SandyMcKean

SanderO............ I've been fighting that for 40 years! Sometimes I sit close (my favorite) to enjoy the individual dancers; other times I sit back to see the "wonderful broad shapes and forms" as you call them (especially if it's Mr B). Either way I feel I'm missing something. In recent years my solution has been to throw caution to the wind and simply go 3 or 4 times sitting in different sections. No matter where I sit however I always find use for my binoculars.

And maybe they are. Like so many things it's all in the eye of the beholder. I tend to be a little persnickety when it comes to technology. Significant imperfections tend to bother me. If one is easy going and can see past the 20% in order to enjoy the 80%, the cheaper binocs might do fine. But again like most things, if you start comparing you may find that what was once satisfactory is no longer so. The higher cost I've invested in a good pair pays off for me because: first, I go to quite a few performances and I always use them a lot; and second, I love the experience that when I look thru the binocs, I give up nothing in terms of a visual experience. IOW, the image I see with the binocs is as clear and undistorted as the image is when using just my eyes......there is no "stepping down" that I have had to grow to expect. For me that is worth the cost. YMMV.

FYI, the numbers 8x35 do not tell you the width of the "field of vision". In this example, the 8 is the "times" magnification level. Personally I find 7 or 8 just about perfect (unless you sit way back). 10 is ususally too much for ballet (movement). Also the higher the magnification, the harder it is to not have the image shake. 6,7,8 are relatively easy to hold still; 10 is definitely not. Now the 8 or 10 is related to width of field because the more magnification there is, the less an area you can see. However, optics can be designed to have less or more width of field at the same power level. Look for the width of field as expressed in degrees (the higher, the wider) in the detailed specs. Some binocs are designed especially to give wide field and often have a "W" in the model number or use the word "wide" in the model name. The wider the better for ballet IMO. The "35" in this example refers to the size of the objective lens (the non-eye end). This is important in terms of how much light the binocs capture. The bigger the objective lens (the higher this number) the more light will be captured. For ballet it is not necessary to capture a lot of light since the subject is well lit. (For watching birds, some folks need to capture lots of light; night sky watching obvously needs to capture lots of light too). Since you don't need much light, you can get the much smaller 8x20 (or smaller even) types instead of the normal 8x35 or the bigger 8x50s. Incidently, in the overall binocs world 7x35 is considered the most all round standard. "Exit pupil" can be important to some people too. Small exit pupils can be hard to use. (I leave it to the "student" to research this.) One last comment......it is not possible to get decent binocs cheaply. Most "opera glasses" are horrible. The Bushnells etc of the world in the less than $100 class work, but present a very poor image (fuzzy, especially at the edges; and rainbow and other color distortions). As mentioned above, if you want binocs you will really enjoy, you need to spend several hundred dollars ($200-300 will probably get the job done; after $600 you are probably getting more than you need; you can spend thousands if you are so inclined). If you only occasionally take a quick look, the sub-$200 ones, or even the sub-$100 ones, can be satisfactory, but if you really watch a dancer for a while, you will grow to hate the cheap ones. www.binoculars.com is worth going to to get educated and price compare btwn models. Their prices aren't bad either.

IMO, this is an extremely important point, Bart. I don't know very much about the overall ballet world, but this trend does seem to be occurring. This trend seems puzzling to me frankly. NYC has always been the hub in this country of the highest standards in nearly every field of human endeavor. What would change that? What could change that? I'll toss out a speculative idea.......priority on quality of life and the newest generation's values. I saw a newscast last nite that explored how the 20-somethings of today put family, friends, life-style, etc ahead of career and loyality to their employer. Simply put: perhaps "where I live" is just more important to the young people who are today's dancers. I certainly see that here in Seattle. I go to lots of Q&As and other "lecture" sessions that feature interactive discussions with dancers. I am continually struck by dancer after dancer saying how happy they are to live here in Seattle, and how they plan to never leave. There just doesn't seem to be the expected desire to "be discovered" and go to NYC. I was also struck in one of these sessions when Miranda Weese had just joined PNB. She was asked Why? Her response was all about "quality of life". She didn't like the NYC pace, and she particularly loved the idea that at PNB there was lots of time btwn programs to rehearse the next program so that she could really explore the possibilities of the work she was dancing. I also hear the dancers say all the time that PNB feels like a "family" to them that gives them all sorts of warm fuzzies. They seem to emphasize the cooperative, supportive environment this sense of family generates rather than a competitive, individualistic environment. I would think that for the "typical" dancer who is often ripped away from their natural family in early teens, a sense of family is very attractive indeed.

A couple of other tidbits...... In one of the Q&As that Helene did not attend, Peter Boal said that Stacy Caddell (who staged Upper Room) selected the entire cast from the company's dancers. She then presented her choices to him and he simply tweaked the selections. This has been said before I think, but Boal also said that when Tharp herself came out to Seattle in the initial stages, she became very enthusiastic about the dancers at PNB. They struck a deal such that Tharp will come to Seattle in 18 months or so to choreograph a new work(s) on PNB. He said her only disappointment was that she had to wait 18 months to do it -- she wanted to start ASAP! So as Helene implies, clearly the choreographer or trust is initimately involved in the roll out of giving ballets wider exposure.

Perhaps Doug Fullington could look into this and give us some insight.......... My guess is that Sandik has hit close to the mark. And to piggyback on Helene's comment, there are probably lots of reasons why Tharp or the Robbins people prefer to license one piece over others: perhaps having the "right" stager figures into it for example. I can easily imagine that various companies are always hinting, let's say to the Robbins trust (or whatever its called), to do one of his works. Maybe eventually that trust decides for the type of reasons Sandik and Helene suggest to finally allow a particular work to get more exposure.......after that it's all downhill to get to the circumstance of these waves of programs. Very interesting indeed.

bart, you are absolutely right of course. I should have said.......Boal made the right choice to join other directors in choosing these 2 ballets as bookends. Just to be clear, I did not mean to imply that Boal made some sort of brilliant choice which others hadn't thought of, but only that it was a good choice (he certainly did choose to do this program even if others had done the same thing.......he could have chosen something else). I wonder if Agon's 50th b-day had something to do with so many companies doing a similar program? P.S. BTW, I attended 3 post-performance Q&A sessions. In 2 of these Boal was asked why he chose the ballets he did for this program. He talked briefly about his thought process but did not mention any other company having influenced him. He strikes me as a pretty straight-forward guy so maybe that wasn't a factor. (I wonder how much in advance such decisions are made......perhaps a topic for a whole other thread.....) P.P.S. Now, if I could only find a way to see the other "hot" company......Miami! I'll talk to Boal about PNB going to Miami if you talk to Villella about coming to Seattle .

Yes, the audience was standing on its feet in a true standing ovation. Yesterday, I didn't see a single person standing only because they wanted to move to the exits to beat the traffic. This S.O. was genuine. My guess is that they loved it for primarily the same reason I loved it, to see ballet dancers move in such novel and inventive ways......perhaps I say too much, but in much the same way that Balanchine shows you creative movement you've never considered. This is why I thought Boal's choice of Agon and Upper Room were so complimentary to be the bookends of this program. Tharp and Mr B are much alike in that way. I'd give credit to Glass's music too. If it appeals at all (and it seemed to effect most of the audience), it gets into your body and even into your soul a bit. By the time that 40 minutes of driving beat and meditation (if you can get my meaning there) is over, you just want to shout with glee for how far that music propels and compels you. OTOH, if you are a purist or a traditionalist (nothing wrong with that), I can see the temptation to be a curmudgeon .

This program completed yesterday afternoon. I saw this program 3 times but have been frankly just too lazy to post my comments. I will say something now mainly because my favorite young, up-and-coming, dancer inspired me yesterday: Lesley Rausch. Lesley is from Ohio and joined PNB in 2001. She was promoted to soloist during last season. I first really noticed Lesley on April 15, 2005 when she danced in "The Piano Dance" -- a world premier by PNB ex-dancer Paul Gibson. I've been an enthusiastic fan ever since. (Unfortunately I missed her in Dove's "Red Angels" in 2006 -- others I've talked to seem to have been wow-ed by her in that role.) Yesterday afternoon she was cast in one of those breakthrough roles ballerinas aspire to: the PdD in Agon (thanks Peter Boal for giving her this chance). Lesley was magnificent (in spite of a fall when her partner Karel Cruz mis-stepped and Leslie envitably tripped on him). It wasn't just her exquisite classical technique, or her musicality with the difficult Stravinsky score, but the presence she created. When Lesley dances I indulge myself and watch her with my binoculars. I pretty much have to miss everything else on the stage to feed my obsession. As I watched Lesley from this perspective of being 5 feet away, I was blown away by the emotion and character she gave this otherwise storyless, totally abstract ballet. I don't know quite how she did this. She was a character moving to the "feeling" of the music, not a dancer doing steps. There were times when she was bending to the floor with her head (sorry I don't know technical terms) when somehow her body and facial expression made the music, her body, her character, and the floor melt together into the whole surely Mr B had in mind. Other times it was a furtive glance at her partner Karel Cruz that spoke volumes. This is a dancer to watch. I predict a bright future. It was great to see her get this chance in a matinee performance that was clearly geared to giving promising soloists and corps members at chance at some bigger roles. Speaking of younger members. A "dream team" of 3 male dancers, Lucien Postlewaite, Benjamin Griffiths, and James Moore were featured as boomers in Tharp's "In the Upper Room" at this matinee performance. Only Lucien is a soloist and he was promoted to that position only this year. All 3 of these dancers impress me time and time again, but I don't ever remember seeing the 3 of them together like this (as the only dancers on stage). Mon Dieu, we have terrific dancers up and down the ranks! Now more to the ballet itself. This was a fantastic program for me. Perhaps the most exciting I've seen in years. The title "Contemporary Classics" was delivered in spades. What could be more appropriate than to start with Balanchine's timeless classic "Agon" (which celebrated its 50 birthday during this run). Neo-classical is the bread and butter of this company given the strong Balanchine influence instilled by Stowell and Russell, and now carried on by Boal. I felt blessed to witness 2 debuts in the PdD role: Korbes and Rausch. Rausch I've spoken about. Where Rausch is a possible future, Carla Korbes is a confirmed now. Carla grabbed this role with total confidence (is she ever not confident??). I can't think of a more exciting dancer to watch. Like Jonathan Poretta, no one breaks the 4th wall like Carla. Sometimes I feel it is just her and I in the room. The 3rd cast I saw was also a delight given the perfect ease of Louise Nadeau and a performance by Olivier Wevers that he said himself during the Q&A was the best of his career in that role. After an intermission, next came "Kiss" and "Caught" -- both novelty items. Not much ballet, but immensely powerful works, and huge crowd pleasers. I've seen "Kiss" maybe 5 or 6 times now, and it brings tears to my eyes every time. I can't think of when I've seen a dance communicate the passion, ecstasy, and heartbreak of sexual attraction and love more powerfully than this short piece. The dancers are suspended by 40' ropes so they can just touch the floor. It changes the primary movement emphasis from vertical to horizontal. There is something about a male and a female swooping together at rather high speed as they swing half way across the stage that makes the charged atmosphere of sexual passion become visceral for the audience. I heard one older woman from the audience (just as I am a older man) express an awakening of memory of our youth when such passion dominated our lives. She and I were both grateful to be re-awakened I think. "Caught" made everyone in the audience a kid again. You have never felt, as one does in this piece, what the reality of human unassisted flight might be. The strobe light catches the dancer at the top of some 70 jumps in the last 4 minutes of this 6 or 7 minute piece. The illusion is near perfect. When the dancer first starts to "fly" the audience loudly gasps in disbelief. Only young children normally get to be this amazed by something unexperienced in their current world. Everyone in the audience got that feeling watching this simple, but athletic, novel, exciting creation. It may not be ballet per se, but I bet it does a great job of selling tickets by word of mouth. Last came Twyla Tharp's "In the Upper Room". I know many don't care for this work, but I loved, loved, loved it. The combination of the hyped but very recognizable classical ballet of the boomers, vs the loose streetwise/Broadway/jazzy/Latin movement of the stompers was magical to me. I think one has to start with the Phillip Glass music (commissioned for this ballet). If you like his sort of minimalist music, and I do, you may love this piece as I do. But if you don't care for the almost hypnotic, emotional space that this music can create, I can understand someone being bothered, maybe even bored, with this piece. My wife and I simply couldn't get enough of it (especially those times we sat close). I've always loved Tharp ever since I first saw "Push Comes to Shove" when ABT would visit San Francisco in the 70's. The excitement she creates for me has not waned in the slightest. I will give special thanks to Carrie Imler, Chalnessa Eames, and Kiyon Gaines for "getting" the essence of "stomper-hood". For me they were the engine that drove the rhythm of this piece. Carrie Imler especially -- she has a musicality in her dance, whatever the music, that is second to none. I've admired her for a long time. For me if anyone deserves to inherit Patricia Baker's role at PNB based on dance alone, it is Carrie Imler. She thrills me every time whether she be a Tharp stomper, or Aurora in "The Sleeping Beauty". One last thought.......as much as I loved "Upper Room", I will say that I feel I could watch "Agon" every week for a year and never tire of it. A piece like "Upper Room" although brillant does not raise to that level. Who but Mr B could?

"From a Classical Position" and " Just Dancing Around" are available to rent on a single DVD from Netflix: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/William_Forsy...46?trkid=214017

While I agree that the quote offered in the post that started this thread could have been worded in a more PC fashion, the basic point remains: PNB is undergoing a remarkable tranformation under Peter Boal's direction. I too am not one to criticize Kent and Francia given the incredible contributions they made. They built this company from nearly nothing to a major company including a highly respected school. I loved every minute I attended performances under their direction (altho I will admit that Kent Stowell's choregraphy often was not to my liking). However, my excitment has doubled and re-doubled after Boal took over. This is not a zero sum game -- I can increase my enthusiasm and respect for what PNB is doing under Boal without detracting from the directors of the company for those previous 25 years. Make no mistake about it. PNB is a more exciting, relevant, energized, forward-looking, experimental, and vibrant company today than it was just these 2 years ago when Boal took over. It ain't about something Kent and Francia didn't do; it's about what Peter Boal is doing. We have choregraphers we never had before (e.g., Robbins); we have far greater number of more contempory "style" pieces (e.g., Mopley, State of Darkness); we have a new Ballet Festival to showcase newer, less known works and choregraphers; dancers have been freed from a not untypical rigid "caste" structure such that now you are as likley to see a corp member dance a principal role as not -- unimaginable 3 years ago; the dancers are visibly energized and inspired as they more and more have come to realize that they can do more, and do it well, than they ever realized before; and the partnering, ah the partnering, has taken a huge leap. Creating partners is perhaps the one area I would criticize Kent and Francia. Peter Boal has a remarkable talent for putting dancers together in combinations we just never saw before; combinations that take everything to a new level across the board -- for this perhaps more than anything we can thank Peter Poal. I have to say one last thing. No, it's not Peter Boal who's lucky to have landed at PNB, it is PNB and the Seattle audience that lucked out getting not only an icon of dance to lead this company, but someone who has the vision, instinct for talent, connections, and commitment to take this company beyond what it thought it was. If you haven't been in the Seattle Opera house (McCall Hall) in the last 18 months and felt the atmosphere, seen the blooming of dancer after dancer, and seen the Q&A sessions grow from a scattering of audience members to a room overflowing (as it was yesterday afternoon after a matinee no less), then you can't really know the profound change that has taken place since Boal's arrival..........and I take nothing away from Kent Stowell and Francia Russel when I say that.

Amen, brother.

Strangely, PNB in Seattle is in the middle of its 2 week run of a program dubbed "Contemporary Classics". It is book-ended with Agon and In the Upper Room (the middle works are Kiss and Caught). I can't imagine a better way to do a program with that theme than with Agon to start and Upper Room to end. PNB dancers were superb. I could name so many, but perhaps the only one recognizable to the larger set of BT members was Carla Korbes' debut in the PdD in Agon. Another milestone in her career brilliantly accomplished (I was there that nite - last Friday). Extraordinary. Well, another is known to you too -- Miranda Weese. Her pose and "NYC professionalism" anchored this young cast of "bombers" with her grace and elegance. Like Miami (which I have never seen, unfortunately), PNB is a regional company that is taking it to the highest levels with each passing week. This is a company I think that still doesn't quite know just how good it is. Peter Boal seems determined to find out. If you were sitting there with me the last 2 nites watching them do Agon one minute and then Upper Room the next, you and I would both know it. Miami and Seattle! Book-ends to the country in every way except for the simularity of being blessed by companies beyond what would otherwise be "normal expectations". Perhaps quality of life matters more and more these days to dancers too. P.S. Please, please, please, NYC.....don't steal Leslie Rausch from us. You don't know her yet, but you're going to attempt to steal her from us one of these days, I just know it. Better than any group in the world, you friggin NY'ers know outstanding performers when you see them. Give us a few more years with her, please.

Seems to me that a "bleeding edge" company/group has to have a certain distain for the audience in order to generate break-thru creativity. What is the audience after all (beyond being a source of funds)? Audiences are the status quo; they define current standards. To a large measure, you have to decide: please the audience, or break into new territory.

LOL!!!! You guys are good!

Aurora, You've got to admit that "intermission" sounds way more snobby than the earthy, common folk sound of "half time". 3 cheers for all mothers everywhere!

dancerboy, I imagine very similar things were once said about The Ballet Russes and even Balanchine's ballets.

I think this is a very apt observation. Imagine going to a NBA basketball game without knowing any of the rules. First off, you might not "get it". Second, you might think there was an elitist "in-crowd" there too. You'd see them shouting "DE-Fence, DE-Fence"....what the heck is that all about? What's a defence? Then at "intermission" you overhear the couple next to you excitedly talking about players (by name!) executing a perfect "pick and roll", or saying so-and-so is really no good since his "turnover ratio" is too high. Maybe if ballet audiences took the time to "learn the game" as many sports fans do, it would not seem so elitist to them. (BTW, cost ain't the whole story either.......NBA seat prices are not much less expensive than ballet tickets -- except the nosebleed seats in both cases).

I don't want to take the time to read the entire article, but from the quote provided I would guess the reviewer primarily criticizes modern dance for not finding a larger audience; but I'd be willing to bet he/she does not recommend some brilliant new idea that will solve the problem! Anyway, what problem? Here's a data point.....last week Pilobolus performed at the University of Washington in Seattle. They were here for 3 nites (Thurs, Fri, Sat). The venue, Meany Hall, seats about 1200. All 3 performances were totally sold out.

My reaction to this thought is that it is misleading. While it is probably true that ballet dancers appear less in public, I can't subscribe to the proposition that the reason is that ballet dancers are more aloof. The probable reasons are more mundane IMO. For one thing ballet dancers are typically far younger than opera stars, and are therefore less likley to be comfortable under a publc spotlight. Next, dancer's schedules leave little room for such appearences. Next, ballet is more a "team" art form in which it is far harder to pick one or two "stars" and give them the spotlight; whereas opera is all about doing just that. For example, it is normal for the typical 3 star-quality opera singers in a production to be from out of town, whereas ballet star-quality dancers are nearly always from the company performing; also when ballet dancers travel to perform it is usually with the entire company, not on their own like opera divas do. Not only that but those star-quality opera singers are hyped as individuals via advertising which gives them more of a public image than the typical star-quality ballet dancer. And finally, there are plenty of famous ballet dancers who get nearly the same public exposure as famous opera singers: Nureyev and Baryshnikov come to mind immediately.

Well, it sounds like we interpret the emotions at the end of the opera in much the same way after all. To boot, I will grant you that the quality of the Iphigenia/Orestes "physical struggle" that Wadsworth directed did appear too much like a dispute between Iphigenia and Orestes instead of him comforting her while she dealt with her "furies" (note that Diana had just freed Orestes from being further tormented by the Furies; Iphigenia must still somehow deal with her own internal "furies" without the Godess's help). One last difference is that I don't see Iphigenia's love or grief for her mother figuring in at all. I don't remember any proclaimation of love for Clytemnestra by Iphigenia during the course of the opera, and her laments were primarily for all the ill-fated members of the House of Atreus.

Helene, let's do a little "point, counter-point" shall we? I enjoyed both Nuccia Focile and Marie Plette as you did, but if I went back 2 more times, I go to see Focile both times. I just thought Focile made a better Iphigenia in acting, singing, and presence. Iphigenia "ought" to be sweet (and very feminine) in my mind. Plette's voice was huge and powerful.......Wagnerian I think you mentioned (better for a Clytemnestra perhaps). Iphigenia's role is mostly about lamentation and suffering (well, I guess the whole opera, being a Greek play, is essentially that), and I found Focile's abilities conveyed such emotions in a more poignant way. A detail.......the "final fade out on the faces of Iphigenia and Orestes" which I found so visually powerful is at the end of Act II. This opera has 4 acts, but only one intermission which is between Act II and III. So the first applause you heard is after Act II and the last you heard was after Act IV. The major difference in our reactions is clearly about the dance. I'll be very interested in how others react to the dancing once this production goes to NYC. I suspect my views will be in the minority. As I indicated before I loved the dance in this opera. I don't hold it up as great ballet or even great dance, but I found the dance a wonderful addition to the mood of the opera, and it moved the story forward in a very physical way. OTOH, I will admit again that the Scythian men dance was the weakest part of the dancing (in terms of being appropriate). Enough on that, now to the new point you raise: "the pantomime that Wadsworth imposed on the final dance music". I see where you are coming from (I think I do at least), but my interpretation is very different than yours. I liked the pantomime very much. I thought it "glued" together the two contradictory emotions found at the end of the opera. Allow me to explain. Iphigenia in Tauris is a Greek tragedy, and based as it is on the dark story the House of Atreus, is immersed in a vicious cycle of revenge and counter-revenge as demanded by the "law" of the Gods. But at the end Gluck suddenly switches to reconciliation and happiness (far more happiness than Euripides has at the end of the original play). To my mind, the pantomime is Wadsworth's attempt to provide a believable transition between these two contrary emotions. I don't read Iphigenia's emotions in that pantomime quite the same way you do. I don't see Iphigenia struggling with her brother over his murder of their mother, but rather a completely internal struggle as she must let go of the anger, suffering, uncertainty, and cynicism that has sustained her all these years in Tauris; and instead to be willing to accept the new possibility of a meaningful life filled with family love, optimism, and satisfaction. I was very moved when she dropped that Clytemnestra green scarf since I saw that action as symbolic not of forgiving Orestes, but rather as symbolic of a wholly internal struggle where she must choose to either hold on to the lamentation of past wrongs, or to once again embrace the positives she once knew before her sacrifice. To give up such cynicism, and to believe once again in possibility, after all she has gone through, takes great courage and does not happen without an internal struggle. The near-violent struggle we see her going thru in Orestes' arms results from her internal struggle, which shakes her utterly, not from a struggle with Orestes -- he is there supporting her in his arms while she fights off her own "furies" that tempt her to hold on to the vengeance of the past. As an aside, I felt that the love she felt during that struggle to be more for her brother than for her mother. Her mother represents the never ending vicious cycle of revenge. Iphigenia's releasing of that scarf was a rejection of her mother's vengeful ways (which, as the chorus says during the opera, can only lead to ever more killing and bloodshed).

I just hit some errant button while doing a "fast reply"and lost my much more comprehensive reply. I only have the patience to re-do it briefly. ---------------------------------------- I see the dance in Iphigenia differently than Helene and Bart. I saw the video after having seen 2 live performances of this production (the silver cast on 10/14 and the gold cast on 10/24). I didn't find the dance space cramped because I expected it to be cramped: set as it was in a pagan temple. Also I think more classical or even more modern and familiar ballet moves would have been out of place. The time setting of this production is about the time of the Trojan War (this could be argued, but that how I saw it), and I thought the rather unusual moves and use of space to be pagan-like and added to the tension of the emotions of the action. (Well, I will admit that the guards dance was less convincing.) The video doesn't convey the impact of the dancing very well.

It is being done here in the Puget Sound area over the Halloween weekend. It is being performed by a small company "INTERNATIONAL BALLET THEATRE" in Bellevue, WA (Bellevue is to Seattle what Oakland is to San Francisco -- we call it the "eastside" around here).

All you NY'ers get ready for a treat in late November. I saw the new production of Gluck's Iphigenia in Tauris last nite at the Seattle Opera. It is simply spectacular -- everything about it. I give the lion's share of the credit to director Steven Wadsworth for making this potentially stiff opera into a living, breathing piece of art that is relevant to all -- whether one lives today or back in the time of Euripides. The story of Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, and their offspring might be considered to be a bit heavy, filled with people who are helpless other than to obey the pagan Gods' relentless pursuit of vengeance, but this most basic of drama's stories and myth is really about family -- the strongest experience we all share in common (as General Director Speight Jenkins said at the Q&A). I can't say enough about how Wadsworth made every character come alive -- even the chorus was active, engaged, part of the story. Of course, there were other contributors; most notably, Gluck himself who supplies exquisitely beautiful music: music that seemed light years ahead of its time. Listening to a pre-Mozart opera composer I thought would be harpschorded recitative with action-stopping arias with the singer center stage. Not a bit of it. This was more like Wagner with the story and music thru-composed as a unit. When I hear most composers I feel very strongly tied to "their century", to their place in the development of music, but Gluck in this opera somehow created a time machine. Bach was unmistakable as a baroque foundation; Handel naturally was there (some pieces of choral music almost were the Messiah); but WHOA where the heck did Wagner come from? There were times I even thought I was listening to early 20th century music. Gluck somehow tapped into all of that future. My next credit must then go to conductor Gary Thor Wedow who found all this in this music and communicated it. It wasn't only the sort of "intellectual" prisine-ness I love about baroque music (tho it was that too), but Wedow also makes this music passionate, expressive -- his dynamics alone were astonishing. And I have to applaud Tom Lynch too for the marvelous set. If ever there was a dark and foreboding inter-sanctum of a Greek-like temple, this is it. Yet by dividing the stage into 3 distinct areas, Lynch was able to create a space were Wadsworth could vary the action, present differing points of view, and create spacial tension. So 3 cheers to the Seattle Opera and the Met (more precisely to Jenkins and Gelb) for collaborating to make this new production a reality (as I understand it, the first complete collaboration the Met has ever done). As a Seattlite, I am very proud to be sending this production to the great, mighty, paragon that is NYC. I know ya'll will love it -- even in NYC.....the audience of audiences. We have something going on out here where trees still grow; and you're going to say WOW too. (But then, we do share Wadsworth, don't we? .) P.S. Be prepared for the visual as the curtain drops at the end of Act II. If that don't send shivers up and down your spine, NYC has finally jaded you. Later edit -- I now read that this is the first co-production the Met has ever done with a regional company.