Drew

Very gracious for you to note that and to recall that critical response to the Bolshoi was not monolithic among ballet goers, but perhaps it's as well that Urin, as leader of the the theater, appears not to be letting himself be complacent, especially if we hope to see more varied repertory from the Bolshoi in New York during future tours. (And, perhaps, too, if the cause of new repertory at the Bolshoi is to flourish more generally...??) Critics and many fans (on this sight anyway) were extremely critical of Grigorovich's production of Swan Lake and, to a lesser extent, brought up the issue of whether any of the productions showed to best advantage at the Koch theater--an issue raised by Urin. And there was certainly no consensus on Zakharova in Swan Lake -- who was, additionally, slammed for that performance by the Times (which is the most prominent coverage any visiting-New-York ballet company gets). Spartacus received mixed to poor critical reception in the press and from many fans on this site as well: honestly, I myself was surprised at how poor since the criticisms seemed to me to make little in the way of concessions to the role of the ballet in the company's history and "culture" even when acknowledging that role. But whatever we may feel--a lot of different opinions get reflected on this site, thank goodness--Urin surely cares more about the NY Times and the press in general than fans on Ballet Alert or other sites. I think that almost everyone--professional or amateur--who voiced an opinion on the repertory choices for this tour (I was one) expressed dismay at a choice of works that in no way reflected developments at the Bolshoi in ... oh...the last 12-13 years. And that's giving credit to the Swan Lake and Don Quixote for having some 'recent' revisions: but in fact, they really should hardly be given credit for being as recent as that. Were these ballets easy to sell? Sure, and Lincoln Center Festival does need to sell tickets, but I'm not sure in what universe the Bolshoi was going to be a hard sell whatever the repertory--or, at least, almost whatever the repertory. Maybe all Mats Ek would have been a problem. (The Lincoln Center festival sold out performances of the arguably far less famous--among non-ballet fans--Mariinsky in far more off-the-beaten-track repertory at the far larger Metropolitan Opera House.) I really do blame Lincoln Center for the choices (which they have not denied having requested) and perhaps the Bolshoi staff, too, a bit for not pushing back harder against them. At the risk of simply channelling the NY TImes--look at what has been brought to London and Paris and even Washington D.C. in recent years. The Bolshoi still might have gotten criticisms and even strong criticisms with some of that repertory, but the whole tour would have carried additional excitement for critics/fans--that is, artistic excitement. (Like Buddy, I consider that I got to see some excellent dancing by the Bolshoi, for which I'm grateful. Including Smirnova and Chudin in Swan Lake. But I don't think that counts much for what concerns Urin...)

Darci Kistler was prone to injury, too, and she was allowed to receive her salary for over a decade (at least) of questionable performances as a result of her injuries. (I'm not sure which would have been worse: getting ca salary without dancing -- Balanchine famously kept the non-dancing Kent on the payroll so she could feed her children after her husband snorted everything she had earned-- or getting paid for substandard dancing.) When a company wants to make exceptions -- and NYCB did for several years for Kathryn Morgan, or Martins did against board objections -- it does, and the exception was made when Morgan *was* injured, not when she *might* be injured. She was only rejected after she had been away, and from recent videos she's made, before she was in shape and is still a question mark after being off the stage for several years. There was a time at NYCB where Graf's height would have been considered great asset, and I wished that PNB had snatched her up. I hope it was clear in context that the point I was trying to make was connected exactly to what you are saying here...that is I was trying to ventriloquize the kind of objections that tend to be raised (not just to Copleland), but to many people who try to raise these issues which as a result makes the issues all but impossible to raise in a way that does NOT lead to extended doubts and/or criticisms sometimes directed at the person raising them. It's not that people don't have a right to raise their doubts and criticisms, but I think you can see certain patterns in ways of putting people who try to address institutional racism, in particular, on the defensive--when, in my judgment, they shouldn't be. (As far as Graf goes--my post opened by saying I had always thought it was a shame NYCB or ABT had not hired her (though of course I was not privy to their reasons).)

Osipova's career moves have not proven to be altogether predictable...

Precisely, Drew. Racism in institutionalized form is not a question of individual prejudice (although individual action can make a difference in ameliorating the problem, once recognized). So then the institution may be prejudiced even if none of the individuals in the institution are prejudiced. Makes sense to some people. .... I don’t assume no black dancers ever face racism. But I’m intrigued by the logical assumption on which the “black female dancers are held back by racism” argument turns: that in the ballet world we find a phenomenon unobserved anywhere else, people who are racist towards one gender but not another. That’s a logical inference from the argument that black female dancers are being held back by racism. ... One way I would make sense of what people are talking about when they talk about institutional racism in which the individuals in that institution may be acting without explicit or conscious racism: people don't always understand their own motives. They can be unaware of ingrained habits of thought that aren't as pure of racial assumptions as they themselves believe/hope. Therefore, sometimes looking at patterns of behavior and where they lead can be more revealing than looking at the way a particular person understands or describes themselves. Another way I think about it: Sometimes the whole is greater than the parts. One incident may be interpretable a few different ways, so, in trying to understand that incident, one might think "no reason to assume racialized views are involved," but a slew of incidents taken together points in a clear direction.(Rules and structures may be in play too; as Anatole France said with some irony: the law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridge. Institutions have rules like that, too, that apply to "everyone." Ballet, of course, has to have some rules or it's not ballet--I firmly believe that. But what really is or needs to be intractable in a ballet company?) Regarding the male/femaie issue: Ballet has always had more trouble attracting talented men than women (at least in the U.S. it has) and it is not, in fact, uncommon in any field that when the labor supply is smaller that it's easier to get a job whoever you are and whatever the prejudices against you. (Think: women entering the job force during WWII.) So, what you say you find "unobserved anywhere else" (that people would let racism influence them more in relation to one sex/gender than another) is easily enough explained. But I'm not so sure that differences in how African-American men and women are treated is altogether unobserved when it comes to how racism operates in this country. That is, one might not find, in your words, that people would be "racist to one gender and not another," but the way that racism expresses itself might be very different. And that difference is certainly influenced by considerations that are, for example, economic or involve attitudes to gender etc. since race doesn't operate in a vacuum. I will go in search of the Facebook posting you mentioned. I saw Copeland give an interview about a year ago where she talked about her love of ballet in a way that was very appealing.

Thanks for posting. My ticket for the 13th--the first performance I'm attending--does says 7:30. I bought the tickets shortly after they went on sale I hope the Koch theater is looking into this and, if the mistake isn't just some bizarre one-off, trying to track people down (addresses from credit cards; emails from website registrations etc.) to send them the correct information.

I think it's a real shame that neither NYCB nor ABT took a chance on Graf--I don't know their reasons and I assume her history of injury played a role, but no-one has to be motivated by explicit/conscious racism for racism (or, if you prefer, assumptions about race and classical ballet) to impact the way that person makes decisions. I only saw Graf once and with Ailey, but she seems to be an exceptional talent. I hope she DOES feel fulfilled in her career. One point raised above is that Copeland hasn't told concrete stories about ABT for example naming names etc. I fully understand why someone would choose not to do so -- for all kinds of reasons, but especially if the goal is to address institutional problems even as one has a ballet career in those institutions. The moment one "names names" the problem gets treated as a very specific personal (and sometimes legal) one: what did THIS person say and can that episode be proved exactly etc. It easily becomes a story about a few "bad apples." Copeland seems to want to address the need for institutional change (as well, of course, as just telling her own story) and she is having an impact at that level. Sometimes not making it personal is a better way to go. Reading about her not just here but elsewhere, I feel she gets a lot of criticism for "how" she talks about the issues, but I think these are not issues it is easy or even possible to talk about -- I would add especially not for an African-American woman -- in a way that doesn't open one to criticism: for saying too much (exaggeration), too little (not enough detail), for being unable to 'prove' what is, after all, often going to be subject to interpretation (gee, Alicia Graf IS prone to injury), for being self-interested (if she's just trying to further her career, then why be sympathetic) etc. BUT...The difficulty of talking about the issue in a way that doesn't provoke criticism seems to me itself a symptom of the very problem that is being talked about. If racism and institutional racism were easier to talk about, then they would probably be easier to change and vice-versa. In other words, we probably wouldn't still need to be talking about them. About the phrase "playing the race card" -- I think it implies Copeland is just being opportunistic and obviously some people think that she is. Honestly I don't know that I would hold it against her if I believed she were just being opportunistic, since ballet is a tough business and especially so for an African-American woman (it puzzles me that anyone would doubt this)--but I also don't think that it's fair to assume that she is just being opportunistic and I don't. Finally--and unfortunately--I haven't seen Copeland enough to have a real opinion about her as a dancer -- though from what I've seen she certainly seems talented to me. I did notice that In Swan Lake she got a very glowing review from a critic who had made some pretty persuasive criticisms of Mckenzie's production (which I have seen quite a number of times).

I find a number of Hübbe's comments pretty interesting, but even so when I first saw this article posted online, I double checked for signs of "the onion" or a ballet equivalent unknown to me. (Actually...that's an idea...) I suspect Hübbe is talking up his production's daring qualities, perhaps hoping to head off criticism and/or drum up interest, even as the production itself is likely to keep a lot of the Bournonville original intact--even if 'framed' differently. At least, that's certainly what I'm hoping.

Thank you -- very interesting to read about the creator of the title role in Miss Julie. It's a striking part.

I think that's kind of appalling...I've been treated better by the Met and the Koch theaters when I was on less firm ground...

Completely agree with all of the above--and I always found Mcbride-Tomasson a wonderful partnership!

Thrilled to read about Mcbride being honored. Wonderful news!

I think the issue may be less do such courses exist--which of course they do and perhaps Homans could have acknowledged that (and she may have said things the article didn't include)--than,when they don't, does anyone other than those looking to study dance criticism/history, feel their absence? Are these topics considered a key part of a liberal arts education or Humanities research etc. -- or are they just a luxury that's fine for the few schools with specialists or others with dedicated dance programs, conservatories and the like, but hardly anything that a serious college/university needs to worry about otherwise. (I would also agree with Vipa that the future of ballet as an art form is unlikely to depend on its becoming more embedded in universities/think tanks etc. But actually the first fellowships awarded make it clear that the center is not just looking to support "purely" academic research. Anyway, it's an initiative that takes ballet/dance seriously, and throws some money at it--that could be a very good thing.)

I had a similar reaction, but then I thought perhaps she meant only that it doesn't have a presence commensurate with other great art forms and that I can more or less accept...

Congratulations to Olga Smirnova--a beautiful young artist!

Yes, as Vivacegal said, thanks to all of these comments/examples. (I'm sure other people can think of others...) If I had the chance, then I would especially like to see Orbs and Maelstrom. I had no idea Morris had used a lot of Beethoven -- Unfortunately, Morris's career/work is something I have almost entirely missed except for two works he created for ABT. I guess I still remain skeptical about any substantive Beethoven--even chamber music--for dance. Uh...I know he wrote a score for Vigano... I haven't seen PA Ballet since I was a child, and until reading this thread didn't know about Kaiser's report. Honestly, though I've never forgotten Philadelphia has a strong ballet company (I discussed it with someone a few years ago when discussing job prospects in different cities) I'm someone whose attention was drawn back to the company by the hiring of Corella. Obviously, his high profile was one of the reasons he got the job. Transitions are always bumpy not to say painful, though it's a shame this couldn't have been less so...or, rather, a shame this has been made bumpier than it need have been. Corella's offhand remark about those leaving was particularly tactless, but absolutely, as commented above by others, the whole organization should have been better prepared and prepared him as soon as the decision was made.

Thanks, I didn't know they did a lot of Weiss's works. My experience with most Beethoven is that it's awfully full already – saturated with meaning, hammering and argumentative – before you add choreography. Though the Bagatelles would make lovley short pieces (Helgi Tomasson may have already have set some). Also I'd wonder how the big Beethoven peice would play next to Stravinsky. Jerome Robbins did a ballet to the Beethoven Bagatelles for Kirkland and, I think, Bonnefoux at New York City Ballet (Four Bagatelles). Wikipedia tells me it was revived for the Robbins celebration a few years ago. Perhaps, too, some of the songs would work for a nice chamber-style ballet. I tend to agree that most Beethoven is not ideal ballet/dance music--however much choreographers may want to give it a try. Béjart also did a 9th Symphony, and Tharp rather unexpectedly (to me) did a 7th. Wagner called the latter "the apotheosis of the dance," a phrase I think should have been taken as a warning not an invitation. (Even Tudor took on 'symphonic' Beethoven, though not one of the symphonies...) Still, I can certainly see the marketing appeal of well-known Beethoven works for a ballet company. I'm not advocating for it, but If you are trying to draw in culturally curious-but-conservative audiences, maybe lure new viewers from the symphony crowd, etc. then...

I'm an audience member who can't attend frequently, at least not compared to many on this board, and I see the issue differently. I think a lot of people would never be able to attend performances or see what they wish to see if they couldn't at least sometimes leave as soon as the curtain fell--perhaps someone who can't attend very often might be in that position more than others. (If there is one week in the course of a year that I can travel to see a particular performance or performer--well, I can't just pick and choose my dates. Likewise, where I live, if I'm dependent on another person for a ride etc.) In fact, like others who have posted, I almost always applaud until the very end--and I agree that it's more gracious to performers (and to other audience members one might have to slip past) than rushing out. But I'm still inclined to try to be understanding of people who leave for their reasons which might not be what I would consider the best. A handful of times in the past decade, I have left as soon as the curtain fell -- once after a matinee, so I could get to the airport on time, once after an evening performance when I was alone in an unfamiliar city and wanted to beat the rush for cabs, once when I became ill during the last act. I'm sure someone can explain to me in each case how I could have handled the situation differently, but I'm also pretty sure I was doing my best ...

I subscribed during the early summer for the first time this year--in the past I would buy a cluster of seats for a particular weekend when the box office went on sale, though typically enough performances to get "subscriber" rates on the "Create your own" model. The tickets have usually been very good. Right now, I still don't have my tickets; I was told on the phone what seats I WILL be sent, and some are a bit better than I have gotten waiting until later, so I will be happy enough if they arrive soon. That said, I am reconsidering for next year/season as to whether I wouldn't rather give up on the subscribe 'ahead of box office' model and just wait until box office opens and pick my seats directly.

I think it may depend on your height whether you can see feet from row A (and, I guess, torso length). At least before the renovation of the State Theater I was not able to see feet from the first row. I am short but not extremely so...I'm sure a few other adult audience members are as short as I... You may still be right that they removed the row to expand the size of the orchestra, since they don't mind selling those seats for other companies.

Thanks for posting. She quotes Farrell saying "you have to be fascinating before you have even done anything..." That is certainly what Farrell herself was like...

This forum perhaps -- though it is also true that Balanchine's influence extends beyond NYCB and you will find that reflected in discussions on other parts of site including among those who post to say that they think it's an untoward or outsize influence, but the site as a whole? I'm surprised you have not found otherwise. This actually wasn't intended as a thread about Balanchine or NYCB generally at all! So... For Megan Fairchild: in the last few years she has seemed to develop as an artist, something that I have found reflected in (what I would call) her musicality in particular. I wish her success if she wants to do Broadway, but I'm not altogether convinced that doing a Broadway show is the best choice for her to continue developing as a ballet dancer. Broadway aficionados may be able to explain to me why it could be and she may have other things in mind anyway. (Probably does.) I do hope it at least expands her ability to project and dance 'big' -- which I think could add to her palette as a dancer. Thanks for the link, Kathleen. I had forgotten Gottlieb had been on the board. In his little Balanchine bio he says that he Gottlieb's long closeness to the company and unhappy parting of ways from it in an earlier era is what makes him, on the one hand, a fascinating and knowledgeable observer of it and, on the other, someone who who does not really fit the definition of a "professional" critic at all as he has complex conflicts of interest. But I'm not sorry to be able to read him.

Ahh...this makes sense to me (more or less). I am hoping to see Whelan for my own "farewell" a little earlier in season.

Where are you seated? I have a "create your own" subscription and only the 4the ring (at $100 a ticket!) was available. Luckily, I got seated in row B. I have to say I have been having tremendous problems with my NYCB subscription this year. I placed the subscription 2 months ago and never got a confirmation. I kept being told " it's in the mail". I also never received my letter about Wendy's farewell! It's only because I demanded to speak to a supervisor (who was very responsive) that I got tickets to the farewell. I anticipate having problems getting my subscription tickets. I don't know what's up with them this season. I have a "create your own" subscription ordered in June and just received a letter offering tickets to the Whelan farewell this past week (ie after Abatt had already received her tickets). Since I won't be in NY for the Whelan farewell performance I haven't been focused on it or I would have been less than happy, but I was wondering about not having heard anything yet about my subscription seats. I telephoned Friday to ask and was told where the seats would be and that tickets would be printed and mailed this coming week. They had also given me pretty much the seats I had asked for, or what seemed to me reasonably close, so that although I had been worried, I am much less so now. Will still appreciate having the tickets in hand.

I agree with the above (sandik's post) with a few caveats. Ratmansky's Namouna in particular did not look like anything I had ever seen anywhere -- NYCB included. Importantly, too, the Wheeldon and Ratmansky works for NYCB seem to have translated very effectively to other companies with very different aesthetics. (The Mariinsky is having success with Concerto DSCH, as the Bolshoi did with Russian Seasons.) Preljocaj's Spectral Evidence by no stretch of the imagination asked for things from Robert Fairchild -- or the other dancers -- that belonged to the 'house aesthetics,' though it certainly made use of his abilities. I thought it worked. (I completely forgot to mention Scarlett whose influences are British and continental: I didn't care for his Acheron but other Balanchine-admirers that I read certainly did. He has been invited back to create a work this fall.) I have been trying to emphasize not just post-Balanchine commissions (of which there are many, many more than I have mentioned), but commissions from choreographers who aren't in the Balanchine 'sphere of influence' -- but yes, choreographers do draw on NYCB dancers' abilities for sure! Though here, too, the important issue is indeed, as Sandik says, finally the work and not the workplace except perhaps insofar as the latter enables the former to happen. (Insularity on public view? Watch the video of Tsiskaridze pissing all over Christopher Wheeldon at the Bolshoi.) NYCB has struggled with its post-Balanchine moment, but in some ways I feel that in the last decade or so it has started to resolve many of those issues: finding important choreographers to work with and dancers that even those who remember the Balanchine days (eg Robert Gottlieb) are willing to discuss in the same breath as the greats of the past. I also believe that all companies go through some ups and downs...A great school is one thing that can see it through relatively safely.

I was indeed attempting to be somewhat ironic. It appeared to me that having such a treasure trove of legacy works at their disposal, many of City Ballet's biggest supporters and fans really weren't interested in seeing anything new. So why waste money and time on new works if you know that the critics and audiences are predisposed to hating them simply for not being Balanchine or Robbins? One crucial choreographer you left out who belongs to a different nexus: Ratmansky. NYCB works with him regularlyYes, they almost hired him but let their rival ABT hire him. If he was so great, and City ballet is all about presenting great works, why'd they let him get away? Ahhh...I missed the irony--but in a sense that allowed me to respond to your point just as well even if it makes me the 'straight man' . As I noted on that thread, many NYCB fans like myself view it as essential that the company continue to present new work. Those new works have at times been controversial, especially during the Diamond Project days. Less so now I think. Regarding Ratmansky: well, what was reported was that the company wanted more of his time than he was willing to give. Fortunately, they haven't let him get away entirely in the sense that they continue to commission and present his ballets including a premier this fall.