vipa

Quite interesting to import someone. My guess is that there are some corps member who are not happy about it, but that's ballet company life.

In a Conversations On Dance interview the NYCB Director of Physical Therapy, Marika Molnar says she sometimes applies tape across the backs of knees of dancers with hyper extensions, so that when the are standing around in class, they have a gentle reminder to no push their legs back into their hyper extension.

It's painful to watch and she seems somewhat paralyzed. Based on a couple of short videos, I don't want to comment on the training itself. The proof will be in the pudding. If she has an amazing Met season, we'll know it works for her. I am dubious, of course.

I wouldn't make assumptions about LeCrone or anyone one else under the new regime. Martins always liked LeCrone and seemed to be supportive through-out her numerous difficulties (collapsed lung and 3 ankle surgeries). There is something in her dancing that he admired from her days in the school, so I guess she could be called a favorite of his. However, I don't think "favorite" should carry a pejorative connotation. After all, we all have our favorites, Whelan and Stafford will have their's too. It really is a matter of taste. I don't expect to be 100% aligned with their casting or promotion decisions, as time goes on.

I agree with this. I have to admit that the first couple of times I saw LB I was in nosebleed territory and it did nothing for me. Then I saw it close up and was totally blown away.

Thank you for this report. Staying power is the key IMO. I've seen a lot of new ballets at NYCB over the years. Most of them were there for one season only. The big exceptions being pieces by Peck, Wheeldon and Ratmansky. NYCB has a huge and impressive rep of Balanchine and Robbins, so deciding that there is room for new works to enter that rep on a permanent basis must be a challenge.

Erica Pereira got a shot at the lead in Coppelia, presumably, thanks to Jon Stafford, but she doesn't dance much at all.

I had the pleasure of watching the NYCB career of Wehdy Whelan's start to finish. I remember a point at which she was cast in pretty much everything. but there came a time when I thought she was perhaps on a decline, then Wheeldon came along and there was a burst of creativity in her dancing that never went away. Towards the end, I agreed with the Martins assessment that she no longer looked her best in some roles. I guess what I mean is that careers can be complicated. When it's time for Whelan to take an older dancer out of a role, I'm sure she will do it with compassion but she will have to do it.

I wasn't thinking of hires from outside, just promotions and the number of new members that can be hired from the school. Another thing I am curious about. It has been a NYCB tradition to do works done for then. Will the new team think about importing say a Justin Peck work that was done on another company, or a William Forsyeth work done on another company. I'm just pondering possible changes. The main thing I hope for is that older Balanchine dancers are brought in to coach.

I've been wondering if there will be any shake up in the company. Usually new artistic leadership means some changes. I'm not talking about the extremes of Pennsylvania Ballet when a huge percentage of dancers were let go, but something along the lines of MCB or PNB when Boal took over. A few dancers weren't renewed and a few dancers were pushed out a bit sooner they they planned. Martins hired every dancer in NYCB, so it's possible that Stafford and Whelan will see some dancers as not very usable, and will want to free up money for new hires.

It appears to me that they want to have a team type of leadership, rather than one person dictating/deciding everything. I'm a little disappointed that no former dancer who worked with Balanchine was named as part of the team. Let's just hope the some of those people are brought in to coach. Let's also hope that we continue to see a fair share of Balanchine ballets and the emphasis doesn't swing all the way to new works.

I agree California. I wasn't there, but my guess is that, not only was she shaky, but the problems with the first promenades took up more time/music than they should have, and Jared Angle made a good call as to how to finish it out.

I am sorry to here that Rose Adagio went so badly for Lovette in her second performance. Having seen her first show, I think she had the potential to be a great Aurora. Cojocaru is my all time favorite. I too am looking forward to Liebeslieder although a funky schedule has prevented me from buying a ticket yet. I hope to get there.

I don't know how it works contractually, but it would be unusual for a choreographer to not be at the opening of his/her work. Changes to the work also have to be cleared with the choreographer. For example, Stafford had to get Martins' approval before taking the slap out of R+J. I too hope a new AD will be appointed soon. I am sure that whoever it is, there will be a shake up of sorts. Dancers will lose roles, gain roles and be jockeying for position in the eyes of the new AD. Personally I hope it isn't Stafford. A fresh start is warranted and he is part of the current situation. Even if he tries to be fair and "nice," he has preferred dancers and casting is a zero sum game. There are always more unhappy people than happy people. I think a fresh start would be best for all.

I saw the Tudor R&J at ABT many years ago. Yes, I'm old! It is one act with music by Delius. It's a great work which distills the emotional content of Romeo and Juliet in an amazing way. I believe the original title was The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. I think it would take a concentrated rehearsal period, with someone who knows the dramatic intent of each moment to put it together. Also, by virtue of the music and style I don't see it replacing a blockbuster in ticket sales. I really dislike the Martins R+J, but Tudors one act won't replace the ticket sales. It is a shame it isn't done by ABT. I believe New York Theatre Ballet does it sometimes. That small company has become the repository of Tudor works.

We're on the same page cobweb. Personally, I'm starting to doubt everyone judgement, and the messier this gets the less attractive the job gets. I was so glad to hear glowing reports if Indian Woodward's Aurora, I wasn't able to go, so I'm grateful for everyone's reports.

It's a commitment he won't be able to keep in this ballet unless Martins agrees to a change in casting privileges for his ballets and/or Stafford becomes the new AD. Now more than ever I believe they need an AD who can come in fresh, with no baggage.

I can see that this is a topic on which some of us will have to agree to disagree. I'll add that I'm sure Bouder was disappointed. There is not a professional dancer, past or present, who hasn't been hurt or angered at losing a role, not getting a role or losing a performance. My main objection to Bouder is that she sees only one explanation to what happened. Maybe it was retaliation, I can't know that with certainty and neither can she. There is the possibility that Martins knew he wouldn't have a lot more chances to cast it (it isn't performed that frequently) and decided to forgo seniority and give opening night to the dancer he thought best in the role. Some people would find that implausible, but I view it as a possibility. I also don't see the great harm to Bouder. She wasn't removed from the role, the number of performances wasn't reduced, she wasn't giving only matinees and the change was made before casting went public. The departure of Martins created a rift in the company, articles like this can only deepen the rift by putting company member in the position of having to take sides. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that a new director can't be named too soon. Now would be a good time.

Yes Hyltin dropped R+J and Mearns dropped Lilac. Both without explanation. About a year or so ago Mearns dropped Dew Drop.

IMO Bouder's belief that retribution was the only possible explanation for giving opening night of SB to Hyltin, is an affront to Hyltin even if unintended. Thank goodness Hyltin had the good sense not to comment. What was she supposed to say - Ashley's right, I didn't deserve it or Ashley's wrong I deserved it? Casting was changed late, but before any public announcement was made.

I'll go ahead and say that the article bothered me. Who knows who at the NYTimes, such that while the art of ballet gets little coverage, we get an article about "unfair" casting of Sleeping Beauty, that brings up yet again accusations against Martins, Ramasar etc. Choreographers get to cast their ballets. IMO that's the way is should be. Martins changed casting before it was announced. He didn't take Bouder out of the ballet or reduce the number of performances she had, he merely decided she wouldn't be first cast. In the article she trashed a colleague indirectly be saying that the only possible reason for the change was because of her own outspokenness. Stirling Hyltin is an established principal who has been doing the ballet for a while, and many think is a more natural Aurora than Bouder. In the past I've preferred Hyltin, but I saw neither of them this season, so can't speak to their most recent performances of the role. However, isn't it possible that Martins figured he wouldn't have many more chances to cast the thing, and went with his preference rather than seniority? Hyltin, in some ways, flies under the radar in that she doesn't seem to have a big social media presence. I think she was wise to not comment for this article. Bouder put her in a terrible position.

I was also at the matinee and agree much of cobweb's review (It was also a great pleasure to see you again cobweb, I hope to see you at the ballet on many more occasions) I admit, I went to see Lauren Lovette with some reservations because she has technical weaknesses that I though might interfere with her ability to give a satisfying performance. I was wrong, She was a natural Aurora, shining with radiance, she related to her suitors, parents and everyone in stage with a natural warmth and lovely characterization. Rose adagio didn't have long balances, and she had to do some adjusting with her attitude leg, but nothing that jarred the overall effect. I agree with cobweb, that Joseph Gordon has grown into one of the most important male dancers in NYCB. It's great to see particularly with DeLuz's recent retirement. I give Miriam Miller's Lilac a firm - eventually. She has the elements, but needs to put them together technically, and bring authority to the role. The fairy variation seemed a hair under the usual tempi to me, which was a welcome change. Kristen Segin was a real stand out. A few comments about the last act. I don't think I've seen this ballet from the fourth ring before, and seeing the garland dance from there was fantastic. Mr. B - I loved it Daniel Ulbricht is a pleasure in whatever he does, both technically and in stage presence (court jesters) I was disappointed in Blue Bird Pas. Lauren King had her usual appealing radiance but has struggles with partnering. Troy Schumacher doesn't have the power and clarity for the variation. I totally agree with cobweb about wishing for another intermission (and I often think NYCB has too many).

I agree. The tempi in this production have always been problematic. It's Peter Martin's ballet so I don't expect it to change. I haven't seen it yet this year, but in the past I admired the dancers for valiant attempts to look gracious and squeezed in a bit of musical phrasing, instead of just trying to keep up. On the other hand I dislike the Ratmansky restoration version. I saw it once, and never again. I hated the old, Gelsey Kirkland, ABT version. Some parts of it were just batty. So as a NYC dance goer, NYCB is my favorite version. If they could take those tempi down a hair it would make it so much better.

Fantastic and well deserved. Congratulations.

I disliked the entire article. I won't go into every point but, I've been a NYCB fan for a long time - starting with the Balanchine years. The company could have crumbled after Balanchine. I was doubtful of Martins' leadership at first, in fact for a number of years, but he kept the company going, IMO he grew into the job and at this point it is filled with incredible dancers that he chose. The depth of talent is amazing. I'm not denying that there have been big mistakes but the company, at this point, the company is amazing. I don't want to re-hash the good and bad of Martins, but the idea that the end of the his Sleeping Beauty has to mean that people should get over Balanchine and move on is absurd to me.