ViolinConcerto

from Helene's post: I felt that Robbins' WWII commentary was Fancy Free -- and that because of when Ives composed Ives Songs plus the uniforms and the use of the lyric/melody from"Over There" that it referred to the First World War. The quote from Peter Boal reminded me of a program note by Glen Watkins I found online about the Stravinsky Symphony in Three Movements, which is entitled Music in Time of War (1999) and can be found at http://jacksonsymphony.org/concerts/1998/9...0/sym-3-mvt.htm . He quotes IS as saying from an interview with the San Francisco Examiner: "War can never be good for the arts. The cannons speak, not the violins - not even the cymbals."

I agree entirely about Riggins, and hasten to add SEAN SUOZZI as someone who should not have been ignored.

I'm so glad to hear that Chris d'Amboise has created something that's so very appreciated by audience and dancers. He has an unusual capacity for bringing highly abstract concepts vividly to life. He has created several pieces for NYCB that Peter Martins has let gather dust, and an original ballet for SAB last year that many people felt should have been performed by the Company. One such ballet is CIRCLE OF FIFTHS (to Phillip Glass' Violin Concerto). If you ever have the opportunity to see it, I think you will be richly rewarded.

After last night, I would (going back to the "words for NYCB") say "AMAZING," or "SENSATIONAL" or "UNMATCHED." But I guess that those have all been used.

I made a last-minute decision to go to the performance last night, so that I could see BRAHMS SCHOENBERG and SONATAS AND INTERLUDES. I was curious about FRIANDIES, since even many confirmed Martins-bashers seemed to like it. FRIANDIES was a very pleasant surprise, in terms of the choreography, but especially the dancing. The music was interesting, but "too much" for me -- not a technical term, it just got too long, too loud and too chaotic at times. But I think it was a very successful piece for Martins in terms of its design and structure, footwork and originality, but most especially it's wonderful use of and respect for the dancers. He used each dancer (or couple) in ways that highlighted that particular dancer's strengths to best advantage. I was blown away not just by Ulbricht and Peck, but Craig Hall (whose solos showed off his perfect classical form), Amar Ramasar and Sara Mearns as standouts. Tiler Peck (who suddenly reminded me of Jennie Somogyi) defied physics and gravity in her turns. I preferred the last third of the ballet, and Jimmattimore is right in saying it was waaaay too long, but I'd happily see it a few more times, and I haven't said that about any Martins piece since CALCIUM LIGHT NIGHT, and THE WALTZ PROJECT. BRAHMS SCHOENBERG was performed beautifully, and I felt conducted wonderfully by the guest conductor, John Morris Russell (when he took his bow, I thought that he was a perfect "central casting" conductor). Finally -- Albert Evans in a "Romantic" role! Too bad he's been so underused for so many years. (I did feel his costume was too tight.) Carrie Lee Riggins carried the Andante for me -- Benjamin Millepied seemed only half-there, and I've never cared for Yvonne Borree, although she did come alive after the kiss in R&J.

I look forward to reading the article, but I'll say first that I've long, LONG believed that dancers are practically a sub-species (sub not indicating lower!!), homo sapien dancerii. They have to move, especially to music......as quoted above, "the need and ability to communicate with other people and a spiritual side to their natures that not only enable them to feel the music, but to communicate that feeling to others via dance." Now, of course, I am not speaking realistically or scientifically here, it's just my way of expressing how very special I think dancers are.

That is a very unusual repertory for Saratoga with the two premiers and several all or mostly very solid Balanchine works.

Well, although I am an absolute newcomer to this area, I'd have to say (based on the earlier discussions) that Richard Nixon would have been a grotesque! All this makes one wish for little bitty film clips. Someday soon perhaps. I'm going to check on the ABT website (not now tho) -- the dictionary section, and maybe my visual dictionary DVD.

Has anyone heard why Bouder is not dancing?

Saturday, Feb.18, 2006 - Evening Three very different ballets from three excellent choreographers working to three excellent composers: my idea of heaven. Until recently NYCB was the only place where you could see three works this different, up to these standards, but it's clear that there are other (mostly NYCB-seeded) companies producing the same kinds of performances. I'm not able to get to many performances this season, and I felt that this mix gave me a very rich experience. AFTER THE RAIN: My first viewing without Jock. It, to me, is so clearly a farewell that it is difficult not to get caught up in that bittersweet emotion. But each time I see this ballet, it gets better. I love the stark graphics that Wheeldon uses (in nearly all his works), and how this sets off the shapes in his choreography. The first few times I saw it, I didn't pay as much attention to the first section. This time I did, and was really moved by the design of ensemble work. The second section was stunning as ever, the music sweetly hypnotic. One friend noted later that during that pas de 2 you couldn't hear a sneeze, a cough, or a pin drop. Everyone had stopped breathing, I think. I personally have never been excited by Marcovicci. When he first arrived, with his strong physique, his good looks and his teardrop tatoo, I had great expectations, but the memory of his work just evaporates -- I've never felt his commitment -- and for someone who looks so strong, his upper body doesn't seem too solidly connected to the lower part. So I felt that he "did" the ballet, but didn't "dance" or "live" the ballet. Wendy, on the other hand was all there -- feeling, commitment, and communicating. She perfectly embodied the contradictions (strength and vulnerability; rawness and sophistication) in the ballet and set off sparks in everyone's mind and heart..... IN THE NIGHT was richly portrayed by the three couples: Rachel Rutherford and T. Angle seemed well matched as the fresh, romantic young couple. They were very lyrical, and maintained the smoothness and continuity of their section. Kyra Nichols and Philip Neal embodied the respectable, stable loving couple. Her phrasing is as unique and authoritative as ever, but I have to admit that even though I wanted to not notice, not see any change in her abilities, her line is not what it was. A standout moment , where he holds her, feet in the air, and her feet start with teeny bouree-like movements as he lowers her, until she is doing bourrees on the floor, just wasn't up to her own past standards. Boy does that break my heart to see -- and say. But she still has presence and command and depth. The lighting seemed to be a bit off, with the "stars" from the first section not fading out to isolate the "chandliers" in the second. Jenifer Ringer and Sebastian were lovely together. WESTERN SYMPHONY was tons of fun, as ever, with a fine performance by Adam Hendrickson and Megan Fairchild. He really is a good actor, with good comic timing and an open face. Because I'm not a SWAN LAKE fan, I hadn't seen Sara Mearns featured, and now I understand the comparisons to Monique and the fuss. She really has confidence and authority, and looked very good in the 4th movement, especially with that hat! She really got Askegard all charged up. But I've seen better corps work in this. But as ever, I wished the curtain would have stayed up a bit longer.....please, please, more of those turns! The newly reconstructed costumes looked wonderful.

Gee, I thought that the 129th position was the logical extension of the nose-to-knee penchee in 2nd Move. Symph in C that we were discussing recently.

You don't have to go to Ballet Talk to know that the audience at the NYSTheater is packed with Bouder fans, you just to have eyes and ears!

I recall that Farrell was DROPPED once -- by Alexandre Proia in one of his early performances of IN MEMORY OF..... he was lifting her up from a split on the floor (I think he was doing the role that Adam Luders originated, as the "Angel of Death"). I guess if you did not know the ballet, you might think that it was part of the choreography. For those of us that did, it was a heart-in-the-throat moment.

One of Bouder's falls (there were three big ones that year) was live on National TV -- I think for the 10th Anniv. of the Diamond Project. As Carbro said, she just gets right up, and snaps back. I've always felt it is because she puts herself into things so fully, and thought that Balanchine would really be pleased. It is scary tho. In 1986 or so, NYCB went on tour to CA, and I went out there to drag my SF and East Bay friends to see them. I went to four of the performances, and in three of those, someone slipped in exactly the same spot downstage left (Lourdes Lopez among them). It must have been something on the floor in that instance. One of the cutest falls I ever saw was in TARANTELLA back in the early 80's. Yes, it was in one of those deep, deep plies in second on point, and kaboom, the girl (I do remember who she was, and I won't tell!) went down on her butt.

Lee is near Lenox. Lenox has Tanglewood, and is a very "cute" (upscale, expensive, touristy but pretty) little town. I've never actually seen a town of Lee. They are also close to Stockbridge, site of the "Alice's Restaurant..." whatever it was....."Massacree." Lee, Lenox and stockbridge form a sort of triangle, with the long side going North/south with Lenox about 10 gorgeous miles N. of stockbridge, and Lee a bit to the east, a bit closer to Stockbridge. I also associate "Becket" with Jacob's Pillow, but looking at the map, that's a bit out of the way. Lenox also has "The Mount" (Edith Wharton's home) and a number of other wonderful old homes, the Norman Rockwell museum. Route 7 has little dots all along, indicating a very, very scenic route.

You guys just blow me away with your depth and breadth of knowledge. I thank you for being so generous with it!

at NYCB in the past, Diana Adam had a daughter (Georgina) whose father was Ronald Bates, the wonderful stage manager and lighting designer. It was because of her pregnancy that Suzanne Farrell had to learn Monumentum pro Gesualdo. Karen Von Aroldingen returned to dance after she had her daughter (Margo, a jewelry designer). I think I remember hearing that Von Aroldingen didn't even tell Balanchine until she was about 7 months pregnant. Lourdes Lopez also returned to dance after her first daughter was born. Patricia McBride and Jean Pierre Bonnefoux have two children -- one is adopted, and I think that it's the daughter. Among the dads, of course Peter Boal has 3 children. While his wife, Kelly Cass didn't return to the stage, she certainly looks as if she could. Kip Houston has 3 or 4, I think, and Peter Nauman and Lisa Chalmers have two, she teaches but does not dance. Many former women dancers from NYCB are mothers who teach but do not dance (for example, Kay Mazzo on the SAB faculty).

My personal favorite pair of buns in that role belonged to the sweet, late Joe Duell.

Way too classy for Madonna!

Sunday's performance was DIVERT #15, KLAVIER and FANCY FREE. In DIVERT Ana Sophia Scheller and Sterling Hyltin had the perfect balance of charm and sharp technique for the music, costumes and choreography. Bouder and Philip Neal were sparkling as ever. She just ate up the music. Philip has grown and flourished so beautifully in the years since he began. Divert, however was marred at the very end by an injury to Abi Stafford, who did not return to the stage for the bows and curtain calls. KLAVIER seemed much shorter to me this time, not sure why. I still don't like the costumes, even with the change, but the dancing was luminous by all. I still especially love the beginning and ending images. FANCY FREE had a guest conductor, Colin Metters, and he slowed the pace down just enough to take all the snappiness out of it -- a shame for Tyler Angle in his debut. Daniel Ulbricht did not let the tempo compromise his dancing or character, but I don't feel that Benjamin Millepied or Tyler could make up for the loss of the "ooomph" it needed. The worst moment was just before the two girls recognized each other --- there was a really over long pause! Question -- in previous performances this season did they also leave off the platinum wig of the 3rd woman (in the blue dress)? Wonder what happened?

There is a really thoughtful review of KLAVIER by Deborah Jowitt (Village Voice). Here is the link. http://www.villagevoice.com/dance/0605,jowitt,72022,14.html It addresses many of the questions that we've all expressed. Enjoy.

The full TZIGANE? Don't kid yourself, the Berkshires are muggy, too, in the summer.

One of the factors I think is important in considering this ballet is that it was Robbins' own company (Ballets U.S.A.)-- he had total artistic control -- and that it was created in a laboratory-like environment, with a European festival as the anticipated venue. He also got to hand-pick all the dancers (and he worked with many of them repeatedly over the years). In the Broadway production, in 1961 I see the names Kay Mazzo and barbara Milberg, as well as Susan Borree (Yvonne's mother? she was a dancer). The link is: (http://www.ibdb.com/production.asp?ID=2881) Watching it really put me back in time, as Michael said, to the late 50's. That movement style was so distinct. I think his best use of that idiom was in INTERPLAY, where the dancers come way downstage so that they are all in silhouette, and really shake it!

Here's a link to Rockwell's rview in the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/arts/dan...extra.html?_r=1

I saw that exhibition (I believe at the Palace of Fine Arts) Paul, and it was wonderful. I know that it was shown in at least two places, because I was lucky enough to see it twice (possibly at the Dance Museum in Saratoga, NY the other time). The book does not mention the exhibit however, on the covers, flaps or acknowledgements or introduction, although it does mention the museum of Fine Arts in SF, along with many other soures in the acknowledgements.