Kathleen O'Connell

17 hours ago, alexL said:

Yes, I regret for not seeing her more often when she was dancing the role more often. It seems like she's moved on to dance more principal roles now.

“I’m weirdly possessive of it. That’s my ballet!”

This quote from a recent NY Times piece on the Lincoln Center Festival's presentation of Jewels suggests that Reichlen isn't necessarily eager to give up the role.

I'd also suggest that her great performance of it has either given the role principal status, or perhaps restored it. Balanchine created the Tall Girl role on Patricia Neary; I think she may have left the company while still a soloist, but she did perform many principal roles. I think it's notable that both the Times and NYCB have showcased Reichlen's Tall Girl rather than the principal couple in their promotional pieces about the ballet. (Here is NYCB's: http://www.nycballet.com/ballets/j/jewels.aspx) 

4 hours ago, alexL said:

This might sound a little weird but I'm most excited about seeing Reichlen's tall girl 3 times. 

Not weird at all! I'm loathe to say "best Rubies tall girl ever," but facts are facts.   In all seriousness, Reichlen's Rubies tall girl just about walks off with the show. Treasure every chance you get to see her in the role.

Congrats to all, and well-deserved. 

5 hours ago, cargill said:

I can't remember all the details, but there was a story of a mistress talking to an older man about a younger mistress, saying I am better looking, etc., etc., than she was, yet you can't forget her.  What did she have that I don't?  And he said "She had my youth".  That's what I feel when I think of the dancers I saw in my 20's (Sibley, Dowell, Beriosova, etc.)  

One of my favorite lines from Wordsworth:

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!

I pull it out as a reminder every time someone (ahem ... including me) gets cranky about how much better the artists were when it was the golden age and they were young.

1 minute ago, Natalia said:

This whole "naming thing" first caught my attention with Vilar..."Vilar Floral Hall" and the rest. (Of course, we know what happened to him.) Nothing as tacky as a "meaningful relationship" with a dancer of choice.

It really is just ... oh, I can't even.  There has always been patronage and always will be, but this smacks of treating your artists like fund-raising commodities. 

23 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

 

To me, sponsoring a dancer implies a direct relationship of some sort (with a lot of sticky implications) whereas giving money to costumes or any other broader fund does not. It's perception. And, for a board member I think that's important.

 

However, in this link that was posted above earlier, then Executive Director Rachel Moore said this regarding sponsorship donations:

 

''The money doesn't go to pay that dancer's salary...''That's not what this is about. It's about supporting the company.''

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/arts/how-much-is-that-dancer-in-the-program.html?_r=0

 

That was in 2004. Have things changed? If sponsorship money does not pay a dancer's salary, and is instead routed to their general funds, then why is a donor given credit for sponsoring a specific dancer? Simply for the prestige?

 

It's roughly equivalent to naming rights on a part of a building. The donation didn't pay for the elevator lobby (e.g., the Schwartz East Elevators at NYU's Tisch Hospital) or the refreshment bar (e.g., the Metropolitan Opera's Grand Tier Revlon Bar) but that's where the donor's name is prominently displayed. Similarly, Mr. & Mrs. Buck McBling get to see their name next to Sheezno Fontaine's photo in the program.

I find the whole "Here's my money, now where will we put my name" thing unseemly, frankly, but then we do have Carnegie Hall ...

10 hours ago, canbelto said:

Actually it shocks me that a company like ABT doesn't have a part of its budget siphoned off for dancer salaries, and that salaries are dependent almost entirely on individual sponsors who also have to donate to the company. I mean all arts organizations are dependent on donors and fundraising but individuals "sponsoring" dancers sounds a bit like the old grand dukes sponsoring ballerinas in the Imperial Era ... 

I haven't done a deep dive into the relevant Federal, State, and Local law, but on the face of it directly funding specific dancers' salaries with earmarked donor contributions would likely run afoul of any number of labor and non-profit rules and regulations. For instance, would a dancer meet the definition of "employee" if his or her salary were entirely and explicitly covered by a given donor's (or coalition of donors) contributions? Would the dancer then be deemed an "independent contractor" or the legal agent of the donor? Would that dancer then be disqualified for labor protections under the relevant law and/or union contracts? (No overtime for you, sponsored dancer! You must rehearse until you drop and we won't pay you a penny more!) Would the sponsored salaries even be considered a tax deductible donation since they were in effect payments to an individual and not to a tax-exempt organization. Etc. Etc. Etc. 

There's a whole 'nother basket of risks for the dance company: what if the sponsored dancer is injured and can't perform? Does he or she loose their sponsored salary? (And would they qualify for worker's comp?) What if the sponsor doesn't let you allocate it to another dancer? What if a sponsored dancer decides that they don't have to do what the AD, or the ballet mistress, or the coach, or the choreographer asks because he or she believes they are only answerable to their sponsor? Etc. Etc. Etc. 

Just to be clear, I don't think it's a given that a shorter dancer can't deliver a satisfying Gigue - Anthony Huxley certainly has done so, for instance. I just think a shorter dancer is at a greater risk of looking cutesy or puckish -- or at least of being perceived that way -- than a taller dancer might be. 

13 minutes ago, nanushka said:

 

I didn't realize that Castelli was a particularly tall dancer. Croce wrote of Ib Andersen's "slightness in comparison to Farrell" and then went on to say this: "You might think that Balanchine would cast [the second man] in contrast to Andersen, but in fact it's Victor Castelli, another lightweight" (Going to the Dance 404-405). And in her article "Assoluta" in The New Criterion (a must-read for Veronika Part fans, by the way!), Laura Jacobs writes that the gigue is "always cast with a slight young male virtuoso" –– but the latter was in 2004, so Jacobs may be reflecting a more recent trend. I wasn't around to see Castelli dance.

Anderson and Castelli were "slight" in the sense of ... hmmm ... "reedy" maybe, but neither was short in the way that Simkin, say, is short. I remember Anderson and Castelli as being approximately the same height, and Anderson was tall enough to partner Farrell quite comfortably.

6 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

 

But, the fact that the Dir. of Marketing is paid more than Murphy is outrageous.

Murphy may in fact make more than the Marketing Director on a weekly basis. It would depend on the length of her contract in weeks and whether or not the Marketing Director position is a full-time, full year job. 

8 minutes ago, abatt said:

Fascinating.  Thanks for the tax return.  Is the 2016 return available anywhere?

 

I'm in the wrong line of business.  Director of Marketing Timm makes $176,000?!  Is he the mastermind behind prohibiting subscribers from buying additional tickets during subscriber priority week?  Pure genius!!

ABT's fiscal year ends on December 31, which means its 990 must be filed with the IRS by May 15 of the following year, unless it files for a three month extension. The PDF version is usually made available some period of time after the filing date. Either ABT filed for an extension or the PDF version of the 990 hasn't been posted anywhere yet. (To its great credit, ABT makes its 990s available on its own website - not a lot of arts organizations do that.)

Note that the IRS does not itself publish PDFs of a given organization's Form 990 - that's usually done by  organizations such as The Foundation Center or Guidestar. It is now possible to download 990 data directly from the IRS in XML format via the open data resources on Amazon Web Services. A number of organizations have started working on tools to parse this information and make it readily available.

1 hour ago, Fleurfairy said:

I'm curious to know the ballpark of salary that Misty Copeland commands. I imagine it's very high, probably the highest in America? I wonder if that's a factor in ABT whittling down their principal roster..... 

Per its 2015 IRS 990, ABT's highest paid dancer in 2105 was Gillian Murphy, whose base compensation was $173,340. (Scroll down to pages 10 and 46 in the linked PDF.) In 2014, the highest paid dancer was Paloma Herrera. 

Is Copeland being paid more than that now? We won't know until ABT files its 2017 990, which won't be until sometime in 2018.

Although Balanchine created the role on a tall dancer (Victor Castelli), it has become a thing on both sides of the plaza to cast shorter male dancers (Simkin, Scott, Ulbricht, etc) in the Gigue -- and I think they start off at something of a disadvantage. A lot of the off-axis accents and flourishes simply read better on a taller dancer, as do the little fillips of casual aristocratic insouciance Balanchine built into all three of the lead roles. (The ballerina's variations are just loaded with these little touches.) 

20 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

The NY Times has another Speaking In Dance video out, this time with Boylston in Tchai Pas.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/arts/dance/isabella-boylston-a-natural-balanchine-ballerina.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fspeakingindance

 

Side note: the text mentions that she will be the dance double for Jennifer Lawrence in an upcoming film Red Sparrow, which will also feature Segei Polunin (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2873282/?ref_=nv_sr_1).

 

Boylston was today's matinee Aurora. I would just like to say that she has one of the most beautiful, radiant stage smiles I have ever seen - mostly because it looks like her real-life smile. 

I can't remember if the changes to Aurora's Wedding got detailed elsewhere in this thread, but here's what we got at today's matinee:

1) Opening promenade

2) Precious Stones

3) White Cat & Puss-in-Boots

4) Porcelain Princesses & Mandarin (Nijinska)

5) Princess Florine & Bluebird

6) Red Riding Hood & the Wolf

7) Three Ivans (De Valois)

8) Grand Pas de Deux for Aurora and Désiré

9) Mazurka

Note that the Lilac Fairy, Carabosse, Bluebeard & Ariana, and The Shah, his Brother & Scheherazade are walk-ons. (Actually, Lilac and Carabosse are carry-ons - they get toted around in their palanquins ...) 

No Hop o'My Thumb or Cinderella.

Editorial: I didn't miss Hop one bit, but I'd happily trade the Porcelain Princesses to get Cinderella back. Yes, it's Nijinska, but it's mostly made up of the kind of tiresome ethnic and cultural stereotypes that I think we can safely leave behind. 

1 hour ago, 83firefly said:

 I'll make sure to report back after the show.

Please do! We'd love to hear your take on the program and the dancing! 

11 hours ago, 83firefly said:

 

That's a great idea! Does the NYCB website have the exact music listed for each piece in their repertoire?

 

They do! First, go to the Repertory page on the company's website: http://www.nycballet.com/Discover/The-Repertory.aspx

Then click on the ballet you're interested in. For example, here is the listing for In Creases: http://www.nycballet.com/ballets/i/new-j-peck-glass.aspx

The repertory page for a given ballet normally provides details regarding the music used, the date it was premiered, the date of its NYCB premiere, the original cast, its length, and the design team. Often as not, you'll also get a short video clip and / or a slideshow.

1 hour ago, volcanohunter said:

 

The ё/yo only ever occurs when the vowel is stressed. Therefore vish-NYO-va, sye-MYO-na-va, ka-va-LYO-va.

 

What gets really nasty is when the stress shifts. The word for lake, as in Swan Lake, is pronounced O-zye-ra (озеро). And in the singular, the stress remains on the first syllable: gen. озера (also O-zye-ra), dat. озеру (O-zye-ru), acc, озеро (O-zye-ra), etc. But in the plural, the stress shifts to the second syllable and goes into that ё/yo thing: nom. pl. озёра (a-ZYO-ra), gen. pl. озёр (a-ZYOR), dat. pl. озёрам (a-ZYO-ram), etc.

 

The stress in Osipova does fall on the first syllable, although I wouldn't render the first letter as an "OH" because it doesn't sound like a "long" English O.

Oh man, those stem changes ... that being said, Russian spelling and pronunciation at least makes sense once you know the rules – as opposed to English, where the orthography is more or less archeological rather than logical.

By the way, I believe the cyrillic spelling of Semionova's name is Семионова - i.e, no ё.

6 minutes ago, nanushka said:

 

Thanks so much for the precise and clear description! That's hard to do, without resorting to phonetic symbols that aren't widely known!

It can be maddening for us non-native speakers! Russians aren't sticklers for using ё in print, and will happily substitute plain old е, which often as not gets transliterated as English "e," which isn't pronounced like the Russian е in any event. And of course the Russian letter о is pronounced more like a cross between "ah" and "uh" than "oh" when it's unstressed — as in Sem-YAWN-uh-va — but if you don't know where the stress falls how do you know how to pronounce that pesky Russian о! 

I gather I have been mispronouncing Osipova's name for lo these many years. I think it's something like OH-si-puh-va, but if someone could tell me, I'd be mighty grateful!

Диа́на Ви́кторовна Вишнёва 

The Russian syllable нё is pronounced approximately like the American English "nyo" as in "canyon" but with a long rather than short "o." Or even "yo" as in "YO!" – but not "ee-o" as in "Eeyore." In addition, the syllable containing ё is almost always the syllable that is stressed, so, VishNYOva.

14 minutes ago, angelica said:

 

Please don't forget Thomas Forster! He's tall, has a beautiful ballet line, and fine acting skills. I think he can be groomed to be a prince.

Yes indeedy. I keep wondering when his career is going to get some traction. Not that Forster is a Balanchine dancer, but I can't help but go ... Hmmmm, I wonder if ? ... when I cast my eye across the plaza to the theater brimming with tall ballerina talent. 

Principals and soloists do perform with NYCB Moves - see the casting for Moves' upcoming run at Bard College's Fischer Center for an example.

The very best thing about Moves is the commitment to performing to live music. This is likely one of the constraints on programing: it pretty much guarantees that most if not all of the works selected will have been choreographed to music for piano or a small chamber ensemble.

PS: It looks as if the company is presenting two performances back-to-back. I'm going to hazard a guess that the casting will be the same for both performances — that certainly looks to be the case at Bard, and Bard is within easy reach of NYC.

30 minutes ago, Natalia said:

 

The season brochure clearly states that this version will add the recons of two of Nijinska's 1921's creations: Three Ivans and Porcelain Princess/Mandarin (Chinese). There's no mention of Scheherazade (Arabian) but maybe  it'll be added as a surprise? On the flip side, they'll likely eliminate some of the 1890 dances that didn't make it to the 1921 London version, such as Hop o my Thumb and Cinderella?

I think any excuse to excise Hop o' My Thumb is fine by me: in this production at least, the dance is entirely charmless despite the JKO kids dashing about hither and thither. And ugh, that big ol' papier mache head ...

If I recall correctly, the Porcelain Princess was a walk on in last spring's full evening SB. 

A separation is never an easy thing, even when it's amicable, so I'm sorry to hear this news. 

That being said, I don't think theirs was actually a particularly compelling stage partnership; both looked better paired with other people - except in Who Cares, where their B'way chops could take center stage.

Lordy! Those ticket prices! I'd planned to give Jewels a miss (life is short and I've already seen it more times than I really need too ...), then had some second thoughts and wandered over to the Festival website to see what might still be available and  Whoah! Scrapped that plan real fast.