E Johnson

I think its true that it bothers those of us that have strong feelings about particular ballets, and probably more scheduling flexibility, the most. For me, if I am honest, the main reason i hate it is its MUCH harder to avoid the ballets I hate, which, again, being honest, is most of the Martins rep -- unless I also give up the chance to see ones I really want to see. The ultimate result for me was that not only did I go less often, but I forewent seeing ballets I wanted to see in order to avoid clunkers. For example, I realy liked Russian Seasons in the Winter season and woudl have loved to see it in the Spring but it was programmed in a block I had zero interest in otherwise.

I voted disastrous. Easy way to measure: I used to get two subscriptions, now I’m down to one, and I gave away a ticket this year for the first time in a decade. To me, there are two problems with the blocks, one avoidable and one not: Avoidable: the blocks are poorly designed. e.g., I really do not think a program of all Balanchine black and white ballets works. For newcomers, it gives them the false idea that all Balanchine is like this and it’s all the same, so they don’t have to see any more. for people like me, who love those ballets, its still overkill. And even if the block makes some sense, the idiotic titles NYCB is using rarely give you an idea what you will actually see, unless you already know. Unavoidable: I cannot choose, as I often used to do, to arrange my tickets so as to see the ballets I love (or new ones I am interested in seeing), often more than once, and avoid the ones I hate. I don’t have enough time in my life to sit through, e.g. Reliquary or Dybbuk or a host of others twice in a season in order to enjoy a new cast in Agon or Serenade or Dances at a Gathering. So while I used to happily get my 2 subs and mix and match my own season, now it’s not worth it. I get one sub, I go, I live with it. But I sure enjoy things a lot less. I also think that its enjoyable and thought-provoking to see ballets in different juxtapositions, which you can’t do, at least not in a single season, with blocks.

The opening images of Serenade. the closing tableau of Firebird. And, cheesy as it is, the rumble in west side story suite. I know riff's going to die but it gets me every time.

Still better than the years of Froman, Ky and Froman, Ku.

If you do a search of the board you will probably find a lot of comments about Fairchild. Personally, she isn't a favorite of mine but I think she has been greatly improving recently. I find her too uniformly perky and cute, treating almost every role as if it were The Steadfast Tin Soldier (in which she is very good ). She also seems to almost resist being partnered on some ocassions. However, last season she gave a beautiful, nuanced performance in Feld's Intermezzo No. 1 (partnered by her brother, with whom she looked absolutely lovely). I have wondered if Feld coached the ballet and was able to draw out a different side of Fairchild, or if she is simply maturing as an artist. That said she is strong technically -- you don't worry about her making a mistake or getting tired.

I haven't gotten any of mine yet and am a bit worried.

There was Balanchine in the first Festival -- albeit Balanchine nobody is performing anymore. Peter Boal did the "lost" male solo from Episodes, the one made on Paul Taylor.

Has there been a relative increase in the number of boys in NON-ballet types of dance? What I'm getting at -- is the problem they have one that has to do with "ballet" in partticular or with "disciplined dance study" in general? Based on my own experience only, I think with the possible exception of hip-hop dancing, there is a paucity of boys all over. My son takes classes at the Ailey School, which offers ballet, West African, tap, and modern, and I frequently hear that they are short on boys. Even at my son's very young age, there are probably 3-4 clases full of girls for his one class of boys.

Definitely LaValse, and maybe Shambards?

I was away on vacation when this all happened so I am chiming in a bit late, but as a relatively longtime subscriber (over ten years) I feel slapped in the face by the new programming strategy, and I expect it will significantly reduce the umber of tickets I buy going forward. First: I cannot avoid the ballet I hate to see the one I love. In the past I have happily swapped subscription tickets to see favorite ballets, or interesting new castings, more than once. In fact I generally deliberately bought tickets I didn't want in my subscription for swapping purposes. No more. I'm not sitting through the same exact program twice barring extraordinary circumstances. And I resent not being allowed to make those choices for myself. If it will really help ticket sales, go ahead and have some themes -- a Balanchine/ Stravinsky evening is a good idea on its own -- but every single performance? Second: the titles of the theme programs are idiotic and often meaningless. Third: I have two young children. One big advantage of the mix-and-match was that almost every season, whether fortuitously or deliberately I do not know, there would be one or two programs that were ideal for kids. I don’t expect NYCB to have a regular kid-friendly program as one of the "themes" that a bunch of subscribers will be stuck with, but now there won't be even one performance I want to take my six year old to next winter aside from Nutcracker. That is a lost ticket, in the short term, and possibly a lost audience member, in the long term. I also agree with Peter Boal's comments. And I second the fear that this will result in the loss of odder/less popular ballets. Or perhaps we could propose a "Creepy" theme evening: door and sigh, ivesiana, la sonambula? With a revival of seven deadly sins?

I've seen it. I'm not a big fan of Martins' choreography, but I found this ballet less painful than some of his other work. it is fast, not slow, and to me seems less an attempt to ape Balanchine than many of his other works (that I like less).

I don't have personal experience to go by, but I have heard it said that Orpheus suffered by the move to the NY State Theater and its much larger stage. I think we can't really judge how well the ballet itself is received these days since it has been, IMHO, seriously miscast for years. A different more expressive Orpheus might make all the difference. I have a hard time seeing any of the younger dancers as the Prodigal (maybe Hendrickson in a few years, with a teeny tiny Siren) It calls for not only strong dancing but a certain emotional maturity that I don't see, a realization that getting the girl can be a really bad idea. I also don't think there's a good Siren in the company right now -- I haven't liked anyone in the part since Alexopoulos retired.

I'm going to beat the same old drum and argue that Evans should get a shot at Orpheus and Apollo. Of the younger dancers, I agree that Marcovici could be an interesting Apollo. I also expect LaCour to get cast in it eventually. For Orpheus -- but for a possible height issue, I think Hendrickson could do a great job. Ramasar maybe someday, but not yet.

Edwaard Liang recently did this -- left for Broadway and came back. This pattern seems more common than going to another ballet company.

In fairness to Weese - who I have liked in this role -- she ddn't know she was going to perform that night until very close to curtain. Kistler was scheduled but suffered a last minute injury. Weese also usually did the ballet with a different partner -- Boal -- so was doubly disadvantaged.

I haven't seen the ABT version but I can't imagine it is worse than NYCB's full length (the short Balanchine version is very nice, though). I've seen it twice, the second time purely for the dancers -- Weese and Boal, who made it bearable, at least. So maybe if you can see Weese, or Whelan, its worth it but I honestly can't think of a likely good choice for the Prince from the current crop of available dancers (unless in an unforeseeable stroke of luck, Evans gets cast).

If the child hasn't seen it yet I'd definitely start with the Balanchine Nutcracker -- My son enjoyed it starting when he was three, if not earlier.

I'd agree with Roma, jut based on my experiences trying to get tickets. Now, I'm aiming for 2d ring which ain't cheap, so this may not tell you anything about what newer/younger fans, who I'm guessing have less disposable income, want to see.

It looks like they made a big effort to not have pictures of the dancers who left last year --boal, soto, ansanelli, or fayette. There is one small shadowy picture of Jock, but that's it.

I'd add Nichols, and I don't quite agree wth Woetzel. Its hot and cold with him.

the occasional guest appearance as Carabosse ! She's also still working at NYCB and the Balanchine Trust.

I agree, assuming well-behaved children (of course including mine since they are removed if they act up). I have had one child not only kick my seat but repeatedly push my coat over my head, then try to leave by crawling down the aisle -- and when his parents were asked to remove him, they did audibly complain that it was too much to pay for a babysitter on top of the tickets. On the other hand, I've yet to see a child take a phone call during a performance.

Not to nitpick, but I'm a Ms. Johnson.

NYCB distributes a set of guidelines for children, but really they apply to everyone. Don't make noise, go to the bathroom ahead of time, etc. (I drummed these into my son's head so well that when I answered one of his questions during The Nutcracker quietly, he whispered back very clearly "Mommy! at the ballet you have to WHISPER!" As for minimum ages: he was three when he said this. )

I'd agree with this. I've seen Evans in several of what I think of as Soto roles -- Agon and Buguku, among others, and he was differnt but very good. Also Whelan likes dancing with him (not gossip, frim NYCB official chat) and has done so already, for example in Episodes. Sad as I am to see Soto go the one upside I have been hoping for is more frequent casting of Evans. They're doing After the Rain, too -- hard to imaginen that one without Jock.