Eileen

"What is the joy of forever dancing ballets created on someone else?" asks Amy Reusch. Ask a violinist if playing Brahms is stifling their creativity because Brahms wrote for 19th century violinist Joseph Joachim. Did I get less aesthetic joy singing arias written for Mozart's sister-in-law? No, we can't have a museum of Balanchine and Robbins. But the alternative is not creative stultification. Each new generation of dancers is inspired by Balanchine and Robbins. But yes, there comes a point where you can't keep dancing the same ballets - as Susan Jaffe said a few years ago when she retired, how many times can you dance Swan Lake? You've made excellent points. It is desirable to have new choreography. It is desirable for dancers to have new works choreographed on them. But the key question is, is it necessary? It is necessary to reduce a $6 million budget deficit. It is essential to keep audiences coming to see the company. Programming fewer premieres will not cause the company to die. Incurring huge expenditures on ballets that are DOA will endanger the company. Reducing seating capacity is a clear sign that the repertoire cannot attract enough people to fill the hall. I remember - correct me if I'm wrong - when seasons offered two new premieres. Now they regularly offer five. This is a luxury and I think the number of premieres can be cut back to two without putting the company on life support. I relish the exchange of ideas, and since controversy follows me wherever I go, I look forward to the forthcoming discussion.

During a recent season of premieres featuring architectural designs by Salvatore Calatrava (sp?), the only new ballet I would care to see again was Ratmansky's Namouna Divertissements. I wonder what effect Peter Martins' commitment to new but doleful choreography may be having on diluting the NYCB brand. By which I mean, and my boss, a football fan put it so well, that it was causing patrons to lose faith in the company and reduces their willingness to spend hard earned money not only on premieres, but on NYCB repertoire in general. As my boss put it, "If Shakespeare's first play was Hamlet, then he had four flops, and his fifth was Macbeth, do you think anyone would have taken a chance on Macbeth?" I feel NYCB is diluting its brand by a commitment to mediocre premieres for the sake of "new combinations". I know these premieres are sponsored by donors - but when they are bad, they are bringing down the company in the manner described. It's gotten to the point where you can predict that all-Balanchine and all-Robbins programs are winners, but any program with a new ballet or a ballet by the Ballet Master in Chief is really not worth betting on. And you are betting when you decide whether to purchase tickets to NYCB - you want to make a good choice, cause this city is filled with choice, overfilled with cultural choices. Isn't it the responsibility of the Board of Trustees to oversee the Ballet Master in Chief and moderate his commitment to new mediocrity? Is the Board totally behind this expenditure and excess? I'd like to hear from you, the readers and ballet-goers. Do you think the deficit might be attributable to a decline in the quality of the ballets being presented with much marketing hype as "new"?

I'm sorry, you have to act immediately at 10 am on August 8 or everything good is quickly gone. I only saw this advertised yesterday. The best way to get seats is to arrive personally at the box office. Everything sold online is generally way to the sides - the worst possible. At the box office you at least are given a choice. City Ballet's online ticketing system gives you no choice, unlike the New York Philharmonic's. City Ballet needs to update its online ticketing system which is not helpful, to say the least.

Hurry! Tickets for Episodes, Apollo, and Four Temperaments are now on sale for $50 and $25 for Friday, Sept. 16. Online they add a $10 fee unfortunately, but it's fastest. Orchestra A is already sold out.

Does anyone have information on the post-NYCB dance careers of the dancers who were cut two years ago? It would be of interest to know if they landed on their (ahem) toes.

It makes sense for them to be patient and accommodating. I'm sure the people working in the subscription office want to keep their jobs. I doubt they have anything to do with setting the ticket prices themselves. They work in customer service. I don't envy their having to explain the new pricing plan to callers. Nonetheless, she was a very special person, going beyond her job to help me. Ever try calling Verizon? Now that's "customer service"!

This may not be relevant to this thread, but in my dealings with the subscription department, I have been impressed by how accommodating they have been to me, how they value their subscribers and do not want to lose any (due to this new pricing policy), how they patiently explain seat locations (zillions of times I'm sure), and how idealistic the particular lady I spoke to today was about the Company - she was devoted to the Company and wanted as many people as possible to see them. My decision to subscribe was validated, I feel, by the positive vibes I got on the phone from this lady. She was a true devotee, and spoke as if NYCB were her calling.

"Risibly awful" - what a perfect phrase for that film.

I'll call Monday and try to find out if subscribers' prices will apply to tickets outside of their subscription. I doubt it. Subscribers are being given, as an inducement, two vouchers for tickets to introduce new people to the ballet. I will ask on Monday if those ballets are going to be the abstruse, new choreography ones, or the ballets that newcomers wold actually like. It would seem counterproductive to introduce a new generation of students to "Moves" when West Side Story would be a lot more accessible to them. Subscription lady told me you are given a choice of ballets the vouchers are good for. I am waiting for a response from readers that Moves is just as fascinating as West Side Story. Controversy seems to follow me wherever I go....

This is why I am an afficiondo of NYCB. They develop their dancers from within, they spot their stars in the corps and promote them until they are true star material. The corps is dancing every night, the soloists have many chances to shine in the repertoire. One can follow a dancer from apprenticeship to principal, watch their development. How can a soloist be promoted in ABT when the plum principal roles are mostly reserved for foreign guest artists? NYCB has a system, and it's a system od promotion from within. It has produced recently Wendi Whelan, Ashley Bouder, Sara Mearns,and many men who will no doubt take their places as principals.

If you previously had a third or fourth ring subscription, they permitted you to renew it if you so desired. However, they purportedly were not selling any new subscriptions in those rings. With respect all single ticket purchases, my understanding is that they will only sell you tickets in the orchestra, first or second rings for most performances, except for certain "popular" programs. For the "popular" programs, they will also sell third and fourth ring. No info has been provided on which dates the 3 & 4th rings will be open during the rep season. (I'm sure they will open every ring for Nutcracker.) The majority of the seats in the fourth ring are now priced at $129 and $89 for rep performances (subscriber price is slightly less). I'm not sure who they think will buy those obscenely over-priced fourth ring tickets for the popular programs. Theoretically, there are $29 seats now in the orchestra, first and second rings. In practice, (a) it appears that they are very few in number and (b) many (most) of those $29 seat locations are in awful, partial view locations. They have yet to announce what, if anything, they are doing for people who have been Fourth Ring Society Members. While I think that the $15 tickets they used to offer with the Fourth Ring Society pass were priced absurdly low, they have now gone to the opposite extreme of over-charging for most seats in the auditorium, in my opinion. I agree with you that the brochure was useless. The one I received had NO PRICES. I'm not sure if they published a new one since then. If anyone has a different understanding of the new price gouging system, or additional info, please post. There is a big difference between making a profit and profiteering. I believe NYCB is engaging in the latter. I did not purchase a subscription in the 4th ring, which is not available. They are selling subs only in orchestra, first and second ring. The brochure was inadequate. In small print, you were referred to the website, specifically, to nycballet.com/2012standard series for a complete list of standard series and the ballets the series contained. The brochure did list prices, but without further information (available on the phone) you were not able to properly evaluate what the prices represented in terms of seats. And the floorplan was broken up in such a way as to be confusing, especially with the orchestra aisles bisecting sections which were the same price, BUT! When you call 212-496-0600, they patiently explain to you exactly what rows and seats each colored price section includes, and if you take notes, you will have a better picture of what you are buying. Yes, it's complicated, but they are clear and patient on the phone. They are trying to encourage subscriptions rather than single tickets, so the price of a subscription ticket does include a discount over single ticket savings. I would never have subscribed, but for my own ticket selling experience. You can't understand another's position until you stand in their toe shoes.

Announcement: Ballet striker caves, capitulates, throws in the towel. I, who was filled with distress at the new pricing policies of NYCB, have reconsidered my position. After much earlier breast-beating and wailing, I am subscribing to an eight-ballet series, no less! Why? Because of my experience as a ballet ticket seller the other week. I had a Diana Vishneva ABT ticket greatly in demand, and I was getting very low offers for it. I refused to sell it for the lowball offers because I knew its true value. I did compromise, but at three times the lowball offers! I was looking for a prosperous looking person for whom my price would not be a problem and who would realize it was fair given the scarcity of the commodity. Why was I selling the ticket? Because I needed the money more than I needed to see the ballet at that time. Now my ship has come in, I have married a rich man, my aunt has left me her inheritance (just kidding!) - actually, my experience of actually selling a ticket myself put an entirely different perspective on NYCB's strategy. It was a strategy to close the company's $6 million deficit by filling seats with affluent people (now me). They have decided, coldly to us buyers but reasonably to the sellers, that selling seats at $15 was just not the way to prevent the company from following in the footsteps or toe shoes of City Opera. I want to preserve NYCB to dance another season, and by subscribing to a substantial number of ballets, I am acting on my recent comprehension of realities. Luckily I can afford it now that my diamond necklace has been pawned (just kidding) and I rented out my Nantucket cottage (also kidding).

Clearly. As a Russian American who grew up in this country, and simply as a human being, I found your post incredibly offensive and have reported it to the moderators. As to the point that City Ballet tickets are a rare commodity and, therefore, the company, as a free market agent, can raise their prices sky high, I would argue that they should first try selling out the repertory season at the current price. If, as has been reported on the board, their average attendance rate is only 62%, they can not be said to be in possession of a hot commodity, and should sell their tickets at a discount instead of creating a false sense of scarcity by closing off the top two rings. By the way, thought I'd mention - I'm also a Russian American. My grandfather came to America from a village near Czernowitz in the year 1910.

I have written and submitted an op-ed piece to The Wall Street Journal on the City Ballet pricing issue. It takes a different tack than my submission to the Times. I doubt it will be published, but the very act of writing helps clarify issues and focus my thinking, always a good thing.

If you have a problem with a post, please report this via the "Report" button in the bottom left corner of the post, and the Moderators will review it. That is our site policy. I find that making sweeping generalizations about populations is pretty ridiculous. I can't be offended as a Russian, but I can be offended that I'm included in the generalization about Americans. Where I grew up, it was illegal, and may still be, to charge more than the face value of a ticket plus fees, and I don't think most Americans think it is a cultural imperative to do something illegal. Many people are under the misconception that it is illegal to sell a ticket for more than face value. But in New York State it is currently legal to sell for more than face value. Whether you choose not to is an entirely personal choice, but I am not doing anything illegal, merely enterprising.

Well I'm American, and I find jacking up the price of a ticket that you're trying to sell tacky. I don't ever do it and that has nothing to do with culture, but personal values. Thanks for your input, I will take it under consideration while I enjoy Quebec City. We all have our personal values.

I do not think perceiving cultural differences from first hand observation is offensive or inappropriate. It teaches you something about different cultures with different assumptions. Are we so fragile that we quail at any comment that points out legitimate cultural differences? I saw the disapproval from the Russians, and the approval from the Americans. I can certainly understand people who grew up with the idea that selling for a profit is immoral may keep those views into adulthood, just as I keep into adulthood my American views inculcated in childhood. The cultural differences are fascinating and to try to quash an observation that may actually shed light on the differences between people from different cultures would be nothing less than totalitarian.

"Thank you Eileen, for trying to be our voice." - from vipa What an honor and a responsibility. There are slim chances of publication in the Times, as their ways are arcane and they are looking for writers of greater exoticism than I can offer. I am not from a currently fashionable ethnic group. All I have is a passionate desire to speak the truth with honesty, forthrightness, and hopefully, courage. Last night I tried to sell (successfully) a Mariinsky ballet ticket starring Vishneva in front of the Met Opera. The desire for tickets was far greater than availability. Mine was the only one available. Most of the prospective buyers were Russian. I knew they were not interested in my ticket, as it was expensive. I explained to them that the face value on my ticket had been increased by the box office by $50 and I thought $25 more than that was not excessive. But they had been raised in Communism, where profiting is not only illegal, but also viewed as immoral. The looks on their faces showed me clearly that they considered my offering to sell a prime orchestra ticket at a profit was an act of immorality. It was stealing from the people. It was nonkulturny. I knew only an American would understand the economics of it - I had a very scarce commodity and there was a huge number of people looking for tickets, although at low prices. Many Russians queried me about the price and I said gently, "I'm sorry, it's rather expensive." I was looking for someone who could afford my price. One (American) woman told me what I am doing is illegal and she threatened to report me to the guards. I told her, "You are misinformed. Reselling tickets at a higher price is now legal. Have you read the New York Civil Code?" I had not read the New York Civil Code, but I will research it tomorrow at work. I invariably find people who believe profiting from tickets to be immoral are people who believe it is moral to offer me quite a bit less than face value, and when that does not succeed, tell me to my face that I am a criminal! They want a bargain, and they want me to give them the bargain, rather than to one of their many competitors in the below-value "market". Ironically enough, a stranger told me a woman is looking for a ticket and brought forward this woman who had threatened me! I said forthrightly, "I would never sell to her. She threatened to report me to Lincoln Center." I felt murmurs of approval from the crowd, watching this drama. I then quickly sold the ticket to a well dressed woman who could afford it. My point in all this is now I am on the other side, I was a seller of a ticket, and I was dealing with all those who felt entitled to low cost tickets from me. But how was I to choose among them? Should I offer it to the shabby Russian lady who offered me $30? The box office price was $177 now, and there were no tickets available. The free market was the only way I could distinguish among all the "offers" pouring in, by selling to the best price offered for my ticket. City Ballet is doing the same thing. Someone asked me, "Why are you selling?" I thought for a moment and said, "Because I need the money more than I need to see the ballet." I had a commodity in great demand. The only problem was the excess of Russians who believed selling tickets for a profit was immoral, who were aware of the American free market but considered it "criminal" and freedom run amuck. A few Americans supported me, understood I was not overcharging under the circumstances. "It's a fair price," one American man told me. So here I am defending City Ballet once I am in their shoes! They have a hot commodity and they want to sell it for the highest price to a rarefied, well to do audience. I guess we are the poor Russians, believing we have a "right" to inexpensive tickets. This is the free market, folks, like it or not. I will take the money I made selling ballet tickets and go to "exotic" Canada where I will splurge on Chateau Frontenac in Quebec City. Life's expensive. Life takes money.

Thank you, Trini. I wrote and submitted it today, but I doubt it will be chosen. I will redo it as a letter to the Arts & Leisure Section of the Sunday Times, at least.

I will try writing an Op-Ed to the New York Times.

I will always be grateful for the many years I had the chance to absorb the great Balanchine-Robbins repertory by watching this sublime company of dancer-artists, that I followed so many great dancers from their earliest days in the company to their retirement, that now when I listen to "Stars and Stripes" on the 4th of July I see the Balanchine corps de ballet, led by a dancer in blue with a baton. That when I listen to many pieces of music I now hear the music and SEE in mind's eye the choreography. That my ballet period is at an end for me is not a time to mourn, though I do, but to be grateful for so many years with City Ballet. My life has been profoundly enriched, and I will cherish Balanchine's ballets now that I cannot see them onstage. I am forced by the new pricing policy to turn my attention elsewhere, to other idealistic goals, in my case, toward saving for a trip to the country close to my heart, where I have not been since my student days. But these great ballets played a central part in my aesthetic development, as I believe great art is not "entertainment", but that it directs you toward something higher, something of the sublime, the spiritual.

I passed Peter Martins walking up the stairs to Lincoln Center late this afternoon. I wish I could have told him what people are saying - that they are being priced out. But he would not have appreciated a confrontation, and since I had nothing "nice" to say, I let the moment pass. What would you have told Peter Martins if you passed him?

Thank you, Trini, for your validation. Every time I pass a poster for a concert or performance I'd like to attend, I note the price point for the seat I'd like, then I transfer that amount from my checking account to my savings account in order to save up for my foreign trip next year. This gives me something positive to think about, a project, a goal and a dream that I can make come true.

No solution to this pricing problem except to bid adieu to Jenny, Sara, Teresa, Chase, Sterling, Joaquin, and company, pass by the enticing Lincoln Center posters, and save my pennies toward something meaningful to me. Something more constructive than mourning, futilely, what is a fait accompli,namely, City Ballet policy. I will cherish the memories of Balanchine and Robbins, and put my energies toward saving for a visit to a foreign country, where I have not been since my student days at University. This is healthier than dwelling on the past. The future beckons me!

Deleted