A while ago papeteepatrick posted a tribute to Patricia McBride's performance dancing in Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux with Mikhail Baryshnikov. (*) McBride entered the New York City Ballet in 1959 and continued dancing, one the most celebrated and beloved of American ballerinas, into the 1980s. (I just learned that she played the Princess in Firebird in 1959, which means I must have seen here even then.)

McBride is often remembered as the fast, cheerful, lighthearted, witty face of Balanchine: her Swanhilda and her role in Rubies being the most celebrated examples for many. They're among the 3 or 4 roles she "owned" at NYCB. But her range was greater than that.

I'll never forget her in Dances at a Gathering and In the Night. (I was thrilled to read that Robbins actually was inspired to begin imagining Dances by observing McBride and Villella working together, intimately and with great concentration, in a studio.)

Others must have memories of their own about this marvelous dancer. Unfortunately, there isn't much on dvd to record her performances. So your memories become even more important. Please share them HERE.

To begin, here are a few photos of McBride in her signature NYCB roles:
http://www.ballerinagallery.com/mcbride.htm

And here's a recent photo. Looking pretty good!
http://thewinger.com/words/wp-content/imag...0813_064838.JPG

________________________________________________________
(*) From Choreography by Balanchine, New York City Ballet, Dance in America, 1977 (Nonesuch dvd). McBride and Baryshnikov also dance Steadfast Tin Soldier on this disk.

WOW! does she ever! GORGEOUS! One of the great smiles in history! Thanks for starting this, bart.

Yes, I am totally devoted to this dancer, she is my all-time favourite. I like her even better than the men.

Will say more, and hopefully less giddy, later. I meantime, have to get over that ANYONE could age that well.

When I lived in NYC in the 70's, I went to NYCB as often as possible. She was always my favorite female dancer. When I wss in Hartford Ballet, we got some of NYCB's unused pointe shoes and I was very disappointed that her shoes were too big for me!!

I've just reserved Arlene Croce's 'Alterimages', which I've been told has some important remarks about McBride's dancing as far back as 1971 (and perhaps even earlier.) Also, I remember myself an old review of 'Liebeslieder Walzer', which I am fairly sure is in 'Writing in the Dark', which I am also retrieving. She was talking about it at the same period I saw it when Farrell, McBride, Cook, Soto and others were dancing it. I had also seen it right after its premiere in the early 70s, and again in 2006 with Kistler, Nichols, Hubbe, and Nilas Martins, among others, but the 1985 performance was by far the most memorable.

If anyone else remembers some of these old Croce quotes before I get the books. please go ahead and share them here!

I don't think I can quote Croce from memory on McBride, but I think the gist was that she had an amazing technique -- I saw her when she was near the end of her career, and she still had an amazing technique: speed! speed! speed! I think it's in "Repertory in Review" where Nancy Reynolds points out that McBride was extraordinary in "La Valse," creating a completely different character than Tanaquil Le Clercq -- I'm writing this from memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong -- and I remember thinking how gutsy that was for a young dancer to do, and how right.

There was a sweetness about her dancing, too, and there was always more there than the steps. The last season I saw her dance with the company, just a year or two after Balanchine's death, I remember thinking that she looked like a guest artist in her own company. She was dancing in what they'd call now Balanchine Style -- wild arms, and a sweet joy. Everyone else was dancing correctly.

The first time I saw her was after she came back from maternity leave; she would have been in her late 30's at the time. Although I think her child was adopted, and that she wasn't returning after childbirth, her speed astonished me, and she left some of the younger dancers, who were barely alive when she was made principal dancer, in the dust.

Lincoln Kirstein credited her with saving the company. Joseph Mazo, in "Dance as a Contact Sport", described her extraordinary energy and stamina, letting out a little whoosh of breath backstage after an enormously difficult variation, and heading back out again, while her fellow dancers were doubled over, completely out of breath.


I always thought she was very true to herself as a dancer. Not that PATRICIA MCBRIDE came before the choreography, but that her dance essential qualities -- speed, joy in movement, and grace -- were always present, regardless of the work.

Are you speaking of when some of the other dancers were upset with the extreme attention Balanchine was giving Farrell? Only a guess, but I imagine she wouldn't have let it phase her much personally, although others did--I believe Hayden and Tallchief said things about this, and I think Kent as well. I'm just guessing still, though, so if you can (although not necessary to open that up too much as it's been discussed ad infinitum in many other threads), could you be more specific about how she 'saved the company', as I've not heard that before. It would come as little surprise that she'd be able to.



And you see that very strikingly in the Villella film, especially in contrast to the even more than usual extreme agony he was suffering throughout. She is quietly supportive of him throughout IMO.



I thought this in that period too, but I'm not sure it was exactly what you're talking about, I remember not only 'Liebeslieder' during that period and also the Peter Martins piece (a sweet, simple piece, maybe the only piece by him I really like), either 'Valse Triste' or something close, I believe to music by Sibelius. Do you remember this piece, Helene? I don't know if it's still done. I never saw her do 'La Valse', although I would have liked to, even though that one is pretty firmly imprinted on my mind as being an ultimate Farrell role.

Alexandra, I saw her Swanilda in 1987, and even at that late date, the technique, strength and speed were still like some force of nature. The 'wild arm Balanchine style' may have been there in some of the dancing at the time, but I mostly recall that perfect precision that was always one of her hallmarks. 'Amazing technique' is definitely the term, though, I'd agree. Close to flawless most of the time.

The piece was "Valse Triste". It was broadcast on Dance in America in a program with several other Martins pieces -- a Beethoven violin and piano piece for Kyra Nichols and Adam Luders, the slow movement of "Ecstatic Orange" for Heather Watts and Jock Soto, "Sophisticated Lady" for Suzanne Farrell and Peter Martins, and "Barber Violin Concerto", with Merrill Ashley, David Parsons, Adam Luders, and Kate Johnson. I'm pretty sure McBride danced it for her farewell program.

I'll have to try to remember where I read the Kirstein quote. It, too, may have been in "Dance as a Contact Sport". He may have been referring to the period when Farrell left NYCB, and Balanchine was bereft.

Yes, she has aged well---and that photo does not do her justice. During the summer I usually go to the Chautauqua Institution for a couple of weeks and she and her husband are in charge of the dance program. One of my happiest days there was sitting in on an afternoon rehearsal (in a 5,000 seat empty theatre) and watching her teach a variation to a young dancer. She also became a grandma this year.

Papeetepatrick, i wasn't complaining about the "wild Balanchine arms." That was part of her -- and missing from the company that season. (Now, PM's were wild THOUGHTFUL Balanchine arms. I'm not suggesting that anyone start trying to throw their arms around willynilly!) And by sweetness, I meant that there was none of the hardsell, LOOK AT MY TECHNIQUE that some dancers have.

Oh ha ha, I knew you weren't. In fact, I like some of the 'wild arms', especially in that Farrell performance of 'La Valse', I just had never associated it with McBride, and maybe didn't see the particular performances where that would have been more pronounced. I defintiely think 'sweetness' is something that always comes across in her dancing too. I would have never objected to the 'wild arms' with McBride either, I always just thought she was too fast to have time to do them, especially as Swanilda!

Helene, thanks. I saw her do 'Valse Triste' several times with Ib Anderson in the mid- and late-80s, and always thought it had such a bittersweet, melancholy air to it.

Oh yes. So, for relatively untutored eyes like mine, it was easy to overlook and take for granted what she did. To see McBride in the program was to know you'd have a beautifully danced performance. No worries. Sit back, feast your eyes, enjoy. I'm speaking here speacially of the roles with which she is not usually identified, but which most of the principals had to take turns dancing in the early days.

I hate to admit this, but McBride's consistency, her ability to dance almost everything at a high level, had -- perversely -- the effect of making me not look as closely as I might. That is why I regret so much the small size of her available video legacy.

Here are some of Croce's comments, taken from the 1971 essay "Balanchine's Girls" (originally published in Harper's Magazine, reprinted in the collection, After-Images, which Patrick has mentioned):

I'll start the way Croce does, juxtaposing McBride to Farrell:


And here's Croce on Dances at a Gathering, the first ballet where I woke up and suddenly took notice of someone who was clearly a real artist. In the absence of readily available video, hwe need wonderful word-pictures like Croce's.

Croce takes you through quite a variety of different roles -- In the Night, Girl in White in La Valse, Rubies, "Man I love" in Who Cares?, Columbine in Harlequinade, Hermia in Midsummer Night's Dream. She concludes that McBride, by not acting, became a spontaneous and intuitive dramatic actress, creating characters even in unplotted work


A thought on Swanhilda. I don't know if McBride was involved Miami City Ballet's production of Coppelia, but each of the Swanhildas presented themselves with a definite "McBride" style and personality. They did so beautifully. It was quite uncanny ... and absolutely "right."

Papeetepatrick, re "wild arms," there was a TV broadcast of "Who Cares?" and you see them there. (I show this tape in class, and my Vaganova young dancers gasp -- in horror. It was a very good lesson on "well, there are these different styles of ballet...." but I don't think I convinced them.)

They suited her. They suited the work -- she probably wouldn't have done them in "Coppelia," come to think of it. I only saw that very early in my balletgoing, and I don't remember, sad to say.

Helene, I couldn't find that Kirstein quote in Dance as a Contact Sport, but I did leaf through for McBride stories:

I loved the following vignette. They're rehearsing the Divertissement from Baiser de la Fee. It's 1973.:


I remember lots of stories along this line. I wonder whether this image hasn't actually worked against McBride. People often saw her as such a phenomenon of energy and strength that they unconsciously didn't take her achievements as seriously as they might. She's universally praised -- but oddly undervalued in some ways. (Note that Croce, in the earlier quotation, is quite aware that McBride had to work hard to achieve that strength.)

Another factor that may play into this "undervaluing," if such indeed was the case, was that McBride danced so well with her male partners, and responded to them so wonderfully. That means that she is often remembered in the context of "Villella and McBride," "McBride and Tomasson," rather than for her own sake.

I've been thinking about that quite a bit too, all this that you say is right on the money. It's as though it you are always reliable and consistent--even if it's anything but the 'foolish consistency'--you aren't showing the, for lack of a better term, the 'human dimension of mistake and error'. But this itself is, of course, erroneous, since always (or almost always) dancing on a supremely high level is hardly a fault. Of course, if someone needs to fall from time to time, to break the ice and get over nerves or whatever that's for, that's legit too. But I agree that this will make her undervalued in some eyes. She just found it comfortable 'way up there' like that. I think 'sticklike' is a little extreme btw, but works as a textual strategy, as it were, when placed next to Croce's extraordinary paean to Patty's 'incorruptibility' and the rest, especially like that about the 'shyness'.



In that case, though, the perceivers and observers really do miss, because a female partnering of the man is just as important when it's well-done--in fact, if it is that well-done, and I certainly think hers is very sensitive indeed, it is all the more reason to celebrate yet another special gift. Also, she never tried to oversell her 'value' either: talk of 'egoless ballerinas' may apply to her more than almost any, and due in great part to her sensitivity to the man. She LOVES them! and that's just adorable. And you never see that more than in the 'Tchai Pas de Deux', she is delighted with dancing with Baryshnikov, and she's not the least bit ashamed to show it! Since Balanchine's male dancers were often thought of as more partner for the ballerina (at least in the sense of major duty--Peter Martins had no illusions that Balanchine was interested in him at first more for being the right tall partner for Suzanne than for any of his other talents, this is in 'Far from Denmark') than vice-versa, this is part of her own independence perhaps? but a very non-flamboyant self-possession, I always keep coming back to the fact that she never tried to draw attention to herself--it just happens naturally.

That kind of consistency is a curse. I remember that one of my father's common gripes was about how he'd hear Richard Tucker sing brilliantly, and the next day, the reviewer would give him one line at the end, a mention that he had sung typically well.

I remember this comment as well, and it was in reference to the post-Farrell NYCB. Don't think it was in the Mazo, but can't pin it down otherwise.

One of my big regrets is that I saw so little of McBride live. I know her best, really, through the parts that were made on her, as I see the Balanchine rep staged on other generations. And I agree, she was a phenomenal dancer.

Croce was rather down on Farrell around then, of course, and I always thought in that particular article she was using McBride as a stick to beat the recently-departed Farrell with. One gets the impression at the time that she was quite optimistic about the ballerina prospects at the company in Farrell's wake – she’d be singing a different tune years later when Farrell came back......

A version of this last concept, or pair of concepts, was that Balanchine's fascination with Farrell had led him uncharacteristically to neglect the development of other leading dancers, and that after her departure he returned to his more usual way, and their development flourished again; and for the same reason -- fascination with Farrell -- his choreographic spirits sank somewhat upon her departure, and so the repertory -- or at least the quality of the premieres -- and company morale, not to mention the box office, all suffered together. Farrell's return after several years seemed providential, perking up both Balanchine, who had grown past his personal fascination, and ticket sales as well, or, as a dancer whose name escapes me was supposed to have put it, "Suzanne's coming back is the best thing she's done for us since she left." papeetepatrick refers to this above, and I mention it again not to take away anything from McBride -- indeed, although the Kirstein remark sounds new to me, I can believe it, having begun to watch the company intensively early in 1973, while Farrell was away.

Personally, McBride had a lot to do with my pleasant addiction to ballet: Her characteristically sparkling performances in Rubies, based on music which had become a minor favorite of mine, with the characteristically powerful and considerate dancing of Villella, not to mention the astonishing soloist and corps parts in this ballet, following them as I could, note by note and phrase by phrase, riveted my attention.

There were moments in their partnership in this ballet which I have not seen copied -- not all bad, Balanchine's company dancing just far enough from correct (as Alexandra described it) as never to look like a copy of anything, not even of what they'd done the day before -- and which I still remember specifically: A moment in the last movement where she's standing still for a moment, downstage, in her pin-up pose, with one hand to the back of her head and the other to her hip, when Villella came barreling across the front. As he passed directly in front of her for an instant, she lowered and raised her head slightly, changing her pleasant expression to a more dubious one, as though to say, Ahem, you're upstaging me. Another witty detail, one of her own, apparently, making this ballet dazzle all the more.

But McBride didn't sparkle in everything. In the Night, as I recall, didn't call for that, but for other strengths, which, always appropriately, she brought to it, with her essential delicacy.

dirac, I suspect you're right. Croce refers several times to what she called (in 1979) the "very dissimilar styles" of Farrell and McBride. Was it possible to talk about any ballerina in the context of NYCB without bringing up comparisons with Farrell? I wonder.

Here, for example, is Croce comparing McBride and Farrell in the Autumn section of Robbins' Four Seasons (1979). Robbins created slightly differing versions of the ballerina part for each dancer. I saw Farrell in this, not McBride. Did anyone see both? Or McBride alone?

Croce seems to fall into a routine when discussing McBride at length: praise McBride for her strengths, especially in her personal repertoire; compare her with Farrell, referencing a limitation or two; and then -- it seems inevitable -- drop her to focus exclusively on Farrell. The Farrell years were a tricky time to be a NYCB ballerina.

Here's a Croce observation from later in McBride's career: 1988, 29 years after her first NYCB performances. This essay, like the one in 1971, puts McBride in the context of Farrell and other Balanchine ballerinas. The unifying theme here is "dancer's who've had long careers." I've added paragraph breaks for easier reading.

_______________________________

(*) Arlene Croce, "Other Verdi Variations," Going to the Dance, (1982)
(**) Arlene Croce, "Hard Facts," Writing in the Dark (2000)

Thanks for the quotes, bart. I was just recalling some of that imagination in McBride's prime while you were posting. It was always there, when I was looking anyway, not just late on, as the quote might be taken to imply.

I think it wasn't responsible, even if it was possible, to think about NYCB without reference to Farrell, while she was there. It's not exactly that Farrell set the standard, but if anything, she happened to exemplify Balanchine's... approach. (I was going to say his philosophy.)

This kind of eye contact -- an awareness and appreciation of her partner even when, as it sometimes seems, they are dancing in their own personal groove -- is something I definitely remember.

Villella was from Queens. I had a teenage girl cousin from Queens who would have loved hanging out after dark and having a good time with Villella and his boys. (Elvis was more her fantasy type, or the world West Side Story, but I don't think she ever went to the ballet.)

The Rubies gang are kids existing in an urban world that's halfway between the innocence of teen street movies of the 40s and the darker, more dangerous side of being young in cities that were turning up in 60s films. There's carefree charm and attitude, but also a little bit of danger.

McBride dances alone at times, as does Villella. But with her, I always had a sense that she was in contact with her man. Establishing a relationship on stage -- especially in a plotless ballet -- isn't easy. It was one of McBride's strengths, I'd say.

I doubt it. Farrell didn't need to be 'beaten' as she'd only been herself, what happened was an 'it takes two to tango' matter; Farrell was listening to herself when she made her decisions. Croce was comparing them both favorably to each other, pointing out their different assets. And when I get the 'Writing in the Dark' collection, I'll quote what she says about the 'Liebeslieder Walzer' production, in which she again compares them, but this time onstage together, and says of Mcbride (I think this is the quote, but I have to wait) 'she is as fascinating as Farrell.' Of course she loved Farrell, who doesn't? but I think she compared them in the most intelligent way possible.



That's an excellent example of her own brilliant relationship with her partners. She is always very overtly appreciative of them. That's part of her tremendous appeal to me.



No, but it was the obvious dissimilarity that made her capable of appreciating both quite unreservedly IMO. The fact that they were so dissimilar is what made them the greatest two ballerinas dancing for Balanchine during some years, even though Farrell had the bigger profile, and Croce is right about 'Farrell's grandeur'. But her partners are servants to a great degree. What Jack writes about McBride and Villella is a kind of interaction with the male partner I never saw with Suzanne and any of her partners (nor should it have been, she was something more of a 'sacred object'. )



This is superlative, the use of the word 'secretes', and I think is the key to understanding what McBride always did. Now that is inspired, because McBride always had a way of 'secreting'. She never didn't have a sense of secreting, and that is something of what bart and i were discussing some months back about her 'quiet inaccessiblity'. Farrell and McBride both 'secreted' (just love that as a verb) themselves, but, here again, in dissimilar ways. Patty smiles, and very naturally, a lot more than Suzanne ever does.



Again, Croce here (at least) just can't keep her eyes off either of them (and I never could either.)



I don't think Farrell exemplified Balanchine's approach or 'philosophy' in the purest sense that he defined it verbally, most likely McBride did this. What Farrell did was to take it beyond what he provided her with explicitly, and he knew that she was going ahead and producing some of the work herself that was not purely his own, but he was in love with it more than anyone else's, and so therefore she had a degree of freedom to, perhaps, 'choreograph' within his choreography more than any other ballerina. That was part of Croce's 'grandeur of Farrell'. Sure, everybody knows she had that.

Patrick, we were both posting at the same time, so I ended up making the identical point.

McBride seems to be one of those celebrated dancers whose career -- the partners, the roles, the performances, the impressions she made on people -- must now be patched together from bits and pieces from reviews, memoirs, etc.

For example, I just came across a brief reference to her guesting for Todd Bolender at the Kansas City Ballet in 1981. Her partner: Alexander Gudonov. They danced pas de deux from Giselle and Corsaire. Wouldn't you have loved to see THAT performance.

More than you'll ever know...

You could say that Balanchine chose Farrell to set that standard and exemplify his approach. Which is not to take anything from McBride, but she didn’t hold that kind of symbolic role in the company or the Balanchine repertory, as important as she was to both.

McBride was Edward Gorey's favorite ballerina.

I didn't know that about Gorey. It's great to hear and I'd love to learn the reason why. She's so different from the stick-thin, neurasthenic, slightly demented ballet women that he often drew!

http://storyculture.typepad.com/blog/image...y_ballerina.jpg

Robert Garis's detailed and very personal book, Following Balanchine, is interesting on the the period when Farrell was competing with stage time and audience attention with other ballerinas who had established themselves either earlier or about the same time. This was right about the time of Jewels, 1967.


"Emeralds" was Verdy and Paul; "Rubies" was McBride; "Diamonds" was Farrell. There was something for everyone, since each of these ballerinas had her own loyalist fan base in those days. (I don't think that the fan groups overlapped very much, at least not for McBride, Verdy, and Farrell).

It was later that "Farrellitis" set in and began affecting company morale. According to reports, Paul and Verdy seriously considered leaving. Did McBride ever think of leaving, I wonder? Somehow I imagine her as just braving through, and taking solace in were own special Balanchine ballets, where Farrell could not hope to compete.

It was after THIS that Balanchine created Swanilda for McBride. Here's Garis on the early performances of Coppelia. I've put a couple of key phrases in bold-face because I think they reflect some of the difficulties that we had/have in remember and categorizing McBride.:

Garis has an epiphany at the moment when she, "as a flesh-and-blood Swanilda pretending to be the doll Coppelia, pretended to come to life to an oboe melody that resembled a Bellini aria." But the ephiphany is not really about McBride, although she triggers it. Garis finds himself, as he watches the dancing and interactions between Coppelius and Swanilda, thinking about parallels: Coppelius and his dolls; Pygmalion and Galatea; Frankenstein with his monster, a chain of thought that leads him to .... (surprise !) .... Balanchine with Farrell."

It's the same pattern we've seen before: even among those who adore McBride, somehow we tendss to end up with musings about Farrell.

Not for me, I have always been a huge fan of all three, more Farrell and McBride probably because I saw them both a lot more--although my few memories of Verdy in the 70s were thrillling. But usually so, I'd imagine, as you say, because fans love to compare much more than I think is necessary. Or, if they compare, I wish they could consider loving all the 'comparees' a bit more, because only then can you see it as the artists themselves do. Balanchine loved Farrell the most, but look who used all the others so well too--he wasn't really 'comparing', just being profession most of the time, resopnding to his desires and emotions at others. He didn't spend all of his time on Farrell, just was more obsessed with her and made more ballets for her.



Not nearly always. I expect many people to do it, but I started out as more of a fan of Farrell, and still am a big fan. But if I have to choose between the two, McBride wins for me. I only found that out recently, but it's set by now. The special gift of her happiness and her delight in her male partners is much more my idea of sexiness and sensuality by now than a 'worshipped goddess'. I used to be a LOT more into diva worship than I am now. Diva worship is mostly a camp affair to me at this point. So by now, I only compare them because everybody else is always talking about Farrell no matter what, and that has to be dealt with. I wouldn't say that if she weren't one of the most important ballerinas in my ballet-going life, but she's not my favourite anymore. I do not agree that one always has to talk about Farrell when you're talking about Balanchine in those years; you have to do it a LOT of the time, but not all the time. The Farrell Myth frankly detracts from the great dancer Farrell was.

And so, while it is appropriate that Jewels leads to the top of the hierarchy with Farrell in 'Diamonds', YES, the hierarchy is set in THAT BALLET as Suzanne as apotheosis and pinnacle, but that does not take into account all the other pieces in the repertory, or the subjective feeling we eventually define as the one that means the most to us, in dancers (or any kinds of performers or creative artists), if they are up on a comparable technical and artistic level. In terms of reputation, Farrell is probably at the very top of the Balanchine hierarchy of ballerinas in most people's minds, even when they look back to stars of the 40s and 50s, but McBride and Verdy are, as you say, many people's favourite ballerinas, and, face it, that is what the balletgoer cares most about, who he/she loves most. We are not mostly concerned with the external, with the facade of the WHOLE New York City Ballet apparatus and edifice as it is erected in some kind of inner hallucination for us. We look at a lot of work, and decide 'that means the most to me for reasons I can point to.' And we are all the better equpped to do this when it is a matter of performers who are on an already very high level. That's why Croce kept looking back and forth, one to the other. It could be that, as a man, I am ultimately attacted to McBride's feminine charms in her dancing than I am to Farrell's 'goddess qualities'. I don't tend to worship people, even great artists. And don't think I don't know Farrell is a great artist, I do. Just, in a sense, 'not my type'. I prefer women who let men be as much a part of the action as they are, and you always get that with McBride--always.

I found a few references to her in an article by Anna Kisselgoff in the Times on 11/13/73, collected in Ascending Peculiarity: Edward Gorey on Edward Gorey.


And later


Elsewhere in the book, in an inteview with Tobi Tobias in Dance Magazine, 1974, he says

I shouldn't have put it that way, Patrick. I guess I was thinking of "FANS ! " as we see them today in certain quarters and as you refer to as "diva worship." They were once very prominent in opera, less so in ballet. But they were there. I'm going to try to find out how to draw a line through that silly statement. I've seen it done occasionally on BT and it's a good idea when we have second thoughts.


This has the ring of truth to me. I would love to hear how other NYCB history people feel about it. Especially the "he wasn't really 'comparing'" part.

I REALLY want to hear what people have to say about this. As before, it has a ring of truth. "Myth" -- for me at least -- enriches reality but also distracts us from it. I agree that the serious fan looks at the whole company -- and focuses on the works and how they're performed. If we love X and detest Y it adds spice, but, speaking only for myself, it's not what makes ballet so important to me.

Thanks, kfw, for finding that article. I note that Gorey could never get over Diana Adams. I'll bet Adams was one of the first ballerinas he saw when he realized how important ballet (NYCB) was to him. We tend to remember the dancer(s) who made the first big impression on us when we were novices.

Adams is certainly a candidate for our next "remembering" thread, But even I have only the dimmest memories. Agon with Arthur Mitchell is one, but frankly it was the work -- and the bi-racial casting -- that bowled me over at the time. I knew they were dancing well, but I had no idea how well because I had (literally) nothing to compare this choreography to.

Yes, please! I hope someone will post memories of Adams, and of that first cast of Agon.

I don't think so. Because of her partnership with Villella, and Robbins' return to the company later, she wasn't as affected by the ascendancy of Farrell as other ballerinas. I remember her quoted saying that Villella was her 'savior' during those years, although she also felt the ballets made for the two of them were more creations for Villella than for her.

That's good. I had thought it would read something like that, so that these extra details are very good to get; and this all does demonstrate still further the singularity I see her as inhabiting.

A little OT I know but I wanted to say...
Thank you for the above accurate and wonderful description of both a balletomane and why my answer to most who ask me which dancer(s) I prefer is, "It's not that one dances better than another, but rather, dances differently." It's the difference(s) that matter to me. And only after I've thoroughly analyzed the how & why of those differences, do I finally figure out whether I prefer one dancer more than another. Like you said, "We look at a lot of work, and decide 'that means the most to me for reasons I can point to.'"

Great point, 4mrdnr. The New York City Ballet when I attended regularly was a marvelous institution for watching those differences and learning how to appreciate them. Everyone had favorites, but I don't recall this getting out of hand or out of touch with reality.

This thread is teaching me something about McBride's range. Of COURSE she was most striking in the roles Balanchine created on her. But, she also did second-cast work -- as did everyone else -- in roles for which she was probably not perfectly suited, but to which she brought her own personality and style.

Question: Patrick, can you tell us more about your memories of McBride in Liebeslieder Walzer?

Also, does anyone know if McBride ever danced the Balanchine Swan Lake?

Will fill in later on Liebeslieder, it was great all right, that perf, want to reiterate before stepping out what you've just said about McBride in Swan Lake, also interested in Farrell and Verdy in it--I imagine they all did it, and I wish I could have seen all of them. Mainly because the only performance I ever saw Hayden in was 'Swan Lake', and that alone puts her all the way to the top with the others I've seen more. I just won't ever forget that one apparition-like appearance of Melissa.

Yes, bart, she did: I opened my copy of Nancy Reynolds' Repertory in Review, and there across the bottom of page 131 was a performance photo, with not quite a dozen corps "swans" behind them all down on one knee, arms back, of her and her frequent partner, Edward Villella. "Mid-60s (new production)," says the caption, "...(Photo Martha Swope)" We see her bent deeply back toward downstage and our right over his supporting right arm, her left foot on pointe, the right raised back, her arms outstretched, palms outward, and elbows bent. As Odette, she could well be struggling a bit for her freedom here; it's a dramatic shot, enhanced by being spread across the bottom third of the page in a book where many of the pictures are rather small for their best effect.

Wow! You're right! Thanks, Jack. I had noticed Villella in this photo but hand't troubled to read the caption. So that's McBride! Different make-up, untypical pose, unexpected context: who would have thought?

Well, yes, in this picture we see her face in profile, more or less, and upside down at that. But, not to chide anyone, I'd argue that she's pretty recognizable just by the way she holds herself. Which reminds me of the time she and Helgi Tomasson came to Chicago to headline the first performances of Ruth Page's annual Nutcracker. When the curtain went up on the second act, there she was at the back of the stage in her pink Sugar Plum costume, holding her fairy wand up in the air. She stood still better than anybody had moved in the whole first act! And then of course, after a while, we would see her and Helgi move and show us Balanchine's pas de deux! And all I'd had to do was hop on a train to McCormick Place, no airplanes, no hotels. When I showed up for their subsequent three shows, arriving at intermission, the guy in the ticket window thought I was nuts. (A good judge of character...)

Thanks, 4rmrdncr, for your kind words and the excellent addition you made to mine.

Bart, yes, Croce has something, I'm pretty sure I read it there, in 'Writing in the Dark' on that same period of 'Liebeslieder' casting, but this is what you were talking about the more tranquil, contemplative, serene Patricia McBride. In this, from 1985 performance, I remember her face more than I do the rest of her dancing. It was uncanny, and I saw the expression one other time on her face as she left Juilliard from rehearsal. Several dancers made a strong impression in that performance, and Farrell was also marvelous in what I recall is a much more extroverted role, she is very youthful. These remind me a bit, these differences in character types, of the Women in White, Red and Yellow in Graham's 'Diversion of Angels', which is one of the more balletic Graham pieces but still not ballet in the strict sense, of course. Not that the contrast was quite that strong, but Farrell's is slightly like the youthful 'Woman in Yellow', who is really more a girl, that's about 'young love'. McBride's character here is more like the Apollonian 'Woman in White' who ultimately prevails over the erotic 'Woman in Red' in 'Diversion'. There is not really 'prevailing over' in the Liebeslieder Walzer, I think, in the same sense, and no parallel at all to the Woman in Red, as I recall, and didn't notice anything of that sort when I saw it in 2006 either. I do remember being equally dazzled by Bart Cook's dancing, there was this 'dancing fiend' about him that day, and maybe very often. I also recall Jock Soto was dancing that day, and Maria Calegari, but memory doesn't serve quite as well, except that Calegari was, as always, very elegant.

But McBride and her serenity is definitely the primary image I retain from that performance, but then this always then recalls Farrell's seeming 'excitement to dance'. when she was seated there was this sense that she couldn't wait to get up and dance again, a youthful quality. This could be an incorrect impression, but if so, I did have it at the time, not invented years later. And then always follows how fabulous Bart Cook was and how wonderful the men's costumes look in that.

Thanks for the info on 'Swan Lake' and McBride, Jack.

In her article for the Summer 2009 Ballet Review on Todd Bolender and Kansas City Ballet, she notes that for the closing performance of his first season, guests Patricia McBride and Alexander Godunov danced pas de deux from "Giselle" and "Le Corsaire" and Balanchine's "Pas de Dix".

In the film "A Portrait of Giselle" there's a sequence of Anton Dolin coaching Mc Bride and (I think) Helgi Tomasson in Giselle, act 1.

sandik, a long time ago I saw a very brief part of this on YouTube, right before the end of one of the clips. thanks for the refereance. I'll have to locate the entire film (or the next clip in the series).

4mrdncr, on another thread you wrote: I'd love to hear your memories of this. What was the occasion? At the College or UMass? What did you think? What DID the audience make of it?

Just came across the following photo: McBride and Tomasson rehearsing Afternoon of a Faun for (huh ? ) the "Stravinsky Festival" (1972). I've never seen a McBride photo like this.

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?img...%3D100%26um%3D1

You misread the caption. Please, note error where error is due.

Stravinsky Festival '72
New York City Ballet dancers Helge [sic] Tomasson & Patricia McBride rehearsing for production of "The Afternoon of a Swan" [sic] at the Stravinsky Festival at the New York State Theater.

I have noticed so many errors in the Life photo posts, it's ridiculous. Embarrassing, actually.

This may have been in '72, but as I recall (and unfortunately I wasn't there) the Stravinsky Festival was wall-to-wall Stravinsky. No fauns -- or even Swans.

You mean the stuff we find on the internet isn't always accurate?

Just to mention that I finally looked through 'Writing in the Dark', and I can't find what she said about McBride and Farrell in 'Liebeslieder'. I don't know where I saw it in that case, because I was sure it was here. Well, I wasn't, was I?

One of the comparisons in Writing in the Dark is on pp. 543-55.

There's another an essay, "Love Song Waltzes," in Croce's Sight Lines, dated June 4, 1984. Although she does not compare the dancers here, she puts them in context of the Liebeslieder revival which you attended.


Earlier in the thread, I think someone referred to another comparison. Given my bad day-to-day memory, it was probably me.

In the meantime, I thought the following casting comparisons might be interesting, especially for those who know the original 1960 dancers.

Original Cast ....... First cast 1984 ........... Second cast 1984

Diana Adams ...... Suzanne Farrell ........ Maria Calegari
Melissa Hayden ... Patricia McBride ..... Heather Watts
Jillana ............... Stephanie Saland ..... Judith Fugate
Violette Verdy ..... Kyra Nichols ........... Valentina Kozlova

It's a kind of revelation to think of Farrell and Diana Adams inhabiting the same choreographya quater of a century apart. In fact, Croce refers to the "Adams-Farrell" role later in the essay. I was rather pleased to find McBride associated with Hayden, since both were great favorites of mine. McBride substituted for Hayden in 1961 the season following the premiere. 23 years passed between her first performance in this ballet from the one Croce reviewed in 1984. What a trooper. What a career.


Even though this is off-topic -- it's intriguing to think of Verdy and Nichols in the same breath, as well.

Farrell danced the role in the sixties, when Adams was phasing herself out of the company - she assumed many of Adams' old roles. Von Aroldingen took over the role in Liebeslieder when Farrell left, and Balanchine didn't revive it when Farrell returned to the company in the seventies.

Bart--GREAT! That was it. It all comes back that 'playing young' of Farrell and the 'she's as exciting to watch as Farell', which was why the performance seemed to have an extra charge to it; but also good to be clear on the rest of the cast, which I'd gotten confused. I do think I was reading it standing up at the library a few years ago, but it must not have been THIS volume.

What I like is the earlier paragraph, because I saw the original production as well, so that means I saw Verdy twice, Hayden twice, and probably Diana Adams the one time. But I was there primarily because a friend was one of the pianists, and was not aware of what ballet was at all then. Still, I'm glad to know I was in the presence of those dancers more than I knew, and one that I never had thought I saw.

Wait, no. What I saw was in the early 70s, maybe that was the continuation of the 1961 original? I thought that Liebeslieder had been early 70s, but I'm wrong there, it's early 60s. Maybe it's that my friend was just beginning to do the piano, I think there are two, along with Gordon Boelzener. But I really can't remember right now.