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

NYCB Opening Night Benefit - American Music


Recommended Posts

Veering OT,

The reason NYC looks the way it does is because of the density of activity and the sub soil bearing condition. Downtown can support the weight of massive point loads of columns and so they build em tall. Then there is a dip right through SoHo and up to midtown where the bearing cannot support the tall building weights.

But we do have parks which have open spaces as the plaza in Lincoln Center, the UN, Columbia University, Rock Center and some residential tower developments such as Peter Cooper, Tudor City and Stuyvesant Town.

The plaza at Lincoln center was a no brainer. How could you handle crowds of people from one massive theater, let alone 3. Witness the mess at City Center and Carnegie Hall.

As far as architecture goes, these buildings are poor examples of site specific, material appropriate and vernacular appropriate design. Each was a disaster acoustically ( I worked for BBN who did the orginal acoustics at Avery Fischer as a college summer job and they hadn't a glue what they were doing which was obviois to me a college junior). Archicture when successful conveys a feeliung to those who experience it, pass by, live and work inside, or in the case of a theatre go their to "experience" art, or culture. The period that Lincoln Center came out of was one of the lowest points in American architecture, but since then we have seen lots of barriers broken for both good and bad.

When you make a mistake and repeat it you are insane.

Link to comment

I was there -- at the Opening Night gala, that is. I am still haunted by Janie Taylor's spectral, vaporous Unanswered Question. She could have been a hallucination of Ulbricht's character. He did, at times, show a desperation bordering on madness. Opposite any other ballerina (Allegra, perhaps, excepted) it would have been too much, but here it worked wonderfully. Appropriate choice for a Gala, though? This was decidedly a non-gala Gala.

Blossom Got Kissed is appropriate gala fare. Pure fluff, without an ounce of substance. As with Double Feature, we run into the problem of Stroman's limited vocabulary, but upbeat and sweet. Lowery's flaws became virtues in this piece, which could be described as an expansion of Robbins' Mistake Waltz section of The Concert.

Ringer's return. She and -- especially -- Nilas did their best to cope with the funereal pace tempo presumably chosen by Ms. Flanigan (whose performance, on so many levels, undermined the pleasure of the moment). I didn't notice that Nilas was out of breath at the end, as abatt noted, but with all those low, slow lifts made even slower than usual is a reasonable explanation. The company invested the evening's finale, I Got Rhythm, with such enthusiasm to mitigate the darkness of the evening's first half.

Even if Peter Martins' praise of David H. Koch bordered on the obsequious, he chose a fun set of threads in which to party -- a notch-collared tux with a long tie, black with diagonal stripes of glitter. Nifty!

Link to comment

Yesterday's Sunday Styles section of the NY Times contains photos from the Gala. Sarah Jessica Parker and Alicia Keyes, among others, were in attendance. Also some photos of the dancers in their gala attire. Additionally, in yesterday's Times Arts & Leisure section there is an article about Billy Elliot, and the photo includes Stephen Hanna.

Link to comment

Thanks for all for returning to the topic of this thread. I have to apologize for not having started a new thread concerning the State Theater matter, when it was raised. I think we can balance both topics for the duration, and I echo Helene's call for our usuall Ballet Talk standards of measured, considerate discourse. :clapping:

I was there -- at the Opening Night gala, that is. I am still haunted by Janie Taylor's spectral, vaporous Unanswered Question. She could have been a hallucination of Ulbricht's character. He did, at times, show a desperation bordering on madness. Opposite any other ballerina (Allegra, perhaps, excepted) it would have been too much, but here it worked wonderfully.

carbro, you raise something that actually is a propos the State Theater. Ivesiana in general was so perfectly suited for the size of the City Center stage. When the ballet was revived at the State in the 70s I felt it was lost. As you say, there is a hallucinatory quality to the movement. But, like the best stage fantasy, it also needs to be weighted, somehow, it it's going to draw you in completely. On the big stage, it seemed to become vaguer, less substantial and therefore less hypnotising. Even dark and empty space has its distractions, and it takes an exceptional dancer to draw and hold your eyes under those conditions. I can't remember whether Kent also danced this at the State, but I see her in my memory at City Center.

I haven't seen Unanswered Question live since that 70s revival. On the whole, do you think it got its due on the big stage? Are Ulbricht and Ringer (whom I don't know) that kind of larger-than-life dancer who seems to occupy the space more fully than other dancers? Does anyone know whether Balanchine altered it to fit the larger space?

Appropriate choice for a Gala, though? This was decidedly a non-gala Gala.
It sure does. I kind of like the idea. On the other hand, not paying a thousand dollars or more a ticket to attend! :thumbsup:
Link to comment

there may be some misunderstanding within in this lengthy thread:

Ringer danced the WHO CARES? duet, The Man I Love.

Janie Taylor did Kent's role in IVESIANA.

i don't necessarily find the Linc.Cent. stage size vs. that of City Center so much an issue for The Unanswered Question since the spotlights more or less 'control' the size of the stage and the 'focus' of the dance.

Link to comment
i don't necessarily find the Linc.Cent. stage size vs. that of City Center so much an issue for The Unanswered Question since the spotlights more or less 'control' the size of the stage and the 'focus' of the dance.
I see your point, rg.

On the other hand, if the dark area beyond a proscenium is vast in relation to the lighted figures, and especially if it extends upwards to great heights, the darkness itself becomes an protagonist in the drama instead of a neutral backdrop.

The lighted, moving figures seem to me to be more vulnerable, less easy to focus on as individuals, somehow ... and I don't know why this is the case ... less consequential in the total scheme of things.

I am, of course, speaking only for myself. :)

Link to comment

Quiggin, thanks for putting me onto the wiki for Koch Industries. It's definitely relevant, although I wasn't able to tell just from this article anything with any kind of suspect character in the businesses; but it's not a very detailed article.

I think dirac may be right, though, that $100 million is 'chump change' for the Koch family, though, because they are the second richest private company in the U.S., with Charles and David owning about half of the business each, which is worth $98 billion. No shareholders, and will be only 'over my dead body', says Charles. And the two are the 39th and 40th richest people in the world, worth $17 billion apiece according to list of wealthiest people in the world.

Link to comment
I haven't seen Unanswered Question live since that 70s revival. On the whole, do you think it got its due on the big stage? Are Ulbricht and Ringer (whom I don't know) that kind of larger-than-life dancer who seems to occupy the space more fully than other dancers? Does anyone know whether Balanchine altered it to fit the larger space?

I agree with rg that the change from CC to NYS/DHK Theater stage had little effect on Unanswered. I think part of it was Janie's unusual ability to suggest some kind of void. Another factor may have been improved lighting technology, with a spotlight so distinctly defined that the light didn't leak to reveal the black-clad men carrying the girl. From my perch, for the first time, they were nearly invisible. Or perhaps it's that my eyes are aging. :)

On the other hand, not paying a thousand dollars or more a ticket to attend! :o
City Ballet has always been acce$$ible on opening night. I remember paying something like $1.75 for standing room and getting a full complement of hors d'oeuvres before curtain (and during intermission?). In the old days. The after-party -- that was something else.

Oh, in his pre-curtain speech, Peter forgot to mention the toasts to Stravinsky. Two of 'em, ten years apart. Vodka for all.

Link to comment
I agree with rg that the change from CC to NYS/DHK Theater stage had little effect on Unanswered. I think part of it was Janie's unusual ability to suggest some kind of void. Another factor may have been improved lighting technology, with a spotlight so distinctly defined that the light didn't leak to reveal the black-clad men carrying the girl. From my perch, for the first time, they were nearly invisible. Or perhaps it's that my eyes are aging. :)

Aging eyes? Never! They just rest occasionally, saving themselves to see the really important things of life.

You do make it sound wonderful and you're lucky to have a dancer like Taylor doing the role. I suspect you're right about lighting technology. In the old days, as in bunraku, the puppeteers were quite visible. Unlike bunraku, you neve really forgot they were there. This appeared to be intentional, and the "story" I made up about the ballet featured them as important characters. A version in which they (almost) disappear would seem to be quite another ballet. I'd love to see it.

Link to comment

just to add my two cents......I had a wonderful time at the Gala. The dancers were fresh, beautiful, and full of energy. I even enjoy the crazy mix of pieces in these galas, if only to get the opportunity to see a lot of dancers in one show. It seemed to me that everyone around me was having a great time and enjoying the show as well. I agree with others in that my favorites were The Unanswered Question (Taylor-Ulbricht) and Who Cares? (Ringer & Krohn in the finale) except for the singer :blink: I also liked the excerpt from Jazz (Kowroski-Marcovici) with the Jazz band onstage.

Re: Koch's mega-gift to NYCB. I think the dancers have an attitude of gratitude and that's the way I feel about it too, especially in these bad economic times. I don't understand why anyone would attack him as I've read -- it's his money to do as he wants and how great he gave some to the ballet. I know we don't like the name change of the theater but I guess I don't mind as much as some of you do. I grew up in a family of athletes and I am now used to all the name changes of the sports venues around the US. I asked someone why people would complain so much and he said to me that if someone gave him such a grant for his organization he would be willing to change his own name to get it!!

Obviously, I'm nobody with any expertise on the subject and I can learn from some of the comments here. But just let it be known that some people were just plain happy to be there!

Link to comment

I remember talking to an acquaintance from Barcelona about the reconstructed Liceu and about the difficulty in raising funds. He told me that prestigious and wealthy families had once owned boxes on the equivalent of the Grand Tier at the Metropolitan Opera, and that they decorated the family box. I may be mis-remembering this, and I can't find a seating chart on the Internet, but I believe he told me that they were not reconstructed, so that the house would appear more democratic. I half-joked that I thought that the government should have "sold" the boxes to corporations for them to decorate as they saw fit, and that perhaps Banesto could buy one to display one of Miguel Indurain's bicycles. He was not amused.

The trick with sports is that the naming rights only last a limited period of time, usually a decade. After that, the teams can bid out for a new name. Generally, buildings only get renamed for another entity is when new companies acquire them. After they're named for one person, that's usually it, until a new venue is built. I believe Mr. Koch has a lock on this one, as long as it stands.

I'm glad you liked the performance, flo!

Link to comment
The trick with sports is that the naming rights only last a limited period of time, usually a decade. After that, the teams can bid out for a new name. Generally, buildings only get renamed for another entity is when new companies acquire them. After they're named for one person, that's usually it, until a new venue is built. I believe Mr. Koch has a lock on this one, as long as it stands.
Actually, this will be the David H. Koch Theater for the next 50 years. Beyond that I guess depends on the terms of his will.

Someone once referred to Milton Petrie's philanthropy (and his determination to let no good deed go unpublicized) as "buying his way into heaven." :dunno::blink: I don't know where Mr. Petrie is now, but I don't question that landing in heaven is a huge motivation for some (not all) philanthropists.

I am ambivalent about the naming but not about the gift. I may end up calling the place the ::cough:: Theater.

Flo, I agree that Krohn was a standout in the Who Cares? finale.

Link to comment
Someone once referred to Milton Petrie's philanthropy (and his determination to let no good deed go unpublicized) as "buying his way into heaven."

(IMG:http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/beg.gif) I don't know where Mr. Petrie is now, but I don't question that landing in heaven is a huge motivation for some (not all) philanthropists.

If hope of heaven is indeed the motivation, then putting your name on stuff and demanding public credit is not the way to go, at least in the Christian tradition. You do not give to get and you don’t parade your giving, because God sees and that should be enough. (And He’s no fool. :blink:)

Link to comment

Also remember that usage really determines the name of anything. To locals, the Maryinsky was always the Maryinsky. It never changed to the Petrograd Opera House or the Kirov Theatre as far as the natives were concerned. (Nor did Petersburg really ever change its name, no matter what the politics)

The Avenue of the Americas was a great political naming ploy by Fiorello LaGuardia, to support the Good Neighbor Policy, but real New Yorkers just went on calling it "Sixth Avenue".

Only time will tell if a renaming actually takes hold. Even though respect for John F. Kennedy remained high, and the Kennedy Space Center remains so, the geographic feature officially named "Cape Kennedy" reverted to "Canaveral" after a couple of decades.

Link to comment

I was also interested when I began to notice that Cape Canaveral started being used again (and don't know exactly when), and Idlewild never was. But it does vary, I think, and I don't know anybody who still says Philharmonic Hall, which was beautiful that way, much more IMO than New York State Theater is, which is just out of habit we may prefer it; in that Philharmonic Hall is like Metropolitan Opera House, more imperious without somebody's name. I sometimes call the theater that used to be the Vivian Beaumont that, although it's long not been, but that's because I only went there when it was and can't always remember what it is now. I think Avenue of the Americas is still used in a business way (including verbally, as by a receptionist), esp for the Rockefeller Center area buildings like McGraw Hill, but agree that individuals do always say 6th Avenue. I don't know anybody who still says Carnegie Recital Hall for Weill Hall, though, but they never refer to the big hall as Isaac Stern instead of Carnegie Hall. There are lots of examples of names that ruin theaters, as with the Theater de Lys which became the Lucille Lortel. At least, Alice Tully Hall started out that way.

Link to comment
just to add my two cents......I had a wonderful time at the Gala. The dancers were fresh, beautiful, and full of energy. I even enjoy the crazy mix of pieces in these galas, if only to get the opportunity to see a lot of dancers in one show. It seemed to me that everyone around me was having a great time and enjoying the show as well. I agree with others in that my favorites were The Unanswered Question (Taylor-Ulbricht) and Who Cares? (Ringer & Krohn in the finale) except for the singer :clapping: I also liked the excerpt from Jazz (Kowroski-Marcovici) with the Jazz band onstage.

Re: Koch's mega-gift to NYCB. I think the dancers have an attitude of gratitude and that's the way I feel about it too, especially in these bad economic times. I don't understand why anyone would attack him as I've read -- it's his money to do as he wants and how great he gave some to the ballet. I know we don't like the name change of the theater but I guess I don't mind as much as some of you do. I grew up in a family of athletes and I am now used to all the name changes of the sports venues around the US. I asked someone why people would complain so much and he said to me that if someone gave him such a grant for his organization he would be willing to change his own name to get it!!

Obviously, I'm nobody with any expertise on the subject and I can learn from some of the comments here. But just let it be known that some people were just plain happy to be there!

A wonderful post, Flo! And I'm with you 100%. My husband and I had a wonderful time, too. I was just happy to see the NYCB again (I did go to Saratoga for a weekend to see them too. That was also fun!). The program may not have been perfect, but "Who Cares?" (pun intended).

Link to comment

Sometimes it IS great to be able to sit back, enjoy, and admire a great company at work.

Speaking as someone who sometimes gets distracted by "larger" (and sometimes extraneous) issues a performances, I want to express my appreciation to DeborahB, flo, and those others who have brought me back to basics.

A great company, wonderful dancers, choreography and production values that would make most audiences around the world jealous: that combination definitely worth feeling good about. :clapping:

Link to comment

I am a little late in following the architecture and renovation discussion -- but:

1. Among the other hokum items in NY recently is the current architectural renovation of Lincoln Center, with the new cut-away front on Julliard and Avery Fisher Hall. It does nothing for its professed aim of making the center more human and user friendly -- but it does deface what was the one architectural masterpiece of the complex, the neo classical view of Julliard from the south, that is, looking from the State Theater back towards the breezeway and Julliard, where there was a great horizontal line and something really special.

2. To understand the decor of the the theaters, particularly the MET, it's interesting to think of the costume jewelry of the era, about 1963-4 -- Renoir in particular. The lights, the fixtures, the gold leaf and hammered gilt, are straight out of the costume jewelry of that time, the same aesthetic and look. In that context the State Theater, with its Nadelman sculptures, etc. was always a little bit of an odd design. Kirstein writes in his "Fifty Years' of his "red and gold" obsession, harkening back to his first experiences of his uncle's theater in Rochester, NY. But the entire center is really "Costume Jewelry meet Robert Moses."

3. It's too soon historically to overhaul the look of the plaza. The costume jewelry meets Robert Moses era was a weird one but has it's internal cultural aesthetic which becomes clearer and clearer as time passes. If you are going to mix it with something new, there has to be a certain perspective on that aesthetic, and a new architectural style to contrast it with -- which takes time -- and then the contrast can truly work, like what P. Johnson did with the Boston Public Library facade. He had a hiatus of seventy five to an hundred years to work with, an the contrast between Richardson's Romanesque Revival Copley Square and his modernism. The times today and the passage of time between styles just won't permit something similarly successful to be done with Lincoln Center. They should have stood pat, shored up a bit, and waited.

MP

Link to comment
1. Among the other hokum items in NY recently is the current architectural renovation of Lincoln Center, with the new cut-away front on Julliard and Avery Fisher Hall. It does nothing for its professed aim of making the center more human and user friendly -- but it does deface what was the one architectural masterpiece of the complex, the neo classical view of Julliard from the south, that is, looking from the State Theater back towards the breezeway and Julliard, where there was a great horizontal line and something really special.

Oh yes, that and much more. Juilliard has been defaced in many ways, in the last 11 years alone, internally and externally; and especially in 2003, with the 'anniversary makeovers'. Its main flaw at first was the 4th floor practice rooms not being properly sound-proofed (and its wretched cafeteria, now 'demolished'), but the first was remedied to some degree, and the latter is like an amusingly homey tacky thing. They've added PoMoisms in and out, resembling some disease learned about in magazine stories about Frank Gehry, and literally destroyed beauties inside as on the 5th Floor. The library has been left mostly the same, but there has also been this silly tendency to put 'memorials' all over the place, including in the halls. Of course, things changed when Juilliard went provincial with the Rose Hall dormitory. We grew up much faster in the old days, having to get apartments at the age of 18.

2. To understand the decor of the the theaters, particularly the MET, it's interesting to think of the costume jewelry of the era, about 1963-4 -- Renoir in particular. The lights, the fixtures, the gold leaf and hammered gilt, are straight out of the costume jewelry of that time, the same aesthetic and look. In that context the State Theater, with its Nadelman sculptures, etc. was always a little bit of an odd design. Kirstein writes in his "Fifty Years' of his "red and gold" obsession, harkening back to his first experiences of his uncle's theater in Rochester, NY. But the entire center is really "Costume Jewelry meet Robert Moses."

When I was 20, and went to the Palais Garnier a few times, I thought it was very 'opera-house heavy and overly grandiose', although I now appreciate the architecture of the place. I'm just talking about the inside. This is all very interesting about the 'costume jewelry of the time'. Thanks. Most theater of any kind came with something at least a bit garish until relatively recently. Avery Fisher is not garish, but that has not made it especially loved.

3. It's too soon historically to overhaul the look of the plaza. The costume jewelry meets Robert Moses era was a weird one but has it's internal cultural aesthetic which becomes clearer and clearer as time passes. If you are going to mix it with something new, there has to be a certain perspective on that aesthetic, and a new architectural style to contrast it with -- which takes time -- and then the contrast can truly work, like what P. Johnson did with the Boston Public Library facade. He had a hiatus of seventy five to an hundred years to work with, an the contrast between Richardson's Romanesque Revival Copley Square and his modernism. The times today and the passage of time between styles just won't permit something similarly successful to be done with Lincoln Center. They should have stood pat, shored up a bit, and waited.

Yes, they should have. I agree with what I can understand of what you wrote, and am fascinated by the rest.

Link to comment

What I meant, I think, is that to update the plaza in design under the best circumstances, ideally you'd want to take the style of the original, and incorporate it, contrast it, make it work with with another more contemporary (for the moment when it is renovated) style, equally identifiable and coherent, in an harmonious manner.

To do this you want two things: first a good appreciation of the strengths or at least the internal logic of what the original style is and was -- and this takes time, takes perspective. Second, you want another style to have come to the fore at the moment of renovation. And that takes time also.

This is pretty schematic and would be easy enough to poke some holes in and fun at, but it serves for discussion.

Going by the new facade of Avery Fisher yesterday (even with the trench in front of it), I thought: 1. It's a gimmick; 2. It's even colder and more uninviting than what preceded it; 3. The inspiration is that of a shopping mall -- the style is "Haute Miracle Mile."

As for the whole project with it's bank of grass where the breezeway used to be: good luck "inviting" the public into a noisy polluted exposure to W. 65th street.

The old Breezeway, the old reflecting pool with Henry Moore sculpture, was actually very private, very secret, a kind of zen space in the City. The idea that a coffee shop and pedestrian plaza is actually better than this, even if it takes place successfully (which I doubt) is straight out of the psychology of the Food Court from the Monster Mall -- and it wouldn't surprise me if that isn't just what we get as a result of all this.

Link to comment
The old Breezeway, the old reflecting pool with Henry Moore sculpture, was actually very private, very secret, a kind of zen space in the City.

Yes, but there are many zen spaces in the City. Not that I disagree with this, but I think, more importantly, it was a zen space within Lincoln Center itself, which seems to me an even larger accomplishment under the circumstances--that was the one place where the magic was, no matter the garishness elsewhere.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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