nanushka
Senior Member-
Posts
3,173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
Store
Everything posted by nanushka
-
I completely agree on the gender point, and tend to use "ballet dancer" myself for that and other reasons. But unfortunately for both of us, the role of common usage in determining language meaning (and therefore in determining appropriate language usage in common contexts) is not really a matter of personal "mileage," as I believe most linguists would agree.
-
While some particularly discriminating balletomanes insist that "ballerina" has only a more specific meaning, in common usage this more general definition of the term is widely accepted (and much more familiar to most) — highly unlike those uses of "general" — and so its use is, I believe, completely appropriate. (Whether it's appropriate in reference to Waterbury is of course a separate matter — though it's been pointed out earlier in this thread that she is in fact still active as a dancer, though it is not her primary profession).
-
I completely agree. I've been pretty unexcited about ABT's fall seasons for a number of years now (with certain individual pieces as important exceptions), but this one really hits a new low. Every ballet I want to see is on a program with one or more I really don't want to see. As a result, I'm not going at all. I'll see Symphonie Concertante at City Center and leave it at that. As messed up as NYCB may be, they have many more appealing programs this fall, and a substantially higher standard of performance. TG for them.
-
Yeah, I do think in some bureaucratic way Stafford is first among equals — I've never been exactly clear on the particulars. So that does add a further hesitancy to my reading of Bouder's post. Here's how one of the company webpages explains the setup: And here's how they're listed on another: Do they have different titles?
-
It probably doesn't. But I also wonder if she's really blaming the interim team as directly and harshly as Helene's phrase suggests. Her statement could be read with an understanding that the interim team may not have the bandwidth, authority (in a variety of senses), ability, etc. to adequately address the situation. As others have suggested here, that's on the NYCB board as much as it's on them. When there are four leaders, all of whom have "interim" in their title, the company is in some sense left in a "leaderless state." Read in one way, she didn't directly address the role of interim team at all; she pointed out that the current structure is one that leaves the company without a true leader — not due to any fault of the team, but due to the structure itself. Obviously, if she'd wanted, and if that's even what she thinks, she could have spelled all that out more explicitly in order to more directly clear them of responsibility. But she also could have been more direct and explicit if she'd wanted to throw them under the bus. She neither accused them nor excused them. Maybe all that's too big a stretch; but I keep thinking of it as one way to read her post.
-
But would a lower-level donor be repeatedly invited to make speeches — especially if he had a habit of doing so while drunk? (Non-rhetorical question.) I suppose the speeches may not have been invited, but it sounds like there was tolerance of the behavior. Edited to add: I see Kathleen has filled in more details. Thanks!