Jump to content


Anne Bass leaves SAB Boardarticle in The Observer


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#16 Farrell Fan

Farrell Fan

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,930 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 04:41 PM

On the whole, I thought it was a good article, even though it told me more about the infighting at SAB than I really want to know. Thanks for posting it, Alexandra. I never thought I had anything in common with Anne Bass, but her sentiments about how NYCB and SAB were once the most important things in her life and are now irrelevant, pretty much reflect mine.

#17 Michael

Michael

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 777 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 05:00 PM

Perhaps in terms of throwing her weight around -- to push the advancement of students at the school and the casting in the company of students whom she "discovered" or "adopted," Ms. Bass herself hasn't been exactly guiltless. If it's no longer the Balanchine Kierstein company, she's not without blame herself.

#18 Mel Johnson

Mel Johnson

    Diamonds Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 05:12 PM

It looks to me rather like a succession of skirmishes over various sorts of protégé(e)s over an extended period of time. So, ah, what else is new?

#19 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,998 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 05:23 PM

Twenty-five years is a long time to support an organization though a load of money. I remember the notes in many a program that noted that a production was sponsored by Anne Bass.

#20 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,824 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 05:49 PM

What is most disturbing is for a self syled high falutin' publication such as the Observer to dig up all this old dirt & regurgitate it as though it has something to do with the subject of the article.

I'm surprised they didn't throw Frances Schreuder in there while they were at it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



If l’affaire Schreuder could in some way be blamed on Martins, trust me, she’d be there. :wub:

#21 carbro

carbro

    Late Board Registrar

  • Rest in Peace
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,361 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 06:13 PM

Yes, there was a lot of irrelevant dirt in the story. What didn't get addressed and is of great interest to me is Anne Bass' continuing (or not), friendly (or not) participation on the Company's board. The sourness of her departure from SAB's must leech into NYCB's.

#22 oberon

oberon

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 06:40 PM

I always preferred Mrs. Diamond.

#23 perky

perky

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 05:23 AM

Two things about the article, the first one is this quote from Ms. Thompson,

"I think there might be people who want to teach at the school, but teaching is quite different from being a superstar dancer. You need something more-intuition, openess, dedication."

If she's talking about Farrell, Kent, etc. then this woman is completely clueless. Scary clueless!

The second thing that struck me about the article is it's strong gossipy tone. It made me feel dirty after I read it.

#24 Bill

Bill

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 06:47 AM

The situation described in the article sounds so much like infighting at other non-profit/volunteer boards, not limited at all to the dance world. It seems to me that the author included much extraneous/dated detail about NYCB to pad the story.

#25 dewdrop

dewdrop

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 07:00 AM

eom.

#26 Bill

Bill

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 08:21 AM

The situation described in the article sounds so much like infighting at other non-profit/volunteer boards, not limited at all to the dance world.  It seems to me that the author included much extraneous/dated detail about NYCB to pad the story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


FYI

NYCB is not a non-profit company. It is for profit.

dewdrop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the NYCB 2004 Annual Report (not that it matters for purposes of this thread):
"The New York City Ballet, Inc. (City Ballet) is a not-for-profit organization and a constituent of City Center of Music and Drama, Inc. (CCMD). City Ballet operates as an entity independent of CCMD that provides certain services as described further below. CCMD is the sole member of City Ballet."

"City Ballet is a tax-exempt organization and, accordingly, is not subject to income tax in accordance with §501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and has been classified as a publicly supported organization as defined in §509(a)(2) of the Code. Contributions to City Ballet are tax deductible to contributors as provided by law."

#27 Farrell Fan

Farrell Fan

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,930 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 08:22 AM

The gossipy tone of the article is typical of The New York Observer. I enjoy reading this publication because the gossip is often about topics I'm interested in. Dated or extraneous though parts of this piece may be, does anyone think it is inaccurate? The thought that being a great dancer is different from being a good teacher parrots the self-serving Peter Martins allegation that Suzanne Farrell couldn't teach.

#28 Hans

Hans

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 12:20 PM

Well, being a great dancer is different from being a great teacher, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

#29 Farrell Fan

Farrell Fan

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,930 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 02:41 PM

Just got my "hard copy" of the New York Observer. Whatever one thinks of the article, the front-page color illustration -- of Peter Martins as the Nutcracker -- is priceless. The inside photographs, however, are on oddly-chosen lot: Anne Bass, Martins and Darci Kistler, a 1985 photo of Martins and Bernadette Peters, and one from 1939 of Balanchine rehearsing Vera Zorina in "On Your Toes." She is identified in the caption as "Eva Hartwig." This is like calling Suzanne Farrell, "Roberta Ficker."

#30 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,824 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 02:54 PM

At the very least they might have referred to Zorina as Eva Brigitta Hartwig. I haven't received my subscription copy yet, but I'm on the opposite coast so it takes longer.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):