nanushka

I do hope Clifford’s dancing continues to be remembered as well. The examples I’ve seen on video — especially the Symphony in C 3rd mvmt and the Valse Fantaisie were, I thought, impressive.

I couldn't agree more. And they just keep coming. They make me want to cringe a bit.

Absolutely.

Yes to this. I've always understood "just the steps, dear" to mean not that the dance has no meaning, emotion, drama, individual expression — but rather that those elements come through in the steps themselves, as choreographed, rather than in theatrical trappings and actorly embellishments.

Forster will be dancing Nutcracker in Costa Mesa this year! Not quite the heft of a true full-length lead role, but two substantial PDDs and getting closer to what many of us here have been hoping to see! (Hoven is too — but has before I think.)

I haven't had time to read very far into Jacobs' new book (only about a chapter when it first came out), but I've definitely had the same feeling @cobweb and @angelica describe about her writing in general. She has a lot of passion for her subject, but it's frustratingly difficult to pin down the specific ideas and insights that could really substantiate that passion. That said, I always appreciated her (and her husband's) championing of Veronika Part (a dancer who always inspired similar rapture in me — so I couldn't blame Jacobs quite so much in that case!), and I do intend to read the rest of the book with an open mind.

John Clifford also gets away with posting quite a lot of Balanchine — including many full performances on his YT page. I love that more and more material is becoming readily available, as it should be IMO.

Maybe. But then, nobody ever admits they're running for president until they do, right? Could be Peck has a bigger vision, and ideas of how this position could boost his creative work as well.

I do agree with this. I can imagine a number of different models of leadership tenure that the new AD could embody. While there's something to be said for at least the prospect of a (decades-)long, stable tenure, there could also be a benefit to choosing a seasoned leader, one personally steeped in the Balanchine legacy, who in a shorter term could serve as a sort of reset for moving the company forward into the post-post-Balanchine era. (Also, there's an inertia involved in the staffing of a position such as this: once someone's in, if things aren't really great but on the other hand not disastrous, it can be tough to get them out.)

Also Reagan may not be a great example, considering how that all played out.

...for only $140! I've been wanting to get a copy of this awhile now but haven't been able to find a one to purchase for a reasonable price. Thanks, @sappho, for the heads-up about this IG account.

Thanks for the link. Is there any caption or explanation with the image, or is it just that? (I'm not on FB so when I follow the link I can only see the image.)

After months of proclaiming (not very convincingly) otherwise John Clifford now seems to be admitting interest:

It will be interesting to see how usage of those continues to adapt in the decades ahead — "husband" and "wife" vs. "spouse" being another example — with further developments in social understandings of gender and sexuality and with the (likely) further normalization of non-normative family structures. For example, some gay couples purposefully choose to use the gender-specific terms, while others choose the gender-neutral ones; and, increasingly, some straight couples are going the gender-neutral route in their references to each other.

Perhaps an answer can be found by looking at the job description. Does it look as if those qualities that some associate with "Ballet Master in Chief" but not with "Artistic Director" are no longer going to be emphasized? Or is it perhaps a change more in name than in substance (other than the apparent deemphasizing of a choreographing role), and therefore nothing to be very concerned about? To me, the title "Ballet Master" (or "Ballet Master in Chief"), at least when used for the overall artistic head of a dance company (unlike when it's used for those in supporting/coaching/teaching roles), makes me think of Petipa. (Isn't that why Balanchine favored the title? I'm just working from memory here, so someone please correct me if that's wrong.) And Petipa's role as Ballet Master was so largely focused on the creation of works. To me, it makes sense to move away from the title for someone in that position when the creation of works is perhaps no longer going to be a focus of the role.

This is true at ABT as well. It seems potentially problematic to me.

I think I could maybe agree if it were simply "Chief Ballet Master."

The reason I, for one, think "Ballet Master in Chief" sounds more grandiose than other titles is not because it sounds like it indicates particularly high relative status or power. That's not exactly what "grandiose" means to me. It's more about tone.

Having turned my attention more towards NYCB only in the last 3-4 years, I've thought the same, and indeed "grandiose" pretty much sums up how it's always struck me.

For some time now Michael Cooper has been primarily an arts reporter, I believe, and much of his work focuses on the institutional workings of arts organizations. I wouldn't call him a "business reporter" in the traditional sense (and the above-quoted snippet from his bio doesn't indicate that), nor would I call him an "outsider." Like many journalists, he has over the years held assignments in a variety of different sub-fields.

That may be one main reason why they're now moving away from the term; it sounds like they're not necessarily looking for someone with a significant role choreographing. (And probably for the best, to my mind.) From the article:

I'm not sure why he would have been. Slavery is not a distinctly American concept; it has existed throughout history in many, many different cultures, times and places.

I think that's right. Perhaps it helps to think of the somewhat (though admittedly not completely) comparable distinction between "poet" and "poetess" (now no longer in common use). "Poet" and "actor" are simpler terms, and not necessarily marked by gender. The move away from "actress" is perhaps not meant to imply that the "feminine" form is insulting while the "masculine" form is not; rather, it's perhaps meant to imply that there's simply no need to bring gender into the terminology at all.

Oh I completely agree he's not a WOW. (And agree they need a few.) He's miles closer than Cory, I'd say, but I don't think he'll ever quite be that. He could be really really good I think, though, if given the right opportunities (as he was in a few cases this summer).

Correct, his ABT bio states that he was born in 1986.