LMCtech

IMO, even if NO ballets are added to the repertory of NYCB through the Diamond Project, it is an indispensible experience for the dancers. It takes very different skills to have a ballet made on you than having one staged on you and they are skills that are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to becoming a good dancer, and eventually a good ballet master or rehearsal assistant or even a choreographer or artistic director. From the audiences point of view it may not seem like the money is worth it, but from the POV of the dancers and the artistic staff experiences and programs like that are more than worth the money that is "wasted" on them.

Back to the nonprofit discussion. You have to remember that this is a tax distinction as well and there are specific requirements of the finance departments of nonprofit organizations to the federal and state tax boards. I a nutshell, they must prove every year that they are using every dollar that comes in, otherwise they could lose their nonprofit status and the benefits that come with that. Ballet is unprofitable because of many reasons. As for other things said already....80K for new costumes is not unreasonable because of all the handwork that goes into those costumes. The average costume worker does not make much more than $10-15 an hour. (Starting salary at Starbucks is $9 in San Francisco.) That is barely a living wage in the cities they are required to live in. And they don't have benefits because most are designated as "seasonal" employees and therefore don't have to be covered under the law. The average tutu takes 40-60 hours of labor. then there are materials costs. The average tutu takes 10 yds of fabric at 1$10-20 per yard. You do the math. That's why costumes cost so much. A principal may be making 90K a year but an apprentice is making less than $300 a week, which isn't enough to pay rent on a studio in San Francisco. An executive at ABT may be making 6 digits, but average support staff is making $25k if they're lucky and then may not be getting benefits or year-round employment. If you don't think we're devoted and we're only in it for the money, think again. I could be making twice what I do at a ballet comapny, doing the same work, if I were in the corporate sector. But I stay here because I love the are form. And so do all of my co-workers. Many companies rent and loan out costumes, but are often hesitant to do that because they can come back wrecked, depending on where they go. therefore they must be insured, which costs more money. Joint productions are a great idea, but hammering out the details can be nightmarish. Loaning dancers with no extra compensation is unfair to the dancers. It can be a great hardship to uproot, find a subletter for your apartment, and dance on an unfamiliar stage with unfamiliar people after hours and hours of travels and not enough rehearsal time. If they are being loaned at a time when they would otherwise be danceing with their home company, it is a burden on the other dancers that have to pull up the slack. Facilities are expensive. You have to pay theater support staff, technical crews, security guards, electricity, heat, equipment rental, liability insurance, workers comp insurance, car insurance (for any company vehicles);the list can go on forever. I heard it said that for every dancer on stage there are 40+ staff and crew members behind the scenes. I really don't think big companies have any resources to spare to small companies. This is not a football profit-sharing kind of environment with large TV and product endorsement deals. Every company is fending for themselves in their own market. And if you think about it every large company had to pay its dues as a small company to get where it is now.

Well, one could argue that Nutcracker is specifically designed to bring in a very much younger audience...and their parents.

I didn't start going to opera until the early '90's and by that time all the major houses were using supertitles. I like them. I think they help the audience stay engaged, especially in the comedies. I like program notes. Often the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. I also usually guage how well I like something by the amount of the program I have read. If I've read the entire thing, I didn't like (I was more interested in the program than the performance. If I read none of, it means I loved the performance (couldn't keep my eyes off the stage, therefore didn't read the notes). Simplistic, but accurate.

I'm going to agree with dirac. If the newbies know what is going on and they have something they can refer back to they enjoy it more. Especially if it a ballet with a lot of pantomime (like Giselle) or it is a historic opera with a really complicated plot (anything political).

Maybe a different color green?

Dirac, I agree with you. I don't like the Sandpaper costumes, mostly because of the color. They fit the piece though.

I asked a clarinetist friend of mine about this. He says he doesn't even use music anymore after twenty years of playing about 35+ Nut every year. He says sometimes it feels like a favorite sweater you put on once a year.

The comments from both directors seemed characteristic considering the position they are both in. Matteo has his own small devoted company experimenting with the form. Nissenen is trying to prove himself to his dancers and audience as the new kid in town with something to prove.

I like to watch it. I hated to do it. So I go to see the classical repertory with great pleasure. Of course, I go to see everything, good and bad, classical and not, and usually enjoy it. It has to be REALLY bad before I can't find anything to like about it. But that doesn't happen very often. However, I don't like Giselle at all. Don't know why. Just don't like it.

Thank you, Hans. I agree. There are many who believe that modern dancers are simply dancers who couldn't be ballet dancers. I would say that maybe half of the modern dancers came to it that way. There are others, like me, who have no interest in the classical repertory, are much more interested in the process of creating work and movement and CHOSE to be modern dancers. There is also the false belief that all ballet dancers can do modern. They can't. The techniques are very different. Not better, or worse, just different. It is perfectly fine to decide not to dance because you don't like contemporary repertory as long as you acknowledge that there are those of us out there who decided not to dance because we didn't like the classical repertory.

Hmmm...aren't you glad your a guy and don't have to wear pointe shoes.

Absolutely, I totally agree. It's a very good choice for all those reasons and it's a popular opera that most people have heard of. there are many chamber operas out there that would also fit the criteria (i.e. Albert Herring) but they aren't as well known.

Good point. I'm seeing how the search for a new director could get even messier than it already is.

Fascinating. I did always think that Boheme and Carmen were operas with more universal themes than, say, the Ring cycle. It has seemed to me that SF Opera does Butterfly every other year, which disappoints me, because I really don't like that opera, but I suppose it pays bills, like Giselle pays bills, a ballet I really don't like.

Thank you, my point exactly. It seems there may have been grumblings in some circles about the amount of influence she seems to be exerting. We are perhaps fortuneate that Balanchine did not leave a widow when he died to interfere with the running of his company. I think it is hard enough the run a ballet company without trying to please people who are not employed by it, nor on its board. I am starting to feel more empathetis towards Stretton if he had to deal with this kind of interferance during his tenure.

I was very put off by her manner in that interview. My first reaction was "Who made her God?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but was she ever a dancer or choreographer? I think not. My respect for the loss of her husband but I think she ehould leave the running of the place to the professionals, I don't care how much she is watching out for the works of her late husband.

I hope they know what they're doing. He did always seem more of an LA type than a NY type to me. Maybe he'll do well in San Diego.

I don't know if I like that news.

I actually thought his pokes at the New York Times were the most interesting part of that article. In a way I agree with him, that a well respected news organization should be more careful who they allow to spout in their paper. On the other hand, it was interesting journalism to print a dissenting view, whther their was anything to back it up or not.

I actually thought his pokes at the New York Times were the most interesting part of that article. In a way I agree with him, that a well respected news organization should be more careful who they allow to spout in their paper. On the other hand, it was interesting journalism to print a dissenting view, whther their was anything to back it up or not.

I'm sorry Watermill for your suffering. Hopefully you will be rewarded for your pains with a decent AD. Incidentally, where is Mr. Canfield going? My vote is with Christopher Stowell. I think he'd do a great job. And he's also a really nice guy. And a good teacher. And a young choreographer with potential. It might be a good fit.

Yeah, I was interested in that comment too. Does that person know something we don't or are they just blatantly speculating. Mr. McKenzie seems to have lasted pretty well in this day of flash in the pan ADs.

True, probably not one of it's intended purposes. However, both pieces spurred discussion which makes the BOTH successful in a way.

True, probably not one of it's intended purposes. However, both pieces spurred discussion which makes the BOTH successful in a way.