Or, alternatively: Caroline Miller patted us on the head and told us to be good and we agreed.
The conversation was invigorating, and her perception and sensitivity were stimulating. I am extremely pleased to report that Ms. Miller affirmed her own appreciation of dance and the magazine's commitment to continuing an ongoing page of dance criticism - but with "a new voice." The future looks bright.
Or, alternatively: We were so pleased to get a meeting with Caroline Miller that we will join her in any canard she wishes to throw out.
We are delighted with this result and hope it can serve as a model for our field to come together as a community, and to take effective joint action to address issues of common concern
From the Caroline Miller statement:
Or, alternatively: We will run listings of upcoming dance events if they are sent to us and if space is available. If George Balanchine comes back from the grave to restage “Midsummer Night’s Dream” we will cover it and may even find space for a review.
And we need a new critical voice that can speak to a broader audience. Until we find that person, we'll be covering the bases with Fall Preview (in fact we've had more dance in Fall Preview in the last two years, not less), Cue previews and listings, and upcoming features (including pieces on Sasha Waltz and Mark Morris).
Caroline Miller may be a fine editor but she should leave the spinning of unpopular choices to those who do it every day. Lots of magazines are cutting back. They must since they are selling fewer ad pages and possibly getting less revenue per page. It is one of the things that happen in a recession.
Arts coverage is marginal in many publications. When pages in a magazine have to be sacrificed dance, opera and serious music may be the first to go.
Some says it's just not possible to be too cynical, is it?