SandyMcKean

Well, certainly they got frustrated by that stuff too. Both constraints were present. Here's a short passage in the book where Boal and the 2 stagers, Coppieters and Baars, are talking about how the union rules are inhibiting the process of getting the ballet on stage: ------------------ There’s a discussion about having her teach company class, which would in effect let her conduct something of an impromptu audition. “I think it’s going to be illegal,” Boal says. “‘It’s illegal.’” Baars spits out the words with a sneer. “Must be so difficult.” “It used to be so bad with this company,” Boal says. “You couldn’t say something at the break. Even after a performance you can’t do corrections. You can say ‘Is it okay if I give you corrections?’” “It’s so out from what we’re used to,” says Baars. ------------------ There are others.

Have you seen what Crouch did at the Met in either "Satyagraha" or "The Enchanted Island"? After seeing both, I couldn't be more enthusiastic about seeing any ballet he designs! I may even have to fly to SF (my home town) to see this!

I thought it was something like that. The point is that these union dues are for the most part not deductible. I don't doubt that; but OTOH, I'd hate to see 2% removed automatically from my paycheck for something I have no choice in supporting. Not everyone may feel as you do. Taking this thread a bit more back to its original intent........I am struck how often in Manes book the union rules come up. In some ways many of these rules seem to restrict the artists as much as protect them. I read in the book many instances when both management and employees/contractors are less than happy that they are not allowed to do what they would otherwise prefer to do (for example, to rehearse more that 55 minutes in a row without a mandatory break.....and someone must actually keep their eye on the clock to insure that this happens) simply because the union rules demand it. I was particularly struck in the book when the stagers came over from Monte Carlo to do Maillot's R&J that they became frustrated time and time again by the union restrictions they had to work under in order to teach the ballet to company. It just didn't make sense to them. Apparently, things are quite different in Europe. It also occurs to me that the amount of time it must take ballet accounting departments to track every penalty, and every restriction (e.g., a dancer sends more than 5 hours, or whatever it is, on a bus, etc, etc) must drive everyone nuts. I'd bet dollars to donuts that a typical dancer has no idea what all these "penalty" items are in their paycheck.

Well, it might be deductable to an independent contractor as a "business expense"; but for an employee, I don't believe it would have any impact on their income taxes. As an employee, I believe you can deduct some expenses such as required uniforms you must purchase, or certain "outside salesman" expenses; but I believe those deductions are limited to an amount above a certain percentage of income. (I remember when I was once an outside salesman, I could deduct some expenses, but they were never enough to pass the minimun amount necessary to affect my taxes.) Naturally I could be wrong, but I think this 2% of income going to the union is effectively "spent" after tax money (at least once you consider a possible employee deduction exclusion). This expense would not effect a dancer's taxes any more than if they had bought a dress, a dinner, a movie ticket, or paid dues to a knitting club.

Thanks to California's link, I now have a PDF copy of the PNB contract. It is 57 pages long ; but half of that is skippable.....I did skim or read the rest. I found it fascinating to "see" behind the "curtain" (as it were) on so many issues that affect a dancers life. You simply would not believe the detailed agreements the union has made on the dancer's behalf.......such things as the temperature of a studio, or the dozens of minor situations that if the ballet company does this and that, then the dancer gets an additional $10 in pay (my favorite was: if on the night of a performance where a dancer is substituted for, the company must set up a reader board on every floor of the auditorium where the audience can see it, where a notice of the substitution is posted, and if the company fails to set up the reader board, the dancer get $50). The one thing that I found disturbing is that the union contract requires the company to withhold 2% of the dancer's gross compensation and give it to the union as dues. I'm all for the need to pay some dues, but that 2% of each of my beloved dancer's pay goes to the union, I find excessive .

Thanks for the link California......very interesting. As I read parts of the contract for Pacific NW Ballet, it answers the question I posed yesterday; namely: Here is the operative paragraph.....it seems that ballet companies do commit to apply the union rules to all dancers regardless of whether they are employees or independent contractors.

Very interesting question. I believe most dancers operate as independent contractors with the ballet company as their "client" (I am nearly certain that this is true for most ballet teachers and ballet schools). So for at least those dancers who are structured as independent contractors (getting 1099s), what exactly is their relationship to the union? Is the union a sort of "professional association"? Does the ballet company negotiate a contract with the union such that the company agrees to treat all the independent contractors in a certain way? Are the independent contracting dancers members of this professional association (i.e., union), or is the union separate from the dancers? Do the independent contractor dancers pay "union dues", or do they in some other way make contributions to the union? Clearly in the world of dance, these "employment" relationships must be complex. P.S. Beyond those questions, I wonder if all of these arrangements are driven, in the final analysis, by the reality that ballet dancers are regularly "laid off" every year after the season ends.

Altho I had conflicts galore, I could not bring myself to miss Carrie Imler as Kitri. So at the last minute, I went to the 2/11 Saturday matinee performance. Carrie was stellar as always. I was particularly blown away by the way she handled Kitri's fan while doing the 32 fouetts in Act 3 -- she opened and closed that fan multiple times with complete musicality as she whipped those turns faster than humanly possible, ending with a triple. Interestingly at the post-performance Q&A, Carrie said that working the fan during those turns, tho difficult, kept her centered....she also mentioned that the cheers from the audience toward the end of the 32 spurred her on to throw in that triple at the end.....cleverly, and with a laugh, she called it a from of "audience participation". I could go on and on about the performance of Carrie and the rest of the cast, but I just want to take the time to mention one thing. Uko Gorter (long since retired ballet dancer), who plays Kitri's father Lorenzo in all 10 performances, called in that morning saying that due to back problems he could not perform. I presume there was no cover for this non-dancing role, so what to do?? The solution......Peter Boal played the role. Apparently he started learning the role that morning for a 1pm curtain by viewing video tape. Carrie Imler mentioned at the Q&A that Peter was in his office preparing for Act 3 by viewing video tape during most of the 2nd Act (since Lorenzo only appears briefly at the start of Act 2). He was terrific. I didn't see a single goof. He was very animated in his facial expressions, and seemed to be having a grand old time. Just one more thing to admire about this generous and highly talented man who just happens to be our Artistic Director.

Perhaps there is some confusion about what exactly a 1099 is. In this ballet case, we have to be talking about what is known as a 1099-MISC (as opposed to 1099-DIV etc that are used in the financial industry). The IRS uses 1099-MISC as a way to attempt to track money paid to someone who provides services to you, but who is not an employee (employees get tracked via W-2s and have withholding removed from their paycheck). The most common occurrences of this that I know of is when you pay more than $600 in a single tax year to a lawyer or to an independent contractor while conducting business. I presume the relationship of a ballet dancer to the ballet company is that of an independent contractor (defined by the contract). 1099s exist in 2 places: the company that issues it, and the "vendor" to whom it is issued. So Manes could have gotten a 1099 from either source, but given the text of the footnote, it would seem he got it from ABT. There is nothing illegal, or perhaps even unethical, about showing a 1099 to 3rd parties, but I suspect that there probably is some sort of etiquette within the ballet world about showing 1099s. For example, I run a small business. I issue 1099s to lawyers that I've used from time to time. If an author came to me and asked how much I paid to lawyers while doing business in 2011, I personally wouldn't hesitate to show him/her the 1099s I'd issued during the year (I suppose I'd first have to think, why is this person asking). Note that 1099s have nothing to do with salaries. If a 1099 was issued, then the dancer is essentially an independent business person, and as such gives up (in practice) some of the "privacy" that might attach to an employer/employee relationship.

I don't understand the question (I'm interested because I am currently reading the book).. Are you asking whether or not Manes is making this information up, and to prove that he is not, he needs to cite a source that can be verified? Could not this NY dancer simply shared her personal information? What's the issue here?

That's just how I feel about the B Minor Mass. From time to time I am tempted to put either Wagner's Ring or ironically the Art of Fugue on that highest of pedestals, but in the end I always come back to that other-Mr-B's Mass.

A TRIUMPH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Congratulations PNB, Alexi Ratmansky, and everyone from the youngest student dancer to the electricians. What a performance last night! It felt like a tornado passed thru my life. I'll put this ballet company up against any in the world after what I saw last night. Alexi must be pleased indeed. BTW, I too was at the dress rehearsal (as well as last night's opening night). It was the exact same cast except for the main couple being Korbes/Cruz instead of Nakamura/Postlewaite. The difference btwn the 2 nights was like night and day. I second Helene comments. Dress rehearsals are no way to judge a company or a production. I guess one gets some insights, but the performers are just not "in the zone" for a dress rehearsal. In the past I've sworn off seeing dress rehearsals just for this reason. Dress rehearsals can be very disappointing.....which was just my reaction after Thursday night. I had looked forward so much to this Ratmansky production (because I think he is one of the 2 most promising living choreographer on the planet), and I thought the production fell flat at the dress. What a difference 24 hours and the power of an opening night makes. On opening night I was doing a standing ovation, with everyone else, in no more than Helene's .0001 second. My disappointment turned to ecstatic thrill. I once again vow to avoid dress rehearsals (a vow I will no doubt have to make again once my memory fades ). And the partnering btwn Carla and Karel..........that was one of the hightlights of my 45 years of watching ballet. The confidence and total trust in one another was a testament to the human spirit. They were each other's biggest fans time and time again last night......BRAVO!

For sure. Even beyond that......even if the 2 performances are strong, one dancer might add a flair, or a characterization, that makes one strong performance work where the other doesn't. Performing arts are a funny thing, aren't they? In the final analysis, the only thing that really counts is your reaction to it. If you like it, you like it; if you don't, you don't. Many times, there is no more to it than that.....in spite of the all the words we bandy about. I will say there is one glaring pitfall to the philosophy I just espoused; namely, that we, the audience, may miss something in the performance, or in the creator's intent, that if we knew more and understood more, we might like (or even more than like) the piece. I can think of many, many situations where I didn't particularly like something, but then seeing it again, even the next night, or perhaps years later after I've come to appreciate that style, the piece comes together for me and I then love it. I know what I attempt to do as much as possible, and that is to approach anything I don't particularly like (unless it is obviously amateurish) as my problem, not the problem of the piece. I can count on one hand the times that did not turn out to be the case . As an aside, just read movie reviews by the viewing public.......if I read one more that says; "What a boring movie, no plot whatsoever" about a non-shoot-em-up movie that has deep characterization, I will scream.

Cool. In this case I like the dramatic effect of the various ways she departs from single fouettes. I guess for me it depends on the story situation and on the "feel " of the music. Quite spectacular isn't she!

Bingo, you got it. Thanks for figuring out the names. I'll be looking for McCall and Grant when I see this rep next week.

I note a couple of things in this new video. First (and I'm encouraged), I see Jerome Tisserand marking Basilio's part in the background. I presume this means that he and Leslie Rausch might still be seen in this ballet. Since they are not announced as cast members for these roles, I presume they are a backup couple in case someone gets injured I certainly don't want that to happen, but somehow, someway maybe we will get to see this couple -- a pairing I just loved when they did Robbin's "Afternoon of a Faun" in the last rep. Next, I see a couple of big (as in big) guys in the corp (green and yellow shirts). I don't recognize them, so I presume they are professional division students. What's interesting is that one of them (green shirt) is not using the guitar as a prop, but seems to be actually playing it.

I too loved that video (I even saved it....which I rarely do). It impacted me because I surprised myself that I so much liked the "simple" use of 32 straight fouettes instead of the complicating doubles etc. The extra pyrotecnnics are fun, but there is something so pure, clean, and....what the heck, I'll just say it....artistic about doing it so straight and so powerfully.

Janet, now you've really got me thinking! I've never seen this sequence from Swan Lake where the ballerina failed to complete the steps. Has anyone seen that, and what do the dancers and the orchestra do in that case? cinnamonswirl, excellent point I had not considered. The music was written before the 32 fouettes became the "thing to do". So obviously my presumption that the music fits the 32 fouettes is incorrect. If in your research you discover, in big picture terms, what choreography was set originally to that passage, I'd be interested to know.

Very interesting! It would seem that in a "typical" production the orchestra simply plays what it plays and the ballerina does as she likes. I presume the original music was written to somehow sync or coordinate with exactly 32 single fouettes at some reasonable pace, but that in practice the ballerina has the latitude to do whatever she likes within that time period. She knows when the music will end, and she knows that 32 single fouettes "fit" that music, but she can (with practice) divide that time period up in other ways......including this example of 27 fouettes with 37 turns. (For one, I'm glad these artists "individualize" this famous moment in ballet and make it their own.)

Yes, I could see that conclusion, however, what I'm confused about is how doing doubles and triples work with the music. It seems obvious to me (but perhaps I'm wrong) that a double takes less time than 2 singles, and a triple even less time than 3 singles. But there is a consideration working against that too since clearly a double takes longer than a single. So something has to "give". I don't know the answer, but I've always assumed that when a ballerina does a double instead of a single that counts as 1 fouette (as was pointed out it's 32 fouettes, not 32 pirouettes). Since the double must take slightly longer, I've assumed that the conductor carefully watches the coordination btwn the dancer and the orchestra, and when doubles or triples occur the conductor slows the tempo ever so slightly to keep the next fouette in sync with the music. It's hard for me to believe that a double counts as 2 fouettes because then an even larger speed-up of the orchestra would then be necessary in order for the ballerina and the music to stay in sync and to end at the same time.

I presume it can be more than 32 when some ballerinas do doubles and triples in place of a single (how else would the music work)? Last year at PNB, I had the pleasure of watching the fabulous Carrie Imler do some 6-8 doubles, and if I remember right, a triple at the end. I don't attempt to count during a performance, but I'd love to do so if I got the chance to view the tape of that performance.

I saw/heard the HD broadcast last Saturday. I'm no expert (and I may be glad of that since "expert-ness" seems too often to produce cynicism in many), but to my experienced-enough and appreciative eyes/ears, I found this production to be....in a word....brilliant. I admit that baroque has a special place in my heart (and always has), so for me the music was divine. Beyond that, the singing and acting was on as high a rung as anyone could possibly want. The spectacle was perhaps the best of all: the costumes, the 18th century sets combined with modern video and lighting, the colors, the fantasy-for-grown-ups quality was a treat and a revelation. I suspect that some might complain about the plot and characters that smash together Shakespeare's "The Tempest' and "Midsummer's Night Dream", but I cared about these characters, and found myself in tears more than once during this nearly 4 hours of beauty (Pisaroni's Caliban touched me deeply in the scene where he discovers that (paraphrased) "a heart that loves, will be broken". And perhaps what I enjoyed most of all was the humor. Modern, tongue-in-cheek humor, poking fun at our "elite" tastes, and our 21th century concerns. My favorite moment in the entire production was a humorous one when Lysander and Miranda, two characters from two different Shakespearean plays, meet for the first time (an historical first, I imagine ), and sing a duet where they delight in the discovery that their names rhyme!

I will greatly look forward to that. (I am in the middle of reading the book -- and enjoying it very much. For PNB regulars like me, it's like reading a book about one's own family!!)

I wonder who the "stager-like" person, dressed in black, at the very beginning of the clip, is? Spanish dancing coach, perhaps? I was glad to see Ezra Thomson and Jessika Anspach partnered up in the corps.......these 2 always command my attention.

Kovacs was a genius.......I was very taken with him (and the others: Sid, Imogene, etc) when I was a kid.