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)

Modern Dance Company Survival Rates Since the 70s


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 08:52 AM

I've been leafing through a 1979 book titled Dance Posters, which reproduces dance-related posters from that era.  Most of the posters are of ballet and modern dance companies (although not all.)  Perusing the book, I couldn't help noticing how many of the modern dance companies that were considered worthy enough to be included in this book are now gone or whose performances are sporadic.  Below is a list of all the modern dance companies in the book (the ones in bold are the ones that are still with us):

 

Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater

James Cunningham and the Acme Co.

Merce Cunningham Dance Company

Andrew deGroat and Dancers

Martha Graham Dance Company

Bella Lewitzky Dance Company

Jose Limon Dance Company (a.k.a. Limon Dance Company)

Murray Louis Dance Company

Lar Lubovitch Dance Company

Nancy Meehan Dance Co.

Nikolas Dance Theatre

Elaine Summers' Experimental Intermedia Foundation

Dan Wagoner and Dancers

 

In addition, ponder this:

 

  • The Trisha Brown Company is now half way through a farewell tour (as Alastair Macaulay wrote about in The New York Times this week.)
  • Laura Dean no longer allows any performances of her works.
  • The Erick Hawkins Company is now defunct.
  • Yvonne Rainier's work is now mostly seen in museums (i.e. her current Getty show in Los Angeles).
  • The various Anna Sokolow spin-off companies trundle on in impoverished circumstances.
  • Twyla Tharp soldiers on without a namesake company and is forced to rely on the good auspices of artistic directors at ballet companies to program her work.

I find it interesting that three of the four surviving companies from the Dance Posters list are associated with techniques than can be methodically taught: Graham (Martha Graham Company), (Lester) Horton (Alvin Ailey Company) and Humphrey-Limon (Limon Company).  Also, two of the four (Graham, Limon) belong to that historical/literary modern dance tradition that abstraction-minded dance critics devoted to the abstractions of George Balanchine, Merce Cunningham and the Judson School declared bad for us.

 

Make of it what you will . . .



#2 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,330 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 09:16 AM

The historical/literary ballet tradition is only partially robust because of The Revenge of the Full-lengths, which have cropped up again, like measles.  While not exclusively narrative like Tudor, Wheeldon and Ratmansky especially have done many works with both strictly narrative content or with a narrative pulse, like the last Scarlett I saw, so there's some hope. The eponymous modern dance companies are still the model, with Paul Taylor and Mark Morris the most established and most flourishing, and many of Morris' -- sometimes literalky following the libretto in the lyrics --and some of Taylor's works are right in the narrative tradition.

 

Far from being charitable, ballet companies are begging Tharp for her older works, like the ubiquitous "In the Upper Room" and "Nine Sinatra Songs," and if they can afford her price tag, for new ones.  (PNB has had three in the last few seasons.)  Mark Morris picks and chooses the ballet companies that do his work and for whom he creates new work, and there's a line-up for those (and companies that wish they could afford him).

 

Surviving transitions are few in any sphere without institutions, and institutions are not what most modern dance companies are about.  Balanchine and Martins (and Ratmansky for that matter) were born and bred in institutions.  Balanchine famously said that when he would no longer be around, the ballets would look different. He assumed they'd be performed after he was gone.  How many modern dance choreographers are willing for that to be the case?  Look at the number who shut their companies down when they're no longer in control.  The choreographers who make works for ballet companies are making them for institutions (probably within strict contractual limits), which generally means they have a better chance at surviving the choreographer's company.



#3 sandik

sandik

    Rubies Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,646 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 10:47 PM

And how did you know I was listening to Donald Knaack's score for Tharp's Surfer at the River Styx right now?  She made it in 2000, for Twyla Tharp Dance (which comes after her "Tharp!" company)

 

This is a topic I think about frequently.  When I taught dance history, I was often asked to clarify the differences between ballet and modern dance.  This was never a simple task, and has only gotten more difficult as the dance world has insisted on combining styles, techniques and repertories.  But fundamentally, ballet has been ringing changes on an inherited technique for many generations, pulling and twisting it certainly, sometimes focusing on its potential for abstract, pattern-making art and sometimes on its more narrative and expressive qualities.  But foundationally it still relies on a shared understanding of a received tradition.

 

The first generations of modern dancers (both in Europe and America) spent a considerable amount of time and energy finding a way to dance that most specifically was not ballet -- many of the iconic elements of modern work were generated as a rejection of ballet, aesthetically, compositionally, technically -- the whole package.  But I think the element that really set the work on its path was its insistence on creating a personal art form.  "Dance who you are" was the main admonition -- if you attracted a set of like-minded colleagues, fine, but it wasn't the main goal.  Repertory and technique were built by individuals, based on their own anatomy and aesthetic concerns.  Graham technique looks the way it does because Graham looked the way she did -- if you're trying to learn the work, it helps a great deal if you have the same long torso and relatively short legs that she did.  Humphrey and Weidman were slightly more theoretical in the development of their joint technique, but the anatomical influence is still the same.

 

Early in the development of modern dance practice it was expected that a young dancer, someone who might have spent a considerable part of their life as a follower or devotee of a particular choreographer, would strike out on their own and create their own work.  Almost everyone who has trained as a modern dancer, from the beginning to now, has had dance composition training as part of their education – that’s far from the case with ballet dancers.  And although not everyone who made these experiments would persevere to form their own company, almost all the companies that were listed in the book miliosr describes above came from that strategy.

 

But that model has been on the wane for the last 20+ years.  In general, young performers don’t apprentice themselves to a single artist or style now, but instead work in a project to project manner for a series of choreographers, much as Broadway dancers have done.  While choreographers might try to work with the same group of people, those dancers will often perform for several people, and train outside of their relationship with a single choreographer.  This kind of pick-up company structure, combined with the relative ‘style-free’ nature of movement training today, makes for a large body of artists who are generalists rather than specialists.

 

The financial and organizational challenges of running a full-time company are steep – most contemporary choreographers don’t have the resources to make that happen.  Right now, most people are making a virtue of flexibility.

 

There are a number of other factors at play with this transition (the changing nature of touring, shifting options for employment, inflation in real estate and insurance are just a few), but I think the fundamental differences are in the movement – modern dance today asks for a different skill set, and that means a different relationship to the art form as a whole.

 

I’ll stop now since this is getting long.



#4 diane

diane

    Bronze Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 12:35 AM

Thank you for your thoughts on this, sandik! 

 

These are things I also often think about, as where I live (Germany) nearly all of the dance companies are now "modern" or "contemporary" or "tanztheater" or some combination of all of the above, often combined with ballet. 

 

The dancers are expected to be able to move easily between the various modes of expression, and technical demands are high. 

 

The companies which perform mainly ballet are few nowadays. Not because that "does not sell" - but because ballet companies require more resources; at least, that is my opinion. (here, of course, most companies are also state-supported)

So it is really interesting to read about what is going on in the US compared to here. 

 

 

-d-



#5 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 05:31 AM

As a point of comparison, the Dance Posters book contains posters by the following ballet companies.  Bolded companies represent companies that are still with us:

 

American Ballet Theatre

Dance Theatre of Harlem

Dancers (Dennis Wayne's company)

Feld Ballet

Houston Ballet

Joffrey Ballet

New York City Ballet

Pennsylvania Ballet

Royal Winnipeg Ballet

San Francisco Ballet

 

This list is a little deceiving because two of the companies -- Dance Theatre of Harlem and Joffrey Ballet -- both experienced very serious problems that almost caused them to fail permanently.

 

The Eliot Feld situation is a sad one -- talk about a dead repertory.



#6 Fosca

Fosca

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 05:36 AM


The companies which perform mainly ballet are few nowadays.

 

German companies which perform mainly (or exclusively) ballet: Berlin, Dortmund, Dresden, Düsseldorf, Karlsruhe, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart. Even Essen, Gelsenkirchen and Leipzig dance on pointe most of the time. I don't think that's "few", Diane.



#7 diane

diane

    Bronze Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 05:58 AM

Compared to the US it is not few, that is correct. 

There are many, many more companies here. (most of them are in smaller cities) 

 

Just an observation - "on pointe" does not always a ballet make. :)

 

 

-d-



#8 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 06:00 AM

Getting back to the "why" of why the Ailey, Graham and Limon companies have survived and so many others haven't . . .

(And when I say "survived" I mean that they're performing regularly during a season and they have a sizeable budget that is stable year-to-year.  Ailey is one the richest companies in New York, Graham has rebounded nicely from its financial and legal travails, and even Limon routinely has a budget of $1 million+.)

 

One reason why I think Ailey and Limon were able to survive after the death of the titular founder is that they were both, to varying degrees, repertory companies during the lives of their founders.  Alvin Ailey programmed many different choreographers during his lifetime, and Limon, during his lifetime, had Doris Humphrey as co-choreographer and programmed the works of his company members (Pauline Koner, Lucas Hoving, Louis Falco, etc.)  The advantage to their successor companies was that there was never this huge existential crisis of "My God!  What will we do for repertory now???" when Limon and Ailey died, respectively, in 1972 and 1989.  They could continue on as they already had.  And now, even the Graham company has managed to make the mental leap of morphing into a repertory company and commissions new dances.

 

It's a pity Merce Cunningham couldn't (or wouldn't) make that mental leap because I do think a successor Merce Cunningham Dance Company could have become a repository for Cunningham's dances as well as the dances of the New York-based, loft-centered, post-modernists.  Were a Merce Cunningham Company still in effect it could have picked up some of the works of the soon-to-be-defunct Trisha Brown Dance Company!  To put it another way, it could have become the White Oak Dance Project without being dependent on Baryshnikov's celebrity to keep it going.



#9 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:53 AM

Modern/postmodern/contemporary companies w/ budgets of more than $2 million in FY12.  Taken from the Angel Corella thread in the Pennsylvania Ballet forum:

 

04 Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre  ($34.6)

14 Merce Cunningham Dance Company*  ($8.4)

20 Paul Taylor Dance Company**  ($6.4)

23 Mark Morris Dance Group  ($5.9)

24 Pilobolus  ($5.8)

32 Ballet Hispanico  ($4.9)

35 ODC Dance Company  ($4.3)

36 Alonzo King's LINES Ballet  ($4.2)

40 Martha Graham Center for Dance Education  ($3.3)

47 STREB  ($2.7)

49 Dallas Black Dance Theatre  ($2.6)

51 Trisha Brown Company***  ($2.3)

54 Trey McIntyre Project  ($2.2)

 

*The Merce Cunningham company no longer exists.  In its place is a foundation that seeks to stage his works in the absence of a functioning company.

**Will become Paul Taylor's American Modern Dance.

***The company is in the middle of a farewell tour.



#10 sandik

sandik

    Rubies Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,646 posts

Posted 26 July 2014 - 10:17 AM

And Trey McIntyre has just dissolved his company -- he gives various reasons, including just being tired of the ongoing challenge of maintaining the institution, but he's returning to a freelance life as far as choreography is concerned (not sure what, if any, plans are made for the existing repertory).



#11 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:22 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...?ref=dance&_r=0

 

With this development, New York will now have at least five modern dance mixed repertory companies -- Ailey, Graham, Limon, Petronio and Taylor.  Are there any others I'm missing?



#12 sandik

sandik

    Rubies Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,646 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:30 PM

Oh this is a fascinating 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):