puppytreats

Maybe they could stream the season on internet or cable and offer a subscription. That is how sports teams make their money.

I received my brochure and was surprised that the heavily promoted man of the Spring was omitted. The overall marketing scheme really becomes confusing in that light. I like the stylish brochure and photographs but it would not encourage my attendance or parting with scarce dollars. Does the ballet interact with dance schools or dance stores to sell tickets or create special events? I agree, and have stated elsewhere, that students should be permitted to fill empty seats. This would accomplish the goal of improving the experience, which someone above stated was a goal in closing upper rings, by letting dancers knowing they are not performing to an empty theater.

Hi puppytreats! You can see photos from the gala here: http://www.kommersant.ru/dark-gallery.aspx?PicsID=603690&l=1&stpid=21 I know you're curious about how the "Lady of the Camellias" with Bolle went (as I was), but from what I can tell from the text of the article (via GoogleTranslate), it seems that Bolle was not nearly as good a partner for Diana as Marcelo...Can't say I'm surprised though. I thought Natalia or someone else from this forum would have reviewed it. Google translations are so inadequate. I can't imagine the real criticism was that he was too "shy."

Waiting for reviews....

I was recently told about international ballet tours for fans. Has anyone gone on these?

The above listed individual donors were board members. Others were on the advisory board. 2009 compensation expenses: total comp to board/officer/key employee: $2.4 m other sal/wages: $27.7m pension contrib: $3.3 m other employee benefits: $3.3 m payroll tax: $3.5 legal: $248k fundraising: $273 k other: $1.8 m Source 2009 Form 990 What is Darci's role? Is she a coach?

Thanks, Bat.

I like SJP. (She kissed Misha on SATC and introduced the NYCB Workout, after all! And what a personality!) I have nothing wrong with her affiliation with the company or her position on the board of directors. But as a director, she exposes herself to liability if she does not perform her fiduciary duties, and she exposes the company to harm. I certainly would not publicly make such a comment, either. If she wants to be on the board, then she has legal obligations. If she wants to just support the company without the burden of board duties, she could have other roles. I think some people on this board could contribute much to the board of directors even if they lack financial resources. Maybe I am hopelessly naive....

I have read SJP state that she was told that she had to do nothing to join the board, not even attend the meetings (I am paraphrasing). Apparently, her directorship was for the purpose of media attention. I have read elsewhere that directors must meet certain financial requirements, such as level of donations. I assume these criteria create many problems. Certainly, directors cannot fulfill their fiduciary obligations under the law by not overseeing decisionmaking and by failing to attend meetings. Allowing these statements to go public exposes the organization to further risk (much greater risk than twitter statements by dancers, under the social media policy). Maybe a competent, devoted, qualified board of directors, interested in nonprofit goals rather than vanity and social status, would advance the company's goals.

I finally finished this book. It provided a good historical background for someone who needed to read a primer on ballet. I agree with much of the criticism discussed in this forum, but as someone just beginning to learn about ballet, I can overlook the book's shortcomings and feel grateful to have been able to learn from it. I am curious regarding instruction about dance history in ballet academies. Are academic, historical courses given in dance schools, or do dancers learn about the history and development of the dance solely by learning about individual dance steps, rehearsals, attending performances, and personal reading?

- I don't think this strategy has proven successful in baseball. Stadiums are routinely empty. Major revenue derives from television broadcasts. Expensive seating permits corporations or the very wealthy to buy the good seats to the exclusion of average or poorer individual fans. This way, the best seats can be obtained without competition, and interaction can be limited. These decisions occurred before the recession. Major discounts followed after the initial failure when new stadiums opened and were left with empty seats. Therefore, pricing in the sports arena does not serve as a valid or good comparison.

d Today, 10:48 AM christine174, on 19 June 2011 - 02:18 PM, said: This is in response to puppytreats, who suggests that people who pay less for tickets and sit in the back, are not "true" ballet fans. Au contraire! _- said "Have to agree. Some of the most dedicated fans sit up in the fourth ring. Just because you're on a budget doesn't mean you are less of a fan than someone who sits in the orchestra. By the way, I think the orchestra is the worst section from which to watch ballet. " RESPONSE: I am getting ready to stop posting on these boards because everything I say gets twisted. In this case, I did not say that fans in the last row are not the true fans. I said the assumption that the true fans only are in the back is false. When I was young, I had very little money - not even enough for food. I saved money, worked extra jobs, and then stayed on line for three days (at an additional cost, due to lost time at work and school) to obtain tickets to see my favorite band. I made sacrifices to get my ticket. The person in the last row did not make the same sacrifices. When I started working full time, I could not make the same time sacrifices, but knew that I could not get a good ticket without waiting on line, so I paid a large premium to a scalper to obtain the best possible seats. I sacrificed other things to have the money to pay the premium. Therefore, to put someone in the last row in a seat in front of me, on the assumption that the person in the last row was a poor but more interested or dedicated viewer, was inaccurate. The ballerina who is taught that people in the front are not true fans is being misdirected. I obtained my front row seat or my orchestra seat by making choices and placing a priority on the orchestra seat in lieu of other things on which I could spend my money. I made sure I called the theatre as soon as tickets went on sale so I could obtain the best seat available, making choices as to my schedule on the day I had to buy tickets. The sacrifices and choices I made may not have been made by someone with a last row ticket. Therefore, having a last row ticket does not demonstrate devotion. (It does not demonstrate a lack of devotion, either. If you take it that way, you are misinterpreting me.)

Not always, Eileen. Love endures death. Hasn't ballet taught that? Not all loss turns to indifference. The pain remains, though dulled. BTW, what exactly are creamy cookies?

I think those who set prices and make other presumptions tend to err. More than once, I have read about a ballerina told to play for the fan in the last row, because that is where the true fan sits; only a true fan would forego anything to use his last penny to sit in the last row. I have heard similar discussions about fans of musicians, who bring fans from the last row to the front row, on the assumption that they really want to be there but have the misfortune of buying cheap ticket. However, I have saved my money by sacrificing other less important things in order to have sufficient funds to sit as close as possible for the performances that really matter to me. For example, I may want to see three different leads in a ballet, but I would rather see one performance from the front row sitting in a more expensive seat. I may want to see ten bands play during the year, but I save my money to see my favorite band in the front row; I do not spread my money over ten events and get bad seats to each. I also do not waste money on other entertainment or clothing. I will use the library or wear the same old clothes each year. This way, I can pay for my $150 front row ticket. How can the ballerina then say that her real fan is the one in the back row, when this person may have attended ten different events without her and bought into every new fashion trend of the season, and has only $20 left for a ticket, or waited to the last minute because she did not decide if she wanted to go until the day of the performance arrived and she had nothing better to do, and only a last row seat is left? My point is that the people who buy tickets early are a mix of true fans needing to feel safe and obtain the best seats early, whatever the price, and those who for social or business reasons buy a subscription. We pay a premium for the risk that the performer will be injured. We are forbidden to trade or return tickets on the day of the performance, so we pay for this risk, too. We can take a chance of buying cheaper seats at the TKTS booth or from a scalper, but we may not be able to obtain a ticket, and this is generally a risk we do not want to endure. Subscriptions offer certain types of discounts over a series of tickets, but greater discounts seem to be available on the day of the performance, if the risk is tolerable. Those who would seek subscriptions as fans would not generally endure the risk. That is why we are being gouged. The people who are not true fans would tend to make more cost-based decisions, and this is where I think the audience is being lost.

Since you are yourself now playing the critic, could you back up the opinion above with specific examples? While I've certainly read bad critics with an agenda, honestly, I'm not sure what you're referring to in Macaulay's case. The statement was broad, and not specifically aimed at Mr. Macaulay. I have noticed that Mr. Macaulay appreciates a certain style, and disapproves of other styles; he tends to use harsh language to disparage those of whom he does not approve. I will not opine as to why he does not approve of certain choreographers, dancers, companies, or styles. However, this does not mean I accept at face value his negative reviews, and I disagree with many of them. I generally dislike the "snarky", obnoxious tone of many critics, who are dismissive of others solely for the sake of humor and promoting readership of their column. I respectfully disagree with your statement that I am playing the critic. I am simply explaining why I distrust the news media. I have explained why in an earlier post, citing reviews of a rock band, which I knew contained factual errors and resulted in my overall cynicism. Another example of why I distrust the media involves the reporting about a very poor neighbor of mine. We lived in what was considered a rich neighborhood, but, of course, this did not mean all residents were wealthy. The news reported about her alleged suicide in a manner that fit an agenda, or that fit a profile, by discussing the pressures on rich children growing up in competitive environments, and disregarded her impecunious upbringing. The story had no basis in fact whatsoever. I suppose the reporter felt the story about the pressures on rich children was more compelling than the true story about a poor girl who died. Alternatively, the reporter did very little investigating and reported inaccurate facts. Either way, the report was untrue. The reporter was lazy or had an agenda. Therefore, her explanation of the facts supporting her conclusion did not eliminate the wrongful result. An earlier comment described critics as reaching judgment and explaining rationale. Through this example, I am attempting to show that merely citing facts or a rationale to explain the basis for an opinion does not suffice, when an opinion is preordained or results from laziness or an agenda. Likewise, judges can create a rationale or selectively use facts to support a preordained conclusion, sought to satisfy various constituencies. I refer you to reports about bribery, extortion, politics, elections, and biases against people of varying races, genders, or nationalities. I admit this is very sad. However, I do not suggest this is universal. In the art criticism arena, an agenda may include promoting an artist for financial reasons, or personal relationships. We have read about claques on these boards. Reporters may have relationship with public relations specialists. They may have friends who have invested in a show. They may be afraid to disagree with an employer, who has a relationship with a theatre company or its supporters. They may not like a performer who refused an interview, or was brusque due to pain one day, and may hold a personal vendetta. They may have a misunderstanding. The source of bias is endless. None of this refers to Mr. Macaulay. I am just stating the obvious.

What are educated likes and dislikes but biases, and what are wishes but agendas?Part of a critic’s job is to tell us what he likes and dislikes, and how he’s formed his judgment, and Macaulay’s criticisms always come with explanations. -This assumes honesty and pure motivations. A judge can be unfairly biased or wrongly influenced and produce an unjust outcome. When I see untruthful facts, or illogical statements, or seemingly baseless enmity, I presume something other than noble intentions and truthful reporting underlie the judgment and alleged rationale.

Beautiful and vivid, Paul. The problem I have with critics is their agenda. Careers or works of art that take years to create can be destroyed by a critic trusted by the reader who is unaware of the agenda or the critic's power or bias. That is also a disservice to the reader, and to the publisher. Even critics without an agenda can unfairly influence results by being lazy, uninformed, or wrong. Reliance on opinion of an unqualified or biased expert creates unnecessary harm. This is my main problem with Macaulay. While his writing can be descriptive, and beautiful when he is inspired, his tone can be obnoxious and off-putting, and his criticism unfair, when he has an agenda or bias against a dancer or choreographer.

My library has a VHS tape of Nuryev and a DVD of Baryshnikov in "Don Q". Which is preferable for a first time viewing of this ballet?

How I wish I had been able to see her in her whiz kid days! Though as I said after their second, even-more-astonishing “Giselle,” I’m not so sure Vishneva has really lost much of her technical virtuosity. (And “Lady of the Camellias” is not really a great showcase for a ballerina’s technical skill anyway.) Now, having seen the huge gap between her first (great) performances of “Giselle” and “LOTC” and the second (beyond extraordinary) performances, I feel like the “quality” of her performances may depend heavily on her condition on that day and her mood, perhaps far more than in years past. I strongly agree with Marina Harss’ comment that “Vishneva is one of the few ballerinas I’ve seen who does not seem to perform steps; she rewrites the dance every time she rushes onstage, and what you get is an outpouring of whatever she’s feeling at the moment, call it Vishneva-ness.” @ mimsyb - I applaud your poetry skills, but I must agree with Amour! I’d rather see Neumeier with Vishneva/Gomes over NYCB’s “Jewels” any day! And more importantly, I’d never, ever, recommend an NYCB performance to someone who has never seen a ballet before, whereas I encouraged everyone I know to go see “Lady of the Camellias.” And it worked beautifully! Every one of my friends loved the Tuesday night show, even the ones who had never seen a ballet before. One friend said, “if ballet is always that wonderful, then I would go every night! I wish there was a DVD of that performance!” Her husband, who is notoriously hard to impress, commented, “even though I’m brand-new to ballet, even I could tell that the ballerina was amazing. Anyone could tell she was amazing. She looked weightless, and nothing looked difficult.” Another friend, who has seen a few full-length ballets, commented that “I’ve seen other ballets and thought they were good, but this is the first time that I’ve really been moved by a performance.” The next day, she admitted that she dreamed about it. Now some of those friends are hungry for more, and are asking me for recommendations on what else to see! So, yes, perhaps “Lady of the Camellias” has some dull choreography and relies too much on partnering tricks. But it has many attributes that make it appealing to ballet neophytes. First, it has a compelling story and strong lead characters (of course, how well they are depicted is heavily dancer-dependent). For those who’ve seen “La Traviata,” it may also be a familiar story. Some have said that LOTC is more like a play told with ballet. And I think that is precisely what makes it accessible to the ballet-uninitiated. Having a strong story helps keep viewers interested in a performance, until they become familiar enough with ballet to take something away from the steps. Second, there is not much “dancing for the sake of dancing”—not many divertissements. And even if other people are dancing, the leads are basically on stage for the entire performance, so it doesn’t really feel like a break in the narrative. And this was especially the case with Vishneva/Gomes, who never stop acting in character. For example, Act II may have given the other characters, especially Prudence and Gaston Rieux, a chance to show off their skills, but I was equally engaged watching Vishneva and Gomes interact in the background—pretending to read a book together, eating and drinking together, cuddling, etc. In contrast, I’ve had many a friend tune out or become restless during the extended dancing sequences in Act I of “Swan Lake,” for example, or inadvertently doze off during the “Kingdom of the Shades” act in “La Bayadare.” Third, the staging is interesting, with the curtain open at the beginning, and the performers coming way out on the sides of the stage. That makes it unconventional even compared to some theater productions. Fourth, I know that some viewers dislike the Chopin score, but for me and some of my friends, this was a definite plus. The pianists and classical music fans among my friends definitely loved the Chopin music (it’s like getting a concert AND a ballet), and others commented that they really liked the use of the solo piano instead of the complete orchestra. So, the ballet-educated and the critics can deride “Lady of the Camellias” all they like, but I maintain that with a passionate, charismatic set of leads, it makes for a great “gateway” ballet. And as someone who had her own ballet epiphany while watching a performance of the much-maligned Kudelka “Cinderella,” I think that is the key—get people interested in the ballet, make them want to see more, and THEN you can educate them about what is considered “good.” And maybe take them to see “Jewels.” I agree with everything that you said, except I would add that the ballet is very powerful and painful to deal with emotionally. I am just getting over how haunted I was by the three Kent/Bolle performances that I saw, in addition to the "Giselle" performance I saw before "LOTC". Maybe the emotional nature of this ballet makes "LOTC" a ballet to consider for appropriate audiences. People who cannot endure emotional, dramatic movies or books would not enjoy this ballet. I am interested to know whether the choreography alone, rather than the story or its presentation, caused boredom in critics of "LOTC". Perhaps viewers seeking an intellectual challenge, rather than an exploration of emotional terrain, would be put off. I cannot understand how anyone cannot be impacted emotionally by the ballet. Therefore, I wonder how those who were bored by the ballet generally feel when watching a portrayal of passionately felt emotions, including the heights of joy and the depths of loss, as well as pain, regret, loss and sadness. Do they just study the structure, language, phrasing and steps? Or do they feel the emotional aspects of the ballet were too heavy-handed? I can understand criticism of certain aspects of the choreography. Personally, I found the choreography emotionally riveting. For example, who hasn't been uplifted, and lifted to flight, to running leaps, to heights, by new love? I even relived the joy and daydreaming that occurs when falling in love when I watched Armand seated in the front of the stage, and not dancing, when he found the flower left by Marguerite, and kept lifting it to his nose and smiling, closing his eyes and remembering and taking joy in her scent. I thought the repetition of phrases was limited and necessary, for reference purposes, to explain the development of the story and the characters. However, I thought certain aspects of the choreography could have been cleaned up in parts (e.g., the skirts in Armand's face during lifts -- I could have sworn I saw Kent and Bolle laugh during one of these difficulties). Multitudes of divertissements, with repeated scenes of folk-dancing, or ballroom dancing, would likely cause a new ballet-goer to become bored or disinterested. I always fast-forward through large portions of my DVD of "Swan Lake", for example. I also tuned out the folk dancing scenes in "Coppelia." On the other hand, watching the interaction of MG and AD during the relatively small number of group dances kept my attention more fully in "LOTC".

We expect reports to anyone going to the Vishneva Gala. She is dancing the black pdd with Roberto Bolle.

I posted a question on these boards (another forum) regarding how thick the legs appeared on the screen. I could not believe that the Russian dancers were so thick, especially when weight is discussed so often in connection with the Russians. Strangely, I saw some dancers leaving the Met last night, and they appeared so much thinner in street clothing than onstage in tights, as viewed from the front row of the orchestra. Apparently, even in person, distortions in perception can occur.

Thanks for the information, Anthony. I called the dance conservatory at Purchase College of SUNY last week to request permission to view dance tapes in its research library, and was told the library had none. I was really surprised by this. Do most college programs or libraries have access to tapes? I was trying to find an alternative to NYPL at Lincoln Center (I really do not like to pay for parking, because I think of all the DVDs I can buy, classes I can take, and performances I can see with that money.)

I watched this DVD this weekend and it was not about Diaghilev and his company. Rather, it was about the B.R. of Monte Carlo and the Original B.R., which were formed after B.R. folded. Still, the DVD was wonderful. The ballerinas were insightful and charming. I would have liked to see more about Messrs. Zorith and Franklin. Interestingly, the dancers made no money. Ballet made no money. These boards complain about empty seats at the ABT's Met season, and salary problems. I am curious to know if ticket sales were the problem back then, or if the costs of sets and productions caused financial problems. In other words, was the problem revenue or expense or both, and is that still the problem today? Did the absence of sets or fancy costumes in Mr. B's ballets impact the financial results of the NYCB?

Colleen, Thanks for asking. Mr. PT had a ticket but Little Puppy (Siberian variety) had surgery so Mr. PT stayed home :< Since coming home from Lady, I have burdened him with all of my tears about Armand and Marguerite and Manon and Des Grieux and Giselle and Albrecht and Odette and Siegried (is ballet only for the broken-hearted?), but he does not seem deterred. With Roberto Bolle returning to Europe, I don't know if I can convince him to let me spend much more money on tickets for other shows, though. (He indulged me this week, because he has his inspirations, too.) I may be confined to tapes from the library and on Netflix.

This ballet is heartbreaking. I cannot stop crying. I have now seen it three times (twice live, once at NYPL) and the details noticed on repeated viewings only makes it more painful. I was moved by the movie and the opera, but the ballet is spellbinding. I am terrified to read the book. I don't know if someone will have to carry me out of the final performance I plan to see later in the week. No one remarked about the tribute to J. Kent on Friday. It was lovely, sweet, charming, and uplifting. I think it saved me from crumbling over the weekend.