Balletwannabe

2 hours ago, mille-feuille said:

For me, a big reason would be that the company he founded and directed folded after only 11 years (according to Wikipedia, his LA Ballet existed from 1974-85). One of the requirements listed first in the job description was

• Demonstrated artistic leadership success as a programmer and/or company leader for an organization known for quality and excellence

I don't think Clifford has demonstrated that.

His age also isn't a plus; a quick calculation tells me he's about 71.

I think he would be invaluable as a stager/ coach of Balanchine works, however.

I didn't realize he was that old!  He looks good for his age.  

12 minutes ago, mille-feuille said:

John Clifford is an obvious no, so it rubs me the wrong way that Megan LeCrone is specifically goading him to make videos promoting his candidacy.

I'm curious as to the reasons why he's an obvious no?  Obviously he has a huge ego.  But so did Balanchine.  He thought his choreography was so brilliant (it was, to be fair) that individual dancers shouldn't think of themselves as stars.  His choreography was the star.  Talk about ego...

To be honest...I really liked his idea that he presented in his last videos (ballet to Broadway as a way to bring in more $$).  

3 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The statement was defensive and unnecessary,  so it's a good thing that it didn't  really say anything.  The singers and players at the Met have made no group statement about Levine,  the musicians at the Philharmonic have made no statement regarding the firing of two principal musicians.  The ballet community,  including the dance press,  appears to be overestimating the effect of the Waterbury  affair on the public,  hence the virtue-signalling speech.   It is an internal matter,  important to (some) dancers,  but of very little significance to the rest of the world.  It's likely that a number of NYCB dancers don't  care one way or the other about the firings.

Do you work for NYCB?  I don't know why you would assume it's "likely" the dancers don't care, or that they're overestimating the effect of the lawsuit (do you know how many letters they've received from donors withdrawing support?), unless you work for NYCB.

8 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Would not feel comfortable because of allegations vs. finding out the facts?

Expressed dismay that the union was contesting their removal?  I'm sure they wouldn't be in dismay if the union was contesting on their behalves... union is for all, not for few.

lots of hypocrisy going on, as usual.

How do you know they don't know the facts?  If Ramasar admitted to the existence of the texts publicly, I would think the dancers would know even more, privately (Sterling H. has said there is more the public doesn't know). With the texts alone however, that's enough to justify any female dancers discomfort.  

1 hour ago, Longtimelurker said:

That was a incredibly strong statement of support regarding the values of the company made by the dancers. The narrative that Waterbury needed to speak out because the female company members were unable to themselves must have been insulting. I'm glad that false narrative has been put to bed with this statement. Bravo to Tess and the whole company for making this stand with their moving words!

To be fair though, we have no idea what each NYCB dancer thinks about what was said; they have no choice but to stand there and clap.

16 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

On the SAB website it says apprentice contracts can only last one year, due to AGMA's constraints.

https://www.sab.org/winterterm/career_planning/nycb_apprentice_program.php

They have some updating to do..still lists Martin's, and the State Theater instead of Koch.  But maybe that one was on purpose? Ha.

15 minutes ago, tutu said:

Shiffon, a jewelry brand “for good,” has posted a Q&A with Waterbury. The interview has more context from Waterbury’s perspective, including some discussion of why she filed and the way the events and lawsuit have impacted her life.

ETA: Waterbury says in the Q&A that 10+ men and 10+ women are “involved”

So again about the hotel room...if this is true, NYCB has some 'splainin to do.  They should have fired him then.  How does destroying a hotel room not violate the code of conduct??

Just now, vipa said:

I think it's 1 year, but of course I could be wrong. I've never heard of anyone doing more than that. I know that AGMA frowns on long apprenticeships, because it would be considered taking advantage of cheap labor.

I could be wrong.  I thought he said it in a dance video I was watching.. can't recall which one.

I wonder why they don't list apprentices on the "dancers" NYCB webpage?

5 minutes ago, vipa said:

My understanding is that you cannot be an apprentice for more than 1 year, so that at the end of your year you are given a corps contract or let go. Also, apprentices are automatically in the corps if they are cast in a certain number of roles (I forget how many) even if they haven't served a full year of apprenticeship.

I thought I remembered Martin's saying you could do a max of 2 years as an apprentice.

37 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

So why weren't the other dancers named in the complaint,  even if they aren't defendants?  The complaint warrants careful reading.  A number of those accused of sharing the images are "employees of NYCB",  not dancers.  They could be musicians,  stage hands,  wardrobe staff,  even janitors.  Presumably these individuals were not also former students of SAB or dancers in the company,  and thus not subject to their supposed malign influence.

That's an interesting legal question.  Ms. Waterbury,  according to the amended complaint,   is now twenty-one,  which indicates that she was an adult while still a student at SAB.  Is a school,  any school,  presumed to be acting in loco parentis  when the student is not a child?

Merson and Waterbury's motives are quite clear- they want money,  from the deepest pockets available.  Nothing wrong with that,  but let's not pretend this is basically some kind of moral crusade.

Why can't it be both?

6 minutes ago, Helene said:

Yes, upthread, where there was a discussion about it.

Oops.  Thanks, I'll look back to find it.  

Did someone already post this?  Apologies if it's a duplicate.  

5 minutes ago, Dreamer said:

Jared Longhitano’s Linkedin page shows that he’s involved with several arts organizations in NYC. Besides being a Junoir board member at NYCB, he is a member of Young Associates Steering Committee at the Met Opera, part of the Junior Council at ABT and the scariest of all, he is the Head of Young Patrons Group at YAGP.

 

The YAGP connection is seriously scary.

3 minutes ago, AB'sMom said:

That amended complaint made me feel sick to my stomach. I had to take a break. It is very specific. 

Very disturbing.  Citing specific ranks and relationships... I feel very bad for the women involved in this mess that might just be finding out now.  *Alleged* mess.

I'm curious to hear an explanation of the "culture" at NYCB.  Taking into consideration that the 3 men are gone, along with Martins.

Is there someone specifically that you (collectively on this thread) want to call out?  It takes PEOPLE to create a culture.  Are you worried about a ballet master?  Donor? (The one in the lawsuit?) Board member(s)? Dancer(s)?  Are audience members objectifying/flirting with dancers at donor events?  What specifically, is still worrying?

I'm 100% on Waterbury's side, yet I don't quite understand, practically, what else NYCB is expected to do here. 

Just now, nanushka said:

Personally, if I were changing in front of one or more people I generally feel the perfectly comfortable changing in front of, and if I discovered I had been surreptitiously photographed in that situation and that the photos had been shared with others, I would consider that a violation of my trust and autonomy in an intimate situation.

Same.

Just now, Kathleen O'Connell said:

The list of NYCB soloists who have danced above their pay grade is long and distinguished. The current roster includes more than a few ... 

Ok I see.  So they really have no obligation to promote anybody to fill a qouta... they could save some $ this way, I suppose.  

Do they need to promote some men to principal ASAP or can the current soloists just fill in?  Wondering how this works with pay- if you can expect soloists to work in a principal role while still paying a soloist wage?

3 hours ago, ivypink said:

I am fairly certain she is speaking about mental burnout. Joy has spoken openly in her vlogs about depession and anxiety, and as a person who also suffers from these conditions, burnout can indeed happen at six months if you are unhappy and stressed. 

Joy's Instagram from today, where she is exercising on some gym equipment, has me worried for her. She is dangerously thin. 

Thank you for clarifying that makes a little more sense.

She does look very thin.

I don't understand her comment about burning out "in 6 months".  If she's figured out how her body works, so much so that it's now her "passion" to help other dancers...  How would she help other dancers avoid burnout if she's unable to avoid it herself?

1 hour ago, macnellie said:

I think Gelsey Kirkland’s book  should be reread to counter Mr. Clifford’s memory. All was not sweetness and light in “the good old days.”   And I have had experience with “clique warfare” especially in theatre. It’s awful—there’s always a scapegoat if the director is weak and scared.

I can't stand Clifford's comments on all of Kirkland's YouTube videos.  "That's not how it happened- I was there!!".  Really?  You were in all of her conversations with Balanchine?  All of their interactions?  Give me a break.

Honestly I wonder if she read the posts here questioning her mental health and this is her response.

10 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

 Bouder’s IG post bolsters NYCB’s claim that they did not “condone, encourage” etc the reprehensible behavior in question. It supports the company line and, imo, may have been vetted by NYCB.

I was glad to see it. How is it controversial?

She is admitting she believes the men are guilty ("this behavior was carried out...allowed to fester").  She is supporting Waterbury ("my heart goes out to the women...")- the woman who is suing the company she works for!  She referred to a "leaderless state", as someone mentioned, throwing the interim team under the bus.  I think there's plenty there to create controversy.  If it stays up with zero likes or comments from her colleagues; that says something.  I'm not saying she has no support, but I highly doubt this was vetted by anyone.  

I guess I'm not allowed to sleep at night if I want to keep up on this thread...

I was happy Bouder said something because she has always positioned herself as a leader.  Often it's easy to be that leader, her posts are largerly supported, they encourage, and inspire people.  This post?  Difficult...very controversial...possible ramifications for her work environment.  Do her colleagues agree with her?  Maybe, maybe not.  So for me, it's not that I was looking to her for an "answer", I was looking to her as the leader that she is.  And she continues to blow me away in her strength and resolve, regardless of whether or not I always agree with her. 

6 minutes ago, fondoffouettes said:

 

Finally.  Thank you Bouder.