Beatrice

Does that mean I'd have a better chance of seeing a soloist in the roles?

Hi Everyone, I'm having a few issues trying to make plans to see The Nutcracker this year and I was hoping that since some of you are so familiar with NYCB, you could give me some suggestions. I fell in love with City Ballet early last spring and I spent the following weeks attending 2-3 perfomances a week for the remainder of the season. This gave me just enough time to get to "know" the company fairly well right before I moved five hours away in Sept. The problem is now that I have pretty strong opinions on who I love and who I'm most interested in seeing, but I no longer have the flexibility to base my attendance as easily on the casting. I also have a new job, so weekday performances, while not out of the question, are not something that I easily can do regularly at a moment's notice. I also know that The Nutcracker sales are much different than regular season and performances are likely to sell out. So basically, what I'm trying to figure out here are "my odds". Without stating names, there is one ballerina whom I would really rather not see as the Sugar Plum Fairy. There is another dancer whom I'd love to see. I suspect both of those individuals would have a good chance of getting cast this year. There are also several other dancers whom I could picture being cast and who I would be perfectly happy to see. In everyone's experience, how many dancers are usually rotated in that role? And without placing judgement on one dancer or another, could some of the "experts" out there give me an educated guess as to whom they think would end up in the role this season (if this is something that shouldn't be posted because of the speculative nature, I would love it if you could PM me). I certainly don't think that anyone is guaranteeing casting, I'm just wondering who people who are familiar with the company would not be surprised to see in the role. I'd also love to hear some reviews of dancers that you've seen I guess that the few ideas that I'm thinking of would be to buy tickets for a weeknight in advance and hope for the best, wait until casting is up and hope for the best in terms of getting a weeknight seat and managing time off of work, or buying tickets to both a matinee and an evening performance on a weekend and selling the tickets to the cast I like less on ebay. There's a major ballet company where I currently live, but I've grown to really love "my" company, and I would much rather make the trip back to New York to see them. If anyone can give me some words of wisdom, I would really appreciate it. Man, this was so much easier to manage from the Upper East Side. Thank you so much.

I noticed that you mentioned four tickets for your family. Is it safe to assume that you're bringing kids? If so, I'm sure that you've taken into account their ages and ability to sit calmly through the length of a ballet. If you're bringing kids (or if any of the adults are petite), I would recommend getting seats in either the first few rows in the orch or the first ring. I'm 5'2 and my enjoyment of many ballets has been dimished a bit by being unable to see in the orchestra. As a rule, I don't sit in orch seats past the tenth row, if I can help it. In terms of where you will be happiest, it depends what you're looking for. If you enjoy seeing the facial expressions and details, the front of the house is best (though if you are too close, you can sometimes miss a lot of the footwork). If you enjoy seeing the "greater picture", you'll be happier in the rings. The corps is often more satisfying from above.

edit

I wonder if Kathryn Morgan's "Sleeping Beauty" performance at Dancers' Choice led to the decision to mount the full production. I'm excited!

Not only are the arts "not immune" to an economic downturn, they are the first thing to suffer. Times are tough in NYC, folks. Ignoring it does not make it untrue. And it's not just the ballet.

Helene, I definitely agree that all the things that you just listed could be part of the equation. Or all of the equation. All I've been trying to express is that nothing here is simple. Right or wrong, I believe that for all of this faults, Mr Martins cares deeply about this company and is trying to make the best choices for it in very difficult times. When you have to pick eleven hearts to break, it's not an easy decision and I'm sure that a million factors were considered when his decisions were made. I, personally, don't think that the adminstration has acted irresponsibly. I'm sad for the dancers whose contracts were not renewed, but at this point, I don't see any proof that the administration is at fault. In a year, I may think otherwise. But right now, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. edit: Thus being my concluding thought on the matter, Leigh Witchel . If anyone wants to talk to me further via PM, you know where to find me.

I absolutey do, Helene. For me, what this all comes down to is that there is a bigger picture that none of us are fully aware of. There are a myraid of tiny details that came together to lead the administration to take the steps that were taken. edit to reflect previous post's edit: the dancer specific points that I brought up were a way to illustrate that any number of situations take place within the company that we are not aware of. At the end of the day, 11 were chosen. And there are reasons that those 11 were chosen over the ones who remain - it simply wasn't a matter of "we need to save 1.2 million, let's pick names out of a hat". And whatever those reasons are, they are likely tied in with the larger equation of company dynamics that we are not privvy to. It was Ms Flack who said something along the lines of them "cleaning house". I'm just saying that sometimes the house needs to be cleaned.

Not sure if it was you or a moderator who editted the beginning line in your post. However, the very fact that you so "glibly" put it in black and white is why I answered the way I did. I have expressed NOTHING that comes close to the expressing the idea that I don't care about the dancers - both the ones whose contracts were not renewed and those who will continue on with the company. I take that allegation insultingly because it is, quite simply untrue. When you put things as black and white as insinuating that ANYONE on this board doesn't care about the dancers, you are entering a rather dangerous territory. As for Martins' alleged "house in the Hamptons"... why is it so important for you to believe that Martins made these decisions for selfish reasons? You're the first one to call out allegations of libel, conjecture, and dangerously untrue statements, but you insist on insinuating over and over that Martins' decisions are those of greed and self-interest. I am not operating under the belief that all Martins does is correct. I'm just - perhaps naively - hoping that someone who has given his entire life in service to this company would be basing his decisions on what would serve the company best in the long term. I'm hoping that Balanchine's last ballerina would not be married to a man whose main concern was with his Hamptons house over the continuation of the legacy. Contrary to another one of your editted allegations, I don't "need to be right" to a bunch of anonymous strangers on the internet. I don't even need to be right to you. I would just appreciate it if you'd stop with comments along the lines of "either you support the dancers or you support the administration" and "Martins needs a new roof on his beach house". I do not believe that anything we are currently discussing is as cut and dry as that.

This is an interesting view, but sort of a double edged sword, is it not? On one hand, there is certainly a benefit having an unbiased (?) person come in and be the voice of reason. But on the other hand, doesn't this lead to the same over involvement of union officials in artistic decision making that many on here complain about? If we're concerned that Kistler, N. Martins, Borree, and others are still being held on to unnecessarily because of unions ( a view that I am not advocating, but merely repeating), then what happens when we add 60 more people to that list? By the time you've been promoted to a soloist or a principle, the idea is that you've "proven yourself". An artistic director NEEDS the ability to prune a little in the lower ranks. Broadway is a very different cup of tea for many different reasons. People come in, they audition for a role and they are contracted to play a specific role (with a certain amount of flexibility in terms of understudying) for a specific show. The contract is a limited contract. The demands are specific. On Broadway, certain actors are hired for a certain amount of parts. There is no concept of a weekly casting sheet. Furthermore, contracts for all members on Broadway, including leads, are generally for a year - not unlike the corps members. So in effect, any Broadway producer has the right to let any actor go after that year's time - including leads. And finally on Broadway, there is VERY little room for "the show is suffering financially, let's let some of the actors go." It's an all or nothing thing. The show is open or it is closed. Whereas in a reperatory company such as NYCB, there is a large pool of talent to pick and chose from as needs dictate. In financially strong times, the dancers benefit from that because people who may not have been hired under more challenging economic times may get a shot to prove themselves. However on the flip side, in times like this, there is likely to be a group of people whose contribution - for whatever reason - is considered more expendable. I can't see where increased Union involvement in the corps would be helpful at all. Either it would lead to an increasement in "golden handcuff" syndrome that is a constant source of frustration to many fans. Or it would put us exactly where we are right now - with one year corps contracts that the managment has the decision whether to renew each year. I believe that LiLing has made an extremely valid point. That a certain part of the problem does not lie in that the lay-offs occured, but how they were handled. I totally agree that it would have made a better learning experience to the dancers to explain why, specifically, their contracts were not being renewed. That being said, Martins may have been advised legally to say as little as possible - not because he was legally in the wrong, but because sometimes things can be misunderstood or misconstrued. Simon, if you really see this as such a black and white issue: that there are either people who "care deeply" for the dancers or those who felt the dancers "deserved being sacked", then there is more than one reason you and I will never see eye to eye. Things are never quite so black and white and if you believe they are, I'm afraid you're suffering from an extremely limited perspective. I hate to see dreams crushed. I hate to see people hurting. And I have specifically said innumerable times, that I do NOT know the reasons that these eleven were chosen - I merely understand that there is likely more to it than "eh. I don't like you. You're out." I can think something is terrible and painful and hate to see that it happened, but still know that the pain *MAY* have contributed to the greater good.

Simon, I can assure you that this is one of the most strictly moderated boards that I have ever been on, and if I came remotely close to libel, I would have been editted - and likely banned - many posts ago. Each post that I have made has been with an extreme emphasis on the fact I am only offering a potential counterpoint to the mass feeling of "Shame on the NYCB". The one statement that you've posted that I agree 100% with is "we don't know anything, except the facts as presented". And the facts, as presented, are that the New York City Ballet is currently in a financial crisis and has laid off eleven corps members". That is ALL we know. And the fact that that is all we know is largely - if not entirely - what my point in this has been all along. We see the dancers as dancers. We do not see them as people. We do not see them as employees. We do not see them as students. We do not see them in rehersals. We do not see them in dressing rooms. We do not see them as anything that comes remotely near a complete picture. And therefore we are not in the position to make statements such as "it's a shame that his worth was held in such low regard." You accuse ME of making potentially damaging statements, but I speak particularly BECAUSE of statements such as the one you just said. Who are you to know what regard Max Van Der Sterre was held in? Who are you to know the pain behind the decisions that were made? Who are you to know the factors that led up to the decisions? And what kind of damage do you think it does to the company to have accusations made about how poorly and unfairly things are run when we do not begin to fathom anything that happens behind closed doors? I have not stated, nor do I believe that "people of worth" are never let go. That would be an absolutely absurd statement - particularly in the current economy. What I have said, is we are NOT aware of what goes on backstage. And when the time comes that difficult decisions must be made - particularly in an enviroment such as the NYCB - those decisions are based on an extremely complicated equation. I see no reason to believe that someone who has dedicated his life to the New York City Ballet would take these decisions lightly and I refuse to jump on to the "Shame on the NYCB bandwagon." I do not claim that I have all the answers, but I do recognize that someone who works with these dancers day in and day out has a better understanding of the big picture than I do from the orchestra seats.

Indeed. But when it's been pointed out that the retirement issue lies entirely on union regulations and is literally not the decision of the head of the organization, the fact that they are married becomes moot. Additionally, Helene's point was not "Kistler is here past her prime." Her issue was "Martins is married to Kistler so that can be factored into his household income". The income of a person's spouse has nothing to do with whether or not their salary should be altered. I'm not saying that Simon and Helene haven't brought up some good points. Nor do I fail to recognize that other companies have taken different paths. I'm not even saying that I think Martins definitely handled this in the best way possible. The only thing that I'm saying - and which I truly do not even see as a debatable point - is that very few (if any) of us have enough background knowledge to accuse him of making poor choices. As you have said *NONE* of these decisions have been taken lightly.

That is an entirely different Kistler issue. The debate over whether Kister should remain in the company has nothing to do with Helene's assessment that Martins thoughts should have been along the lines of "I make a lot of money. My wife makes an above average amount of money. Therefore bringing down the ax on someone who makes less money is bad form." That is the equivalent of picking which corps members to cut based on which one of them has a trust fund or is married to a wealthy spouse. If Martins was married to an attorney who was making a comparable amount of money as Kistler, his spouse's contribution would not be added to this particular equation. Just because he's married to someone whose salary can be roughly assumed, it does not make it a fair way to gauge the apporpriateness of his actions. Who says that I don't? One can certainly think that there is a need for change in the way that contracts are handled for senior members of the company and still harbor the thought that there are *POSSIBLY* corps members whose contribution is questionable. I believe that it was DeborahB who explained that the Union affiliations involved make it all but impossible to release principles and soloists. So basically this is a completely different and irrelevant issue to the discussion at hand. Not once did I take a conservative hardline that bureaucracy and administration always know best. I am saying that they don't always know worst and that we are not privvy to the smaller details that make up the bigger picture. Furthmore, you're not the only ones saying that dancers are the lifeblood of companies. I, too, am championing them. I am just looking at things from a different perspective. If this decision means that there are almost 50 corps members that can concentrate on their dance without the stresses of financial strain, this is good for the company. If this decision means that at least one or two of the SEVERAL company members who are deserving of a promotion can move up, this is good for the company. If this decision means that promising apprentices can be brought in, that is good for the company. If this decision cleaned house of some *POSSIBLE* bad seeds, that is good for the company. All I'm doing is looking at this from both sides.

I don't think that it's fair to factor in Kistler's salary here. It's irrelevant. I also think that if he's making 300K heading the SAB that needs to be looked at separately. But it is also not unreasonable to say, "We have a very large roster of corps members. Some of them pull their weight more than other. Why should those who go above and beyond have to take on an extra financial strain to keep some less valuable members here"? That was never my argument. My argument is only, and always has been, that we do not know enough about what takes place backstage to determine if NYCB is acting unfairly. When an appealling group of fairly young people approach the press and talks about crushed dreams, it's completely natural to want to reach out to them - to assume that they are vicitims. We see these people onstage, but we have no idea of what energy they bring to the wings. We don't know them as people or as employees. Nobody who has been fired or laid off is going to say to the press, "You know. Truthfully, I was an awful gossip, I created a lot of negative energy backstage, and my dancing abilities, while strong, are not amongst the most noteworthy in this company ". But I think that it's naive to believe that there haven't been dancers - in the NYCB or elsewhere - who have not been laid off for similiar reasons. I'm just saying that I can see more possible scenarios here than to assume that the NYCB is entirely in the wrong.

Hasn't it also been discussed that the salaries of the dancers at NYCB are all significantly more than the dancers in other companies with comparable responsibilities? If we're looking at the whole, doesn't it stand to reason that if the dancers are among the best paid in the industry, that their administration is too? The question for me here isn't "is Martins making a greater amount than his peers". It's "is Martins making a disproportionate amount compared to his dancers." Is the percentage of Martins' salary to his dancers' salaries significantly greater than the percentage between artistic director and dancers in other major companies? All true and my initial statement was too narrow. However, I still stand to the larger point that my ill-phrased statement was making: most, if not all, of us do not have a big enough picture of what goes on backstage to know what made Martins decide to clean house rather than take another approach. Additionally, we have no idea what made him chose THIS group of dancers. I agree that it was a deliberate decision. My reasoning is simply that we do not know what the reasoning behind that deliberate decision was. Sometimes what is best for an individual or eleven is not what is best for the company. If these dancers' contracts were not renewed simply because they were disliked personally by management, then yes, shame on the NYCB. However, if these contracts were not renewed because these particular dancers were not contributing to the growth of the company, that is another story entirely. If they weren't renewed because the management felt that the money would be better spent making sure more deserving company members got could maintain their current salaries, that is also a valid approach. The cost of living in New York City is very high and I can understand a potential thought process that it may be better for 11 people to be cut from the roster than for dozens (of possibly harder working and greater contributing) to take a paycut that may make living here a financial strain.