2016 Winter Season

[brokenwing]

Allegra actually was quite short; this is what enabled her frequent partnering with Villella. It's her larger than life presence and beautiful proportions and line that made people think otherwise.

[abatt]

Casting is up for the final week of the season. Miriam Miller is debuting as the lead in Agon. Also, Robbie Fairchild is returning for the week, with a debut in Agon (secondary lead role).

[nysusan]

Casting is up for the final week of the season. Miriam Miller is debuting as the lead in Agon. Also, Robbie Fairchild is returning for the week, with a debut in Agon (secondary lead role).

How exciting! I'm in DC for the Mariinsky most of next week so unfortunately I'll miss those debuts but I'm looking forward to reading the reports!

[abatt]

Just noticed that this week's casting has been updated. Veyette is taking over both of DeLuz's Sylphide assignments this weekend, in addition to doing both of his own assignments of that role this weekend. Hope he's up to the challenge.

[Royal Blue]

It's not just height that matters, it's overall proportions -- things like the length of a dancers's limbs relative to the length of his or her torso, for instance, or the size of the head relative to height. A large head and shortish limbs suggest the proportions of a child rather than those of, say, an idealized Prince or Queen; without considerable artistry and a healthy dollop of authority a dancer with those proportions -- even if they aren't necessarily shorter than their peers -- will have a harder time pulling off a role that demands some measure of grandeur. Life ain't fair.

I very much enjoy Tiler Peck's dancing, but I don't find her proportions ideal for ballet, or at least not all ballets. She has a relatively large head and face, and reads younger than springtime as a result. Jennie Somogyi, who certainly wasn't any taller than Peck did read like a taller dancer from the stage at least in part because her proportions were more like those of a taller dancer.

(Compare this image of Somogyi with this image of Peck to see the difference. It's subtle, but real. Or, compare this image of Degas' Little Dancer paired with Peck in costume for the role in the musical.)

I'm not suggesting that height and proportion should determine how a dancer is cast, only that they have a real effect on how a dancer looks from the stage.

Are human grandeur and its evocation dependent then on a set of physical characteristics alone? Doesn't what is in a human being's mind, heart and soul have anything to do with it? At the end of the day, mustn't a dancer --no matter what she looks like-- show us evidence of the "fire of life" burning inside her to ever truly impress us?

I stand corrected: I have no clue what the ideal physique and set of proportions are either in life or (especially) ballet. All I can say is that Tiler Peck strikes me as being a beautiful woman and that that in conjunction with her exquisite dancing --I see the "fire of life" in her-- and her evident commitment to excellence makes it a genuine pleasure for me to watch her work on stage. Ms. Peck, I believe, has shown "considerable artistry" and plenty of "authority" already-- though she should by no means, of course, rest on her laurels.

Kathleen O'Connell, while I'm enjoying greatly what I see, I'm not sure how much I should trust my eyes, given that they are not as observant as yours and those of other posters! For example, I never really noticed that Ms. Peck had "a relatively large head and face" and "shortish limbs". Nor did I ever draw the connection between such features and lack of queenliness. But if we were to examine her closely enough, wouldn't we discover something unqueenly in just about every woman? In the immortal words of a character from a classic movie: "nobody's perfect!"

There is nothing "subtle" about the difference you are pointing to in the wonderful images of Jennie Somogyi and Tiler Peck you provided us. I can see it clearly. In fairness, however, Somogyi is in an introspective, serious mode in the photo, while Ms. Peck --though still quite beautiful-- is in a playful, seemingly puckish one. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to see much of Somogyi before she retired, and there is no way for me to judge from such images whether her dancing would have provided me anywhere near as much pleasure as Ms. Peck's does. And I confess that I totally failed to grasp your point in the juxtaposed Little Dancer photos. The creature on the left seems to me a very, very lovely one; the statue on the right has me scratching my head!

Why shouldn't the height and proportion of a dancer determine how they are cast given the drift of your remarks? Here I'm not being critical of you: I am simply curious and want to understand your point of view. Your post actually gave me plenty of food for thought. (How does our perception of the way various dancers look affect our response to what we see them do --the steps they execute; the movements they carry out; the poses they assume-- on stage?) As did your other wonderful one (#104) --to which I couldn't timely respond to. You and other posters on BA are hares; I am a tortoise.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Are human grandeur and its evocation dependent then on a set of physical characteristics alone?

No, of course not. That's why I said this: "without considerable artistry and a healthy dollop of authority a dancer with those proportions -- even if they aren't necessarily shorter than their peers -- will have a harder time pulling off a role that demands some measure of grandeur." I'm less convinced than you are that we can see "what is in a human being's mind, heart and soul" when they dance so I'll settle for artistry and authority. (As far as I'm concerned a performing artist can be an absolute sh*t in real life and still have tremendous affective power in the theater.) There are also dancers with absolutely exquisite proportions who don't have the kind of authority and imagination to convey the kind of grandeur that a ballerina must in, say, "Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2."

All I can say is that Tiler Peck strikes me as being a beautiful woman and that that in conjunction with her exquisite dancing --I see the "fire of life" in her-- and what appears to be her strong commitment to excellence makes it a genuine pleasure for me to watch her work on stage. Ms. Peck, I believe, has shown "considerable artistry" and plenty of "authority" already.

If Peck does it for you, that's enough. You don't have defend your admiration for and response to her dancing, at least not to me. I happen to like her a lot in some roles and less in others, and that's OK too. [ETA: I think it's safe to say that we all have favorite artists who just do it for us, even if to other eyes they seem lacking. I think that's a performing arts feature not a bug.]

But if we were to examine her closely enough, wouldn't we discover something unqueenly in just about every woman? In the immortal words of a character from a classic movie: "nobody's perfect!"

The kind of regality I'm talking about is essentially a theatrical effect that dancers create through a combination of their technique, style, imagination, artistry, authority, and yes, their "look" -- an emulation, in essence, of our idealized storybook conception of what royalty is like. I'm not saying Peck can't look regal, merely that her proportions are such that she needs to rely on something other than her appearance to create that effect. And although a certain kind of grandeur is an important thing in some ballets, it's not the only thing: there are quite a few women in the company who look more regal than Peck, but I'd still rather watch her in Theme and Variations than any of them.

I totally failed to grasp your point in the juxtaposed Little Dancer photos.

Well, I was hoping to show that Peck's proportions are such that she can believable emulate a very young dancer just by standing there. The difference I was trying to point out between Somogyi and Peck was simply the relative proportions of their heads, torsos, and limbs - nothing more complicated than that.

Why shouldn't the height and proportion of a dancer determine how they are cast given the drift of your remarks?

Hopefully I've been able to clarify a little bit why body type, although it's a thing, isn't the only thing.

[sohalia]

Casting for Feb. 23rd to 28th is up. R. Fairchild is back dancing, and will debut in Agon. Also making their debuts will be Phelan and Janzen in Episodes, and newest member of the Corps M. Miller is set to debut in Agon. Scortado will also debut in the 4th movement with King in Symphony in C.

http://www.nycballet.com/NYCB/media/NYCBMediaLibrary/PDFs/Press/Casting/NYCB-Casting_February-23-28,-2016_lobby.pdf

[Royal Blue]

I'm less convinced than you are that we can see "what is in a human being's mind, heart and soul" when they dance so I'll settle for artistry and authority. (As far as I'm concerned a performing artist can be an absolute sh*t in real life and still have tremendous affective power in the theater.) There are also dancers with absolutely exquisite proportions who don't have the kind of authority and imagination to convey the kind of grandeur that a ballerina must in, say, "Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2."

I'm not as convinced as I appear. It is difficult enough to look into one's own mind, heart and soul --let alone another person's. A lifetime, it seems, is not time enough to get to "know thyself". But that is because the human mind, the human heart, the human soul are all by nature complex. My assumptions were that human grandeur is genuine and real, if elusive and mysterious; that it has something to do with all humanity and not just royalty; and that it has some connection with an individual's mind, heart and soul, and not just their physical appearance. Surely an artist --a ballerina-- who attempts to evoke it cannot be entirely mindless, heartless and soulless and yet successfully do so?

Let's see, "exquisite proportions", "authority", "imagination", "grandeur", the various ballerinas, the fans of each one, the duty to do right by the choreographer and the composer of the ballet, the need to bring in a large audience to the theater and fill the company's coffers... --an Artistic Director's job must be an absolute nightmare trying to sort all this out! In the end it's all very subjective though: viewers will never agree on who has the most "exquisite proportions" etc.

The kind of regality I'm talking about is essentially a theatrical effect that dancers create through a combination of their technique, style, imagination, artistry, authority, and yes, their "look" -- an emulation, in essence, of our idealized storybook conception of what royalty is like. I'm not saying Peck can't look regal, merely that her proportions are such that she needs to rely on something other than her appearance to create that effect. And although a certain kind of grandeur is an important thing in some ballets, it's not the only thing: there are quite a few women in the company who look more regal than Peck, but I'd still rather watch her in Theme and Variations than any of them.

This "idealized... conception" has some bearing to the real world? This "emulation" is not a totally empty, meaningless exercise? And we do not all share the same "conception of what royalty is like" ? (Yours appears very set and vivid though.)

It sounds that from your perspective the company is not in a position right now to present a truly first-rate performance of Theme and Variations. The ones who look more regal can't dance the part very well? Do you believe that Ms. Peck dances it flawlessly?

Well, I was hoping to show that Peck's proportions are such that she can believable emulate a very young dancer just by standing there. The difference I was trying to point out between Somogyi and Peck was simply the relative proportions of their heads, torsos, and limbs - nothing more complicated than that.

I told you I was slow and proved it instantaneously. Well, they chose her to do Little Dancer for a reason. And she will not always look so young? This also has to do with her range. Last fall I saw her within a few hours in both Bill Irwin and Tiler Peck at City Center and Theme and Variations with NYCB; and I had no trouble enjoying each performance. I guess I must be biased after all. Did Somogyi ever do the lead part in Theme and did you enjoy her performance more than Ms. Peck's? Why did you pick Somogyi for the comparison? Was she a favorite ballerina of yours?

[Kathleen O'Connell]

It sounds that from your perspective the company is not in a position right now to present a truly first-rate performance of Theme and Variations.

Not at all! NYCB happens to have some wonderful dancers in its ranks at the moment, and at every level, so worthy performances of T&V are certainly not beyond its reach. Besides, I'm not convinced that I've ever seen a "definitive" performance of T&V, and I've been a regular ballet-goer since 1978. And let's be honest: I was in my early 20's then and didn't have a clue. I mean, I saw Merrill Ashley in T&V and remember hardly a thing about the performance -- not even who her partner was!

I'm always happy to see Peck in T&V. Do I think she dances it flawlessly? No. No one dances anything flawlessly. (Hmmm ... maybe Teresa Reichlen dances the tall girl in Rubies flawlessly ... ) But I don't have enough dance-going years left to me to let the perfect be the enemy of the good: I'd prefer to celebrate all the good things we are privileged to see now.

I compared Peck to Somogyi for the following reasons: 1) both are exceptional dancers, 2) they have been cast in a lot of the same roles, and 3) both are "not tall" although Somogyi seemed tall until she stood next to a taller dancer.

Finally, as far as I'm concerned, whole swaths of classic ballet repertoire boil down to an idealized depiction of the mating rituals of the landed aristocracy and is rooted in reality only to the extent that such a class existed -- which doesn't mean I don't enjoy the show.

[abatt]

Somogyi never danced T&V, I think. There were so many roles that she missed out on because she was absent for so many seasons due to long term injuries or maternity leave. On paper, she had a long career, but in reality she was not on stage much during the last decade of her career.

[canbelto]

There's always been a Taglioni vs. Elssler strain in ballet. To this day it exists -- Taglioni-type ballerinas being light, long-limbed, lyrical, and specializing in adagio work and having great elevation. Elssler ballerinas are usually smaller, more compact, excelling at terre a terre dancing. Fast footwork, great turns.

To me Tiler Peck is a classic Fanny Elssler type ballerina. Her shape, musculature, and proportions make her perfect for terre a terre work.

You can look at a picture of Fanny Elssler and easily see Tiler Peck striking the same pose and doing the same dance.

NYCB also has some classic Marie Taglioni type dancers. Somogyi was/is a Taglioni type dancer. You can picture Marie Taglioni in this outfit dancing this part.

[Kaysta]

Excited for my first winter trip to NYCB today! Missed the last three weeks because of snow, ABT in DC and a baby shower. Excited to see Tschai Piano Concerto today!

[Kaysta]

I don't have much to say today, except I love Tschai piano concerto #2. I had never seen this ballet before, and it blew me away. Love, love, love this ballet. I didn't want it to end.

[cobweb]

I was at the matinee today. La Sylphide with Tiler Peck, Andrew Veyette, Lauren King, and Troy Schumacher, and Tchai piano concerto #2 with Sara Mearns, Ask la Cour, and Savannah Lowery.

IMHO, today the company did not make a great case for La Sylphide. The music sounded dull and muted (I was sitting under the overhang in the rear orchestra, but I've never noticed this before) and the performance didn't sparkle. Veyette looked stiff -- perhaps he's overworked. I wonder why they didn't get someone else -- Daniel Ulbricht comes immediately to mind -- to fill in de Luz's performances, rather than piling it all on Veyette. Also Sara Adams was lovely as one of the Sylphs; I would have loved to see her chosen to take over Lovette's performances. Anyway, overall not a bad performance just kind of blah and not really why I go to see NYCB.

Then the magnificent Ballet Imperial -- a real tonic. So brilliant and clear and modern (despite being however many years old), making Sylphide seem even cloudier to me. The corps could definitely use some more rehearsal to keep those lines straight. But the piece goes right to the heart. Savannah Lowery a fount of sunny energy. Ask la Cour a terrific partner, although not especially brilliant in the solo sections. Sara Mearns -- just wow. Strong, heartfelt, and unmannered.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Indiana Woodward was absolutely lovely tonight in her debut performance as The Sylph: Brava!

[abatt]

Sara Mearns was mostly wonderful in her debut in Tschai Piano Concerto. However, there are some things that have to be ironed out in her performance. She had some issues, in particular, with the choreography in her first solo.

On Friday night, Reichlin, who has been doing this role for a few seasons, was breathtaking. Her command and authority in Tschai Piano Concerto was a marvel. This has been her best role of the Winter season, and I would say she now "owns" the role in the same way she owns the tall girl role in Rubies. Beautiful and fearless. It was a blissful performance.

I liked both Hyltin and Peck as the leads in Sylphide. I thought Peck's mime and dramatic abilities were superior. Both dancers, however, had excellent technique.

Veyette allows some sloppiness to creep into his performances. The leg beats are sometimes fudged, and a lot of his landings are not in the proper position. Oh well. The stiffness mentioned above by cobweb was part of the problem. Yes, Ulbricht danced much better than Veyette. Why wasn't he doing the role of James?

[Royal Blue]

Finally, as far as I'm concerned, whole swaths of classic ballet repertoire boil down to an idealized depiction of the mating rituals of the landed aristocracy and is rooted in reality only to the extent that such a class existed -- which doesn't mean I don't enjoy the show.

Would you consider the novels of Jane Austen as "idealized depiction of the mating rituals of the landed aristocracy"?

Are ballets like Giselle, Swan Lake, and The Sleeping Beauty included in these swaths?

In your view should Jane Austen's novels and the works of the classic ballet repertoire be considered as great art?

Isn't all great art --one way or another-- "rooted in reality"?

Somogyi never danced T&V, I think. There were so many roles that she missed out on because she was absent for so many seasons due to long term injuries or maternity leave. On paper, she had a long career, but in reality she was not on stage much during the last decade of her career.

Interesting information. I did not realize that this had been going on for a decade. I was surprised that quite a few people in the front rows of the orchestra did not stand up when she was feted at her farewell performance.

There's always been a Taglioni vs. Elssler strain in ballet. To this day it exists -- Taglioni-type ballerinas being light, long-limbed, lyrical, and specializing in adagio work and having great elevation. Elssler ballerinas are usually smaller, more compact, excelling at terre a terre dancing. Fast footwork, great turns.

Very illuminating post, thanks; and the photo of Somogyi is absolutely gorgeous. I have to add though that I find Tiler Peck equally superb in "adagio work". Veronika Part, I presume, is a Taglioni-type ballerina? And what about the tall blondes at NYCB? I guess this is an interesting differentiation --but by no means is anything set in stone.

[Kaysta]

I was at the matinee today. La Sylphide with Tiler Peck, Andrew Veyette, Lauren King, and Troy Schumacher, and Tchai piano concerto #2 with Sara Mearns, Ask la Cour, and Savannah Lowery.

IMHO, today the company did not make a great case for La Sylphide. The music sounded dull and muted (I was sitting under the overhang in the rear orchestra, but I've never noticed this before) and the performance didn't sparkle. Veyette looked stiff -- perhaps he's overworked. I wonder why they didn't get someone else -- Daniel Ulbricht comes immediately to mind -- to fill in de Luz's performances, rather than piling it all on Veyette. Also Sara Adams was lovely as one of the Sylphs; I would have loved to see her chosen to take over Lovette's performances. Anyway, overall not a bad performance just kind of blah and not really why I go to see NYCB.

Then the magnificent Ballet Imperial -- a real tonic. So brilliant and clear and modern (despite being however many years old), making Sylphide seem even cloudier to me. The corps could definitely use some more rehearsal to keep those lines straight. But the piece goes right to the heart. Savannah Lowery a fount of sunny energy. Ask la Cour a terrific partner, although not especially brilliant in the solo sections. Sara Mearns -- just wow. Strong, heartfelt, and unmannered.

I agree with everything you wrote. For some reason, I just wasn't in to La Sylphide yesterday. I enjoyed Peck and Troy Schumacher (Gurn) but the rest of it was just ok. I was also disappointed in Veyette, but I've only seen two other people in the James role so I wasn't sure if I was just in a bad mood (because that was the first time I wasn't really enjoying myself at NYCB)

But then Tschai #2 started and I was happy I trekked out into the cold. It was the highlight of the month for me. So beautiful. I thought Sara Mearns was a whirlwhind of energy on stage. She danced with such passion and really threw herself into the role. Obviously since I have never seen this ballet before, I've never seen Reichlen in this part so I have nothing to compare Mearns to, but I was mesmerized by her. I almost am thinking about braving the cold and the travel again just to see it again. I'm sad they are bringing Bournonville divertissements to DC instead of this ballet.

I've spent most of my ballet going at ABT with story ballets, but I really need to spend more time at NYCB.

Happy Valentine's day!

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Would you consider the novels of Jane Austen as "idealized depiction of the mating rituals of the landed aristocracy"?

Are ballets like Giselle, Swan Lake, and The Sleeping Beauty included in these swaths?

In your view should Jane Austen's novels and the works of the classic ballet repertoire be considered as great art?

Isn't all great art --one way or another-- "rooted in reality"?

Austen's characters weren't for the most part members of the landed aristocracy, although some of them (Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightly, e.g.) possessed substantial estates. The mating rituals of the "our hands have not been sullied by trade" gentry, perhaps. (Although it's worth pointing out that Mr. Gardiner -- Mrs. Bennet's brother and and one of the few genuinely admirable characters in the novel -- is in trade.)

Why wouldn't I consider Austen's novels, "Giselle," "Swan Lake," and "Sleeping Beauty" great art? I have very little regard for the class system Austen's novels and Petipa's ballets are rooted in, but I won't deny it's all great art -- and ("Swan Lake" aside) I take great pleasure in them.

Just because something's "rooted in reality" doesn't mean everything depicted in it is true.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

On Friday night, Reichlin, who has been doing this role for a few seasons, was breathtaking. Her command and authority in Tschai Piano Concerto was a marvel. This has been her best role of the Winter season, and I would say she now "owns" the role in the same way she owns the tall girl role in Rubies. Beautiful and fearless. It was a blissful performance.

She was pretty darn magnificent last night too.

[balanchinette]

Tess and Tyler Angle were amazing last night in TP2. This is one of my favorite ballets and it's so good to see it again after so long out of rep. I think the last time they did this Tess was a soloist still. She has gotten even better in the role, if that's possible. I love her height in this too. She really stands out, especially in the third movement where she is surrounded by a block of dancers shifting around her, right before she starts those fouettes. Gorgeous. And Tyler Angle in the beginning of the second movement with all those beautiful women flocking and swirling around him. He was just as good as Chuck Askegard used to be! I thought Devin was also wonderful in the Demi role. I was a little disappointed in Ana Sophia. She didn't have much of a jump. I remember when Tess used to really make something of that role (although she totally belongs in the main role of course!!). Can't wait to see this ballet again. It's one of those ballets that makes one cry just at the sheer beauty of it. (Bad programming with Sylphide, which does not compare favorably).

[Emma]

I agree with everything you wrote. For some reason, I just wasn't in to La Sylphide yesterday. I enjoyed Peck and Troy Schumacher (Gurn) but the rest of it was just ok. I was also disappointed in Veyette, but I've only seen two other people in the James role so I wasn't sure if I was just in a bad mood (because that was the first time I wasn't really enjoying myself at NYCB)

But then Tschai #2 started and I was happy I trekked out into the cold. It was the highlight of the month for me. So beautiful. I thought Sara Mearns was a whirlwhind of energy on stage. She danced with such passion and really threw herself into the role. Obviously since I have never seen this ballet before, I've never seen Reichlen in this part so I have nothing to compare Mearns to, but I was mesmerized by her. I almost am thinking about braving the cold and the travel again just to see it again. I'm sad they are bringing Bournonville divertissements to DC instead of this ballet.

I've spent most of my ballet going at ABT with story ballets, but I really need to spend more time at NYCB.

Happy Valentine's day!

Tschai #2 is coming to DC on the more contemporary (Justin Peck, Wheeldon, etc) bill! Anyways, in the spring I much preferred the Bournonville Divert. to La Sylphinde -- it was so sunny and full of life. I thought they should have flipped the order of the program and played Sylphide first and end on a happy note.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Tess and Tyler Angle were amazing last night in TP2. This is one of my favorite ballets and it's so good to see it again after so long out of rep. I think the last time they did this Tess was a soloist still. She has gotten even better in the role, if that's possible.

I saw Reichlen perform TP2 in January 2013, by which time she had been promoted to principal. If I recall correctly, Scheller and Angle made their TP2 debuts in that same performance.

Reichlen was terrific then, and even better last night.

[Royal Blue]

Just because something's "rooted in reality" doesn't mean everything depicted in it is true.

Despite the distinction between classes that you draw, your words "idealized depiction..." reminded me of Austen's work and that is why I brought it up. I will say no more other than that if everything depicted in it was true it wouldn't be called "fiction".

To me the phrase "is rooted in reality only to the extent that such a class existed" respecting classical ballet sounds very unequivocal. Great art deals with timeless themes and either transcends the time that produced it or it is not great, period.

[Drew]

Despite the distinction between classes that you draw, your words "idealized depiction..." reminded me of Austen's work and that is why I brought it up. I will say no more other than that if everything depicted in it was true it wouldn't be called "fiction".

To me the phrase "is rooted in reality only to the extent that such a class existed" respecting classical ballet sounds very unequivocal. Great art deals with timeless themes and either transcends the time that produced it or it is not great, period.

I had thought that distinguishing "rooted in reality" from the "true" (as Kathleen O'Connell did) was analogous to what you mean here not necessarily opposed.

I would add that most timeless truths come with a temporal index, thought that doesn't mean they operate mimetically or realistically. The truth of La Sylphide is more rooted in nineteenth-century fantasies about Scotland than in Scottish history. It 'transcends' its time, as you say, but not by shedding that nineteenth-century specificity (though I infer Hübbe's recent production for the Royal Danish Ballet partly tries to do something of the kind--I'm curious to see it, but also dubious).

For Balanchine of course, it made sense to shed some aspects of temporal indices in many works--"Raymonda Variations" not Raymonda and, within his own oeuvre, Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto no 2 replaced the more specifically situated Ballet Imperial (the first version of the former ballet and having a backdrop recalling St. Petersburg and other elements recalling the nineteenth century Imperial Ballet). But a straightforward argument could be made that that approach carries its own temporal index in 20th-century modernisms of various sorts or, in some cases, in practical exigencies facing his company.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, just noting that what is often called art's transcendence is not an easy thing to characterize outside of its historicity. Especially as it's not exactly ideas that make an artwork great. Arlene Croce once wrote that Jerome Robbins was more universal when he was entirely local and specific ("Fiddler on the Roof") than in his attempts at making universal statements.