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

NYCB's new approach to scheduling


Recommended Posts

It's time to renew my three subscriptions, and the new system is not so bad. Of the twelve performances on my subscriptions, Only five are duplicates, including three Sleeping Beauties, which would have been on my subscriptions under the old mix-and-match system. So the change for me affects just two performnces. For those with problems, the letter accompanying the brochure provides a phone number to call someone named Stacey Butler and advises, "She can discuss various options with you and take care of implementing the solution that best suits your needs." Incidentally, the brochure is stunning. All the photographs are by Paul Kolnik and are performance shots from the repertory. No more artsy fashion photos of dancers in Central Park or jumping off rooftops. I'm relieved and happy. I've been through a lot with NYCB in recent decades. I'm glad not to have to give up on them just yet.

Link to comment

"There is no there there."

Well, for me there's a lot there. More than in quite some time. So many wonderful dancers, throughout the ranks. And they get to perform. Suddenly, after just a couple of truly great Balanchine ballets per season, this winter is brimming with masterpieces. Selfishly, I don't like the new policy of fixed program sets since as a local I've liked the chance to select exactly the combinations I like best. But hopefully this scheme will help City Ballet's problems with adequate rehearsal time. To top it off, creativity: three terrific new ballets have entered the rep.

Link to comment
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.
The current season's programming has a large number of Balanchine ballets, including many of the best-loved. As far as disappointing new ballets go, the biggest concentration of new ballets are produced during The Diamond Project (spring season), and on occasion, for galas (like openings), and with more Balanchine masterpieces, there's less room for the disappointing ones.

I don't know enough about the internal workings of rehearsal scheduling to know whether the new approach to scheduling will help the programs to be rehearsed more thoroughly, performed better, or cast differently. The schedule does expose the company: I don't expect the mantra next year to be "great dancers dancing mediocre ballets."

perhaps along with some discount pricing for those who frequently attend.
The big discounts the company provides now are student rush and The Fourth Ring Society. Is FRS an issue with the subscribers in the Fourth Ring you've spoken to? Do subscribers to the more expensive seats want an advance discount? (20% off on the day of the show is listed as a current benefit.)
Link to comment
The big discounts the company provides now are student rush and The Fourth Ring Society. Is FRS an issue with the subscribers in the Fourth Ring you've spoken to? Do subscribers to the more expensive seats want an advance discount? (20% off on the day of the show is listed as a current benefit.)

Most people I've spoken with buy orchestra and/or 1st & 2nd ring tickets. Lots of them! These people have had subscriptions in the past, but now choose to purchase tickets individually and often only after casting has been announced. Any sort of discount would be helpful of course... for those who purchase many expensive tickets each season... but cost wasn't the main complaint for not renewing subscriptions and/or increasing ticket purchases. Poor casting and poorly danced ballets in addition to the disappointing new pieces -- those are the complaints I've heard.

Link to comment

Posters have mentioned a number of reasons for the decline in subscriptions and the unneveness of single-ticket buying for various performances. In truth, management willn ever "know" without studying the problem scientifically.

Has the NYCB ever done a serious survey of audience responses and wishes. (I'm not thinking of those little informal surveys that are frequently handed out at arts performances but are not carefully designed, collected, or followed up on.)

I would think that it should be rather simple to design, distribute, and interpret the results of an audience satisfaction/dissatisfaction survey, tied to patterns of ticket buying, place of residence, income and education levels, gender and ethnicity, and other variables..

Link to comment
In truth, management willn ever "know" without studying the problem scientifically.

Has the NYCB ever done a serious survey of audience responses and wishes? I would think that it should be rather simple to design, distribute, and interpret the results of an audience satisfaction/dissatisfaction survey, tied to patterns of ticket buying, place of residence, income and education levels, gender and ethnicity, and other variables...

Excellent idea. And no, I don't remember NYCB creating/distributing any such serious questionnaires. Neither does ABT. I have friends at ABT too who were surprised ABT didn't call them once when they did not renew a long-time subscription this past season - to find out why. There's where some PR ought to start, don't you think?... Ballet companies could also include a serious survey with their usual mailings of upcoming season notices. Putting these surveys out on a desk in the lobby could work.... Including a serious survey inside the performance's program, now and then, might work too.

Link to comment
I would think that it should be rather simple to design, distribute, and interpret the results of a fairly simple audience satisfaction/dissatisfaction survey, tied to patterns of ticket buying, place of residence, income, gender, and other variables..
There's a bit of a ying/yang about whether they should care, particularly about casting. For example, I rarely attend opening Thursday nights at PNB, unless I'm booked for the entire second weekend. That's when Patricia Barker is usually cast, although not exclusively. (Kaori Nakamura danced opening night Aurora.) If there's once dancer in Seattle whose name is recognizable, it is hers. I can't even count the number of number of times I've heard the people around me at other performances comment and lament that she wasn't dancing that night or wasn't dancing in the opening night role in which she was reviewed. (Once in a while a companion will say, "But [dancer cast] is wonderful, too.") But Patricia Barker can't dance every night, for her own health and for the health of the company.

Francia Russell once said in a Q&A something to the effect that not every young dancer she casts is going to be optimal every time, but she had to give dancers a chance to grow. Peter Boal said that the people would be able to say years from now, for example, "I saw Carla Körbes' debut in Emeralds." I know that my Saturday matinee casting will be different than Saturday night casting, as it was for my old NYCB Saturday subscriptions.

On the other hand, I've read almost every NYCB review on this board, and I see patterns of casting that sound a bit unfortunate, and that are different than disliking a single dancer and avoiding him/her (the distant cousin of what a friend called "Irrational Celebrity Hatred," in which something about the person pushes a button, although their performances are not much worse or more mediocre than others'.) This isn't limited to Peter Martins' watch -- the "experiment" of casting Ashley in the Verdy role in Emeralds that Arlene Croce described in 1988 as "productive," was called over-long in her earlier review.

I don't know how much feedback on casting, short of "I hate seeing a particular subset of dancers four Tuesdays in a row and missing everyone else," would be addressed, even if it would be a good thing for the company to know what audience attitudes are and what they are up against.

Link to comment

A problem with including a survey with the program -- or distributing it haphazardly in the lobby -- is that the kind of people willing to take the time to respond to this sort of thing (which would include most BT members, I would imagine) are not necessarily reflective of the larger audience. "Friends" on one hand, and people with a grievance, on the other, tend to be overrepresented. Surveys like this can "give you an idea" of what's going on, but it can be a very slanted idea.

I was thinking more of hiring professionals to make a random sample of subscribers whatever ticket-buyers who can be identified by phone number, address, and/or email. The way the survey is designed, conducted, and the results collated and analyzed, must be consistent. Marketers of products and services in the for-profit sector do this all the time.

This approach has its costs. But it also tends to produce data that management can use fairly confidently to make business decisions.

And you don't have to worry about all those untouched copies of surveys littering the auditorium and lobby floors at the end of the evening. :clapping:

Link to comment

I don't know what's meant by "a serious survey," but many times in the last twenty years or so years at NYCB, questionaires (4 pages, as I recall) and those nasty little stubby pencils were distributed. I answered two or three of them, but ignored some others. The questions were usually in the nature of "How did you hear about this performance?" They seemed designed for the marketing department and did not address repertory.

Link to comment
I was thinking more of hiring professionals to make a random sample of subscribers whatever ticket-buyers who can be identified by phone number, address, and/or email.....Marketers of products and services in the for-profit sector do this all the time.

This approach has its costs. But it also tends to produce data that management can use fairly confidently to make business decisions.

That would be ideal.

Link to comment
Gertrude Stein famously said of Oakland, CA, that "There is no there there." She was referring to her grandfather's house, which had been demolished. Well, these days, NYCB is a lot like Oakland.

The things one learns on Ballet Talk! I had thought that quote was about Los Angeles. Thanks to Major Mel for setting me straight.

Link to comment
They seemed designed for the marketing department and did not address repertory.
We have our standard conundrum here: on the one hand, where the audience, or at least what the Marketing Department thinks the audience is, gets input into artistic decisions, and we get Draculas, and on the other, where Artistic Directors are in charge of maintaining the standards and trying to educate the audience to them. I think there's a reason why repertory is left off these surveys, and I don't know of many (aside from critics, perhaps) who would have assumed to question Balanchine's judgements in these matters in his time.

What I think we tend to express here is that we want invested, educated, dedicated ballet fans (like us, for example) to be able to give input to companies, but I'm not sure many of us would want a democracy to decide programming or casting.

Link to comment

Gertrude Stein famously said of Oakland, CA, that "There is no there there." She was referring to her grandfather's house, which had been demolished. Well, these days, NYCB is a lot like Oakland.

The things one learns on Ballet Talk! I had thought that quote was about Los Angeles. Thanks to Major Mel for setting me straight.

I thought so too for several years, and it is still often used for Los Angeles, although I think it applies not at all any more. Los Angeles has a 'there' like nobody's business, it's just shaped strangely. If you don't study the geography, though, it can still feel like that. Over the years, I think tourists' refusal to study guidebooks carefully has accounted for the delightful fact that Los Angeles has very few conspicuous tourists, unless you go to the Universal City Tours, etc. and Disneyland. Tourist buses like you see here by the dozens every time you walk out are unknown, and even Beverly Hills has only those little 4-person Starline Tours (at least that's all I've seen from 10 trips there.)

Link to comment

When the block programming idea was floating around last spring one justification was that it might help with the company's problems with rehearsal time. For example, if three blocks were staggered throughout a week there would be an average of 11 different ballets to perform. Last winter there were five full weeks of rep (no Swans), and an average of 13.8 different ballets were performed per week. With nearly three fewer there would seem to be more time per ballet. This winter there will be six weeks of rep only. But the blocks are so scattered that the weekly average is 13.7. Opportunity lost?

Link to comment

I was away on vacation when this all happened so I am chiming in a bit late, but as a relatively longtime subscriber (over ten years) I feel slapped in the face by the new programming strategy, and I expect it will significantly reduce the umber of tickets I buy going forward.

First: I cannot avoid the ballet I hate to see the one I love. In the past I have happily swapped subscription tickets to see favorite ballets, or interesting new castings, more than once. In fact I generally deliberately bought tickets I didn't want in my subscription for swapping purposes. No more. I'm not sitting through the same exact program twice barring extraordinary circumstances. And I resent not being allowed to make those choices for myself. If it will really help ticket sales, go ahead and have some themes -- a Balanchine/ Stravinsky evening is a good idea on its own -- but every single performance?

Second: the titles of the theme programs are idiotic and often meaningless.

Third: I have two young children. One big advantage of the mix-and-match was that almost every season, whether fortuitously or deliberately I do not know, there would be one or two programs that were ideal for kids. I don’t expect NYCB to have a regular kid-friendly program as one of the "themes" that a bunch of subscribers will be stuck with, but now there won't be even one performance I want to take my six year old to next winter aside from Nutcracker. That is a lost ticket, in the short term, and possibly a lost audience member, in the long term.

I also agree with Peter Boal's comments. And I second the fear that this will result in the loss of odder/less popular ballets. Or perhaps we could propose a "Creepy" theme evening: door and sigh, ivesiana, la sonambula? With a revival of seven deadly sins?

Link to comment

Jumping in quite late here. Perhaps it is because I'm young, but to me, the new system is better than the last, despite its flaws. As many have pointed out, the selection of Balanchine works is much better than the last few years, and it will be easier to see them altogether. I won't have to see the same ballet(s) I don't like repeatedly, just to see a couple ballets I'd like to see once each-- that happens to me every season, it seems, and it's exasperating. I have not, in the past or now, had the flexibility to choose exactly which performance I want to see, and so the idea of the programs repeating a few times is a relief. Plus, for the Balanchine heavy-evenings, I may go twice.

Agreed, the theme idea is tacky, and it has driven me away from certain ballets in the past (I know I won't have the stamina for the All-Waltzes nights they've done in the past, though I haven't seen those Balanchine ballets, because waltzing couples bore me to tears. If Liebeslieder or Vienna was performed with non-similar work, I might give them a shot). But the only thing I won't see for sure is "For the Fun of It." I'll probably skip Contemporary Quartet, also. Also, it is MUCH easier to avoid the Martins work this year.

Finally, I really do feel that some of the programs are well designed to educate audiences (no doubt a talk or even Q&A would go further than a title). I'm still self-educating, and there are programs this season that are easy to catch because they repeat, and really "cut the fat." I guess my point is that from my perspective, the season seems mostly denser and richer.

And I can see how it would make the works better rehearsed and reduce injuries, and we should definitely cross our fingers for that.

Link to comment
I know I won't have the stamina for the All-Waltzes nights they've done in the past, though I haven't seen those Balanchine ballets, because waltzing couples bore me to tears. If Liebeslieder or Vienna was performed with non-similar work, I might give them a shot.
I agree totally as to all-waltz performances. I am one of those who apparently suffers from waltz-immunity (the schmaltzier the waltz, the greater the aversion.) :wink:

But Balanchine's take on 3/4 time is different. I hope you'll give each of his waltz ballets a shot one at a time. It's well worth it -- particularly, for me, Liebeslieder, which actually brought tears to my eyes the first time I saw it.

Link to comment

In Vienna Waltzes, even Balanchine recognized that all waltzing all the time could be a bit much. Hence, the Explosions Polka, which is, IMO, silly and unnecessary -- unnecessary, that is, except that it contrasts against the other sections.

Liebeslieder, on the other hand, is not a collection of waltzes that were gathered to make a ballet. Brahms composed them as a cycle, meant them to be performed together. I do not find the ballet tiresome at all, partly because with a good cast, the intimacy of the ballet and the changes of mood provide more than enough variety.

I wonder what Liebeslieder was like in City Center. I imagine that much of its inherent intimacy was lost when NYCB moved to Lincoln Center.

Link to comment

I don't see the new system as a disaster at all. Symphony orchestras have been using the same concept for decades, presenting the same program multiple times during a week, and ballet companies like San Francisco and Boston have followed a similar approach of presenting one set of ballets several times. I'm not aware that in any of these instances subscribers have been lost because of the programming philosophy. You may or may not like all the works presented, but you run the same risk under the older NYCB system as well.

In fact, I would have preferred the fixed program method when I created my own series for ABT this coming fall season. I had never seen ABT at the City Center before, and wanted to see all 12 ballets they offered with as little duplication as possible. This proved impossible to do in three programs and rather difficult in four, as Dark Elegies was to be presented only twice and as a great Mahler lover I didn't to miss that. Eventually after about 45 minutes of trying various combinations, I came up with a series of four programs that gives me 11 of the 12 ballets (all but Meadow) and only one duplication (Symphonie Concertante). I would have not had to go through any of this effort if the company had simply announced 3 or 4 fixed programs.

My only real problem with City Ballet's approach is how they are using themes. There are all kinds of valid and interesting ways that works can play off one another in a program, but some of NYCB's announced themes ("A Banquet of Dance"?) and other marketing approaches ("Girls' Night Out" - ugh) seem either desperate or contrived. On the other hand there can be thematic approaches to programing that are less easily captured by cute slogans but more subtle and more illuminating. San Francisco simply calls its mixed bill programs "Mixed Repertory," which is less descriptive but also less restrictive.

Link to comment
My only real problem with City Ballet's approach is how they are using themes. There are all kinds of valid and interesting ways that works can play off one another in a program, but some of NYCB's announced themes ("A Banquet of Dance"?) and other marketing approaches ("Girls' Night Out" - ugh) seem either desperate or contrived. On the other hand there can be thematic approaches to programing that are less easily captured by cute slogans but more subtle and more illuminating. San Francisco simply calls its mixed bill programs "Mixed Repertory," which is less descriptive but also less restrictive.
I agree with you about the cutesy names. Seattle also names them. Last year, there was "Valentine" in February, but in general, they are descriptive in a straightfoward way: "Director's Choice" really does mean rep that Peter Boal chose, "All Premiere" is a program of ballets not seen in Seattle before, "Stravinsky 125" is an All-Stravinsky program in honor of the 125th anniversary of Stravinsky's birth, and "Wheeldon, Duato, and Balanchine" does tell us what we're going to see. PNB performs one program at a time, though, and even so, if there were three or four programs out of seven that were named "Robbins, Balanchine, Taylor-Corbett," "Wheeldon, Balanchine, and Duato," "Quijado, Martins, Dove, and Tharp" -- they did resist the temptation to call it "The Rainbow Coalition" program -- this would confuse many patrons.

The San Francisco naming option, where at most two programs play in the same two-three week period, is more difficult at NYCB, because they are performing so many programs at the same time. "Did I see 3? Or was that 4? Was 2 from Winter Rep or last week?" For "Girls Night Out," you might think "Ugh" among the printable possibilities, but I suspect you'll remember if you saw the program, and know if you'll want to see it again.

Link to comment
I wonder what Liebeslieder was like in City Center.
Speaking only for myself, this was probably the only time when the move to Lincoln Center -- and the need to revamp the decor and staging -- actually improved the effect of one of Balanchine's masterpiece ballets.

The smaller stage at City Center certainly put the focus on the relationships between and among the dancers. But the first time I saw on the larger stage, I felt a sense of sweeping and expansive movement that was imopssible on the smaller space. And the new decor was stunning. I can still remember the involuntary gasps from the audience as the new Part II began.

Back to topic: As to the new trend in using thematic titles for programs of shorter works: at first I thought it was just for advertising. Now I find that companies are actually using it for ordering and even discussion. The people at the Ballet Florida box office talk about getting tickets for "Vibrant Virtuosity" or "Dazzlingly Dramatic" in exactly the same tone they would use for "Nutcracker" or "Lady of the Camellias."

The first time I heard this I hadn't a clue what they were talking about. (On second thought, I guess it is more market-savy than the old system here, which was to refer to programs by the name of the theater in which they were peformed -- Kravis I or Eissey II.).

Miami continues to avoid the trend, using Program I, II, etc. But they have a much larger subscription base. They also have stronger brand recognition. People "buy Miami" more than they buy the individual ballets offered on these programs of shorter works.

Link to comment
For "Girls Night Out," you might think "Ugh" among the printable possibilities, but I suspect you'll remember if you saw the program, and know if you'll want to see it again.

Girls' Night Out is actually a 2-performance series consisting of Sleeping Beauty and (get this) A Banquet of Dance. From the web site: "Each evening also includes a pre-performance reception with a variety of beverage choices and hors d’oeurves [sic], plus delicious desserts at first intermission and some inside 'girl talk' with ballerinas from the Company."

But does this mean boys aren't allowed?

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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