aurora

I'm sure that is what she is doing...rubbing it in people's faces that she isn't very good? (according to you). By the way, there is a difference between principal (what you meant) and principle (what you wrote). Since you know things about ballet, I'm sure you appreciate knowing the difference.

Actually the first Measles vaccine was introduced in '63. I'm not surprised that people were still dying of it in the later 60s. This is a good read: https://roalddahl.com/roald-dahl/timeline/1960s/november-1962

You hope he is recast.

The word is cast

Lopatkina really was wonderful. I had no idea how much I would love her in this. As for Ivanchenko, his lines were fine--when he landed in arabesque he kept his leg high etc. but he cheated every double tour so horribly it was almost laughable--especially when he was doing them coming forward towards the audience--about half a tour was cheated in the preparation. As for his "interpretation," I've seen pieces of bread with more personality... I know the prince in SL is kind of a sappy character but he was the milquetoastiest of them all. At least it wasn't hard to believe he'd be stupid enough to confuse Odile for Odette. Aurora, I agree, the preparations were pathetic, but I think Gergiev was also responsible for this - his tempi are murderous. Not only Ivanchenko, but almost everybody suffered from them. I wonder if the pas-de-trois disaster was also (at least partly) the result of Gergiev constantly rushing the dancers On the preparations I think you are being kind... ;) I didn't actually think the tempi were fast. In some places they were, in others they were glacial. What they were was erratic. I meant to ask--is it normal in cygnets for the first half of it to be fast (as normal--it IS a fast dance) and then suddenly at the midway point for the tempo to slow to about half-time? It was jarring and took away a lot from the piece. The audience seemed to like it but for one thing it seemed to me to turn the dance into one big slog. (It was nicely danced, I'm not meaning any criticism of the dancers here, it was just a really noticeable tempo shift and one that I am not familiar with in any version I've seen.

Lopatkina really was wonderful. I had no idea how much I would love her in this. As for Ivanchenko, his lines were fine--when he landed in arabesque he kept his leg high etc. but he cheated every double tour so horribly it was almost laughable--especially when he was doing them coming forward towards the audience--about half a tour was cheated in the preparation. As for his "interpretation," I've seen pieces of bread with more personality... I know the prince in SL is kind of a sappy character but he was the milquetoastiest of them all. At least it wasn't hard to believe he'd be stupid enough to confuse Odile for Odette.

That is your opinion. I like Whiteside very much, he is an excellent partner, whatever else one can say about him, and he has been a very productive and active principal. I don't particularly like Stearns and think he was promoted too early but he has shown great improvement and puts in a major shift for the company--a great success no, but there is time and it hasn't been a failure. And that promotion was made early(ish) in the dancer's career. I think it is certainly too early to write off Boylston (she was promoted what, a year ago?) Everyone knew Simkin would be difficult with his physical limitations and boyish look but, he has gotten some quite nice reviews as he has taken on a slightly larger rep.

Perhaps a better question would be: Why did Michele Wiles fail to develop into a top-flight ballerina? You can pin it all on her but then, when you look at the company history for at least the last half dozen years, you see the history is littered with dancers of both genders who failed to develop under the current regime.Any company's history is littered with such dancers. NYCB has finally been able to get rid of a lot of the much disliked dead wood that was cluttering its top ranks, but I'm sure when those dancers were promoted (and I don't refer to those who were past their prime, rather to those who never reached it), it is because they were seen as having great promise. Dancers have injuries that hold them back, they plateau, there are a million reasons why a dancer, especially one that was promoted before they were a finished product (as was the case with Wiles, Hallberg, and Stearns to name a few) do or do not reach what is hoped/expected of them. Hallberg certainly has, Stearns perhaps--he is now at least a serviceable principal if not an inspiring one, and he may yet develop further--one hopes he will. Wiles never quite did. This doesn't address the issue of movement up the ranks more generally--although there have been some recent promotions and I have no doubt we will see some more soon--but the failure of some of those promoted dancers to live up to their promise is something that sadly (for them perhaps most of all) happens everywhere.

Of course it can. And I don't think we need fear that the company is going to fold as was worried about up-thread either. Things are getting a bit hyperbolic around here.

David Hallberg doesn't make that list? I'm also a fan of Part though I realize not everyone is. But surely Hallberg is without dispute.

I doubt there is any reason to suspect that they were uncomfortable with it. Certainly not Whiteside!

Yes, what they think is wrong--but what we are talking about here is not a social injustice but a dancer being asked to do a dance movement. Are you honestly comparing these things? The consequences are different, but so are the things being discussed. We are talking about dancers being asked to do a dance movement that we have NO IDEA if any of the dancers objected to on any level. And if they did object, as I asked above, I'm not sure how that objection would be a moral objection. I have no problem with you thinking the movement is vulgar and did not ask you to apologize for it. We, however don't even know that any of the dancers found it vulgar. Many of the young folk out there (ahem) don't.

Yes, then my other argument could be dismissed on moral grounds, with no need to deal with it on its merits. In fact, we don’t know if Whiteside and Copeland liked the movement or hated it, but your other argument rests on the presumption that human beings lack free choice and have to do what they’re told, even when they have moral qualms. Apparently we need a BA field trip to see “Selma.” I didn't say they couldn't choose not to do it, I said it was unlikely. People may have free choice, but if you chose not to do what your boss tells you to, you usually have to face consequences, whether that is losing an assignment, or even your job. Dancers are used to doing what they are told by teachers and choreographers, as I stated before, and tend to do so nearly unquestioningly. They are artists, but they are also instruments. This is a form of movement. They are not seeing it in "moral" terms (how is twerking "immoral" by the way?). I really doubt a single dancer in ABT has "moral" objections to twerking. I'd love to see you poll them on this...just to see the reactions. Dancers usually love to experiment with other movement qualities outside classical ballet, even ones you find vulgar. Lastly, I don't appreciate your condescending tone ("we need a BA field trip to see Selma") especially given our discussion history on here.

The choreographer obviously bears the chief responsibility for the steps, and it's true we don't know what went down in the studio. But we do know, as the different versions of the passage demonstrate, that we all have free choice. This is the speculation part. It could be that while we may not have liked how it looked on the first cast, this is what the choreographer envisioned. On the second cast, try as they might, their different movement styles/physicality made it look just not right--they couldn't get it, so he said "ok let's rethink this, you are going to do X instead" It wasn't their choice, it was their inability to do it as he requested it. Is that what happened? I have no idea. But it is just as likely as them going "I'm not doing that on stage! I refuse to shake my ass" Ballet dancers generally do what they are told. It is what their entire training is about: Following the direction of the teacher/choreographer. I have no idea what happened. Honestly I don't care. I just don't think that the different versions of this passage demonstrate "free choice." We know choreographers alter choreography somewhat for dancers based on what suits them. If you now want to make an issue about why this "vulgarity" suits Copeland, we can do that as well I'm sure...

And you don't find MacMillan vulgar at times? For instance I think Manon has some of the most vulgar choreography I've ever witnessed. Just because it's done in fancy wigs and period dress doesn't mean it's not vulgar. And anyway, I'm also not sure what Scarlett being British has to do with him choreographing a piece for Misty/Whiteside that might have involved some more, uh, modern ballet vocabulary. Agreed--I mean simulating a forced blow job/rape on stage is way less offensive than twerking Unless we have any evidence to the contrary can we let the dancers off the hook for bad choreographic choices? I know someone else will again say "yes yes but other dancers didn't do it!" but unless we were in the rehearsal studios constantly we don't know why that discrepancy was allowed and the idea that the decision to do the but shake/boob grab originated with the dancers (or dancer--blame has seemed to fall on one again) seems the least likely option.

Obama never encountered racism then, because he became President of the United States. That is your logic.

Only up to a point, abatt. The reason the Administration finally gave in and released the long form birth certificate was because the topic would not go away (the flames fanned by the GOP) and it really was beginning to hurt him. My hunch is they may have been playing rope-a-dope, in addition to a natural reluctance to give in to the crazies, but they did it a little too long. And again, we're not talking only extremists, but mainstream elements within the political opposition. The Cosby show was a first 30 years ago, which was part of my point. And speaking of huge female African-American stars, Oprah, or so wikipedia tells me, goes back that far as well. In regards to those mainstream pols, do they actually doubt Obama's citizenship? Are they really nutty on the issue (probable evidence of racism) or are they just playing to the crowd that is? If the crowd is sizable enough to make it worth playing to I don't think the distinction really matters. If they were outlying nutters then no mainstream pols would be playing to them or they'd be laughed out of town.

No it isn't. Because there is no evidence that she has been assigned roles based on those factors.

You are aware that there are protests about racial injustice going on all over the country at the moment...

There has been plenty of criticism of Copeland not just about this photo issue, but also along more race specific lines. I brought up racism here specifically in response to KFW's cries of woe is me, people are trying to paint me as racist and sexist. Also it may be picking nits, but let us be accurate. The photo is risque, you can see nipple, but it is not a topless photo: http://cocoafab.com/new-show-alert-misty-copeland-to-mentor-future-ballerinas-on-new-reality-series/

If you all weren't using racist and sexist ways of expressing yourselves, no one would be trying to paint your criticism of Copeland as racist and sexist, it is as simple as that. I've showed this board to people who don't know who Copeland is, certainly don't know who you guys are, and they were horrified to read what they saw as blatantly and clearly racist screeds being posted publicly. That was the reaction educated people had to your own words. This isn't some conspiracy. As you yourself noted, tone is very important and I think you must misjudge yours if you think that your posts have expressed any honest appreciation of Copeland (there has been some of what one might call "damning with faint praise," but nothing beyond that) and do not sound both racist and sexist.

I didn't actually mean for the conversation to be caught up on this, FYI. Since we are here, however, I will say, that whether or not the definition includes gender, and whether you were thinking of gender in using it, it is a word that is, I think we can all (almost all?) agree, almost exclusively applied to behavior for girls and women. I see that as an issue. That is no way meant as an attack on you Abatt! Just something that is worth thinking about--generally speaking--with regards to what we expect as appropriate behavior. It seems very old fashioned in what it is advocating. I think Little Women--but the most interesting of the sisters--Jo--is not demure. I think of Jane Austen, yet her most vivid characters are criticized (in the time) for not being appropriately demure (Lizzie for example, walking through all that mud, talking boldly of her own opinions!). Being demure sounds terrible. I couldn't advocate it for anyone. No one would tell a man to be a demure. EVER.

aurora quoted abatt, who used the terms "modesty" and "demureness." She did not put those words into abatt's keyboard, and she rightly pointed out how demureness is gendered in definition, a double standard when not expected of boys. I could be wrong, but I don't remember a trail of commentary or distaste when male dancers have done what, by the standards applied to Copeland, are far from modest in photos. I wrote that " I think modesty is every bit a gentleman's responsibility as it is a lady's," and aurora countered - to me, not abatt - with the dictionary definition of demure, which had nothing to do with it. That's clear. And I find the shots of male dancers that she posted as distasteful as the one of Copeland. As I was saying . . . By insisting on this, you are making me seriously regret my restraint in not responding to your direct attack on me (from a moderator, no less). I initially responded to a post talking about modesty and demureness from Abatt. Although my response mentioned both, it concentrated on the word Demure. It was you who selectively ignored what I wrote (as you accuse me of doing) and addressed only modesty. I brought it back to what I did say, which revolved around the gendered nature of the word demure.

Speak for yourself. I think modesty is every bit a gentleman's responsibility as it is a lady's. And I know many, many people who think the same. Read the dictionary definition of demure as quoted. It is gendered.

No. Objection to the photo is called advocating for modesty and demureness in someone who is presenting herself as a role model to young girls. We don't expect modesty and demureness of men/boys. I fail to see why in this day and age this is the behavior we expect of girls and women. It is sexist. adjective adjective: demure; comparative adjective: demurer; superlative adjective: demurest (of a woman or her behavior) reserved, modest, and shy. "a demure little wife who sits at home minding the house" synonyms: modest, unassuming, meek, mild, reserved, retiring, quiet, shy, bashful, diffident, reticent, timid, shrinking, coy; More decorous, decent, seemly, ladylike, respectable, proper, virtuous, pure, innocent, chaste; sober, sedate, staid, prim, goody-goody, strait-laced "a demure Victorian miss" antonyms: brazen That isn't the kind of role model I'd want for my daughters (nothing wrong "respectable" or "decent" but most of those? no thanks)