Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Has ABT Replaced NYCB as America's top company?


Recommended Posts

Speaking of hostility... it seems to get hot in here every so often... anyway...

I think people are more forgiving of new ABT works, b/c the bar is set differently. Balanchine, and also Robbins, set the bar rather high. Some people will be unhappy with any NYCB work from someone not of that caliber. Many more (the less extreme ones) will still compare any new works to B & R, whether they realize it or not-- the unconscious workings of the mind when it somes to judgment are amazing (hence why I studied it in graduate school!). Judgments are inherently affected by standards of comparison. Even if we realize we are being overly critical b/c something doesn't measure up to Mr. B, we can't change how we feel. That judgment already happened. for better or for worse. But, basically, I think the standards of comparison for choreography at NYCB and at ABT are very different. To NYCB we turn for works that are intellectually and emotionally satisfying and that we can see multiple times and still see new things. With an ABT full-length, we rely on new dancers and interpretations more than the choreography inherently on its own to hold our interest and learn new things, in my view. ABT is not built around its one act repertory, even if it tries to put it front and center in the fall. The one act at ABT is not what sustains the audience there. I think the one acts at ABT are just not seen as strongly in contrast to so many great works (ABT certainly has one act gems, just not so many) as the new works at NYCB are.

I think, in the past, we have often wondered what people would think of Martins works if he were the resident choreographer elsewhere. I don't want to get back into THAT discussion, but did want to remind us of that, since it's relevant here.

I'd venture to guess that the some people see Wheeldon's works more in contrast to Martins' than to Balanchine's. And, so, for those that loathe Martins works, Wheeldon necessarily benefits. Do we come out of a Wheeldon piece thinking (consciously or not), "Didn't like that. It's no Balanchine work" or "So much better than that last new work by Martins" (or both, I guess!). I wonder if many do the latter more... It's hard with, so much history, to just see new ballets without much prejudice.

I hope some of this made sense!

-amanda

Link to comment

You made excellent sense. In an effort to be fair to Martins, I do think his choreography is requested by other companies for the technical challenges they pose for the dancers. As the number of his works has reached a critical mass at NYCB, I no longer think he's no Balanchine, any more than I think Stanton Welch is no Petipa.

Link to comment

Hans, since you said that you hadn't seen NYCB in three years, how do you know which dancers at NYCB don't match-up against Farrell, McBride etc... I guess that is just obvious, because Farrell and McBride are two of the greatest dancers of our times, but if you don't see the dancers at NYCB, how can you judge? A lot can change for better or worse in three years. For example, Ringer has expanded her range a lot in the last three years, Whelan has worked hard to become more conventionally classical, Somogyi was developed and Weese has added more emotional depth.

I just don't like people lamenting the decline of NYCB when in some cases (and I don't mean Hans) they only know the company from their TV appearances.

And I don't think of NYCB putting on the "classics." I think of them as a neo-classical company with their own style Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty. They could be coached better in them. They would benefit from, say, a guest coach from the Kirov, but then when I think of classical style at NYCB, I think of Theme and Variations, Divertimento No. 15, and Symphony in C. It's classicism through Balanchine's eyes. And it's done in the Balanchine style, not the Russian style (although Balanchine's style uses the Imperial Russian style as a base). And I think, ABT's male virtuosos aside, NYCB (on the whole, especially in terms of style) dances T&V better than ABT, which is so obsessed with the attention-grabbing aspects of the choreography - holding the balances while ignorning the music, chopping up phrases, adding turns etc...

Link to comment

Hans -- re ABTs ballerinas: I don't really like to post negative things, especially about ABT, a company I love, but I do think the ballerina situation there is pretty dismal, and their repertory positively demands ballerinas. You cannot have a great Swan Lake without a real Odette/Odile; a great Bayadere without a real Nikiya; a great Giselle without a real Giselle; a great Manon without a real Manon. By 'real' I mean someone who masters the role and puts their personal stamp on it...

You mentioned several admirable dancers I left out, so I'll say a few words about them. Mckerrow, whom I admire, is no longer with the company. When she was, the quality of her projection was uneven, to say the least, for a ballerina of her stature. I did think her Giselle was the real thing for sure! especially opposite Malakhov. Jaffe, a fine principal dancer, likewise has retired. Though often impressed by her performances in recent years, I was never fully persuaded that she arrived at being a genuine ballerina. What do I mean by that? Well, I mean someone who inspires me with new visions of the possibilities inherent in the major roles that they dance...at the very least someone who commands the stage with the sheer quality of their movement. (The ultimate pantheon -- e.g. dancers like Ulanova, Fonteyn, Farrell and, in my opinion, Kirkland -- that's taking things to still another level -- for this discussion I'll call it prima ballerina. Right now, I don't see anyone anywhere at that level, though one or two perhaps approach it.)

Herrera, I genuinely forgot to mention. She is stunningly talented, but her development has been rocky. The general consensus a few years back was that she had stalled (check newspapers and internet chat boards for confirmation). During that difficult time I only saw her twice, once horribly miscast in Prodigal Son, once in a very disappointing performance of Balanchine's Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto Number Two. Since that time, I have read from fans on this board that she is coming into her own once again -- which is terrific! I unfortunately can't report on that myself.

As for Wiles, I have seen her in several solos. Since she is a young, gifted dancer, I have no reason or desire to start nitpicking -- but I find it ludicrous to discuss her at this stage as a ballerina. As for her dancing in solo roles, I can only report on what I have seen: in a showcase solo choreographed for a gala by Robert Hill, the choreography was driving and vulgar, and she gave a driving, vulgar performance with fouettes that travelled from almost the very beginning. I don't blame her for that performance, but it hardly won me over. As one of the two wilis dancing in Giselle a couple of years back, she seemed to have no stylistic sense of the ballet at all...indeed she looked more as if she belonged at City Ballet. This spring in the third shades solo of Bayadere she looked much better, but still -- to my eyes -- has yet to 'grow' into her extraordinary height. (She still seems just a bit gangly.) That said, I join you in believing that she will have much to contribute to the company in the future and look forward to watching that happen.

The dancers I mentioned at NYCB are real ballerinas -- I saw Whelan give a distinctive performance of Chaconne that brought that ballet back to life for me after years of performances that simply reminded one how much the ballet 'needed' a Suzanne Farrell. Several others on this board had similar reactions to that performance (though Michael, I believe, disagreed). She has made a mark across the repertory from Balanchine to Robbins to Martins to Diamond project works, and even writers heavily critical of the Martins regime, like Joan Acocella, have acknowledged her emergence as a major dancer. Kowroski and Ringer are absolutely distinctive presences on the stage in a variety of roles. Ringer in Brahms Schoenberg Quartet, second movement, shows a daring and passion that is stunning. She also knows how to draw out her partners -- male dancers who with others seem lackluster come to life opposite her. That's a quality I associate with genuine ballerinas. And she projects! Once when I was sitting towards the back of the fourth ring at the State Theater I could literally hear the intake of breath of everyone sitting around me when she began a solo in Stabat Mater. (By the by, Stabat Mater would I suppose qualify as a Martins ballet that is not misogynistic.) Kowroski in Monumentum/Movements has given a performance of such control and presence that I would absolutely put it against others I have seen in those ballets (including Farrell). I do NOT think that , overall, think she is the ballerina that Farrell was -- for one thing she doesn't have the range or the technique and she also doesn't have a Balanchine to work with -- but I do think she is a ballerina. In Variations for a Door and a Sigh, I literally cannot picture a performance of more daring and intensity; in the Farrell role in Davidsbundlertanze she is mesmerizing. With all of these dancers I can see them again and again in the same roles -- one of my criteria for a 'ballerina' -- learning and seeing more each time. I have been lucky enough to see Kowroski dance Swan Lake now twice. She's not 'perfect' in the role or, of course, traditionally classical, but (in my opinion) she does offer something to the eye and the imagination that bears more than one viewing. I don't even want to see most of ABTs principles do a major role more than once, though for various reasons I have, only confirming my sense that they often aren't offering performances of ballerina caliber.

Just as I forgot Herrera at ABT I forgot Somogyi at NYCB -- I have seen her give outstanding performances, strong yet melting, in both Divertimento Number 15 and Dewdrop. I don't know that she belongs in the ballerina category just yet, but definitely an impressive presence. The ABT equivalent -- good principals who are not or not yet ballerinas -- don't, in my opinion, usually dance on this level of strength or elegance.

Like Dale, too, I don't look to NYCB for great Petipa dancing -- just as I don't look to the Kirov for great Balanchine dancing. And especially since I do consider Balanchine as important a figure for the art of ballet as Petipa, the maintenance of the Balanchine repertory seems to me just as important as productions of Bayadere and Swan Lake for the future of the art. NYCB's dancing of Balanchine is, at present, often inconsistent, but the company has maintained the repertory (as, for example, the Royal Ballet has not maintained the Ashton repertory and ABT has not maintained the Tudor repertory) and, despite claims made for this or that regional company dancing this or that Balanchine ballet 'better' than NYCB, I have yet to see comparable Balanchine dancing anywhere else. And companies I haven't seen (such as the Miami ballet) are hardly in a position to sustain the repertory in any case. To speak of a company I have seen...However impressed I may be with the coaching at, say, the Suzanne Farrell ballet, I think it's dishonest to compare her accomplishments with mostly young inexperienced dancers and a few guest senior dancers to the day in, day out work of City Ballet.

That said, do I wish the level of Balanchine dancing was better at NYCB? yes, of course! Do I love ABT? absolutely! But I know which company I take more seriously, and I persist in suspecting, that at least for fans to whom Balanchine matters as much as Petipa some of the anger at NYCB has to do with the fact that deep down they take it more seriously too. The recent Ashton acquisitions at ABT are a terrific development there -- but has everyone really forgotten the past few seasons: Cranko, Hynd, Stevenson -- by comparison the occasional Macmillan might seem like a relief, and I myself don't think Macmillan's ballets hold up outside of exceptional performances either. For ballets like Snow Maiden or Taming of the Shrew -- even with superstars, those ballets are often a bore. (I was bored in the 'old days' when I saw Haydee and Cranko do Taming of the Shrew.) Some would defend Cranko and Macmillan, but even if one likes those ballets better than I, it's hard to make a case that ABT is going to make its mark internationally as the flagship of British choreography of the 60's and 70's.

A final word: yes the men at ABT are terrific, but several of the most gifted (Stiefel, Corella) have yet to really get under the skin of the very nineteenth-century repertory that dominates ABT's performing schedule. Stiefel, this spring, in Bayadere, still looked as if he was playacting (during Act I especially)...Corella seems temperamentally more at ease with this repertory, but as Leigh Witchel and others have discussed, he appears to be going through a transition of some kind. I saw him twice this spring and both times, for the first time in my experience, he looked overly forceful and landings were sloppy. Cornejo is a remarkable talent, but does not seem to have the body type to take over the major male leads. All of these are wonderful dancers I love to see, and this is (I hope) the most negative post anyone on this board will ever see from me...but I cannot agree with the view that ABT has somehow risen so far above its history and NYCB fallen so far below its history that the former is now the 'better' or 'more important' company.

Link to comment

Apples and oranges. The best for me is when both are performing at Lincoln Center and I can intermission hop between theaters to see whom or what I think the most thrilling.

It is fun to read everyone's opinions!! Mine is that we are fortunate to have both as food for thought.

Here is another question - in the nineteen seventies and eighties NY was the dance capitol of the world. What about now?

Link to comment

mbjerk, I think your "is NY still the capital of the dance world" might do better as a separate thread, so I'll start one on this forum.

Drew, I didn't find your post negative at all but, as everything you post here, thoughtful and analytical, and looking at the big picture -- I certainly HOPE we'll get more of the same from you! :D I agree with your comments about ballerinas; the question of "what makes a ballerina" comes up here from time to time, and I'd point to your post as an excellent answer to that question.

Link to comment

To say that NYCB has its own "style" of Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake is like seeing the Bolshoi perform Napoli with Russianized choreography and saying "Well, the Bolshoi just has its own style of Napoli." It is either Sleeping Beauty or it isn't, and in NYCB's case, it isn't. It's not the problem of the Maryinsky and Royal Ballet productions being different because of slight differences in stagings that became more pronounced over the years, but that both stem from the original. It's a case of deliberately changing steps and character with no regard for Petipa, and if anyone did the same thing to Balanchine, the dance world would be outraged. But Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake are old classics, which seems these days to mean "fair game."

Edited to correct spelling.

Link to comment

Just a quick reminder that Balanchine had nothing to do with the current NYCB productions of "The Sleeping Beauty" and [full-length] "Swan Lake." His "Nutcracker" does derive from St. Petersburg sources. One could argue that SB and SL do not reflect his aesthetic. (I remember Tobi Tobias writing that the guiding principle behind Sleeping Beauty seemed to be "Out by 10:30")

I think what Hans wrote about the difference between different productions and bad/wrong/inferior productions is a good one. We can always argue over whether "our" company is performing "their" choreography correctly -- and vice versa -- and usually, understandably, we have a lot more tolerance when a company we see regularly takes in a new work and performs it in native style. But there's another side to that fence.

Link to comment

The Garland Dance in the NYCB's Sleeping Beauty is by Balanchine. He choreographed it for the Tschaikovsky Festival.

Hans, your point is well taken. I am probably one of those who believes NYCB probably should not dance a full-length Swan Lake, but the one-act, Balanchine Swan Lake is another story. I saw a POB etoile dance that ballet here in NY a few years ago, and it was all wrong.

Link to comment

I know about the Balanchine Swan Lake--in fact, I would love to see NYCB do it:).

I also knew Balanchine choreographed only the garland dance from SB and that his Nutcracker does stem from the original--thanks for the reminder, Alexandra. It's still easy to think of NYCB as synonymous with Balanchine, just as it should be:).

Link to comment
Originally posted by Hans

if anyone did the same thing to Balanchine, . . .  

Often they do.

. . . the dance world would be outraged.

I, for one, frequently am.

Fortunately, "they" seem to have realized that much of what made Balanchine's works soar has been eroding, and obvious efforts to regain those ballets' rightful energy have yielded heartening results.

Link to comment

Could it be that the dancers that danced Balanchine are not there on a daily basis that the rep has suffered? Or at least not enough of them?

Whereas ABT always has "borrowed" roles that have been interpreted so many ways it doesn't have the same effect.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...