vipa

She is not one of the NYC ballet's much talked about principals like, T. Peck, Mearns etc. but what a high quality dancer, who brings great intelligence to her work. I admit I never sought her out in casting, but when I saw her name I knew I'd get an honest and beautiful performance, particularly in Balanchine and Ratmansky works. I am so happy she will be coaching others. It is kind of wonderful how many teachers in the school, and coaches in the company are former NYCB members.

I have to agree Natalia. Unless I didn't look carefully enough, there was no mention of the principal dancers who would appear. I will probably go once to see Symphonic Variations.

You expressed my thoughts better than I could nanushka, thank you. I've watched too many dancers hang on to certain roles for too long. It's painful as an audience member and fan. I heard an interview with Jacques D'amboise in which he said, late in his career, he came off stage from a ballet (I don't remember which) and his wife told him he shouldn't dance the piece anymore. He argued that he was still able to do it, but she said he didn't look as good in it as he had just months before. (paraphrasing). That's a loving wife. He took her advise. None of us want to hear what we shouldn't do anymore as we age. All in all I think Whelan was treated respectfully.

Yes, I noticed that too. She was still wonderful in some things but was greatly diminished in others. As I said before, young dancers need opportunities, and when those two things coincide (a senior dancer with diminished capacity & young dancers ready and eager) someone is going to be left unhappy. Many of us, on this board, bemoan the fact that at ABT many young dancers don't get opportunities as soon as they should. At the same time, as much as I liked Julie Kent, IMO she was doing roles she shouldn't have been given during her last years. It's complicated! I can say though that Whelan did have some fine roles until the end, and then had a fantastic send off.

Agree abatt. As far as the nudge out part, also I heard Wendy Whelan's comment's about losing roles. I know how hard that had to have been for her. At the same time the AD has a balancing act. Young dancers have to be given opportunities, and sometimes older dancers have diminishing capabilities and have to be taken out of roles they once danced.

I agree that the firing was handled badly, very badly, but personally, I can't worry about how she will make a living, as worrisome as it may be to her at the moment. I've known so many people who have lost their jobs over the last few years. People with kids to feed and dim prospects for future employment. Here is a woman who has been earning money in the 6 figures for some years, who has an amazing resume in the ballet world and presumably made some professional connections. I feel bad for the way she was let go but when I look around, I certainly don't worry about her future. If I was fired from my job tomorrow my future would not be as promising as Part's is!!

Agreed, it seems Vishneva made a choice and is dancing on her own terms. Irina was let go a while ago but it could be. Kochetkova is the obvious possibility. IMO that wouldn't be a great loss to ABT and certainly wouldn't damage Kochetkova's career. She is still a principal in SFB and does galas all over the place. Frankly the ABT/Kochetkova relationship always puzzled me. Bottom line is that Part sounds angry and bitter. I hope time will change that.

Personally I thought the Golden Cockerel a real waste of money. Whipped Cream seemed to be popular, we'll see if it has legs, I certainly hope so. The Ratmansky Nutcracker wasn't a financial success in NY. I hope it has better success in the west. The Ratmansky Sleeping Beauty is controversial (I wouldn't recommend it to a new or casual ballet goer). Now he's been given a big check for another "historically accurate" ballet. I understand that there are different pools of money for dancer salaries and new productions. I also admire many of Ratmansky's works BUT maybe the overall direction of the company needs an overhaul. I digress with a discussion about the artistic vision or lack there of. Bottom line is that ABT made a mess of the departure of a ballerina who deserved better.

Thank you ABT Fan. I guess I was thinking of ancient history from the 1990's when this happened according to the NYTimes: American Ballet Theater broke away in June and then voted this month to ratify a contract negotiated by a new union, the Independent Artists of America, which represents only Ballet Theater. Things must have changed since then! Thanks for the correction

Difference is that after retiring from Paris Opera Ballet dancers get a pension!

Thanks for mentioning this podcast. I just listened to it and enjoyed it very much. I found their ideas and feelings about dance competitions very interesting.

Interesting points Kaysta. It seems, that Kevin M. started out by looking at the rep that was coming, the dancers he had, and the money available to him and told Part that he had a few things for her in the next season. It sounded like a per performance thing, but that's just my guess. Then as time went on, and he continued to look at those factors he felt she was only needed for Swan Lake. Then, for whatever set of reasons, he decided he didn't need her for Swan Lake. In other words she became expendable. As I've said before, Part was far from my favorite dancer, but she delivered mature, thoughtful and over time (to my surprise) technically consistent performances. As others have said it would have made sense to let Part have a farewell year and have Shevchenko wait another year for a promotion (lord knows Lane waited a good long time). Last thing - re unions. I might be totally wrong but I vaguely remember that ABT formed its own independent union. Is that possible? If I'm wrong what union are they part of.

From my reading of the article in Google translate, it seems to me that she was initially told that she would be engaged for a limited number of performances next year, that was the reduced to Swan Lake only and even that was not given to her. It seems phasing her out turned into a total break. At least that's my interpretation. There is no way to know what was in Kevin M's thinking.

Mozartiana is IMO an incredible, spiritual work that has such amazing depth that more can be discovered upon every viewing. In a way it's wonderful that Part was given this role. Balanchine gave her and us a bouquet.

I loved Messmer but I believe she is in a company with a repertoire that is better for her. The ABT rep with it's full length story ballets makes it hard to give dancers opportunities and therefore hard for dances to grow. IMO Sarah Lane took an artistic leap forward this season. It had to be due to her own initiative and guesting she did outside the company. Doing peasant pas de deux or Swan Lake pas de trois 50 or 60 times doesn't naturally lead to artistic growth (or technical growth for that matter).

Thank you canbelto seems like it was lovely.

Helene and sandik this is interesting. I have also read some very moving tributes by Peter Boal to dancers who are leaving.

Well said. Contracts are sometimes not renewed. Kevin M's artistic decisions have been a mystery to me for some time, but in all fairness I don't know what budget constraints and other considerations he has had to deal with. In any event, this is a done deal. No amount of protesting, passing out flyers or booing is going to change that. It's time to celebrate Part's last performance and move one. No one is being helped by these protests. Booing KM isn't going to make him rehire her.

That is what I hope happens, loving, warm, cheers for Part. The negativity won't do any good. She is not going to get her job back and it doesn't look good for anyone. Think of the other dancers who have to go on stage that night. I'm sure they have heard about all of this and they don't need the drama and tension of not knowing what to expect from a group of protestors. I agree with Sealings that ABT has handled the matter very poorly publicly (I am not privy to how it went down privately). Come on PR department do some damage control. Of course they could feel that the whole brouhaha is known to such a small circle of fans that it's not worth the effort. Again, I do feel bad for the other dancers in the company. This can't be easy.

Oh no. This will not do anyone any good. ABT is not going to re-hire Part and I could cause others to think twice before working with her. IMO not a good way to celebrate her final performance with ABT. It also puts the rest of the dancers in an awkward position.

I'm surprised there was no corps woman promoted to soloist. If my count is right, correct me if I'm wrong, there are now only 3 soloist women. One of them, Paris, doesn't seem to be cast very much. Brandt & Trenary can't do all the soloist roles. Maybe it means more corps women will be given opportunities to do soloist roles.

I wonder when they were told? Was it in class today?

I think Trenary's time will come. I wasn't surprised she didn't get promote this time because, aside from Sleeping Beauty, she hasn't carried that many full lengths yet.

So happy for everyone and even a little relieved at hearing of Lane's promotion. There was a time when I thought it would never happen, but she danced with so much confidence and artistry this spring, I had hope.

So the implication is that a dancer who has a sponsor has an obligation to make time for that person - perhaps social events, lunches, after performance greets etc. Would this be contractual or merely understood to be expected. It seems to me that there is the potential for problems if the sponsor is too demanding.