vipa

For me, Murphy is not a natural Giselle, but I recognize that she can bring a lot of technique and stage smarts to the role. The question for me is, is it wiser for an AD to give a 40 year old ballerina coming back from maternity leave another shot at Giselle, or should he give another shot to Lane (a natural Giselle in her prime in the role) or first shots to Brandt or Trenary. There are winners and losers, but I come down on the side of not giving Murphy the role, and going with one of the other possibilities. Murphy has had a long career and has danced both Myrtha and Giselle. I've heard Sara Mearns talk about giving up Lilac Fairy. One of the things she said was that it was time for younger dancers to get a chance at it. Granted NYCB is a different animal - more shows, more rep, more to go around.

I agree that the rep and number of shows is part of the problem, BalanchineFan. There was a time when ABT did long tours. They were tough, but dancers had opportunities to perform a role numerous times and I know one former soloist who got some Swan Lakes on tour (she never did it in NY). ABT's current reality is what it is. Casting decisions are hard when there is so little to go around. I still question the wisdom of the current system. IMO Abrera is a wonderful dancer who missed her prime, with a late promotion. Lane is in her prime. Brandt is more than ready. Should Murphy really come back to Giselle? I guess I'm glad I'm not an AD!!

The problem with ABT is that we waited way too long to see Abrera's Giselle, and then waited too long to see Lane's (one of the greatest I've seen). Management has to make a choice. They can do what they are doing or take Giselle shows from Abrera and Murphy to give more shows to Lane (while she is still in her prime) and offer chances to Trenary & Brandt. Someone is going to lose either way. Kent hanging on for so long was a problem IMO, as was the guest artist policy. A corrective is needed which will have winners and losers. It's nice that Abrera finally got to do Juliet, but perhaps Lane should have gotten that chance.

I agree that Brandt's instagram videos are captivating. Could she be preparing for a guest performance. I know that Lane did Giselle a couple of times before her ABT debut.

Allegra was a rare talent. IMO her natural ability and way of moving had tremendous impact on what became the NYCB "look," I don't think Mr. B would have done this for every dancer.

IMO ABT should always have Tudor in the rep. I don't know what the cost entails, but I believe that a good amount of time would have to be devoted to staging and coaching. The kind of drama and intent that are present in those works is not easy for dancers to conquer. Personally I'd rather see Tudor works than Ratmansky reconstructions that ABT spends zillions of dollars on.

The whole restoration aspect is an interesting discussion. I've heard Kevin M vehemently defend the choice as an opportunity to see the original intent. I saw 2 performances it's first season and will never go again, I don't care who the cast is. Do first time viewers understand that this is a restoration from more than 100 years ago, and not a typical Sleeping Beauty that would be presented by most ballet companies?

The whole thing seems odd. Putting someone in who isn't even cast in SL this year, is very strange. They could have gone with Boylston. Isn't she short enough for Cornejo? I know she's doing it tomorrow, but it seems to me they had Hee Seo do consecutive at some point, and it isn't the entire ballet. Also, when did this decision get made? So many question!!! Never-the-less, I'm glad Sarah Lane got the opportunity. I hope she has a big success.

I just saw it on her insta story. I wish I could be there. Is Copeland out for just this show?

Maybe he would promote one, but I don't think so. Their principal role workload is similar except Brandt doesn't do Aurora (correct if I'm wrong). I'm not sure how he'd justify promoting one and leaving other a soloist. Not that he has to justify anything. Personally, if I had to promote one, it would be Brandt.

I agree with this, but is there money and room for two more women in the principal ranks? I don't think Kevin M. would promote one of these ladies and not the other. IMO much depends Murphy's plans post child birth, and Stella's plans (if any) re retirement.

Such an interesting comment. Does this mean she is an online media artist as well as a ballet dancer? I look at those things as parallel not additive. I wouldn't buy a ticket to see her dance because of her social media commentary. There is nothing here which would make me think she'd be a wonderful Odette/Odile (which I've seen and found lacking.) One of my favorite NYCB dancers, Sterling Hyltin, barely has a social media footprint. Perhaps this should be a different discussion unto itself.

I just want to add a few comments from today's matinee. Ask La Cour was a replacement cavalier and did some mighty fine partnering, which allowed Mearns to have the freedom to really shine. Cavalier isn't really a character, so partnering is the job IMO. His short solos were fine. I enjoyed Gina Pazcoguin's Hippolyta very much. She was strong and secure. A couple of fixes on the fouettes didn't disturb the rhythm or finish. There were some partnering problems in the 2nd act with Farley which have to be ironed out. His to work out. I liked Kristen Segin's butterfly. She is such a good dancer. I'd like to see her promoted although her body type isn't typical NYCB. I almost dreaded seeing Bouder in the 2nd act pas. I typically like her in things like Square Dance. I was pleasantly surprised. I usually feel she goes for the moment to moment balance/trick, and find her a one-trick-pony in her phrasing choices. Today I felt that her amazing technique was used in service of the piece. For me, it is one of the most heavenly pieces of choreography ever created, and I was mesmerized as usual.

I haven't been posting much but I thought I'd give my thoughts about the Tharp Trio which I saw for the 2nd time this afternoon. Brahms-Haydn is, for me, an example of what I have always felt has been lacking in Tharp's choreography (I have been watching her since the early days of her first company). She has great craft when it comes to moving people around the stage - groups, duets, trios etc. She does inventive partnering and interesting movements. What is never present is honest, real, emotion. She can do: chic, tongue-in-cheek, cynical, sexy, witty, campy ... but there is no revelation of deep, honest, human emotion. In her choreography, I've never had the experience of being deeply touched, moved to tears or felt that the movement was so married to the music it seems inevitable. In Brahms-Haydn, there is no marriage of movement and music at all, IMO. The music is romantic, but the movement ignores any sense of that. i'm not saying there should be a narrative or traditionally romantic choreography, but there should be some connection to the sentiment of the music. I shouldn't be left wondering why she used that music. The ballet could have just as easily been done to Bach or Billy Joel. There were sections in which the dancers had "relationships" but it seemed plastered on. So for me, this piece revealed and confirmed my thoughts of Tharp at her worst. Deuce Coupe - which I'm old enough to remember from the Joffrey days was an interesting re-visit. I thought the women, in particular, seemed confident and happy in the choreography. In the Upper Room, to me, is the best of Tharp. Intense, inventive, dynamic and with the perfect score to go with it. The dancers looked great. I wish ABT would bring back Push Comes to Shove

Martins was truly one of the greatest of his generation, but you don't hear about that much. Unfortunately I never saw Hubbe in T&V. Ib Anderson was wonderful.

Interesting to mention T&V, contrasting a more compact style with a handsome princely style. Peter Martins isn't mentioned much as a dancer, but his T&V was an amazing combination of both. He was a tall elegant dancer who did T&V to perfection including the double tour pirouette section (doing double pirouettes as Veyette ad DeLuz sometimes did). I have noticed that some dancers walk around for the start of that music and start the sequence later. That always bothers me!

I so agree. Insightful reviews and thoughts about the new leadership (without a rehash of the Peter Martins situation) would be so welcome. I will assume that Ramasar and his colleagues are behaving with professionalism in company class and rehearsals, just as they did before his departure.

Glad to hear he's back and looking good. Thank you for including the audience response.

Hyltin is kind of short for Titania. The casting has traditionally been Tatania (a fairy) being tall and Oberon (an elf) being on the shorter side. NYCB has stuck to that idea. Personally I think they should. IMO that's part of the Balanchine conception. The opening scene is built upon that dynamic. Puck is now cast short, but the original Puck was Arthur Mitchel who wasn't short, so that's changed.

Interesting. I wonder how the ballet as a whole went. I found this little segment lacking in both musicality and clarity.

Thanks for your report cobweb. What were your impressions of Scotch?

I was there too, and keep trying to stop myself from overly attributing the Diamond's performance to Suzanne. Ultimately I couldn't help myself. The pas was something special. You felt a risk taking/vulnerability on Kowroski's part that isn't usually there. There was also a palpable awareness, nothing was on automatic, everything seemed in the moment. Tiler Angle is always an awesome partner and did well with his solo parts. He is not a virtuoso dancer, and made some wise choices. The rest of the program was very enjoyable. Somehow, after seeing Slaughter over and over, I still get a kick out it. Mearns was great and danced with abandon. Peter Walker, who I haven't liked in some other things, was great fun as the hooker. A piece I've seen over and over but have grown tired of, is Barber's Violin Concerto. However, it was fun seeing Emma Von Enck in a lead role (the "modern" dancer). She was great, and had a straightforward, direct attack. Ashley Bouder mugs and smiles through the role (if memory serves) which lends a different tone. I don't know which is the choreographer's intent, but Von Enck carried it off well. It was my great pleasure to see Cobweb at the ballet and exchange notes!

I think if he was going to be fired, perhaps he could have been over the hotel room trashing incident. He was booked there as a member of the NYCB. Also if he had ever shown up for work unfit to perform or rehearse there might also have been grounds for firing. In the end, it's all in how the contract is written.

I liked Phelan in the excerpt they did. It was to live piano, and a bit more up tempo than usual. Both Phelan and Laracey moved quickly and cleanly, on the edge of rushed. It was a very lecture/demo kind of setting which always presents challenges in terms of space and audience moving in and out, but most dancers have done a ton of things like this.

Farley seems to have a promising future beyond performing. I saw the NYCB dancers at MOMA, earlier this month, as part of the Lincoln Kirstein exhibit. He introduce the pieces and offered insights and historic context. He is very comfortable in that kind of educator/leader position. By the way Laracey looked amazing!!