Balanchine's Ballets -- Has Performance Quality Dropped?

[carbro]

I'm not sure Balanchine would want dancers to look "overjoyed" while dancing his ballets. From everything I've read and heard, Balanchine did not want to see much "emotion" onstage. I think he may have felt that the music and the steps were expressing what he wanted to show and that he did not especially want to see the dancers adding an additional layering of personal "feeling". We always hear quotes: "Just dance. Do steps." or "You are not in love with your partner."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So many of these quotes come from private situations, when he was working with the dancers in the studio. I think (and I may be wrong here) that most performers have a natural urge to Act. I suspect the ones who were told not to were guilty of overActing -- hiding their own essence and distracting the viewer from the overall choreographic design. On the other hand, you read Peter Martins' recollection of Balanchine telling him to hold Farrell "like a teacup." That isn't acting, but it certainly conveys something.

In Balanchine's day, the repertory was just as big . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bigger. By about 20-25%. Back then, a ballet (except Nutcracker) rarely got more than three performances a season. These days, most get at least four. Back then, we rarely got to see an alternate lead cast. These days, except with new works, we usually have that option.

[sandik]

I wonder why the library can't make tapes or even DIVX or mpeg (DVD) encoded movies available for LENDING from the vast collection of videos they have in the dance collection?  Would that be a copyright violation even though they are simply being lent without profit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm afraid so -- in some cases because of union regulations, and in other cases because of the individual agreements between the library and the artist or the artist's estate. It's certainly a frustration for those of us working far from NYC, but the commonly accepted justification is that the collection would be significantly smaller if it only held works that it could circulate.

[Guest nycdog]

Anthony made some very interesting comments with regards to spirit at NYCB...

"However, that assumes the dancer has an interesting personality to begin with, and the ones Martins favors don't always have that, or else he doesn't know how to bring it out. He has many gifts, but I'm not sure communicating poetry or spirituality is one of them (that's why I find his ballets so blank). "

I always wondered why the dancer Melissa Walter left in 2002? I think she was among the most spiritual of the dancers I have seen, but this sun in the company was replaced by a candle. Was Peter Martins to blame? I have no idea, but she comes to mind when you talk about choosing dancers and spirituality.

Then you said:

"I think Balanchine's mere presence (practically a religious figure) when he was alive probably encouraged his dancers to believe in the mysterious poetry..."

Mr B was worshipped and loved by the dancers, and I read somewhere today that B attended every performance of his works until the end of his life. Isn't that something?

So B was always out there watching and the dancers wanted to please him, and they did.

[Helene]

Good point.  We hold NYCB to the highest standards, and rightly so.  After all, they're the standards the company has set for itself.  When we praise MCB or PNB or either of the SFBs, what we're really saying is, "How wonderful — for a regional company!"  Our expectations are lower, so it's easier for them to delight us.

Except I don't. I expect the same standard of dancing Balanchine from Patricia Barker and Louise Nadeau and Natalia Magnicaballi and Tina LeBlanc and Yuri Possokhov and Jonathan Poretta that I did from NYCB dancers in principal roles. I expect even higher standards sometimes in soloist roles, as often, as in the earlier days of NYCB (which I didn't see) principal dancers perform them. Just as Harvard is hardly the only place to get an education, NYC is not the only place to see top-notch performances of Balanchine.

I feel I've had the best of both worlds, having grown up in and lived in NY metro for most of my adult life, and then having moved to the West Coast a decade ago. Like anyone else whose moved from the center of the universe to one of the "lesser" orbits, I've found that the treasures -- performances -- might be fewer in number, but they are often sublime, and up to the standards left behind. As an East Coast snob who really did think the only place that could surpass Manhattan was space, this wasn't what I expected when I moved, but what I very happily found.

[bart]

I always thought myself to be rather firm in my opinions, but as I read the responses of (just to name a few) oberon, kfw, alexandra, nycdog, et al., I find myself waffling. All these variables -- Balanchine v. Martins; creative genius v. very talented administrator; huge company with long performance schedule v. companies with shorter runs of fixed "programs"; memory v. recent experience; nostalgia v. trendiness; feeling v. technique; steps v. movement -- all of them play roles in forming the debate. I see the point(s).

The latest exchange between Ari and Helene provoked a fantasy: wouldn't it be nice if someone put together a season (in NYC or someplace more central) of performances of leading Balanchine-derived companies: the ones with a direct link to NYCB when Balanchine was alive. Let the audience observe each over the course of a few months. Make a video record for those not fortunate enough to attend.

Any ideas about which companies you would invite? what rules you would insist upon? what repertoire each company might bring? and what you think the results might be?

[dirac]

Just as Harvard is hardly the only place to get an education, NYC is not the only place to see top-notch performances of Balanchine.

That’s absolutely true, but for historical and other reasons, Harvard holds a special place that even the very best of other American universities don’t, and is thus the recipient of criticism and close scrutiny not accorded them.  As with NYCB, it’s a privileged – and highly exposed – position.

[Farrell Fan]

The latest exchange between Ari and Hockeyfan provoked a fantasy: wouldn't it be nice if someone put together a season (in NYC or someplace more central) of performances of leading Balanchine-derived companies:  the ones with a direct link to NYCB when Balanchine was alive.  Let the audience observe each over the course of a few months.  Make a video record for those not fortunate enough to attend.

Any ideas about which companies you would  invite?  what rules you would insist upon?  what repertoire each company might bring? and what you think the results might be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Something close to this took place in September of 2000 at the Kennedy Center. It was only a matter of two weeks, not months, not all the companies derived from Balanchine, and NYCB did not participate. Nevertheless, it was a worthy Balanchine Celebration. The participants were Suzanne Farrell Ballet, Miami City Ballet, San Francisco Ballet, Pennsylvania Ballet, Joffrey Ballet, and members of the Bolshoi Ballet.

Tobi Tobias was still reviewing dance for New York Magazine at the time, and I googled up her review today. Some excerpts: "The NYCB's interpretations, while obviously closest to the choreographer's unique style, have come increasingly to lack precision, energy, commitment, vision. This being so, the crucial question became, can Balanchine's ballets have a viable life elsewhere? The recent Balanchine Celebration at the Kennedy Center answered the question with a yes of Joycean force."

"The most memorable performance was Nina Ananiashvili's in Mozartiana, staged by Farrell on dancers from the Bolshoi...Farrell has proved that she can work her wonders with dancers of more modest gifts than Ananiashvili. Her own small troupe can't hold a candle to the numbers and depth of talent commanded by, say, the San Francisco and Miami groups, let alone her alma mater, the NYCB. Yet it offered the most ravishing production in the Celebration. Its rendition of Divertimento No. 15 was rapt, lyric, gloriously unified in tone and filled with moments in which dancers were at thrilling risk, reaching beyond the capabilities they're certain of to become more than they or we dreamed they might be...Farrell has the uncanny ability to transmit her virtues as a performing artist to multiple proteges. What an odd and marvelous thing to realize about one of the twentieth century's greatest ballerinas -- that the most important part of her career may still be ahead of her."

[kfw]

Thanks for the memories, FF. Ananiashvili's Mozartiana and the Farrell troupe's Divertimento # 15 -- not from the night I saw it during the Celebration but from the year before -- rank among my favorite Balanchine memories. Which means, I suppose, that they rank among my favorite memories.

[Marga]

Mr B was worshipped and loved by the dancers, and I read somewhere today that B attended every performance of his works until the end of his life.  Isn't that something? 

So B was always out there watching and the dancers wanted to please him, and they did.

I seem to recall that he was not always there, especially in the Farrell years when he was besotted with her. I think Suzanne Farrell mentioned in her book that he would leave the theatre -- with her -- when she was finished dancing and not stay to watch the other dancers, which caused much resentment on their part.

[Guest nycdog]

Marga:

"I seem to recall that he was not always there, especially in the Farrell years when he was besotted with her. I think Suzanne Farrell mentioned in her book that he would leave the theatre -- with her -- when she was finished dancing and not stay to watch the other dancers, which caused much resentment on their part"

'Besotted' ... That's a great word.

I should have given an attribution, I'm sorry...here's the quote I read:

"During his long career at the New York City Ballet, Garis tells us, Balanchine was present at every performance of every one of his ballets until the end of his life--always working, never losing contact with it and with them, his eye on the life of his art each and every time, the whole time." - Hollander, Anne. The New Republic. Washington: Nov 13, 1995. Vol.213, Iss. 20; pg. 38, 6 pgs, Review of 'Following Balanchine' by Robert Garis, Yale University Press, 1995.

I don't doubt what you add to this though Marga....

[Marga]

Okay , I found my reference:

Holding On To The Air, pg. 167:

" 'Other people, however, were decidedly distraught. I overheard complaints by other dancers: "When Suzanne's finished dancing, Mr. B waits outside her dressing room and then they go out to dinner while the rest of us go on with the performance.' I cannot deny that this happened on occasion, but more often than not I was in the last ballet, so frequently we were the last people to leave the theater."

Farrell explained that she started to lengthen the time it took for her to change and remove makeup and said she would meet him in the first wing when she was ready. In fact, she did ask him whether they should stay until the end of the performance. He replied, "I give them company, I give them ballets, I give them rehearsals, I give them class if they want to come. I already give them everything."

So, I guess, according to Farrell, it wasn't a regular occurrence, but happened often enough to cause discontent among the other dancers.

[Guest nycdog]

Alexandra mentioned Rachel Howard so I went to her web site to see what she had to say and found this:

"It's incredibly difficult, I think, for anybody under 40--and especially a non-New Yorker--to write about New York City Ballet these days. There is the omnipresent shadow of the many persuasive detractors of Peter Martins's leadership, coupled with the handicap of not having witnessed the company while Balanchine was alive."

Ari wrote:

"This ought to be happening, because of the eleven people listed in the program as ballet masters or assistants, all but two spent most of their careers working with Balanchine (although Christine Redpath and Jean-Pierre Frolich handle the Robbins rep). But obviously there's a problem and these critical details aren't getting passed along."

Obviously the details are getting passed in the majority of ballets but even where the performance level drops at times, I don't believe it is a very big problem. The dancers being faulted are capable of it technically. How do I know this? Because some things they do are fantastic. I could list many examples.

Some of the old timers don't even like Sofiane Sylve! For example in 2003, Diane Rafferty wrote in The Nation (3 March 2003, Vol.276, Iss. 8; pg. 44):

"Poor alignment: Sofiane Sylve is a perverse choice for guest artist this season. Her photo alone in the season's programs shows you how badly she hoists up her right hip to raise her right leg into second position (to the side). A serious no-no, and a cheating way to get the leg higher, to achieve greater extension. (Hips should remain even.) "

Does Sylve really have problems with extension? I doubt it. Was it also a mistake for her to be brought into the company and made a principal? :rolleyes:

With Sylve, Bouder, Ringer, Borrée, Ansanelli and Kowroski there is a lot to like! I look forward to the Spring Season myself! I hope that Abi Stafford returns. I really want to see 'Ballo della Regina" even though my favorite Verdi opera is probably Un Ballo in Mascara !

(Speaking of 'ballo,' one of my favorite Verdi pieces is 'Ballo' from Macbeth, the extended instrumental movement about 10 minutes long. That would have made a great ballet!)

[Farrell Fan]

It might interest you to know, nycdog, that when Verdi's "Un Ballo in Maschera," under the name "Un Bal Masque," was put on by the Monte Carlo Opera in 1928, Diaghilev's Ballet Russe danced the Act III divertissement. Geoge Balanchine was the choreographer. But it is incredibly difficult for anyone under ninety to write about it.

[Ari]

nycdog and others who share his views, let me tell you of my own experience.

I started going to NYCB in the early/mid '70s. I'd never been a dancegoer before, and it all struck me as new and thrilling. Discovering that it was possible to make great art, art that could stand up to that created by Shakespeare, Mozart, Leonardo, etc., in choreography, was an absolute revelation to me. I loved it, and found more in it every time I went. I loved the dancers, and was excited by the new ballets. Even if they weren't deathless masterpieces, well, you win some and you lose some, right?

I continued to attend, and towards the latter part of that decade I noticed that things were getting even better. There were a greater number of ballerinas, a greater number of exciting dancers at all levels. Performance quality improved considerably. Since I'd never known anything else, I was in heaven -- it was just getting better! Somewhere around that time I learned, from those whose memories went further back than mine, that this "high time" was actually the level at which the company had always performed. The early '70s had been a low point in the company's history, and the "old timers" were relieved that it was past.

If I'd known, when I first started going, that the company was performing below its own standard, what would I have felt? Probably confused. Here I was, having the time of my life, discovering new things, only to be told that it was no good! But Balanchine's ballets are so sturdy that they can withstand even pretty poor performances, and enough of what was good came through for me to be able to enjoy them. And while the dancing may not have been equal to what it had been in the past, it was still on a high enough level to keep me happy.

So what's the point of all this? Simply that I understand why you're so excited and happy about what you're seeing, and I understand why you object to anyone's putting a damper on your enthusiasm. But please, pay us old timers the respect of acknowledging that we may have a point in saying that standards at NYCB are not what they once were, and keep an open mind. That's really not too much to ask.

[oberon]

Well, Ari, not all "old-timers" are unhappy with things as they are at NYCB these days. I started going at the same time you did. There have always been, over the years, better and less-good nights at the NYCB. Things are different now but I do not think they are "worse" - Balanchine knew his ballets would look different after he was gone. There is no avoiding that situation, yet frequently I am amazed at how fresh they look. I have loved many dancers over the years, and I miss the ones who are gone but I'm excited by almost all of the dancers there today. I think we are fortunate to have this great concentration of Balanchine's work available to us on a daily basis. Whether Peter will eventually be viewed as the savior or the destroyer of Balanchine's legacy remains to be seen. We have no way of knowing how much worse things could be, just as we do not really know how much better. Aside from artistic considerations, there is the financial aspect to consider and there I think Martins has managed very well. While his neighbor at the Metropolitan Opera struggles with an aenemic box office, I don't see a major drop in attendance at NYCB. Some nights draw better than others, but that has always been the case.

I've been going so frequently in the past few years; NYCB is a major consideration for me in my decision to stay in NYC or move (out of the USA). I just love having MOZARTIANA and 4 TEMPS close at hand, and I am not quite ready to live without them.

[Farrell Fan]

I started going to NYCB in the mid-sixties and my experience was similar to ari's. I felt "How long has this been going on? This is great." And it was. To some extent, Oberon is correct that there have always been good nights and bad nights. What's troublesome about today's NYCB is how many sleepy nights there are.

The early seventies was a tumultuous time at NYCB. Balanchine fell into a deep depression when Suzanne Farrell left. Nevertheless, he had one of his greatest creative periods during the Stravinsky Festival in June of 1972, while Suzanne was toiling for Maurice Bejart. There's never been anything else like it in NYCB history.

After that, things just went along for a couple of years, until Mr. B took Suzanne back into NYCB, and celebrated with another burst of creativity.

Peter Martins did a good job keeping the company on an even keel after Balanchine's death. But he seemed distrustful of anyone else, especially Suzanne, who'd been close to Mr. B. Sure, there are fine individual performances nowadays but the old excitement just isn't there anymore. There's no point in rehashing all this, except to echo ari's point. Be kind to us old-timers. We've seen great things.

[Marga]

Be kind to us old-timers. We've seen great things.

Thank you for expressing that sentiment, Farrell Fan! Its succinct message speaks volumes. My one regret is that at the time I was seeing those great things I took them for granted. -- insert emoticon for 'wistful' --

[oberon]

I never feel sleepy at NYCB, but I have often been bored at ABT and have stopped going there for the most part.

[bart]

I started going to NYCB in the early/mid '70s.  I'd never been a dancegoer before, and it all struck me as new and thrilling.  Discovering that it was possible to make great art, art that could stand up to that created by Shakespeare, Mozart, Leonardo, etc.,  in choreography, was an absolute revelation to me

  Simply that I understand why you're so excited and happy about what you're seeing, and I understand why you object to anyone's putting a damper on your enthusiasm.  But please, pay us old timers the respect of acknowledging that we may have a point in saying that standards at NYCB are not what they once were, and keep an open mind.

I started going to NYCB in the mid-sixties and my experience was similar to ari's. I felt "How long has this been going on? This is great." And it was. To some extent, Oberon is correct that there have always been good nights and bad nights. What's troublesome about today's NYCB is how many sleepy nights there are.

There's no point in rehashing all this, except to echo ari's point. Be kind to us old-timers. We've seen great things.

I started going regularly to NYCB as a mid-teen in the mid-50s. I understand Ari's and Farrell Fan's points and am in remarkable agreement.

I stopped attending, except rarely in the mid 80s after moving from NYC, though I followed the news, read the reviews, saw the available videos, and got to town for a few performances. I have strong visual memories of the Balanchine pieces, and can see them elsewhere. I don't regret missing the Martins' choreography or most of the Diamond Project -- though I really wish I could see live performances of Wheeldon's work. Oberon's post makes me realize how grateful we all should be to Peter Martins for keeping the operation going at a higher, more idealistic level (not to mention solvency) than we couuld realistically have expected after Balanchine's death.

My biggest regret is not having experienced today's dancers in a way that made us feel we really "knew" them (as performers) when I was a regular. That takes lots of exposure and attention. I'll never know what makes Ballet Talk posters enthuse so much about certain dancers -- lament weak performances or bad casting -- or call for different kinds of coaching. I am sure that there are people today buying tickets to NYCB who feel that thrill of revelation just as we did decades ago -- though the revelation may be about different things.

But, as Ari's post implies, each slice of time in ballet carries its own way of seeing, feeling, evaluating. We understand these things only when time has passed --when we and the world have changed. That's a great thing about getting older.

Edited April 12, 2005 by bart

[Guest nycdog]

Be kind to us old-timers. We've seen great things.

Thank you for expressing that sentiment, Farrell Fan! Its succinct message speaks volumes. My one regret is that at the time I was seeing those great things I took them for granted. -- insert emoticon for 'wistful' --

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently the only way to know if art is great is the passage of time. I was disappointed in the thread on Margo Fonteyn to learn that board member and young dancer Daniil doesn't care much for Nureyev! I think Nureyev, and Farrell (just to name two) come through as great in their films, but maybe I'm wrong to think they are anything special.

I wonder if even Balanchine's Ballets are timeless? They are becoming less a part of NYCB every year. I could see something like "Concerto Barocco" outliving "Stars 'n' Stripes."

Maybe 1000 years from now they will be doing PAMTGG (Pan Am makes the going great) and not Barocco.

4 May 2005, Spring Gala (no B whatsover!): :rolleyes:

Tālā Gaisma (New Martins, World Premiere)

Double Aria (New Millepied, NYCB Premiere)

New Evans Ballet (World Premiere)

An American in Paris (New Wheeldon, World Premiere)

[atm711]

I can't help wondering what all the 'old-timers' and 'new-timers' would have thought of the early NYCB. I was fortunate, I discovered Balanchine from his days with the Denham Ballet Russe and was smitten early on---. I was present for the birth pangs of NYCB, and aside from the few principals, mainly Tallchief and perhaps Hayden, the stage was filled with raw dancers out of the classroom, and a male dancers who would have a hard time of it today. BUT--this Company had Balanchine, if we wanted glamor there was always Ballet Theatre. I, for one, am happy that New York City had the brains to embrace this Company, and we still do today.

[socalgal]

I do have memories of the old Ballet Theatre and NYCB in the early 60's. I was young and loved all of it! But what I found fascinating was watching the old films of NYCB that were shown for the Bicentenial. It was an eye opener to see Hayden, Tallchief, Wilde, Jillana, young McBride, Verde et al. dances these same ballets. They all had a wonderful color and texture to their performances as well as excitement. And I was surprised these old films captivated me like they did. There was a certain magic....don't know if I can explain it. Also a wonderful feeling of committment to the art they were creating while dancing it.

Sometimes I feel that the young dancers of today get very concerned about "the spotlight" and dancing like everything is a competition rather than seeking the truth within the work. Only good coaching can keep the art of dance alive IMO. To understand the intention of motion, not just the skill!

[Amy Reusch]

someone must have told MIT that they were violating intellectual property rights.

[carbro]

From 3:10 I notice Yvonne Borrée (?) in the blue, my eye is drawn to her over the dancer in the pink (I have no idea who that was) . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The leader of the tall regiment looks to me like Theresa Reyes, but I think you have the colors reversed. I tried to go back and double check that and ran into the same thing as Amy.

someone must have told MIT that they were violating intellectual property rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey! It wasn't me, okay???

[sandik]

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /21m.670/www/Videos/stars2.rm on this server.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIT Web Server Apache/1.3.26 Mark/1.4 Server at web.mit.edu Port 80

...is what I get if I try the link... someone must have told MIT that they were violating intellectual property rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I think these were for a class that a friend of mine taught -- the trick to making a site like that is to make sure that the kids in class can see it, but that it's not open to the general public. Usually a password is enough, but it looks like this got out of hand.