justafan

There are so many different issues raised by this thread that I really think it should be split into different topics. Some thoughts. The behavior of the SPAC board Obviously, it is awful but the fact that rkoretzky feels she must QUIT working for SPAC speaks volumes about the sad state of affairs in Saratoga. To allow someone so passionate about the arts and the ballet to leave SPACs employ --or what is probably more like a volunteer gig -- reflects very poorly on the SPAC administration. I, for one, will miss her regular updates and reviews of NYCB. It's really a pity that the issue has become so political. Should NYCB continue its Saratoga residency? I have no inside knowledge, but I'm sure this is not a simple question. There is a lot of sentiment since the venue was built for Mr. B. The stability of a regular audience and venue must be very important to a dance company like NYCB, plus the dancers probably love going there every summer -- many of them have homes, etc. Yet, I can't help but think that despite the difficulty that touring poses, it would be better if NYCB toured more. It spreads their reputation, and gives non-New Yorkers a chance to see the company. Recent tours to Europe and Washington have benefited the company, I think. The best of all worlds would be if they could do both, but until the past couple of years they haven't. I wonder why that's been the case. The role of critics I could go on and on about this, but I for one -- and I'm a journalist -- think it is disingenous to say the role of criticism is not to influence ticket buyers. Certainly, critics in major newspapers and magazines have a responsiblity to their audience. And to my mind, that first responsibility is to tell them whether they should spend the money to go. I don't go to the Philharmonic or the Opera very often, but I regularly read the New Yorker and the NY Times reviews. If I got the feeling from either of those publications that the standards had dropped, I'd be sure to avoid buying tickets for a while. That might not be what the critic intended, but its a fact. I think the Times understands that, and that's why their critics are more even handed. By even handed, I mean that they do criticize performances but I think the criticism is more in context with what is available from other companies today, not necessarily compared to when the greatest ballet genius of the previous century was creating these very ballets. The comments of Acocella and Tobias et al really belong in Dance Magazine or Ballet Alert. They are talking to a very small audience -- people who really appreciate the fine points of their arguments.

Ahhh. We didn't get any notice in our fliers. I was wondering if it was the case. Well, she turned in a terrific performance once again!

Abi Stafford danced the same role in La Source Thursday night and she was nothing short of perfection. Despite all the hullabaloo about Abi a couple of years ago, she never grabbed me the way she did last night. Of course, it's a great role -- one that allows the dancer to really demonstrate their leaps and allegro gifts. Abi won thunderous applause from the audience and several deserved curtain calls. Another treat was Four Temps, most notable for the corps dancing in total unison. I thought Marcovici did a fine job last night. As has been noted, this is one of Evans signature roles. And Teresa Reichlen once again demonstrated that she is one to watch -- she turned in quite a stand out performance.

As everyone noted, the program was not as satisfying as one would hope for an homage to Balanchine. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of a number of the ballets on display and certainly don't think they represent the complete Balanchine oeuvre. It would seem that the program was designed to satisfy a number of agendas. (I disagree that it was simply because this is what they are dancing this season.) One, as has been noted, has been to have some cross-discipline star power in the form of SJP, Kevin Kline, Placido Domingo, etc. for the TV audience. But it also seems that the key idea was to have other Lincoln Center constituents participate in the celebration of Mr. B. Thus, Who Cares was selected specifically for Marsalis (a Martins collaborator and fellow board member). Liebisleder for the choral society. Duo Concertant for chamber music, etc. The really odd note for me was Vienna Waltzes. And the only explanation seems to be that this was a showcase for Nichols. Certainly, in the twilight of her career in which she is dancing spectacularly, she deserves to be showcased front and center on TV. Certainly, Symphony in C would have been a better choice (although was it featured at the fall gala?) or even Tchaikovsky Suite #3. Could it be that the powers at be at NYCB are more sensitive to the dancers than have previously been given credit for? (I really don't know. Just asking.)

Dale, you don't sound harsh. Just exasperated! I think the interest in NYCB ballet dancers in an indication of the passion and loyalty of its followers. (Maybe that's another thread.) It would be easier if we all understood the rules, which would seem to be: if a principal or soloist is injured severely enough to be out for a number of weeks, NYCB will make a statement. Otherwise, we can assume the dancer will return in due course. It's understandable that minor injuries, although distressing to the dancer, company and audience, do not call for official annoucnements. After all, many things are day to day. But when stars like Taylor and Whelan are out for entire seasons, it is a subject of interest and concern. And if we can't ask for information on a ballet board, where can we ask for it?

I too thought it was a phenomenal evening of ballet. The company as a whole looked wonderful -- rested and well-rehearsed. There was not one poor note in the entire evening. I loved Aurelie Dupont and Manuel Legris and thought they delivered a performance you would expect of POB -- lyrical but precise at the same time. This was my first time seeing Sonatine, and while it is not a weighty ballet, I thoroughly enjoyed it in part for its quirkiness. I though Dupont and Legris were lovely and well-matched. I didn't see what Carbro saw, but once Legris started to dance his solos, he seemed to stretch and come into his own. The highlight of the evening for me was Whelan's return, in Symphony in C. She was glorious, and didn't seem to be suffering any ill-effects from her previous injury. A performance to make you sigh -- food for the soul. I also loved Bouder's quick-as-lightening dancing in the third movement. She is a joy to watch. While Rachel Rutherford delivered a fine performance in La Valse -- it is nice to see her get some well-deserved starring roles -- the evening's only downer was the absence of Janie Taylor. I was so looking forward to her return after she missed the winter season. Does anyone know if she has re-injured herself and whether we are likely to see her this season?

I'm coming late to this topic and just wanted to add my two cents to Leigh's original note. It has always seemed to me that the "American" in the title of the company is due to marketing, and under McKenzie it has become a real gimmick. The company dances a primarily European rep, it's roster is not made up of Americans or American-trained dancers, and it's style is not one that is considered American. That's not to slam the company or to cast aspersions or to even say it might not be preferable to alternatives. But really, if any company can lay claim to being truly American, it is NYCB. That's why it grates on me that ABT advertises itself as America's national company. Take a poll of people not very familiar with ballet -- people who will attend every 2-10 years, take their daughter or granddaughter for a treat, or to see a major production because it is passing through town. Ask them whether they would prefer to see ABT or NYCB (or SFB and MCB, for that matter.) You will find they will almost all will say they want to see ABT, as it is the national company.To their mind, that means all others must be regional (and likely inferior.) Most of these people would be shocked to learn that ABT is considered one of the prime proponents of the European classical style and that NYCB is apogee of the American style of ballet. And I don't think McKenzie wants to market the fact that his roster is made up of non-Americans. Americans are pretty nationalistic, and by and large when they buy tickets to ABT they believe they are buying tickets to America's best.

I too must say Michael said it best. I must admit, though, although I totally disagree with many of his conclusions, I often "see" a lot of what Gottlieb sees. We must have much the same taste in dancers. That's why I relish all of his reviews, although I would say many of them are unfair and harsh. Clearly, his opinions are seen through a personal prism that has close, rosy and fond memories of Balanchine and some animus towards Martins. In answer to your question, Alexandra: Above all else, I think reviewers need to have perspective. And not just perspective with the past, but with the present. I think that is what many of the Martins-haters are lacking. Some critics (and I would not include Gottlieb in this, although he veers very close to it) can be guaranteed to hate any attempt at something new at NYCB. They are obviously upset, whether rightly or wrongly, but they need to judge NYCB by what is out there today, not yesterday. I see a lot of ballet worldwide and I know that NYCB is not just resting on its former reputation. It may not be as good as it could be, but day in day out, there is not all that much better. So even if you believe passionately that something is not what it should be, a good dose of perspective should inform your writing. Does the critic recommend the reader stop going to the ballet -- or seeing this particular company? I would be surprised if dance critics really wanted that result. To me, that means tempering that angst with some reality.

I finally saw it last night, and I really had trouble deciding how to vote. Do I think it was a worthy effort, a good idea and a bit of fun. Yes. Do I think it was entirely successful and worth remaining in the rep for long? No. In the end, I voted yes mostly because I think City Ballet should be "going for it " -- 750k and all. And the result was far from a disaster. I agree with many criticisms of other posters, namely its limited ballet vocabulary and the fact that it could have used some editing. There were a number of periods that dragged with few interesting steps. One thing that struck me: for the most part Stroman did not devise steps that displayed the dancers at their best. The exception was Woetzel -- who was simply spectacular last night and made everyone else on the stage (including Kowroski, Nichols and Bouder) pale in comparison. That's not to say that they did not dance well. Bouder, as well as Gold and Ansanelli in the second act, turned in very fine performances. The entire cast danced full out, with few mistakes. But I'm used to seeing first-casts given ballets that allow them to display their unique capabilities -- whether it is quickness of feet, delicacy of movement, elasticity, turns, etc. Except for the fact that the ballet required very proficient ballet dancers in these roles, this is a ballet that could tolerate many substitutions. I wonder if this was due to Stroman's lack of company knowledge, her dance vocabulary or Broadway experience. Maybe all of the above. BTW, it seemed to be another sellout.

They put up a transcript of the chat up on the Balanchine Centennial mini-site. . I think you can get there directly through http://www.nycballet.com/nycballet/chatland_transcripts.asp. You have to register. Among other things, Wendy talks about her injury and says she is ready to start back to class.

To Leigh's point about Double Feature just having been scheduled for the Balanchine program by accident -- Martins said as much in one of the previews I read. (Can't find it now.) He said he wanted to commission a full-length ballet by Stroman several years ago, after she choreographed "Blossom" for NYCB, and that this was the first time she was available. So it was a happy accident or something. That got me to thinking: what else was "reverse-engineered" for this Heritage season of celebration. It really has seemed to be a hodge-podge of lots of things, with Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty, etc. ... On the other hand, it seems to have turned into a success at the box office. I haven't seen so many crowds in the theater and on the lines ever. (I started to subscribe after the ballet boom of the 70s.)

I'm just so surprised -- even shocked -- that 4 T's, the ballet that I thought was my personal idiosyncratic favorite, has turned out to be the most cherished ballet of many of this board. For posterity, I'd vote for Serenade.

Oberon, I totally agree. I didn't mean to add my voice to a chorus of "you should have seen so-and-so. It was sooo much better!" Not only do great dancers have their own special qualities, you can't often compare performances straight up. All performers have off-nights, excerpts don't often tell the whole story, and memories are faulty. Still, with Barocco fresh in my mind, I watched the video last night with particular interest and was quite taken with not only the quality of Le Clerc and Adams, but how they really seemed to respond to one another's dancing. Like I said, it seemed to be a balancing act that appeared to be missing from last week's performance. But I still very much enjoyed it last week. I've been meaning to get over the Museum of TV and Radio to see the Balanchine exhibit and haven't had a chance. Is it closing after this weekend, or do they showcase a particular program each week? I had assumed you could call up the videos you wanted to watch on individual monitors. I'm wondering how it works and whether I'm going to have the chance to see it.

I have to say that I don't think that Boree is a disaster in this role at all. In fact, I liked her performance last Thursday. Although I am not generally a big Boree booster, I thought she performed with quite a light touch -- without any of her usual idiosyncracies. I'd have to agree about Somogy's interpretation. Frankly, I am an unabashed Somogyi fan and typically thrilled to see her cast in almost anything. But she drives far too hard in this role. The problem with this casting is balance. I have to say that the performance film by Diana Adams and Tanaquil LeClerc in tonight's PBS special was quite an eye-opener, for me at least. They seemed to perfectly correspond to one another and the music, and act as ideal counterweights. I did enjoy the performance last week, but watching these two incredible dancers, I can see how much better the ballet could be.

With some ballets I know I've changed (either grown in my taste, or just in my mood) and with others, I think its the dancers. I too have changed my mind about Kammermusik -- but I think it has more to do with the dancers than with me. The first couple of times I saw it, I hated it. I avoided it for a while, and then I saw it with Maria K. and Sofane last year and loved it. I know it was due to the incredible electricity of the performance. As mentioned, La Sonnambula is something that needs to be danced by a true ballerina. On the other hand, I used to love Who Cares. The dancing is so varied and romance and has so much energy. But the last time I saw it, I couldn't wait for it to end. And I think it was danced beautifully. But I brought someone to the ballet who I thought would really enjoy it, but I quickly saw that they weren't as interested in feet as I was. So it went on forever! And then there are ballets you change your mind about and back again. As a child, I loved the Nutcracker -- especially for the tree that grows. But as a young adult I hated the first half . I just didn't like watching all the mime and the story exposition. I couldn't wait until after intermission when you got to see all the magnificent dancing! Something has changed for me now, as I really enjoy the Nutcracker as never before. I don't know why. Maybe because I go often enough that I'm not hungry for dancing at its most elemental. I just know it's due to me, and not the performance.

I've always wanted to know how to pronouce balletomanes. And does the pronunciation change with plural or singular?

I agree that the dancers are upstaged by Fred and Rita -- but I still love it. It is quite a lovely homage and very clever in its way. I even love that its a bit treacly. BTW, I find that this is one ballet that I frequently choose to bring ballet newbies to. When introducing someone to NYCB, I find you have to choose evenings somewhat carefully. If someone is prepared to see Swan Lake, but finds themself at an evening of plotless and black and white ballets, it is unlikely they will suggest going again soon. I'm Old Fashioned is a nice mix of Broadway, ballet and film, and ends the evening on a sweet note. It never fails to please.

Hans, I understood your point of view and didn't mean to suggest that you were promoting ABT as our national company. Actually, I don't think many faithful balletgoers -- certainly in New York -- would consider ABT the national company. Indeed, as has been stated, neither NYCB or ABT is a true national company. I find it irritating because it is an example of ABT seizing on the word American in its name to merchandise itself. I find it a bit self-aggrandizing. But because of its name, and the fact that it has bestowed the title on itself in advertising, the casual balletgoer would likely accept the moniker as fact.

ABT has been advertising itself as "our national ballet company" in the New York area, which I actually find irrirating because I don't view it as such. Mainly for the reasons stated above. Most of the stars are not home grown. It doesn't have a real school. And it doesn't have much native choreography. But it does tour -- which in this context can work in its favor. Many more Americans see it live. And I think that counts for a lot. Nevertheless, I've been surprised that I haven't seen much comment about its self-promotion as our national company, even in the New York area.

Well, as I posted earlier, I too am quite disappointed. And I agree that the NYCB marketing department concocted these “themes” to fit with their goal of a Balanchine celebration. But I can’t keep wondering why this is the case? Can it simply be ego or lack of respect for Balanchine on the part of Martins? Although I don’t know the man, I have trouble believing this and can’t help feel there must be something else behind this. Could it be funding, as two posters on these threads touched on? To my mind, the two things most glaring in the schedule that are not Balanchine-related are Martins’ Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty (although both have Balanchine choreography included.) And all that Robbins. Could it be that the budget requires full-lengths to pack them in? (I thought people were overreacting comparing NYCB’s generous scheduling of full-length ballets this spring to that of ABT. After all, it was only one season. Now, I’m not so sure.) Or does the Mattel connection have something to do with it, as the new Barbie is coming out sometime soon. What’s NYCB’s agreement with the Robbins foundation? Does it require them to dance a certain number of Robbins’ ballets each year? Or is it simply that they have Robbins’ specialists on staff now. Of course, there is also the issue of Stroman. But I think up to a point, you can forgive Martins’ for new commissions, particularly when it involves someone like Stroman. As a previous poster noted, it is probably a lot easier to get funding for a new commission of her work than a mounting a revival of a Balanchine ballet. Also, I think to indicate that Balanchine will somehow be better served by other ballet companies is a bit overstating the case. After all, they will be dancing 54 Balanchine ballets, and 23 all-Balanchine evenings. The bottom line: are times that tough? Is this the kind of schedule that is required of a 90-dancer ballet company, even in Balanchine’s centennial year?

Well, I have to say it sounds quite disappointing. Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty? Couldn't that wait a year? And I guess they have to perform Robbins -- despite rumours of an all-Balanchine season -- due to the demands of the Robbins foundation. What's more, it doesn't leave much room for revivals of rarely-performed Balanchine works. If not next year, when?

Wasn't one of Peter Martins' early ballets for NYCB the Magic Flute? I didn't see it, and it is not in the repertory any more, but it is mentioned in his autobiography. I wonder why it worked, or didn't work (more likely.)

Woetzel, Boal, Evans and Soto. At first glance, I thought Alexandra's choices were perfect -- she chose my four favorite male dancers. But the replacement of Hubbe with Soto has a certain balance. I think these four better represent City Ballet, its repertory and contrasting styles. Plus, they have the benefit of being All-American. That seems fitting to me given that I think NYCB is the apogee of American ballet (note that I didn't say Ballet in America.) "Born in America" instead of "Born to Be Wild"? (Having said this, the irony that Martins and Wheeldon are foriegn-born isn't lost on me.)

Whether or not Morris is hostile to ballet -- and since chooses to work with ballet companies fairly often, it suggests that he is not -- I raised the hostility issue because I thought the remarks made by his ballet mistress were superfluous and somewhat hostile. My memory could be faulty, but I think she said that Mark generally considers ballet full of "tricks" and he is more grounded in the music. I think she went on to say that these guys were different, so that he wanted to do this piece. I thought that whole remark was very strange and wondered why the producers felt the need to include it. Since the program was ostensibly aimed at promoting ballet -- or at least these ballet dancers -- why include a remark which to my mind is a groundless criticism: ballet is not as musical as other dance forms and just a bunch of tricks? Just as odd is the fact that it didn't ring true -- Morris often choreographs with ballet companies. Whether or not his compositions are ballet is a different issue. But I do agree with most of the other posters. He was an odd choice of choreographer for a ballet program and for a program designed to make the whole art form seem "macho." Although I enjoyed the program overall, I think some parts of the program didn't add up. Maybe they were trying to tell people already interested in modern dance: hey, you should try ballet. But that's a pretty small group of people. If they were really trying to broaden the audience by highlighting well-known choreographers that have broad appeal they would have brought in Susan Stroman or someone like that. And made some parallel comparisons to ballet and Broadway. I'm not saying they should have done that: I think they should have stuck to ballet.

I'd have to echo most of the comments here. The best parts of the show were the profiles of the four men. Although I didn't like the Morris dance much -- or the cutaways to rehearsals -- I thought all of the dancing, including the clips, displayed these guys to good affect. Yet I don't think the whole Morris thing worked on a number of different levels. Was it just me, or didn't anyone else think the comments from Morris' dance mistress were hostile to ballet? She basically said Morris doesn't like to choreograph ballet because it's basically "tricks" and he's grounded in the music. But these dancers are so superior, he will deign to choregraph on them and create a musical piece! I was really put off by that comment and found myself scratching my head as to why that was included in the program. Plus, I thought the entire injection of Baryshnikov was gratuitous, to say the least. It really had no relation to anything on the program. It seemed like they added mention of him to say "hey folks, you've all heard of a ballet dancer, his name was Mikhail Baryshnikov. These guys are like him." Well, sadly, maybe they needed to say that. Still, I was glad to see something about ballet on PBS.