Should there be a coryphee rank at NYCB?

[Leigh Witchel]

What do you think? Would it be good or bad for the company to have a rank between corps and soloist?

[GeorgeB fan]

This is a question I'm sure can be answered by someone with more knowledge of the psychological effect it would have on the dancers. But seeing that the soloist rank is currently very small compare to the huge numbers of principals NYBC has and that of two female soloist (Abi Stafford & Pascale van Kipnis) are out on a long term injury, it might not be a bad ideal. But I doubt it will ever happen. If Balanchine didn't see it necessary I can't see Peter Martins creating one.

However here's my list of possible coryphee

Dena Abergel

Faye Arthurs

Antonio Carmena

Amanda Edge

Carla Korbes

Rebecca Krohn

Ask la Cour

Seth Orza

Amar Ramasar

Carrie Lee Riggins

Jonathan Stafford

[carbro]

Interesting question. It's really an issue between management and the union.

In the 30+ years I've been attending, there have always been de facto coryphees. If they aren't paid more than the corps salary stipulated in the contract (which is based on years of service up to three, if I'm not mistaken), they certainly should be.

Also, for those who don't attend as regularly as some of the BalletTalk gang, it would give a more accurate indication of those dancers' place in terms of seniority and heirarchy.

So what's the downside?

[AmandaNYC]

If they aren't paid more than the corps salary stipulated in the contract (which is based on years of service up to three, if I'm not mistaken), they certainly should be. 

Also, for those who don't attend as regularly as some of the BalletTalk gang, it would give a more accurate indication of those dancers' place in terms of seniority and heirarchy.

So what's the downside? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the current contract has the salary flattening (except for company-wide increases) at 4 years of service.

Downside-- just more stratification, which doesn't help the morale of those not put into the rank. Every time there is a promotion, I'm guessing there are lingering negative feelings among those not promoted. Adding a new rank means even more of that happening. Three levels might be a good balance between having distinctions but maintaining morale, especially at a company like NYCB where so many corps dancers dance solo/principal parts.

-amanda

[oberon]

When Pauline Golbin's marriage was announced in the NY Times a few years ago, she was referred to as a "Senior Corps dancer at NYCB..." which title doesn't really exist but which may have referred to her seniority or that she gets featured roles from time to time.

In general, I don't think a fourth level would enhance the Company...

[carbro]

Every time there is a promotion, I'm guessing there are lingering negative feelings among those not promoted.  Adding a new rank means even more of that happening.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, more levels means more promotions, more movement from rank to rank, so if there are hard feelings (which surely exist to one degree or another in every employment situation), there would just mathematically be fewer people left in the corps to sulk. And if they're not quite soloist material and they know it, there's something for them to aspire to.

[Ari]

This is an interesting question, Leigh, and it's one I've been asking myself as long as I've been watching NYCB because, as carbro says, there have always been de facto demi-soloists in the company. But while it might clarify the state of things for new viewers, in the end I think an offical coryphée or demi-soloist rank would be contrary to the company's ethos. NYCB has always been the least hierarchical of the major companies — when I first started going, the company was listed in strict alphabetical order, without regard to rank — and the whole concept of movement within the company (upward mobility, so to speak) has always been central to it.

I remember an interview with Peter Martins during Balanchine's time in which he talked about how the company struck him when he first joined. It was such a contrast to the European companies, which were so stratified. Over there, he said, a dancer trained and rehearsed in private and when he was deemed ready was promoted. Then he began to get roles. Over here, dancers' development was much more public, with solo roles being given to corps members and principal roles to soloists, who then had to prove their worthiness to dance them. If they did so, they were promoted.

And then there's the other side to this fluidity: downward mobility. It's not something you see regularly, but there have been times when dancers who have been rising have begun to sink in the casting, and if they're soloists (or official demi-soloists), you wind up with a lot of deadwood. That, I think, was another reason Balanchine waited so long before promoting dancers — he wanted to be absolutely certain that they had what it took.

Of course, dancer development practices at NYCB have changed since Balanchine's time, but the company still uses its corps as a fund of soloist material, and I think that's part of its appeal for dancers (and audiences). The idea that anyone can suddenly be plucked out of the corps and given a demi-solo or solo or principal role is part of the company's special excitement, and adding another rank would diminish that.

[nina]

Thank you. Ari. Clear and thoughtful reasoning. I also think you are exactly right.

[oberon]

Yes...great writing, Ari...and you've hit several excellent points.

Amanda, I agree that promotions cause jealousies and hurt feelings among other dancers who are passed over..some of this I know first-hand. It also can make the unpromoted dancers try harder, as carbro states. Sometimes it seems that promotions are based on talent, some on the needs of the Company (needing tall boys, or shorter girls as the case may be, to dance with established "stars"); and others as a reward for good, long & diligent service...in a way those are the nicest.

As to the various nominations, I would like to add that Glenn Keenan is a delight, and I look forward to seeing her in EMERALDS tonight.

[Bewe921]

CORYPHEE ?? You're kidding. Fancy yourself, say the latest dancer to win stellar reviews in Emeralds. You're young, done the blood, sweat, and tears thing since

you were a little kid, managed super grades, and then you made it at NYBC.

No different than so many others. At some point you are advanced . Everything you've worked for and now you are a CORYPHEE. Do you share this big promo with your college classmates______they will think Whoa, she needs a spelling update. It's SOLOIST next. Haven't you read your Balanchine? Bad idea to make this error.

[Annemd]

I think there should be the 3 rankings, and the 3 rankings ONLY. I think if you add another ranking, it'd just stew up more jealousy not to mention make the transition from corps to soloist a bigger wait. And anyway, does it REALLY matter if you are corps, soloist, or principle? I know everybody wants the title and not to mention greater pay, but if you are being allowed to dance principle parts, even as a corps member, be happy with that, right? There are other companies which don't even allow for corps dancers to perform soloist roles, and soloists to perform principle parts, but at City ballet this is done differently. They give many opportunities in which I think some of the dancers do not realize...this company really does take give a lot of privelages to their dancers and shows them off when they feel their talent should be shown to the public eye.

[Bewe921]

I think there should be the 3 rankings, and the 3 rankings ONLY.  I think if you add another ranking, it'd just stew up more jealousy not to mention make the transition from corps to soloist a bigger wait.  And anyway, does it REALLY matter if you are corps, soloist, or principle?  I know everybody wants the title and not to mention greater pay, but if you are being allowed to dance principle parts, even as a corps member, be happy with that, right?  There are other companies which don't even allow for corps dancers to perform soloist roles, and soloists to perform principle parts, but at City ballet this is done differently.  They give many opportunities in which I think some of the dancers do not realize...this company really does take give a lot of privelages to their dancers and shows them off when they feel their talent should be shown to the public eye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

May I second Annemd. Trust Mr. Martins to "feel when

the dancer's talent should be shown off in the public eye."

[Old Fashioned]

I think if you add another ranking, it'd just stew up more jealousy not to mention make the transition from corps to soloist a bigger wait.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this is true. Recently at a local company a couple of ranks have been added to the traditional "corps, soloist, principal" statuses and I would find it awkward to be promoted to one of these new ranks, especially if it's a title all to yourself and a few of your colleagues who were previously in the same rank as you were promoted at the same time and able to skip the new title. Or if you had been anticipating a promotion and then not actually being given the one you want. Not that I know how any of the dancers feel...this is all speculation.

[perky]

One of the cool things about NYCB is the way the audience and Ballet Talkers on this board pick out various corps members as thier favorites. I believe this happens more at NYCB than at any other ballet company. I suspect this has to do with the way Balanchine choreographed for the corp. It really gives them a chance to shine and to be themselves. You have uniformity of course but also more of chance to "just dance" which allows the dance temperment of the dancer to shine through. It not just "the third swan from the left", it's the glamour of Golbin, the joy of Carmena, the beauty of Korbes. Because of that I don't think a corphee title is needed.

[lampwick]

I always thought the corps at City Ballet would be the absolute best job in the world. They get to dance SO much. And the choreography is HARD.

Savannah Lowery always stands out to me as having something special...

[Annemd]

One that always sticks out to me is Dana Hanson. Beautiful technique and is reliable to give a good performance that is top-notch and enjoyable.

[oberon]

You said it, perky! Only at NYCB...Balanchine gives the corps things to do that really challenge them and you watch certain people to see how they bring it off.

I mean, you just have to see the things he demands of the corps - as individuals - in a given ballet...it's not easy stuff; there's very little standing about. Other choreographers working there find this big pool of talent and know they can ask for "more" in their works.

The other reason why I think NYCBs corps dancers are better known to us as individuals than the dancers at ABT is, the Met is just waaaaaay too big for dance. I'm sure there's wonderful kids in the ABT corps but you just feel so far away from them, it's hard to really know who is who.

For a company that supposedly "just dances" there are huge, charismatic personalities among the NYCB corps dancers...you mentioned three outstanding dancers but really there are so many. This season some of the newer kids started to assert themselves as well (Hyltin, Scheller, Paradiso to name just three).

[Tomatonose]

If I were a corps dancer, there's no place I'd rather be than NYCB. Much much more than ABT, NYCB treats its corps dancers as individuals. They get to dance solo roles in many ballets, and they are recognized by fans as individuals. We all have our favorite NYCB corps members. We know their individual dancing styles, their strengths and weaknesses. When they dance solos (which is quite often), we cheer for them as we cheer for the principals and soloists. Can we really say that about the ABT corps?

When an ABT member gets promoted, they suddenly gain a lot more recognition and generate a lot more attention overnight. But for NYCB, I don't really think that's the case. It's not like we'll suddenly be talking about Janie Taylor much more now that she's a principal, or Teresa Reichlen much more because she's a soloist. We were interested in them before, and we'll be interested in them now, and if there's an increase, it's because we might see them dancing more, not necessarily because their titles changed.

Creating another rank might be fairer in terms of salary. If some corps members are given the responsibility of carrying whole acts of a ballet, as they sometimes are, shouldn't they get a salary that reflects that? But on the other hand, they are getting more exposure, which has potential monetary value itself.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Tomatonose

[hbl]

There are actually already 4 levels at NYCB - the apprentices as described in the most recent program. The thought of adding a fifth level is mind bogling - another level of stratification in a company that tries not to do that at all. As has been already said, the company often has corps members dancing principal roles to say nothing of the soloists who regularly dance principal roles. Adding another layer seems so un NYCB like - I can't imagine it. Part of the joy of going to NYCB is seeing young dancers being given leading roles. Sometimes what they lack in polish they give back in energy and are a joy to watch.