4mrdncr

Ditto. PS. As of 3pm today, Erica must have informed the Met/ABT she was otherwise occupied, because Juliet will now have a Romeo danced by Herman Cornejo.

Yes, that is a compelling gesture. I found emotion rising even as I read your post. Ferri is another of those dancers who doesn't stop acting at that point, but remains in transcendent character all the way off stage. Speaking of 'final exits'... There is a wonderful pic (by Jesus Vallinas at Fotoescena) of Tamara Rojo and Jose Manuel Carreno (both guesting with ENB in Barcelona Sept.06) at the grave as Giselle drops petals into his outstretched hand. Albrecht's face expresses it all too. A wonderful moment captured by a wonderful photographer. (Don't know if this post info is allowed by moderators--if not, I'll understand, but it is a good photo/moment captured.)

Please see Joan Acocella's New Yorker article (July 10, 2006) where she describes exactly that final tableau: ie. with Albrecht looking up into the light. I also remember him gently touching his fingers to his lips and then brushing the grave in a final caress/salute. (RIP?) In the film "Dancers", I also loved how Ferri slowly lowered her hand towards Albrecht's face in a final fleeting caress that slips through his fingers as she is "pulled" back towards her grave.

I'm an old fogey on this one. I like the lisp. Por thee-EHR-to. Hoewver, the lisp never applies to dancers from outside Spain -- or, more narrowly, from the center of Spain where "Castilian" is spoken. Thus one of the Madrid theaters which feature dance, Teatro Albeniz, is pronounced Tay-AH-tro Al-BAY-nith. But a theater like the Gran Liceu in might be prounounced Lee-SHAY-oo, Lee-SAY-oo, or Lee-THAY-oo, depending on whether you're speaking Catalan, Castilian, or non-Castilian Spanish. I have no idea how Spaniards themselves determine how whether or not to lisp. For instance, Lucia Lacarra, was born on the north coast in the Basque country, that is, outside Castlia. But her name is not Basque, and she studied in Madrid, the world capital of the lisp. Would that make her "Loo-SEE-a" or "Loo-THEE-a"? And what about all the other wonderful Spanish-born dancers with "ci", "ce" or "z" in their names? Maybe one of our posters from Spain can help us on this. and let's not forget artist's question re Yuan Yuan Tan. We have 6 pages of pronunciations over the years (mostly Russian and Spanish), but this seems to be the first inquiry about a Chinese name. There are many Chinese dancers in American and European companies, as we know. Can anyone give us a pronunciation list of the names of Chinese dancers to bring this STICKY into the 21st Century? Which was why I was so amazed when I heard that Spanish accent, and realized how it had been derived--500+ years ago! I LOVE how an accent (regional or otherwise) can still remain intact through all those generations and intervening tumultuous events and migrations. And until I visited NYC, I actually had never heard a Spanish (from Spain) accent as opposed to a Latin/South American accent. So it was a double treat--to try and revive my very rusty understanding (I learned Spanish at age 4, and didn't get too much practice after I switched to French and Japanese) while determining the accent variations. BTW: Thank you SO much for differentiating between regional variations for me & BT. It's been most informative. Another question: Is a grammatical accent on Liceu missing? I tend to think of it as more French: Lee-SIEUX (syure) or is it shure? or thure? That is, not three separate syllables but two. The only thing I do know about chinese is that Wang is usually pronounced WONG. So maybe the same applies to Tan? Yuan would depend how it is 'slurred together' so it's not exactly 1 or exactly 2 syllables, but a combination. And of course in Chinese, if you say it wrong you could mean something TOTALLY different. Or how about differences in Mandarin vs. Cantonese vs.?

This is true for Latin America. In much of Spain there's a hint of the "L" -- along with the "y" -- in the pronunciation of the LL. However, in contemporary Spain, as in Britain, it's increasingly okay to utilize pronunciations based on region, class, age, and attitude. Of course my favorite is when listening to a Spanish (as opposed to Latin/S.American) accent and hearing the Hap/bsburg lisp come down through 500+ years of history. Amazing.

NOT so accurate TALLIES: Sorry (Hagland?) but your tallies are wrong because you included the March performance tour dates for each dancer. Corrected tallies for MET season only (NOT including any possible Gala perfomance) per 4/10/07 ABT website: MB-7 JMC-5 AC-11 HC-4 MG-19 DH-9 VM-6 ES-9 Of course all is subject to change by ABT management, or more advanced mathematicians/statisticians.

Ok, forget dancing/technique for now and relying strictly on acting (or reacting) ability, I remember an Act III Siegfried who showed... a) True boredom, discomfiture with having to dance with/choose a princess before O/R's arrival b) Surprise the ball was interrupted and looked to Queen/head doorman-MC to see their reaction c) Jubilation/relief when he recognized his supposed love (and remember she may be in black so we know she is evil, but if true to story she would be the "image of Odette"--and I suppose in white?) d) Attempts at affection/closeness in the pdd, and once a 'take that' challenge clinch as he stopped a supported pirouette. e) Shocked surprise AND true WARINESS when Odile pushes away, pulls her hand away from his kiss, or stalks over to hear advice from Rothbart. In fact his face actually changed from a very wary seriousness, to a smiling relief when she then smiled seductively and returned to him. f) A "what the...!?" quick turn of the head when Queen & Rothbart expected him to ask permission to marry, and then swear his fidelity (and of course unknown to him, break his vow to Odette, condemning her). g) Horror/desperation when he realized finally what he'd done. One of the first times, I actually felt for Siegfried versus normally just concentrating on O/O's interpretation. And all that from a Siegfried who wasn't a tall, blonde, germanic prince. Oh yeah, he could dance pretty well too.

Viewing ballets I used to dance in, at first was almost impossible to do because I still wanted to dance and couldn't. Then, after almost six years of sort of self-imposed (my choice to take job there) isolation and not seeing any live performances, I was able to slowly acclimate myself to a viewer's POV. I couldn't stop myself from analyzing however, because I still felt each movement in my own musculature. In those ballets I was most familiar with, it was almost a "split-personality" effect of seeing/feeling both POV's: The audience's in the hall AND the dancer's onstage--ie. remembering the choreography, lights, wings, entrances/exits, proximity to other dancers, blocking etc. as a dancer, and seeing all of that as a detached observant audience member. (I have same problem with ballet sculptures, if the placement is wrong, my muscles will literally cringe--which is why I'm trying to find a class in forging/casting or other methods to make my own and save myself the pain.) One-acts/neo-classical pieces were easier to view; not so the full-lengths...Nutcracker et.al. was hard, but Swan Lake was the worst because I never got to dance it--I was supposed to (one of the 4 cygnets) etc. and did all the rehearsals, but then we were given only 1week's notice we had to move back to the States, spent 3 days that week packing, and then they delayed us by 1 day, and I ended up sitting in first row watching all my friends onstage. Someday I'd love to be "3rd spear carrier on the left" just so I can say at the Pearly Gates I was in SL afterall. RE: Apollo--I never mind seeing it, but somehow I'm still waiting for the perfection I still have in my mind. Maybe it's a vague memory of Farrell/Martins, I don't know, I always leave though with a feeling of awe for the choreography, satisfaction for good dancing, and a faint disquiet/doubt that 'something' still was missing(?) RE: Giselle--Last year saw Vishneva/Corella do it and though timed TOTALLY different than Kirkland/Baryshnikov, a weightless affect was still achieved because of superb partnering that night. So though I was disappointed timing was different, I was surprised by the choices made that could achieve the same affect.

For SWAN LAKE. I agree with Leigh: NG (film-speak for "not good"), not yet, not anywhere. But, like "nysusan" some bits and pieces are remembered with awe: Blair's version with Makarova/Nagy live or tape (good sets too), and better than Makarova/Dowell; Martine van Hamel's statuesque beauty and perfect control, and Susan Jaffe's debut and amazing extensions. GISELLE: Always wait for those Grand Pas pique arabesque lifts to be timed like Gelsey & Baryshnikov, but never seen yet, so that perfection I guess will just live in my mind. APOLLO--it's either too spiky, too slow, too wobbly, too technical, too...? Love the ballet, but so far hasn't matched mind/memory. ROUND of ANGELS: The ballet has SO much resonance with me, it's hard to just watch. AND the fact that I haven't seen it live in almost 20years (does anyone besides Joffrey do it?)and it wasn't filmed that great for "Dance in America" AND not released, so have to trek to NYPL to see that so-so version. Ditto: SINATRA SUITE--too much info, backstage memories etc. affect my viewing, and everyone still needs lots of work to match my mindset. NUTCRACKER: I can't seem to recapture the investment/excitement I had when dancing it. So, except when required to film it, I've stayed away. So maybe I am still missing something? Not exactly a production problem, but definately something that has an impact on the enjoyment of a production: Partnerships--So many times I've seen a gorgeous, technically perfect, artistically expressive dance® that became that koan of "one hand clapping" because the partnership didn't work. THAT is depressing, and will always remain better in my mind, since great partnerships seem 'few and far between' these days. And if the partnership/dancing isn't interesting, no amount of staging/production will cure it.

Well sometimes I'm the one who tries to NOT move at all because... a) I am concentrating very hard trying to see/analyse/take in as much as possible and enter 'the zone' where I don't have to be aware of my surroundings but only the performance onstage. b) I am also conscious and conscientious enough of the person behind me who may not appreciate my rocking, leaning, sighing, kicking/tapping feet, or waving hands. c) I usually attend alone and don't have anyone else to talk to anyways. So I also tend to listen during intermissions to see what others thought, and then compare to what I experienced. In short, I may not be moving much, but that doesn't mean I was not MOVED or very much alive throughout. That's all for now folks.

The dream of all quantum physicists. But as only a normal dimensional earthling... I have experienced most of those audience members at some time...here are my favorites: At the cinema...those who bring (or purchase) an entire 5 course meal into the theatre and then proceed to unwrap (loudly), spill everywhere (and don't we love that sickly sweet smell, and sticky residue!), and gnosh loudly like a large herd of very large animals. At the ballet, I agree with ABT's notice to unwrap candies/losenges quietly or before the performance please. Ok I will admit it...I must be a "child-hating monster" because I have a VERY low tolerance for obnoxius small children and their oblivious parents. I haven't been to a Nut in probably 20 years for that reason (unless I could 'hide' in the tv control room.) And I have several times tried the 'angry/mean/direct stare' at the offending child (hoping to scare them into silence) or parent (hoping to scare them), and have said loudly "Will you PLEASE stop kicking my seat!" so everyone knows how rude they are. But my favorite--besides the lady with the very large hair (she must have been electrocuted on the way into the theatre)--is....drumroll please....THE ROCKER. No, not vertically back and forth, but rather side to side like a pendulum: tick-tock all night. When we are seated at City Center, or other wonderful venues with not enough rake or stagger to their seats (most egregious lately was Sadler's Wells--good rake, no stagger), this "avoir dupois challenged' individual proceeds to shift about every 5-10 seconds from side to side, forcing us to do the same in the opposite direction. Or, by leaning VERY far over (painfully twisting our backs) into our suffering neighbor's space in order to try and see around their gyrations. Thank you for the comment about Giselle and Ali, it made my day. As did my envisioning that 'atomizer'.

RE: Wang Ctr: That's what I was told after the renovation; having never been inside the Palais Garnier, I can't compare, so I'll take your word for it. But there really is a LOT of gold/marble (real/fake?) in that lobby, and trim inside. Personally, I was just glad they reupholstered the seats. RE: Met staircase--Yup, I do the same as carbro...take the Grand Staircase and then all the other side stairs to my assigned upper level--why would I wait for a hot, stuffy, slow elevator? (I also always take the stairs to the 4th Circle at NYST.) Have to watch heels though, in Chicago, I managed to go down the stairs rather suddenly scaring everyone but myself. The Met's Grand Staircase only seems to go up one level--or down to lower concourse/garage area--and for other more lofty levels you have to take the 'secret' or side stairs. It's not to nowhere really--just truncated for a supposedly central staircase.

I'll probably add to/edit this later but, for now... (FYI: I tend to read fiction and nonfiction concurrently) The first book which made an impression (given to me age 4): "The Royal Book of Ballet", with illustrations by Tasha Tudor. As I posted elsewhere it was the ONLY explanation I ever saw (pictorally or otherwise) which made sense of Odile's appearance at that ball. And those really spooky pics of Giselle trying to stab herself with the sword and then a cadaverously ghostly wili made me more nervous at night. Shortly therafter...The Secret Garden, and a large compendium of Hans Christian Andersen, Grimm, and yes those same collections of foreign tales with blue/green bindings. From age 6+ it was mostly horse books: Acquired or read all of Margaret Henry's in 2nd grade (Misty, Stormy etc. , though Black Gold was the one that made the most impression), and ALL of Walter Farley's two series (Black Stallion & Island Stallion) by 3rd grade. Also the Flicka books. I read it but was depressed by Steinbeck's "Red Pony". "The Chestry Oake" about Hungary pre-WWII, and a biography of the Lipizzans and the Polish Arabian Stud during WWII also made impressions. 3rd grade too was when I read those Nancy Drew books--but my favorite (and the only one I bought) was the case that had to do with ballet: The Clue in the Crumbling Wall. 4th grade, I acquired and read all the Dr.Doolittle books, and by age9 most of Jules Verne--still love "20,000 Leagues..." and that Disney film. (Anyone see that latest news item about the capture of a giant squid?) Then at age 11, I read in one day (11hrs), "The Once & Future King" by T.H.White. (And ever since, it wasn't just ballet and horses anymore, it was world history, literature, art, and music from 1200 C.E. - now.) Soon after, I read Mary Stewart's series on the same subject and started collecting anything: fiction, nonfiction, medieval textbooks, chronicles that had to do with King Arthur; finally ending up writing a thesis in college on it as one part of my too many degrees. Age 12-14 it was Anya Seton, GWTW, the Irving Stone historical novels, and James Michener (after seeing "Hawaii" age 8--mom thought it was a G-rated matinee, oh well.) I read Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" about same time to explain the movie more, and then many years later, the sequels. The most recent fiction series to impress (in last 20years) were the two series (set 15th-16th century) by Dorothy Dunnett--the MOST researched, historically accurate author I've ever read--with literary allusions in 7 languages that required two 'companion reference encyclopedias' for each series, so we could all check the original sources and translations. My book collection now (mostly all read by high school) runs the gamut from: Astronomy & Physics (incl. quantum)texts, 'coffee-table' picture books, Ballet (Ballanchine's "Stories of ...", term manuals, ABT, dancer bio's--favorites: Baryshnikov at Work, Makarova, Fonteyn & Nureyev, Pavlova--and of course programs, NOT just Playbills, of all those other companies), Homer, Plato, Roman history, primary sources/facsimiles of medieval documents/chronicles, and secondary source medieval/rennaissance history and/or art books, Shakespeare & 16th c. playwrites (of course), a zillion classic English lit authors, all of Dumas Pere (love Reverte's Spanish historical novels now), poetry--mostly French, & English 16thc, Tolstoy's War & Peace, comparative religions, film scripts & tech manuals and anniversary publications of various PBS programs, architecture and/or interior design books (Arts & Craft, W.Morris, castles, small spaces/apartment storage!), my 'first editions' of all the books by/about T.E.Lawrence, and many many more...I've lost count. I have two rooms at my mother's and two rooms at home that are wall-to-wall books. AND almost monthly I have to fight to keep her from donating them to the local library/charity. What a funny thread to find on a BT.

Ok, my memories/experiences of... TOKYO: Kosei Nenkin: I danced at Kosei Nenkin, I remember the stage as being wider rather than deep with deep wings--but then again I was younger and smaller then, so who knows? I don't ever remember feeling cramped onstage. I Backstage areas, however, were a maze of up/down staircases, rather crowded dressing rooms, and hot quick-change areas. From the audience POV, I only sat in front of Orchestra, and don't remember it being too bad except for barely able to see feet--a common occurrance at most venues' front-rows. Ueno: I remember decor: warm dark (not blonde) wood walls/balconies with orange lights rimming them. Beautiful chimes to signal beginnings of performance/acts. It was all very modern, with beautiful clean lines, and that wood to warm it up. The main lobby I seem to remember as much more brightly lit, and more stone? Sitting on the aisle stairs in the dark of the top balcony watching ABT's "Swan Lake" with Cynthia Gregory because my mother mixed up the night we were supposed to go, and my best-friend's mother (in her best rendition of a pushy New Yorker) finagled us an entrance--if not any seats. Sight-lines were fine in that aisle and from what I remember of the times we actually had seats. LOS ANGELES: Dorothy Chandler Pavilion (Music Center): A sort of 'knock-off' of Lincoln Center with a wider campus and more water, but still white (travertine?) stone and arches--more narrow and many more than the Met. It too had a grand staircase--but I do think it actually led up to the Mezz/balcony levels. I remember very tall long gold drapes at the windows--lots of windows. Inside (can only speak of Mezz/balconies because that's where I sat most) seats were very comfortable, spacing was okay, and I never remember a sightline problem, or a problem with tall/large person in front of me--which may have meant they were raked or staggered more than elsewhere? Color scheme was peachy and gold (to warm up that stone again?) The hall itself is wider than taller. ABT and Joffrey both seemed to do okay there, and filled the house most nights without a problem. Shrine Auditorium: I LOL every time I read of all of you complaining about the 3600 seats at the Met--ha ha ha you don't know what a large house is until you've been in the 6500 seats of Shrine Auditorium. Remember to bring your NASA worthy spy binoculars and oxygen if you're in the last rows of the upper balcony. Yes, it is raked pretty well, but.... Shrine also had LOTS of decor to look at if you got bored with a performance: 1) The gigantic tent effect (I used to think of an enormous stuff silk pillow) on the ceiling to go with the enormous chandelier--take that "Phantom"! with little red and blue incandescent (not crystal) bulbs to make everything pinky/purple at night. 2) All those Turkish/Middle Eastern camels/castles walls etc. etc. on the side walls, And (3) how about those harem-effect arches in front and the two domed towers outside for fun? Personally I preferred it when painted white and lit up at night, rather than the dull beige it is now. Backstage (ie. flys/wings/etc) was just as cavernous and quite a nasty trek if you had to dash from one side to the other for an entrance onstage. Hallways and dressing rooms, like the building itself, were old, kind of cramped, with flaking paint, but had a large (if dully boring) waiting area for the entourage. And ABT used to come there for a 3wk run and try to fill it all up--good for them, but of course Baryshnikov was the draw. OCPAC: What a crazy fun place that is! Two upper-level suspended cantilevered hexagon(?)-shaped balconies which makes judging sightlines from the floorplan almost impossible--but not to worry, they are mostly fine, and a similar --agonal first 'balcony' (actually a raised level of the orchestra seating) left of center. Totally amazing how it all fits. The stage appears much smaller than Shrine--could anything be as big?--but maybe a little bigger than the Music Center's in L.A.? Exterior: the entrances are MUCH more confusing than at Met or elsewhere because on so many different levels with long looping walkways--but architecturally they are beautiful skyways--as is that enormous single arch glowing at night. And the inner staircase walled floor-to-ceiling with beveled mirrored "bricks" is literally like being inside a diamond--all crystalline glitter (and a good chance to check your attire as you make an entrance). Most of the time, I loved going there--but then I have many happy warm (weather and otherwise) memories to bias me. BOSTON: The Wang Center: The lobby is supposed to be a replica of the Paris Opera House--maybe, it sure has enough marble and gold to do it--and inside the hall itself plenty of paintings of voluptous (and diaphonously clothed) goddesses and muses (with a few major authors--eg.Shakespeare--keeping an eye on things) on the ceiling to keep us occupied. The one endless major mezz/balcony creates quite an overhang down below--so back orchestra seating may feel its lowering effect or get a little claustrophobic. There is a very good rake to seats--but not much space in between rows. Seats are much more comfortable since the refurbishment (late 70's/early 80's?) Best seating for me on first floor is not orchestra--sides are not that great because it is wide and deep--are the boxes at the back. They are actually priced better than orchestra/mezz, raised perfectly high enough not to have interference from those in front (and with movable seats if it's still a problem). If you don't mind the balcony overhang cutting off some of that golden proscenium (and in most ballets, who cares?), or some spill light from the lobby--it's not bad at all. Also saw music performances at Tsai on the BU campus and at --Hall at NEC and Harvard's --Hall, and of course the BSO at Symphony Hall. LONDON: ROH (1982, 2007) So how has it changed in those intervening years? A new entrance that loops around more and has modern ticketing and bookstore/gift shop areas. More (or new level of?) boxes at back of orchestra section. And it appeared smaller, and narrower than I remembered--as most places do after not seeing them for so long. I was in last row of orchestra section in one of those side boxes and still saw Swan Lake fine. Sadler's Wells: Modern and stark, grey/black/white, like a modern college or office building. No decorative art except some sculpture here and there and the odd promo pics or b&w portraits. Green neon limning for effect. Steep rake, but beware the tall person in front as seats were not staggered that I remember. (I sat upstairs in first balcony.) Best stage door waiting area I've ever seen--plenty of space, seating, place to get out of cold/rain, and viewing of monitors in case you missed part of a performance, and even eating/internet cafe space if you're bored. Oh yeah...NYC: The MET: I LOVE those chandeliers--they are not UFO's rising, they are crystal starbursts (I love astronomy) or dandelion tufts mimicing the raising of the candlelit chandeliers of the 18th century to dim the lights for a performance. Where is your sense of history?! (Watch "Amadeus" to see it in action at the house in Prague where Don Giovanni first premiered.) The gold walls, and shuntung slub effects are VERY 1960's and getting sort of tacky (old Las Vegas anyone?) now--as is the fake sponge/leather effect of the maroon red walls. Yes, bathrooms are hidden and the grand staircase is there to go nowhere and only remind one of the swooping arches of that old "Eastern Airlines terminal building by its curvilinear path. I always liked the arches in the front. BUT... the whole campus is much smaller and narrower than I thought before attending performances there. The inside of the Met, too, is taller and narrower and not as comfortable as the Music Center in LA--it's okay, though not great for sightlines--I guess the stage appears big to people, not so much to me. (I put it at comfortable mid-sized for ballet, cramped for opera--but then, maybe the Met Opera Co. likes to cramp it.) NYST: This reminds me of the UFO's with all those circular headlight accents everywhere. The travertine, stark lines, and blow-up b&w of past greats is what I expect from NYCB's neoclassicism. It is a "leotard ballet" of a venue--not the frothy mix/mess of the Met. At least the staircases lead somewhere. And I had no problem with acoustics or sightlines in 4th Circle. Saratoga: An open-air barn, with good sightlines and hard seating. Defineately worth the trip, but it is not Tanglewood when it comes to true sylvan beauty. But I've never heard of or seen dance performed at Tanglewood (though I believe Mark Morris has performed at Seiji Ozawa Hall?) so beyond the Lawn/Shed for music, I cannot compare. But when things get tough, that is the venue I remember most. City Center--yes, the Mezz is great for being at almost eye-level, touching distance of the stage--but you can NEVER straighten your knees/legs past 270, and as many many have noted: you are doomed if someone tall or large sits in front of you. (This goes for the balcony section as well.) It's entire decor and facade remind me of Shrine without all the gold and camels. It needs it's ceiling/proscenium re-painted/refurbished soon please. Bathrooms move faster than Met, which is sort of amazing.

How kind of Ari to want to donate to "Dance in America", however there are some facts which should be considered first... Only ONE station, ONE production company, ONE executive producer, ONE producer, and most of their small staff have been doing it since it's inception. So...you get ONE person's viewpoint and programming/production choices. Smaller stations rarely have the incentive or funding to do arts or live performance programming themselves, or to air the national feeds of such programs--which was why, for nearly ten years, I thought DiA was not even in production anymore! (I had also heard they had a funding shortfall, and hiring freeze at the time.) So...until DiA opens itself to acquiring, co-producing, or airing broadcasts/programs of other companies, other performances, or other countries' broadcasts of performances, we will all be the poorer in our viewing choices. Of course, if that ever does happen, it won't be "Dance IN AMERICA"--ie. home-grown, but a more universal/international dance forum such as this website. Therefore, instead of giving your lottery earnings to DiA, try first getting your local PBS station to do more arts programming! For example, I was always amazed that WGBH in Boston produced several music performance programs--eg. Evening at Pops, Evening at (BSO) Symphony, and rock/pop music specials, but never collaborated with BB or the Boston MFA or other organizations. Maybe then, those locally produced programs could provide more regional variety to the national schedule, possibly get nominated for regional or national Emmy's and finally give DiA some competition. Just some thoughts from this former dancer and PBS insider. PS. If anyone knows how to get the Lincoln Center management, or whoever controls the rights to "Live from Lincoln Center" to release their programs on dvd, that might help alleviate some of the dearth of viewing choices and make some $$$ for them, so we don't have to contribute as much of our "lottery earnings"?

Thanks to all re: Ethan Stiefel's whereabouts. QUICK NOTES for now re: Chicago.... The Chicago Tribune loved the opening performance by Kent & Corella, but thought corps was flat and/or tired. I thought the orchestra was definately that, and worse--(horns again--probably due to quick change in barometric pressure as evening wore on, and some major tempo changes)--they were better the next night when the weather had stabilized more. I didn't know this was first time Kent & Corella had done full-length together?! Interesting, but I'm not sure it works exactly because so many other things were in play at the time such as all those cast shufflings, Corella's hectic schedule between ABT and Spain, this supposed fist-pairing in the full-length, and those orchestral mishaps etc.etc...? Corella, was probably tired from the major doings on his plate in Spain, and consequently did a lot of compensatory action technically, which I noticed but obviously the Trib's reviewer didn't see. What I did see were some actions slowed down considerably to stretch (and heighten) the dramatic moment (which worked for the most part), and others almost shockingly sped up (which put him ahead of phrase several times(!) something he is usually MUCH more conscientious of); it made the audience go "wow" but made me think he just wanted to 'get through it as quickly as possible.' Also noticed the usual full extension (rt.side mostly) was missing or sharply held in the back to curtail momentum and a mushed control on those rt-side turns. Corella can act--especially in this role, and, as ABT has noted, it's what each principal uniquely brings to the role(s) that makes R&J so fascinating to watch. So yes, the speed and fury of the fight with Tybalt is still very evident from previous performances--as was the bent sword (of couse in fencing the tips are always bent to give them more "spring.) The two lovers interactions, however, were more contained (restrained?) than with other partners. It sort of reminded me of first dates where the couple is attracted, but more a fascinated, wondering curiosity, still 'feeling' each other out, and only developing slowly to true passion. And that probably had a lot to do with Ms. Kent, who definately brings a porcelain delicacy to Juliet: beautiful dancing and line as usual, sweetness, and vulnerability, but never quite the total abandon to love and fate. A very warm simmer, but not a hot sizzle. (An intellectual approach to the role?) I preferred the following night's pairing with Xiomara, which was on a whole different plane altogether, with more experience behind it. There the temperaments were better matched, and consequently, despite some technical skirting again, was a true give & take, with each artist feeding and reacting to each other in a true conversation both choreographically and emotionally. Craig Salstein did a good Mercutio--esp. the second night. And Sascha Radetsky was his usual haughty, uptight, menace as Tybalt. (There was quite a close call at the end of the duel with Romeo, which some careful choreography and acting saved.) Just my generic musings for now--and rather jetlagged again. Cannot wait to read how the BIG DEBUTS this weekend work out. How exciting that will be.

I agree with drb, but not totally with Denby. Yes, movement is part of the vocabulary of dance; but so is epaulement, line, and grace, which are usually still visible if caught 'within the movement' during a studio shoot, and therefore, still bring an emotional response from this viewer. No, I do not like "posed" shots, because the emotion/energy/motivation of a live performance are often missing--but not always, as Rosalie O'Conner's studio pics show. Again, it's a matter of catching the moment(um?) 'within the movement', and having dancers who can act always helps too.

I believe Marcelo Gomes was injured (while dancing with Het/DNB?) causing cast changes in Miami before the Midwest-USA tour. Corella's performance(s) were changed to acccomodate his new company's auditions in Madrid and the above injury. Q: Where is Ethan? Did he do Siegfried weeks previously? Still playing it safe re: Romeo? Merde to Gillian Murphy and Herman Cornejo. I feel for all the discommoded ticket purchasers, casting changes (and no exchange priveleges) can be most frustrating/disappointing--esp. when travelling long distances or spending 'big bucks' to attend for a specific reason. Once I travelled 4hrs, and spent those $ to attend a performance (not ABT)--only to have not the cast changed, but (with no pr/notice except in the program that night) the ENTIRE BALLET changed to one I had already seen just days before--and I had gone specifically to see the (supposed) premiere of a revived 19th c. Ballet Russe ballet. My only compensation was that it happened to be a night when the company was conducting a survey--and my major complaints yielded a letter of acknowledgement/apology from the company's AD. Come to think of it, ABT substituted "Sinatra Suite" for White Swan pdd last October with little notice, but at least it was before I took my seat in the theatre.

Two examples of 'mirroring' port de bras/arms by (IMHO) one of the best (sorry haven't seen much POB or other companies greats lately)... SWAN LAKE: (ABT Corella/Murphy dvd) No, not Murphy...Watch Corella in the White Swan pdd: 1) That romantic circling frame as he lifts her arms at the start 2) then, when she passes and looks (to her) right, so does he 3) When she developes in prep for the pirouette and looks left, so does he 4) During the fouette arabesques fondus, notice the pdb/cambre (?) back and turn to face her 5) And especially shortly after, notice his beautiful bend,arch of head/neck, & full extension when he catches her as she falls (penches/cambres?) backwards. 6) Ditto Black Swan every time she does those croise penche arabesques, he turns his head to mirror her line (or is it just to see placement better?) DON Q pdd: (ABT Corella/Herrera - ABT/PBS 1998 dvd) In all the chaine turn sequences that end with a hand flourish, and of course the en dehors attitude turns--it was like watching two pairs skaters at the Olympics they were so in sync. At one point you can actually see him look, and pause to time the turns to match her. I've seen him keep an eye on his ballerina many times in other works in order to "mirror" her moves. And I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone can complain about his epaulement. Many, many times I've seen him extend the line and enhance the presentation of the ballerina by a superb use of arms/shoulders/head in a port de bras. Don't know if this is quite what all of you mean, just two things I noticed. I agree about Dowell (whom I did see live several times). Other ABT male dancers have superb line too, but don't use it the same--usually much more pulled up (and separate)--which is probably more traditional. Just a thought.

I too have seen it performed mostly in Russian productions and omitted in most of the West (eg. Europe and USA.) I remember the Bolshoi with each princess dancing with her entourage--including the Russina princess to the "Russian" music. I also thought the piece was originally composed as a piano score by Tchaikovsky based on some folk tune(s), and once saw it performed as such in a film set in 19th c. Russia. (Think it was actually a European film made mid 1980's, Timothy Hutten had a cameo role.) I think it is omitted because of the violin part--you had better be good to play it--and as another BT thread has revealed, ballet orchestras are not always able to secure the talent(s) of a symphony/philharmonic orchestra. But it has always been one my most favorite pieces of music from Swan Lake, and except for a few waltzes, the only one I bothered to attempt on the piano (I only play by ear, so it's a slow process.) Thanks for bringing the topic up, I've wondered too over these many years.

Thank you zerbinetta for replying so fast, it is greatly appreciated. --4mrdncr (who is also hoping no more blizzards disturb my attendance at performances. Any propitiations to all weather gods will be gratefully encouraged.)

SIGHT LINES Does anyone know how the sight lines are in the Civic Opera House? For example: How is the slope in the Orchestra? Are seats staggered? What about upstairs? Compared to Met? Is it worth it to get expensive--or not? (That is, if I paid "big bucks" but a tall/large person who coughs & unwraps candy, and rocks from side to side all night sits in front of me?) Never been there (only seen it on PBS) so don't know, and would appreciate any input before splurging on tix. Thanks in advance.

Ditto drb, I've seen it too on an R&J dvd--poor Romeo blinded by love and flying hair. I also wasn't sure I liked Vishneva's ponytail in Act 1 of Giselle. I saw it in a publicity pic and first thought it was a "sporran" for one of the Court men, but then realized it was attached to her head. And then I saw a live performance and felt that it was both WRONG for the period, and made her too girlish--essentially using a hairstyle instead of acting/technique to convey youth and/or innocence.

From my experience, it wasn't an emotional (acting) approach at all; it was simply a difference in technique. And for a dancer, I think the distinction was more an "adagio" vs. "allegro" dancer. Today our well-trained technicians should be familiar with both techniques, though as said previously, body type may limit somewhat what roles they are given. Below is what I was trained and experienced as the difference in techniques of Romantic vs. Classical... 1) Romantic was always... a) ROUNDED ELBOWS, softened shortened (think round circling) port-de-bras; b) RELAXED neck as if the head is a small weight (dandelion tuft) that bends that neck (stem) like a reed/grass; and yes cambres that bend first, rather than being pulled up and then bending as in classical. c) Pointe shoes were always SOFT so you slowly worked thru foot and FOLDED up or down, not immediately hit it & balanced like now. d) Equated with a lightness, elevation, airiness in jumps; and extensions or developes that UNFOLDed upwards/outwards slowly leading the eyes up too--even though the dancer's gaze may have been lower. e) In Romantic, the gaze is almost always DOWN (meek, shy--Act 1 Giselle, ethereal caressing subservient-to-Myrta Giselle Act2). Even that famous pic of 'Taglioni in the window as the Sylph' is gazing head tilted and slightly down. f) Bournonville contributed the quickness and "sprightly" (sorry not the best term) lift in jumps--balon that BOUNCES always upwards rather than lifted/suspended mid-jump like now. Bournonville's pdb's too are important and different from "classical". g) Romantic phrasing is always LENGTHENED, even in allegro, where it's stretched, and then cut quickly to give that 'caught breath' suspension effect. For Romantic ballets (Giselle, La/Les Sylphides etc.) I am constantly thinking: round, circles, down, like everything is a big slow ronde de jambe inside each movement. 2) When I think Classical, I tend to think Russian--mostly because that's how I was taught--as in: a) VERY pulled up, high carriage emanating from center up/out, with again b) STRONGER, longer arms, and head/neck held HIGH. Even chinlines emanate UP first, then out to follow the line. c) Lines extend out, NOT insular rounded as in Romantic. d) And as others stated before, classical is much more legs/feet attack & grounded (ie. attached to earth, NOT necessarily weighted, AND always pulled up!) e) ANGULAR (The lyricism of Odette is in bent/rotating wrists/elbows, not necessarily rounded ones. Aurora of course is the epitome of "pulled up" high carriage, long extended-out lines, an attack to phrasing, and "steely" pointes. In Classical technique, (all that Petipa, and even off-centered Balanchine) I'm always thinking of that string attached to my head pulling me up, tight/controlled, giving me lift, helping me balance. In short, Classical= UP, STRONG, OUT... Romantic= DOWN, SOFT, IN. It DOES NOT mean lyrical--lyrical is the adagio version of CLASSICAL, NOT Romantic. If the look, extension, port-de-bras reach OUT and up it is Classical, however willowy the elbows/wrists are. And not mentioned in earlier posts but important for the women: The Romantic hairstyles reflect the 19th century chignon at the NAPE of the neck, or the looping braids under/around the ears before attaching at back to that lower chignon, while Classical is our dear 'bunhead': small and tight and higher up, and no braids unless you're Juliet, or hair-challenged (too thick, straight, long to hold bun tight) like me. Of course, those long "Romantic-length" tutus/skirts got their name for a reason too. Just my thoughts, and by no means historically expert.

Recent FYI: Not sure if it's VVV, I assume so, (or maybe it's VLV?) Anyways Vladimir Vasiliev is scheduled to be a judge at the auditions being held for Angel Corella's new company/school at the end of March 2007. I had heard him mention this a couple weeks ago, but wasn't sure until, CarolinaM posted the link to Fotoescena which confirms it.