No Balanchine on NYCB opening night

[Farrell Fan]

You've posed a key question, GeorgeB fan. I suspect only Peter Martins himself can answer it.

[bart]

Your post, GeorgeB fan, strikes me as fair and balanced.

I've been reading (carefully, and with great interest) all the Ballet Talk NYCB posts for a year. I'm struck by the the way that the biggest NYCB fans seem to focus primarily on individual dancers and their performances, rather than on the ballets and the entire artistic experience.

Each poster has his or her favorite dancer, but almost no one seems to feel that the quality of the best dancers is a problem. Those who focus on dancer technique have every reason to be pleased.

Those, however, who express the wish for a larger and comprehensive artistic experience -- and especially those with powerful memories of the past -- seem less satisfied. , or even

So many charming, intelligent, technically brilliant dancers. Wouldn't it be wonderful to give them all the resources they might require to expand their ability to produce truly great art?

[bobbi]

After reading all of the above posts -- which have made great reading -- I have a prediction:

In less than five years (1) ABT (which bills itself as the "home of the classics") will be doing more Balanchine ballets than NYCB and (2) to see well-rehearsed and well-cherished Balanchine ballets, go to the regional companies, not NYCB.

[Drew]

Bobbi -- I'm guessing the hyperbole was intentional, but I will still go ahead and say that I don't think it's remotely likely that in five years ABT, which has been presenting 2-3 Balanchine ballets each year pretty regularly for a while now, will be dancing more Balanchine than NYCB which dances well over a dozen Balanchine ballets every year.

I am also less sanguine about the "regional" companies bearing the brunt of preserving the Balanchine legacy than others on this board: even if it's true that sublime Balanchine performances are being offered regularly at those companies they haven't the resources to operate on the scale of NYCB. (I myself haven't seen these non-New York based companies much and I reserve judgment on the little I have seen--a San Francisco ballet Jewels and a Farrell Ballet company performance a few years back--both of which had lovely qualities, but neither of which, in my opinion, set a standard of performance.)

I do not mean these remarks as a defense of Martins who has made plenty of decisions about how to continue the Balanchine legacy within today's NYCB that raise questions for a serious admirer of Balanchine. But if I really believed that Balanchine would "live" elsewhere in glory--heck, I would have less reason to be concerned about NYCB. (I also think Martins has made good decisions he doesn't get credit for...)

The opening night issue is not one it would have occured to me to be outraged about because this opening leads directly into a month of Nutcracker and yet another opening (of the post-Nutcracker season) with two major Balanchine works on the program. But reading over this thread, I have come to feel sympathy for the outrage. An official opening night speaks to the company's way of projecting itself to the public, of announcing what matters to it--and in that respect "No Balanchine" feels like yet another public display of (what often comes across as) Martins ambivalence about his role as Mr. B's successor.

[Alexandra]

The opening night issue is not one it would have occured to me to be outraged about because this opening leads directly into a month of Nutrcracher and yet another opening (of the post-Nutcracker season) with two major Balanchine works on the program.  But reading over this thread, I have come to feel sympathy for the outrage.  An official opening night speaks to the company's way of projecting itself to the public, of announcing what matters to it--and in that respect "No Balanchine" feels like yet another public display of (what often comes across as) Martins ambivalence about his role as Mr. B's successor.

Good to read you, as always, Drew. It's this last point -- the public face -- that troubles me as well (and if "Tarantella" had been danced, I'd feel the same way). Couple this with the rep they're taking to Copenhagen, and I wonder what the company's identity is these days.

[oberon]

At least three of the "retired" dancers GeorgeB fan would like to having coaching at NYCB have indeed coached current dancers in their old roles.

[Farrell Fan]

At least three of the "retired" dancers GeorgeB fan would like to having coaching at NYCB have indeed coached current dancers in their old roles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you be more specific, Oberon?

[PetipaFan]

I think it's fantastic that Peter Martins is giving Albert Evans a chance on Opening Night with a new ballet of his and N.Y. Export: Opus Jazz was actually well received by none other than Robert Greskovic, writing in the Wall Street Journal last June.

Farrell Fan, there seems to be some disagreement as to who is responsible for the break between Farrell and Martins...I think she must write a letter to Martins asking to return like she did to Balanchine and make it public. If he rejects her, then he will be the bad guy she has nothing to lose.

[Helene]

I don't see why Farrell must do anything. She's got a company of her own, control over her repertoire, and other companies are thrilled to have her staging ballets and coaching their dancers.

[Hans]

I agree, Helene.

[Farrell Fan]

PetipaFan -- according to Martins's account (reported by Deborah Weisgall, New York Times Magazine, April 21, 1996), Farrell asked to be his "associate artistic director." He took umbrage and refused.

[bart]

I'm not sure what "associate" means. Its very ambuiguity, especially in this highly charged setting, seems almost to guarantee bad feelings, confused lines of responsibility, and (probably sooner than later) disaster.

Regardless of what one thinks about the relative merits of Martins and Farrell as carriers of the Balanchine torch (and of the NYCB company torch, which is not quite the same thing), I cannot believe that Martins or any AD ought to have accepted such an offer -- or that it would have worked.

[Farrell Fan]

Well, Martins not only didn't accept the offer, he fired her. It turned out to be the best thing that could have happened to her.

But with goodwill and understanding on both sides, an "Associate Artistic Director" need not be any more unworkable than having two "Ballet Masters in Chief."

[BW]

Speaking of this sort of thing, what was Jerome Robbins' title while he and Balanchine were there together? Was there any similar sort of "association" as the type you, Farrell Fan, are suggesting should be able to work?

[Farrell Fan]

Thanks, BW. Balanchine and Robbins were both "Ballet Masters." Balanchine disliked the term "Artistic Director." I don't know why when Robbins and Martins took the the helm they both became known as "Ballet Master in Chief." Ridiculous, isn't it? Balanchine was never that. If they'd remained simply as Ballet Masters, there would have been no problem naming Suzanne as one too. But that presupposes good will on everyone's part. As for Susanne's wanting to become "Associate Artistic Director," I must reiterate that's Peter Martins's account of what happened, not hers.

[BW]

Well, that is what I thought - about Robbins and Balanchine. Nice to be reminded that it has been done, and that it worked quite well.

Edited October 10, 2005 by BW

[bart]

But that presupposes good will on everyone's part.

Precisely.

Well, that is what I thought - about Robbins and Balanchine.    Nice to be reminded that it has been done, and that it worked quite well.

Perhaps the success of shared titles was partly dependent on this, from Bernard Taper's book: "In actuality, Balanchine bore the title of a artistic director for only a few years. The adjective offended him, and the time came when he demoted himself, in title, to 'ballet master.' On the program, he was therafter listed as one of three ballet masters, along with Jerome Robbins and John Taras. Only through alphabetical precedence, presumably, did his name get listed first. It didn't matter. In his domain his power was absolute. He needed no grand title any more than Stalin needed to be anything but party secretary."

Deborah Jowett's biography of Robbins devotes several pages to the matter of the two "Ballet Masters in Chief" after Balanchine's death. "In the end, he [Robbins] accepted the title of ballet master in chief, as did Martins -- their names on the same line in the programs -- and got on with the business of making ballets people loved and making Peter's life difficult."

"Martins says that his first priority was to ensure that the company would survive without Balanchine and, next, 'to make sure that we didn't also lose Jerry ... I could never let Jerry feel that he had a boss ... It wasn't so difficult, because I admired and respected him. I had to find the way not to defer to him, because we were equal, and yet also not make him feel that he had to defer to me. It was very, very tricky."

"Especially in th early years after Balanchine's death, he [Robbins] seemed, as Robert Gottlieb put it, to be 'always looking to be offended or marginalized,' which meant he was hell on wheels in business meetings.'"

Perhaps that's the sort of thing Martins has tried to avoid ever since Robbins' death. Once burnt ... etc.

[PetipaFan]

"Now, now, Farrrell Fan. Let's be fair. There are so few Balanchine ballets that when "Tarantella" was pulled -- undoubtedly for an excellent reason -- it would have been impossible to find a substitute " -- Alexandra

It's weird that Martins removed Tarantella and replaced it with his own ballet and not another Balanchine? What WAS the excellent reason for this? I just re-read this thread and no one has offered the excellent reason.

[kfw]

Perhaps that's the sort of thing Martins has tried to avoid ever since Robbins' death.  Once burnt ... etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps so. But the only thing that might have burnt was Martin's ego -- certainly not the Robbins reportory while Martins found a way to salve his own ego and still give Robbins what he asked for. That partnership worked for the company and the ballets. What's suffered is the Balanchine repertory Martins always says he cares so much about.

[Helene]

There are two other precedents: both Monica Mason and Karen Kain worked under reigning Artistic Directors.

[Hans]

It's weird that Martins removed Tarantella and replaced it with his own ballet and not another Balanchine? What WAS the the excellent reason for this? I just re-read this thread and no one has offered the excellent reason.

My best guess is that none of us has any (postable) idea. I'm certainly bewildered.

[dirac]

I think the matter of titles is worth discussing, but as far as I can tell it wasn’t the central issue. It does seem as if Farrell was pushing for some kind of power sharing arrangement, and Martins demurred, as indeed many ADs would. If that or something similar was the case, I agree with bart that Martins would have had a point, and it wouldn’t necessarily be egomania to decide such an arrangement wouldn’t work. (I certainly wouldn’t want to be Ballet- Master- in- Chief- for-Taking- the- Blame- myself. )

That said, it is to be hoped that Martins did everything he could to avoid such a disastrous breach. Perhaps a more politic approach, from someone less inclined to defensiveness as Martins seems to be, might have worked.

[bart]

I just came across a quote of John Taras, dancer and one of Balanchine's (and post-Balanchine) most important ballet masters: "So often in Balanchine's ballets, I find that the dancer the work was made on is what the ballet is about. When the cast changes, the work survives, but it's not the same; it becomes diluted."

It's from Allegra Kent's autobiography, and the context is her first experience of "helping" a dancer to prepare the revival of a role that had been set on Kent. She was working with Heather Watts on Bugaku.

The idea that "the dancer the work was made on is what the ballet is about" needs qualification but seems very a propos to a lot of Balanchine.

Kent notes that " ... the ballet mistress was upset. Even though the part was created for me, she felt that my presence was unnecessary. Heather Watts sensed this and never asked me to help her again."

[sz]

Kent notes that " ... the ballet mistress was upset.  Even though the part was created for me, she felt that my presence was unnecessary.  Heather Watts sensed this and never asked me to help her again."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pity. That's a terribly bad sign...

Allegra has so much to offer... if you've ever seen her in that role...

Couldn't imagine anyone wanting to dance Bugaku without lots of Allegra's coaching / suggestions from experience. Ditto Allegra's other very famous roles. While a ballet mistress can teach the skeleton, Allegra has lived with the meat, the fat and all the flavors.

But... where there's a will, there's a way.... I'll not name names, but someone else I know, recently learning the Bugaku role, did seek out Allegra's coaching.

[atm711]

I came across a very good interview with Jillana---and she addresses, very eloquently, most of the topics discussed here.

http://www.criticaldance.com/interviews/20...llana020603html

(when I clicked on the above, I got criticaldance--the interview is somewhere... )