NYCB's new approach to scheduling

[ViolinConcerto]

This has really all of us worked up -- positive and negative, though I seem to perceive a subtle leaning towards the negative. My own reaction is quite negative. I like to be able to see my favorite ballets multiple times, and if they are always paired with the same thing....well, then I don't get the variety that NYCB has always offered. And if I don't like one of the program offerings -- the aforementioned "donut hole" -- then I'm really stuck.

I wonder if a letter campaign would make a difference.

[cargill]

I wonder too what this type of programming will do to casting. It seems like it might limit the options--if dancer A does Dance B, then dancer A probably won't get a chance to do Dance A on the same program, and since Dance A and Dance B are always on the same program, it seems to reduce the chance for new roles.

[sz]

In looking over the entire season again, there aren't that many donut holes. Dybbuk is the only one I could find in eight weeks of otherwise fine programing, unless you hated Russian Seasons or In Vento.

Instead, we will be seeing much more Balanchine than in recent years past, and some good Robbins' ballets too. Casting will indeed make or break any overall programing ideas.... I do hope there will be a few interesting debuts in ballets where some of the older generation should be leaving. We'll see, we'll see.

[drb]

.... I do hope there will a few interesting debuts in ballets where some of the older generation should be leaving.

There always are. That's one of the best things about this company, and a great part of why it is my favorite.

[ViolinConcerto]

.... I do hope there will a few interesting debuts in ballets where some of the older generation should be leaving.

There always are. That's one of the best things about this company, and a great part of why it is my favorite.

I may have missed it in the NYTimes, etc., but will casting continue to rotate/change at different performances of the same ballet?

[carbro]

I don't see how this new policy will end the NYCB custom of having at least two, occasionally three, principal casts for each ballet. Sublimova should still be able to dance the first ballet on Program 1 for half the performances and the middle piece on other nights/mats, etc.

[Mel Johnson]

Call me cynical, but this smells of something other than concern for the audience. Something deep inside, saying, "Stagehands! Musicians!", cannot be denied. It's Block Programming by other means.

[bart]

Something deep inside, saying, "Stagehands! Musicians!", cannot be denied.

Interesting possibility!

[carbro]

Yeah, but the programs are scattered; we won't be subjected to a week of Program 1, followed by a week of Program 2, etc. It looks like each program will be scattered over a two-week, or two-week-and-a-bit period. This is consistent with the past system of scheduling -- a ballet would pop up in its programs over a two-to-three week period, and that would be its run.

Visitors to the city will still have a variety of programs and be able to see 9-12 ballets over the course of a week of rep, figuring three-ballet bills.

If this system does reduce injuries, it will be worth it.

[Mel Johnson]

Such optimism... :blush:

[drb]

One sign of intelligence in all this is that the company, when faced with a crisis, knows enough to call in Balanchine to the rescue! The PBS fall broadcast* of Bringing Back Balanchine should spur the public's interest in him just in time for winter sales.

*As reported on the upgraded site and posted on the Bringing Back Balanchine thread in Ballet Videos, Films, and Broadcast Performances.

[KayDenmark]

I'm appalled by all the hand-wringing on this board about a simple schedule change designed to make the company more financially sound. Ballet doesn't fall from the sky - somebody needs to pay for all those beautiful Balanchine bodies and the stage they dance on.

Martins admits it may not work, and if it doesn't, he'll change it. I think it's impressive that after all these years at NYCB, he can still see things with eyes fresh enough to try something new.

Incidentally, I discovered NYCB through one of his truly tacky ideas - a series of subway ads in 1997 that said, among other things, "Woo! Look at the bodies on those dancers!" I was in my 20s at the time.

If this new approach to programming helps bring in the next generation of ballet fans, then I say, good on 'em.

I get so fed up with ballet fans who fear any sort of change. If you had your way Violette Verdy would still be dancing Emeralds.

[suzkess]

I'm appalled by all the hand-wringing on this board about a simple schedule change designed to make the company more financially sound. Ballet doesn't fall from the sky - somebody needs to pay for all those beautiful Balanchine bodies and the stage they dance on.

Martins admits it may not work, and if it doesn't, he'll change it. I think it's impressive that after all these years at NYCB, he can still see things with eyes fresh enough to try something new.

Incidentally, I discovered NYCB through one of his truly tacky ideas - a series of subway ads in 1997 that said, among other things, "Woo! Look at the bodies on those dancers!" I was in my 20s at the time.

If this new approach to programming helps bring in the next generation of ballet fans, then I say, good on 'em.

I get so fed up with ballet fans who fear any sort of change. If you had your way Violette Verdy would still be dancing Emeralds.

It isn't change that ballet fans hate, it's lack of talent and vision. I think that the exodus from NYCB is because whatever talent they have has not been utilized and the training and staging has gone down hill so far, I am not sure it can recover. Except for a few principals, there is no grace left at NYCB.

[perky]

I get so fed up with ballet fans who fear any sort of change. If you had your way Violette Verdy would still be dancing Emeralds.

I don't think ballet fans on this board fear change, the argument is whether that change is beneficial to the company's original vision and the interest of the audience. NYCB discussions on this board always provoke lively sometimes contentious exchanges. I love this company. That doesn't mean the decisions that the management makes don't sometimes drive me to distraction. And I don't really want to still see Verdy dancing Emeralds, but I would like to see her coaching Emeralds at NYCB! :blush:

[papeetepatrick]

I'm appalled by all the hand-wringing on this board about a simple schedule change designed to make the company more financially sound. Ballet doesn't fall from the sky - somebody needs to pay for all those beautiful Balanchine bodies and the stage they dance on.

Every hand-wringer knows this.

Martins admits it may not work, and if it doesn't, he'll change it. I think it's impressive that after all these years at NYCB, he can still see things with eyes fresh enough to try something new.

Maybe it's just eyes jaded enough to try something lame. When it comes to 'For the Fun of It', I even hope it doesn't work. That much pandering is not necessary.

Incidentally, I discovered NYCB through one of his truly tacky ideas - a series of subway ads in 1997 that said, among other things, "Woo! Look at the bodies on those dancers!" I was in my 20s at the time.

Mmmm...so he's been doing 'Relevance' numbers for 9 years...'relevance' talk is almost always a tell-tale sign of cultural malaise.

If you had your way Violette Verdy would still be dancing Emeralds.

Quite so, even though it might be a bit Twilight Zone.

[bart]

[Edited to Add: I have deleted portions of my post which responded to material that was veering from the topic at hand. Since the off-topic stuff is gone, my own responses to it make no sense and are now gone as well.]

As KayDenmark says, it is not irrelevant to wish to find ways that may just possibly increase ticket sales, expand the declining subscriber base, preserve while also expanding the repertoire, give dancers a break, etc., etc. It seems inconsistent to blame Martin for empty seats in the vast NY State Theater last spring, and then not give him the opportunity to experiment with new ways of filling them and earning the money that pays for the whole thing.

Several posters have suggested that it would be more useful to change the aesthetic, training, coaching, etc., practice of the company. As an old Balanchinian, I would say that I generally agree. HoweverI cannot believe -- given the general state of classical culture in the US today and the inevitable escalation of ticket prices well beyond the rate of inflation -- that new attitudes towards coaching or primarily aesthetic considerations will have the kind of economic impact at the box office that seems necessary to keep this huge organization afloat.

It's just possible that the gigantic institution the company has become, the need to fill its vast theater, and a cultural market that is quite different from the Balanchinian heyday, along with many other variables, make the old Balanchinian vision which worked so wonderfully in the past simply impossible in the world today.

I am someone who has seen many hundreds of NYCB performances going back to 1957 , though not -- owing to geography -- many during the past 20 years. Complaints about the old scheduling system go back to the late 50s at least. "Oh God, not THAT ballet again." Similarly, complaints about dangerously over-worked dancers, under-rehearsed performances, and unnecessary injuries. Ditto disagreements and criticisms about style and technique.

The new scheduling is a major attempt at reform. If it addresses these problems even in a slight degree, is that not a good thing?

[papeetepatrick]

It seems inconsistent to blame Martin for empty seats in the vast NY State Theater last spring, and then not give him the opportunity to experiment with new ways of filling them and earning the money that pays for the whole thing.

Of course he is being given the opportunity. For one thing, it's not as if he could be denied it. But it is quite legitimate not to think that the pitch is a very clever one. If it's successful and we merely complained that it was 'tacky', then he can have the last laugh. Anyway, one example of going to NYCB because of a 'Look at those bodies' subway ad is not a very extensive statistic. On the other hand, what Mel says about 'musicians' and 'stagehands' may well be operative. It's probably a Byzantine mess of clashing self-interest(s).

It's just possible that the gigantic institution the company has become, the need to fill its vast theater vast theater, and a cultural market that is quite different from the Balanchinian heyday, along with many other variables, make the old Balanchinian vision which worked so wonderfully in the past simply impossible in the world today

Yes, it's impossible, that's why being desperate about something inferior to what went previously does not gain everyone's sympathy. One kind of compromise after another is expected because inevitable (or so it seems), but after awhile it just doesn't seem that serious since a comparable substitute for the Good Ole Days (unfortunately, that phrase is definitely true in the case of NYCB) does not seem to be in the offing.

The new scheduling is a major attempt at reform. If it addresses these problems even in a slight degree, is that not a good thing

In a sense, sure--at least the matter of injuries. But it doesn't really strike me as though it can be effective toward sales improvement, so that it does boil down to Martins's own tastes, in that he chooses the PR and advertising agency people, or chooses the people who choose the PR people; either that, or he's only the figurehead-spokesman in these matters, and we wouldn't be told this if that's the case.

But even if posters have no real power, it doesn't mean we have to pretend we like philistinism just because it's inevitable. And if we have no real power, our ability to appall may be irrelevant.

[drb]

Knowing my own interests in seeing various casts in favorite ballets and repeating viewings of favorite dancers (Bouder, Reichlen and about 20 others), I will go less often this season than I would have, BUT given the immense upgrade in ballets being shown, will likely go more often than last winter.

I hope sales go up and dancers are healthier.

[Helene]

I get so fed up with ballet fans who fear any sort of change. If you had your way Violette Verdy would still be dancing Emeralds.

I am lucky to have seen the Verdy-coached Carla Körbes in Emeralds, and am quite happy (over the moon), thank you. (Although I wish I had seen Verdy in the role, in her time.)

But back to the topic at hand, bart is absolutely on target. This is a thread in which to discuss the programming changes, and response to the subject from all points of view are welcome here, as long as BT rules are followed in posting.

[Helene]

On the other hand, what Mel says about 'musicians' and 'stagehands' may well be operative. It's probably a Byzantine mess of clashing self-interest(s).

If Mel is correct, then perhaps this could be called a win-win situation.

It's not like the money is pouring in or costs are going down. Speight Jenkins said in a post-performance Q&A this past season that revenue rises 2% and that costs increase 8% (?) each year, and that we could do the math. There are only so many monetary benefits that NYCB can extend. Perhaps this is a creative approach to give a non-monetary benefit, much like Ernest Fleischmann at Los Angeles Symphony was known for.

But even if posters have no real power, it doesn't mean we have to pretend we like philistinism just because it's inevitable. And if we have no real power, our ability to appall may be irrelevant.

NYCB will evaluate the results. Buying or not buying subscriptions and/or single tickets is the power we do have, if we are not major donors, board members, or foundations.

[beck_hen]

I cannot believe -- given the general state of classical culture in the US today and the inevitable escalation of ticket prices well beyond the rate of inflation -- that new attitudes towards coaching or primarily aesthetic considerations will have the kind of economic impact at the box office that seems necessary to keep this huge organization afloat.

It's just possible that the gigantic institution the company has become, the need to fill its vast theater vast theater, and a cultural market that is quite different from the Balanchinian heyday, along with many other variables, make the old Balanchinian vision which worked so wonderfully in the past simply impossible in the world today.

I disagree. A strong and even iconoclastic artistic vision is what put people in the seats in the first place. We still need one now to do the same. Hopefully the advertising people agree and choose to push that message. Changes in marketing can do a better job of presenting the company's strengths, but do not create strengths where they don't exist. I think people focus too much on PR, in an emperor's new clothes–type fashion. It can and should be effective, but the quality of the underlying organization drives its success.

My opinion is that themed programs ought to coexist with old-style programs. The New York Philharmonic has "Inside the Music" and "Young People's Concerts" series designed to be less intimidating and more didactic, but also feature more esoteric offerings. I'm always envious reading about the Royal Ballet's Insight Evenings.

I have some trouble with ballet acting on the defensive. So many outreach efforts reek of insecurity: "See, we really aren't elitist and irrelevant!" "Culture" starts to feel patronizing, instead of vital. I don't think it should be a given that artistic compromise is the prerequisite for financial stability. What drove the success of the ballet boom? Geniuses like Balanchine, Baryshnikov, Kirkland, etc. I think there should be even more hyping of current dancers and choreographers.

I will be happy with a program format if the themes chosen are meaningful and deep. I hope that program notes will address the themes. Otherwise, tacking a name on to a mixed bill is only a ploy.

[kfw]

So many outreach efforts reek of insecurity: "See, we really aren't elitist and irrelevant!" "Culture" starts to feel patronizing, instead of vital.

A hokey title like "Stravinsky and Balanchine: Eternal Partnership" feels patronizing to me. (How about just "Stravinsky and Balanchine"?) I go to the ballet to escape that level of crass, dumbed down culture.

[bart]

Changes in marketing can do a better job of presenting the company's strengths, but do not create strengths where they don't exist. I think people focus too much on PR, in an emperor's new clothes–type fashion. It can and should be effective, but the quality of the underlying organization drives its success.

I agree completely with this. And some of the NYCB's choice of slogans -- which mimics a trend that has developed elsewhere in the country -- seems to be a reflection of this.

[cargill]

Like "Girls' Night Out"? I never thought of ballet as chic lit, but obviously I am not in marketing.

[sz]

Changes in marketing can do a better job of presenting the company's strengths, but do not create strengths where they don't exist. I think people focus too much on PR, in an emperor's new clothes–type fashion. It can and should be effective, but the quality of the underlying organization drives its success.

I agree completely with this. And some of the NYCB's choice of slogans -- which mimics a trend that has developed elsewhere in the country -- seems to be a reflection of this.

I completely agree with this too. When I've asked subscribers, et al., why they are losing interest in NYCB they all reply that's it's because there hasn't been enough Balanchine, and when Balanchine ballets are performed most often they look under coached and/or unethusiastically danced/messy/under rehearsed. Also heard complaints re casting. And heard that there have been too many disappointing new ballets.

Slogans aren't going to keep or bring audiences into the theater, quality will... perhaps along with some discount pricing for those who frequently attend.