Alexandra

I very much admired Fadeechev, for how the company looked during his brief tenure, on his revival of Lavrovsky ballets, on reports of high morale I got from colleagues who were watching rehearsals and interviewing dancers during his time, and not the least for his courage when he left. (Mark Haegeman interviewed him in Ballet Alert! about the situation there then.) And I agree with all of Roma's points about what an institutional ballet master needs to be. I suspect that what's going on at the Bolshoi is still related to the battling factions surrounding Yuri Grigorovitch -- one ballet master revives Lavrovsky and he's out, succeded by someone who revives Grigorovitch. I don't know the politics there enough to know which way the wind is blowing now, much less who is on which side, but as Balanchine said, we'll see it in the programs It's my guess that no matter who is chosen -- unless s/he's an artist with the total respect of the company, at the height of his/her powers and a strong personality -- the directors there will be blown by those winds for some time to come.

That's for remembering Charles Ward, Drew. I remember watching a tape of the Kirkland/Baryshnikov "Nutcracker" years ago and realizing, that nearly every man in that waltz of the flowers was dead -- none over 30. Peter Fonseca of AIDS (and his brother, Paul, also a dancer, a modern one in DC); Clark Tippet, a very promising choreographer, in my book, of AIDS. Choo-San Goh, of AIDS.

I don't think they think of it in aesthetic terms, but more practical ones. From what I know of this (and I've written several letters of recommendations for visas for European dancers and teachers) the applicant has to prove that there is NO ONE in the United States capable of doing the job he or she is applying to do. There are instances of dancers, at least, young dancers trying to enter the corps of an American company, who have been denied visas because there are dozens of American dancers who could perform at that level, and who would be out of a job of the foreigner were given entre. There are immigration lawyers who specialize in this and know exactly the right wording to use, but everyone isn't that fortunate. Trying to get a green card or resident status is much more difficult. I know of instances of dancers and choreographers who have been told they have to prove they are major international artists -- like, say, Merce Cunningham level. Not promising, not good, not an asset to the community, but Major. So what Ballett-Tanz reports is not at all rare. I would imagine there are difficulties in other countries as well.

Amy Reusch posted this on Links, and I thought it would make a good discussion topic, hence, its very own thread: Amy posted: I didn't realize the INS was empowered to make aesthetic judgments.

Personally, taking off Devil's Advocate's horns, I've always seen Balanchine as more of an institution-builder than an avant garde maverick, and so I think having a museum is fine. Leigh, your comment on Balanchine/Bournonville squares with the views of at least some Danes. I've heard Danes say, after Balanchine's death, "Now you'll begin to understand our dilemma" -- or words to that effect. There's a famous essay by Edvard Brandes (which I'm sure I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum) that Bournonville is like a huge marble monument built in what was once a park but is now a highway. And it's in the way and causes great frustration to modern motorists, but you can't move it because if you move it, the monument will fall apart (funky marble, I guess) and it's too darned good. There is a responsibility not to destroy it. I think Balanchine won't be in danger of being thought of as a frustrating monument to progress as long as his aesthetic, or some recognizable vestige of it, is still alive. (I think Calliope is saying the same thing when writing "You never know you're a museum until time tells you that you are.") I don't mind the word "museum" -- I like museums. But the word has become a taboo now. In the interview I did with Bruce Sansom he said he thought companies should be "art galleries" with new as well as old work. So I think the CONCEPT is still vital, it's just that one isn't allowed to use the word "museum." (I liked Gottlieb for using it ) I agree with Ari -- if you bring in somebody completely opposite to the prevailing aesthetic, as MacMillan was with Ashton, whether the new choreographer is good, bad or indifferent won't matter; it's that s/he'll be DIFFERENT that will cause change, and make the dancers fight to dance in a "different style" every time they do a ballet, because the new choreographer's style will become their native one, and the older style(s) will be foreign, archaic. I also agree with Ari that it's dangerous to define Balanchine's aesthetic too narrowly -- we can't look at Son of Agon forever. Balanchine honored Petipa and gave us after-Petipa ballets, but he didn't JUST do Petipa, and he wouldn't have been ranked as highly if he had. Dale, I think you're right that the company changed when it moved to Lincoln Center, and I've never read anything that examines this. I was struck, when first reading "Repertory in Review," how many full-lengths Balanchine did in the first Lincoln Center years. Catering to the new audience, or doing what he'd always wanted to do? What did Balanchine really think of "Filling Station" and "Medea?" Did he like them for the opportunities that they gave to dancers? Did he think they were good ballets? There's another factor to consider, in that the move coincided with the drying up of classical choreography -- by the 1960s, people were beginning to notice that there was Ashton, Balanchine, a quiescent Tudor, a Robbins that maybe wasn't quite fulfilling his promise, and Cranko and MacMillan, for whom everyone had crossed fingers. But the wave of Ballet Russe-esque choreographers, the DeMilles, the Borises, the Lorings, the Christensens, was beginning to dry up and there weren't new young people coming up to replace them. So perhaps Balanchine was forced to make the rep because he didn't have any alternatives. He did try out lots of choreographers -- Tanner, Lorca Massine, several others -- in the late 1960s, causing many Death of Ballet articles to be written until the 1972 Stravinsky Festival kicked sand in that face for a time.

I'll play Devil's Advocate. This isn't my position, but it is the position of several people I know, and I think it's a valid one. No, NYCB should not be a Balanchine museum. After Balanchine died, Kirstein reportedly approached Paul Taylor to take over the company -- he didn't care that Taylor was a modern dance choreographer; he admired Taylor's work. His vision for the company was that it would be a living repository of great choreography. I have friends who say what the company should be looking for is another great choreographer -- Tharp is often mentioned. While I, of course, would be on the picket lines if they turned NYCB into a modern dance house, no matter who the choreographer was (and I'd picket too, of course, if someone decided to turn Paul Tyalor Company into a classical ballet company), I think the question is an interesting one. Is NYCB an INSTITUTION -- in which case I'd argue it MUST be a Balanchine Museum. New choreographers welcome, but they don't get a wing until they're up to the Master -- or is NYCB an outpost of the avant-garde, which means it should recreate itself periodically (as the Ballet Russe had done)? And before answering this question, imagine if there were, in the wings, a Young Balanchine -- someone that has been anointed by acclaim as A Great One, not just "best of the bunch" or "Hey, he's not bad!" And imagine further that YB is totally different from Balanchine: expressionistic, say, with a love of narrative ballets, which do not follow any formula known to us now, but are fresh, innovative, intelligent dramatic works requiring acting as well as dancing. What would you tell Mr./Ms. YB? Welcome, or, "Gosh, you're great, but please go elsewhere, because if you stick around here, we're not going to be able to preserve the Balanchihe Museum?"

Gottlieb's article this week in The Observer has much food for thought in it -- Leigh has posted a thread on the ballerinas. I thought a separate one for his final paragraph would be in order. Gottlieb writes:

Now there's a point that's worthy of its own thread! Leigh has posted a Gottlieb article/NYCB ballerinas thread on this forum. I'll post a "should NYCB be a Balanchine museum" thread -- a good question for discussion.

Two optimistic aspects to Ratmansky. I spoke with him briefly in Copenhagen at the 2000 Bournonville Week (he had led the tarantella in Napoli, the best of the foreigners, IMO, and I was surprised). He seemed quite excited about Bournonville and wanted to dance more of it -- not the usual reaction of someone who hates classical dance. And while I haven't seen his "Carnival of the Animals" for San Francisco Ballet -- where he did have full control -- several people whose opinions I respect and with whom I usually agree raved about it (not to say there might not be other opinions, just saying they're people I trust). Some (and I emphasize some) ballet dancers ARE overbred show dogs, concerned only with technique and how far they can stretch. I'll hope that's what he means.

Patrick Bissell died of a drug overdose one Christmas. Eddie Stierle died of AIDS -- not sure about Zomosa, so I'll let someone else answer that. There were quite a few dancers who were burned to death by gaslight, although Livry was the most famous (there was an English dancer, too, one of John Weaver's, but I can't think of her name.)

mbjerk wrote: As often happens, I think you've nailed it Novelty only works when it's novel. When the novel becomes commonplace, it's not novel any more and is boring. I also agree that I do care that the art fits the frame. The street can move inside, and the Met can move outside, but very carefully.... Usually, both look better in their native surroundings.

Thanks for this, Ed. Perhaps Ballet Alert! should have a Hall of Heroes. I particularly liked: I especially like the [garbage]. More Temirkanovs, please!

Thanks, Kaitlin -- yes, it makes perfect sense I think in a way that's what Mel meant when he said "Peoria" -- it was a way of saying it's nowhere/anywhere. (I'm sure Mel will correct me if I've misinterpreted him.) And another interesting distinction -- is there a difference between dance CENTER and dance CAPITAL? I think "capital" implies a leadership position, the way Paris is in fashion -- debatable, I know, since there are those who'd say New York and Milan are also fashion "capitals". But a capital is where people go to get ideas, I think. (I have to say, I'm not sure New York can claim that now -- now, as in right this minute -- although I think it's still the place where dancers have to go to get noticed, to get in the record books as "international dancer" or "world's best company.")

In case anyone missed it, I'm pulling this thread over from Links (thanks, Ari): A factual account (IMO, nicely neutral) of the announced season by New York writer Susan Reiter for the L.A. Times. http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/c...ter1jul01.story

I didn't see it, Terry, but the question has come up before, so you might want to run a search. I've heard the same thing you have -- that it wasn't a success. There's at least one person on this board who agrees with this, vehemently. But someone I know who saw it thought it was fascinating, and thought that the reason it wasn't popular was because of the music, which was "difficult" at the time. There have been periodic rumors that it would be revived, by this company or that, but nothing has been scheduled, as far as I know.

But there were some Uppers who DID visit the lower east side -- the specific example, was that there was a brilliant comic/mime who cut across all "markets." His hang out was one of the "low" theaters, and his work catered to that taste, but he was so good that the Taste Mavens had to catch his act. Now, they didn't want him to zip across to the Academy of Music and do a night, and MOST of the audience wouldn't go.... We have that now. It always gets me riled at a night of New Now Ballet, watching people -- usually older, if not downright old people -- whoop and holler at stuff that is a pop version of what they could get at Dance Place on a good night. But most would never go there. It's understandable. It's difficult to go to a new place -- how to tell which group is professional and which is not, down to the nitty-gritty of how to get there, where to park, and what to wear. So there are reasons for it, but still... The Ashton/MacMillan reference in mbjerk's post above came from an email exchange we were having. I think we could take it out of upper/lower and just make it different, but it's a different taste, and I was saying that the Ashton people would be quite happy watching an all-Ashton week, but the MacMillan people might look at it and say, "how dull, how twee, it's not real, he's so sexless." And the MacMillan people would be perfectly happy watching an all-MacMillan week, but the Ashton ones would come in and say, "how gross, no choreography, no subtlety," etc. And the problems happen when those two tastes are united under one roof. (Putting aside for the moment that while dancers want to dance all styles, when they're faced with warring aesthetics, one approach bleeds over into the other.) But as far as repertory planning/attendance goes, three things happen. One, one side "wins" and dominates the repertory, driving out the other. Two, the management tries to please both sides, providing a balanced repertory, and although there may be crossover to watch favorite dancers -- and real ballet fans will see anything -- a bifurcated audience isn't good for the company in the long run. Or, three, they try to finesse the situation by bringing in work that will please both sides, or ignore the things that each side really needs in its art and presents something else -- like a restaurant trying to please the fish haters and the beef haters by only serving chicken. After awhile, one gets tired of chicken. (If "Ashton" and "MacMillan" don't do it for you, substitute "Martins" or "Balanchine" or "Petipa" or "Eifman" for any name and adjust attributes accordingly.) Michael, back to the boutique idea -- that works for hats, and it works for painting and novels, but can it work for dance and theater, the more public arts? I'm not being rhetorical here, but practical. Is it possible to have, say, a ballet company with an audience big enough only to fill a 500-seat house, or a 1,000 seat house?

I agree. I think there is taste-segregation on the radio still, although the problem of Giant Companies buying up everything is troubling. But rap fans don't want to listen to Frank Sinatra, or vice versa. I think the problems -- problems in the sense of complaints about critics, or fights among fans -- all start from cross-taste marketing, trying to make everyone like, appreciate and value everything else, and everybody angling to get the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

I've been reading reviews, diaries, letters, etc. about ballet in mid-19th century New York, and one thing stands out as being quite different from our own time. Each theater catered to a very specific taste -- there are remnants of this now, certainly. Someone who goes to DTW might not go to the Met, and vice versa -- but this was REALLY class/education/taste specific. The theaters in the Bowery were popular, working man's theaters, those on Broadway (not today's Broadway, their Broadway) catered to the moneyed, educated classes. Among the Broadway theaters, there were some that were proudly American, in the sense of being anti-Europe for political rather than cultural reasons, and there were some whose audiences only accepted European culture, especially French culture, as fine art. While this probably accurately reflected the taste of some members of the latter group, there undoubtedly were those who jumped on this bandwagon because it reflected the taste of the level of society to which they aspired. While most people would go primarily to "their" theaters, there was a group of people interested in theater, the arts, etc -- one might call them the intelligentsia -- who would go to everything and write about it. What's interesting about these reviews/letters is that the reviewers accept this fragmented taste and write about the ballet/opera/plays/revues in their social context. And they'd go to the Bowery theaters when something interesting, or innovative, was playing. "The new pantomine at the Bowery is a devastatingly clever satire," they'd say. They wouldn't bother with lambasting the slapstick elements, which they considered to be in coarse taste. They'd mention this, but in one line -- "it's to be expected that the Bowery audience preferred the pratfalls," etc. This would be thought patronizing today, but they took the work for what it was and found what was interesting about it. They didn't condescend to the art, and they didn't write, "another tasteless effort by Mr. Tasteless at the Bowery. What was potentially a vibrant and wiitty satire was sunk by the most vulgar humor and a dependence on pratfalls to get laughs," which is how we might put it today. That's NOT taking the work at face value. (And, of course, today's Bowery would market said satire as great art, which leads today's critics to point out that it's not, etc etc etc.) Since newspapers were also taste/political party/class/etc. specific, one probably only read the reviews and commentaries of the theaters one patronized. If one did read a rival paper, the critics could be dismissed as writing "typical Whig nonsense" or as "those unpatriotic uptowners," or whatever. In our more democratic times, everybody has to like everything, everything has to be considered equal. Perhaps this is the root of "dumbing down." I imagine that this older, boutique world, with its pratfall lovers theater, song and dance theater, French opera theater, experimental American art theater, etc., was much richer. You can have this kind of variety in New York because it's big, but in the 19th century other cities -- primarily Philadelphia and Boston, but also San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and other mid-sized to large cities -- were more diverse. Now, we have ONE ballet company that has to cater to all tastes, or thinks it does. Is that more democratic, or less? Would this model work today? Or be reworked for today? Or is it a bad old idea that should have vanished?

Interesting points, Hans. When I said "culturally diverse" I meant it in the broader, pre-PC sense: Do we have to have cowboy ballets, ballets about the Puritans, industrial ballets, Rocky-Mountain-High-ballets, tropical ballets, etc? (No, I'd say.) But someone who lived in Boston might well say that cowboys had nothing to do with their America (not to mention what someone living in Pueblo might mutter about it). In the 1940s, there was a vogue of trying to invent national ballets (in England as well), to use national history and culture to forge an identity. I think that was a good idea -- it helped bring in audiences and make them think that ballet was "theirs" not a European import.

Ah, a frequent flyer You're welcome to tell us what you're seeing in California, too!

What a lovely summary! Thank you for taking the time to write in such detail, socalgal, and welcome -- I can imagine you're feeling transplanted, changing coasts

As a congenital hair splitter, I'm interested in the notion that there's a distinction between THE BEST, or "top" American company, and the "representative" American company. They could be the same, or could be different -- the Joffrey, especially in its Robert Joffrey days, was certainly American and very representative of a lot of American values and cultural norms (youth, energy, a lust for the new and a sincere respect for the past). Justafan, I remember reading in the early 1980s a review by Clive Barnes in which he took ABT to task for having publicity material for a London engagement that explained "ABT is, like the Royal Ballet," words to the effect that it was the top company. And Barnes said, actually, ABT is more akin to the [then] London Festival Ballet, while NYCB is analogous to the Royal." There would have been those who would have agreed with Barnes then -- based largely on quality of indigenous repertory -- but there were undoubtedly those who felt that ABT's assertions were accurate. So that debate is still raging, at least here , 20 years later!

Does a national company have to tour and be ethnically/politically/culturally representative of its nation? (I agree that ABT's tours connect it to cities outside New York, and I think it's important that it tours.) I don't mean this in the current PC sense of the term and perhaps we could avoid yet another debate on racial diversity, since we've just had two in the past month But diversity in a broader sense -- must it be urban/rural, Irish/Spanish/Anglo/Creole, etc.? I don't think of the Kirov, the Bolshoi and Paris as representing the cultures of their countries, but they represent their respective countries' idea of what BALLET is. Or is this idea outmoded?

We have a half-dozen people watching the Pennsylvania Ballet! I declare a quorum What did you all think of the season as a whole? Favorite ballets? Favorite dancers? Dancers to watch? An overview of the company -- was this a good year? A transitional year?

Yes, I think there's a major difference. There are satellite schools long associated with SAB, and SAB keeps in touch with those schools which serve as feeder academies. SAB has a syllabus and is a school. It's not a junior company whose major concern is performing.