Robert Gottlieb on Recent NYCB Promotions

[bart]

Robert Gottlieb comments on the promotions in the NY Observer. Here's the LINK, courtesy of dirac:

http://www.observer.com/20060327/20060327_...ttliebdance.asp

I was wondering what those who are familiar with the current NYCB dancers and policies think about this.

QUOTE: "A signal event of the week was City Ballet’s announcement that it was promoting nine(!) corps dancers into the soloist ranks. I’ve never heard of such a wholesale promotion, but it makes some kind of sense. The company this past season featured 23 principals, at least a third of whom either weren’t dancing or shouldn’t have been dancing, and 11 soloists, only two or three of whom are ever likely to become principals. And there’s a lot of talent at the bottom—most of the newly minted soloists have real promise. But what’s to become of them? If we can extrapolate from the last dozen years, a few will be shot to the top too quickly and others will wither from lack of nurture. Where the company needs change most is in its ballet-master/ballet-mistress structure—and in its attitude toward staging and coaching. Very few dancers, however talented, can do it on their own."

[Farrell Fan]

Amen.

[oberon]

Same ax, and Gottlieb keeps grinding it. Boring.

[Leigh Witchel]

Well if it's the same ax as usual, he ground it properly this time. He's right on target.

[Helene]

[ADMIN BEANIE ON]

I've split of Robert Gottlieb's comments on the recent NYCB promotions from the main thread, in which Ballet Talkers can post their comments and opinions on these.

I've also removed posts that violate Ballet Talk rules and policy.

There are very few things that are bannable offenses on this board, but shutting down the discussion with put-downs is one of them and won't be tolerated.

Well-reasoned arguments that further the discussion are welcome.

[ADMIN BEANIE OFF]

[oberon]

Well, I'm sorry Helene. But the topic has been discussed here many times, in various guises. That is why I yawned.

Dancers certainly do end up in limbo sometimes at NYCB, mainly - in my view - due to injuries, or sometimes due to illness. If you look at the roster, you will see a number of dancers who either have been or are currently dealing with injuries. I am not talking about a turned ankle that takes a few weeks to heal, but injuries which take the dancer out for a year or more.

Whelan, Weese, Somogyi, Ansanelli (well, she is gone now), Janie Taylor, van Kipnis, Abi Stafford, Philip Neal, Stephen Hanna, Jared Angle, Benjamin Millepied, Ask LaCour, Adam Hendrickson, Maria K (serious illness). All of these have discussed their situations in interviews, and I may have missed a few more. Naturally coming back they are going to be more cautious, or they may find certain roles no longer feel "safe". People who are unaware of these injuries or problems may simply see a dancer not doing as well or not cast as often and feel that the dancer has fallen into a void. My impression is that the Company goes beyond the merely contractual duties of seeing the dancers thru injury or "bad times" but also with emotional support and a careful "easing back in" process when the dancer is ready.

Some of the dancers who might be viewed as having shot up too fast are on this list of the wounded-in-action. They are finding their way into roles that suit their sometimes altered strengths. All of these situations are part of the life of a ballet company or any other large performing arts organization.

Perhaps it would clarify matters if someone would cite dancers who have been badly coached in specific roles. In the past season there were many examples of some of the youngest dancers taking on established rep and doing wonders with it: of special note were Ramasar & Bouder is a wondrously detailed NUTCRACKER pas de deux, Tyler Angle in IN THE NIGHT and (tho I didn't see it) FANCY FREE - reportedly; Reichlen's perfection in the first movement of B-S Q, the much-admired Sara Mearns in SWAN LAKE, and Megan Fairchild's priceless incarnation of the "muse" in WESTERN SYMPHONY. Whoever coached them certainly knew what they were doing. And the dancers certainly absorbed it all and then took it onto the stage and made it their own.

[Helene]

One person's caviar is another's icky fish.

The general rule is that if a topic doesn't interest for whatever reason, please skip it. People who do find it interesting will comment.

I don't think there's much else to say about having a civil discussion.

[Alexandra]

It's a very short comment at the end of a very long piece (also about, among other things, Susan Marshall's new work and Benjamin Millepied's latest venture). Gottlieb notes that new soloists are needed because so many principals have just retired or will probably do so within the next season or two. His comment, "If we can extrapolate from the last dozen years, a few will be shot to the top too quickly and others will wither from lack of nurture" does not seem unreasoned, to me The "shot to the top too quickly" has been a problem. (A change from the "Peter's Kindergarten" Arlene Croce noted during his first decade; she wrote in a New Yorker piece that a generation of promising dancers, led by Roma Sosenko, had been kept in a kind of juvenile limbo.) Now the complaint is often that there's a sink or swin mentality -- and critics have a hand in this. I remember what seemed an almost instant coronation of Maria Kowroski. Such early enthusiasm is almost always followed by a reconsideration, and I've never thought it fair (although I'm sure I've been guilty of the same thing!) There are indeed some promising youngsters in this group, and in last year's promotions, too. But I think Gottlieb's comment on a weakness on the balletmistressing/mastering side is apt.

[Dale]

His comment, "If we can extrapolate from the last dozen years, a few will be shot to the top too quickly and others will wither from lack of nurture" does not seem unreasoned, to me The "shot to the top too quickly" has been a problem for NYCB principals during the Martins' regime. (A change from the "Peter's Kindergarten" Arlene Croce noted during his first decade, where she noted that a generation of promising dancers, led by Roma Sosenko, had been kept in a kind of juvenile limbo.) Now the complaint is often that there's a sink or swin mentality -- and critics have a hand in this. I remember what seemed an almost instant coronation of Maria Kowroski. Such early enthusiasm is almost always followed by a reconsideration, and I've never thought it fair (although I'm sure I've been guilty of the same thing!) There are indeed some promising youngsters in this group, and in last year's promotions, too. But I think Gottlieb's comment on a weakness on the balletmistressing/mastering side is apt.

I agree with your assessment of Gottlieb's comments. About the ballet mistressing/mastering, I think it's interesting to note that many of these people coach and set ballets at other companies around the world. Many of those productions are much admired (ex. the Jewels productions at the Kirov and POB or Liebeslieder at SFB). I think, possibly, there's something regarding the system at NYCB that needs re-thinking. That system has been in place since Balanchine's time. It just might not work with dancers that are so far removed from the time the ballets were created or coached by Balanchine.

Already, there's a change. We all bemoaned the fact that there were less Balanchine ballets (less ballets in general). Ballets were repeated more than their usual 4 times. This allowed room for growth in performances that I hadn't really seen to such an extent in recent years. For example, Baiser with De Luz and Fairchild. I saw their 2nd performance and there were problems with partnering and interpretation. By the 6th performance, the partnering was smoother and the dancers seemed to know what was going on. I still felt the pair was a little miscast, but that later performance was very moving.

[drb]

While one or two of the promotions may appear fast-tracking (but when a dancer creates a sensation as Odette/Odile and becomes one of the company's "hot tickets" how could there not be a promotion?), most appear very naturally sequenced. And sometimes promotions are to compensate for long and meritorious service: the lowest soloist salary is (as per the contract now in force) $207 greater per performance week than the highest possible corps salary.

[carbro]

Helene wrote last night (night before?) in the PNB forum that Peter Boal described Carla Korbes as a dancer who never needed coaching. I believe it. I believe Ashley Bouder never needed coaching. There are such dancers, and they are rare. Maria Kowroski is an example of a dancer who, given good coaching, could have gotten where she is today in a lot less time.

On the other hand, Paloma Herrera belongs to ABT, a company with a stable of highly reputable ballet mistresses and masters. They've coaxed a small number of very good performances out of her, but one hopes for more from a ballerina in a company of ABT's caliber.

I also think the most crucial coaching is not with the principal, but with the corps. They are the dancers who can save a ballet if a principal is having an off-day, and they can put a bad drag on a ballet when the leads are brilliant. This is what lacks most at NYCB, but as Dale indicated, things have been worse.

Does this mean it's not a complaint worth making? On the contrary. There is too much raw talent in NYCB today to see so much of it foundering, wasting away at worst, or just wasting time.

I think Gottlieb, in his roundabout way, is actually advocating for the dancers as much as for the audience.

[Michael]

I don't think there is such a thing as a dancer who never needed coaching. There are only some who can succeed without it. Bouder and Korbes and Jennie Somogyi need or needed coaching too. They were just able to develop without it. And that's just coaching.

Ballet Mastering or Mistressing is something even more encompassing and fundamental.

Coaching is role oriented. The role of the Ballet Master or director starts in class or before it, in forming the dancers, nurturing and developing them, looking after them artistically, physically and emotionally, from casting at one end, to how you give feedback and approval (or whether you give approval at all -- the systematic failure to give it amounts to an emotional sickness) to the atmosphere in the dressing rooms and in how you treat the company as a whole at the other end -- That's the all encompassing thing.

When they come into the company most of these dancers are eighteen years old, some are even younger. They have grown up in a world subject to absolute authority in the studio and isolated from other kids, spending their teen age years staring at themselves in a mirror and trying to perceive defects that the lay person can hardly imagine. Even without that background, Kids at that age need to be taught things as much or even more than ones who are twelve to fifteen. Dancers don't stop needing to learn and needing authority when they reach the company, only it's different things they need: you are no longer dealing so much with the basics, though that stuff ocasionally needs tweaking too.

[bart]

This is interesting, and very relevent to all larger companies, not just the NYCB. I say this someone who knows only a little about the prepartion process that ballet companies undertake before performance.

I've seen ballets being "set" on a company by someone from the Balanchine or Robbins organizations and by several choreographers. But I've never to my knowledge observed coaching. From what you all are saying, especially Michael, I see that coaching is (ideally) a long-term process of support as well as a individual coaching sessions. In huge organizations, minus a strong commitment to the making coaching a priority, I can see that this could easily be lost when things get very busy.

It's good to hear of positive developments at NYCB.

Already, there's a change. We all bemoaned the fact that there were less Balanchine ballets (less ballets in general). Ballets were repeated more than their usual 4 times. This allowed room for growth in performances that I hadn't really seen to such an extent in recent years. For example, Baiser with De Luz and Fairchild. I saw their 2nd performance and there were problems with partnering and interpretation. By the 6th performance, the partnering was smoother and the dancers seemed to know what was going on. I still felt the pair was a little miscast, but that later performance was very moving.

So many other companies have a limited number of engagements and multiple casts. I've often wondered how dancers can internalize a part so quickly. The answer appears to be that many cannnot, and need more time. Some dancers are able to make a role their own. But I've too often seen, especially in solo and demi-solo roles, dancers who are given an opportunity a few times and then moved aside because there's someone else in line behind them.

I also think the most crucial coaching is not with the principal, but with the corps. They are the dancers who can save a ballet if a principal is having an off-day, and they can put a bad drag on a ballet when the leads are brilliant.

A strong corps can contribute so much, often becoming a kind of character in the ballet, even when the principals are having an ON day. I know Miami has separate coaching sessions for the corps in various ballets, even though most corps members are also given solo opportunities at some point or other in the season. I don't know how extensive these sessions are.

How do the largest companies, those with very effective corps, accomplish it? It can't just be a matter of everyone coming from the same school and tradition.

When they come into the company most of these dancers are eighteen years old, some are even younger. They have grown up in a world subject to absolute authority in the studio and isolated from other kids, spending their teen age years staring at themselves in a mirror and trying to perceive defects that the lay person can hardly imagine. Even without that background, Kids at that age need to be taught things as much or even more than ones who are twelve to fifteen. Dancers don't stop needing to learn and needing authority when they reach the company ...

This is quite striking when very young dancers undertake roles that demand maturity and life experience. You can't "teach" these things, but you can teach the qualities of movement, gesture, etc., that will convey it to the audience.

I've especially felt something missing with every very young Odette-Odile's I've seen. (As opposed to Aurora, whose situation and emotions seems quite accessible from a young person's perspective.)

Many of Balanchine's ballet also require a kind of awareness and stature (an attitude that conveys the sense that one has "lived" and knows very well what one is doing) that inexperienced stage dancers, while quite capable of doing the steps, cannot access or pass on to the audience. I recall a performance of Apollo not all that long ago in which all three Muses, far from being semi-divine and eternal, and participating in the formation of a god, were merely lovely young things doing barre. What a waste.

[sandik]

I've especially felt something missing with every very young Odette-Odile's I've seen. (As opposed to Aurora, whose situation and emotions seems quite accessible from a young person's perspective.)

Absolutely. Although some of the most "youthful" and poignant Auroras I've seen have been dancers mature enough to know how to project that characterization, it doesn't really translate to Odette/Odile. Many of the young ones I've seen have been just that -- young, and not much else. You can, as you watch, project things onto them, but they don't necessarily bring that with them.

[carbro]

I think all dramatic roles require a certain range of life experience, and while younger Juliets or Giselles may bring their naturally more girlish appearance and kinetic energy, I think these roles benefit especially when danced by more seasoned ballerinas. They have the distance from adolescence to have perspective on the complicated emotional turmoil that characterizes that phase.

But these roles are not in NYCB's rep (except a Balcony pdd), and I've ventured .

Darci did mention in "Six Balanchine Ballerinas" the difficulty of portraying something you're too young to have experienced. I presume she was referring to the Siren in Prodigal and/or the Sleepwalker in Sonnambula.

[dirac]

If I’m remembering correctly, Fonteyn had already danced Giselle and Odette/Odile by age twenty. I also seem to recall Clive Barnes in the mid-Sixties criticizing Balanchine for promoting “the young and the heartless” at the expense of older dancers. Young Fonteyns and Farrells don’t come with the mail, of course.

There was once a saying in the theatre that Shakespeare’s Juliet couldn’t be convincingly played before age forty. It turned out to be wrong.

Sorry for veering off topic....

[beck_hen]

This discussion is beginning to remind me of some books and articles I've read about training doctors (Atul Gawande's Complications is one of these interesting reads). Simply put, young surgeons must take up the scalpel themselves in order to save lives in the future, even if the immediate outcome is less assured. So there must be new Giselles and Juliets and Sirens and Terpsichores and Novices, we all admit, and offer ourselves as their more or less willing victims.

I've often noticed I start loving dancers much more once I realize they won't be around indefinitely. Wendy Whelan is a case in point. I wonder sometimes if I am not as interested in watching younger talent develop. But that isn't the case. It's just not much fun if someone skyrockets to the top without warning. You don't get to see them triumph incrementally and feel that you are triumphing with them. New roles may challenge these young dancers, but if they are not brought up correctly they will not cultivate the fan base they deserve. Last year's new sensation is this year's "oh, not her again." And the injury rate really does seem high to me. I don't want dancers to become expendable.

[bart]

Age is not the main variable here, or so it seems to me. Many older dancers (and people genrally) learn little from experience -- or not the sort of thing you want to see on a stage.

Young performers actually have a great advantage compared with their contemporaries in other fields. Whether dancers, classical musicians, or serious actors, the young performers I've known all seem to have an uncanny ability to relate comfortably with their elders, especially if those elders have an equal passion for their art.

Despite their youth, they seem to have internalized a great desire to learn from those who have experienced and achieved more than they and who share the same language. In the case of dancers, they share the language of movement. These qualities are key to making good coaching work.

The NYCB -- with its beautifully trained students, great tradition, including a tradition of stunning innovation, and its rich pool of alumni -- is well positioned to benefit from this.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Well, I for one consider it a privilege to watch a young artist take on something big. There are some things I knew at 18 that I don’t know very well anymore and in which, frankly, I might now be instructively coached. I don’t need an 18 year old to tell me what a 50 year old knows – I’m well enough acquainted with that already, thank you. To be re-acquainted with how things looked when I *wasn’t* able to put them into perspective – that is treasureable. Young dancers – even very young dancers -- are artists in their own right, not lovely vessels into which their elders may pour what they would do if only they knew then what they know now.

Of course I’m being extreme here: there are certainly things that young artists can and should be taught, or at least be led to explore, but I would hope that these include strategies for discovery, presentation, and expression and don’t get dumbed down to “here is how I danced Odette." (Not that any of the previous posters have suggested the latter or anything like it: I’m just ranting because I’m starting to weary of the “she’d be great if only so-and-so could show her how to do it” mantra. I think I reached my limit when Gottlieb suggested that Sofiane Sylve needed to be coached in the Balanchine rep by Violette Verdy because, you know, Verdy is French too. By the way, I often agree with Gottlieb -- and largely agree with his observation at the end of the review in question -- but I do sometimes wonder if his fund of bitterness is now so great as to preclude his taking pleasure when pleasure is right there to be taken ...)

[drb]

While I have treasured great dancers who have "grown" great performances in their maturity (a recent example being the late Giselles of Amanda McKerrow), I don't buy the necessity of life-experience. Consider Alina Cojocaru's triumphant first Manons. Brit reviewers, who can get much more personal than those in America, expressed amazement that a ballerina with "NO experience" could be so convincing in that role.

More recently at NYCB we had the by now famous Swan Lakes of Sara Mearns. Youth showed only in a lack of stamina that resulted, e.g., in only a dozen or so fouettees for Odile. But what stood out was what appeared to be an extraordinarly mature gestural purity as Odette. Whether the "fame" will transform into "legend' will, of course, depend on where she takes O/O during the course of her career. One might also take note of instant Swan maturity in the cases of Maya Plisetskaya and Sylvie Guillem. Maybe some dancers are born to certain roles....

Interesting how age is so well served in Juliet. How much greater Makarova became, and the depth from maturity that Ferri still gives, and McKerrow gave. And above all, Ulanova.

[carbro]

If I gave the impression that young dancers have nothing to offer me, I apologize. The single most moving debut I have seen was Darci Kistler's, at 16, in the slow movement of Symphony in C. She boureed from the wings to center stage, looking like a little girl in a white ballerina costume, with a tiara and too much lipstick . . . . because that's exactly what she was. Then she started to dance and was a ballerina. And the waterworks opened.

Young dancers have a freshness that, of necessity, is tempered by time. There is a special thrill to that -- its physical and emotional excitement. And as mentioned above, the greatest satisfaction is to see a fine dancer grow in a role, sometimes giving starkly contrasting interpretations in back-to-back performances. And this can be aided by good, solid coaching.

BTW, I saw Mearns' O/O and was not bowled over. I thought it was a decent effort by a young corps dancer, but nothing about it struck me as particularly outstanding. But it was her first . . . ANYTHING, and now with her promotion, it clearly won't be her last. Lots of room to grow. Let's hope she gets the appropriate nurturing.

[canbelto]

Ok, I think the idea that if Violette Verdy, Allegra Kent, Maria Tallchief, Patricia McBride, Edward Villela, Jacque d'Amboise, Suzanne Farrell, Arthur Mitchell, Melissa Hayden, all came back to coach the NYCB is just something Gottfried needs to get over. It's not going to happen. Plus, even if it did happen, it wouldn't magically solve all the NYCB's problems.

I think the main issue with the NYCB was that back in the day, it was *the* American ballet company where budding ballerinas and danseurs aspired to dance. New Balanchine and Robbins works were probably treated the way movie buffs treat the November/December releases -- it's like, what masterpieces will be in store? In other words, the NYCB really had dibs on all the best and brightest American dancers. The SAB was seen much the way the Vaganova Academy is treated in Russia -- it had the best teachers, the best students, and basically the NYCB could pick and choose. The idea of Mr. B creating a ballet for YOU (!!!) was something ballerinas dreamed about. Plus, when Mr. B's ballets were created they had the advantage of literally being something never before seen onstage. Today, Agon-ripoff leotard ballets are a dime a dozen. And so on.

Nowadays, there are much more top-tier ballet companies in the U.S. The ABT is no longer a place that culled the best foreign dancers -- it still has a very international cast, but it's much more homegrown. There's also the San Francisco Ballet, the Pacific Northwest, the Boston Ballet, Joffrey ... Plus, the huge draw of the NYCB (new, interesting works created special for one dancer by two choreographical gods) is no longer there. I don't think ballerinas go to sleep at night and dream of Peter Martins creating a ballet for them. Wheeldon? Maybe, but he's still a young talent. I'm sure ballerinas still dream of dancing Symphony in C, but the excitement of being new and cutting edge is not there anymore. Plus, you can dance Symphony in C in so many companies. It doesn't have to be the NYCB. Balanchine wanted his ballets to go to the world, not to the NYCB, and so it's turned out. The rest of the world gained, but the NYCB probably lost its appeal So it's not so much that the NYCB has regressed as much as it is no longer automatically head and shoulders above all other American ballet companies. And I'm not sure if anything can be done about that.

[Dale]

Nowadays, there are much more top-tier ballet companies in the U.S. The ABT is no longer a place that culled the best foreign dancers -- it still has a very international cast, but it's much more homegrown. There's also the San Francisco Ballet, the Pacific Northwest, the Boston Ballet, Joffrey ... Plus, the huge draw of the NYCB (new, interesting works created special for one dancer by two choreographical gods) is no longer there. I don't think ballerinas go to sleep at night and dream of Peter Martins creating a ballet for them. Wheeldon? Maybe, but he's still a young talent. I'm sure ballerinas still dream of dancing Symphony in C, but the excitement of being new and cutting edge is not there anymore. Plus, you can dance Symphony in C in so many companies. It doesn't have to be the NYCB. Balanchine wanted his ballets to go to the world, not to the NYCB, and so it's turned out. The rest of the world gained, but the NYCB probably lost its appeal So it's not so much that the NYCB has regressed as much as it is no longer automatically head and shoulders above all other American ballet companies. And I'm not sure if anything can be done about that.

canbelto, I think you've really hit upon something that I've come to believe. Look back to the 50s and 60s, dancers such as Conrad Ludlow and Suki Schorer left SFB to dance at NYCB. Now, NYCB is no longer the central gathering of top dancers from around the country. I can name "ballerina" condidates at places like SFB, PNB, MCB, Boston and PA Ballet. And I'd venture to say, the men at SFB and MCB might be stronger than at NYCB. And now NYCB is losing its own SAB-trained dancers to Europe (I still get a twinge when I see Amy Watson at the Royal Danish Ballet).

[drb]

I think it is wonderful that there are so many terrific ballerinas around America these days. Since the magic needed to sustain the art is no longer, for the most part, coming from choreographers, it is up to dancers to save their art. Ansanelli going to the Royal, and Korbes to PNB (and I note the significance of her recent remark--re NYCB's terrible record of major dancer injuries--of how "healthy" dancers are at PNB) are "our" losses, but the world's gains. I hope their moves are great successes, and send a message to dancers at NYCB whose careers aren't fulfilling, that there is life away from the nest.

Still, I really do believe that NYCB is stronger now in its ballerina ranks than at any time since the Golden Age. Bouder(a once-in-a-lifetime miracle), Whelan(simply much better than ever, no doubt the Wheeldon Muse effect, but still most credit must go to her) and Sylve(an "import" who brought with her some of that longed-for coaching) head a fabulous group. I'm sad that we missed the "post-Lopatkina" O/O of Kowroski. SAB is on a roll: so many glorious newbies!

Whatever the cause, I attended more performances this last season than I had in any other post-Suzanne season.

Their male dancer situation is not nearly as favorable, especially with those recent retirements. But even there, things improved, surprisingly but very significantly, this season.

[bart]

NYCB has long welcomed dancers from other (mostly foreign) companies, a number of whom stay for a while and then move back to their original companies.

Does this work in the other direction? Are NYCB dancers able to go elsewhere for a while and then return? (I'm not thinking of the exceptional Farrell or about those who, for whatever reasons, are discouraged into leaving.)

It seems like such policies might increase the cross-pollination of ballet AND add to the prestige and international visibility of NYCB at a time of decreased touring.