Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

Megan Fairchild to Make Her Broadway Debut in "On The Town"


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#31 vipa

vipa

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 03:18 PM

 

Tapfan - not sure what you mean by "prep school vibe"?  care to give more context?   tia

NYC Ballet reminds me of that movie Pleasantville.  Everything there seems to be so insular and conformist.

 

Interesting point of view Tapfan.  I see NYCB frequently and I see a lot of very individualistic dancers.  The company has a continuing practice of commissioning new music and does new choreography every year.  There also commission art instillations in the theater when they perform  (loved by some hated by others).  As for singing and acting - they do great with West Side Story Suite.  It was Jerome Robbins who set it on the company originally.  Gina Pazcoguin is one of the best Anitas ever.  Perhaps you see it as insular because company members attend SAB before joining the company (in almost all cases) although many dancers train else where and only spend their last couple of years at SAB.  



#32 sandik

sandik

    Rubies Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,841 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 04:28 PM

I don't know that I would call it insular or conformist, but NYCB does have a more clearly articulated company style than many other ensembles working today, in part because of their relationship to SAB, but also because of their repertory.



#33 vipa

vipa

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 05:51 PM

I don't know that I would call it insular or conformist, but NYCB does have a more clearly articulated company style than many other ensembles working today, in part because of their relationship to SAB, but also because of their repertory.

 

I agree sandik, but having a clearly articulated style does not translate to the "Pleasantville" automaton idea that Tapfan seems to be referring to (unless I misinterpret).  Personally I like that NYCB has a distinctive look.  I certainly wouldn't describe the company as conformist.



#34 abatt

abatt

    Sapphire Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,883 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 06:48 AM

Conformist is not a word I would use to describe NYCB.  They commission new and daring works (sometimes flops, sometimes successful), they use challenging music,  they commision art installations.  I don't see them as conformist at all.  



#35 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,476 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 08:32 AM

 

NYC Ballet reminds me of that movie Pleasantville.  Everything there seems to be so insular and conformist.

 

 

Ballet companies are like other organizations and institutions: they have their own social/behavioral norms and implicit and explicit systems, standards, and culture.  These things change over time for the same reasons they do in businesses, due to economic pressures, transitions from original founders/owners and establishing members/employees to new ones, growth, shift in focus and product, etc.  Ballet companies are ongoing and people stay with them longer than most tap and jazz dancers, who generally are project-based, are employed for a given gig.  While I'd expect more conformity in a long-running show, the dancers, like in opera and theater outside the true rep companies, are contracted for stints, some with the limited duration fixed in advanced.  The social norms are more fluid.  There's no ongoing job with benefits and generally renewed contracts. Being a permanent freelancer requires different life skills and mindset than being a company member, in any profession.

 

Ballet dançers are more hot-house than most Broadway dancers in general, because, especially for women, they have to choose to specialize in ballet at a much earlier age in order to be considered for the profession, and, despite Allison de Bona's example as a college graduate-turned-professional and Violette Verdy's affiliation with Indiana University and her wide network, very few ballet dancers go to college before an elite professional career: instead they go from ballet schools into relatively stable ballet companies.  College, if nothing else, gives people an opportunity to broaden their perspectives and find more to bring into their dancing.  It was important enough to Diaghilev to take a handful of selected few, including Balanchine, on an art tour in the off-season, something that expanded the choreographer's horizons.

 

Ballet technique also emphasizes being pulled up and turned out, and despite Fairchild's earlier training and emphasis on jazz dancing, he's been a ballet dancer every day for a long time, and it could take him a while to shift his weight and style and not look so "clean."  I'd expect him her to find his her groove over the duration.  He'll She'll be focused on one set role, compared to being in a ballet company where he shemight do four performances at most in any given ballet over a season, perform in a different program every night, be asked to learn a new role quickly and sub in for an injured colleague, and have a day full of rehearsing multiple roles, learning new roles, working to create new choreography, etc.

 

Edited to add: blushing.gif  I got my Fairchild performing in shows threads mixed up.  Aside from her brother's jazz training, what I wrote originally applies to Megan Fairchild as well.



#36 canbelto

canbelto

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,931 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 08:38 AM

Tapfan - not sure what you mean by "prep school vibe"?  care to give more context?   tia

NYC Ballet reminds me of that movie Pleasantville.  Everything there seems to be so insular and conformist.

Actually several nycb dancers are pretty outspoken in their social media page about politics. Very strong minded and I wouldn't call those views "conformist" at all.

#37 Tapfan

Tapfan

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 09:03 AM

The SAB specific training is one of the reasons and yes, I know that most major companies have affiliated schools.

 

 

And of course, I'm not talking about them having high standards. Who would complain about that?  Nor am I talking about uniformity of style.  I like that about companies like POB.

 

I'm talking about the feeling that us outsiders get that the City Ballet/SAB nexus  is a very exclusive club  that tightly controls who gets into the club, who should care about the club, why they should care or even who watches the club.  

 

It seems that everybody who works or teaches there is only important by way of their relationship to Balanchine.

 

It's always about Dancing for Mr.B or designing costumes for Mr. B.,cooking with Mr. B., fighting with Mr. B.,  staging  Mr. B's works,  marrying Mr. B or picking up Mr.B's cleaning. It's like,"Look at me!, I'm relevant because I had contact with Mr. B!"  There's  a whole industry that's sprung up for cashing in on having come in contact with his genius.

 

These folks make up a sort of priesthood in the church of Balanchine  and they lay their much-sought-after blessings on the dancers/priests too young to have known Balanchine. 

 

As to their new works, the only ones that seem to matter to the Balanchine faithful are those that come from in-house.   Robbins, Peck and Wheeldon are or were all members of the Church of Balanchine. 

 

That thing with the artist and Lil' Buck? Puleez.    Horrible pandering all around. Its failure surprised nobody. 

 

And have you seen Peter Martins in the City Ballet Web series with Sarah Jessica Parker? Geez,  the man acts like he's the first and only person to ever run a ballet company. 

 

 

 

As to Balanchine himself, like Jesus Christ, I have fewer problems with the man himself than I do with some of his followers. 



#38 Drew

Drew

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 11:04 AM

 

 

 

As to their new works, the only ones that seem to matter to the Balanchine faithful are those that come from in-house.   Robbins, Peck and Wheeldon are or were all members of the Church of Balanchine. 

One crucial choreographer you left out who belongs to a different nexus:  Ratmansky. NYCB works with him regularly. In the past, they even tried to hire him as their resident choreographer.  Many of his admirers are also what you call "Balanchine faithful" though I'm sure not all...

 

The Balanchine faithful more generally? Well I know what you are talking about, but the leadership of the company has not been as insular as your comments would suggest when it comes to commissions and productions. They commissioned two works from William Forsythe and did so considerably before other American companies were regularly performaning Forsythe (has ABT yet danced Forsythe at all?)...They also regularly perform & have at least 2 or 3 times commissioned from Bigonzetti and from Preljocaj--European choreographers well out of the Balanchine nexus and whose works are maintained in the repertory.  They also commissioned a work from Ulysses Dove that for a while at least was being regularly revived--they could hardly commission additional works after his death. I will be silent on the one commission from Eifman since I doubt that experiment will be repeated anytime soon. But at any rate NYCB did do the experiment.

 

Maybe these choreographers are not as admired among some NYCB fans/critics as others, but that can't be held against the company's leadership or director who brought them in and keeps their works in the repertory...

 

Also at one point NYCB commissioned several works from Tharp, though I believe she is generally admired among those who admire Balanchine/Cunningham.

 

(Puzzlingly, I remember you asking on another thread why NYCB even bothers with choreographers other than Balanchine/Robbins when they are so great--perhaps you were being ironic and I missed it. That sometimes happens on the internet...)

 

The company's post-Balanchine turn to increasing the full-length story-ballets in the rep including Swan Lake. Romeo and Juliet, and now the 19th-century Bournonville La Sylphide is certainly not something I think we would have seen if Balanchine were still around. 

 

The milking of personal connections to Balanchine that you dislike seems to me to work in good as well as bad or irritating ways. Companies that lose touch with their heritage/traditions will lose touch with what makes them great and distinctive. I think the Royal Ballet would have done well to cherish its Ashton connections more continuously in past decades. (Don't have a good sense of what is happening there now with Ashton.) And, for example, I don't want NYCB to start dancing Macmillan's Manon.

 

(Much of the greatness of the great Russian companies comes from the steady continuity of training and coaching from one generation to the next. NYCB has actually been strongly criticized by some of the "Balanchine faithful" for not doing enough with dancers of past generations.)

 

When a ballet company starts to try to be everything to everyone it ceases to be anything important at all--at the worst, it ceases to be a ballet company at all and morphs into a contemporary dance company. I am delighted that there are other companies with other aesthetics--that there is more to dance than ballet, and more to ballet than New York City Ballet. But, as you can tell, I love New York City Ballet.

 

That New York City Ballet has a style, an approach, a tradition that go back to its founders--and that it (re)presents those with reverence and sometimes arrogance? I think that's true. I also value what's great about that approach in an institution of such enormous quality and creativity.  Above criticism? Certainly not. More insular than the Paris Opera Ballet? or the Mariinsky? Or the Royal Ballet? As institutions--I strongly doubt it.



#39 mira

mira

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 12:31 PM

agree Drew.  If the thought is "insular" implying "insider", "exclusive" or "privileged club and hard to get into", I'd like to add that there are many wonderful schools besides SAB that teach the Balanchine style of dance - PNB, MCB, School of Pennsylvania Ballet, Ballet Chicago, CPYB, BAE, The Jillana School and others that I'm sure I've overlooked mentioning.    

 

Wikipedia describes the characteristics of this method as:

The overall illusion of the Balanchine method is that dancers are utilizing more space in less time, so that speed, height, length and a syncopated musicality are created.

Specific characteristics include:

  • Extreme speed and very deep plié
  • Emphasis on line, with use of unconventional[clarification needed] arm and hand placement
  • Pirouettes en-dehors taken from a lunge in 4th, rather than the conventional plié in 4th
  • Distinctive arabesque line with the hip open to the audience and the side arm pressed back
  • Athletic dance quality


#40 Tapfan

Tapfan

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 12:53 PM

Puzzlingly, I remember you asking on another thread why NYCB even bothers with choreographers other than Balanchine/Robbins when they are so great--perhaps you were being ironic and I missed it. That sometimes happens on the internet...)

 

I was indeed attempting to be somewhat ironic. It appeared to me that having such a treasure trove of legacy works at their disposal, many of City Ballet's biggest supporters and fans really weren't interested in seeing anything new. So why waste money and time on new works if you know that the critics and audiences are predisposed to hating them simply for not being Balanchine or Robbins? 

 

 

 

One crucial choreographer you left out who belongs to a different nexus:  Ratmansky. NYCB works with him regularly

 

Yes, they almost hired him but let their rival ABT hire him.  If he was so great, and City ballet is all about presenting great works, why'd they let him get away?  



#41 Drew

Drew

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:03 PM

 

 

Puzzlingly, I remember you asking on another thread why NYCB even bothers with choreographers other than Balanchine/Robbins when they are so great--perhaps you were being ironic and I missed it. That sometimes happens on the internet...)

 

I was indeed attempting to be somewhat ironic. It appeared to me that having such a treasure trove of legacy works at their disposal, many of City Ballet's biggest supporters and fans really weren't interested in seeing anything new. So why waste money and time on new works if you know that the critics and audiences are predisposed to hating them simply for not being Balanchine or Robbins? 

 

 

 

One crucial choreographer you left out who belongs to a different nexus:  Ratmansky. NYCB works with him regularly

 

Yes, they almost hired him but let their rival ABT hire him.  If he was so great, and City ballet is all about presenting great works, why'd they let him get away?  

Ahhh...I missed the irony--but in a sense that allowed me to respond to your point just as well even if it makes me the 'straight man' smile.png . As I noted on that thread, many NYCB fans like myself view it as essential that the company continue to present new work. Those new works have at times been controversial, especially during the Diamond Project days. Less so now I think. 

 

Regarding Ratmansky: well, what was reported was that the company wanted more of his time than he was willing to give. Fortunately, they haven't let him get away entirely in the sense that they continue to commission and present his ballets including a premier this fall.



#42 canbelto

canbelto

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,931 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:15 PM

Balanchine created what was said to be impossible in the US: a school and company that was uniformly trained to dance in his unique style. You can see the results of this training in the NYCB performances. Every major ballet company emphasizes the importance of uniformity in training. Companies like ABT are criticized because the differences in their training are obvious to even casual ballet goers. So ...

#43 sandik

sandik

    Rubies Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,841 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:21 PM

One of the things I value about NYCB, especially since I don’t live in NYC, is its ability to jumpstart some pretty vivid conversations – there are very few people in our dancey world who don’t have an opinion about the company, its repertory, its role in the development of ballet and its current position in the field.

 

I think we’re looking at several different things here, and it might be helpful to sort them out.  When Tapfan makes the comparison to Pleasantville (insular and conformist) it’s not clear to me if this is a characterization about the repertory or the workplace.  And although I think you can make a case for a causal connection between the two (they are that way because the work they dance encourages that situation) I’m not sure it’s really the truth.  All workplaces (indeed all communities, whatever brings them together) have specific cultures, but I think we’re here to discuss the work they’re doing rather than the dynamics of the place they’re doing it (especially since most backstage information is beyond our rules here) 

 

So just thinking about the repertory, it’s not a big revelation that NYCB is still, more than 30 years after his death, really influenced by the work of George Balanchine.  But the other major element in the company DNA is their commitment to new work.  I was curious about the claim, in the recent film about Justin Peck, that NYCB was a “creative” ballet company, but when I mulled it over I thought that it was another affirmation about their ongoing commissioning.  I don’t have any numbers at hand, but it would not surprise me in the least to learn that they’ve premiered more new work made for ballet dancers than any other three companies combined. 

 

Drew mentions several of their commissions from choreographers other than Balanchine above, and I’m sure there are many more, but I think we may be missing a fundamental element here.  Yes, other choreographers bring their own tastes and choices with them, which may expand the skills and style of the performers, but for the most part, they are making new dances, using the dancers in front of them.  When a choreographer brings an existing work to a new group, those dancers are challenged to, in essence, become other people – to literally walk in someone else’s footsteps.  If a choreographer is making a new ballet, like a chef standing in front of a pantry, s/he uses the ingredients they have at hand.  For people who’ve seen Ratmansky’s and Wheeldon’s work for NYCB, I would be willing to bet that it reflects the house aesthetic as well as their own. 

 

It’s been fascinating to watch NYCB grapple with this transitional section of their history after Balanchine.  Like the Graham Company, they’ve needed to walk a fine line between maintaining the integrity of their style, and resisting the impulse to become a museum.  (I wonder if Cunningham’s decision to dismantle his company after his death was influenced at all by seeing NYCB struggle with this challenge.)

 

I’m afraid this discussion has traveled pretty far away from the original thread – perhaps we should move it over to a different location so that Megan Fairchild and On the Town don’t get swept to the side…



#44 Drew

Drew

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:46 PM

I agree with the above (sandik's post) with a few caveats. Ratmansky's Namouna in particular did not look like anything I had ever seen anywhere -- NYCB included. Importantly, too, the Wheeldon and Ratmansky works for NYCB seem to have translated very effectively to other companies with very different aesthetics. (The Mariinsky is having success with Concerto DSCH, as the Bolshoi did with Russian Seasons.) Preljocaj's Spectral Evidence by no stretch of the imagination asked for things from Robert Fairchild -- or the other dancers -- that belonged to the 'house aesthetics,' though it certainly made use of his abilities. I thought it worked. (I completely forgot to mention Scarlett whose influences are British and continental: I didn't care for his Acheron but other Balanchine-admirers that I read certainly did. He has been invited back to create a work this fall.)

 

I have been trying to emphasize not just post-Balanchine commissions (of which there are many, many more than I have mentioned), but commissions from choreographers who aren't in the Balanchine 'sphere of influence' -- but yes, choreographers do draw on NYCB dancers' abilities for sure! Though here, too, the important issue is indeed, as Sandik says, finally the work and not the workplace except perhaps insofar as the latter enables the former to happen. (Insularity on public view? Watch the video of Tsiskaridze pissing all over Christopher Wheeldon at the Bolshoi.)

 

NYCB has struggled with its post-Balanchine moment, but in some ways I feel that in the last decade or so it has started to resolve many of those issues: finding important choreographers to work with and dancers that even those who remember the Balanchine days (eg Robert Gottlieb) are willing to discuss in the same breath as the greats of the past. I also believe that all companies go through some ups and downs...A great school is one thing that can see it through relatively safely.



#45 sandik

sandik

    Rubies Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,841 posts

Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:54 PM

I don't see the company often enough any more to have a deep understanding of all the new commissions, but I think the fundamental element is the "new" -- they are still devoted to the creation of new work.  It would be interesting to look at the trajectory of the last 30 years and see how that imperative has directed their development.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):