papeetepatrick

Yes, Gomes could probably get it right. This is something modern dancers could also do, though. I can easily see Bertram Ross or Stuart Hodes knowing how to do this, or Paul Taylor--if any were still dancing (if also alive). But there's no virtuosity required at all, so one could search for personality outside the big ballet companies for this one. I think Corella could do it too.

Be thankful........ I respectfully disagree. The first time I saw WM (with Villella, which is significant), it changed my life. It is entirely dependent upon the performer and on the viewer's ability (which, alas, I don't always have) to become fully immersed in the very slow action on stage. Yeah, I only saw it once, way back in 1979, I think, with Villella, and I thought it was beautiful. I don't know whether I'd still feel that way about it, though, or how much it had to do with Villella. Did Hubbe do it in the Spring, 2008, season, as someone once indicated might have been going to happen? I'd like if with him too, I imagine. It needs a natural magnetism, some kind of physical aura that not even some of the otherwise best dancers have. Not everybody thinks Hubbe has that, but I do.

Very good point, and yet both he and Liszt came from Eastern Europe and became cosmopolitan Parisians. Here is perhaps an example of that aspect of Chopin from that most elegant of pianists, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. I've never heard a thing of his I didn't think was close to perfect, although he's not to all tastes. So here is the First Ballade: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...05611106874924#

Here's Ivo Pogorelich, imo the best young pianist of the last 30 years, making the 3rd Scherzo work, even for me. I used to even play it a lot and never loved it, which proves me distance from Chopin. The 4th is light-years beyond this (I should have played that instead, it's the only one of the Scherzi I really like). And, of course, Ms. Argerich walked out of the Chopin Competition when Pogorelich didn't win it (she would have done such a gesture so well...). I adore his Liszt Sonata and Schumann Symphonic Etudes. I think he's way beyond Kissin, although Kissin good for things like 'Feux-Follets'. Lots of people claim Pogorelich 'affected', I don't find him so. Thanks for reminding me of other pianists I hadn't even thought of last night. Agree about Cortot with the rest of you, of course. Pollini still a marvelous pianist, maybe it shows best in toughter-so8nding music like Boulez 2nd Sonata. Agree also with you about Horowitz most of the time. Not with the public, perhaps, but pianists have been taking them on a lot more in the last 20 years (there are probably 20 recordings of them by now, there used to be only Gieseking's, and those were not really stellar): Thibaudet's are excellent (his essaying of the very accessible Etudes pour les Arpeges Composes totally convinced me and changed my whole approach to it=--he plays the arpeges like melody lines, slowing them down, and it works. Thibaudet can be great, even though he likes to be the showman, and really can do up those Liszt operas. There's also a Swiss-based Chinese girl who played the 4ths superbly, I can't find her name now. Just noticed that Dutch National Ballet had used '12, 2, and 4' for ballet--as well they should, there is literally nothing more joyous than the Etude pour les Accords. But the difference in Debussy's and Chopin's octave etudes is especially stark--the former an exbuberant waltz, with later Chinese instrument sounds, the latter a lot of noise. One friend used to say the Bach WTC, the Beethoven Sonatas, and the Chopin Etudes were the 'Pianists' Bible'. I said I agreed with the first two, but thought the Chopin Etudes as 'pretty Czerny'. I think they do have pain in them, which makes them really seem like etudes, with a couple of exceptions. I used to play the 'Fantasy' a good bit too, and never really loved it. He can't do 'voluptuous', yes, that's it, it doesn't sound voluptuous as with Wagner and Liszt and Debussy or Tchaikovsky, it just sounds bloated. The F Minor Ballade is a great exception, and a masterpiece. I used to play the B Minor Sonata a lot, and that's where I found out about his bloated passages--although I do love the 1st Movement. Good point, ballet noob, about Rubinstein and the introvert/extrovert matter: I was thinking that as I wrote that up last night. Rubinstein was very urbane and gentlemanly, so while being very much the extrovert, would be always polite and take the time with all those matters that, say, the F # Major Nocturne requires, or the C Minor Nocturne (I didn't enjoy playing either of these, especially the last one, even when teachers would tell me the slow section was 'like a knight preparing for battle') I think I found out something by mentioning 'Les Sylphides' last night. I'd much rather see Chopin danced to, including Dances at a Gathering, than just hear him. I think I admire Chopin more than love him, although not so hateful as Ives, who said something about Chopin always wearing a dress, But then he was beastly about Debussy and Mozart as well. Probably if I had to choose one single piece of Chopin that I love comparably to my favourite composers, it would be the F Minor Ballade, although I like the G Minor quite a bit too. But it's like those 'waterfall sections' or whatever they are in the Scherzo linked with Pogorelich: I think if you like those, you are a true Chopin lover. I can't stand those, and was forced to learn it. Pogorelich sells it to me, but I'd still much rather hear the 4th Scherzo. I don't know if he's got a recording of that.

I want to hear those Argerich CD's. She is like a Maria Callas of the piano, all power and passion--whatever she did back then, it was bound to be good, even if not always in the purists' way. I usually don't think of Rubinstein as being one of my favourite pianists, but I have to admit I love much of his Chopin, especially the Ballades. I'd always thought of Chopin as more in the line of Mozart and then, after him, Debussy, who adored them both. I didn't know people were still talking about Chopin's music as 'weak and sickly', though, but they might as well, since he was weak and sickly. I remember all of those intros to Schirmer editions by James G. Huneker (I think that's his name), he was always talking the over-sentimentality angle. Much of the music is very big, though, especially the B Minor Sonata. I prefer Liszt's B Minor Sonata by a long shot, though, and Liszt in general--even though, since he was the great virtuous as well and a sort of rock star pianist unlike any other in history, there's a lot of occasional music, the transcriptions from opera, that aren't really supposed to be masterpieces in themselves. Some odd remarks in the article--of course as times change, a composer would 'play fast and loose' with sonata form; Beethoven's late sonatas could be said to do the same with Haydn and Mozart forms, and there are some late Mozart ones, like F Major (k. 533/494) that are full of strange things, especially in the second movement. I can't believe she used the word 'sissy' though, even in the 'not' sense. I heard some beautiful Chopin done by Richter at Carnegie many years ago, and the first solo concert I ever heard at Carnegie was Ashkenazy doing all the Etudes. This was great playing, but I can't say I was ever quite moved. Midgette does have some good points about not doing too much at one time, but i don't think that nearly applies just to Chopin. It's interesting, since I've been with Ballet Talk, I've only thought of Chopin with the ballet, and it was interesting to read her about 'waltzes that weren't meant to be danced to', but a few of them can be and not just those for 'Les Sylphides' by professional dancers. Much of Chopin probably does require a very delicate sensibility, nevertheless, and maybe an introvert more than an extrovert sometimes to bring out these 'intimacies'. Such considerations are also to be found in Debussy, who is a more important composer to me personally. All the intricacies of his Etudes were all worth it to me. One thing curious about the Chopin Etudes is how little they work the left hand (for the most part, there are exceptions--but the Double Thirds are all in the right hand in Chopin's, whereas they are in both in Debussy's, although the Octave Etude does work out both hands for octaves, the Revolutionary, of course, but Opus 10, No. 2, is only for the right hand fingerwork and is always extremely difficult, thought some can really toss it off. There's been lots of talk of how Chopin's Etudes are 'not just studies, but poetic works in their own right', but I think Debussy's are more so, and Chopin's poetry comes out more in his other works. Ofcourse, the E Major Etude in Op. 10 is as lyrically beautiful as possible, I'm never been really sure what it's an Etude for.) The E Major Scherzo is a great favourite of mine, and is extremely difficult to get the lightness it needs.)

Mixed feelings about this. Yes, it's according to how they do it. Mainly, if the 'short clips' aren't too short, and don't give the impresion that they don't much care about it. If they're long enough and in their original form, even if just overlaid on some film footage, you might be able to tell more about what the songs are really about than with 'guest stars'. In the years i watched the Oscars, I only ever saw one memorable performance, and that song didn't win, although that's neither here nor there to me. I wonder if there's still a 'best original movie score', there used to be but I'd forgotten all about it. Mancini would win these, and I'm sure Elmer Bernstein, Max Steiner, in the old days Virgil Thomson's beautiful score for 'louisiana Story' won it, but this last even shows the way that may have evolved, as Thomson didn't care for Korngold scores (he probably won an Oscar or two as well, Copland may have won for 'Red Pony', I don't remember, etc., and a lot of people think movie music 'tells you too much of what to feel'. I don't see this as a problem in most cases, but it sometimes is.

Sounds just like how I expect a Russian ensemble to play Tchaikovsky: to use a syrupy word, with soul. And maybe 'grandeur', which YOT may be referring to by 'Beethoven-like power', which, come to think of it, probably ought to be the right direction for a lot of Tchaikovsky and much more. I use 'syrupy' all the time, but haven't seen 'cloying' and 'treacly' nearly as often as I need to, and used to be frequent among movie reviewers in particular, along with 'saccharine'. But I don't read critics as much as I used to, they don't even seem like profound creatures even when I agree with them, although I was pleased recently by Macaulay's assessment of Sara Mearns in 'Swan Lake'. He goes for hyperbole when he can't resist it, but which of us doesn't?

This all sounds good to me, as I have been pulling for LABallet to succeed. I enjoyed their 'Nutcracker' in 2007, with that lovely new girl Lilit Hogtanian. But I think they will indeed succeed, even if only because Los Angeles has been increasing culturally (meaning the High Arts, they've long had the pop domain sewn up, even if they import B'way shows just like everybody else, and I've found those no better here) over the last 3 decades, with great new museums of world-class calibre, a superb opera company run by Domingo (I've seen two very fine performances there), theater (I saw a fine 'School for Scandal' at the Mark Taper in 2004) and concerts at the Disney Hall and continuing fine performances at the Music Center. Even without a strong ballet tradition, Los Angeles wants to be a major culture city, and in fact, already is. All they really did lack was a fine ballet company, and it sounds as though it's going to be just that. The Nutcracker was not on the level of NYCB's, of course, but it was charming and often very clever and well-danced all the same. Was glad to see Carrie Lee Riggins is with them, as I thought her charming in 'Scotch Symphony', even though I'm not so fond of the work as some are. By now, the creative atmosphere in Los Angeles is so charged and lively, without some of the ossification you can find in the older cities, that it really would be likely impossible that ballet won't become fully rooted in the slippery soil of Los Angeles. I'm thinking of not going at Xmas anymore, and trying to aim my vacation for one of the seasons like this one--definitely my 'second home'.

Scahffer right about Mozart's genius, but made up stuff about Salieri, not a genius, but not that character either. Peter Gay much better and not into villainizing. No real point comparing Mozart to Salieri in any case, insofar as genius goes, but rather Haydn and Beethoven. They're not considered to be lesser (except in certain forms, as Mozart's operas are far greater than 'Fidelio' or Haydn's operas, but then Beethoven's Piano Sonatas are definitely more important than Mozart's). So that's the perfect period in music to prove that there can be several obvious geniuses. Would agree that 'the craft shouldn't show', and that 'burst forth fluently' is impressive, but not indiciative of genius in itself. I don't know Robbins well enough to say that he 'craft shows'. Would, hiowever, be interested to know what you or others think about Ashton in that regard. That's the other competitor: Simon said he thinks he's the equal or superior to Balanchine, but I'm in no position to know or even guess. I like the phrase 'burst forth fluently' though, especially if it is in the hands of a genius, because that means it was even enjoyable to take it down, you were already hearing the whole piece. I don't know if Balanchine's choreography came out 'fully polished' like this seems to indicate, but other geniuses were very painstaking, as Debussy and Tchaikovsky, and certainly Beethoven struggled. I doubt that all of Mozart was quite so spontaneous as some of it was, though, and might have to do with complexity of form--in working out his music drama, Wagner could not have managed to get it all out in a first draft; too many aspects, considerations. INteresting question though. And it's also true that hacks 'burst forth fluently', albeit with something not very luminous and often even just trash I'd also like to know about Petipa's process, and other of the long-ago choreographers like Bournonville. Some painters and sculptors had to struggle much more than others to 'get it out'. But definitely agree that, for the most part, the 'craft shouldn't show', unless, as in much modern art, that becomes part of what the piece is, as with some 20th century painting and architecture. And this that I just picked up from bart's above post would be a modern attitude already like those in painting, etc,.

I saw this a couple of times early on at NYCB, and I would tend to agree with Richard's remark, because it's all lovely, but can get a bit boring unless the performance is really inspired. I was just thinking of 'Les Sylphides', which definitely is a Chopin-based ballet of genius, but it has a drive through it that is considerably stronger than DaaG, if I'm recalling the latter correctly (quite long ago, I haven't seen it in recent years.) Some sort of stronger sense of 'narrative' in the Fokine, is that it?

Yes. That's why in certain cases, in which it is really considered to interrupt, directives have to be made--especially, as has been pointed out, in cases where it might not always seem obvious, as with the MacMillan. And they are allowed in those circumstances, aren't they? That's something you can find in many literally religious performances, or ritualistic performances as well--much Eastern dance and music has moments of a kind of cadence, in which there is much expression of celebration, expressed vocally as well as with the hands--even with religious themes. In ballet, I don't think you ever find it, in that sense, because it's more separated, not so interactive, so applause at big virtuosic performance-moments occurs. These are both forms of release, and probably the release that applause gives is probably helpful in most cases. It's never inappropriate except the special circumstances when someone really doesn't want it. For example, I woukln't find it objectionable to ask the audience not to clap in your example of 'Liebeslieder Walzer'--and NYCB goers, though not all at equal levels of sophistication, are at least sophisticated enough to be able to concentrate throughout the piece without applauding. Sometimes it is good to work toward a concentrated and sustained experience of a performance without the easy gratification of clapping's release: After all, the dancers are definitely doing it themselves, and the audience is being asked to do much less. I'm not advocating such announcments for performances of 'Liebeslieder', but I wouldn't mind either.

I have to say I think Ashton is easily Balanchine's equal if not superior. That is perfectly balanced. I agree with it without agreeing with it (since I don't know enough Ashton.) But there has been talk of genius being 'one among many', and that I just don't buy--unless ballet is different from literally all of the other Arts by having only 'one genius at a time'. In that case, it might be the nature of the Art, I don't know, but it has never been the case with music, not in a single period.. But you've said it better, because I would have to expand 'genius', were it to mean anything to me, fo 'all important 20th century dance', and I do not think Balanchine is greater than Martha Graham. I don't care which one is greater, frankly, they are my favourites (to echo Jean Brodie on Giotto.) I might be able (although I don't know) to say the same of Ashton if I knew enough, but I just don't. But this is the balanced thing, because he is specifically the 'other competitor' within 20th century ballet per se. For me, Balanchine is the great 20th century ballet choreographer, but that's only because I know his work fairly well, and I do not know but a few works of Ashton. And yet that also does explain why miliosr, in particular, wants to champion the works of many other choreographers, because even people like me have not been so easily exposed to the other great specifically ballet choreographers (unless one thinks Robbins is on that level, and I probably don't). As it is, I'm a huge Balanchine fan, but part of that may be because I've seen so much of his work so that I can at least make some sort of judgment. I don't think I know more than 3 Ashton works, and it's not entirely my fault, you know.

Interesting article, although I can't believe anybody would write 'heavy New Yawk accent' (the pronunciation in the accent he's referring to is more like 'Noo Yoh-ak', and nobody ever writes that, but nobody ever says 'New Yawk' except out-of-towners or in the song 'New Yawk State of Mind'.. Surprised how involved they've gotten with this issue of the announcement (unless it's just ineffective, and I have found that ringing cellphones have gotten noticeably worse over the last couple of years.). the anouncement is necessary, and should probably be louder and more aggressive to make sure it's really paid attention to. there's no way the message can be gotten across with gentle means--all very charming what they did in 'Our Town', but it comes as little surprise that it wasn't so effective. I like Bill T. jones's idea, though, if it worked (do we know if it did? if so, posters do sound nicer than announcements, but they could be forgotten a lot more easily too.) Actors stopping and lecturing the offenders is good. They should do as much as they need of it if the announcements don't work. As for 'wanting the atmosphere not to be ruined by an announcement', I don't see that it even does so; after all, you've just come from the outside world, which has nothing to do with the theater, and, with some exceptions, the theater is not yet the play before it starts (except as in Jones's 'nightclub', but in most theater it's just the usual audience chatter and milling around). The cellphones really are disturbing, but I never would have thought of the announcment as being the least so. It's just a necessity, and even announcements of understudies are not always welcome, but I dont' find that they 'interrupt mood' before something has even started. Anyway, there is other noise, and actors have let audiences have it for that. When Katharine Hepburn did 'Coco' on Broadway, some audience member was making a lot of noise talking, and she stopped and gave a lecture about 'I'm trying to WORK!', which would have been a moment to savour, and I bet it was longer and more memorable then Dennehy's or the other actor mentioned in the article.

Ok Okay, but the final point about that part is that, if you do clap when you're asked not to, it could neve make any sense. Because applause is always supposed to mean appreciation, but if you do it against the Artist's will (whether or not he's religious or anything else), the clapping is tantamount to booing. I am sure you personally would not do it, but that is the fact of what iw would mean. If your appreciation is sincere, then clapping when it is not asked for is no different from booing: And that is okay in my book, I do NOT have anything against booing, and think plenty of performers deserve it. The whole point of not clapping for MacMillan's Requiem is to respect him as an Artist, if he is also religious, then that is a part of his Artist Persona, and should be respected like the rest of it. You could not applaud 'in protest to his absurd religiosity', but you could applaud against what he asked as an important Artist. And that would be a form of booing,. So one can do this. I thought Susan Sontag deserved MUCh MORE when she was boasting after her infamous 9/11 essay in the New Yorker, which made everybody furious here in its supercilious tone. Please don't take offense at this, i don't mean any, and am not trying to 'get the last word' (if you have one, go ahead and say one.), nor am I trying to make you agree with me (you can't make people do that anyway) I just wanted this last time to point out the strange oddity of hoow clapping, which is always meant to show apprecaition (unlike booing, which never is), could be seen to become the reverse of its own function. But no big deal. I think Sandy and kfw and you all made good points, and kfw explained how he feels religion precedes, I guess I am this 'the Artist precedes' of sometning, and so that, if one doesn't abide by there requests, then one ought to just go ahead and be uncivil, There's a contradiction in terms of using a form of appreciation that is also unasked for, as if one knew better than the Artist how you could show the appreciation. It's like sometimes hugging and kissing and beyond may seem like affection from the one 'giving it', but the receiver may want none of it.

It is not a matter of courtesy to do as requested by the artists. It is an insult to go against it. It means that the audience should have power over what is considered quite fundamental by the creators. 'one may decide to do so as a matter of courtesy tto do as requested'. No. If you do not do as requested by the artists, when it is clear that they have a strong commitment to making the performance go a certain way and need your cooperation, you are being actively discourteous to go against their request. it is not some whim of the audience to decide they can be disrespectiful if the spirit moves them in some other way.

I wondered how American audiences might react to such a program note, and such a custom (and this may well vary by region). This was once common custom, but in our "anything goes" age, I was curious if it were still generally known, or if things have changed. That's the original post, and the part that I'm responding to primarily is just that Crisp is saying that there needed to be an announcement made, because the clapping and bravos 'ignored a programme note'. They probably just didn't see it. As for 'American audiences reacting do such a programme note' diffently, they clearly do. While not being religious at all, I can't see that there is anything in this except whether the audience knew how they were asked to react or not, and I think Crsip was indicating just that they probably hadn't read the notes. It doesn't matter if the audience presumes or agrees with such a request, and they are not 'presumed to'. If they are, it doesn't matter. The presenter might wish that there was a presumption of 'inherent virtue of religious subjects', but he knows perfectly well that there is not. He is satisfied that the performance go as he wanted, and he has that right, no more. No, I am not misunderstanding your position. I completely and fundamentally disagree with it, primarily because if the organizers want to say 'it is of religiious significance', they mean obviously that they think so for themselves, and that comes first. They only ask the audience not to applaud, not to become 'prayerful' or even submit to anything. The performers have the right to present whatever they wish to, and warnings about the DeFrutos piece were sufficient as per Simon's succinct descriptions of the London performances, just as a 'programme note' was indeed NOT sufficient in this case, because the audience didn't observe it. The organizers should not be expected to 'overexplain' their position. If an audience member is sufficiently independent-minded, he can ignore it in all ways except applauding. I don't believe that this Royal Ballet story 'presumes' that anyone must 'give special deference to something because they surely must also feel that this is as important as the organizers do', just that they show the respect that the organizers have the right to demand in not applauding, they are not being told what to think, no matter how the programme is worded.. By the same token, DeFrutos's buggeries, etc., let you know what you're getting beforehand, and they have done that as a courtesy and a safeguard. Either extreme gives you enougyh information for the basic policies that ought to be observed. MacMillan's piece just deserves to be respected as instructed, it cannot be that he nor anyone else, cared that much about what 'special deference' beyond not applauding came into it. Now, I do respect your interest in all these philosophical matters, and we probably agree on most of them. I just think either a saint or a pervert who's got the stage, having met all legal obligations, should be the one to call all the shots. If he 'would rather' you 'show deference' to religious subjects, he knows as well as you and I do, that that's his problem, and that's not even on his mind. He just doesn't want the performance interrupted by applause, any more than Suzanne Farrell would have wanted something she did in 'Mozartiana' to be applauded, as the 32 fouettes in 'Swan Lake'. But that kind of tradition was understood to some degree in Balanchine's day, and not everybody will know. The big issues are not what Clement Crisp was talking about, but Alexandra's original query does show we feel differently about these performance practices, whether or not we're religious. I'm not, but I do feel MacMillan is absolutely right to demand silence, and don't disagree with dirac that he should 'try to elicit it' so much as just that that's unrealistic. For religious and artistic reasons of his own, he wants quiet during the piece, and he has the right tio ask if for those reasons. You can disagree with all of if you know he wants this, except for the applause itself. And I'm sure he could not have been less than fully aware of this.l

But someoe might, finding it pretentious, old-fashioned and even campy. People laugh and make fun of things I hold 'sacred' as art all the time. It's somewhat too complicated and off-topic to debate taxation of religious organizations, since it's hard to see that one of the most charitable organizations in the world (if not THE most), viz., the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities is not somehow compensating by all that giving (which it does do) for being tax-exempt whereas Scientology isn't, which is also tax-exempt. Bu that's as as I'm going to get on this. As for ballet audientce, they should not automatically know to give special deference to any kind of progrom, religious or not, unless they are told to, which is always a matter of just being asked not go applaud. And if they ARE told that they are being asked to not applaud because it is of 'religious significcance', that's okay too, it's not the audience's business to determine how a work is to be performed, and in this case, then one should just not go to a 'religiously significcant' work, but if one does, and even if told that that is why by those who have made and are presenting the production, that is enough. By agreeing to the Terms & Conditions, you are 'not showing special deference' by not applauding, you are doing what those who are presenting expect in terms of respect of what you've come to see. They have the right to ask this for whatever reasons, religious or otherwise. If they don't ask, then you don't have to even think about it. I don't think either religion or philosophy are things that you should know to 'treat with special deference' beforehand, if you're talking about just performance, which presumably this discussion is about--not the whole domains themselves. But I definitely think that if a performance of a specifically religious work is presented and those presenting and performing say we don't want applause (which is the specific word in Alexandra's topic title), they have the right to ask for it and have it be observed, including if they specify 'because or its special religious significance'. It would be equally fine to ask for no applause because 'the mood of the piece will be interrupted by the sound of audience applause', I think I now remember a soloist doing a piece called 'Stones' at the Japan Society, and we were asked to not applaud in order to allow the piece to sustain its peaceful and tranquil nature. So that my point is that just because you agree to observe someone else's request that you do not applaud because sometning is, to them, 'or religious significance', does not mean you are giving 'special deference' to that. But that may not be what is being discussed. I just see that, if asked, for whatever reason, not to applaud, including being told why, you just shouldn't. Because, what would you then do, applaud? No, because you probably hadn't liked the 'religiously siginificantly piece' anyway, although one could do some catcalls and hissing if one felt strongly. It's just that it's simple: Some people are going to give religious works more 'special deference' than others think they deserve. They do not have the right to enforce this, but they can request at least no applause, and expect it that to be observed. I don't give religious works more deference than other kinds, and frankly am not interested in many of them, no, it's worse, I'm not seriously interested in any of them for the religious content itself, although I love much Christian art, Hindu art, Buddhist art, etc.. It's like if you go into a Hindu temple, and they ask you to take off you shoes: You may not feel any reverence for the Hindu religion if you are a tourist, but you certainly do take off your shoes if they tell you to. A ballet audience member should know how to refrain from normal audience behaviour only if instructed; he should not even think of it otherwise unless he is somehow moved by the work itself to remain silent--but that is never going to happen collectively, even if we have 'total silence anecdotes about all Carnegie Hall quiet as they were hypnotized by Horowitz and his piauissimo', so if a choreographer or theater director wants to have the best chance for silence during a performance, he does need to tell the audience. It may be possible that the audience was asked not to applaud during the play verision of Didion's 'Year of Magical Thinking', with Redgrave. That would have been appropriate, although I didn't go, so I don't know for sure if that was done. If this has only to do with performance, I don't see that it is a religious or philosophic matter, it is an artistic decision (even if they call it 'religious' or whatever else). Frankly, if DeFrutos asked the audience not to applaud becuase his 'naughty dance' was so delicate it would be ruined by audience applause, I'd either do it, or just give in to unruly behaviour, or leave, according to my predilections. I think both Dawkins and Hitchens have good things to say, but I don't see what they have to do with perofrmance applause and what ought and ought not to be observed, according to what they or anybody else feels about religion.

Thanks for posting that observation of Macaulay's, bart. Yes, and Sara Mearns is always a woman, and always (to me) a very feminine one. Whether or not his emphasis is a little more on Odette than Odile (as mine is) I don't know, of course. With Odile I want to see sometning like the idea of 'the devil is a woman', or a temptress as self-serving as the Siren in 'The Prodigal Son' (how different are Odile and the Siren character-wise? I don't think they are at all). I always go for these 'wicked women' types, whether Jezebel in the Old Testament and in Racine, as remembered by her daughter 'Athalie'. and I probably have specific kinds of sharpness I look for in their chracterization. It's probably more impressive to make Odette really moving (as Mearns does) than it is to make Odile All the Playgirls You Ever Dreamed of But Knew You'd Better Not Meet... still, I love Odile, and have learned to live with what many BT'ers think is my bad taste in Galina Mezentzeva's Odile. Oh my god, she is so vicious--but that very mannerism that some complain about in her exaggerated movements is part of what makes a great Odile: The 'mannered' is part of what being 'false' is. But that may be a lesser component to add to her range--her Odette is glorious, and ti could be that 'playing down Odile' (whether or not consciously) is also an effective way of presenting it (although the delights of a truly vicious Odile I'd probably always miss.) But delighted to find Macaulay giving praise in the form of 'the finest in 20 years': this is wonderful to see, and Ms. Mearns is rapidly becoming a truly great artist (which always means 'maturity', 'adult' in some aspect of the definition, and 'serious', which she was even as the light Dewdrop when I saw it back in 2006. Just by way of comment on the 'mannered' part of the range, Farrell was also always thought to be serious and a dancer of great integrity, but could be very mannered when the part called for it, as in 'La Vales' (I believe reading in Arlene Croce that she also had sometimes been a bit mannered in the big-star years pre-Bejart, but I only saw her once then, and knew nothing at all then.) This is never the foundation of the 'seriousness' and 'integrity', but can be part of it, especially with a dancer who is given everything as Farrell was. Martins in 'Far from Denmark' wrote that Balanchine 'pampered her, gave her what she needed'. Since Farrell was totally focussed on her work, this made her able to be extravagant without being 'spoiled'; she made a lot go a long way. Mearns may do the same, although she doesn't have a Balanchine to make masterpieces for her. But someone may come along, and she has already proven to be able to shine brilliantly in the Remains of Petipa. I like it that Macaulay would go that far--as I'm sure there have been many brilliant Swan Lakes in the last 20 years.

Suzanne Farrell Finat Curtain Call (1989?), sorry I just looked up the old Joan Accocella piece about Suzanne's book in NYReview of Books, but it didn't have the photo online, and I don't know who made it, but rg will. Also, there's a princely photo of Peter Schaufuss from an old Dance Magazine, from about the same period. That one was in colour, and I don't have either one of them anymoore, so don't know who the photog was. But I don't know much about ballet photography. I also had a poster of Farrell in 'Nijinsky' (black and white) when I saw it in Paris, that I put up on my wall there, but I don't have that anymore either. But that was gorgeous and all suppleness of long limbs.

In addition to the examples in my long post, I think I remember being asked not to applaud in certain performances of Bharatya Natyam, the classical South Indian dance, although the kiddies are often brought to these affairs and that sort of family rowdiness is accepted in a way that isn't at Western dance perfs.

I just read the whole thread, finally, and I think kfw also said "If I am to take this complain seriously, does this mean then that I ought not to clap during a performance of The Rite of Spring?," I just wouldn't clap if I'd been asked not to in deference the company's or choreographer's or presenter's feelings. To my mind, that doesn't seem like a lot of them to ask." I think I've been asked not to clap at certain dance performances in the last few years, but can't remember for sure. I always believe that you should never clap under any circumstances if asked beforehand, no matter what the work is, whether or not religious. I can't for the life of me remember what performance it was, but I don't think it was religious. But if requested, there is obviously a serious reason for it in terms of what the performance should or should not include--especially in terms of sound. I remember the spiritual leader (for lack of a better term) and speaker J. Krishnamurti always asked his audiences to never applaud, and he would stop them if they started, but humourously, by saying 'please don't applaud, it's not worth it'. I never thought about applause or not for 'works of religious significance' or other. I just see what the traditions are in any given circumstance, and if applause is occurring in some religious ritual, I guess I do a bit of it politely, just like I sometimes did the other day at NYCB even when I didn't think 'it was worth it', unless I thought it was so not worth it, that I just didn't anyway. Isn't an announcement the appropriate thing to make if one wants no applause to bring unwanted sound into any kind of piece? If that is asked for, one should respect it always, and I always do. Unless I'm missing something here, I don't see how this is very complicated (I may well be missing something.) I would really prefer no applause after arias or stupendous ballet variations personally, but I accept that most do. As for booing, I once went to a reading in which I nearly went much further than booing, but didn't. I thought the reader deserved to be roundly shouted at, but somehow didn't, even though others were hissing (this wasn't religious, of course.) As for clapping for the Pope and such things, that always seems a bit curious to me to clap for the mere appearance of a notable figure, which I first noticed when the queen of England and Prince Philip and then-mayor Beame came out at the New York State Theater, and everybody applauded (I doubt it was for Mayor Beame, but then that's the breaks.) Those wonderful Taiwanese I saw last fall at the Joyce Theater may have said not to clap, but I can't remember. I think we either were told not to or automatically didn't do so, because you don't usually get inspired to clap at something so serene. But if asked beforehand, I think it is never appropriate to clap. If it's just in the programme notes (I don't know if this happens sometimes), people wouldn't all even know not to, if expected. I would imagine that if it appears in the programme notes, there would also be an announcement beforehand, so people would be sure to know. If one then clapped, it wouldn't be showing appreciation, because the 'not clapping' had actually been indicated as a part of what the performance must consist of for its mood, atmosphere, sense of serenity and continuity, etc. I still think I may be missing something, though, because I can't figure out why it's complex. If not told, I think clapping is always fine if you figure out that that's the tradition. It told not to, then one mustn't, whether or not one dislikes the proceedings. Now if it comes to unruly behaviour, the term itself goes without saying: Youse takes youse chances, and sees if youse don't get arrested, or whatever. I'm now glad I didn't scream at that reader, though, and I guess I might have been thrown out at most. There was that 'tazing' incident some years ago at a john Kerry speech, and I suppose those political protests are another subject (even when it's the long-ago fury at 'Rite of Spring' but I think we're not talking about determined uncivil behaviour, when protesters know what the consequences are.) Apologies if I really am missing something, which might have to do with knowing beforehand about a religious performance, etc. I wouldn't think about it at the ballet, I think, ever automatically. If I were hearing a Bach Oratorio, I would probably by nature never clap for any of it unless I saw others did, in that case it must have been appropriate. But I think somebody said something about Verdi Requiem, I don't know if there's tradition to clap during parts of it, so I'd just clap if I saw that was what other people are doing. I wasn't sure if the issue of 'that you'd paid for performance' meant that you should be able to clap--well, no, not if expressly asked not to, no matter what the nature of the performance, ritual, etc.. I don't think anybody said that, so at La Scala, even if some of us wouldn't boo, it's certainly accepted to do so, as is all manner of rude behaviour at Amateur Night at the Apollo (if that still exists.)

Yes, Sandy, a lot of us New Yorkers and Londoners are definitely jaded, myself not least. But you can always count on a jade to say something good about something that really doesn't bore the hell out of him/her! ShHe'll awaken from his/her dissolute slumber, and say 'AHA!' Of course, he is unjust and wicked the rest of the time....

What interested me was Michael's descriptiion of Kowrowski's Feb. 13th performance, as well as her long history in the role, which does seem to indicate that her earlier performance (Feb. 10? anyway, aurora had written about numerous difficulties she'd had in that first performance) may have indeed been a bad night. I liked that he also just says that 'City Ballet doesn't do these ballets especially well'. Well, they don't most of the time, but that's the choreography and the orchestra. Having finally seen these works finally after all these years (and R PLUS J this year, although only on TV), I fine there is something individual about Martins's style, and that once in a while (as in Sleeping Beauty) it shows itself to mostly good advantage. But even from the very beginning, with his shorter works, there is a compactness and tightness that sometimes seems sleek and glinting (as in many parts of Beauty), and sometimes just claustrophobic (R PLUS J is the worst, I even thought 'Swan Lake' a better Martins work, although almost everybody else hates it, and I can't say I was impressed at all either). But I don't know that it is not good that NYCB has embarked, however weirdly, and I do find something a bit weird about all of PMartins's 'Classics', they may eventually be able to do them. Michael doesn't think they should, but as time goes by, I don't see why not, especially since they do have the ballerina-stars, although their men don't hold a candle to ABT, there is no comparison. It wouldn't hurt NYCB to stop pretending there's stlll a Balanchine 'no-star system', since some exceptions were always even made when Balanchine was still working, but it doesn't mean a thing now. Bouder is a great dancer, but it's not like in the old days when we waited till casting was announced to buy our individual tickets--well, maybe for Bouder to some degree, but nobody is getting all anxious about how they might miss something once-in-a-lifetime as when you just had to see Farell do 'Mozartiana', or any number of other delectable treats that were always held out tantalizingly, but only at the last minute. I definitely agree once for 'Swan Lake' will be enough for my lifetime like Classic Ballet, altough I didn't dislike it quite as much, although I'll see Sleeping Beauty again if I ever hear they've got the orchestra to function properly. R PLUS J I am determined to never see again, I definitely agree with that girl who told me that was the 'true badness'. Very nice article from Michael.

I don't know this, but these things in good hands are always interesting, even though not usually quite as satisfying as the orchestral originals. It made me immediately think of Glenn Gould's transcription of the 'Siegfried Idyll', which I can well understand his doing, you want to possess such a beautiful work directly. Liszt transcribed many important works, including all the Beethoven symphonies, which I played back in Fontainebleau in Nadia Boulanger's class, and they are marvelous for helping you learn to get as close to orchestral sound as a piano (and the pianist's ear) will allow. Gould probably does as well as is possible with the Wagner, although you never want to hear it quite as much as the old Toscanini recording.

I can't see that. Cynisism seems to me a veritable lexicon that is learned, along with sustained irony, among the young--modelled, perhaps, on the generation above them, to seem smart. Now. PNB's 'youngish' ardour, even in that recent program here, was not cynical at all, of course, and they were never cynical, btw. That's another issue, but 'adult' means also therefore, being more sober and reserved when you can afford to be. I think that a fine production and composition allow this, whereas lesser products may invite attempts to make something more out of something that is not enough to begin with; and that is normal, because you have to try to make the best of what you've got to project. I think I'm even older than you, but NYCB is not 'like kids' when dancers like Sara Mearns are at work. And I say that even about the her dancing in roles I don't think she fully succeeds at. She is always 'adult', in the sense of either being fully serious or trying to be, as in 'swan lake'. She is just one example of a dancer who is always serious about what she is doing, so that even seeing her do something in which she is not fully convincing is still along the lines of what I used to see Farrell or McBride of Villella doing. It's an attitude, and some of them do the silly grins, but not all do. And some don't do much of anything except a perfunctory performance that should have been left behind in a rehearsal.