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

Rockwell on the "Martins era"


Recommended Posts

The Kaiser article was very interesting--didn't say much about his taste in ballets though, since he seemed proud of the Snow Maiden! But I think the very issue of bringing up Kaiser or anyone as a possible successor is completely wrong--it smacks of a reporter making news instead of reporting it. What if Kaiser did get a job at NYCB--after Rockwell has been seen to champion him, how could anyone trust what he would write about how he is doing?

[Edited by Admin to add: the original reference to the article on Michael Kaiser was posted in this thread originally, but has been split off to a new thread on Kaiser at the Kennedy Center]

Edited by Helene
Link to comment

There was a fork in this thread which discussed Michael Kaiser's record in programming dance at the Kennedy Center. I've split off a number of posts to a new topic in the Issues in Ballet forum, Kaiser at Kennedy Center. Unfornately the board software does not allow us to copy posts, so that they appear in two threads. If any of the posts here seem not to follow entirely, it's because I've been more of a battlefield surgeon in an attempt to make this split, and the referenced posts/ideas are likely to be found in the new thread.

Link to comment

I agree with Herman Stevens. The piece seems mostly spurred by writings in the NY Observer, both by Mr. Gottlieb and that SAB/Anne Bass piece. No new reporting--just an opinion piece, although not labeled as such. It's a sad day that the Times would dignify anything in the Observer, let alone let it drive their own editorial policy, but its another sign of the barbarians at the gate. Next they'll be responding to Time Out.

I did find it curious that Mr. Gottlieb is a "personal advisor" to Miami City Ballet, whatever that means. I guess that's one way to get press in New York. :thanks:

Link to comment
I did find it curious that Mr. Gottlieb is a "personal advisor" to Miami City Ballet, whatever that means. I guess that's one way to get press in New York. :thanks:

Or else for MCB to take advantage of the knowledge and experience of a man Lincoln Kirstein himself invited onboard at NYCB.

Link to comment

Mary Murfin Bayley's interview with Mark Morris was published yesterday and in that regional newspaper The Seattle Times, so Rockwell didn't have a chance to address one more critic of Martins:

Morris continues: "For example I will never work with New York City Ballet because Peter Martins has ruined the company. ... And if they can't take care of [George] Balanchine's work, they're sure not going to get a piece from me!"
Link to comment
Or else for MCB to take advantage of the knowledge and experience of a man Lincoln Kirstein himself invited onboard at NYCB.

I don't think anyone would dispute the potential usefulness of Gottlieb's advice to MCB, but such a connection is also a potential conflict of interest and one that should be stated upfront. (Which Gottlieb may very well have done. I don't recall seeing anything, but I could have missed it -- unlike the circumstances of his departure from the NYCB board, a fact of which Gottlieb regularly, and appropriately, informs his readership.)

As far as "no new reporting" -- I'd note that you don't necessarily find news in Sunday thinkpieces. This piece could also be regarded as offering a countervailing view to that expressed by Jennifer Homans in a similar article from the Sunday Times from awhile ago - I think Rockwell refers to it, although I haven't checked that.

Link to comment

Morris continues: "For example I will never work with New York City Ballet because Peter Martins has ruined the company. ... And if they can't take care of [George] Balanchine's work, they're sure not going to get a piece from me!"

What a jerk. Thanks, Mark, for refusing to work with NYCB. That'll make it easier for me to avoid you!

I'm not sure his style, which I've never much liked, meshes well with the company anyway.

Back to the main topic of Martins. I'm a relatively new NYCB fan, having followed the company for less than ten years. Martins has kept the company alive for people like me to enjoy. It could be that turns were sharper and coaching was better in Balanchine's day, and it could be that Farrell or one of the other Balanchine dancers would have brought a better artistic patina to the company.

We don't know know, however, how that mythical other person would have run the administrative side, so crucial to keeping a company living and breathing. Could that person have maintained a company of 100-plus dancers through the dance boom, into the dance bust, and to the current day, nearly 25 years after Balanchine's death?

I'm no Martins apologist - he's promoted some terrible dancers, let talent rot on the vine and perpetrated some truly awful choreography, in addition to a few gems. But the company is here and dancing, and I'm very grateful to him for that.

Link to comment
Morris continues: "For example I will never work with New York City Ballet because Peter Martins has ruined the company. ... And if they can't take care of [George] Balanchine's work, they're sure not going to get a piece from me!"

What a jerk. Thanks, Mark, for refusing to work with NYCB. That'll make it easier for me to avoid you!

I'm not sure his style, which I've never much liked, meshes well with the company anyway.

Morris' attitude is not without basis: Martins clearly snubbed him in the American Music Festival in 1988. There are many choreographers that PM has used that don't mesh with the Company's best abilities and qualities -- I feel that Morris should have been included in that 1988 group. He might have done better than several of the choreographers who were included. At least we could have made a decision.

As you said: "I'm no Martins apologist - he's promoted some terrible dancers, let talent rot on the vine and perpetrated some truly awful choreography, in addition to a few gems. But the company is here and dancing, and I'm very grateful to him for that.'

I second that.

Link to comment

Morris has many things going for him: he was schooled not only in ballet, but in modern, Flamenco and other types of ethnic dance, and unlike many other choreographers and artistic directors, understands the difference between ballet and other genres. He also has choreographed what are in my opinion, two of the best ballets since the death of Balanchine, both for San Francisco Ballet: Maelstrom, to Beethoven's "Ghost" Trio, and the full-length Sylvia, currently playing at SFB. (I've never seen Gong or Pacific, which gets its PNB premiere next season.) By contrast, I wouldn't include any of the Martins ballets I've seen among the best of the last several decades, although there are a few in the last decade I wish I had a chance to see. (An edited Schubertiade might have made this list.)

I always thought the purpose of the American Music Festival and Diamond Projects was to seek out current choreographers to stretch the repertoire and to challenge the dancers, stylistically and artistically.

Link to comment
I always thought the purpose of the American Music Festival and Diamond Projects was to seek out current choreographers to stretch the repertoire and to challenge the dancers, stylistically and artistically.

I was wondering about this -- I found it very curious that both Martins and Wheeldon are making pieces for the Diamond Project, when they seem to have many other chances to work with the company.

Link to comment

I always thought the purpose of the American Music Festival and Diamond Projects was to seek out current choreographers to stretch the repertoire and to challenge the dancers, stylistically and artistically.

I was wondering about this -- I found it very curious that both Martins and Wheeldon are making pieces for the Diamond Project, when they seem to have many other chances to work with the company.

I had always assumed that Martins and then Wheeldon (like Balanchine) want to keep producing each year, and sort of wrap their new pieces in the moniker of the Diamond Project.

.....and I have often wondered why some of the wonderful pieces that the Diamond Project have produced (Chris d'Amboise's piece, "Circle of Fifths" and Albert Evans' piece to Cage spring to mind first) have NOT entered the rep, where some very mediocre pieces have. But that's another story. Or thread

Link to comment
I always thought the purpose of the American Music Festival and Diamond Projects was to seek out current choreographers to stretch the repertoire and to challenge the dancers, stylistically and artistically.
I used to think the Diamond Projects were to give less known choreographers a chance to be seen by New York, as well as to stretch the dancers. But the choreographers are often fairly well known, occasionally world-famous, and frequently working in what they clearly believe is the Balanchinian mode. I believe Mrs. Diamond's intention was not to provide (yet another) marketing gimmick, but I have no idea whether there's a specific purpose to this anymore.
Morris continues: "For example I will never work with New York City Ballet because Peter Martins has ruined the company. ... And if they can't take care of [George] Balanchine's work, they're sure not going to get a piece from me!"What a jerk. Thanks, Mark, for refusing to work with NYCB. That'll make it easier for me to avoid you!
If Morris were a painter, would you blame him for choosing to sell to a collector who proudly displays his art in climate-controlled space away from sunlight over one who hangs his collection in a damp, mildewy basement? I think the prerogative is the artist's.
Link to comment

But in the same interview

Morris says that it is only now that Peter Boal has become director of PNB that he is comfortable with having the company do one of his pieces.

and yet the prior administration certainly had a fine record with Balanchine. On the other hand he's worked with ABT, a company that can't even take care of Swan Lake (they had a fine one ). Could you imagine NYCB inserting Swamp Thing into Symphony in C? Perhaps things are more complex than the article might suggest. At any rate I look forward to seeing his Sylvia (SFB) and full evening of Mozart (Mostly Mozart Festival) this summer, both in the House of Balanchine.

Link to comment

Exactly. A bitchy brew of contradictions--the worst of the dance world, full of jealousy and pique.

Martins may not be perfect, but I really like watching City Ballet today. I think they have a lot of beautiful dancers, and I can't find any other company that dances with their nuance and clean, contemporary style. They have an elegant restraint, and not just for Balanchine, but in everything they do--a consistent level of quality.

I wish that I had seen all these dancers all of you have, but I agree with KayDenmark. The dance world is hard enough without tearing every little morsel into a thousand pieces. These poor city ballet dancers who give such beautiful performances and then have to read such horrible things--really because some people seem to have a problem with their director. We can debate Rockwell and Gottlieb and the Times all you want, but I think the best dance writing these days is in the New York Sun.

But in the same interview
Morris says that it is only now that Peter Boal has become director of PNB that he is comfortable with having the company do one of his pieces.

and yet the prior administration certainly had a fine record with Balanchine. On the other hand he's worked with ABT, a company that can't even take care of Swan Lake (they had a fine one ). Could you imagine NYCB inserting Swamp Thing into Symphony in C? Perhaps things are more complex than the article might suggest. At any rate I look forward to seeing his Sylvia (SFB) and full evening of Mozart (Mostly Mozart Festival) this summer, both in the House of Balanchine.

Link to comment

[ADMIN BEANIE ON]

Ballet Talk is a discussion board, and neither a fan board, nor despite the presence of company forums, a board that supports any company or administration.

Statements by members of the ballet community that are from official sources -- published or spoken -- are acceptable discussion points, and criticism by Ballet Talk members is always welcome, as long as it is well-reasoned and follows the courtesy rules spelled out in our Rules and Policies.

We do not stifle debate that follows this policy.

[ADMIN BEANIE OFF]

Link to comment

Going back to Rockwell's article: This is the kind of piece the Times does a lot of nowadays, and it drives me nuts. NYCB used to be called the most important dance company in the world. Therefore, one doesn't compare it to a worse-case scenario, or even to other dance companies; one compares it to the Ideal. We even did that during Balanchine's day. Whatever happened to the critic as passionate advocate? This lukewarm "Yeah, it's not that bad," is for the birds.

Link to comment

I'm of the opinion that "passionate advocat" and "critic" are not synonyms and actually is problematic with the way that dance is written about. There is a place for both (and many other permutations of the way to put movement onto the page) but if you ascribe advocacy to people who are meant to form a critique it is a complicated and slippery slope. Luckily, everyone gets to be as passionate as they so choose--regardless of the discipline. (Please move if inappropriate and too far off topic)

Link to comment

Rockwell wears 2 hats at the Times. An article in the Sunday Arts & Leisure (which this was) would be his advocate mode & his actual reviews would be his critic mode. No reason he couldn't be passionate, as long as he knew what he was talking about. But that might be asking too much.

Link to comment
Rockwell wears 2 hats at the Times. An article in the Sunday Arts & Leisure (which this was) would be his advocate mode & his actual reviews would be his critic mode. No reason he couldn't be passionate, as long as he knew what he was talking about. But that might be asking too much.

Well, first , rather than "advocate" , I would call the Sunday role "editorial/survey" . And I don't think there is implied in that a requirement to do any kind of promotion, passionate or otherwise. Anthony called it "soft" and it is "soft" but this is the trend for todays media , not just the Times. TV is even further down the path of pillowy features.

And "asking too much"? I think he has come a long way from his first columns, even if he has a ways to go.

Personally, I don't care about critics, I make up my own mind.

Richard

Link to comment

I thought the Rockwell article made Martins' detractors look bad without making Martins look good. Regarding Martins, it almost read as damning with faint praise. However, I don't know that that was the intent.

My memory of the Diamond project's early publicity was that the exclusive focus was to be on choreographers working in the classical/neo-classical idiom. Whatever stretching of the dancers was involved was to remain within the framework of the company's primary 'aesthetic.' Why exactly Morris wasn't invited (or even whether he wasn't invited) I have no idea. I know he has had success working in the classical idiom though I also know observers who feel he is fundamentally not a ballet choreographer at all even if he uses some classical materials and works with ballet companies. (Similar debates have occured over Tharp's work.) In recent years, the Diamond Project seems to have become more openly eclectic (Stroman?)--and there were always some borderline cases. For myself, I would be happy to see a Mark Morris work at City Ballet--though I won't hold my breath.

When Martins includes himself and, now, Wheeldon as part of the Diamond project he seems to be following Balanchine's approach to festivals--in which he and Robbins worked side by side with Taras and D'amboise and Clifford and Bonnefous etc. etc. all of whom were creating (to say the least) lesser works side by side with the company's 'masters.' I rather like the idea that under the rubric of a festival everyone becomes part of it--famous, not famous, infamous--etc.

Link to comment
When Martins includes himself and, now, Wheeldon as part of the Diamond project he seems to be following Blanchine's approach to festivals--in which he and Robbins worked side by side with Taras and D'amboise and Clifford and Bonnefous etc. etc. all of whom were creating (to say the least) lesser works side by side with the company's 'masters.' I rather like the idea that under the rubric of a festival everyone becomes part of it--famous, not famous, infamous--etc.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes a great deal of sense (and puts their participation in a better light to me, which I appreciate)

Link to comment
I thought the Rockwell article made Martins' detractors look bad without making Martins look good. Regarding Martins, it almost read as damning with faint praise. However, I don't know that that was the intent.

Good to hear from you, Drew. I'm not quite sure what the intent was, either -- hardly a ringing endorsement of Martins, but a definite slap on the wrist to the critics.

Link to comment

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't really care whether Suzanne Farrell or Edward Villela are coaches or not. I really don't care about the Martins/Farrell "feud" -- so two people don't have a good working relationship, and one gets the axe. It happens all the time, and it's just part of life. Suzanne's moved on, and that's that. I also don't care how well Martins gets along with the board of directors. I don't care about the Balanchine Trust. All I care about are the performances. When I buy a ticket to the NYCB, am I going to see a well-danced, charismatic, engaging performance? And from the times I've gone there, the answer for the most part is no. So on this very basic level, I think Martins has failed.

Link to comment
I also don't care how well Martins gets along with the board of directors...

All I care about are the performances. When I buy a ticket to the NYCB, am I going to see a well-danced, charismatic, engaging performance? And from the times I've gone there, the answer for the most part is no. So on this very basic level, I think Martins has failed.

I think the point of Rockwell's article was that the two issues are intertwined: as long as Martins gets along well with the board of directors, and the board supports him, you will see performances that Martins has produced.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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