Alexandra

Reading old reviews -- I haven't studied them, but just judging from the ones I've read over the years -- I've read some of seem to be historical periods. Some of the great critics -- Gautier, Shaw -- are defnitely opinion writers, commentators. In the 1940s and '50s in this country, though, many of the reviews I've read are very strictly news articles. So and so danced the pas de trois, a debut. This is the choreographer's background. An adjective or two about the ballerina. This may be a reflection of the newspaper's attitude towards dance -- and in some cases, though not all, the writer's knowledge about it. But I think there was a sense that this was a news item, covering an event that happened, in the way one would cover a robbery or a baseball game. More recently, I think newspapers have taken the approach that criticism is opinion. There was a rebellion against this within the ranks of dance critics in the 1970s, during the minimalist period of modern dance. Just describe. Who am I to make a judgment? Criticism must be objective. So I think there are different schools. (I'm of the criticism is opinion school, btw. )

I'd be interested to read what the Boston Ballet audience thinks about this -- now that the theorists have intervened What would make you come to a program of new -- or unfamiliar, or overly familiar works?

No, I think you expressed yourself very clearly, fendrock and it's a good question. I think it's a very good goal to have the community be a "booster" for the company; my point was merely that they have to have something to boost. I think the way you expand the repertory is, as I wrote above, to start with the familiar and add in unfamiliar works as the audience begins to trust you. (I can't claim credit for this idea at all. It's the way directors and presenters have been doing it for decades) It is hard to do new work, and I think fendrock makes a very good point that often one needs to take a second or third look at a piece to make up one's mind about it. One of the problems, I think, is because of the way small and mid-sized ballet companies program their seasons: three or four set programs throughout the year, rather than, as a larger company can do, have a real repertory season with programs that change, so you can slip in a new work, an experimental work, or something totally different from what the audience is used to seeing, and it won't sink the program. People might come because they're familiar with the other ballets on the bill that night, or drawn by a dancer. They may or may not like the new work, but they won't object to having seen it -- and they may like it. It can be programmed the following season, and the audience may like it better then. This is very hard to do in the three-show season, because each piece has to be a HIT, and audiences will be wary of buying a ticket to something that is completely unfamiliar, until the company gets to the stage where you'll say, "I've never heard of any of those guys, but the last two years have been great, and I'm going to take a chance on this one." (There's been a discussion of Ms. Temin's opinion on another thread. One of the reasons we began Ballet Alert!, an advocacy site for classical and neoclassical ballet, was to present alternatives to this view. ) A general note that's related to this topic, as this company's first program of the season was contemporary or crossover dance: I thought I should point out, as we have new posters joining continuously, and as Ballet Alert! is sometimes misunderstood, we've nothing against contemporary dance per se. I began the newsletter, and later the site, because I had become alarmed at the attitude that classical ballet is silly/old-fashioned/museum/not good enough for the young, all the things that are sometimes said about it, and wanted to draw attention to ballet as a separate branch of dancing. Ballet is a language. If you don't speak it, you lose it. If companies perform crossover, or tap, or modern dance, or whatever, that's not troublesome, as long as ballet remains at the company's core. If it predominates, and if the dancers sense that this is where the director's heart is, and the only reason they're doing Swan Lake is for those people who don't get it, who don't think, who just go to ballet because it's pretty, etc. etc. etc. , it won't be a ballet company. I raise this point here only as an explanation to those who may, quite reasonably, think, "What's the big deal?" There are several interviews on the main site of Ballet Alert! on this topic. One of them is with Bruce Marks, former director of Boston Ballet, and one of the people who was a vigorous advocate of crossover dance, who's changed his opinion. If it's of interest, here's the link: http://www.balletalert.com/magazines/BAsam...mpler/marks.htm

Why should a community support a ballet company just because it's there? The company has to earn the community's attentions. Programming is an art, and knowing one's audience takes time. It may have been wiser to open with something familiar, let the audience see that the dancing is good, then bring in something you want to program later. But a director who tries to shove anything down the audience's throat -- whether it be contemporary dance or the 800th Swan Lake -- is in for a jolt, I think. I don't think giving tickets away is a viable alternative -- people have to want to see it enough to pay for it. A discount to subscribers is often done, but a buy one get one free might be too expensive -- if liebs sees this, she may have a comment. I must say that " The idea was that people would come to see the Ballet because they loved it and supported it, and not simply because they knew it was easy to watch and be entertained by [fill in the blank -- The Nutcracker, Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, etc.]." seems rather condescending, as though anyone who wanted to see a Sleeping Beauty was neither intelligent nor discriminating.

Thank you for posting that, Karen. Mrs. Reinhart worked, with her husband, at the Kennedy Center on the dance programs, and she will be missed in Washington as well.

This is purely a personal response, but it was years before it dawned on me that anybody read what I wrote. I thought only the people I knew read it -- and I was quite happy with that thought. (Dancers routinely say when interviewed that they never read reviews, and I believed that. Hah!) I think, even before I was conscious of it, I was writing to make a record. That's communication, in a way, but not in the direct "I've just seen something wonderful and you've got to go too!" sense of things. On critics and power, there's a book about New York theater critics called, "The Critics," in which the author (whose name I forget) wrote about Clive Barnes, saying that when he first came to the Times he was very confident and had very strong opinions. He panned one play and it closed, and those connected with the play blamed him -- I'm writing all this from a 20-year old memory, so please, if anyone knows more and I've got something wrong, correct it. They picketed the Times with signs like, "Go home, Limey bastard." The author felt that there had been a loss of confidence in Barnes's writing after that time, that he pulled his punches. I sympathized with that, which I read before I had any idea I'd be a critic. I would not like to have the power to shut down a show. If you think you have that power, I think it would change the writing, one way or another.

This is purely a personal response, but it was years before it dawned on me that anybody read what I wrote. I thought only the people I knew read it -- and I was quite happy with that thought. (Dancers routinely say when interviewed that they never read reviews, and I believed that. Hah!) I think, even before I was conscious of it, I was writing to make a record. That's communication, in a way, but not in the direct "I've just seen something wonderful and you've got to go too!" sense of things. On critics and power, there's a book about New York theater critics called, "The Critics," in which the author (whose name I forget) wrote about Clive Barnes, saying that when he first came to the Times he was very confident and had very strong opinions. He panned one play and it closed, and those connected with the play blamed him -- I'm writing all this from a 20-year old memory, so please, if anyone knows more and I've got something wrong, correct it. They picketed the Times with signs like, "Go home, Limey bastard." The author felt that there had been a loss of confidence in Barnes's writing after that time, that he pulled his punches. I sympathized with that, which I read before I had any idea I'd be a critic. I would not like to have the power to shut down a show. If you think you have that power, I think it would change the writing, one way or another.

BW, thank you for finding the Diva program I think that's a good idea, too -- and a way of adapting a usual procedure so that people who don't usually go to the ballet BUT WANT TO are given a way to do it. (It sounds similar to New York City Ballet's Fourth Ring Society, which I also think is a very good idea.) I think that's the key -- I agree with Calliope that if you have a good product, that's the most important thing, but I don't think people will come naturally. They have to know about it, and they have to feel comfortable -- with the theater, with the process, with everything. The first time I went to ballet at the Met I was very nervous. I felt as though I was going into a strange church and wouldn't know the hymns, nor when to sit and when to stand. I think this is the key to reaching young and minority audiences. If you don't feel comfortable going to the Met, or wherever, you need somebody to make it easy for you. I wish they'd go into colleges and say, "Hey, curious about the ballet? We're all going on Friday, you get a student rate and we can meet here about 20 minutes before you leave and I'll tell you something about what you're going to see. And if there are any questions, we'll answer them." I think that's the way to get people who aren't your usual audience to come, not saying, "Gosh, what do those folks like??" And then do a ballet to a pop composer because "they" will all read about it in the paper and flock in droves. I think the past 15 years have proven that it doesn't work that way.

Watermill, I doubt I'm the best person to ask. I was brought up in a home where the last question one asked was "how much money will I make if I do this?" I started writing because I was asked. As for the power, my first 10 years of writing, I was happiest writing Friday nights because those reviews only appeared in a relatively few papers Saturday morning and would not be "replated" in Monday's edition. I've definitely had situations where I've thought, I have to write about that, because I felt so strongly, positively or negatively, but never "Aha! I have power and can tell them all where to go," and I'm quite sure my friends who are critics aren't on power trips, either. I've also been very lucky to write for a paper that does not pressure writers to be either negative or positive. I think writers write because they have to. I do think they write because they love dance, and that's often why they sound "mean." I'm not trying to say that critics are selfless saints, by any means, and I'd agree that there are mediocre reviews, and there are critics who are less informed and less knowledgeable than others. Back to a point Susan B made at the beginning of this thread, about one one critic's "personal preference replacing what a good review should be," I think that's a good point. I also agree with Nanatchka that reviews are supposed to be personal opinions, but there's a balancing act.

Watermill, I doubt I'm the best person to ask. I was brought up in a home where the last question one asked was "how much money will I make if I do this?" I started writing because I was asked. As for the power, my first 10 years of writing, I was happiest writing Friday nights because those reviews only appeared in a relatively few papers Saturday morning and would not be "replated" in Monday's edition. I've definitely had situations where I've thought, I have to write about that, because I felt so strongly, positively or negatively, but never "Aha! I have power and can tell them all where to go," and I'm quite sure my friends who are critics aren't on power trips, either. I've also been very lucky to write for a paper that does not pressure writers to be either negative or positive. I think writers write because they have to. I do think they write because they love dance, and that's often why they sound "mean." I'm not trying to say that critics are selfless saints, by any means, and I'd agree that there are mediocre reviews, and there are critics who are less informed and less knowledgeable than others. Back to a point Susan B made at the beginning of this thread, about one one critic's "personal preference replacing what a good review should be," I think that's a good point. I also agree with Nanatchka that reviews are supposed to be personal opinions, but there's a balancing act.

The Phoenix isn't a daily, though, nor a general interest publication. In addition to the fact that a daily critic has to write for a general audience -- no use of technical terms, use only language and descriptions that anyone picking up a daily newspaper and reading a dance review for the first time would understand -- and has little space -- a midsized review is 12 inches, or about 500 words -- a daily writer is ON A DEADLINE. You have to write those 500 words in about an hour; sometimes you have until about noon the next day, but not the week or month that magazine writers have. (Historical note: some British critics -- and perhaps those elsewhere -- were famous for running out of the theater and dictating their review into a phone.) Watermill, where do you get the idea that critics make a living writing dance criticism Very few are full-time staff people. Some are part-time, but most have a freelance relationship with the paper and are paid by the piece.

The Phoenix isn't a daily, though, nor a general interest publication. In addition to the fact that a daily critic has to write for a general audience -- no use of technical terms, use only language and descriptions that anyone picking up a daily newspaper and reading a dance review for the first time would understand -- and has little space -- a midsized review is 12 inches, or about 500 words -- a daily writer is ON A DEADLINE. You have to write those 500 words in about an hour; sometimes you have until about noon the next day, but not the week or month that magazine writers have. (Historical note: some British critics -- and perhaps those elsewhere -- were famous for running out of the theater and dictating their review into a phone.) Watermill, where do you get the idea that critics make a living writing dance criticism Very few are full-time staff people. Some are part-time, but most have a freelance relationship with the paper and are paid by the piece.

Very good point, liebs. I wondered that, as well. I would guess that their audience data is based on subscriber info, but that doesn't account for walk-up trade -- or subscribers who turn in their tickets which are bought by others. At the Kennedy Center, I notice what look like demographic differences from performance to performance, often within the same company's run -- but I'm only basing what I see from the orchestra. Having been going there so long, there are regulars whose names I don't know, but whom I recognize, for one thing. But also there are times when one looks around and sees only gray heads (which provokes neither a sigh nor a cheer from me) and sometimes there's a mix. Fridays and Saturdays one often sees more under-40 couples than during the week. Some companies have different age (and other) demogrpahics as well. I've posted this on prior threads on this topic, but when I started going in 1976 I read an article that said the average subcriber age for NYCB was 55. This is not new. A modern dance story. D.C.'s Dance Place used to be downtown, in one of our most interesting mixed race areas, which had LOTS of ethnic restaurants and is one of the top Friday/Saturday night out spots for young working people. So often on the way to a performance, I'd see a couple stop before Dance Place's poster, look at it, and obviously make a spur of the movement to go in -- just as they might for a movie. Modern dance is the hardest sell of all, yet people will be open to it if one "gets them where they live." (Sad ending: Dance Place lost its lease and moved away from downtown. It's still quite successful, but the audiences seem to be more the friends of the performers and diehard regulars than in prior years.) Calliope made so many points that I'd like to respond to -- especially the one that "people aren't going because ballet is not exciting" (I'd second and third that). I'm on a deadline and can't right now. I hope others will before I get back

Thank you! I'm glad you appreciated it. I must say that when I first saw the video, I was well into the book and used to Danish schooling, but I thought, "If I had watched this five years ago, I wouldn't have gotten it." I've never seen anyone dance that variation with as fluid arm positions -- the counterpoint of the arms and the legs. (I interviewed Simone about this and she said the space was tiny and the floor freshly waxed, so they were being very, very careful.) Unfortunately, there aren't any videos of Kronstam, except for a few, made at the end of his career, from Danish television, and mostly in modern roles -- Aureole (the Taylor role), The Moor's Friend in The Moor's Pavane -- or classical roles, like the Prince in Nutcracker and Ove in Folk Tale when he is past his prime and much injured. There was a lot more on British TV -- one I would love to see is excerpts from "La Sylphide" with Simone that was danced to the original score. The revised score was unavalable, and the Theatre gave them the old one, lying in a desk drawer. Kronstam said that when the conductor saw it he could hardly contain his excitement and enjoyed working with it, and the score did sound different. That's a story that didn't fit in the book, so I post it here There's also an odd video -- it won prizes at European film festivals, but is not to American tastes, I've found -- of Kronstam in 1990, as a coach, working on "Giselle" that shows a lot about his abilities as a coach, as well as the Danish tradition. Considering what happened to that tradition shortly after the film was made, it's a very valuable historical record. It's called "Of Dreams and Discipline" by Anne Wivel. It may be commercially available in Denmark; it's not over here. Again, thank you, atm, for noticing it. Although there are no videos, there are 155 photos in the book as a consolation

I think this is an interesting question. My answer will sound rather smug, but if I were an editor, this wouldn't happen, unless the critic were totally dishonest and deliberately misled me to get his bully pulpit. I'd question the writer before I hired him/her. If I were an editor, I wouldn't be looking for someone of the Ballet is Dead school, and I'd look elsewhere, UNLESS that critic were so absolutely brilliant a writer, and everyone else who'd applied was substandard. IF I'd allowed my arts editor to hire the critic and I opened the Sunday paper and saw a piece that said "I'm so happy to be here. Ballet is dead, it's over, and I'm going to preside over its demise and dance on its grave," I'd fire him. But more for telegraphing his intentions than what those intentions were, I think. (I'd be much more worried about the writer who bends over backwards to APPEAR as though s/he's the most objective of souls, only to constantly say, "But why do we need a perfectly restored "Sleeping Beauty" or yet another Ashton or Balanchine masterpiece?" as though the thought had just occurred to him that morning on the subway.) I think a critic who announces they're going to use the paper as a bully pulpit for anything has an ego that, I think, should not be unleashed on any dancer, company director, or reader. As a related note, even in tiny little DanceView, especially when it was Washington DanceView and I used a lot of untried, very young critics, there were two Unforgivable Sins: One was taking a press ticket and then not writing a review. Two was saying excitedly "I just got a letter from Company X complaining about my review. I'm so important now!" Both were one strikes and you're out for me.

In Europe, too, there's a different arts journalist who does previews and interviews, and they keep a firm line between this and criticism -- Kevin, it sounds as though Hong Kong is like that, too. As Nanatchka says, though, it's not like that in America, and there are terrible (honest) conflicts of interest involved in this. Again, if you're that Hypothetical Hometown Critic (the HHC), you may have to write a preview of a program you know you'll hate, and then review it. The solution is to have more voices, of course, because even if the Hated Local Artistic Director really is the Devil incarnate, s/he deserves to have more than one view. Calliope, I know what you mean about the "being on the payroll" problem. There are some critics like that. Of course, they aren't on the payroll, but they may have special backstage access, or -- I know of some instances of this -- get to travel with the company. BUT, what if we turn the situation around and you honestly believe that your local choreographer or artistic director is not only excellent, but horribly underrated by the world in general. How do you do that, without sounding like a perpetual gusher? (A personal note: I got an email asking who was the local choreographer I hated so much -- NO NO! This is totally hypothetical!!!! First off, I don't write reviews regularly so I don't have the "hometown critic syndrome" problem. And second, we have more than one critic. And third, there's no one around here, ballet or modern, whom I think is without at least some redeeming qualities!!! I just think it's an interesting question, and the thread was sparked by someone's comment elsewhere about a local critic who had such an agenda it colored her reviews.)

Ballet is an elite art form. It is not a mass, popular art form. It has always been so -- opera, literature, classical music all are elite art forms. I see no reason to apologize for this, any more than an elite athlete should have to say, "Ah, shucks, an Olympic gold medal ain't nothin'. I'm just like the sandlot players back in Gopher Hole." But elite doesn't mean exclusionary. It just means that it's not a mass art form. It's not a hamburger. It's filet mignon. Going out and finding people who want and expect and love hamburgers and inviting them, without preparation or education, into a restaurant that only serves filet mignon and its ilk -- or wild game, or sushi, or whatever -- means two things. First, the Burger person will be very disappointed and/or second, the restaurant will have to begin serving burgers and will no longer be a sushi/game/fine French restaurant. Again, I'd say: One of the slogans for this site should be Balanchine's, "Ballet is not for everybody, but it can be for anybody." I think that's the distinction between "elite" and "elitist." Saying ballet is "only for me and you can't come in" is elitist. But saying "Ballet is an art form with this, this and that characteristic. I think it's neat, do you like it?" isn't. Who's saying you can't listen to Mozart and country? Listen to whatever you want. But one doesn't go to An Evening with Mozart to hear rap, nor to an evening of rap to hear madrigals, and although many people do have catholic tastes, one whose taste is primarily the one is unlikely to be as happy with the other. Something that radio stations know very, very well -- they've built their business on it. Why this is an issue in dance, I will never understand. I also think that the initial comment I quoted to start the thread is better understood in context of the article, which is discussing a specific audience in a specific city, although I think that many of the comments could be relevant elsewhere.

Not all of them The summer I discovered ballet was a watershed for me -- I was 26. I'd been brought up on classical music, but otherwise had the same exposure to the arts -- i.e., none -- that most of my generation did, especially people living in small towns. I loved the Beatles and Bob Dylan, that era of rock. There was a time when my favorite piece of music was the Doors' "Light My Fire." After college, however, I did find rock music unfulfilling. I wasn't quite ready to sell my rock collection and go back to Beethoven -- until the summer I discovered ballet. The next week, literally, "There [came] a time when you just have to turn off the rock music." Not to say there's anything wrong with rock or pop music nor the people who listen to it, just as there's nothing wrong with stockcar racing or world championship wrestling -- but it's a different audience. One of the slogans for this site should be Balanchines, "Ballet is not for everybody, but it can be for anybody." I do think that there's a problem in people who market ballet at those who'd really rather go to a rock concert, instead of sticking to what they do -- ballet -- and beating the bushes to find the people of any age and any color who will respond to it. They're out there.

Susan, I take your point -- it's always good to be as specific as possible -- but if Temin had reviewed "Cleopatra" previously -- and negatively -- calling it a "dud" in a subsequent review would be common practice. With limited space, one can't rehash things too much, and also, to take a sentence to say why "Cleopatra" was a dud would derail the review, take it in another direction. I realize this isn't useful to someone who hasn't seen "Cleopatra," but there is just so much one can do in 500 words. (The same complaint can be, and often is, raised about second or third night reviews, which generally discuss the performances at the expense of the production, which was reviewed opening night. People who only see that subsequent performance might want to read a review of the production -- it's new to them -- but practice dictates otherwise, so a shorthand phrase -- the handsome, new "Swan Lake," or the ludicrously rethought production, etc -- has to suffice.) I make these comments not to defend Temin, or any critic, but to try to explain why certain things are done the way they are. Newspaper reviews can't be long, thoughtful essays covering every aspect of the performance.

Susan, I take your point -- it's always good to be as specific as possible -- but if Temin had reviewed "Cleopatra" previously -- and negatively -- calling it a "dud" in a subsequent review would be common practice. With limited space, one can't rehash things too much, and also, to take a sentence to say why "Cleopatra" was a dud would derail the review, take it in another direction. I realize this isn't useful to someone who hasn't seen "Cleopatra," but there is just so much one can do in 500 words. (The same complaint can be, and often is, raised about second or third night reviews, which generally discuss the performances at the expense of the production, which was reviewed opening night. People who only see that subsequent performance might want to read a review of the production -- it's new to them -- but practice dictates otherwise, so a shorthand phrase -- the handsome, new "Swan Lake," or the ludicrously rethought production, etc -- has to suffice.) I make these comments not to defend Temin, or any critic, but to try to explain why certain things are done the way they are. Newspaper reviews can't be long, thoughtful essays covering every aspect of the performance.

I don't think the point of Schendler's comments (he's the director of the Florida Philharmonic, if I'm remembering the article correctly) was to keep out the young, or berate them, or behave in a snobbish manner or encourage other people to do so -- and of course, nor would I -- but to question the attitude that has competely dominated arts fundraising efforts, of bringing in young audiences at any cost -- in the same way that television marketers target that golden 18-34 age bracket. There are a number of points of view expressed in the article, as well as some (IMO) good strategies for bringing in younger people that have nothing to do with programming pop material.

I'm genuinely curious -- and this is a spin-off of a topic Watermill posted about daily newspaper criticism. You are the critic in a middle-sized American city. Your local ballet company is well-established, tours occasionally, isn't in danger of disappearing, but always walks a financial tightrope. You hate the direction the director is taking the company. You think his choreography is substandard, she's bringing in guest stars and letting dancers you think are promising languish, he's staging only "Swan Lake" and "Sleeping Beauty" even though the company only has 24 dances and the stagings are wretched, or he's dumped your treasured "Swan Lake" and the yearly Balanchine triple bil and replaced it with choreography by his wife and the captain of the local football team. Whatever. Program after program is simply horrible. You are the only person who will cover this company. The next critic is 500 miles away and afraid of flying. What would you do? Write what you think and be accused of Maestro Bashing, e.g. "Once again, John Doe has presented an evening of his own work and, sad to report, once again each of the five works is dull, poorly constructed, vapid and musically inept. The dancers coped with the wretched material as well as could be humanly expected, but could not save the evening." OR Write something "balanced" -- to the average reader, the review wouldn't sound like a pan, but one could read between the lines, e.g., "Our Local Company kicked off its 29th season with an evening of new works by its resident choreographer/artistic director, John Doe. While none of the works was perhaps of the top rank, nonetheless, the company's trademark energy shone through." OR your alternative here.

Interesting questions and interesting responses -- Old Fashioned, I'm unfamiliar with the opera scene in Houston. Is there one? This may be a local variant on the general trend, because you have a strong ballet company, strongly supported by the community. Or it just may be that people would stare at you or back away at the very thought of either opera or ballet. I've been taught since my first dance history classes that there's a correlation between opera and ballet through history. When one is up, the other is down. Opera is more exciting now -- more stars, as has been noted -- and also more television coverage, which feeds off the stars. But in the 1960s, when there certainly were great opera singers, ballet was more popular. In Washington, the ballet audience from the early days of the Kennedy Center, when we had New York City Ballet and the Royal Ballet with some regularity -- and when both companies were in better shape than they are now -- there was a very different ballet audience here than there is today: older, more or a fine arts audience. They stopped subscribing -- this is anecdotal, by my eye, watching the audience, and by friends of mine who were in that audience -- and many have switched to opera, whether or not they were opera fans before, because they want serious art (see the news clip from the Miami Herald about audience age and the arts).

Another article about the horrible situation that we have in this country that arts audiences are older and generally well-educated, from a Florida perspective. While some arts organizations are beating the beaches to try to flush some youngsters into the opera house, others are saying, "Is this the way to go about audience development?" One of the very few articles I've read about this question to print quotes from someone who questions the trend of "young at any cost." What do you think? From today's Miami Herald: Face of the arts

From today's Boston Globe: An off-balance series from WGBH We touch on this topic from time to time, but what do you like about dance on TV? What don't you like? What would you like to see covered, whether it's PBS, cable, or (gasp) the networks?