Helene

Peter Boal just tweeted: and: First Look info

There have been several Bessie Nominations in ballet: Outstanding Performer: Sara Mearns New York City Ballet Tiler Peck New York City Ballet Outstanding Revival: Bach Partita by Twyla Tharp American Ballet Theatre Congratulations to them and all of the other nominees in all dance disciplines represented

Thanks to a heads up in Links from yesterday to a story in a Ms. Magazine blog about a Kickstarter campaign for an animated children's film about celebrated ballerina and dancer Janet Collins, who was the first African-American ballerina to dance at the Metropolitan Opera. The film will be narrated by Chris Rock. The original target was $75K, which they surpassed, and now they are going for a stretch goal of $10K, for a total of $85K. The campaign ends tomorrow, Friday, 18 July 2014 at 8am PDT/5am EDT. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/798791271/the-janet-collins-story-presented-by-sweet-blackbe The animation and art shown from prior Sweet Blackberry films in the project video is terrific. Just in case you're thinking of contributing, there are two different rewards options in the $25 category: digital downloads of all three Sweet Blackberry films or a DVD of the Janet Collins film.

On camera, the corps costumes looked to be black woven with whatever based color the soloists wore.

Some social media sites have been posting older photos on Thursdays for "Throwback Thursdays." Today San Francisco Ballet sent out this tweet: I still remember her perfume-filled performance of the Hayden role in "Liebeslieder Walzer" from 1998, and to SFB for the reminder of her.

Different Benjamin Bowman: he was a dancer at Kansas City Ballet, Fort Worth Ballet, and New York City Ballet, and then joined Twyla Tharp dance in 2000.

For New Yorkers, the NY Philharmonic had many guest conductors and New Yorkers have always have many alternatives, even if they never leave Manhattan, with visiting orchestras and the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra (at Carnegie Hall, with much better acoustics), Juilliard, chamber orchestras, etc. It's not like living in most places where there is one big orchestra and several semi-professional orchestras, and if you don't like the maestro, you're stuck until (mostly) he is gone. Having a wide range of interpretations means that the idiosyncratic is one voice among many, and that a major orchestra can veer from the strictly orthodox.

While some different casts make the torment more blatant and aggressive, the underlying disrespect is still there. Robbins may have been reflecting societal norms, but sensitivity isn't anything I'd have expected from him, based on the way he tormented dancers.

Ismene Brown has published commentary/summary and translation of a new interview with Zakharova in Izvestia, in which the dancer discusses choreographers she has and will work with and a gala in Ukraine with Sergei Polunin: http://www.ismeneb.com/Blog/Entries/2014/7/16_Zakharova__Yes_to_Neumeier_and_Ashton%2C_no_to_Cranko.html

to Ms. Part!

Taranda could imitate Tom Cruise in "Cocktail" and make one think that movie is a masterpiece.

The NYT article also addresses the non-cash value to the contributors, quoting one contributor who described how the experience of being involved was why he participated.

It raises the issue about whether Kickstarter shuld be used by very wealthy individuals to finance private, potentially for-profit ventures. It also reports Kickstarter's stats that 63% of the contributors to Braff's film-- between 29-30K -- had never contributed before and that these new contributors returned to make 2200 contributions over 400K, with a 40/60 film/non-film split, in other words generating leads and traffic not only to 160K in other film projects, but 240K to whatever other things caught their interest. Of course, MMDG is a non-for-profit charitable organization, so the philosophical argument about profit-making does not apply, even though few complain about funding start-up inventors, who have had projects in the high 1000's range and have returned for second and third rounds of funding, and who have the potential to be bought out for millions personally, just as this film was bought. They are also not asking for millions. And simply because an inventor or artist or filmmaker creates a project doesn't mean it is either the only means of raising money and that they don't have funding from other sources as well. Whether MMD brings new donors to fund other indiegogo projects won't be answered until there is data. Kickstarter and indiegogo -- and all crowdsourcing schemes -- are not donations, like choosing from a catalog which family to give a goat, nor are they microfinancing, like choosing from a website to loan to a home improvement project vs. someone's food cart, nor are they venture capital schemes, which are investments. They are businesses which provide an infrastructure to create and manage project proposals and ongoing administrative management of the proposal (ex: communications via email and rewards management), and they provide a payment processing gateway and financial reporting, as well as other reporting. They are like match.com, matching people and their money to projects who want their money, and, like match.com, they offer a combination of enticement -- project vs. personal descriptions -- and incentives -- rewards vs. walks on the beach, essentially eBay for groups. Ultimately, it is up to the potential contributors to decide whether to support the project. If they think the project owners are too big, with too many other sources of income, if they think they are greedily taking funds from lesser-known artists -- rightly or wrongly -- if they think it is somehow unfair or unseemly for an established org to do it, they won't donate. If it's a big enough project to make the news, the Guardian or the NYT might pick it up and ponder again whether the project is appropriate. If they say, "Great project" or "I really want to have dinner with Mark Morris, and that's worth 10K to me," then they'll contribute. Or maybe they don't, but think "That's a DVD that goes on my "to buy" list.

I didn't even need to see the whole thing -- they brought a four-person excerpts version to the cultural Olympiad around the Vancouver Olympics -- to come to the same cconclusion. Except to add, Lopatkina also had great feet.

Balletomanes are not in the theater watching. The alternate view us that he stays out of a lot of what happens in the ballet. He's a busy guy, showing up everywhere. His friend Esa-Pekka Salinen said that he is happiest on the podium, because that's the only place his cell phone doesn't ring. It's very hard to micromanage at a distance.

Gergiev and Putin have a long-standing relationship. Gergiev did an amazing job in very difficult times to keep the Mariinsky running, when the country was in administrative and funding chaos.

Kondaurova is a great favorite with US audiences. Unfortunately, not all Bolshoi and Mariinsky dancers we fall in love with here get the same respect as at home, but many of us are happy that she's risen.

I have no clue, truly, because I don't know any of these people and how they operate and where/who the obstacles are in getting things done, aside from the occasional Tsiskaridze. I don't know who the leaders are, and not just those behind whom a crowd hides to air their grievances, but someone who can convince people, especially part of an entrenched opposition, to be on the same page and work towards the same goals, even when they're not completely comfortable or in agreement. Certainly it would be someone who nurtures careers and grows the company, not just a select few, but also someone with enough political savvy to be able to counter and de-fuse the opposition. Also someone who can navigate the balance between representing a great school and giving dancers the opportunity to dance rep outside the classical canon without changing company style. The Mariinsky doesn't need an MBA: it needs a Change Management expert. Why anyone would take the position is beyond me, with so many people with friends or friends' wives in high places who can run to them after any real or perceived slight and where government minsters can decide the number of performances and use the company as a cash cow while keeping it on a relative shoestring? Are there any Fools in need of a job? Great love alone for the institution is not enough.

I am a balletomane, and I, too, have an MBA and lots of opinions -- very strong opinions in fact -- but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to run a ballet company. Self-proclaimed experts often have their own platforms. When our policies are too restrictive for members, especially the Official News, we encourage them to start a blog, website, or discussion board of their own where they call the shots, and now there are all kinds of free social media platforms that don't require constant feeding, like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. However, they are not valid to discuss here, nor are the other comments on them, where that's usually the points on their own sites and account.

Peter Boal just tweeted,

Official news (with citation) is what we like to see. All of the people who bought tickets to the theater and the cinema got to see the entire thing. It was great to be able to see even part of the event live-streamed and for arte to make it available for the next few months on demand, and while I would rather have seen the Guillem/Le Riche pas, thinking about it in the cold light of day, if it was important enough to Le Riche for her to appear, he was willing to meet her conditions, and management agreed to the whole thing, then I don't see what the problem is. The entire Richard Strauss concert from Dresden, for example, isn't available online, either. Several parts went unaired (and the announcer talked over some of the orchestral intros...)

Thank you for the correction.

Whose tweets said it was cut by Guillem's request?

He sells tickets. He gets publicity for the venture when he signs up. If he walks out, he gets more. That's worth it for some companies and presenters and likely not worth it for others. People reached their limit with Gelsey Kirkland, for example, but it took longer than many expected. I've seen him once and that was enough that I'd take a chance on him if the company behind him was worth watching in rep that is worth watching without him, and there wasn't something compelling competing for my time and money.

All of the reviews described it, but none of the critics I've read said why. Maybe someday one of those involved will say why on record.