Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Great to hear. I can imagine this being a good role for Teuscher.
  3. I saw this cast, but I have no technical background so can’t say anything other than I enjoyed it. I thought both Teuscher and Williams were great. The bedroom pas at the end of Act 2 (Teuscher and Stearns) was gorgeous; it was my favorite between Brandt/Mack, Teuscher/Stearns, and Shevchenko/Mack.
  4. I hope so! Fingers crossed for both of them!
  5. I was thinking about what you wrote in the "Promotions" thread, regarding Shayer, while watching Scott today. I've never loved Scott, but he definitely comes across more as a man than a boy in this role, unlike Shayer. The drama made much more sense. (Not that it has to in Corsaire...)
  6. Brandt was incredible this afternoon. I was very impressed! Her technique was nearly flawless and she’s mostly lost the open-mouthed affectation (it appeared slightly only a few times). She now presents herself as a ballerina, not just a promising soloist. To my amazement, Whiteside was terrific. I’ve always considered him a very good dancer, just boring, but today he displayed incredibly high jumps and overall exceptional dancing. He is also a very, very good partner, better than I’ve noticed before. He had Brandt spinning lightening fast in her supported pirouettes and every lift looked easy (and you know they had less than two weeks to rehearse together). He also had character, which I usually don’t see from him. They also had a chemistry which I didn’t anticipate. Lane was gorgeous as always. Those port de bras...swoon! As someone else noted earlier, she accurately portrayed the sad, suffering slave girl that most others do not. Too bad Gulnare doesn’t dance as much as Medora. I very much liked Hoven as Lankendem. He was spicy though a few times his stamina ran low at the end of his solos. He and Lane were very good together. Was he Malakov? Of course not, but who is? Ahn was very good as Ali but he did have some difficulties, falling out of a few turns. However, some of his split jumps were incredibly high and just hung in the air. A stronger presence is needed. He’s doing double the amount this week covering for Simkin so I can easily forgive the errors. I hope he’s eating some Wheaties and drinking some Red Bull in preparation for doing it all over again in a few hours. Scott was fine as Birbanto, but I missed Craig Salstein in the role who always brought so much personality and unique touches to the role. The 3 Odalisques - Fang, Hamrick, Giangeruso - were mostly forgettable. Giangeruso’s stiff upper back and shoulders have not improved, nor have Fang’s sloppy feet. She frequently unpoints her feet coming out of a step way too soon, giving a dead fish look. Her promotion still baffles me. Lastly, although the role of the pasha is offensive, Zhurbin’s acting is always so spot on and creative that I just focused on that. A few times I was even stealing a glance at him instead of the principals to see what he was up to. Onto tonight!
  7. I will be very interested to see how this project develops!
  8. More likely what that means is that a last minute decision will be made depending on how they are doing on the day.
  9. Heard the NPR obit earlier today -- talked about the voluptuous nature of most of his productions. I remember when the R+J premiered -- all the young women at my junior high school rushed to see it, and were totally bowled over.
  10. From the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/arts/music/franco-zeffirelli-dead.html
  11. In the US, he was most known for Romeo and Juliet, but many of his opera productions are classics, real feasts for the eyes.
  12. And here is Lauren's own statement with révérence:
  13. I haven't checked every single name against the roster, but judging from the Dancer Sponsorship page in ABT's annual report, it would appear that every dancer—down to the apprentice level—has at least one sponsor. I don't know how ABT decides which donor gets to sponsor which dancer, but clearly the company has decided that every dancer gets one. Note that some donors are listed as sponsoring more than one dancer. It could be that donors who have a long history of major donations get some say in who they are listed as sponsoring; it could be that there's some kind of lottery; it could be combination of both. I would be shocked if a dancer's contract were dependent on them somehow attracting a named sponsorship. (I'd be even more shocked if AGMA tolerated such a policy.) There are two kinds of donations: restricted and unrestricted. Unrestricted donations are what they sound like: the company can use them however they see fit. Restricted donations come with strings attached. They can be restricted as to time. For example, a donor might say "I'm pledging $30,000. You can use $10,000 this year, $10,000 next year, and $10,000 the year after that." They can also be restricted as to purpose: "I'm pledging $30,000 so you can refurbish the costumes some repertory ballets." And of course, they can also be restricted as to both time and purpose: "I'm pledging $30,000 so you can refurbish the costumes for some repertory ballets. You can have $10,000 for that purpose this year, $10,000 next year, and $10,000 the year after that." I checked ABT's 2017 Financial Statments (which you can find on the NYS Charities Bureau website) to see if there was any detail regarding donor contributions specifically earmarked for dancer sponsorships, but the details regarding donor restrictions aren't that granular. That being said, out of $20.4 million in contributions, $8.8 million came with time or purpose restrictions, and it could be that some of that amount has been earmarked for dancers' salaries overall. (Again, I'd be surprised if donors were allowed to direct their giving to specific dancers. I suspect that these donations go into a general pool that's used to for dancer pay generally. There are also funds for things like production support and training.) Personally, I find the concept of dancer sponsorships a bit creepy, but then again, I'm not trying to entice donors to pull out their checkbooks. Alas, it's apparently not enough to put some portion of one's wealth to good use by supporting a worthy cause; one must be able to slap one's name on something—a building, an elevator bank, a person—in the process.
  14. The reason some might remember Part's sponsorship story a bit different is that her sponsor was (and still is, IIRC) Shevchenko's sponsor. Remember we had a lot of translated FB posts so things might have gotten a bit mistranslated at some point. That was the story, and as mentioned before, that the sponsor was willing to continue paying.
  15. The amounts listed above would only supplement the cost of a dancer’s salary, not fully cover it. What I remember Part saying was that a donor had stepped up to pay her salary and ABT still said no to renewing her contract. She said it in the comments section of something. I’ll try to go back and find it. I still read these “sponsorships” as simply donor perks for large gifts. I don’t think an unsponsored dancer would have a worse chance of being renewed or promoted, unless ABT is truly unethical.
  16. No need to be sorry, I just don’t recall those being quite Part’s words. Is there a source? The fact that her former sponsor now sponsors someone else does not indicate that “the sponsorship” was given away. I also don’t see how the cited info from their website necessarily means that a sponsor can successfully go to ABT management saying “I want you to make X a principal and here’s a bunch of money if you do.” Basically, I don’t think the limited info we have (at least that I’ve seen) supports some of the assumptions being made. Which isn’t to say those ideas are false — just that they’re not yet substantiated.
  17. I'm sorry Part said she gave the sponsorship to a new principal. Part's sponsor was Theresa Khawly -- Khawly now sponsors Shevchenko. As for the sponsorship information, it;s on the ABT website: https://www.abt.org/support/individual-giving/major-gifts/ Sponsors are recognized in Playbill and on ABT’s website. Eight levels of sponsorship are available, and each dancer may be sponsored by up to three sponsors: Professional Dancer Sponsorships Principal Sponsor – $35,000 annually Soloist Sponsor – $25,000 annually Corps de Ballet Sponsor – $15,000 annually Pre-Professional Dancer Sponsorships ABT Apprentice Sponsor – $12,500 annuallyABT Studio Company Dancer – $10,000 annuallyABT JKO Upper 2 Level Student – $8,000 annuallyABT JKO Upper 1 Level Student – $6,500 annuallyProject Plié Bridge Class Student – $5,000 annually
  18. On the first point, giving the contract to a new principal is not the same as giving the sponsorship to a new principal. On the second point, I’m not sure we can assume that’s how it works. Is there a basis for that idea in the available info?
  19. I’ve always assumed that those donors aren’t actually funding a particular dancer’s salary, but rather, giving at a certain level allows one to attach one’s name to a corps, soloist or principal dancer, depending on how much you give. The alternative scenario would seem to give the donor too much agency in determining a dancer’s fate, but who knows... I kind of figured it’s like when donors give a lot of money to name a space after themselves, except in this instance the name is being attached to a dancer rather than to a section of the theater. I think the problem is that ABT’s operating budget is a fraction of NYCB’s, isn’t it? Yes, there aren’t as many principal role opportunities at ABT, but ABT could also expand the notion of what a principal role is (to include peasant pas, etc.). Certainly NYCB principals take on roles that would be considered soloist-level at ABT. NYCB even had principal men doing the Rose Adagio. Not a bad idea, really, when you think of the support the ballerina requires...
  20. She said they gave the contract to a "new principal." Since Sarah Lane, Christine Shevchenko, and Devon Teuscher were all promited that year it's pretty easy to figure out where that sponsor contract went to. Well I think if a dancer catches a sponsor's eye and there's deep enough pockets that dancer can be promoted.
  21. Oh yes, I do recall that. Sorry, I thought you meant something different. I think her sponsor was still willing to sponsor her but ABT didn’t renew her contract regardless. The part that didn’t ring a bell was about her sponsorship being taken away and given to someone else.
  22. I guess that's possible if ABT decided not to renew her contract.
  23. My mistake! I think Part said something about her sponsor renewing their contribution and ABT refusing it, so I was confused.
  24. Yeah I don’t recall it being about her sponsorship in particular — at least not according to the information that was publicly available at the time.
  25. IIRC, and I may not, I thought the issue was that ABT took away Veronika's "contract," i.e., there are only a certain number of "contracts" available for each level of the hierarchy. My understanding is that when someone sponsors a dancer, the money doesn't go toward that dancer's salary, but into a large general pool that supports the company in various ways. The bonus for the sponsor is the fiction that they are supporting a specific dancer; but they do get to know that dancer personally.
  26. IIRC the Veronika Part drama concerned ABT taking away her sponsorship and giving it to a newly promoted dancer. So scarcity is an issue it would seem.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...