. Murphy seems to pop up quite frequently at ballet-historical events, such as the Ballet Russes documentary and the Met appreciation of Maria Tallchief. In my view, this type of behavior and commitment is bound to pay dividends onstage, and earns my respect.

I've seen videos where Semenyaka and Semizorova perform a different solo than I'm used to seeing. They begin with hops in arabesque en tournant into fouettes. I think I might prefer this to the ABT version performed by Cynthia Gregory and Gillian Murphy (though they are good in it). Who is responsible for the choreography of these variants?

It seems a given her reputation would have been much greater had she not been struck down by polio at 27. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, I knew most about Farrell's greatness, and as I got more involved in ballet, Danilova's and Tallchief's, respectively. I didn't know anything about LeClercq until three years or so ago, when I watched the PBS Balanchine DVD and started looking at old photos of NYCB. Even in a tiny snippet of Concerto Barocco, or gazing out from photos, her quality and mystery are apparent. But if you weren't there to witness her dancing, as some on the board were lucky to be, she is still a tantalizing enigma... It is also hard to believe Balanchine was able to pick a prima to be with in all of his relationships. However, now I imagine it is Geva and Zorina who weren't at that top level of dancing, while LeClercq was.

There seems to be a consensus that only Pavlova and Plisetskaya carried off the piece, in each case making it into a signature work. Can you think of any dancer today who might succeed in it? I really hesitate to put anyone forward... Veronika Part? In response to carbro's analysis below... Diana Vishneva?

:nopity: I performed an unscientific review of some easily available Dying Swan clips and assembled my own ranking, which I believe will differ somewhat from the conventional wisdom, and even from my overall assessment of the ballerinas in question. My preferences: I do not like swan arms that use a rippling motion more wavelike than birdlike (Nina Ananiashvili, in particular). I am looking for clear and expressive articulation at the wrist. I do not want the solo to look "pretty," though an exquisite bourree is required. Anna Pavlova convincingly portrays the death throes of an animal. If the solo becomes decorative it is an exercise in kitsch. I would prefer it be attempted less often since it rarely succeeds, and is never seen at the level of Pavlova. My opinion. 1) Pavlova. As above, and as a cultural icon that touched millions. Beautiful, fleet feet. 2) Mezentseva. The long, fragile arms are in this case perfect. Above all, the evocatively broken wrist suggests the neck of the bird and/or its injured wing. Self-contained but not narcissistic, the right consciousness for an animal. 3) Plisetskaya. The only artist with the same level of conviction as Pavlova. The appropriate mix of awkwardness and grace. A large emotional range including bewilderment, desperation, fear... 4) Makarova. Not as impactful as I expected. With her usual virtues and within her emploi, but a bit fetishized. Out of my running: Makhalina (Saw years ago and liked but can't really remember. Resembled her super-birdlike Odette.) Moiseyeva (a bit too soft and langorous—at an emotional remove and lacking intensity; not very neat or swift bourees) Lopatkina (felt insincere—too stylized) Volochkova (fake, insubstantial)

I hadn't replied so far because I was obeying the aphorism "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Darcey Bussell's dancing leaves me a bit cold, and I acknowledge that this response is highly subjective. I saw two Royal Ballet performances fifteen years ago when I was quite young. One of Lesley Collier's final performances as Giselle made a great impression on me; she earned the label "ballerina" in my mind. And I now know that this role was not in her natural emploi. I saw Bussell in the Nutcracker and remember that I didn't like it. Looking back at videos, I see a certain stiffness in her shoulders. Are they a bit high? Is it a question of breathing? I don't know if anyone else sees this. Her legs are lovely but I do not see a complete line (same with Paloma Herrera). This is not a dig at the Cecchetti/Royal Ballet style, but what I see as a peculiarity of hers, for there are many dancers I love with the same training. And in terms of "perfume": I feel that Bussell is extremely ill-served appearing with Asylmuratova in the Bayadere video, though I know there are those who feel the opposite. Not only are their characters not in sympathy, their styles are not—I find Darcey prosaic and Altynai otherworldy. (She is one of my top favorites; I know she has her own technical weaknesses but they happen not to distract or bother me.) I also feel Terekhova made a stronger (fire-breathing, space-eating) impression as Gamzatti in another video.

I was inspired to start the topic by the new Dancers thread on Sascha Radetsky. I saw his amazing Petrouchka last year, which blew Corella, Cornejo and Bocca out of the water, IMO. What performances over the past few years deserve to be recorded for posterity? With no deference to balanced casting or the star system, here are my picks: Hallberg and Abrera in Afternoon of a Faun Radetsky's Petrouchka the Part/Gomes White Swan Hallberg, Alexander, et al in The Green Table Murphy-led cast of In the Upper Room Edit: I forgot E. Cornejo's Rodeo! A double disc?

Wasn't Keith Roberts also a contemporary specialist? I missed it, but Robert Hill's partnership with Julie Kent was supposed to be special? Who do you think are Radetsky's best partners? That can be clarifying in who gets ahead. For example, Sarah Lane is a huge talent, but being the only person short enough to dance with Herman Cornejo doesn't hurt. Sascha would have an easier time if he were a little taller.

At first glance this casting looks pretty fantastic. A Sleeping Beauty with Vishneva and Gomes is a must-buy! The return of Nina! I will probably watch Murphy in all her roles. She is shaping up to be ABT's main ballerina attraction aside from the guests, IMO. Nikiya is a very suitable role for Veronika Part.

I wonder what the pas de deux will be. I've had my fill of Black Swan and Don Q. Unfortunately, I expect to see just that for the Herrera-Carreno pairing, at least. It might be nice to see Dvorovenko and Beloserkovsky do Sleeping Beauty, since I assume they'll be doing that for the Met season. I wouldn't have minded seeing a Wiles-Hallberg Grand pas Classique, having missed that the first time around. I also would have liked to see Murphy and Beloserkovsky reprise the Ashton pas de deux from Sylvia. Or a Part-Gomes White Swan. Or someone in the Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux or Tarantella (Cornejo-Lane?). Slightly fresher chestnuts, please!

Okay, I knew of some others but didn't have the confirmation needed to post. I've checked the roster and these dancers, rumored to be departing, are indeed missing from it. soloists: Anna Liceica corps: Laura Hidalgo, Bo Busby, Flavio Salazar, Buck Collins Just a few good memories of those leaving: Laura Hidalgo is now on the Dutch National Ballet's roster in the corps de ballet. Best of luck to her. I will remember her work as the quick, boyish soloist in Polovtsian Dances, and she also made quite an impression on me performing the group movements in the Green Table. I could tell which dancer she was even with that Nixon-type mask on! Eric Underwood quite owned the Spanish dance in Swan Lake. I glimpsed him this season as the swamp thing and Veronika's cavalier in Sylvia. And of course his beautiful line stood out any time he was onstage. On to better things. Bo Busby really matured this season, I think. I watched him most often of the corps boys. I'm sure he'll do well where he lands. Buck Collins did a great job in Petrouchka with all those knee-killing Russian jumps.

I disagree. A strong and even iconoclastic artistic vision is what put people in the seats in the first place. We still need one now to do the same. Hopefully the advertising people agree and choose to push that message. Changes in marketing can do a better job of presenting the company's strengths, but do not create strengths where they don't exist. I think people focus too much on PR, in an emperor's new clothes–type fashion. It can and should be effective, but the quality of the underlying organization drives its success. My opinion is that themed programs ought to coexist with old-style programs. The New York Philharmonic has "Inside the Music" and "Young People's Concerts" series designed to be less intimidating and more didactic, but also feature more esoteric offerings. I'm always envious reading about the Royal Ballet's Insight Evenings. I have some trouble with ballet acting on the defensive. So many outreach efforts reek of insecurity: "See, we really aren't elitist and irrelevant!" "Culture" starts to feel patronizing, instead of vital. I don't think it should be a given that artistic compromise is the prerequisite for financial stability. What drove the success of the ballet boom? Geniuses like Balanchine, Baryshnikov, Kirkland, etc. I think there should be even more hyping of current dancers and choreographers. I will be happy with a program format if the themes chosen are meaningful and deep. I hope that program notes will address the themes. Otherwise, tacking a name on to a mixed bill is only a ploy.

Noooo! I'm even a newbie to NYCB, but I loved the mix and match approach. It felt so spontaneous: a gigantic smorgasbord of ballet, the kind of thing that could only happen in New York. To me, theme says cheesy (and can be either a stretch or lead to unbalanced programs). I could understand them introducing several such programs for outreach purposes, but would prefer it not be everything. I wish American companies would fill the "educational" gap by copying the Royal Ballet's Insight Evenings. The New York Philharmonic has some basic, accessible series for newcomers but also more esoteric offerings for others. I find this programming condescending to a balletomane; I like to see more than one cast in a ballet but I get tired of identical programming.

Thanks for your help!

I decided to buy the book based on the discussion here and am enjoying it, particularly sections on Shelest, Osipenko and other dancers not well known in the West. Reading the commentary, I'm curious about the innovations of Soviet choreographers such as Gorsky, Lopokhov, Lavrovsky, Jakobson and Goleizovsky. I know it is complicated politically; where some choreographers were viewed as dissidents and iconoclasts, others, like Grigorovich, could be perceived as propagandists. I am also interested in their purely artistic merits, if that can be separated. The only Soviet ballet I have seen is Spartacus. I'm intrigued by the fact that a Soviet dancer like Vasiliev states that he is more interested in Bejart than Balanchine. I know that is only one case, but it suggests different values than I'm familiar with, and I'd like to understand it better. Is there a book you all would recommend that provides a critical and cultural assessment of Soviet choreography? How does it compare to work done elsewhere in the same timeframe? It is compelling that Ratmansky is addressing the Soviet past by reviving suppressed ballets, including The Bright Stream. That too makes me wish to know more.

Not something I'd be eager to see. It's not that I think Martins has no right to do it, or even make money off it. I wonder if it will show off the dancers as well as other works in the repertoire do. Having nurtured an admiration for Wendy Whelan's adagio dancing, I decided to see her and Woetzel essay Swan Lake. I saw competent professional dancing that wasn't magical. Seeing Whelan in Concerto Barocco is a very magical and even holy outing. There was something that didn't translate. My personal feeling is that I don't gain as much watching NYCB in the traditional repertoire as I do watching them in their regular repertoire. However, if it works, it works. I can imagine, with time travel a possibility, buying a ticket for McBride and Tomasson in Coppelia. Still, R&J does seem like a moneymaker choice. There are other versions, like the Tudor or Ashton, that eschew the bombast of the Macmillan, and in Tudor's case, the Prokofiev score. If the dancers aren't suited to any of those, what will be different about the Martins? What I mean is, what changes would be made to create a neoclassical R&J? Macmillan's has the political and social framework, and the other two I understand to be emotional chamber ballets involving the main characters. Is changing the style of the dancing and shortening the evening enough of an update? Since we all know the story, the work can really function as plotless? I am interested in the vignetted/symbolic/condensed narratives Ashton used in Marguerite and Armand, A Month in the Country and Enigma Variations, but is Martins interested in that type of thing in the slightest? It's easy to be cynical. If you choose to make narrative ballets there are many subjects out there. Carlos Acosta recently complained in an interview that people are not choreographing to interesting narratives, and proposed adapting Khaled Hosseini's novel The Kite Runner. That type of work may not be in NYCB's line, but it might prove more artistically compelling than an R&J retread.

Highs: 1- Gillian Murphy taking command in Sylvia, and also showing more softness and warmth—Aurora? 2- Misty Copeland and Sarah Lane (who else could make so much of the goat in Ashton's Sylvia—what a treat—I want to see Princess Florine next) making the case for promotion to soloist 3- Sascha Radetsky's Petrouchka 4- Hallberg and Part in Apollo 5- Great, individual Siegfrieds from Gomes and Hallberg 6- Frederic Franklin's character roles! 7- The combination of Erica Cornejo, Herman Cornejo and Xiomara Reyes in the Swan Lake pas de trois. Probably unequalled in the world. Also good in the piece were Copeland, Simone Messmer and Yuriko Kajiya. 8- Greater prominence of Kristi Boone 9- Electric O/O from Veronika Part 10- Thrilling, athletic Juliet from Diana Vishneva 11- Hilarious stepsister from Erica Cornejo in Cinderella. Yes, she chewed the scenery and I loved it. 12- Renewal of Herrera's dancing through partnerships with Gomes and Hallberg. Yes, there is still further to go, but seemingly simpler, purer and softer dancing. 13- Craig Salstein enlivening Jeu de Cartes, Sylvia, R&J Apparently I could go on indefinitely... Lows: Just okay Sylvias from Herrera and Kent. Next time, a chance for someone else? Corella dancing with less elegance and artistry than last year. Veronika Part not a principal dancer, and no promotions for promising corps members. To come?

Congratulations to Eric Underwood! He is a fine dancer woefully underused at ABT, so this is a great move for him.

Thanks mmurphy20. I've looked back at all your posts and enjoyed them, particularly the discussion of your need for creative outlets outside of corps work. I've experienced something similar in my own field of graphic design—there is a lot of executing other people's ideas before you get to the good stuff. I actually find the end of the ballet very jarring compared to the play. I keep expecting the final resolution where the lovers and Paris are discovered by the prince, their families and a sorrowful, guilty Friar Laurence. Prince: Where be these enemies? Capulet, Montague, See what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love. And I, for winking at your discords, too Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished. This is a zoom out to the big picture, the social context. I understand that ending after the suicides is a theatrical high note, with much applause, but I still miss this period, even though it is referenced in the pile of bodies in the first scene. Hallberg and Herrera did have the chemistry nysusan noticed between them in Corsaire. I'll report back on that. I would also like to see some of the other R&Js, the Tudor and the Ashton. I think they could work at City Center, but confusion in the advertising would be a problem. They might need to be alternatively titled, since general audiences would certainly assume it was the Macmillan, and probably be unhappy with anything else.

It just occurred to me that we will get to see a new Cowgirl since Erica Cornejo will be gone . An exciting prospect. Nominations? Isn't there a publicity photo of Misty Copeland and David Hallberg in the costumes? She was the first person I was going to suggest. Other names: Jennifer Alexander, Sasha Dmochowski or Adrienne Schulte. Kristi Boone if a tall girl is okay—she's a good R&J harlot (I know that doesn't sound like a compliment).

Actually, I'm on the same page in that I've preferred the interpretations of others in Giselle, Swan Lake and R&J, the roles I've seen her in. But I'm interested in what she does, and her facility is huge. It's true she doesn't disappear into a role, but she announces herself as a ballerina, where others don't seem to do so no matter how satisfying their individual performances are. It's a certain arrogance, or confidence, they seem to instill at the Maryinsky. Faux Pas mentioned the question of emploi. I'm not sure she has any emploi in the traditional sense—she is a singular performer and has to find a unique way into each role. She has a creaturely, wild animal quality. For example, when her Juliet meets Paris, she allows herself to be coaxed toward him like a doe learning to eat from a human's hand. She's a beautiful ugly duckling throughout the whole thing; even when she falls in love she doesn't lose all of her awkwardness. I think she comes off as calculating when she tries to be more generic and traditional. So I think it's a tough balance for her. I think I'll continue to be intrigued and want to see her performances, even if I don't fall in love. Sometimes that's the way it goes, right?