Kathleen O'Connell

Thank you for the link to the AD posting, FPF! Interesting reading.

Ugh. ME ME ME ME ME isn't exactly the vibe I'd be looking for under the circumstances. Glad you had a career of note dancing for Balanchine and Robbins 50 years ago! Hooray for you! But what's your vision for the company now and for the next decade? Also, send in your own damn resumé; don't apply for the job on public-facing social media. Sigh. Apologies for being cross, but Clifford's posts are just rubbing me the wrong way, especially given the lovely modesty of the interim team.

His stint on the interim team might have given him some insight into how much of a time-sink running the place might actually turn out to be.

If Peck turns up in a diner in Iowa, we'll know something is afoot! 😉 But of course you are right. Still, it sounds like his some of his aspirations — e.g. to do more dance-based theater and storytelling on Broadway rather than restaging Swan Lake — wouldn't mesh well with a full time AD position at a major US ballet company.

Yes, it is important. The AD is the public face of the company. Obviously, being admired, trusted, and respected by the dancers and other company stakeholders is job one, but it absolutely does not hurt if the AD has the kind of charisma and cachet that inspires donors to pull out their checkbooks and their rolodexes. I don't know if Millepied is interested in the job or if the Board would be willing to risk it on him given the outcome of his stint at the POB, but I can imagine him (and his wife) filling the tables at the gala. I suspect his glamour quotient is rather higher than some of the other candidates. And ... I wouldn't write Peck off on this front either now that he's had to deal with Broadway investors. But I gather from the interview linked above that he's more focussed creating than running a ballet company at the moment.

Well, that should learn us. 😉 In all seriousness, I think it would likely be better for the company's organizational health if its new AD had at least the prospect of a long tenure in the position. Not that a 70 year old has one foot on the grave and another on a banana peel, but the risk of a forced retirement due to ill health or disability — mental or physical — is higher than it is for someone in their 50s.

Ok. He's not leaving. I had no idea that his tenure didn't officially begin until this July. Thank you for the head's up!

Also, Lopez has demonstrated grit: she held Morphoses together for longer than one might have expected after Wheeldon abandoned it and stepped into the Miami AD position at a time of tremendous organization turmoil. She danced for Balanchine, she's taught, she's done arts reporting (WNBC-TV), she was ED of the George Balanchine Foundation, she was on the Barnard dance faculty, she founded one dance company and runs another, and she's on the Ford Foundation Board of Trustees. If she's interested in the job, the Board would be foolish not to give her serious consideration.

Lourdes Lopez and Peter Boal certainly have as much experience as Woetzel (if not more) as far as dancing and curating / commissioning go. Both also have experience running a ballet company day-in-and-day-out (Miami City Ballet and Pacific Northwest Ballet, respectively), which Woetzel does not have. Notably, both also lead ballet companies with affiliated schools. Being the President of an academic institution — even one focussed on the arts — isn't quite the same thing as being the AD of a performing arts organization, though it certainly suggests that one has some administrative / organizational chops and hopefully some fund-raising mojo. It may be hasty to assume that Woetzel is even interested in leaving Juilliard to take on NYCB's AD position. Juilliard is a very prestigious institution with a whopping billion dollar endowment. It has tremendous influence in the arts world (and "world" is literal: it is known everywhere). And it pays well: its previous President, Joseph Polisi, was paid about $2 million in the fiscal year ending 6/30/16. I'm not saying Woetzel is in it for the money (and he's probably not being paid $2 million this early in his tenure), but financial security is not nothing. (Martins' annual take from NYCB and SAB was about $1 million; I assume the new AD will be paid somewhat less.)

I wasn't only referring to young people ready to step into leadership roles in dance: there are young leaders emerging everywhere and it's a wonderful thing. The list of people who lead arts organizations in their younger decades is long and distinguished. For instance, Diaghilev was in his very early 30s when he founded the Ballets Russes. Ninette de Valois founded what eventually became the Royal Ballet in her early 30s as well. Granted, they were creating new companies practically from whole cloth, which is a different sort of challenge from taking over an established company, but still. For a current example of that, we have 35 year old Michael Novak, who has been designated Paul Taylor's successor by Taylor himself.

They don't. You have to Google each dancer to learn more about their training and prior experience - although the little flag on each dancer's headshot does provide a clue. For instance, Thomas Giugovaz — who was very impressive in Monotones 1 — is from Italy. A quick Google search reveals that he trained at the La Scala school. I'm not sure why Sarasota is so coy about their dancers' training and prior experience. (And you have to be at least a coryphée to even get a bio on the website.) Perhaps the intention is to keep the audience focussed on the here-and-now and to make it clear that the company is a company and not a pick-up troupe.

Sorry. At 71, John Clifford is too old for the position. I mean this as no disparagement to his knowledge, skills, or experience. I'd make the same observation about anyone in their 70s looking to take on this particular job at this particular junction at this particular company. I'd make it about Farrell, McBride, Villella, Bonnefous, whoever. Sure, bring them in as coaches and mentors, but please, it's time for a new generation to take the helm. I say this as an aging boomer well-pleased by the sterling cohort of young leaders who are ready to take on the many challenges of the years that lie before us all.

It depends on what the Board is looking for: someone to lead the company for the next 20 years or someone to keep a steady hand on the rudder while they mentor the younger person who will succeed them. I've seen the latter done well in a corporate setting, but it requires very careful planning, organizational buy-in, and the right temperaments on the part of both mentor and successor. There's plenty of opportunity for mischief. (I've seen interim leaders decide they'd rather stay in power after all; I've seen presumed successors decide they'd rather not wait; and I've seen competitors to both decide the situation is really a power vacuum just waiting to be filled.) The Board may very much want someone with a direct connection to Balanchine — e.g. Lopez or Andersen — because of both their valuable first-hand experience and the authority that experience might give them in the eyes of all the company's stakeholders, but it might also be wary of the perils a shorter tenure would entail. Given that Martins was 70, I'm frankly shocked that the Board didn't have a succession plan in place. Maybe the plan was to keep Martins in place for another couple of years while he groomed Stafford or Peck and there was no fallback plan ready in case that didn't work out. Woetzel certainly seems like an obvious choice given his age, experience, and the apparent regard he commands in many quarters of the arts world. I don't know what the terms of his appointment to Juilliard are; it may be that he is free to leave the position at any time, or, it may be that he's required to serve out a specified term or provide ample notice if he intends to depart. Of course, Woetzel may prefer to stay at Juilliard!

I agree wholeheartedly! Although natural gender persists for some nouns — e.g., "mother" or "father" vs "parent" — grammatical gender in English has been largely eliminated except for a few pronouns. There's no need to try to apply rules for grammatical gender to nouns that don't need them, and there's certainly no need to impose natural gender on them either. We can reserve "heroine" for the female protagonist of a novel if we must, but I think we can safely call any woman who's been awarded a Silver Star a hero. Ummm ... I do have a certain fondness for "aviatrix," given that "aviator" has been sadly reduced to an adjective for eyeglass frames.

I love the story behind Franklin's Nessun Dorma performances: she was a last-minute stand-in for an ailing Pavarotti at the 1998 Grammy Awards: Franklin had been booked on the show to perform a Blues Brothers number with Dan Aykroyd, John Goodman and Jim Belushi. Two nights before, however, she had actually performed “Nessun Dorma” in honor of Pavarotti at a MusicCares dinner. The Grammys producer had an empty hole where Pavarotti’s performance was supposed to be, crossing into the third hour of the show. Could she possibly…? Producer Ken Ehrlich ran to her dressing room and asked if she’d do it. “She said she wanted to hear the dress rehearsal,” he says. “In those days we had a boombox with a cassette. And I brought it to her and played it for her. When she heard it, she said, ‘Yeah, I can do this.’” The Daily Beast: When Aretha Franklin Sang ‘Nessun Dorma’ at the Grammys: The Story Behind the Greatest Award Show Performance Ever

Most of the tribute playlists that have come out since Aretha Franklin's death have focused on her undeniably great 60s hits like Respect, Chain of Fools, Think, Natural Woman, etc. But I haven't seen many links to 1985's Grammy-winning Freeway of Love, one of her most unabashedly joyful songs and one of her biggest Billboard hits. If you need a celebration of love and road trips, take a listen. Bonus: Clarence Clemmons!

That would indeed make sense

So, I note that the "Board and Staff" section on NYCB's website is divided into three pages: Board Administrative Staff, headed by an Executive Director (Katherine E. Brown), which includes Executive Offices, Communications, Development, Marketing & Media, Education (not SAB), Volunteer Services, Operations & Company Management, Production & Design, Music Department, Costume & Wardrobe, Health & Wellness, Finance & Admin, Human Resources, IT, The George Balanchine Trust, and NYCB Moves. Artistic Staff, headed by the Interim Artistic Team, which includes Ballet Mistress (Dunleavy), Ballet Masters, Resident Choreographer, Guest Teachers, Children's Ballet Master, and Assistant Children's Ballet Master. (This is also where you'll see Balanchine and Kirstein listed as Founders and Balanchine and Robbins listed as Founding Choreographers.) Will the new AD only be in charge of the Artistic Staff, or will he or she also have responsibility for the Administrative Staff? Put another way, does (or will) the Executive Director report to the Board or to the AD? (I have no idea who the Music Director, Andrew Litton, reports to ...) ETA: I would love to see the actual job posting, but it looks as if it hasn't been made public.

Since the company and the school are two separate legal entities with their own Boards, officers, budgets, administrative / professional / artistic staffs, employees, etc., the new NYCB AD could certainly have a different title in his or her capacity as head of SAB. It's a whole different job at a whole different — but obviously closely related — organization. Note, however, that Peter Martins' title at SAB was "Artistic Director." I agree that on the face of it, Program Director makes more sense.

Queen of Soul dead at 76. Not the news I needed today, or any day. I will always cherish this performance and that fabulous hat.

If I've read NYCB's IRS 990 and website correctly, Peter Martins wasn't on the NYCB Board, although he, Katherine Brown (Executive Director), and Farang Azari (CFO) were Officers, as were the Board Chair, Vice Chairs, President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Counsel. I'm on the Board of a (very) small performing arts non-profit. Our Artistic Director is not a member of our Board, although she attends Board meetings. She makes all the artistic decisions; we tell her how much money she can spend.

Assuming that NYCB operates in the way most major US non-profit performing arts organizations typically do, the AD reports to the entire Board*, not the Board's Chair. In addition, unlike the King, the Chair may not have much in the way of individual authority over the organization's activities. For instance, the Chair typically wouldn't be able to tell the AD to do something without the consent of the other Board members or the relevant Board Committees. And, if the Board has granted the AD the authority to do certain things at his or her own discretion — e.g., hire and fire, commission new works, negotiate with the unions — the Chair can't just step in and overrule actions he or she doesn't like. * Or, depending on the by-laws, the subset of Board members that constitutes the Executive Committee. By way of example, Edward Villella's exit from Miami City Ballet was engineered and executed more or less behind closed doors by the Board's Executive members; per the organization's by-laws only three of them needed to vote "yes" to make it happen, not the Board in its entirety. There's some debate in the non-profit community as to whether Executive Committees are a good idea or not. Given how major non-profit boards are put together in our current Gilded Age, the Chair is less all-powerful monarch than one Robber Baron trying to exert control over a bunch of other Robber Barons and their various factions, but I digress ... Anyway, I like "Artistic Director" simply because, as a title and set of responsibilities, it's more or less comparable to equivalent positions in other arts organizations and is easy for foundations, government agencies, oversight organizations, the press, and donors to grok. It's not very romantic or redolent of ballet's history, I admit. ETA: in some organizations, the AD is a member of the Board. For instance, Lourdes Lopez is a Director on MCB's Board of Trustees.

Artistic Director is a fine title for the person responsible for setting an American performing arts non-profit's overarching artistic vision and seeing to its execution. Yes, it sounds more corporate and (to out ears) less romantic than titles that harken back to the court theaters of Europe, but today's AD answers to the Board, not the King.

Thank you KarenAG for the initial alert! Lasalle's book had somehow flown under my "Woo Hoo more photographs of Balanchine at work" radar.

Unfortunately, ticket service charges have become a major source of revenue for performing arts venues like City Center and SPAC. By way of example, for the fiscal year ending 6/30/16, 14% or $1.3 million of City Center's $9.3 million in Program Service Revenue — basically, what it earns from its core function as a performing arts venue — came from ticket service charges. Here's the composition of City Center's Program Service Revenue for the year ending 6/30/16: Box Office Receipts: $6.02 million Ticket Service Charges: $1.3 million Theater Rental: $988 thousand Stage I & II Theater Rental: $481 thousand Tower Rental: $414 thousand Other: $173 thousand Like all arts organization, City Center relies heavily on contributions and grants to cover its expenses. Just over half of City Center's $20.8 million in expenses came from grants and contributions. Without the ticket service fees, they'd have to raise even more. I'm not saying this is a good thing. One real problem with ticket service fees is that they're akin to a regressive tax on ticket prices. Since they tend to be a flat amount, they're a greater percentage of the total cost of the least expensive seats than they are of the most expensive. The people who can least afford them end up being hit the hardest. The fact that an online service fee is being charged when the box office is closed for a month is simply unfair.