gynecia

Wise words. It just seems to me like there are a lot of people of wish they were running NYCB instead of Martins. That's the veiled point of Koulas's article. Why not Villela? Why not Farrell? Why not Gottlieb? And if they can't take control of it, why aren't they brought in to coach? Isn't a more provocative criticism of Martins that he's changed the Balanchine model at City Ballet too little? Villela and Miami do what, three Balanchine ballets during their home season, plus a Nutcracker? They do far more work by other choregraphers. They perform to TAPED music. How do you compare that effort to the 30 or more Balanchine ballets each year at City Ballet, not to mention Robbins? And don't the City Ballet staff travel the world setting these ballets on other companies? I actually agree with the idea that more companies dance Balanchine well today than ever before. I don't know that it's news. The omission is that the Balanchnine Trust has helped these companies build their Balanchine repertories, and that they do it selectively--one or two ballets per season at most. I also find myself wondering if the provocative approach of Kourlas is more about winning a chief dance critic post at the Times than about the work. I'm afraid the only critical opinion I trust on this issue is my own - and I think everyone is going to have to come to their own conclusion about this. Critics seem to be particularly vested in the position they've staked out on this issue, including myself I'm sure. Still, I travel a fair bit and see a reasonable amount of companies, including those being discussed. I'm seeing fine performances. Once or twice (SFB's Apollo with Gonzalo Garcia comes immediately to mind) I've seen a great one. But I'm not seeing anything that supports the contentions made. I'd love for the company to do better. It's still a notch above everything else.

Exactly. A bitchy brew of contradictions--the worst of the dance world, full of jealousy and pique. Martins may not be perfect, but I really like watching City Ballet today. I think they have a lot of beautiful dancers, and I can't find any other company that dances with their nuance and clean, contemporary style. They have an elegant restraint, and not just for Balanchine, but in everything they do--a consistent level of quality. I wish that I had seen all these dancers all of you have, but I agree with KayDenmark. The dance world is hard enough without tearing every little morsel into a thousand pieces. These poor city ballet dancers who give such beautiful performances and then have to read such horrible things--really because some people seem to have a problem with their director. We can debate Rockwell and Gottlieb and the Times all you want, but I think the best dance writing these days is in the New York Sun. and yet the prior administration certainly had a fine record with Balanchine. On the other hand he's worked with ABT, a company that can't even take care of Swan Lake (they had a fine one ). Could you imagine NYCB inserting Swamp Thing into Symphony in C? Perhaps things are more complex than the article might suggest. At any rate I look forward to seeing his Sylvia (SFB) and full evening of Mozart (Mostly Mozart Festival) this summer, both in the House of Balanchine.

I agree with Herman Stevens. The piece seems mostly spurred by writings in the NY Observer, both by Mr. Gottlieb and that SAB/Anne Bass piece. No new reporting--just an opinion piece, although not labeled as such. It's a sad day that the Times would dignify anything in the Observer, let alone let it drive their own editorial policy, but its another sign of the barbarians at the gate. Next they'll be responding to Time Out. I did find it curious that Mr. Gottlieb is a "personal advisor" to Miami City Ballet, whatever that means. I guess that's one way to get press in New York.

I'm new to Ballet Alert. I did sit in on the Ratmansky seminar. I thought he was charming and disarmingly honest. I loved that he was talking about the future of the company, instead of looking backward.