Klavier

Am I reading this right? NYCB has done 2000 (two thousand) performances of the Nutcracker????!!!!!!

And that's only this year.

For this 2000th performance, special casting surprises will include 17 different dancers in the roles of the Sugarplum Fairy, Her Cavalier, and Dewdrop.

It would be a neater trick if they had 17 different dancers in the roles of Candy Cane, Coffee, and Tea.

I will see the last performance on 12/22. The broadcast was very impressive. This is an amazingly dramatic work, which could have influenced Wagner but even more obviously the Berlioz of Les Troyens. (Wagner knew enough Gluck to have written a concert ending to the overture from his other Iphigenia opera, Iphigenie en Aulide.)

Thanks, zerbinetta, for posting this.

I look forward to your reaction, Klavier, and that of anyone else who attends.

Don't know if anyone else from the group went, but if you didn't, I would say that you didn't miss anything to die for. The first half, the Swan Lake excerpts, was kind of blah all told. Maybe it was the lack of scenery, the chintzy costumes (Daniel Ulbricht's jester suit had to be seen to be disbelieved), the taped music through a lousy sound system, or the sense I got that everyone was just going through the motions to give a little something to the hicks in the boonies, but I was rather disengaged. Or perhaps it just doesn't make much sense choreographically to offer a few snippets from a full-length work like Swan Lake. Nilas and Abi Stafford in the White Swan pdd, Daniel alone (mugging much too much), Charles Askegard and Ana Marie Scheller in the Odile scene (probably the best work of the segment), and Monique Meunier in a Fokine-derived solo from Saint-Saens's The Swan (bizarre) comprised a short first "half" that couldn't have lasted more than 30 minutes.

Things improved considerably after a long intermission. (Even so, I was out of the theater and on the road by 8:30. Not exactly a lot of dancing for your money's worth.) Things improved, as I said, with Nilas's own choreography to 11 Puccini songs for soprano, tenor, and piano. I thought/hoped there would be live performers because their bios were in the program, but alas, more taped music. These songs are not taken from Puccini operas but are standalone songs, of which one was quarried for the Act Three quartet in Boheme; the rest were unknown to me. Here Nilas showed a good lyrical gift for choreography that was quite pleasing on the whole. Dancing his own work for the first time, he was paired with Monique Meunier, while Arch Higgins appeared with Ashley Laracey and Daniel Ulbricht with Erica Pereira. (I hope I've got that straight. There were a lot of cast changes announced.) And this time we were given a coherent work very nicely danced. Martins uses his dancers in all kinds of combinations, from solos to duets to full ensembles, and there was a freshness to the work that was very captivating. If I had to single out one special moment, it was a playful "she loves me, she loves me not" duet for Daniel and Erica, where they were well-matched physically and showed a good sense of character detail. Not all of the work was quite as interesting, but I left feeling considerably more encouraged by the Nilas Martins Dance Company than I had felt at intermission.

In comparison to last year's program at Patchogue, this one was not as generous in terms of the amount of work presented, nor as successful as that one had been in terms of performer energy. The theater was perhaps half-full tonight at best and audience reaction was understandably tepid for part 1 but more enthusiastic for part 2. I hope the group returns next year, but I also hope they work with more commitment than they seemed to be showing tonight.

Very ambitious, creatively -- with a thoughtfully written press release. I hope the performance goes well, and that people can get out to see it ---- and report back to us.

For me, getting out there is a 20-minute drive. For once I can see good dance without a major schlep into the city!

I would also be interested in hearing any comments. Am I correct in thinking that "Jewels" has been out of the repertory for awhile?

No, it's been in active rep and performances, depending on casting, have ranged from to . Mr. Martins seems prone to the same kind of "experimental" casting as Mr. B, although not necessarily with Emeralds.

Ashley Bouder has performed leads in both Emeralds and Rubies. Chances are she'll show up in both casts (assuming there are only two), so that would make attending any performance worth your while.

Definitely try to see Ashley Bouder in Rubies if you have a choice.

nysusan - between this and Fall for Dance I think you made the right choice. Tom Phillips' review is up at DVT - I think he's being charitable at "one for three." The dancers are of course excellent and the effort laudable, but the results were not good. I found the first piece soporific, the second pretentious and the last the most watchable, but still the main thing that differentiated it from a good work at a college composition class was better dancers. I know there are slim pickings out there, but they're not getting great results from this.

Just a quick note while this is fresh in my mind.

1) Miller - Silly, empty-headed, and pretentious, with grating music provided by a string quartet accompanied by electric guitar and electronics. There were also four chairs that got pulled around the stage and re-arranged for no obvious reason. Sometimes people tapped on the floor or did other weird things. I had no idea what any of the gestures meant, and audience response was perfunctory.

2) Veggetti (sp?) - I found this more compelling than Leigh did, and the music at least did not have that electric guitar. It may have been the dancers who made this work rather than the choreography, but there were some arresting visual images and costumes.

3) Chase - The closest to ballet of the three, with some interesting Balanchine-like images (e.g., the boys suspend the girls upside down behind the boys' backs, creating a kind of multiple starburst effect; or the boys play leapfrog over each other while the girls lie down watching). Much too long for what it did, but at least it had danceable music.

On Saturday night, the choreographers (except for Miller, who couldn't help it) apparently didn't get up the nerve to take a bow.

This week's Time Out New York also has a 1-page article on Amanda Miller.

And so the upshot is that I don't think "variation" in the musical and the balletic sense are entirely analogous.

What I was interested in with 'Dances at a Gathering', which is various Chopin pieces, not all the same form, I believe, but don't remember too well...

NYCB's website lists all the pieces used -

http://www.nycballet.com/company/rep.html?rep=54

- many of which are mazurkas and waltzes, thus in moderate 3/4 time and having a kind of family relationship, though none are variations in the musical sense. If I remember right, the A minor etude op. 10/2, blisteringly difficult for the pianist, is set as a bravura male solo. But I'm still unclear as to whether this or any other solo piece for a dancer can legitimately be described as a variation in dance terms, especially since many of the other episodes in DaaG are for small groups of dancers.

This is Hans's definition:

"Usually what people think of as a classical variation is a short solo dance that elaborates on the character's traits while also displaying the technique of the dancer. Many of them can be modified in various ways to either suit a particular dancer or be interpolated into a different ballet."

And the ballet glossary at ABT contributes this:

http://www.abt.org/education/dictionary/index.html

Variation

[va-rya-SYAWN]

Variation. A solo dance in a classic ballet.

But is any solo dance in ballet necessarily a variation? Are there exceptions?

Be that as it may, the term "variation" in music has a somewhat different meaning. In most cases, a set of variations (I can't think of any examples of a single variation) is based on a theme, which may be by the composer of the variations or by another composer - think of Brahms's Variatiions on a Theme by Haydn (which theme is actually not by Haydn at all), or Britten's Young Person's Guide (Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Purcell, better known in ballet circles as the music for Jerome Robbins's Fanfare). In music before the Romantic period, a primary feature of the variations is that they preserve the phrase structure of the theme, often but far from invariably in the same tempo and meter. This is true of the Goldberg Variations, Beethoven's Diabelli Variations, the Mozart set Balanchine used as the last movement in Mozartiana, and many others. One type of variations is known as "doubles," where each succeeding variation uses shorter note values while preserving the underlying tempo; a familiar example is found in the slow movement of Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata. Other types of variations do more to develop motifs from the theme; this is true also of the Goldbergs and the Diabellis, which nevertheless preserve the phrase structure of the theme. But in music of the Romantic period and later, the developmental type of variation comes into play without keeping the underlying phrase structure. And so in the Britten Young Person's Guide / Fanfare / Variations and Fugue on Purcell, the form of each variation is quite free in relation to the theme, but each variation develops one or two main motifs from the theme: an ascending triad, or three notes ascending and then 4-5 descending. I think that once this pattern is recognized, it's easy to identify when hearing the music.

As for the fugue, it's quite common in variation sets to conclude with some section of this type. In the classic variation form, the repetition of the same phrase structure builds a kind of momentum (think of the Mozartiana variations), and a change of pace like a fugue is useful for breaking this momentum and rounding off the composition. Mozart / Tchaikovsky / Balanchine use instead a free cadenza, leading to a slow final variation, and then a final fast coda.

And so the upshot is that I don't think "variation" in the musical and the balletic sense are entirely analogous.

the Goldberg Variations of Bach... we're supposed to be discussing ballet here. The disconcerting thing for me as a musical person is that the word "variation" in music has a specific meaning that may or may not accord with its meaning in dance. I'd be interested in exploring that.

In this case, we turn out to be discussing both, and the Goldberg Variations is sublime. I don't remember seeing it on NYCB programs for some years, though, and I only saw it once. Someone here will be sure to know, though.

I saw the Goldbergs - the Bach/Robbins, that is - two years ago at NYCB, and I believe it is slated for return in one of the upcoming seasons.

Does the Rose Adagio from Sleeping Beauty count technically as a variation? Paloma Herrera had me in goosebumps last season at ABT.

Otherwise, my favorites include the Goldberg Variations of Bach, the Diabelli Variations of Beethoven, the variation movement from the 12th Quartet of Beethoven - oops, we're supposed to be discussing ballet here. The disconcerting thing for me as a musical person is that the word "variation" in music has a specific meaning that may or may not accord with its meaning in dance. I'd be interested in exploring that.

I wakened some deep subconscious thought that was better left alone, but I do remember the most boring ballet I've ever seen, and it wasn't even Manon: It was John Neumeier's Mahler's Third Symphony which I saw performed by the Hamburg Ballet at BAM. Unfortunately, I was in the middle of a row with a friend, and we hadn't developed a silent way of coordinating our escape.

I hope it wasn't because of the music, which is one of my favorite Mahler symphonies.

(When I first read your post I took "row" to mean "quarrel," and I wondered how that fit in. I'm okay now.)

In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, Musagète by Boris Eifman (sp?) was a huge bore for me.

Some more info:

Miller Theatre at Columbia University kicks off its 07-08 season with

"NEW BALLET"

a 4-night run of three newly commissioned ballets by

ALISON CHASE, AMANDA MILLER, AND LUCA VEGGETTI

with live music by John Adams, Fred Frith, and Paolo Aralla

Thursday, September 27, 7:00PM

Friday, September 28, 8:00PM

Saturday, September 29, 8:00PM

Sunday, September 30, 3:00PM

Is anyone going?

I can't imagine that the dance world would not be readers of this site.

True--and for all we know, you're Ashley Bouder!

I beg your pardon. How do you know I'm not Ashley Bouder?

Because everyone knows you're Jilanna. And I'm Una Kai.

Curses! my cover is blown!!

I can't imagine that the dance world would not be readers of this site.

True--and for all we know, you're Ashley Bouder!

I beg your pardon. How do you know I'm not Ashley Bouder?

Fridays (after 5:00) at MoMa are free, too! That's the justification for the $20 admission at all other times. Special exhibitions are ex$tra.

Are you sure about that? As a MoMA member, admission for me is "free" (after paying $80 for the year), but I've never seen any surcharge for special exhibits there. Carbro, you really have to go!

Two reviews of Mozart Dances:

Alastair Macaulay: Morris Meets Amadeus: Odd, Elective Affinities

Clive Barnes: STAYIN' IN STEP WITH MOZART

Points up the difference between an aware, articulate reviewer and a mediocrity.

Thank you, kfw; very well put. I mean we should think of the analogue in music or opera: what if they just stopped playing the music or singing in the middle of a piece to cut away to something else? I really got the sense from whoever was doing the editing that "the dancers are repeating movement, so it's ok now to cut away to Ax." Again, think opera--the Queen of the Night in Magic Flute repeats quite a few vocal lines!

Plus I wasn't crazy about the camera work even when it was focused on the dancers--too many closeups at inappropriate times, to my taste.

As it was being broadcast, I was capturing it to my computer to make a DVD, while watching SYTYCD on the TV in another room. But spot-checking my home-made DVD later, one point in particular was for me objectionable in the camera work: this is in the finale of 27, at the point one of the boys runs diagonally upstage into the arms of another man. This is just caught on camera before they cut away to Ax playing a cadenza, and then returns to stage view as the embrace ends. It was one of the most memorable points in the ballet when I saw it live last year, and leads me to wonder whether "the dancers are repeating movement, so it's ok now to cut away to Ax" or "a guy is in the arms of another guy, so we're not sure how that's going to play in the Bible Belt."

BTW I hated the way they filmed it for PBS--all those cutaways to the musicians, as if the movements of their playing were as important to see as the movements/formations of the dancers!

I rather like seeing a pianist's hands, but that could have been shown from time to time in a small window at lower screen left or right, rather than cutting away from the stage. I suppose the producers are afraid we'll be bored if the cameras don't move around whenever they can. With televised orchestra concerts it's even worse. But then again, people sitting at a live performance manage somehow to enjoy it without leaving their seats every two minutes to get a different view. For dance, I think the ideal solution is to place a camera dead center and mostly leave it there, so you always have the full stage perspective, except for closeups of solo dancers where there is no other stage activity.

If blogging qualifies (the topic was "verbally articulate," not necessarily "orally articulate"), then ABT's Matthew Murphy should get a nod for his often witty and hilarious "Ranting Details."

Damien Woetzel should qualify, considering he's earning a degree at Harvard.

Advancing age and decrepitude caused me ..

Just wait until you get older . . . .

In the Jeopardy "Teen Tournament," now going on, none of the contestants knew that Nijinsky was a dancer.

Don't feel bad. In the regular adult shows, most of the contestants can provide only a few of the classical music questions.

I probably see 12-15 performances a year, mostly NYCB and ABT. Since transportation to New York from where I live is expensive, I'd rather go fewer times and splurge for a better seat location. Both repertoire and casting matter greatly to me, and I prefer to wait for the casting announcements than subscribe without knowing whom I'll see. I wouldn't mind going more often, but there's something to be said too for being selective and not overdoing it.