Kathleen O'Connell

(Digitalization and coming trends in how things are housed/made available to public over the internet will in a few decades and despite institutional inertia ultimately make the particular site of collections less important than it is now. I say "internet" but who knows what new technologies will bring.)

The Library of Congress has made a concerted effort to get some of the gems in its collection digitized and freely available on line. Go here to browse what's available. And here for the Ballet Russes materials that have been digitized.

I don't know if the LC (or any institution) will ever be able to get everything on line -- quality digitization takes time and money and making it all readily available online takes servers and bandwidth. And some materials may simply be too fragile. But it's a nice start.

What would fashionistas pay attention to when watching Balanchine's Black and White ballets?

I think symphony audiences might be a rich pool. They like music and a lot of ballet since 1890 uses really good music and often makes it (the music) more interesting.

The steps, of course, just like everybody else. I don't think an enthusiasm for fashion and a taste for ballet are mutually exclusive. In fact, I suspect that they might complement each other: ballet is visual and stylized, much as high fashion is.

Sure people who enjoy attending orchestral concerts might also like the ballet and it wouldn't hurt to let them know that they'll hear something besides 19th century theater music. And of course they already know that buying a ticket and showing up at the theater for a live performance is a thing, so there's that battle already won. But given that they are apparently shrinking in number and graying along with the rest of us, I don't think crafting a marketing campaign that specifically targets them would materially ratchet up audience growth, which is what every arts organization is scrambling to do. And frankly, I wouldn't want to compete with Carnegie Hall's board for gala dollars.

Some music lovers won't like what they hear at the ballet, though. They might object to the quality of the playing or to the adjustments in tempo and phrasing that are required to make concert music danceable. And a lot of them would blanche at the thought of having to listen to anything composed after 1890.

No objection to raising money from rich people who want to rub elbows with designers, but their contributions have been less than thrilling, Most of these costumes are not impressive and not well suited to ballet. Examples are the plastic costumes they used for Millepied's ballet that made noise when people moved, as well as Tiler Peck's Altazurra costume in which the strap on her top reportedly came undone mid show.

I gather I am the only person in the world who enjoyed both Benjamin Millepied's choreography and Iris Van Herpen's costumes for "Neverwhere." I enjoyed "Spectral Evidence" too, although I gave Olivier Theysken's costumes higher marks than Angelin Preljocaj's choreography, which is a guilty, guilty pleasure. Sigh. It is very lonely over here.

In all seriousness, NYCB's costume shop may be tip-top, but many of the company's costume designs -- most done by theater professionals -- leave a lot to be desired. They STILL haven't gotten "Who Cares" right, and the company's propensity to put its ballerinas in variations on the 50's cocktail dress drives me around the bend. ("Walpurgisnacht" in particular looks like it should be renamed "Debs Gone Wild," and don't get me started on "Les Carillons.") I've got 99 NYCB problems, but the Rodarte costumes for Millepied's "Two Hearts" ain't one.

So really, I'm pretty much OK with the couturiers, but I do wish NYCB would let Marc Happel do more on his own. I loved the crinkled paper tutu he did for "Les Bosquets" as well as the ruffly skirts for "Luce Nascosta."

Instead of going after fashionistas and athletic-event lovers who will most likely never take to ballet as a serious art form, why don't they go after the thousands of symphony-goers who like good music?

Given the difficulties most American orchestras have raising money and building audiences, targeting symphony-goers probably isn't the most fruitful avenue for a ballet company to pursue.

Why wouldn't fashionistas take to ballet as a serious art form?

As mentioned on another thread, Wheeldon would not grant permission for taping and release of the pdd. That's why the pdd was not part of the broadcast.

I think the ballet as a whole makes more of an impact seen in its entirety, but the first half is weak when standing alone.

Ah - found the thread, which I seemed to have missed the first time around. Can't say I buy Wheeldon's logic for withholding the rights, though, given that videos of the pdd are readily available online.

I agree that the first half is anywhere near as good as the pdd, although I have seen NYCB throw weaker stuff on stage to fill out a program of short works.

I never really bought into "After the Rain" being a "whole thing" from the get-go; to me it's always seemed like two short, disparate works bolted together for the sake of convenience. (One of my complaints about Wheeldon's work from around that time was that it felt fragmentary -- like short extracts from some larger work-in-process.) The pas de deux lives quite happily on its own. And although I've never seen the first half presented without the pas de deux, I'm guessing it would work just fine as a stand-alone if it were given a new name and bundled together with some of the other shortish works in the rep like Herman Schmerman or whatever.

I understand the situation you're describing, but I still want to see the work entire at some point, if only to know that myself. And perhaps to understand why the choreographer made the two together, even if they live quite happily apart.

Does anyone do the ensemble half without the duet?

Well, Pennsylvania Ballet included just the first half of "After the Rain" in its 50th Anniversary PBS broadcast (which you can watch here). I don't know if they regularly perform it that way, however. It may simply have been cut from the broadcast in the interests of time.

It's worth seeing both halves together at least once if you can, if for no other reason than to see Wheeldon was up to then. I'd say watching it feels something akin to watching "Balanchine's Tchaikovsky Suite No. 3," with the Pas de Deux being roughly equivalent to "Theme and Variations."

Yes, but I was more interested in the commentary from people outside of the professional/avocational world. We often worry that dance runs under the radar for the vast part of the population -- I was interested in seeing those responses.

Those were good to read, of course!

But I did find it amusing that an ad that makes a fuss about overcoming negative assessments of one's body type -- including not having the "right feet" -- generated comments like this: "Murphy's Gaynors hurt my heart. They actually manage to make a principal at ABT look like she has bad feet."

ETA: the comment I quoted was in response to a picture of Gillian Murphy that someone had posted as an example of (and I quote) "a more typical [ballet] body type." In any event, Murphy's feet look just fine to me.

Wow. Lotta Gaynor Minden hate going on in that thread ...

That is interesting -- I cannot remember where, now, but I think I saw a listing for another contemporary ensemble to perform the work, though it may have only been the duet.

PNB and SFB both have the Pd2 in their rep.

But who else (beside NYCB) does the whole thing? Pennsylvania Ballet did it this spring (part of Julie Diana's farewell show) -- anyone else?

I never really bought into "After the Rain" being a "whole thing" from the get-go; to me it's always seemed like two short, disparate works bolted together for the sake of convenience. (One of my complaints about Wheeldon's work from around that time was that it felt fragmentary -- like short extracts from some larger work-in-process.) The pas de deux lives quite happily on its own. And although I've never seen the first half presented without the pas de deux, I'm guessing it would work just fine as a stand-alone if it were given a new name and bundled together with some of the other shortish works in the rep like Herman Schmerman or whatever.

The only must see program is Ashton's Patineurs on Oct 18 8pm, which is in conflict with Whalen farewell, and Oct 19.

I respectfully disagree. Any opportunity to see the Trisha Brown dance company perform before it disbands, which it plans to do in about 18 months, is something to grab on to if you can.

Bergonzi was my very first live Radames (Met 1978). I was a newbie, didn't have a clue, and the production was just awful, but I remember his performance to this day. RIP.

The whole point of the festival is to keep the prices cheap so that people who normally can't afford to attend a dance performance can afford the prices.

Another FFD objective is to showcase the diversity of dance. Your typical FFD program presents four short-to-shortish works from wildly different genres and traditions. The program I saw last year featured India's Nrityagram performing Odissi classical dance (the only work done to live music), a neo-classical ballet (DTH's "Gloria" with a full complement of principals, soloists, and corps), an urban-inflected contemporary troupe (Vancouver's 605 Collective), and a dollop of late 80s / early 90s European Contemporary (Mats Eks' "Light Beings"). FFD is always careful to program at least one major company, performer, or active choreographer in every program as well as artists who are likely to be less well known, even to dance aficionados.

But lordy the ticketing process is a royal pain.

NYCB added "Fancy Free" to its repertoire in 1980, and Robbins, who was in charge of the revival, presumably selected the cast. With the exception (I think) of Kipling Houston, all of the cast members in the 1986 video I linked to above (Stephanie Saland, Lourdes Lopez, Joseph Duell, Kipling Houston, and Jean-Pierre Frolich) were in either the first or second casts in the original 1980 revival.

I'm guessing that the 80's cast danced the ballet the way Robbins wanted it to be danced then, for good or ill.

Robbins may not have seen it the way Croce saw it, or not minded it, or maybe he over-coached, or a bit of all of those. Perhaps also a matter of casting. I have a hard time seeing Martins fitting easily into that role and Saland was perhaps too glamorous?

I recall Martins' sailor as being rather more knowing than he is often portrayed today. Think of something along the lines of the gypsy prince role Martins originated in Balanchine's "Tzigane" or his sailor in the Royal Navy section of "Union Jack."

I didn't mean to imply that a purely lighthearted version of "Fancy Free" would necessarily be sappy. But watching the video, and especially, listening to the music again made me think that Robbins and Bernstein might have wanted theses sailors to have a little more edge to them than they would likely have had in a conventional musical.

Go here for a video clip of the section of Fancy Free under discussion.

NYCB 1986 Lourdes Lopez / Joseph Duell / Kipling Houston / Jean-Pierre Frolich

I really do find it more menacing than playful -- there's plenty of menace in that music, that's for sure -- but of course your mileage may vary.

It also occurred to me as I re-watched it that Robbins and Bernstein might actually have intended the passage to have some darker undertones -- i.e., that they were aiming for something more complicated than the Hallmark Channel version of shore leave.

What do you think their intent might have been?

Also, would we be as comfortable giving their behavior a pass for being typical of their time if the victim of their prank had been African-American or Jewish?

Good questions, but I don't think your implied analogy holds. The guys are acting in sexist fashion, but not because they dislike women. In fact, they're acting like little boys who pester little girls and make them cry. They do it because they want attention. They do it because they like the girls.

They may like women just fine, but their behavior suggests that they don't fully respect them: how else should one interpret the freedom they seem to believe they have to take a (weaker) stranger's property away from her and then tease her when she tries to get it back? Casual prejudice isn't only a function of not liking the members of a particular group. It's tied up with respect and power, too.

I'm not suggesting that the handbag grab is on a scale with the depredations visited on African Americans, Jews, Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps, etc. -- the shameful list goes on and on -- just that there is nothing wrong with being repulsed by the sailors' behavior now, even if it was typical of its time. (And I'm not convinced that it was.) I see this episode as a failure of empathy on Robbins' part precisely because -- and perhaps just at that moment -- he couldn't see past the casual sexism of his day.

I'm sorry, but I can't see the way Robbins' sailors torment the woman with the red handbag as anything but mean. They may not have meant to harm her, but they had the power to humiliate her, and they used it -- perhaps thoughtlessly, which is almost worse.

I think they could only humiliate her if she took that as their intent. I agree with Mme. Hermine, and I wonder if that sort of behavior was not uncommon at the time - sexist and regrettable, yes, but unconsciously so on the guys' part, and not perceived as such by the woman, so not actually inflicting cruelty. But the moment makes me uncomfortable today.

In regards to dirac's good point about the style possibly having change over the years, I would think that the woman's acting would be even more important than that of the guys. I think I recall someone - Faye Arthurs? - at NYCB in the mid-nineties almost playing along, indicating that she was more or less amused. Still, one feels bad for the woman, and a little embarrassed - at least I was - for the guys, who are acting like boys.

What do you think their intent might have been?

Also, would we be as comfortable giving their behavior a pass for being typical of their time if the victim of their prank had been African-American or Jewish?

I'm sorry, but I can't see the way Robbins' sailors torment the woman with the red handbag as anything but mean. They may not have meant to harm her, but they had the power to humiliate her, and they used it -- perhaps thoughtlessly, which is almost worse.

Sailors on shore leave flirting with pretty women is fine. Three strangers snatching a woman's handbag on a city street and teasing her by tossing it back and forth to keep it out of her reach? That's not politically incorrect so much as plain old cruel and definitely threatening. We may know they're good guys, but she doesn't, and it's a sour moment. That the situation might ever have seemed "playful" to Robbins strikes me as a real failure of empathy on his part.

If she wants it, and "Restless Creature" suggests that she might, I hope Whelan has the kind of post-ballet career that Baryshnikov has had. I for one will show up whatever she does.

Thanks for the links re Ratmansky's negotiations with NYCB and ABT, California.

Looking at what ABT pays Ratmansky ($160,000 in 2009, rising to $228,000 in 2012), and, based on the article California linked to, what ABT asked him to deliver (20 weeks, one new or re-tooled ballet per year, and "collabora[tion] on artistic questions, including future programming"), I suspect that NYCB found the price tag too high for what they were looking for -- a choreographer primarily focussed on creating a steady stream of new works for the company's dancers. One new ballet per year wouldn't have sufficed, and you can buy a lot of choreography for $200,000. And call me crazy, but I don't think Peter Martins was interested in collaboration on artistic questions, and certainly not interested in paying for it. Martins has welcomed the contributions of other choreographers almost to a fault, but he's nonetheless made it clear that he's the AD and it's his company.

Peck, it appears, will make NYCB his priority:

Although Mr. Peck will be able to create ballets for other companies — he has premieres for Pacific Northwest Ballet in November and Miami City Ballet in March — he said that his priority will be City Ballet, where he has new works planned for the coming fall and spring seasons.

“A position like this gives you room for experiment,” he said. “If I bounce around from commission to commission, a lot of times there is an expectation for the choreographer to produce what they are known for, or a hit. Without that pressure, I can focus on creative growth and have the chance to develop long-term relationships with my collaborators, most importantly the dancers.”

Well, Halloween is on a Friday this year, which means 1) turnout for the annual Greenwich Village Halloween parade* will likely be higher than it might be if Halloween were on a weeknight, 2) which in turn means transport in to, out of, and around the city will be packed and streets and roads will be congested; and 3) people with children (and many without) will be dealing in some way, shape, or form with trick-or-treating. Taking Halloween off is not the dumbest idea ABT's ever had.

* I believe something like 50,000 people participate and 2 million more line up to watch. I sing in a chorus that rehearses in the Village; if a rehearsal happens to fall on Halloween, we cancel it.

My wish list for ABT's 2015 Met Season? That it takes place across the plaza.

Seriously.

I'd love it if NYCB & ABT could figure out how to share the theater formerly known as State between them. The Met is just lousy for dance.

It is such a privilege to see him live. I missed his "Winterreise" due to my own stupidity: I showed up at the hall with wonderful acoustics only to figure out from the lack of people near the theater (it was a fogged-in night) that he was performing in a smaller, acoustically challenged (for music) hall too far to get to in time.

He's recorded the cycle recently, and although it's never the same as hearing a singer live, the recording is available on CD and through iTunes.

AARRGHHH! I've done that myself. I've shown up at the wrong hall, or on the wrong date, or with the wrong tickets, the whole gamut. Not only do you mourn the missed performance, you feel like an idiot, too.

The CD is in my shopping cart even as we speak. For Finley, I'll spring for physical media ...