Is ballet really unprofitable?

[Alexandra]

Uh. (insert emoticon for :kicked in stomach:) I wish I hadn't read that! But thank you for posting it

[Drew]

I know it's a bit off topic, but do you know (roughly) how many of those remaining 377 works are revivable ballets? (As opposed to dances for a Broadway musical...a completely lost ballet...an earlier version of something the company does now? a gala event etc.?) I'm genuinely curious --

I know that for people living, as it were, the very history of the company, the experience of loss vis-a-vis Balanchine remains visceral, but I think that if you consider more abstractly the history of ballet (and Balanchine's own somewhat playful remarks about his legacy) it's rather amazing that so much of his work is performed, and performed continuously. (Again, the Royal Ballet is there for easy comparison -- even if fewer Ashton works 'survive' one can compare percentages of performances.)

In terms of profitability and audience affection -- one eery thought: if the rumored Stroman and Eifman works turn out to be hits that stay in repertory season after season, we may find ourselves in the position of those who learn to beware what they wish for...

edited to add: I seem to have written this when everyone else was writing, so apologies if I didn't quite take account of all that was written. I very much agree with Alexandra's remarks about Ashton and the Royal.

[Alexandra]

I think the reason that Balanchine's works survive is that there is still a large audience for that aesthetic -- something a choreographer has no control over, whether he's alive or dead. (Massine and Fokine and Tudor lost their aesthetic at midlife).

Ashton is hanging on by his fingernails only because -- like Bournonville -- the works are so solid. But his aesthetic is dead, and I think many people, if they tolerate Ashton's works at all, are "reading" them as choreography. (The same reason why many Americans, whom Balanchine trained to read choreography, can still watch Bournonville, when most Danes wish he would sink into the earth.)

I think that history shows the reason why -- Ashton was followed by a major choreographer (I don't think MacMillan is Ashton's equal, but he was certainly popular) and Balanchine was not. And if the New York critics acclaimed Martins with the enthusiasm that the British critics acclaimed MacMillan -- again, as always, speaking generally; there are certainly NYers who've championed Martins and Londoners who gently remind us every month or so that MacMillan isn't really Ashton's level -- we'd have a different story.

So yes, Drew, I think you're right. If Eifman comes along with an Ode to the Twin Towers, or Balanchine, a Life, that strikes a chord and sweeps in a whole new brand of ballet, then Balanchine's "numbers" will change drastically, and within a decade, if history is reliable.

[Calliope]

I suppose you could read into the first sentence of that link

"NYCB has an unmatched record of producing new works"

That sums up what I dislike intensely about the company right now. that's what I feel like my money goes to.

I have a cousin who I take to the ballet about 10 times a year, she thinks Balanchine's just the guy that did the Nutcracker.

She was too young to take to the Balanchine Celebration, but I wish I could have, so she'd have some background.

I don't know how many works are, does anyone know how many pieces were performed during the Balanchine Celebration?

[LMCtech]

G, thank you for all those technical accounting examples, but in practice a company moves surplus funds in one account to an account with negative funds to make everything come out to...zero. Have you ever seen the detailed audit of a major ballet company? All the totals add to nothing at the end of the reports. It is actually quite fascinating. I'm not going to say that I understand exactly how this all works. Or that I know anything about accounting or tax law. I just know what I have seen in these things that get passed around. I also know that at the end of the fiscal year at every not-for-profit organization I have worked for, there is a glut of buying as everyone tries to spend the money that is left in the account, partially because if we don't the board will think we don't need it all and take some away, and also because the finance department advises us to.

As for those 377 "lost" Balanchine ballets... I had a former Balanchine dancer say to me when I asked her about that very subject that not all 450 ballets were worth keeping in the repertory. She said that Balanchine admitted himself that he sometimes made real stinkers. So can it be asked that the 70+ that survive are the ones that if they were made today in the Diamond Porject are the ones that would stay in the repertory and the other 377 would be the Diamond Porject ballets that we are all complaining about right now?

[Alexandra]

On the 400-plus Balanchine works -- checking through the catalogue, there are a lot that are, as Drew suggested, pas de deux, pieces d'occasion, Version 1 of something that, for various reasons (not necessarily lack of quality) became Version 3, etc.

Both Balanchine and Ashton often made self-deprecating remarks about their work. They worked in an era during which self-promotion was repugnant. If you're rich, you don't talk about money. If you're an artist, you don't have to tell people in every other sentence how great you are, etc. I hope the idea that Balanchine made 350 stinkers and only 70 ballets "good enough to survive" dies a very quick death!

Calliope, I don't know how many Balanchine works were danced during the Celebration, but I do remember questions raised about why this one was not in repertory, or that one, etc -- I don't think it attempted to present every revivable work.

[Calliope]

Thanks Alexandra. I knew they hadn't tried to revive all, I thought it might be a good starting # to use.

In doing search, I came up with anywhere from 70 to 200 revivable works (the latter from a Kirov Lincoln Center Festival press release)

I suppose the Balanchine Trust would know the answer.

[Alexandra]

Hmm. 70 to 200 -- that would make a nice season

[citibob]

I've seen that glut of buying in for-profit companies as well. There's this sense that if you don't use up the money, the Feds will figure out how to use it for you.

[Dale]

Regarding the Diamond Project, Drew made some sound points too. But I'd still like to see less ballets as part of the project, so they can really be done well. As you admitted that you didn't see many of the DP recently Drew, you would have saw the tired performances of the last few, maybe the last four. The dancers looked tired, the ballets looked rushed to the stage. I think the project should rise out of the Choreographic Institute, then take the best from there and put them on stage. But, bringing this back to the some of the points in this tread, I'm not sure what stipulations Ms. Diamond has for her grant. And it also is easier to raise money from the high-end donors for a new ballet. Which is sexier, giving money so a new ballet, one that might always have note saying, "This work is possibly thanks to the generousity of Mr. Money" than giving money so that the company can spiff up La Source, with no tags of thanks. That is why I like that NYCB has different programs. I received a pamphlet outlining, for an example, how one wealthy couple has loved watching Balanchine ballets since the 50s and wants to give money only to preserve his work. And another program for preserving the companies video library so that older films of the company are kept from breaking down.

About whether balle is unprofitable, I wonder if anyone will know, that if, say, ABT sold out all of its shows this past fall at City Center, will it have made money? Or any company's season, if they sold all their tickets?

[Mel Johnson]

The apparent lack of interest of donors to support continuing operating expenses of any kind of arts endeavor has been an everlasting problem over the years. Most donors aren't that interested in providing "nuts and bolts" money for day-to-day running of the company, or the care and feeding of the physical plant, or even the upkeep of present active repertoire. These expenses, far and away, use more money than the creation of most new one-act ballets. Grants tend not to like "nuts and bolts" money, either.

[Alexandra]

Dale, it's my understanding (from talking with past Kennedy Center program directors and press people) that even when a ballet company sells out a week's run here, it still loses money. You can say the ticket prices are too low to cover costs, or you can say it's because there aren't enough seats, but either way, revenue does not equal costs.

I was stunned to hear Kevin McKenzie say -- I think it's five years ago now -- that it cost the company $1 million PER WEEK to tour.

[E Johnson]

Actually, NYCB has credited donors who support revivals of old works in addition to those whose donations are used for the creation of new ones.

[Calliope]

I was checking for tix on NYCB's website, since you can see what availability is.

I chuckled, I noticed the all Balanchine nights/Balanchine Robbins/ All Robbins nights are all practically sold out, with very limited availability.

[LMCtech]

Yes that is interesting. If I were to go to NY to specifically see NYCB, I would choose a Balanchine/Robbins program. But when I see SFB, the company I see the most, I prefer new works, because I've already seen all the old ones and I want to see dancers familiar to me in new roles.

Dale, I think you make a very good suggestion. I was amazed at the number of ballets presented in the Diamond project and heard from a NYCB source that scheduling during that time is nightmarish. Less ballets would probably solve A LOT of the problems you all have been talking about, without eliminating the program all together, which I could never support.