the uninspiring Balanchine rep at NYCB?

[kfw]

I guess this is another variant of the what-kind-of-shape-is-the-Balanchine-rep-at-NYCB-? question, but I don't remember that issue being addresed from quite this angle. In this week’s New York Observer, Robert Gottlieb writes that today at City Ballet

the Balanchine repertory isn’t honored enough in the way it’s rehearsed and presented to inspire young dancers and to attract a young audience

So I'm wondering . . . I don’t know how we’d truly ascertain this short of a poll, but is there any evidence for what Gottlieb claims? On the professional side, a SAB where students get to see NYCB often, don’t most students covet invitations from the company, where they know they’ll dance a lot of Balanchine? And within the company, isn’t Balanchine’s leotard ballet vocabulary the root vocabulary for new works by company members, and often by Christopher Wheeldon? If the Balanchine there is still inspiring choreographers, it must be inspiring other dancers. Or when NCYB dancers make breakthroughs and begin dancing better, does this tend to show first in the non-Balanchine rep?

On the audience side, are City Ballet’s all-Balanchine programs attracting fewer young people than other programs, or fewer than they used to attract? Do the ballets get less applause than other ballets?

[bart]

Great questions. Looking forward to hearing how they are addressed and responded to.

[Guest nycdog]

Gottlieb:

"the Balanchine repertory isn’t honored enough in the way it’s rehearsed and presented to inspire young dancers and to attract a young audience"

In the same column he said that Ashely Bouder was thrilling. Certainly she is inspired.

Gottlieb does not like Peter Martins and a couple of the dancers in particular and for that he makes sweeping negative comments. :rolleyes:

[charlieloki]

Gottlieb:

"the Balanchine repertory isn’t honored enough in the way it’s rehearsed and presented to inspire young dancers and to attract a young audience"

In the same column he said that Ashely Bouder was thrilling.  Certainly she is inspired.

Gottlieb does not like Peter Martins and a couple of the dancers in particular and for that he makes sweeping negative comments. :rolleyes:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i happen to agree with mr g most of the time

his negative comments are harsh, but generally justified

esp. regarding the eifmann mess

some of us really feel it *here* when our favorite art is, shall we say, sullied -- unintentionally or not -- by choreographers, directors, etc.

[Farrell Fan]

On the audience side, are City Ballet’s all-Balanchine programs attracting fewer young people than other programs, or fewer than they used to attract? Do the ballets get less applause than other ballets?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My own observation is that the answer to all three questions is yes.

[Juliet]

I'm on the side of the fence with charlieloki.....

I attended the Spring Gala despite misgivings and left it afterward very subdued, if not disconsolate. No Balanchine offered, no Robbins and when the best thing on the program is a P. Martins piece, there is no joy in Mudville.....

[carbro]

On the audience side, are City Ballet’s all-Balanchine programs attracting fewer young people than other programs, or fewer than they used to attract? Do the ballets get less applause than other ballets?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My own observation is that the answer to all three questions is yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ditto.

There's an underlying question, though: If NYCB were dancing its Balanchine rep with the appropriate elan, musicality and spontenaiety, would it attract that "lost" portion of the audience? Would the often understated inventions of genius, now more easy to discern, get the appreciation (which is not necessarily measured by a Queen-for-a-Day [now I'm really dating myself!!! ] applause meter) now lavished on the angst-and-alienation body twisters which are taking up more and more valuable spots in the repertory?

[Michael]

Well, honoring anything with rehearsal does not seem to be a very strong point at City Ballet right at the moment.

Gottlieb is right that the new works have received all the attention -- also Harlequinade and Union Jack have, thank God for small favors, been carefully prepared.

But everything else, which does include large chunks of the Balanchine rep, is just being thrown on the stage with the no maintenance at all, or with the lowest possible maintenance. Where a Ballet was performed last Winter, such as for example Theme, the last D.C. cast takes the stage with a minimum of tweaking. (It looks like 4Ts and Glass Pieces are about to be cast the same way). And since the company did not look very good in D.C., and there has been almost no rehearsal of this material since then, it looks even worse now. And when something is revived, as with Allegro Brilliant tonight, it looks as if the first performance IS the dress rehearsal. (Seriously, how could you cast Nilas Martins as the cavalier in Allegro if you were serious about making this ballet look its best?).

[oberon]

We seem to be beating a dead horse here. Since I joined this group there have been several "how terrible does NYCB's Balanchine look?" threads. The same people basically write the same things. As for "professional" writers, I would think by now everyone here knows Gottlieb doesn't like much about the current state of affairs at NYCB while Kisselgoff likes almost everything.

[Guest nycdog]

Carbo wrote, "There's an underlying question, though: If NYCB were dancing its Balanchine rep with the appropriate elan, musicality and spontenaiety, would it attract that "lost" portion of the audience? "

This latest negative statement by Gottlieb doesn't make any practical sense I just laughed at it.

For how many years has he been attacking Peter Martins? Either Gottlieb is not very intelligent or he doesn't truly care for the well being of the Balanchine rep at NYCB, otherwise he'd still be on the NYCB board and he'd have a good personal relationship with Martins. Gottlieb doesn't have any idea how to be effective or helpful.

It's too bad Kisselgoff retired she was very nice and had an encyclopedic knowledge of the dance.

[Michael]

I think you guys are somewhat missing the point. Gottlieb's article was a review of the Gala program. It was very particular and specific about that but interpolated some more general observations. It was only when the subject became transposed to this Thread, that the general observations became the "Topic" -- and you can't fault Gottlieb for our over emphasis on one or two of his peripheral comments.

As a matter of fact Oberon, if you reread Gottlieb's actual review of the Gala program, you will find that you and he pretty much agree about that evening. About 75% I'd say, which is a pretty high overlap.

For my part, I'd observe that if you think Theme and Allegro look their best at the moment, as good as they ever have, then we just have a disagreement as to our assessments -- and people will disagree. No one flogging a dead horse on my end.

[kfw]

Either Gottlieb is not very intelligent or he doesn't truly care for the well being of the Balanchine rep at NYCB, otherwise he'd still be on the NYCB board and he'd have a good personal relationship with Martins. Gottlieb doesn't have any idea how to be effective or helpful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gottlieb's impressive literary credentials and the fact that Kirstein asked him to be on the board are clear evidence of his high intelligence. And if Martins asked him to resign because The New Yorker was critical on Gottlieb's watch, he surely would have forced him off the board if Gottlieb had made similar criticism in board meetings. Public criticism, embarrassing as it can be, is likely to be more effective than private complaints anyhow.

[jimmattimore]

Carbo wrote, "There's an underlying question, though: If NYCB were dancing its Balanchine rep with the appropriate elan, musicality and spontenaiety, would it attract that "lost" portion of the audience? "

This latest negative statement by Gottlieb doesn't make any practical sense I just laughed at it. 

For how many years has he been attacking Peter Martins? Either Gottlieb is not very intelligent or he doesn't truly care for the well being of the Balanchine rep at NYCB, otherwise he'd still be on the NYCB board and he'd have a good personal relationship with Martins. Gottlieb doesn't have any idea how to be effective or helpful.

It's too bad Kisselgoff retired she was very nice and had an encyclopedic knowledge of the dance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love NYCB, and I love also ABT whick Kisselgoff hates; she is brilliant and knows everything, but she can be nasty too. She will never retire.

How do you guys like Rockwell?

JIM

[charlieloki]

Carbo wrote, "There's an underlying question, though: If NYCB were dancing its Balanchine rep with the appropriate elan, musicality and spontenaiety, would it attract that "lost" portion of the audience? "

This latest negative statement by Gottlieb doesn't make any practical sense I just laughed at it. 

For how many years has he been attacking Peter Martins? Either Gottlieb is not very intelligent or he doesn't truly care for the well being of the Balanchine rep at NYCB, otherwise he'd still be on the NYCB board and he'd have a good personal relationship with Martins. Gottlieb doesn't have any idea how to be effective or helpful.

It's too bad Kisselgoff retired she was very nice and had an encyclopedic knowledge of the dance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love NYCB, and I love also ABT whick Kisselgoff hates; she is brilliant and knows everything, but she can be nasty too. She will never retire.

How do you guys like Rockwell?

JIM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

response from charlieloki:

at least rockwell calls it as he sees it, seems to have no "agenda"

his reviews seemed a little cold as first, but i've grown to like the conciseness and accuracy of them -- reviews need not be a half page of fluff

kisselgoff spent a lot of review space on history, etc. of ballets she reviewed, and seemed to not want to be negative about p.martins or the company, for whatever reason -- some reviews were not even real reviews

i never liked her reviews, felt they were, at best, quite slanted -- i don't miss her (as i do arlene croce -- good heavens, what a loss --)