Alexandra

Please feel free to ask your questions on the forum -- that's why we put it up (The moderators can't answer individual questions, whether by PMs or email, I'm sorry -- we get too many, another reason why we put up a message board.)

Filling out Stretton's three-year term and then a three-year term of her own? (That's a guess -- if anyone knows, please correct.)

It's never had a school in the sense that NYCB, the Royal, Paris, RDB, the Kirov, the Bolshoi, have a school. I remember complaints about the "homegrown" claims from the 1970s -- take a dancer like Van Hamel, obviously a ballerina when she got there, and start her in the corps, if only for a year, so she's "home grown." But Lander was Bruhn's equal in stature when she came to ABT. Bruhn, actually, spent SIX YEARS AS A SECOND SOLOIST at ABT before he danced his Giselle with Markova and they had to promote him. But I wouldn't call him home grown. But I agree, with this company, the definition is hard to nail down.

I'd count Toni Lander as a resident guest star, as Bruhn. She was trained completely in Denmark and danced as a principal at London Festival Ballet before coming to NY -- and if Paris Opera had admitted foreigners then, she would have gone there, where her husband was a ballet master. Were any of those principals really home grown? Gregory came -- young -- from San Francisco Ballet and danced principal roles quite young, so it's not like picking a kid off the street, as it were, and nurturing her through the ranks; she was a ballerina when she got there. D'Antuono was Ballets Russes. I don't know the others. I remember seeing one ABT program in the 1980s that brought the contrast between the old and the new rep home -- "Theme and Variations," "Miss Julie," "Fancy Free." That would have been standard fare in the 1960s, but seemed several lifetimes away 20 years later. (I always enjoyed ABT in their "native rep") With ABT, though, it's hard to sort out "home grown talent" from "guest stars," because the HGT is imported -- Bujones from SAB, Kirkland from NYCB, Van Hamel from NBoC -- and the guests were foreigners who made ABT their primary home, or at least their base. I was trying to remember the guest stars from the 1970s, but I don't, except for the various partners acquired for Gregory and Van Hamel (Vladimir Gelvan, Jonas Kage, John Meehan, Alexander Godunov). This is when ABT performed in DC 7 weeks a year and the roster we got was Makarova, Kirkland, Gregory, Van Hamel, D'Antuono, Baryshnikov, Nagy, Bujones -- and a succession of young men who were jumped to principal very young and didn't last, for a variety of reasons (Charles Ward, Clark Tippett, George de la Pena). Nureyev popped in from time to time, but that was when he was dancing 24/7, as they'd say today.

Dale, it's my understanding (from talking with past Kennedy Center program directors and press people) that even when a ballet company sells out a week's run here, it still loses money. You can say the ticket prices are too low to cover costs, or you can say it's because there aren't enough seats, but either way, revenue does not equal costs. I was stunned to hear Kevin McKenzie say -- I think it's five years ago now -- that it cost the company $1 million PER WEEK to tour.

Here's the press release, from the ROH site: Monica Mason Appointed Director of The Royal Ballet PRESS RELEASE 18 December 2002 ROYAL OPERA HOUSE ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENT OF MONICA MASON AS DIRECTOR OF THE ROYAL BALLET Sir Colin Southgate, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Royal Opera House, announced today the appointment of Monica Mason as the Director of The Royal Ballet with immediate effect. Since the departure of Ross Stretton, in September 2002, she has been Acting Director for the Company. Born in Johannesburg, South Africa, Monica Mason came to England at the age of 14, training at the Nesta Brooking School of Ballet and the Royal Ballet School. She joined The Royal Ballet in 1958 when she was only 16, the youngest member of the Company at that time. After a brief period in the corps de ballet, she was selected by Kenneth MacMillan to create the demanding role of the Chosen Maiden in The Rite of Spring, which was premiered in 1962. One year later she was appointed Soloist. She became a Principal in 1968. Her repertory included purely classical roles including Odette/Odile in Swan Lake, Princess Aurora in The Sleeping Beauty, the title role in Giselle, the Prelude and Mazurka in Les Sylphides and the leading role in Raymonda Act III as well as dramatic parts such as the Hostess in Les Biches and the Black Queen in Checkmate. In 1974 and 1975 Kenneth MacMillan created four roles for her: Lescaut's Mistress in Manon, Calliope Rag in Elite Syncopations, Summer in The Four Seasons and the Midwife in Rituals. A highly praised interpreter of the leading roles in MacMillan's Song of the Earth, Nijinska's Les Noces and Nureyev's `Kingdom of the Shades scene from La Bayadère, she was in the first performances by The Royal Ballet of Hans van Manen's Adagio Hammerklavier, Jerome Robbins’ Dances at a Gathering and In the Night, Balanchine's Liebeslieder Walzer and Tudor's Dark Elegies. Other major roles have included the Lilac Fairy in The Sleeping Beauty, Empress Elisabeth and Mitzi Caspar in MacMillan's Mayerling; the title role in The Firebird; Variation I in Frederick Ashton's Birthday Offering, the Fairy Godmother and Winter Fairy in Cinderella and Lady Elgar in Enigma Variations; and the Queen of Denmark in Helpmann's Hamlet. In 1980 she created a leading role in David Bintley's Adieu, and, in 1981, Nursey in Kenneth MacMillan's Isadora. After she stopped dancing ballerina roles, she continued to appear regularly in mime roles such as Carabosse in The Sleeping Beauty and Lady Capulet in MacMillan’s Romeo and Juliet and she recently created the role of Mrs Grose in William Tuckett’s The Turn of the Screw. In 1980 Monica Mason was appointed Répétiteur to Kenneth MacMillan followed in 1984 by her appointment as Principal Répétiteur to The Royal Ballet. In January 1991, after a four year period of assisting Anthony Dowell, she became Assistant Director. In July 1996, under the auspices of Roehampton Institute London, she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Surrey. She was created an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2002 New Year Honours List. Commenting on the appointment, Sir Colin Southgate said, “The Board is delighted that Monica Mason has agreed to take up the reins as Director of The Royal Ballet. She has already impressed us with the swiftness with which she restored calm to the Company and the changes that she has introduced to the repertory this season. I personally look forward to her exciting plans for the future.” Tony Hall, Executive Director of the Royal Opera House, added, “I am delighted with Monica Mason’s appointment as Director of The Royal Ballet. She has made an enormous contribution to the Company as a dancer, a coach and in particular through her work as custodian of the Kenneth MacMillan repertory. With such extensive knowledge and experience of the Company, she is perfectly placed to take The Royal Ballet through the next period of its history until the summer of 2007. I am thrilled to be working with Monica” Monica Mason said, “I am deeply honoured to be appointed Director of this great Company. Over the last three months I have been overwhelmed by the support given to me by everybody at the Royal Opera House and the dance community at large. I am very excited at the prospect of leading the Company over the next four and a half years, during which we will celebrate the Company’s 75th Birthday.”

Where to start? Grabbing what's handy on the web (from Art and Culture, a very nice site I hadn't checked in awhile) http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebOb...wa/artist?id=48 Artandculture also does justice to Tharp's considerable modern dance oeuvre. (An irrelevant aside, but although I didn't much care for the MIME portion of Catherine Wheel, I like the Golden Section a lot.) I wonder at the definition of mime expressed in the quotes above, as well as the idea of that Jerry ("Age of Anxiety," "The Dybbuk Variations") Robbins eschewed psychology.

Just to alert you to a thread Lovebird started on the Dancers forum about three Belinda Hatley, Gillian Revie, and Vanessa Palmer. Underrated? See whether you agree or disagree. http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...66405#post66405

I've just gotten mine and haven't opened it -- but I agree that there have been a lot of changes over the years. The magazine was recently bought by McFadden Publications, a mainstream publisher, and I was told that there would be changes in design -- this has happened at other publications to increase their newsstand viability. I'm curious what age group you think the magazine is aiming for, FF? When you subscribed, it was not a teen publication. It has been moving in that direction in recent years. Where is it now?

Bayadere, I'm glad you got to see it -- an interview would be nice, but any dance on TV -- Big Time TV at that! -- helps.

Hmm. 70 to 200 -- that would make a nice season

On the 400-plus Balanchine works -- checking through the catalogue, there are a lot that are, as Drew suggested, pas de deux, pieces d'occasion, Version 1 of something that, for various reasons (not necessarily lack of quality) became Version 3, etc. Both Balanchine and Ashton often made self-deprecating remarks about their work. They worked in an era during which self-promotion was repugnant. If you're rich, you don't talk about money. If you're an artist, you don't have to tell people in every other sentence how great you are, etc. I hope the idea that Balanchine made 350 stinkers and only 70 ballets "good enough to survive" dies a very quick death! Calliope, I don't know how many Balanchine works were danced during the Celebration, but I do remember questions raised about why this one was not in repertory, or that one, etc -- I don't think it attempted to present every revivable work.

I think the reason that Balanchine's works survive is that there is still a large audience for that aesthetic -- something a choreographer has no control over, whether he's alive or dead. (Massine and Fokine and Tudor lost their aesthetic at midlife). Ashton is hanging on by his fingernails only because -- like Bournonville -- the works are so solid. But his aesthetic is dead, and I think many people, if they tolerate Ashton's works at all, are "reading" them as choreography. (The same reason why many Americans, whom Balanchine trained to read choreography, can still watch Bournonville, when most Danes wish he would sink into the earth.) I think that history shows the reason why -- Ashton was followed by a major choreographer (I don't think MacMillan is Ashton's equal, but he was certainly popular) and Balanchine was not. And if the New York critics acclaimed Martins with the enthusiasm that the British critics acclaimed MacMillan -- again, as always, speaking generally; there are certainly NYers who've championed Martins and Londoners who gently remind us every month or so that MacMillan isn't really Ashton's level -- we'd have a different story. So yes, Drew, I think you're right. If Eifman comes along with an Ode to the Twin Towers, or Balanchine, a Life, that strikes a chord and sweeps in a whole new brand of ballet, then Balanchine's "numbers" will change drastically, and within a decade, if history is reliable.

Uh. (insert emoticon for :kicked in stomach:) I wish I hadn't read that! But thank you for posting it

I hadn't noticed that statement on NYCB's web site, Calliope, and I'm rather stunned by it -- "a *mere* 73 remain"? Drew, well said -- and I'm glad it was said. I think all of the big classical institutions are in different states of disrepair, but Martins has maintained the structure of NYCB as an institution -- and by that I mean that if the spaceship touched down and Balanchine came back with a note from God saying, "So sorry. It was all a misunderstanding," he could walk in there and get the company back to where it was within a year. It would not be possible for Ashton to do that at the Royal -- not that they'd want him back, I fear. They could get it back to late MacMillan level, perhaps, but not to 1969. (I realize there's an argument that NYCB shouldn't be trying to preserve Balanchine, they should just be looking for a genius because that's what a company needs, but I disagree with that. I think that's the Diaghilev model; I'm for the institutional model: a ballet company needs a core repertory. Ballets and style and aesthetic are the bones and blood of a company and not disposable.) The hard fact is that until the next genius comes along, you have to go through a lot of shlock to come up with a few watchable ballets. What ballet choreographers is Martins ignoring? This isn't a situation where Fokine and Massine are locked out, jumping up and down trying to get in. I agree that there could be workshops and more guidance, certainly, and that the core repertory could be better guarded (I have seen Balanchine productions better staged and danced outside of NYCB, including by Farrell's company and San Francisco, and Pacific Northwest and Miami City Ballet. Some, not all, but some) but I think we have to have new work. I'd rather money be spent on commissioning new work than yet another promotional campaign or outreach program -- to get back to the why is ballet so expensive questoin.

I think ABT needs guest stars. Most companies can benefit from them -- a change of pace for the audience, of course, but also a model for the dancers. Talk to any woman at ABT during the Makarova era and I think you'll hear (or read, in their interviews) how important it was to have that refined a technique, day after day, in class to watch. I'd quibble a bit with Dale's history -- which I think is an accurate reflection of one point of view. But I think there was a period where anything Baryshnikov did, including his directorship, went unquestioned by some. There were others who saw what he did with ABT was trying to turn it into the Kirov (which, apaprently, is what the board wanted) and turning it away from ITS heritage. Nobody screamed about that, oddly. (And, an old argument, NYCB did have stars. They just didn't promote them as STARS!!!!!.) During the Luciia Chase era, ABT did have a lot of stars, but one also always reads of the family atmosphere of the company. The stars, I've read, were generous. They worked with the dancers, they appeared in the triple bills, not just Prince and Princess roles. And again, they were a model. Yes, dancers did complain (more, I think, in the post-Makarova and Baryshnikov late '70s than the '60s and early '70s) that they should have gotten this or that role that had gone to a star, but I remember at the time disagreeing with that -- I think there are some dancers who do not have an adequate understanding of their role in the firmament They may have danced a leading role in the absence of Star Dancers 1-25, which is why the company needed Star Dancers 1-25 there in the first place! (It was fun to look at the advance casting for "Push Comes to Shove" and see how many people dropped out before showtime.) Since Victoria Leigh was there during the Star Era, and worked with people like Carla Fracci, Toni Lander and Erik Bruhn, I'll bow to her on that part of the story if she has a different perception ) This will not be a popular statement, but I don't think ABT has produced a ballerina on the level of Gregory and Van Hamel since Gregory and Van Hamel, and, despite their technical facility, I don't think Corella and Stiefel are on the level of Bruhn or Baryshnikov (or what Patrick Bissell may have become had he lived). I don't know why -- whether it's coaching or repertory or our pop culture times, or that ballet is aesthetically leaderless, or some combination of all of these and more. I think the guests will be good for competition -- not only for the dancers, but also for the audience. I wish Malakhov would dance more roles. He's been there, but he hasn't been there enough to serve as a consistent model.

Thank you for that, BW. Balanchine said something very similar to that on the PBS documentary about his life -- it's a voice over, discusing Chaconne. "You see, the real world is not here." Some day we'll have to have a discussion about reality/artificiality in art

Nan, it's from a different era. People did cook then. I can vouch for Kronstam's duck. He was known for his dinner parties when he was a young man, and I doubt he was the only one.

A great genius must have a cauldron! And probably any chef who can reach into his notions drawer and pull out four packages of cheesecloth will have cauldrons in several sizes. Big oven, too, for the roast suckling pig.

Ballet.co has a whole "conference" (a group of forums) for this conference. Those who are interested might wish to check these from time to time. You'll note that their version of both agenda and attendees is slightly different from the one posted on londondance.com -- it's quite possible theirs is later. http://www.danze.co.uk/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcb...st_conference_1 ------------------------------ Critical Dance has also set up a group of forums devoted to this conference: http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ult...?ubb=forum;f=26

How about this -- paska or kasha, whichever is shorter to type

Mme. Hermine, is paska the Easter cake? I've read he was famous for that. Otherwise, how about Mr. B's Sweet Kasha?

I found it more appalling than shocking -- maybe this is unfair, as there have been so many "I'll top THAT rethinks of "Nutcracker" -- but it was drab, not dark, very "middlebrow," not at all on the edge. (NOT that I think Nutcracker has to be on the edge, but if you're going to stir it up, then stir it up!) Ari, thanks for your review -- anyone else see it? If so, please write. AND I agree -- after three Grigorovich ballets in six months, I'd love to see the Bolshoi in something else. A rerun of the Lavrovsky "Romeo and Juliet" would be nice. They looked like a different company. I'd still like to see the full "Spartacus" -- I've only seen one act of it live, though of course I've seen the videos. But "Bayadere," "Swan Lake" and 'Nutcracker" to me looked old and shopworn. And his "Raymonda" (danced here last summer by his own Grigorovich Ballet) was a 5-star Shocker -- he moved the grand pas classique INTO THE FIRST ACT, which made an already long act excessive, and ruined the structure, the build of the ballet. All of this is not to discourage anyone who LIKED this production from writing, please.

Not having the luxury of failure is a good point, mbjerk. I think this is another of the "three programs a year" model. If you have The Valentine's Day Special program, each one of those ballets has to be a Hit -- not that you'll show it again, unless it's a Megahit, but it can't be a Flop. And this causes companies to fall into patterns, choreographers to use formulas, etc. I keep thinking of Balanchine's "Divertimento No. 15" which is now a repertory staple of small companies, but took quite awhile to catch on, and if it had been the new opening ballet commission of a small company, I doubt we'd be seeing it now. I also think your point that a company works within a general aesthetic is well taken. A friend of mine has a theory -- simple, but true -- is that audiences see what they like. (One of the reasons that critics -- and artists! -- take the applause meter with a grain of salt.) If you go see a program, whether it's Swan Lake No. 555 or New Choreography and you don't like it, you probably won't come back. If you watch a company year in and year out, the Dear Old Uncle Norm principle applies -- (to the outside world, he may be a jerk, but to his family, he's lovable Uncle Norm). Translated into ballet terms, that means that the style, the dancers, and the repertory become what's "right" to you, unless you have the opportunity, and the interest, to see as much work in different aesthetics.

Obviously, no one sets out to make "bad" choreography. Ballet companies have to commission new choreography -- one can quibble over whom they commission, and many do. Its value won't be known for several years. The rehearsal process is very important to a dancer's career, and dancers can profit by working with choreographers whose ballet, that season, may not be destined for the Canon. Also, as LMCTech said, one can often learn a great deal by seeing bad examples. No one is saying that's an ideal situation, just that creating new work is necessary and can be valuable even if the results aren't what one had hoped. On the flip side of that, working for a mediocrity year in and year isn't good for the art form either. There has to be a standard of excellence, and there has to be experimentation, for an art form to be viable, and I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, although it often seems that way.