2011-2012 Trouble
#1
Posted 11 December 2011 - 12:04 PM
#2
Posted 12 December 2011 - 01:04 PM
Quote
#3
Posted 12 December 2011 - 08:40 PM
#4
Posted 12 December 2011 - 10:34 PM
#5
Posted 23 December 2011 - 08:24 PM
BEGIN QUOTE
The "artistic and training partnership" will allow Ballet San Jose to implement ABT's renowned curriculum at its ballet school and will provide a range of other opportunities for Ballet San Jose dancers and staff, Executive Director Stephanie Ziesel said. She added that the agreement included everything from the possibility of staging ballets from ABT's deep repertoire, to getting advice and training from specialized coaches.
But the announcement stopped short of revealing which ballets will be performed in the coming year; that news will be delivered Jan. 3, Ziesel said. That's nearly five months after the company announced it would not stage any autumn performances for the first time in decades.
END QUOTE
... Suspicious because there has been no parallel announcement from ABT... Is this just repackaging for public relations consumption that they are considering affiliating with ABT's training program? At Hartford Ballet's partially-board-generated demise, it almost seemed there was a promulgated view of the company as a proving ground for local wealthy families' daughters... and no will to see ballet or the company as more than that... (The Board practically implied at the penultimate annual gala that the dancers were children as they announced they were presenting them with lollipops as a thank you present). Is this the same path Ballet San Jose is headed down?
Why is there no announcement on ABT's site?
#6
Posted 25 December 2011 - 10:01 PM
Quote
"Dennis has some decisions to make and so does the board. We are not hiring an artistic director."
Quote
Well, I'd not go that far. Very difficult to tell what's really going on although I expect that money is the issue at bottom. It usually is.
#7
Posted 26 December 2011 - 12:32 PM
#8
Posted 06 January 2012 - 05:14 PM
"The organizations are not merging; Ms. Ziesel said that her ballet would not become a triple-A farm team for the American Ballet Theater but would have access to the bigger group’s “toolbox and Rolodex.”
What on earth does that mean? I can't imagine they mean the development director's roladex... And the artists and craftspeople most likely do not hide their involvement with ABT. What contact info could she mean? And what toolbox?? And no mention of the training program relationship. I find this situation to be stranger and stranger.
“I’ve never experienced anything like this, except at the movies,” said Nora Heiber, national dance representative for the American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents the company’s 34 dancers. “It’s a better script than ‘Black Swan.’ ”
#9
Posted 07 January 2012 - 10:03 PM
Quote
The union alerted the company to another grievance in a Dec. 23 letter, alleging "harassment" by Fry. In that letter, the union's national executive director stated that Fry is involved in a relationship with ballerina Alexsandra Meijer, creating a "widespread perception among unit employees that Mr. Fry is granting favorable treatment ... and thereby creating a hostile working environment for the other dancers."
#10
Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:37 AM
#11
Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:48 PM
Your emoticons are more than eloquent here!
#12
Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:36 PM
http://www.sfcv.org/...-big-next-steps
Quote
#13
Posted 14 January 2012 - 05:43 AM
#14
Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:26 PM
I think we and you are perhaps being had. The quote is quite amusing, yes. That a mall paper, unless somehow compelled to print this child's sqwawk by an IMPORTANT parent, contains such exclusive stuff along with the cream, chicken, cilantro and celery adverts is just too much. Then again there was the once reported case with SF Ballet where a fat kiddee was rejected for Nutcracker, I seem to recall, and suits were threatened by the litigious parents, whose lipid state was not reported. There was no follow-up to that which is remembered here. I like the nertz bit. The genuine subject, interfering boards, is important.
#15
Posted 14 January 2012 - 05:48 PM
Olatunji, on 14 January 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
I think we and you are perhaps being had. The quote is quite amusing, yes. That a mall paper, unless somehow compelled to print this child's sqwawk by an IMPORTANT parent, contains such exclusive stuff along with the cream, chicken, cilantro and celery adverts is just too much. Then again there was the once reported case with SF Ballet where a fat kiddee was rejected for Nutcracker, I seem to recall, and suits were threatened by the litigious parents, whose lipid state was not reported. There was no follow-up to that which is remembered here. I like the nertz bit. The genuine subject, interfering boards, is important.
Idiots every where I see. Perhaps the "Chron" is more reputable.
http://www.sfgate.co...OJT7.DTL&ao=all
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases:



