New York City Ballet 2022-2023 season

[Peg]

Marzipan Shepherdess, I was there yesterday afternoon too and agree with your assessments almost 100%. Thank you for your eloquence. 
I loved the Abraham work too—how it gave opportunities to so many dancers to shine!  Tiler Peck was astounding.

And wasn’t Villarini-Velez great?  Not just in Abraham’s work but in Symphony in C.

I was equally moved by Mearns. She brought us into her beautiful world. And Fairchild/Gordon—wow.
 

I’d like to see the Reisen work again although I agree that some dancers weren’t given enough to do.  Loved Woodward and Coll though.  I learned from one of the employees in the Costume Shop that there were 500,000 Swarovski crystals (donated by the company to NYCB) sewn individually by hand onto those costumes!

I loved seeing a packed house and such a diverse audience. I was in the orchestra, sat next to a very young man who had driven in from Toronto to see the performance, to hear Solange Knowles’s new music.  He had never been to the ballet before, soaked it all in, engaged me in conversation (he said he noticed my body language during Sym in C), asked tons of questions and was bowled over by the quality of the dancers and the diversity of the choreography.  NYCB is smart to do new work that will engage new audiences. 

[vipa]

I saw the matinee today. The company looked amazing in all three ballets: Stravinsky Violin Concerto, Concerto DSCH & Everywhere We Go.

It was my first viewing of Everywhere We Go. I was entertained and intrigued for the first few sections, but after a while it just seemed like steps, steps and more steps. Throwing everything in, including the kitchen sink, can have diminishing returns. I felt as if there was more than one ballet in there, and Justin Peck, as choreographer, would have been better served if he'd saved some steps, ideas, formations etc. for another ballet! The piece left me feeling unsatisfied, unlike the other two pieces on the program. I would have programed it as an opener not a closer to the program.

Concerto DSCH is one of my favorite Ratmansky ballets filled with warmth, humor, wonderful imagery. Indiana Woodward was effervescent in the role created for Ashley Bouder. She brings a different tone to the choreography, less coy and more openly joyful. The trio was rounded out with fine dancing by Joseph Gordon and KJ Takahashi (I can't believe he's still in the corps).Sarah Mearns and Tyler Angle did the central pas de deux. The partnering looked effortless, and Mearns danced with freedom and her signature sense of drama (I mean that in the best way). Angle looked in better shape, in his solo dancing, than I've seen in a while. 

Seeing Violin Concerto again is gift. I get more from it with every viewing The two arias, so different from each other in tone and relationships, were danced by (Aria l)  Claire Kretzschmar & Aaron Sanz, (Aria II) Sterling Hyltin and Peter Walker. At the end of the ballet Kretzchmar and Hyltin were applauded by the corps members on stage, presumably because both dancers are leaving the company. Kretzschmar is striking dancer who I picked out years ago when she was in the corps. Hyltin is a true ballerina. I will miss the naturalness and true loveliness she brings to the stage.

The company really looked great. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by vipa

[vipa]

9 hours ago, Peg said:

 

I loved seeing a packed house and such a diverse audience. I was in the orchestra, sat next to a very young man who had driven in from Toronto to see the performance, to hear Solange Knowles’s new music.  He had never been to the ballet before, soaked it all in, engaged me in conversation (he said he noticed my body language during Sym in C), asked tons of questions and was bowled over by the quality of the dancers and the diversity of the choreography.  NYCB is smart to do new work that will engage new audiences. 

Interesting. One can only hope that music by Solange Knowles will bring a new audience in, and a fraction of that audience will become interested in ballet and return to view and explore. I remember the house being packed for Oceans Kingdom. with a score by Paul McCartney. A lot of excitement surrounded that production. The trick is to bring a new audience to an art form. 

[cobweb]

1 hour ago, vipa said:

Interesting. One can only hope that music by Solange Knowles will bring a new audience in, and a fraction of that audience will become interested in ballet and return to view and explore. I remember the house being packed for Oceans Kingdom. with a score by Paul McCartney. A lot of excitement surrounded that production. The trick is to bring a new audience to an art form.

I had the same question. This program seems like a win for NYCB, and I'm hearing a lot of good things about the Abraham piece. But will this translate into people who also appreciate Balanchine works? Someone up-thread said they overheard audience members who found Symphony in C "a snooze," while someone else chatted with new audience members who seemed to love it. So we shall see. 

[abatt]

Given the dearth of audience members during all the other traditional programs this season (and  in the past as well), it appears that most people who show up for these special events because of a pop culture interest generally don't return for the bread and butter rep.  Yes, some programs have sold really well - the Paul McCartney program years ago, the Justin Peck program when The Times are Racing debuted, and this program with Solange music.  This season (and last year)  the third ring has barely been open, and there is heavy papering and discounting going on throughout the house. 

We frequently talk about how ABT doesn't have much of an audience anymore, but the same applies to NYCB.  It just looks more full because half the house is closed off from ticket sales.

[canbelto]

Certain things sell well. MSND was nearly sold out, so were most of the Swan Lake programs. 

[On Pointe]

This video illustrates why NYCB might be having trouble building audiences:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcRpK_eSI4

It's about the fall fashion gala and does a nice job highlighting the choreographers and the designers.  But NYCB is a dance company - who are the dancers?  Their names don't appear anywhere,  not even in the end credits.  Are viewers just supposed to know who they are,  or are we not supposed to care?   It's incredibly dismissive.  Maybe the company thinks that its name alone is sufficient.  I can't imagine the Metropolitan Opera releasing a promotional piece  without mentioning the singers' names,  and its brand is arguably stronger than NYCB's.   Last year Megan Fairchild and two children danced an excerpt from Nutcracker on The View,  touting a jewelry company,  and she was not identified at all.  The company should not have allowed that,  particularly because Fairchild's story,  a principal ballerina with an MBA and three children,  including twins,  is tailor-made for The View.  She should have been given a seat at their table,  literally,  like other notable guests.  

NYCB needs to promote its dancers to the public.  That's who people go to the theater to see.  An occasional piece in the NY Times is not enough.  (Especially since their dance critic seems to revel in negative stories about the company.). I remember an interview years ago with one of Merce Cunningham's dancers who said that as far as MC was concerned,  his dancers were "tubes of paint".  Tubes of paint don't fill seats,  stars do,  personalities with fascinating backstories do.  But the audience can't be engaged if they don't even know who these talented people are.

[Balletwannabe]

The general public loved the on pointe series and still ask about those students on social media.   They should do a series on company life.

[aurora]

4 hours ago, abatt said:

Given the dearth of audience members during all the other traditional programs this season (and  in the past as well), it appears that most people who show up for these special events because of a pop culture interest generally don't return for the bread and butter rep.  Yes, some programs have sold really well - the Paul McCartney program years ago, the Justin Peck program when The Times are Racing debuted, and this program with Solange music.  This season (and last year)  the third ring has barely been open, and there is heavy papering and discounting going on throughout the house. 

We frequently talk about how ABT doesn't have much of an audience anymore, but the same applies to NYCB.  It just looks more full because half the house is closed off from ticket sales.

and some of us would go, but when the pricing leaps from $38 for a few horrible side view seats straight to $80 for seats that are still quite lousy, we don't bother.

Closing the 3rd (and 4th ring) so frequently might make the house look fuller but what it means in practical terms for the audience is less affordable seats.

Edited October 3, 2022 by aurora
Finishing thought

[abatt]

That's entirely true Aurora.  The motivation for closing the upper rings has always been to force ticket buyers into buying higher priced tickets in the lower ring and barring access to lower priced seats in the third and fourth rings.  This was the brainchild of the  executive director, Katherine Brown.  Many potential ticket buyers have been turned off by this approach.

I don't think the general public really cares about who the dancers at NYCB are.  None are internationally famous figures.  The era of famous ballet dancers who are known to the general public are over.  Moreover, NYCB  programs usually provide a wide range of principal and soloists  in a single performance.

 

[nycvillager]

@aurora Very much agree. I've been looking to supplement my initial subscription with a few more performances to see Sterling a few more times, but the $80 ticket ($70 subscriber) is a bit of a turn off. There are hardly any $38 tickets available at all. It's discouraging. Also, it makes it harder to invite friends along at a higher price point without feeling that I need to subsidize their ticket or treat them to get them to check it out for the first time.

[Balletwannabe]

54 minutes ago, abatt said:

That's entirely true Aurora.  The motivation for closing the upper rings has always been to force ticket buyers into buying higher priced tickets in the lower ring and barring access to lower priced seats in the third and fourth rings.  This was the brainchild of the  executive director, Katherine Brown.  Many potential ticket buyers have been turned off by this approach.

I don't think the general public really cares about who the dancers at NYCB are.  None are internationally famous figures.  The era of famous ballet dancers who are known to the general public are over.  Moreover, NYCB  programs usually provide a wide range of principal and soloists  in a single performance.

 

NYCB just doesn't know how to use social media to their advantage.  They could encourage their dancers to have an official presence on Instagram, but they don't.  These are all beautiful people & athletes.  They could post aesthetically pleasing dance photos & relatable content (behind the scenes photos/videos).  There are people ("influencers") on Instagram who have zero talent, do nothing but post beautiful photos and get huge followings.  Yes no one cares about the dancers... but why would they?  Where are they supposed to get to know them if not on social media?  Wendy Whelan *could* have a huge following if she wanted it.  She could post old photos of herself & promote the company.  I don't think any effort is being put into teaching staff & dancers how to utilize Instagram to its fullest.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Balletwannabe

[volcanohunter]

41 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

NYCB just doesn't know how to use social media to their advantage.  They could encourage their dancers to have an official presence on Instagram, but they don't.  These are all beautiful people & athletes.  They could post aesthetically pleasing dance photos & relatable content (behind the scenes photos/videos).  There are people ("influencers") on Instagram who have zero talent, do nothing but post beautiful photos and get huge followings.  Yes no one cares about the dancers... but why would they?  Where are they supposed to get to know them if not on social media?  Wendy Whelan *could* have a huge following if she wanted it.  She could post old photos of herself & promote the company.  I don't think any effort is being put into teaching staff & dancers how to utilize Instagram to its fullest.

I know a principal dancer with a major company who stopped posting on social media altogether because of constant instructions from the company to produce posts on certain topics by a deadline. Ballet dancers have enough work to do and private lives to look after without taking on extracurricular internet assignments. 

[nysusan]

1 hour ago, abatt said:

That's entirely true Aurora.  The motivation for closing the upper rings has always been to force ticket buyers into buying higher priced tickets in the lower ring and barring access to lower priced seats in the third and fourth rings.  This was the brainchild of the  executive director, Katherine Brown.  Many potential ticket buyers have been turned off by this approach.

I don't think the general public really cares about who the dancers at NYCB are.  None are internationally famous figures.  The era of famous ballet dancers who are known to the general public are over.  Moreover, NYCB  programs usually provide a wide range of principal and soloists  in a single performance.

 

I agree on both counts. We fans are passionate about the dancers but I don't think the general public cares who's dancing at NYCB. Only a big star will darw people and Misty is really the only one these days, I don't even think they'd know an Osipova or Simkin.

I do think closing the 3rd and 4th rings has hurt business. I don't agree with Aurora that those $38 side view seats are horrible - that's where I prefer to sit and they are very hard to get. When they first started closing the upper rings I played the game of checking the website almost daily to see if they opened the 3rd ring. It was very frustrating and it really made me resent NYCB management's choice to force everyone into the lower rings. I remember back in the day when there were lots of people sitting in the 4th ring.

Who knows, maybe a cost/benefit analysis reveals that its not worth it financially for them to sell cheaper seats in the upper rings but even if thats the case I think they are being penny wise and pound foolish. Plenty of people would buy less expensive tickets if they were available from the beginning - not put on sale only occasionally and at the last minute.

[susanger]

2 hours ago, aurora said:

and some of us would go, but when the pricing leaps from $38 for a few horrible side view seats straight to $80 for seats that are still quite lousy, we don't bother.

Closing the 3rd (and 4th ring) so frequently might make the house look fuller but what it means in practical terms for the audience is less affordable seats.

My Third Ring subscriptions are grandfathered in and I don't intend to lose them. I routinely get a call a few days prior to each performance telling me I've been upgraded to the Second Ring because the Third Ring is closed. Today, when I got the call, I suggested that they leave the Third Ring open and sell the seats for $25 each. I can't believe it would cost the company anything more than a few ushers' wages and some printing costs. 

[uptowner]

1 hour ago, susanger said:

My Third Ring subscriptions are grandfathered in and I don't intend to lose them. I routinely get a call a few days prior to each performance telling me I've been upgraded to the Second Ring because the Third Ring is closed. Today, when I got the call, I suggested that they leave the Third Ring open and sell the seats for $25 each. I can't believe it would cost the company anything more than a few ushers' wages and some printing costs. 

Absolutely-- they should do rush or day-of tickets at a lower price-point. Even just weekdays. Don't offer it for shows that sell over a certain amount. Even if you have to show up in person to get them. I don't understand why they do not do this. It seems so short-sighted, not to build an audience. How will people know they enjoy something if they never try it in the first place? $80 seats are very steep for the least expensive. 

30 for $30 is a great idea-- but no good at all if you're over 30! Met Opera has rush tickets. 

[vipa]

I totally agree about ticket prices and the current strategy NYCB has in place to maintain ticket prices and push the audience together. Some kind of rush/day-of tickets or other strategies are needed. The company has to, not only sell tickets, but also build a ballet loving audience that wants to come back again and again, and even bring a friend. If you come with your partner one time and it ends up costing $250 + it's unlikely to become a habit.

As far as dancers and social media go, Tiler Peck is a good example IMO. She's a presence on TicTok and Instagram (415K followers on instagram). She is seen with friends from the fashion & pop music worlds on social media fairly frequently. She's been on Ellen' show, done musical theater, etc. Megan Fairchild has 55.8K followers in instagram, and got some mainstream press when her book came out. Sarah Mearns has 86.3K instagram followers. None of the seems to translate to ticket sales to their shows.

[On Pointe]

5 hours ago, abatt said:

 

I don't think the general public really cares about who the dancers at NYCB are.  None are internationally famous figures.  The era of famous ballet dancers who are known to the general public are over.  Moreover, NYCB  programs usually provide a wide range of principal and soloists  in a single performance.

 

If nobody cares,  why bother designating soloists and principals at all?  Just put on a few advanced students from SAB. Misty Copeland is arguably the most famous ballerina in the US,  because the general public actually knows who she is.  And she puts butts in seats,  to use a crass showbiz term.  I don't keep up with the Maryinsky Ballet,  but I know who Maria Khoreva is,  because she promotes herself effectively - she's always popping up in my YouTube feed.  And I don't believe she's even a principal yet.  I hate Instagram and I wouldn't blame any dancer for not wanting to participate in social media.  But I choose performances to attend based on who's dancing.  "Tubes of paint" don't engage my interest.  If Tik Tok can create "stars" with millions of followers,  big ballet can publicize and promote its dancers to the general public.  In the performing arts,  stars matter.

[California]

The Colorado Ballet performs in an opera house with 2200 capacity. For shows like Dracula this month and Nutcracker, they sell out. But for less popular programs in the spring, they sell only the first two rows in the top two tiers. Seems a good solution for keeping some cheaper seats available and I wonder why NYCB doesn't do that. Koch holds 2586, not that much bigger than Denver. 

[canbelto]

I'm always struck by the difference between SAB's rather cozy, personalized IG account that's filled with pictures of students, classes, teachers, and what not, and NYCB's extremely corporate IG. The two institutions are so interconnected, but SAB's IG account seems run by someone who truly loves SAB, and NYCB's IG account seems like it's run by someone whose job it is to run a company social media account.

[On Pointe]

28 minutes ago, vipa said:

Megan Fairchild has 55.8K followers in instagram, and got some mainstream press when her book came out. Sarah Mearns has 86.3K instagram followers. None of the seems to translate to ticket sales to their shows.

That's because those numbers are paltry.  They should aim for millions of followers.  Most celebrities hire professionals  to run their social media accounts.  It's a legitimate business expense,  and it frees them from the effort.

Ballet tickets are expensive,  but so are Nascar tickets,  and yet they manage to sell out huge stadiums,  and nobody whines about the prices.

[canbelto]

14 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

That's because those numbers are paltry.  They should aim for millions of followers.  Most celebrities hire professionals  to run their social media accounts.  It's a legitimate business expense,  and it frees them from the effort.

Ballet tickets are expensive,  but so are Nascar tickets,  and yet they manage to sell out huge stadiums,  and nobody whines about the prices.

Only Misty has millions (1.8 mil) followers. 

[vipa]

22 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

That's because those numbers are paltry.  They should aim for millions of followers.  Most celebrities hire professionals  to run their social media accounts.  It's a legitimate business expense,  and it frees them from the effort.

Ballet tickets are expensive,  but so are Nascar tickets,  and yet they manage to sell out huge stadiums,  and nobody whines about the prices.

Not to get too in the weeds about followers, but yes celebrities use media services  to increase their followers/likes, and even purchase followers/likes that are considered "high quality" which usually means someone with an actual insta account that includes a photo vs a bot.  I'm going to assume that most followers of ballet dancers are "organically" gained, and therefore truly interested in that person/dancer. If Tiler Peck has 415,000 organically gained followers and that number doesn't increase ticket purchases, I don't think doubling that number is going to do the trick. 

                         

[Quiggin]

On 10/2/2022 at 10:25 AM, Peg said:

And wasn’t Villarini-Velez great?  Not just in Abraham’s work but in Symphony in C.

Always enjoyed this little V-V Symphony in C excerpt, with Indiana Woodward.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn6hlnYA7uk/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=invalid&ig_rid=7c791a7a-3bf5-4aed-abf2-1954db36539e

[abatt]

4 hours ago, uptowner said:

Absolutely-- they should do rush or day-of tickets at a lower price-point. Even just weekdays. Don't offer it for shows that sell over a certain amount. Even if you have to show up in person to get them. I don't understand why they do not do this. It seems so short-sighted, not to build an audience. How will people know they enjoy something if they never try it in the first place? $80 seats are very steep for the least expensive. 

30 for $30 is a great idea-- but no good at all if you're over 30! Met Opera has rush tickets. 

The Met rush tickets are sponsored by the Agnes Varis Trust, I think.  So the Met is not losing money when they sell rush tickets, and the number is fairly limited. 

They used to sell discounted NYCB tickets at the TKTS booth, but I don't know whether this still occurs.