Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

More SPAC politics


Recommended Posts

Herb Chesbrough, grand pooh-bah of SPAC, instructed his lobbyist (what? SPAC has a lobbyist? why?) to distribute copies of the Joan Acocella article, discussed here at great length, to all the politicians who have expressed support for preserving the NYCB residency at SPAC. The message of course: "See I told you they're lousy, now do you see why I don't want them here any more?"

I've come to the conclusion that the only people who don't want SPAC and NYCB to continue their 39 year old relationship are Herb and his gang (oh excuse me--board). This is what we are up against here.

Link to comment

[Note: I edited the title of this thread after rkoretzky had clarified her meaning below. This post referred to the original title.]

I don't think there's a connection, though. When one writes something, one has no control over how it's used. (I don't believe Acocella shipped up a crate of clips to be passed out!) There are plenty of NY Times and NY Post reviews that take a different view and would be available for leaflet dropping.

There have been a lot of links on Links about this season -- it's not selling well. So despite all the attention, and the hard work of so many people, and the consciousness raising, etc., people aren't coming.

I'm just curious -- did SPAC ever sell out in the "good old days?" One editorial (I just skimmed, so I hope I didn't misinterpret) said, stop worrying about ticket sales; this is about more than that (with which I'd agree). But I wonder if this is really a change, or if the SPAC Board simply doesn't like ballet and wants to do something more fun, like ritual sacrifice or bear baiting?

Link to comment

I wanted to add something -- of course ticket sales are important, but cultural centers once considered their mandate to provide a range of events, knowing full well that not all of them would sell out. There were commercial houses down the road that had other mandates and other policies. So if only a mere 2000 people, say, were interested in something that the presenters considered important, and that meant 1000 empty seats, well, that wasn't the point.

Link to comment

OK...time for me to calm down, back up a step or two and do a better job of explaining. By the way, Ari is here, and she will be embellishing shortly.

Acocella didn't distribute the article, Chesbrough did, through his lobbyist. No blame for Ms. Acocella! In fact, I thought her article was well-reasoned, and there were parts that I agreed with.

My point is that it is disingenuous on SPAC's part to claim that every effort is being made to save the residency of NYCB, when the president and executive director is actively working to undermine the support lent by our politicians in Albany. Remember that many of these political types are not ballet regulars. So what is the impression that they are getting of NYCB, based on the only article that they have been sent? The company is terrible--why would we want them here?

Once Ari has sat down here at my computer and quoted from the article which was published in today's Schenectady Daily Gazette, I think you will understand further. No positive articles were sent in support of NYCB. This was the message from the president of SPAC to the guys in Albany who found money to help us.

Link to comment

Ari the reporter here. You can take the girl away from Links, but you can't take the Links away from the girl. :blushing: This story is available online only to paid subscribers.

As Rhona mentioned, today's Schenectady Gazette contains a front-page article about a joint press conference given at SPAC by Herb Chesbrough and Peter Martins. Martins is quoted as saying that Chesbrough's demand that the ballet increase its attendance by 30% this summer is unrealistic because the ballet boom is over. In the 1970s and 80s, he said, Balanchine was creating new work, Baryshnikov's defection brought new attention and excitement to ballet, and ballet "had a buzz." The average head count per performance in recent years has been 2,500, about what it would take to sell out the New York State Theater. But Chesbrough's target is 3,500 to 4,000 per performance in order to keep the company at SPAC.

From the Gazette:

In the background of the disagreement over attendance is a New Yorker magazine article that characterizes City Ballet as soulless and hollow and blames Martins for the shortcomings.

The article from the July 7 edition was e-mailed by SPAC's lobbyist, Marsh & Associates, to state senators and assemblymen who have supported City Ballet's residency at SPAC.

Chesbrough said he told lobbyist Kerry Marsh to send the article because SPAC had previously been reprimanded by Sen. Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, and Assemblyman James Tedisco, R-Schenectady, for not keeping them up-to-date on issues at SPAC.

"I promised the Legislature I would keep them fully informed," said Chesbrough, who also directs all of SPAC's press releases to the legislators.  "We send out the good news and the bad."

Chesbrough conceded that he has not had his lobbyist e-mail any other reviews — positive or negative — to legislators.

Link to comment

Thanks! I had this image of Acocella sneaking in the back door to give her pal whathisname a fresh batch of ammo :blushing:

If this is the only article that Chesbrough is circulating, I'd agree: it's not fair. (And I'd say that if the article were mine :wink: ) When you're lobbying, though, you don't present a folder with every article on the season to be fair. You give them what will serve your purpose. If someone were lobbying to get rid of Chesbrough, s/he'd only pass out editorials and articles that were against his policies. Not that I would ever DREAM of hinting at such a thing :D

Link to comment

Oh Alexandra--to answer another of your questions, and to lend support to one of your comments:

In the good old days, SPAC would sell out. Not every performance, but Thursday matinees, which were dirt cheap, would be crammed to the rafters. Many evenings as well, especially if a Saratoga favorite was appearing--Patty McBride was one, or if a favorite ballet was programmed. We just didn't worry about numbers in those days.

I saw a definite decline in the late 80s, and by the mid 90s we were talking about, and forming a support group, which was never able to fully get off the ground, and never grabbed the attention of anyone with influence.

But your other point is the one with real meat: the arts in this country is a money loser--the arts just don't turn a profit. That isn't the reason for the existance of ballet companies, symphony orchestras, opera companies. We all know why those entities exist--to add beauty and meaning to our lives.

Link to comment

Your last paragraph is so beautiful -- for me, it's true, too. And the problem is that the arts have ALWAYS only been enjoyed, or appreciated, by a very small percentage, supported by those with money, but open to anyone who's interested, and most of the great artists have come from what used to be called "humble backgrounds." Many of the spectators were from "humble backgrounds," too, and we'd sit in the gallery (or, those with fear of heights, stand in the back or sit on the lawn!)

The real crisis in the arts now, aside from merely staying alive, is to figure out HOW to remain open to everyone without getting desperate and putting on a three-hour Reality Ballet Show, or whatever the fad is this year.

Link to comment

It's reprehensible that Acocella's article, with which I mostly agree, is being put to this underhanded use by Chesbrough and his numbers-crunching lackeys. Has this character no shame? I'm sure he couldn't care less how Balanchine is being danced by NYCB. It seems to me he's trying to salve his wounded pride and salvage his grossly-inflated salary.

Link to comment

Well, we cannot have it both ways. If the Acocella article is accurate, as many people here at Ballet Talk seem to think, you cannot then turn around and say it is shameful for the anti-NYCB camp to use it as ammo. All is fair in war. If 3,500 people cannot be found to attend each perfomance, then the 2,500 who DO attend and want it to continue will just have to suffer.

Audience numbers are down everywhere...at the Met, unless Renee Fleming is singing, or it's the RING cycle, you can see lots of empty seats. I don't go to ABT often, but I was there 4 times in the season just ended...acres of empty seats on every level. The gallery at NYS Theatre is often sparse but the money seats downstairs usually look fairly crowded. To expect the director of any arts organization to expand their audience by 1,000 people per performance at this point in time is like expecting that we will still find WMD in Iraq.

As rkoretzky says, we need the added beauty and meaning in our lives...these days more than ever. I find it at NYCB, and I quietly thank Peter every time I plunk down my $12 for a 4th Ring Society ticket. Can you imagine, $12 for the thrill of seeing SERENADE...4 TEMPS...B-S Q...FIREBIRD...Wendy...Albert...Peter Boal...night after night...only at NYCB. As I have said before, it could be better. It could also be a whole lot worse.

Link to comment

Oberon:

I agree forever with you; no event-not even Britney or Madonna or WWF-sells out every night.

After working all day , my wife and I sometimes abandon our fourth ring tickets for Thursday nights, but when we go, we mostly love the programs; unlike a good many of you, we are not Stravinsky lovers.

We loved NYCB this season, fell in love with Sylvie, sickened over Janie's inflamed foot, loved Veronika Part and Paloma at ABT.We hope to see the Lincoln Center Ashton---Hey how great was he?------ on 07/17.

Link to comment

Oh but Oberon....it's Chesbrough who is trying to have it both ways. From one side of his mouth he claims to be doing everything in his power to save NYCB at SPAC; from the other he trashes the company to the very people who have come forward to help. I've known the man for over 25 years, I thought nothing more that he could do would ever surprise me--and yet I am shocked by this action.

As balletomanes, we can see value in a review, and still see value in the organization that is being reviewed. This isn't the first negative article that Ms. Acocella has written about NYCB, and it surely won't be the last. That doesn't mean that even those of us who see some truth in the article don't ever want to see NYCB again. The contrary: I want to see more--I want to see the young kids develop--I have hope.

On a personal note, I have resigned from my summer job at SPAC. I thought I could work with Save the Ballet and work at SPAC too--because I thought the goals of both organizations were the same. Sadly, they aren't. This is 25 years of my life--end of an era for me.

Link to comment
Well, we cannot have it both ways. If the Acocella article is accurate, as many people here at Ballet Talk seem to think, you cannot then turn around and say it is shameful for the anti-NYCB camp to use it as ammo.

I'm not so sure, Oberon. Acocella's (unstated) reference point is the standard that NYCB set for itself 20+ years ago. If Herbie Baby can find a company that can consistently deliver at that level, I'd say, make a switch. But NYCB ca. 2004 is still a more accomplished, more interesting company than pretty much any that I can think of.

Of course, if commercial success is his criterion, then the article is irrelevant altogether. He could bring in CATS for three weeks each summer, sell out, and Saratogans like Rhona would be telling all the old CATS jokes that haven't had a home since the final curtain fell on Lloyd-Weber's feline empire on Broadway.

:cat: :cat: :cat: :cat: :cat: :cat:

Link to comment

And I took advantage of an opportunity to buttonhole a SPAC board member of my acquaintance, and expressed my displeasure at the idea that NYCB should be discontinued. He argued the falling ticket sales, and I argued that they are unlikely to find a bigger draw, even Taylor or Graham. City Ballet is Saratoga's best hope. I noticed in a local news article that ticket sales this year are up 12% over previous years, and while that's good, it needs even better than that. Anyway, I put in my 2¢.

Link to comment

I'm on your side, rkotetzky, really I am...I am just pointing out that you can see how negative reviews can be used in a situation like this. "Look how awful NYCB has become...we shouldn't be presenting such terrible stuff to our audience."

It is ironic that the problems at SPAC and the Balanchine 100th should come at the same time; right when there is a big focus on the state of the Company and many people are lamenting the slippage of standards since Balanchine's death, their summer home wants to cancel their lease. Two separate issues, yes...but now they have become intertwined.

I wonder if the majority of people in a given audience, either at SPAC or NYS Theatre, realize how "bad" the Company has become. Or do they just see beautiful, sexy people dancing to beautiful or unusual music, and think it looks pretty good. I also wonder if people would read something like the Acocella article and say, "Let's not go to City Ballet anymore, it has deteriorated."

Link to comment

It's a safe bet that the majority of people in a given audience haven't read reviews. But I believe that critics like Accocella and Gottlieb who criticize NYCB do so out of love for the company and its great repertory -- not because they want to see it shut down. It awful that Chesbrough is using the Accocella piece for his own purposes, but I'd hate to have to watch what I say because of him.

Link to comment

Most people who post on "ballettalk" know how to read Acocella's article whether they a)altogether agree b)somewhat agree c)somewhat disagree or d)altogether disagree with it. They see it as part of a larger debate, have some knowledge of the (past and present) standards which she evokes, and if they attribute an "extra" critical motive to her writing, it's not that she wants to undermine NYCB as an institution.

Most legislaters (or their staff), arts patrons, and general audience members, though they are not necessarily naive, do not have the time or interest to do much other than take reviewers at their word. In this case, a very respected cultural publication has been pronouncing for some time that the company is going down hill. People who read that a once great institution has fallen on hard times may become dubious about attending performances and policy makers deciding about money for the arts become dubious about giving it. It's one thing to say great art should be supported whether it's popular and profitable or not--but if one hears that, after all, NYCB is not producing such great art anymore then, if you are a policy maker or theater board why not support something popular or showcase something that that will make more money (or, at any rate, lose less). (I am writing as if I attribute at least partially sincere motives to those involved--of course, that may be over generous.)

Serious criticism cannot occur if critics have to worry about the "political" uses to which their writing may be put, and I support serious criticism. But it may at least be worth noticing that even the most vehement critics of NYCB in its present state still pretty much assume that the company is on a stable footing. That assumption perhaps even fuels some of their irritation. Presumably, they wouldn't mind if their words influenced changes in artistic policy (though, also presumably, they don't expect it and Accocella is quite explicit that she thinks Martins' response to attack has been to "dig in his heels.") I do think critics should remember the frailty of arts institutions in the U.S.--NOT soften their opinions, but also not blithely assume that NYCB in its present form--having a repertory dominated by Balanchine and danced by world class dancers--will always be with us.

(One reason people are so thrilled with the Ashton festival is because companies have NOT been dancing these ballets very regularly, including in the U. K.)

To some extent, I sort of agree with Oberon: if the company is really doing as shabby a job as people say, then perhaps we should expect it to lose public support from arts sensitive audiences and government alike. Unfortunately, if it does lose support I doubt we are going to see more and better Balanchine, with Farrell or Von Aroldingen (or whoever) at the helm with a well-oiled adminstrative machine behind her, and (most unlikely of all) higher quality premiers. We are much more likely just to see less of everything and less consistently well-danced even than it is now.

Perhaps some do feel the level of Balanchine dancing has gotten so poor, that the company really does not deserve substantive support. The end of the Saratoga era could in a way then be seen as a kind of institutional confirmation that the Martins era has not been able to maintain the success of its predecessor. My view is that while this is is partially true (though some of the reasons are beyond Martins' control) not only is a loss of support for the institution--as it is now under Martins--bad for ballet, but people continue to underrate his real accomplishments.

In any case, the SPAC being able to get away with this is just a bad sign for the arts all round in this country, though not the first or last. On a somewhat brighter note, perhaps some other summer festival will offer a home for the company. Traditions, especially institutional traditions, do change and it's not always the end of the line. (That's no comfort to NYCB lovers in Saratoga I know...)

Link to comment

A friend of mine used to review opera & dance for the only newspaper of a large New England city. He felt that both the opera and ballet companies there were on the decline and began to write about what he felt was going wrong. The editor called him in and said, basically, that he had to write nice or at least neutral reviews because members of the boards of both the ballet and opera were major advertisers in the newspaper. Also, he was told that the box office for cultural events was hurting and if he didn't write some stuff to pique the public's curiosity the ballet & opera would be kaput and he would be out of a job. My friend continued to write, toning down his criticisms, but eventually he felt so compromised that he quit.

Whatever one's opinion of Peter, he seems to have the company in a fairly stable financial situation, he does seem to try to bring in some fairly interesting choreographers (not all of them to everyone's taste, of course) and the audience continues to have a goodly percentage of young people...something you do not see at the Met or the NY Philharmonic, where sleeping thru the symphony is the dominant theme. He seems to have charmed Mrs. Diamond into parting with enough cash to finance numerous Diamond Projects...not that every piece was good but where else is there so much creativity brewing as at NYCB during a Diamond Project season?

Edited by Alexandra
Link to comment

This whole episode highlights a problem that has always existed in the performing arts, at least in America: the extent to which criticism is perceived, and used, as a consumer guide. It's not supposed to serve this function, of course, but inevitably it does. And the problem these days is mainly in the high arts, because popular culture is increasingly critic-proof: audiences seem to make their choices of films, music, and the like based on their own criteria and not those of professional watchers and thinkers. But the critic-as-consumer guide phenomenon has usually been limited to those who write for daily papers, especially where the paper is the only one in town, or the only "serious" one. What's unusual about the Chesbrough situation is that he has made use of criticism published in a weekly magazine, and a "highbrow" one at that. I'd hate to see the thumbs up/thumbs down mentality extended to criticism published in less frequently issued periodicals, which traditionally has been spared the pressure of instantaneous opinionating and enjoyed the luxury of a measured, distanced analysis.

Of course, what is really going on here is that Chesbrough is simply co-opting a review to use for his own purposes. He doesn't give a hoot about the artistic quality of NYCB, and I don't think that anyone, least of all NYCB's Board of Directors, believes that his desire to end the company's SPAC residency is in any way related to Martins's policies and conduct.

Link to comment

Is it not possible that City Ballet (or some people there) is as ambivalent as the SPAC Board about the Saratoga relationship?

After all, a thousand seats a night for about twenty nights is but a million dollars in a Saratoga season. City Ballet has people on its Board who could easily write a tax deductible check for that without blinking or thinking -- For various reasons, primarily tax planning or foundation requirements, money has to be given away.

If things have come to this pass, it's not only SPAC's responsibility. Both parties seem to be involved in some brinksmanship here and, if the "next season is the last one" thing holds, it will also be because NYCB has decided that things have a cost and that this one is only worth so much.

Link to comment

Ari was here for just four days, and she was able to grasp the entire situation. Of course the fact that she was staying with us, therefore subjected to my rantings many times a day, and that she met many of my ballet friends who also subjected her to their rantings, didn't hurt.

Michael--believe me, I have questioned NYCB's degree of commitment in my own mind. But for me the bottom line is my gut feeling about who I can trust. Both parties claim to want the relationship to continue indefinitely, and yet each is talking a very different language.

I resigned from my SPAC job, with a heavy heart, because I was being harassed by my SPAC bosses due to my "conflict of interest" because I am a member of the Save the Ballet committee. Long before the season began, I approached my direct supervisor, advising her of my position with STB and offering to resign if there was any perception of inappropiateness. I did so to cover myself, and I am very glad that I did. She welcomed me back to the SPAC staff and so I felt fine about being there. And yet I have been so harassed that I resigned on the evening of my very first assignment. Now my ushers are being told that I have left because of this "conflict of interest".

Excuse me? In my naivete, I truly believed that the interests of SPAC and STB were the same--that is, the maintenance of the SPAC/NYCB relationship--ad infinitum. Clearly not. That phrase "conflict of interest" speaks volumes to me. Wouldn't the interests be the same?

Conversely, every person connected to NYCB with whom I have spoken has talked the same talk: we want to be here forever. Peter Martins, ordinarily not so, has been extremely warm and friendly to any of us who have spoken with him (I have). I am choosing to trust him and the NYCB organization. The trust with SPAC is shattered. The reason that STB is incorporated with 501C3 status is so that we can collect donations, because most people don't want to give their money to SPAC.

The money isn't really the issue anyway. I have total confidence that the $600,000 that is needed to obtain the $300,000 in state funding will be raised by the deadline of July 2005. It won't matter. Herb has now changed the rules again, and announced that the only deciding factor will be the ticket numbers. 3500 to 4000 tickets sold per performance is the benchmark that he has set, and it is just not possible. We don't have the population here to support a better-than-sellout at State Theater, every night for three weeks. So if Herb is to be believed, it is over.

Do I think City Ballet could do more? Sure I do. And I think they will, if they see any hope. They have already made financial concessions. I hope to meet with some members of their marketing staff while they are here in Saratoga. Everyone conncected with NYCB has said that he/she is willing to do anything. So help me, I believe them.

Drew, Andrea Quinn said it best yesterday, during the special concert that NYCB orchestra gave as a thank-you to the people of Saratoga: "Mr Balanchine built this theater and stood on this stage. The thought that NYCB would not be here is too awful to contemplate." So for all of us the idea that another festival would welcome NYCB with open arms is no comfort at all.

Link to comment
Herb has now changed the rules again, and announced that the only deciding factor will be the ticket numbers. 3500 to 4000 tickets sold per performance is the benchmark that he has set, and it is just not possible. We don't have the population here to support a better-than-sellout at State Theater, every night for three weeks. So if Herb is to be believed, it is over.

That speaks volumes because it really is not possible. The best bet is to get rid of Herb's base of support on the current SPAC Board and then get rid of him. A year to do this in. Happy Hunting.

Link to comment

I haven't been to Saratoga in quite awhile, but my parents have had a home there for nearly twenty years, and used to be regular attendees at the ballet. They too had noticed a decline in attendance about five years ago, but chalked it up to the fact that Saratoga is not the summer mecca it once was. Many of the people who come in for the larger, single events are from the Albany area - willing to make the trip once, but not for a season subscription, or, perhaps a "younger" crowd, not well-acquainted with ballet, and therefore not as likely to go see it.

While I would agree that it would be a shame to see the ballet go, wouldn't it be better served somewhere else? I imagine there would be many places where the ballet would be welcomed, even courted for a summer residency, and perhaps the change would do them good - at least they wouldn't be at the center of what seems to have turned into a rather major controversy. Although it is the theater that Balanchine helped build, I think he would be the first person to go and pioneer a new summer settlement for his company, especially if he felt that Saratoga was no longer a productive place for him and his dancers to work.

This is not to say, however, that I agree with SPAC's board; I think it's far worse for Saratoga then for the ballet. However, I fear that even if the money is raised for the ballet, it will be a pyrrhic victory at best.

Link to comment

Housekeeping note: This thread had gotten a bit contentious and I closed it about an hour ago. Since then, we think that problem has been resolved, so I deleted three problem posts and reopened the thread. If you didn't read them, you didn't miss anything exciting :) If you had, and wondered what happened, now you know! Back to SPAC politics.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...