The opening sentence of Martin's being "heir apparent" at NYCB made me chuckle.
I will start off by saying, I think it's difficult to give a "fair" review to a critic who only sees a representation of a company as opposed to watching them day in and day out. I would hope, that on tour, a company would bring pieces that they feel they best represent. If I recall correctly NYCB was asked to bring the Diamond Project pieces to Edinburgh.
It's so tough b/c I think NYCB is really in a transition mode. I was speaking with a young dancer with aspirations of getting into NYCB and when I asked her why she wanted to get into that company, she said it was "because of all the new pieces".
I have to admit, part of me was crushed. When I threw Balanchine and Robbins as a base of the company, her reply was "yeah they're okay". Even more devastated!
So, I think Martins is succeeding in not making the company a museum, but I just hope the young ones don't think of the founders as a bunch of old fuddy duddies.
But back to Martins and the review. While I applaud the bringing in of new choreographers, I just fear as to the identity of the company as being one that is too malleable. I often wonder how choreographers,who didn't study the Balanchine method, feel coming into a company that has that as it's base. How can you fully know what a dancer's strengths are (and use those strengths) if you've only met the dancer, have rehearsals for 2 weeks and then cast them. Is that really enough time?
I am all over the place with this post. I guess I'm just trying to avoid Martins-bashing