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

No Balanchine on NYCB opening night


Recommended Posts

I don't know, I think that to a degree, NYCB is and should be a Balanchine museum. Not that new works can't and shouldn't be danced; of course new ballets are vital (and once in a blue moon, they're actually good, too :rolleyes: ).

Link to comment
(and once in a blue moon, they're actually good, too .

This is part of the dilemma, I think. Petipa made 70+ ballets and today we have fewer than 10. Part of that attrition comes from the difficulties of maintaining a living repertory, but part is just Darwinian winnowing -- stronger works lasting longer.

As much as I love the Balanchine rep, NYCB needs to find or create new works as well as restage old ones. Even if every choreographer they work with is the equivalent of Balanchine or Petipa, there will be a significant percentage of duds among those new works. And yet, to get the good ones, we have to see the rest as well. It frustrates all of us to come to the theater and watch ballets that, no matter the good intentions of all the participants, just aren't going to make it, but without that process, nothing happens.

Programming for a major ballet company has to take this into account, though it is only part of the dynamic. I find it very curious that opening night for the company doesn't include a Balanchine, I agree that it sends the wrong signal about the organization, but I can sympathise with the people who are trying to look ahead -- in a funny way, it's alot like farming. You need to think about the next season while you're in the middle of this one.

Link to comment

I can't stand it. Why is "We're NOT a Balanchine museum?" a good thing. Companies are always saying this. But what's wrong with museums? The Met, the Louvre, the Tate.....Will we soon be reading press releases and speeches that says these "will now be galleries, with NEW work only because we're NOT museums"? A museum preserves masterpieces exactly. They don't repaint them, change the color in the backdrops, add a few extra men to "The Three Graces," etc. There is no ballet company in the world that could be accused of preserving its masterpieces exactly! Stop worrying. We don't think you're museums!

Back to NYCB opening night sans whatsisname.

Link to comment

The discussion of whether NYCB remains Balanchine's company has been mulled over here before. Most people agree that it is - in general - the place to see MORE Balanchine works per season than any other company offers but beyond that there is the controversy as to whether the ballets are well-performed these days or not. I think the bigger question is: on a nightly basis, what % of the audience has come because of Balanchine and because it's "Balanchine's company"? How many people on a given ticket line want to be sure they'll see a Balanchine work on the programme they plan to attend? Do people choose their subscription series because it has more Balanchine or because Wednesdays are the most convenient night for them to go? Will people avoid going to the opening night because there is no Balanchine; and if TARANTELLA hadn't been dropped would that make a difference?

My feeling is that on a given night there is a large % of the audience who are not particularly concerned about whether they are seeing Balanchine or not. They have come to be entertained and possibly to be enlightened or inspired;

if they enjoy themselves, are moved or impressed or forget their troubles for a couple hours, they'll count the evening as a success and, hopefully, come back for more. They might find Balanchine's works especially gratifying without really knowing why. Or they may think AMERICAN IN PARIS is the cat's pajamas.

Over the years I have taken or sent many people to the NYCB and the response has been a very wide spectrum of what they find enjoyable, exciting or moving. Balanchine is often appreciated, but so are Robbins, Wheeldon, Martins,

Evans, Tanner etc etc.

Link to comment

The Balanchine rep. at NYCB should be a vital lifeforce. Seeing a Balanchine ballet danced for the first time by a talented young dancer is an awesome experience. It's a privilege to be able to witness a dancer finding their way through a Balanchine ballet over the years. To me that's one of the main reason I love NYCB so passionately. In spite of these dancers perhaps not having the coaching from former Balanchine originators (that's a whole other thread) they still for the most part manage to thrill me. That thrill I get from seeing a dancer dance Balanchine I get from no other choreographer today. Certainly not from Martins.

I've always thought the sensible thing to do at NYCB is to have a separate (but equal) artistic director dedicated only to preserving and staging the Balanchine rep. That would leave Martins free to promote his new works. A "creative company", as Martins likes to call NYCB and a "Balanchine" company can co-exist. It just take some imagination.

Link to comment
I've always thought the sensible thing to do at NYCB is to have a separate (but equal) artistic director dedicated only to preserving and staging the Balanchine rep. That would leave Martins free to promote his new works. A "creative company", as Martins likes to call NYCB and a "Balanchine" company can co-exist. It just take some imagination.

That's what the company did for years for the Robbins rep Robbins had his own Assistant Ballet Masters and got to promote specific dancers (at least while officially co-running the Company).

Link to comment

I don't. :)

Seriously, though, any successor to Balanchine is going to be criticized, but I really don't think Martins has done a good job taking care of NYCB's repertoire, even as he has done some admirable things for other choreographers, such as the Diamond Project and encouraging Christopher Wheeldon.

Link to comment
But what's wrong with museums?  The Met, the Louvre, the Tate.....Will we soon be reading press releases and speeches that says these "will now be galleries, with NEW work only because we're NOT museums"? 

I’m going to disagree with Alexandra just a little bit about museums: the institution (OK, museum) that NYCB most resembles – and whose curatorial issues it most poignantly shares – is neither the Met nor the Louvre, but rather MoMA. Both began as institutions dedicated to the acquisition and presentation (and yes, the “de-accession” if need be) of newly created (and not universally esteemed) works, and both now find themselves in the same quandary: can and should one remain true to the original mission when, after 60 years of diligent labor -- including the hard work of showing people how to look at the stuff -- one finds oneself in possession of a fabulous permanent collection? How does one balance keeping the by now canonical works everyone loves (or at least respects) in good order and before the public with the felt need to identify and present emerging talent? Do you just throw up your hands in despair and turn the latter project over to some other institution with no "heritage" lose? (Or alternatively, to galleries and collectors, with their money and reputations on the line, but maybe nothing else?) Is your true “heritage” the works themselves, or the process by which they were identified, acquired, incorporated into the collection and showcased -- or some combination of the two? Do you keep the works or the process -- or do you try to hang on to both? And do you keep the Suprematists and Constructivists on the walls – worthy as they may be -- even if no one seems to want to look at them anymore? (Actually, the latter is an issue for the Met, too: if you want peace and quiet in NYC, just go to the Met’s 15th – 18th century European Paintings galleries. You will be utterly alone in silent rooms full of paintings by Dürer, Holbein, Rubens, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Watteau, Fragonard, Reynolds, etc., etc., etc. If you want to feel the full press of humanity, however, just head on over across the hall to the galleries where the impressionist works are hung. And perhaps the day will come when the Met determines that it must pack up the Hals and Van Dycks – or even the Manets, in front of which one may also find oneself utterly alone -- to make room for something else, although please, not another Renoir or a mummy. But I digress ...) Do you turn into the Metropolitan Opera, where no one goes to hear anything new? And how does one best display the collection anyway? Do you put all the German Expressionists in one room and the Abstract Expressionists in another and let people make of them what they will, or do you arrange things thematically, or to expound a particular vision of how the works are related? And how do you keep people writing checks? While I often fantasize about having either Peter Martins’ or Glenn Lowry’s job, I’m not sure either man is really to be envied given that some significant portion of their respective communities will despise whatever they do.

It’s not at easy problem to solve for either institution.

Link to comment
While I often fantasize about having either Peter Martins’ or Glenn Lowry’s job, I’m not sure either man is really to be envied given that some significant portion of their respective communities will despise whatever they do.

It’s not at easy problem to solve for either institution.

Brava.

When tangible works of art (paintings, sculpture, etc.) fall out of fashion, usually the worse that happens -- and it's pretty bad -- is that they are exiled to the cellar or sold or traded to collections where they will no longer be accessible. But happier fates are possible -- including sales or trades to specialist museums or more local museums which would kill to have a Fragonard or almost anything referred to in an art history textbook. The object survives intact. It just moves on to another context.

In classical dance, the ballet and the company that cares for it are not so easily separated. The original ballet no longer exists if iit does not receive the honor, attention and nurturing of the entire institution: artistic director, ballet master, teacher, and especially dancers trained and encouraged to value the work. Ballets given poor or uneven performances, or reinterpreted in a way that destroys the original effect, change into quite different works of art. And these are not always worthy of prominent display.

Maybe NYCB should do something like ABT, which devotes separate "seasons" to classics and to more contemporary work. This would permit bringing in the Balanchine experts for half the year who could keep his ballets and his style truly alive.

Link to comment
It’s not at easy problem to solve for either institution.

But it's impossible to solve them by only giving lip service to one half of the problem. Paintings can go into storage and still look themselves. Ballets, of course, require active maintenance, and any former Balanchine dancer in the world with the possible exception of Diana Adams would have been at Martins' disposal. Why does Farrell teach all over the world but not at NYCB? In my opinion a better analogy to MoMA would be Lowry putting seminal masterpieces in storage rooms without climate control and taking a relative few out for display without first letting a conservator have a look.

Link to comment

Karin von Aroldingen, Merrill Ashley, Sean Lavery, Sara Leland, Susan Hendl, Christine Redpath, Kay Mazzo, and Peter Martins are all Balanchine "experts" and all associated with the company. I see these people there constantly. Of the dancers, Darci & Kyra are still active and still there to pass on Balanchine pointers to whoever wants to observe them. Up until his departure, Peter Boal was teaching at the school.

Yes, it would be lovely to have Suzanne Farrell come and wave her magic wand and make everyone dance as if Balanchine were still standing in the wing, but it is unlikely that will happen.

Like opera fans who long for the days of Callas and Corelli, what I think people really want is for Farrell, D'Amboise, Patty McBride and Diana Adams to be dancing again. "Such illusions are by their nature sweet."

Yes, things could be better at NYCB - or worse. Usually when I go I am thinking how wonderful it is to have the Balanchine ballets, how fresh and meaningful they often look even after repeated viewings, and what an interesting bunch of dancers we have there now.

Link to comment
Yes, it would be lovely to have Suzanne Farrell come and wave her magic wand and make everyone dance as if Balanchine were still standing in the wing, but it is unlikely that will happen.

That's no magic wand. Suzanne achieves her results through dedication and hard work. She's able to bring out the best in her dancers precisely because for her, Balanchine IS still standing in the wing.

Link to comment

Amen, Farrell Fan. Although she is The Muse, Suzanne is not the only muse not on the muse-thin list of those still associated with the company. Those who inspired Mr. B's creations might also inspire the great dancers Peter Martins has gathered into his company.

At least they have ingress elsewhere in the world---as can be seen in Paris, St. Petersberg, Shanghai, Seattle and, thank you Nina Ananiashvili, his home country Georgia. Mr. B seems to be thriving everywhere. Almost.

Link to comment
Like opera fans who long for the days of Callas and Corelli, what I think people really want is for Farrell, D'Amboise, Patty McBride and Diana Adams to be dancing again. "Such illusions are by their nature sweet." 

Okay, I'll bite. I don't know anyone who wishes this, actually. It does seem to be a cherished myth, though -- at least on this board :lightbulb: I've never understood why. I've never read anyone post that they only want to see this or that dancer from grandpapa's time, and so I don't understand the basis for the assumption. It's the cousin of, "They don't really remember. They just think they do. It's all in their [read the unspoken: oh so silly and beknighted] minds." The people I know want to see ballets well rehearsed, well staged, and well cast -- and the talented dancers of today developed to their full potential. Some people love everything they see, or have favorite dancers who can do no wrong -- and that's fine! But there are other perceptions, and people with other priorites, and they have a right to exist :yahoo:

Re museums (and I thank Kathleen for her excellent post!) I think it's the duty of a museum to make sure that that all its exhibits are visited. In the National Gallery here, I've never visited on a day where there were empty rooms, so it can be done. I have no idea how! (Maybe simply because it's free?) Painters do go in and out of fashion, but if they were hauled into the basement every time a museum goes by ratings, would we have the Sargent and Vermeer exhibitions, that were wildly popular, in recent memory?

Edited by Alexandra
Link to comment
Like opera fans who long for the days of Callas and Corelli, what I think people really want is for Farrell, D'Amboise, Patty McBride and Diana Adams to be dancing again. "

I don't know anyone who wishes this, actually. It does seem to be a cherished myth, though -- at least on this board :lightbulb: I've never understood why.

I understand it. I also long occasionally for the chance to see a brand new episode of I Love Lucy. Perhaps you have to be a bit older to experience this particular kind of regret.

Link to comment

:lightbulb:

I'd take another episode of "I Love Lucy" before they jumped the shark and moved to Connecticut! :rolleyes:

http://www.jumptheshark.com/

This begs the question of when New York City Ballet jumped it, I say never.

Peter Martins wrote some interesting things which might be helpful in this discussion in the Preface for the 1998 book, "Tributes, Celebrating Fifty Years of New York City Ballet."

"At its core NYCB has always been a choreographer's company, and it continues to be. When people think of NYCB, they think of Balanchine, of course, and they think of Jerome Robbins, but there were always other choreographers as well. That is the source of our strength, our continuity, and our constant renewal. This is a place where choreographers come to make new ballets. The dancers are equipped not only with superb technique, they are also tuned in to a choreographer's mind; they have the tools, mental and physical, to offer a choreographer.

Our dancers, in turn, require new choreography. It stretches them, it keeps them engaged; it keeps them fresh. It enables them to discover things about themselves. The same goes for the audience. They want new ballets, they want to be part of the evolution of dancing. It is a faith that we, dancers and audience, share: a faith in the future of dance.

At the same time, NYCB is the place where the tradition of classical ballet remains strong, perhaps stronger than anywhere else in the world. Balanchine believed in this idiom, in the classical vocabulary, and his belief still informs us. When choreographers come to work here, I insist-or try to-that they use this vocabulary. It is what our dancers know. We have women for whom it is second nature to dance on pointe; we have men who can jump and turn.

This language is very difficult to speak, but it is very beautiful. I am always looking for people who understand this. I keep looking; I keep opening the door. It would be the antithesis of Balanchine's belief to close the door on the new, to exclude the rest of the world only to polish Balanchine. Dance exists in the present. With each performance, with each performer, a ballet changes. Balanchine made Apollo in 1925; over half a century he refined it, eliminating passages, paring sets, streamlining it into its final, distilled form."

Link to comment

Regarding NYCB and museums, NYCB was created by Balanchine (and Kirstein) to perform Balanchine's (and later, Robbins's) ballets. This is a different mission from MoMA, whose goal is to present modern art, whoever creates it. As Petipafan wrote, NYCB needs new choreography, but its core must remain Balanchine. However:

It would be the antithesis of Balanchine's belief to close the door on the new, to exclude the rest of the world only to polish Balanchine.

I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea that NYCB should dance only Balanchine. Everyone has stated that NYCB needs new choreography, but just as Balanchine looked to Petipa's ballets while creating new ones, so must current choreographers have Balanchine to see as they create something that is new and different, but still rooted in ballet's long tradition.

Link to comment
Maybe NYCB should do something like ABT, which devotes separate "seasons" to classics and to more contemporary work.  This would permit bringing in the Balanchine experts for half the year who could keep his ballets and his style truly alive.

How would NYCB differentiate a classic from a non- ? Symphony in C, absolutely! Agon, of course! Scotch Symphony? In the Night? The great advantage of a repertory dominated by shorter works is the mix-and-match possibilities that can, on any particular night, have special appeal for audience segments with different tastes. Casual observation suggests to me, though, that NYCB tends to program full-lengths in the spring, when they compete against ABT for ticket buyers. Nutcracker aside, of course, but maybe that's their run of a classic!
The people I know want to see ballets well rehearsed, well staged, and well cast -- and the talented dancers of today developed to their full potential.

Bingo! Especially frustrating is the last item, because so many dancers show the occasional flash of that Special Something that, under the guidance of a truly gifted ballet master, could be nurtured and developed.
Peter Martins wrote some interesting things which might be helpful in this discussion in the Preface for the 1998 book, "Tributes, Celebrating Fifty Years of New York City Ballet."

"At its core NYCB has always been a choreographer's company, and it continues to be.  When people think of NYCB, they think of Balanchine, of course, and they think of Jerome Robbins, but there were always other choreographers as well.

Well, yes and no. When we think of NYCB and its choreographers, does anyone instantly think of John Clifford? Richard Tanner? No. It's a "choreographer's company" only to the extent that the choreographers produce works of enduring interest and high quality. To the extent that the rep continues to be diluted by mediocre ballets by second- third- and fourth-rate choreographers, the public will no longer think of it as a choreographer's company.
[Martins:]Our dancers, in turn, require new choreography.  It stretches them, it keeps them engaged; it keeps them fresh.  It enables them to discover things about themselves.  The same goes for the audience. They want new ballets, they want to be part of the evolution of dancing.
If a dancer has never learned Giselle, won't that be a "new ballet" to her? Won't it stretch her, reveal new things to her? As for the audience, new ballets are fine, as long as they're good. New for the sake of new is nonsense. I'd take a Serenade over the newest work that I'm likely to forget (except for a possible lingering bad taste) by the next morning. At this point, all that other stuff just amounts to an enormous waste of time when I could be watching ER (which I suspect jumped its final shark last season).
Link to comment

My biggest problem I have with Peter Martins is the fact that he seems to have a unwritten rule at not allowing former stars to come in and coach current stars at NYCB and I'm still trying to understand that reason. While the company clearly has some talented "experts", let's face it if they was truly strong and completely knowledgable at what they are doing, so many in the world of ballet from fans, critics and so forth wouldn't have such a problem with the direction of the company. Afterall where there is smoke there must be fire somewhere. I can't see how so many people could think the same thoughts and not have some truth to it.

Why isn't that so often people are saying that the Suzanne Farrell Ballet, the Miami City Ballet, the San Franciso Ballet, Pacific Northwest Ballet among others are often dancing Balanchine better then his own company? Does it has something to do with their artistic directors? I don't think so. Afterall Martins clearly was a dancer that was very much in Balanchine's inner circle and I'm certain was give much insightful knowledge of Balanchine's works by the master himself. No I think in many cases, not all of course, but in many those directors have no problem inviting other "experts" into their company and coaching their dancers in Balanchine ballets and who could blame them? When you have people like Farrell, Verdy, Patricia Neary, Villella, Helgi Tomasson, Allegra Kent, Francia Russell, McBride, Hayden, Tallchief to just new a few, who are regarded by many as being the very best at staging Balanchine ballets and getting out of dancers a better understanding at dancing those roles.

While Farrell, Villella, Tomasson and until recently Russell may not be available because they have their own company to worry about, what about the others? I sure those people along with others I haven't mention has truck loads of knowledge that they are eager to past on to other dancers - afterall of the great art forms, ballet is the most fragile because its the only one that is hand down more or less from one generation to another. When you have so many superb individuals who has proven themselves brilliant repetiteurs in the works of Balanchine, I simply don't understand why Martins, even with the wonderful ballet masters working at NYCB, isn't using them! Those individuals can bring a different spin to teaching these ballets, they maybe could bring a new insight, a new way at having dancers understand these roles in a way that maybe the current ballet masters can't. This is not to say that the ballet masters are untalented - NO!! I'm just saying that sometimes one individual can do something in one instant that another can't and that isn't saying that one method is better then the other, and when going hand to hand it only be beneficial for all involve.

Does anyone has a reason why Martins doesn't invite former stars to coach on a more regular basis as many other artisitc directors around the world? I can think of a reason, but for me its too small minded and I'm sure it's more to it!

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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