Although the casting is not yet on the ABT site, someone with very sharp eyes has spotted it on the Sadler's Wells site - it's almost illegible but at least it's there. (Click on the names of the ballets.)

Now we can buy some tickets.

(They're actually dancing at the Coliseum but it's a joint venture with Sadler's Wells)

Thanks Jane. Don't miss the Part-Gomes-Halberg cast. London audience is in for a treat with this cast.

The RB is dancing their (much more coherent) version of the production at the same time - Ansanelli is dancing the Saturday matinee so I'm going. The alternative at Covent Garden for the Friday Part/Gomes performance is Yanowsky/Bolle, and since I can see Part in NYC, I'll go to the RB as well instead, but may try for the Sat night or Sunday performances.

Why does every company bring Swan Lake to London. Coals to Newcastle? Or some kind of Rite of Passage, along the lines of: "If you can make it there you'll make it ANYwhere.")?

Without a mega-star name or a famous name company, I think it is simply that it is easier to sell Swan Lake rather than any other ballet.

This seems an odd response considering the topic here is ABT in London. I know you were responding to a question not directly about ABT, but the implication is that they are not a famous name company, which, if not perhaps in the top 5, still seems inaccurate.

Famous name or not, they don't seem to be selling like hot cakes at the moment. (You get a slightly false impression by looking at the Coliseum booking plan as some of the seats marked as unavailable are those allocated to Sadler's Wells, who are jointly arranging the visit, for separate sale.) I'm afraid they may suffer from the memory of the NYCB visit to the same theatre last year, when those who paid upfront for the extremely expensive seats found they could have got in very easily on the night at greatly reduced prices. Also I don't think the general public knows many - if any - of the ABT dancers, and of course they may already have booked months ago to see the RB's Swan Lake in the same week. And then there's the economy.... But maybe some clever publicity will liven the box office up a bit in the next few weeks.

I'd go for Part in Swan Lake and either the Murphy or Dovorovenko cast in Corsaire.

It's frustrating to jump on tickets early for fear they'll sellout but then watch as others get deals.

How do you measure famous? How do you measure status? To me personally as a seasoned ballet go-er in London and a good number of other countries I would say that ABT is not famous (by which I mean audience appreciation) but was once on an international basis much admired in the period of the 1940's to the early 1970's. The ABT on their last visit to London at the Sadlers Wells Theatre (a smaller venue than the Coliseum)they were not generally well appreciated by audiences or critics due in part to repertoire but more so the quality of the performances especially by the corps in 'Bayadere'. At the Royal Opera House ABT have not sold on their last several visits. The Coliseum does not have the same cache as the Royal Opera House so is not a theatre of choice for the fairly casual ballet goers who are necessary to fill seats. However 'Swan Lake', due I believe to the general popularity of the Tchaikovsky music, almost always sells well no matter which company in London performs the balletand of course everybody has heard of it so it must be good. I spoke to two of my oldest ballet friends and we all agreed that the ABT was a company with more style and real theatricality when Lucia Chase was in place.

I don't mean to offend American balletomanes who are loyal to their American companies, but I also agree with Leonid.

I think American companies will have a hard time if they want to gain the same level of attention and status as the European countries in Europe or world-wide (outside of America). When you have state-subsidized institutions with grandeur opera houses and classically oriented/traditional ballet schools that have a history of producing and creating some of the best repertoire in the history of ballet (RB, POB, notably), then newer companies like ABT will have to prove that they can do it somewhat better or differently (by "differently," I mean "differently," in the NYCB sense, even though NYCB wasn't as successful in London last time) if they bring very conservative works, as they are doing this time. If not, the companies must show-case super-stars who can create a sell-out situation and overcome that deficiency.

I don't mean to start a discussion here, but I personally know many Europeans who will dispute ABT being in the "TOP 5" category. I know quite a few international balletomanes who would immediately place non-RB/POB companies like Stuttgart, Hamburg, ahead of ABT, in terms of overall quality of dancers.

I think the Makarova, Misha, Nureyev era was certainly a peak moment in ABT's company history and is representative of my point here. With today's level of classical quality at ABT, along with productions that lack finesse/good sense of style like McKenzie's SL, it may be a bit more difficult for ABT to achieve the same kind of success as they did in the 1970s.

ABT is unquestionably 'famous' in the U.S., which means it's famous, even in the 'top 5.' 'Famous' doesn't necessarily refer to 'high quality' (even though ABT is reputed to occasionally achieve this, like last season I think there was some Marakova polishing going on here), but ABT does have mega-stars, that's what it's all about. That's mainly what it has, and it's got Gomes, Hallberg, Part, any number of others and all the big guest stars. You could say 'ABT is not famous in England', but it's then also true that ABT is far more famous in the U.S. than is RB. Has nothing to do with quality of perfomance, I'd rather see RB any day and in almost anything (except maybe Corella in R PLUS J) Come on, Leonid, didn't you see Clive James's PBS special 'Fame'? That's where you find out what FAME is I think it even had music by Carl Davis, at least the theme had that 90s 'English-glamour sound' that used to be in some of the Masterpiece Theaters and Ken Russell's 'The Rainbow' to express English-pastoral the way D. H. Lawrence is said to have thought of it..(I'm not knocking this--I thoroughly love the sound, no matter how hackneyed...) But he spends most of his time on 20th century fame as an American phenomenon. Anyway, if ABT is not famous, and yet is one of the two most famous American companies, then we have no famous American company except NYCB, and they're not the ones getting Ratmansky. I definitely understand why ABT wouldn't sell at the Royal Opera House, and I won't spend any money on their Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty no matter where they do it, but that isn't what famous is. Look at all the BT people who have to settle for ABT at the Met every summer and dreadful City Center, while complaining about some of the awful productions.

I'd pay for RB or POB long before ABT, but I don't think that means they're more famous. As to 'status', that's not exactly the same thing, and that may be what you are more accurate about, as their status has sunk rather inexorably, while they still sell tons of tickets in the U.S., and for all the old pieces, not just Swan Lake. Your judgment of their 'status' among intelligent ballet-goers I trust entirely, as you've seen as many of the greatest performers as anybody I know of. And almost anybody would rather see RB's Sleeping Beauty than ABT's.

Doesn't have a thing to do with loyalty for some of us, I have very little interest in ABT, given the choice of other companies in all areas of dance.



Definitely not in the 'TOP 5' in terms of quality--and I don't think the expert American balletomanes on this board would usually say there were either, and they go to all of their performances and nearly everybody else's as well. But they are, for whatever reason, big in New York and big in the U.S. in general, and that kind of fame is as important in terms of fame as anything European. This has nothing to do with national loyalty. For example, you could say Hamburg is a greater ballet company, but it doesn't mean much to say they are more famous than ABT--of course they are not. Frankly, if ABT isn't famous, then NYCB isn't either, and in New York, you get almost as many complaints about Martins's company--if not more--than you do about ABT. They're neither one as good as they used to be. But they are both famous, or neither is. RB doesn't come to New York and neither does POB, even if they used to. So people have to travel to D.C. for RB, and I guess Australia for POB, I don't remember the scant POB touring schedule.

Thanks for that clarification on fame vs. status. And TOP 5 is too painful a discussion w/ too many variables, so I will not go into it :unsure:

I wonder why ABT hasn't been able to produce their "own" MEGA-STARS. You have dancers like Ferri, Ananiashvili, Vishneva, all BIG international superstars who join after their careers are already blooming, but no REAL stars who get produced from the bottom-up. I'm not sure that it has anything to do with the fact that they don't have their own schools (though I believe it was recently instituted) b/c it's not like dancers like Cojocaru or Nunez had a complete RBS upbringing. Interesting....

And my other point, perhaps it's been echoed here before is, WHY is McKenzie bringing his SL to a mega-culturally competitive city like London, when he has so many other repertoire choices to pick from??? I'm sure seasoned London balletomanes would much prefer to see works by Tudor, whom they did a celebration for this past season at City Center.

All very true, ruteyo, but isn't that just the way ABT now works? And in the 'peak' you cited, with Misha, Makarova, and Nureyev, they were already doing that. ABT is a big importer, and the imports like to work there, for several obvious reasons. Lots at BT has been said about ABT's having no school, I'm sure that's very vital in terms of ABT's always glittering roster of imports, with little homegrown. Could explain why they do sometimes seem so superficial.

Oh my goodness, such good sense as that surely never crossed his mind, I daresay Believe me, 'seasoned London balletomanes' aren't the only ones who'd much prefer something else.

I think NYCB is a famous company for its tie with Balanchine. As Balanchine becomes more important and sought after, NYCB becomes more famous, as the audience for any other company that performs his work, with rare exceptions, is interested in seeing how their company's performances stack up against Balanchine's company's.

Of course, bringing Balanchine to NYC and getting the approval of NY critics is often a pre-requisite for believing in one's home company.

I don't see how this can really be true, because it seems to say that Martins's company, with Balanchine's now-greater fame even than when he was alive, is in fact, more famous than NYCB was when Balanchine was alive and at the helm and running things. But also, since there is so much good Balanchine at MCB and PNB and elsewhere, I don't see NYCB as getting more famous than it was in its glory days, except in a superficial way. In any case, here in New York, NYCB and and ABT are both hugely famous, whatever else they are not. And even if NYCB is at least as famous now as it was under Balanchine, it isn't filling up the auditorium the way it once was. Maybe you mean famous within the dance world itself, but in that case, NYCB has always been hugely famous, as has ABT. NYCB has not only been undercut by the other good Balanchine companies, but it has a small percentage of the magic it had in the 70s and 80s and before. Of course, that in itself wouldn't make it less famous, but it's definitely different now that it's Martins's company, as has been discussed both ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

A wild guess: 1) McKenzie is proud of his version, and wants to make a case for it wherever he can. 2) He's banking on seasoned London balletomanes being curious to see it for themselves, despite what they've read, and more casual balletgoers, who haven't read the critical drubbings, not wanting to miss their chance to see ABT dance a classic.

"Swan Lake" I understand, I'm not sure what would make Londoners want to see ABT. Perhaps casual balletgoers still associate ABT with Baryshnikov and Makarova, and that would account for it, but I don't see ABT having an internationally known, compelling roster at the moment. Royal Ballet, sure -- Cojocaru, Rojo, for example -- but ABT? As fine as the male roster is, I don't think it's the men who sell ballet, unless there's a superstar like Baryshnikov, and the men rarely sell "Swan Lake".

I'm in Seattle, so I would see the Podunk Ballet if it toured to my city, assuming it wasn't the Podunk Contemporary Ballet , but Londoners are spoiled, at least recently, by all of the touring Russian companies, as well as the Eurostar to Paris.

I might be a chump but I'm traveling from NY to DC to see Part in SL--and I'm not the only one on the board who is doing so...

You can't have superstars without a cooperative press. The press is excited by the "exotics", especially when their presence has international political implications. I watched David Hallberg and Herman Cornejo, surely two of today's greatest male dancers, progress from the junior company, through the corps to their present status. IMO, Cornejo is the single greatest male dancer I've ever seen, and that includes the likes of superstars Nureyev, Baryshnikov, Dowell, etc. Why he isn't generally placed in their category is a mystery to me.

On the other hand, no one has had much to say about ABT's knack for producing interesting, home-grown ballerinas.

Well, there's a good question. When visiting companies come to New York, audiences are attracted to seeing them in the works that show their unique heritage. You'd think it would be pretty much the same elsewhere. ABT doesn't seem interested, in this tour anyway, in looking back beyond the McKenzie era.

Thanks Dale they are the casts I shall want to see.

The best seats range from £60.00 to £80.00 to £95.00 full price. In the past I might not have worried so much about the cost. But with the recession undoubtedly deepening across the world and the effect it is going to have on the cost of day to day living, like others I shall wait for the deals.

Thanks, leonid and Jane, for your insights into the London market. It certainly shows how complicated this matter is. And thaks, ruteyo, for your comments on bringing Swan Lake to London. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when ABT made its decisions about this tour, which I assume was planned long before the current financial slide. Hope all goes well.


Jane, you put your finger on what seems to becoming a big problem for performing marketers everywhere. Discounting can and does have a harmful effect on full-price sales and advance purchasing, even though it may be necessary to fill the theaters. When -- for whatever reason -- a company or production is not "hot," purchasers may tend to hold off and .... possibly .... eventually forget about it. I admit this has happened to me more than once in recent years.

Interesting topic, and thanks to everyone for their insightful comments

Papeetepatrick, when you talk about the differences between NYCB under Martins and Balanchine, could you elaborate on the issue of whether the seasoned NYCB balletgoers think the overally quality of dancing at the principal level has waned during Martin's era? I ask this because I think NYCB has recently produced some excellent Balanchine dancers who have also been able to tackle the non-Balanchine repertoire just as well as any of the top dancers in the more "classical" companies today, which makes me think that they are pretty "complete" dancers overall.

Ashley Bouder is one, and obviously, it is no surprise that she is getting her Kitri debut at the Kirov. Ansanelli has impressed me in works like Ondine. I would be very interested to see her in more dramatic roles like Juliet and Giselle, which I am sure she'll get a shot at very soon. Of course, I heard Gelsey Kirkland was a legend, even when she danced with Dowell at the RB in the mid 80s, though I guess one could argue she was partially an ABT product. (Do people view her as more of a NYCB or ABT type dancer or just both, in retrospect?) Though non-NYCB, Sarah Lamb, gets very strong reviews here. Perhaps it is not so much a question of the dancer's nationality, but which companies they choose to remain in (which turns to the issue of the quality of training and nurturing dancers by the ABT/company staff), as these NYCB grown American principal dancers seem to have a better knack for tackling classical and the non-Balanchine repertoire. This is even more interesting because I hear that the SAB training is predominantly focused on "Balanchine technique." I wonder who Ashley Bouder gets coaching from in NYC, when it comes to learning classical works?

Sorry if this has been a bit off-topic, this should really about "ABT in London"

Carbro, thanks for that point on Cornejo and Hallberg. I have only see both of these wonderful dancers live a few times, but yes you are right, I did forget to mention that these are 2 excellent homegrown artists, who perhaps should be getting as much press attention as some of the other "exotic" imports you've mentioned. At any rate, I am sure these homegrown talents will certainly garner lots of wonderful reviews this spring.

Re: ABT's lack of home-grown stars. Having just seen a performance of their ABT II company, I noticed that most of the dancers were now trained at (or finished at) the relatively new company school. Perhaps they now have a mechanism for training future stars, and not just corps members?

Ruteyo, don't worry about the If this quite interesting diversion develops, I'll start a new thread to accomodate it, so that the ABT London visit can be the focus here.

Yes, that's not mainly what I was talking about, and what I was talking about is a bit unfair, because the Balanchine Era as such is over, in that he is no longer there to make works on chosen dancers. I've seen a fair amount of Ashley Bouder and Maria and Nikolaj (while he was there); sure, there was lots of great work to see. What I'm talking about with the 'magic gone' is normal, things die; Petipa is long-gone too, and there's no way that the beginnings of these opening works don't have a special innocence and exceptionalism to them that can never be recpatured; and there's nobody around to tell us about those first perfs. For example, not announcing casts so that the NYCB seemed to have no 'star system' actually had a mystique back in the days of Villella, Farrell, McBride, Hayden, P. Martins, Verdy, etc., by now it really doesn't have any substance--which doesn't mean I haven't adored performances by Ms. Bouder. And Macaulaywrote about how Von Aroldingen danced with much personality but would probably not be chosen today as a result of higher technical standards (I'm not sure I understand this, and I can't find the exact quote.) It's the company as a whole is a continuation of the old company--so it cannot have the power of exclusivity it had when Balanchine was alive, and yet since it's mostly about Balanchine anyway and not Martins, nobody wants a 'pure Martins company', for heaven's sake (there's quite enough of it even without any more.) This is something people are very opinionated about, so cannot be answered exhaustively here even if I had the chops to do it. Gelsey not an 'inner circle' NYCB dancer, but she was dancing there in the Golden Age as well, but the others I named are more a part of the time that those of us who saw it extensively are doubtless always going to prefer to what we see now at NYCB. But if you mean purely technical standards of the principals, obviously these are kept high, but carbro and nysusan and faux pas and other regular NYCB-watchers can be more specific about this. My only point is that, as Helene says, yes 'this is the Balanchine house', but it is more accurately only 'originally the Balanchine house', it is now the Martins house whether or not anyone likes it, and it's not going to ever be a 'pure Balanchine house' again. While it's true that NYCB still has enough from the past to make if more 'famous' than PNB and MCB, this doesn't mean that a lot of what people are reporting, both at BT and Macaulay I believe was talking some months back about Villella's work at MCB, and then more talk about PNB's Jewels recently--these developments are valuable and should be celebrated; but they do mean that NYCB under Martins has no monopoly on 'excellence in 'Jewels', and the Kirov production of it last April at dread City Center I preferred to what I saw at NYCB in 2004, even with some terrible sets (these are best at POB). And recordings of Jewels, like the POB, very good except for Diamonds, Ms. Letestu may do it better now, I don't know. So all this spreading out of Balanchine all over the coutnry and the world inevitable means NYCB cannot be the kind of magnet it was when all eyes were on it. They're not anymore.

Things like that. There's just no mystery at NYCB anymore, even though there are great talents. It's not some thing you go to as to a rarefied pilgrimage into an inner sanctum, it's rather prosaic while also being excellent.

Don't know if I agree with Helene that the men don't drive ballet in some cases. I'd go to ABT just to see the men, because they are more interesting than in NYCB, they are big stars, whether Cornejo, Hallberg, Corella, or Gomes. I was interested in Carbro's assessment of Cornejo, but have only seen him on tape, because I hadn't heard of any contemporary dancer being thought to be the 'greatest male dancer they'd ever seen'. I think it's all right that ABT is mainly great male mega-stars, not everybody goes primarily for the women, except in some ballets. I also wouldn't care, for example, that Corella is not 'home-grown', nor Gomes either. It's the productions I have a harder time with, that Mackenzie Swan Lake on TV was enough for me forever. But I might go see an ABT R & J or a couple of other things, just not SL or SB--too tacky.

Sketchy and a mess, but I don't have time to polish it. Probably full of inaccuracies, hope the gist of your question comes across.

Hello all! I 'm not going to comment here on the merits of the current NYCB vs the Balanchine era NYCB – that's a very polarizing topic, and a very complex one. I will say that I think ABT is a well known company with an international reputation, and I think Mr. McKenzie believes in his Swan Lake, and the power of any SL to sell tickets.

I don't think his SL is awful, I just don't think it's great. I find the costumes & scenery beautiful, and I don't object to his most obvious change which is turning Von Rothbart into a split role. I don't think the ballet needs this change, but I think it's an interesting idea that kind of fits in with all of the philosophical dualities of the ballet. It becomes a really interesting idea when von R is danced by Gomes or Hallberg. For me, the major problem with this staging is that McKenzie is obsessed with "streamlining " Petipa, he's shortened everything but the 4th act has taken the worst beating and I find it robs the story of much of it's pathos.

I agree that Part/Gomes/Hallberg is the only SL cast to see UNLESS you require technical fireworks from your Odile – Part is not a virtuosa. You can expect 32 singles and not much more - her Odile will dazzle you with her personality, but not with her fouettees. If you want technical fireworks then you may prefer to see Murphy with Corella or Carreno. However the Part/Gomes/Hallberg cast is very strong – all 3 are wonderful and as good as Part & Gomes are on their own, they have a chemistry together that makes their partnership something very, very special. BTW, I am heading to DC to catch this cast in SL since ABT seems detemined not to let Part & Gomes dance it together in NY anymore...

I also feel that ABT's men are much, much stronger than their women (with the exception of their guest ballerinas who are not scheduled to appear in London). For that reason I would choose Corsaire casting based on the male roles. Typically they list the casting in this order: Conrad, Lankadem, Ali, Birbanto. Corella is my favorite Ali but you really can't go wrong with Stiefel, Cornejo or Carreno in the role either.

Your description of Part as Odile is exactly how an academic classical ballet dancer should perform Odile.
Unfortunately the vulgarity of multiple turns in many academic classical ballets in my opinion appeals only to those that go to ballet for entertainment.
Whilst classical ballet as an art can entertain it is not entertainment,
In a Gala or concert performance when a pas de deux is out of context and the evening is meant to be one of entertainment, of course it is great fun when you see someone start with a multiple pirouettes and end with them but whilst they can be on the music, they are also above the music and therefore have no place in being called an academic classical ballet performance.
I well remember the multiple pirouettes and fouettes of Lupe Serrano with ABT an outstanding dancer but perhaps not a natural Odette/Odile but she for me at least, never offended my appreciation of the performance whilst many modern dancers do so. It is a myth that dancers are stronger today. There have always been exceptional virtuosi but they were cast in the roles that they were classified to perform. As Prima Ballerina Assoluta of the Imperial Ballet in St. Petersburg and her otherwise status, she was allowed to spew pirouettes all over the place and it helped to distract the audience from her other shortcomings. They were her trick and not Petipa's or Legat's who were the balletmasters of the company.
For me it would take a very great interpreter of a role to make the sort of 'fireworks' some people enjoy acceptable.

I have many fond memories of Veronika Part with the Kirov and I am really looking forward to seeing her in Swan Lake.

I am very surprised to read some posts here questioning abt as one of the top-5 companies in the world.
I am just going to throw some questions here that I think may clarify my point.

where do A Ferri, Nina A, J. Kent, J Bocca, JM Carreno and others have been dancing for the last 20 yrs ?
where is Ms Vishneva, one of the biggest stars nowadays, performing every year (other than the Kirov, of course) ?
where is Ratsmansky going to work for the coming 5 years ?
where will the future star N.Osipova will be performing in the coming years ?
Not to mention current-starts like : S. Zakharova, the above mentioned Cojocaru, and the beloved Acosta who have performed as guest stars at abt too (Acosta was a principal for a few years)

Honestly, I dont think any of the mega-ballet stars mentioned in this list had been be willing to perform in a company which is not internationally recognized as one of the best companies in the world. I am not saying is the best or anything, but just to question that is not in the top-5 its to me quite unfare.
All those names are at the very top in the list of best dancers in the last decade.

Is abt famous in Europe now ? I dont think so, which is not surprising if you think that they hadnt toured in London/Paris for the last 10 yrs (until last year when they toured in both cities). Is RB famous in the US ? they are known but I dont think they are famous as its not POB. Does that means that RB or POB are not good ? of course not, we all know that these 2 troops are also in the top-5 list. Its all about marketing, I think.

If you look at the cast that ABT offers during the sping seasson, you will see that you can get at least 1 world-class couple performing for every single ballet, if not 2 or 3. ABT its been a mega-star company more than probably any other company. They actually have been all about mega-stars more than anything else and is always been like that.

Currently, I think they are going into a transition stage, especially with the female dancers.
If you look at their male roster: Gomes, Cornejo, Corella, Carreno, Hallberg, Sitefel and now Bolle (for the Spring), is easy to realize that very few companies can match this list.

On the female side, they are not as strong as they have been, and I think thats Mckenzie's fault.
Ferri retired couple of yrs ago, Nina A is leaving this year and Kent will retire soon as well.
However, there are dancers like Murphy and Part who are very very talented (very different from each other) and I am sure that with a good marketing behind them could reach certain level of stardom.

To keep the female-star-list during its spring seasson, Mckenzie has brought Vishneva and now Osipova. The problem is that when they go on tour none of the famous female dancers travels, and this is something that I particularly dislike.


In my opinion it is very difficult to find a mega-star female dancer who can be the best in everything, although some of them have come pretty close. I rather like to analyze different ballets and think who do I enjoy more dancing in them.

For example, recently, I have had the oportunity to see Swan Lake by RB (Rojo, Nunes), Kirov (Lopatkina, Vishneva), Bolshoi (Zakharova) and ABT (almost all the females), to mention some of the ones discussed in this forum.
Def, Mckenzie's production is not the best (is probably the one that I like less) however, I havent been amazed with the RB ballet production either or the performances of Rojo/Nunes, as I have been with the russian productions and some of their female dancers (Unf I cant have an opinion about POB, which i am sure must be superb).

Although I think all the performances that I just mentioned were real good and it would be unfare to dismiss any of them, in my opinion, Part is the best of all the Odettes I have seen so far. After her, I would pick Lopatkina, Ananiashvili and Zakharova. As for Odile, Murphy is probably the one that I enjoy the most.

If I have to pick up just one, I stay with Part whose beauty and delicacy is to me unparallel (by the way, I am also making the trip to DC to see the Part/Gomes performance). Part is a kind of ballerina that we rarely see anymore.
Her Bayadere also is just out of this world.

I hope abt can have a good tour in London and audiences in europe can get to know their dancers better, I am sure they will apreciatte it a lot.

this may not be the right thread for this question, but I read that you saw ABT II on their recent visit to south Florida... would you be able to post your thoughts on these young dancers and the program they danced? I'm sorry I missed it. tia.

Thank you, Classic Ballet, for your full-throated defense of ABT!

My own feeling about ABT is that Lucia Chase hardwired its DNA over 40 years ago when she turned ABT into a showcase for stars. The ballet intelligentsia in New York may not want that but the mass audience does. Baryshnikov tried to change all that with his City Ballet/Kirov/downtown dance fusionary experiment in the 80s -- to no avail. (A good thing he failed, in my opinion.) As the late critic Anita Finkel pointed out, the ABT audience wanted "grand personalities" and "false eyelashes" and "stylized histrionics" and "fandom". Good luck to the ABT school and Mr. Ratmansky in the future but I think they may find that they will be no more successful than some of their predecessors in changing the DNA.

She did, indeed, but it was still a different and more interesting (IMO) company that boasted (if a bit defensively most of the time) about its "eclecticism." I don't think too many people think of ABT's rep as eclectic these days, even though its most recent and excellent City Center season argued that it can be.

Well, carbro, I won't disagree with you that ABT's repertory outside of City City (where it practically becomes a different company) is conservative to the point of reaction. Part of the problem may be that the present regime is still reacting (or overreacting) to the eclectic -- and polarizing rep -- of the Baryshnikov regime. It appealed to the intelligentsia but it was off-putting to that larg(ish) faction within the ABT audience which loved the Golden Age in the 70s with its stars/guest stars/full houses/shredded programs galore. Maybe the current leadership thinks things became too schismatic by the end of the 80s and are trying to hold the "warhorse"-loving audience together. Or maybe ABT is just stuck performing in a too big house (the Met) which precludes much in the way of innovation. Hard to say, really.

mira, I didn't mention individual dancers, partly because I don't feel qualified to comment publicly about very young dancers at this stage of their careers. I had my favorites, of course, and there are a couple whose careers I definitely will be following over the next few years. But all -- individually, and especially in ensemble -- were impressive.

The large audience -- a combination of older dance fans, many of them obviously experienced, and a nice sized group of young dancers from local training programs (Harid, Boca Ballet, FAU) -- was enthusiastic.

Here is the link to my posts:
http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=28894

Ferri performed with La Scala Ballet for many years as well, and it is not one of the best companies in the world unless the number of "best" is quite large. Nureyev did a lot of guesting with companies that would have been considered, if not second-, third-, and fourth-rate, second-, third-, and fourth-tier, at least in their times. Dancers have many considerations when dancing with a company; reputation is only one: funding, salary, schedule, rep, location, theatre, company atmosphere are others.

Vishneva and Ananiashvili were, in many ways, unofficial guest stars with ABT. Ferri and Bocca are no longer on the roster. Kent had been out on maternity leave, and Carreno is dancing less and less. What names on the roster in London should Londoners recognize to draw them to performances? Ananiashvili has one performance of "Swan Lake" in DC, Careno one Albrecht. In London, Carreno has a "Swan Lake" and a "Corsaire". Corella has a "Swan Lake".

Murphy, Reyes, Wiles, Herrera, Hallberg, Gomes, Stiefel, et. al. may be wonderful dancers, but international stars? I'm not so sure about that or their ability to draw crowds on their own, at least advance crowds. Word-of-mouth could drive some more sales after the fact.

It wouldn't matter if every US balletgoer knew the name of Vishneva or Lopatkina; if the Mariinsky tours without them, what is there to draw in the casual balletgoer?

Isn't Gomes, at least, an 'international star' by today's standards? If not, then who is and how does one determine it? By how much they guest with other big companies? I don't think the term means what it used to, because there aren't any international ballet names like Fonteyn, Nureyev and Baryshnikov. I'd seen NYCB for years, but until I came to BT, I never heard of Lopatkina or Vishneva, so I think they're only known if you're involved in a non-casual way as well. But I don't know either.

I would define an international star as a dancer who has name recognition as a dancer of major roles, usually someone whose performances would be a draw by themselves, without the draw of the company with which they were dancing.

Would average London balletgoers know Gomes the way New York balletgoers know Cojacaru or Acosta, or the way we knew Hilaire, Guillem, and Legris after the mid-80's tour, or Bolle, who seems to be everywhere, or Lopatkina and Vishneva? Or for past generations, Fonteyn and Soames, then Fonteyn and Nureyev, Natalia Makarova and Baryshnikov, Galina Ulanova, Maya Plisetskaya, and Vladimir Vassiliev?

I would argue Hallberg is as well--He has done extensive touring in Japan, Russia etc, and I would imagine he wasn't asked to perform at the Maryiinsky festival due to lack of celebrity! I believe Murphy performed there last year in Swan Lake as well. As for Stiefel--I guess it depends who you are asking. While his recent career has certainly been marked by injury, didn't he do that "4 Kings of Dance" thing or whatever it was called? And then there was that movie...which probably makes him a bigger star than any of the others according to some standards...

As far as the ABT season in London is concerned, and given the
recession, it was not good planning for ABT to perform Swan Lake whilst the Royal Ballet is also performing this ballet at the same time just three minutes up the road at the Royal Opera House.

Of the ABT dancers appearing in London, Ethan Stiefel is the most well known and who was widely appreciated by the audience and critics when he was a guest star with the Royal Ballet. He has successfully appeared with a number of famous and well-known ballet companies.
Veronika Part became a favourite in London with her Queen of the Dryads and Lilac Fairy.
In the past it seems ballet companies were more enthusiastic about engaging in the promotion of star performers who in turn, acquired celebrity status and super-stardom which generally benefitted the company’s status. However as famous as Baryshnikov was, he never matched internationally the fame of Nureyev nor Fracci that of Fonteyn. Nijinsky almost singlehandedly like Vestris retain god like fame.
As to how you measure an international star lets take a look at astronomy and stellar magnitude. One way of measuring the brightness of a particular star is the measure of ‘apparent magnitude’ which uses an evaluative scale as if seen by an observer on earth with the absence of atmosphere. Stay with me on this. In this measurement system the Sun’s applied magnitude is -26.73.Mercury is -1.9 and Pluto is 13.65.

Should we on balletalk institute a similar measurement scale for ‘international ballet‘stars so that we are all singing from the same songsheet when we are talking about particular dancers. If there is someone out there who is of a scientific bent who can devise an evaluation method that will suit those who are seriously interested in the art of ballet and send fans into a rage because their favourite ends up at the bottom of the scale, please do not send me personal messages or emails with your system just post in the normal way.

PS

I hope to write about the ABT visit but I will not attend every cast of Swan Lake and Le Corsair.

I don't think such things as 'exacting fame measurements' could have anything to do with the 'serious interest in the art of ballet', nor that most care enough to go into rages about their personal favourites unless they're professional groupies (and those do exist here as elsewhere, I guess.). It's interesting, though, to see how people evaluate these phenomena from different cultures--as, for example, it is obvious to me that Fracci not as 'famous internationally' as Fonteyn, but I wouldn't have thought you could make a difference between "Huge Fames" like Nureyev and Baryshnikov. If so, that's fine with me, I always preferred Nureyev even though I thought Baryshnikov became 'more famous' at one point.

Especially since I prefer Sizova to any of them, and had to find out who she was at Ballet Talk, since she's not nearly as 'famous' as all these others just because of being the best.... Oh, I would just DIE if Ethan Stiefel got too high at the top of the fame magnitude list, since his dancing never excited me. And what if Chinese started comparing NYCB star fame (where there isn't supposed to be any stardom, although fame is all right) with ABT fame. Primitive ethnic assumptions on my own vile part make me think they'd see ABT fame as 'REAL FAME', since they love all the big B'way show tours, with giant sets.

I definitely recommend seeing Marcelo Gomes in anything. I think he's the best male dancer the ABT has. I hope he makes a successful debut at the Mariinsky Festival and gets the international fame he so deserves.

I will be seeing Mr. Gomes in both Swan Lake and Le Corsair.

I have the impression - mostly from reading this board over the years - that Baryshnikov was much 'bigger' in the USA than in Europe - well, in England anyway. Although he was known here outside the dance world, he wasn't automatic front page news like Nureyev was.

Of course Baryshnikov was also a very successful film actor as well as being a dancer and that brought him to the attention of people with no interest in ballet. I would sum up though that Baryshnikov was just famous whereas Nureyev became legendary.

A very good comparison.

Not just legendary after death, but so clebrated internationally, that he became a legend in his lifetime which is of course that much more than being famous in a lifetime which in my opinion Barishnikov was.

Jane also gets it completely right whe she states, I have over recent years acquired press cuttings from different countries and his publicity at that time was greater in some countries, than famous film stars.

I remember being a poor college student in London in the summer of 1977 when ABT did a tour. I really wanted to see Baryshnikov, but the only tickets for performances in which he was cast were way beyond my budget; I saw three opera and recital performances for the same cost.

That was only a few years after he defected, and he may have been the latest flavor, but from that, I thought he was the draw of the tour.

I'm looking forward to the ABT visit to London in April. It is a shame that Swan Lake makes up the majority of their shows, but traditionally this ballet is usually a sure-fire hit in terms of box office sales no matter what company presents it so the programming does make sense though I'd rather see Le Corsaire. Most companies relaunching their London presence always seem to opt for SL as its so safe (I have a recollection Helgi Tommason brought it with his San Francisco company) as it is often a useful way for London audiences to compare various company styles & strengths (or weaknesses).

I saw ABT on their last London visit to the Sadlers Wells when they presented a selection of triple bills & the standard of dancing was erratic to say the least, some very ropey dancing from corps & principals, but some beautiful dancing & obvious talent at all levels, but not much of a 'company ' atmosphere. Here's hoping the Spring season will erase these memories with something better as well as a chance to get a look at some of the star dancers. I'd hesitate to put them in the top 5 of the world's best companies as you'd have to take into consideration the quality of the whole company & not just the top international stars who are probably there as I would imagine the pay cheques are probably good.

Part of the issue with the conservative programming in London as a whole lies with the promotors who insist on box-office gold (Swan Lake) instead of ballets that showcase a companies depth. The Hochhausers bring endless Bolshoi & Kirov SLs etc for example as its the cash cow rather than any of the other gems in the treasure chest & sadly the majority of London ballet audiences just lap it up. NYCB fared badly at the box office last year not only because of high ticket prices, but because no-one knew who the company was or if they were any good, some of my ballet loving friends had no idea who NYCB was despite seeing 40-50 dance shows a year in the capital.

I agree with Rebecca D regarding the ABT's last visit to Sadlers Wells, the standard of the dancing was very erratic ranging from excellent to quite poor.



This is painfully true, though I would say the London audience is made up of both committed ballet goers and casual ballet goers and the former group gives a collective groan when faced with yet more Swan Lakes. The Kirov didn't come to London last year, visiting other UK cities instead; so I'm hoping they will bring the new Ratmansky Humpbacked Horse and The Awakening of Flora this year. If they don't, and it is yet another round of SL's, I for one will be giving them a miss.



Heavens above! You'll be telling us they don't know who Balanchine was next!

The up to date casting for London is on the ABT website @ http://www.abt.org/performances/calendar_index1.asp

What I said in earlier posts about presenting "Swan Lake" to sell seats appears to hold true, as the veteran presenters of Russian ballet in London Victor and Lillian Hochhauser, have the Kirov bringing this same ballet to London in August this year, despite the fact that numerous performances will have been given in this city over the current ballet season.