Peter Martins: Balanchine and Me

[Dale]

Balanchine and Me by Peter Martins. 

This should be interesting. It's due to come out February 1 March 12, 2024, published by Academica Press. 

https://www.amazon.com/Balanchine-Me-Peter-Martins/dp/1680536265/ref=sr_1_1?crid=AVDDNZ7UIXVE&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.rSYwLjBUrjJQZ-oPUKJ6X5qZ7ZGwbUws7tjwgmy_wjylWI1gHXIk-IRHnogw6YkO1i3K43Tibl_ysRSYGdGkWo7l3a0GTT1SUHU3my1XHyLv8Q_6AdoHBCeWVW7zDiIFDvCXni8kFQZ9aUwWNp16q7uqV9w2wbUt9v-xuqgQ4E8J3jDH25qH8_MV48Uy7Iiq8MbD5vJmdb_FIhXjwbQ3CqaGSUGy2AvErfthicwbfMs.xFPoBumw7Q-r04oyTV2Xg3_AY-a6NHljJEWzmZMx_pg&dib_tag=se&keywords=Balanchine&qid=1711490227&s=books&sprefix=balanchine%2Cstripbooks%2C99&sr=1-1

Martins' first biography, Far from Denmark, was very well received. But that came out in 1982. A lot has happened since then. I'm always eager to read anything on Balanchine. 

[dirac]

Thanks for the heads-up, Dale. "Far From Denmark" is really good, even if one doubts that Henning Kronstam taught him "Apollo" all wrong. One of my favorite ballet books, written with Robert Cornfield. Looking forward to this.

[Anthony_NYC]

There's a substantial excerpt in The New Criterion.

[Marta]

Thanks for posting this info. I wasn't aware that Martins had written a new book and I look forward to reing it.  

[Dale]

Thank you for the excerpt. New release date is March 12. 

 

https://www.academicapress.com/node/611#:~:text=Balanchine and Me is dedicated,to lead for 35 years.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Balanchine-Me-Peter-Martins/dp/1680536265/ref=sr_1_1?crid=AVDDNZ7UIXVE&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.rSYwLjBUrjJQZ-oPUKJ6X5qZ7ZGwbUws7tjwgmy_wjylWI1gHXIk-IRHnogw6YkO1i3K43Tibl_ysRSYGdGkWo7l3a0GTT1SUHU3my1XHyLv8Q_6AdoHBCeWVW7zDiIFDvCXni8kFQZ9aUwWNp16q7uqV9w2wbUt9v-xuqgQ4E8J3jDH25qH8_MV48Uy7Iiq8MbD5vJmdb_FIhXjwbQ3CqaGSUGy2AvErfthicwbfMs.xFPoBumw7Q-r04oyTV2Xg3_AY-a6NHljJEWzmZMx_pg&dib_tag=se&keywords=Balanchine&qid=1711490227&s=books&sprefix=balanchine%2Cstripbooks%2C99&sr=1-1

 

[NinaFan]

On 3/25/2024 at 4:02 PM, Anthony_NYC said:

There's a substantial excerpt in The New Criterion.

Thank you so much for posting.   Can't wait to read the entire book!

[jerryb]

It is listed on Amazon as out of stock.  Google search found it listed at WH Smith (English bookseller I believe) with a release date of 3/31/24.

[Peg]

It’s puzzling. Why does Amazon list it as out of stock ( and not available for pre-order) after the published release date? Why such a small, not very well-known publisher?  Why has there been no mention of this anywhere but here, as far as I can tell?

The excerpt certainly whetted my interest. 

[California]

39 minutes ago, Peg said:

Why such a small, not very well-known publisher?  

The press is not a vanity press, as far as I can see, but with "peer review" of only a few weeks, it must be easier to get something into print fast with them. We'll never know, but if he had gotten rejections at more prominent publishers, he might just have decided to get the thing into print one way or another. Ballet books aren't big money-makers. I remember hearing Robert Gottlieb on a panel many years ago saying that when he was the editor-in-chief at Knopf, they were making so much money they didn't care that he was publishing lots of money-losing ballet books. And that was a major publisher during the "ballet boom." Martin is not a young academic trying to get tenure, so the prestige of the publisher doesn't matter so much.

https://www.academicapress.com/

[Helene]

I have no idea why this publisher was chosen, but, having worked for and with small publishers in the past, the print runs are generally small.  If the original order/allocation was less than the number of pre-orders, amazon or anyone else could be out-of-stock.  If the publisher hasn't committed to another printing, they wouldn't take pre-orders again. 

Publishing is not where a seller buys XYZ copies and that's it, unless they are damaged.  Seller can return unsold copies, and it's a financial risk to go to a second printing, especially a small one, until they have a handle on returns.

[BalanchineFan]

Thank you for the link!

It’s an interesting read. The note at end sent a shiver up my spine, though. 
 

“Peter Martins ran NYCB for 35 years, the same tenure as Balanchine.”

[Marta]

“Peter Martins ran NYCB for 35 years, the same tenure as Balanchine.”

• That bothered me too.  It sounds so petty.  I will read the book if's available at my library.

 

Edited April 4 by Marta
Added sentences and deleted repeated sentence.

[vipa]

4 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

Thank you for the link!

It’s an interesting read. The note at end sent a shiver up my spine, though. 
 

“Peter Martins ran NYCB for 35 years, the same tenure as Balanchine.”

A silly statement, IMO. One can't compare the importance of the two men. Sounds like press release.

[Olga]

On 4/4/2024 at 7:04 PM, Marta said:

“Peter Martins ran NYCB for 35 years, the same tenure as Balanchine.”

• That bothered me too.  It sounds so petty.  I will read the book if's available at my library.

 

It’s a fact. 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

On 4/4/2024 at 6:57 PM, BalanchineFan said:

“Peter Martins ran NYCB for 35 years, the same tenure as Balanchine.”

🙄

Millard Fillmore* James Buchanan was US President for four years, the same tenure as John Adams.

*OOPS. Although he is listed as a one-term president, Fillmore did not serve a full four-year term. James Buchanan did complete a full four year term; he ranked as the worst US President in a 2021 survey of historians conducted by C-SPAN.

Edited April 7 by Kathleen O'Connell

[NinaFan]

On 4/4/2024 at 7:04 PM, Marta said:

“Peter Martins ran NYCB for 35 years, the same tenure as Balanchine.”

• That bothered me too.  It sounds so petty.  I will read the book if's available at my library.

 

Most of you seem so excited to read the book, but some of you can’t even get past a one liner bio/description of the author which happens to be factual. It does not equate Martins to the esteemed genius of Mr. B.  I can’t imagine that anyone would dare to liken them.

It is a fact that Martins ran the company for 35 years which just happens to be the same amount of time as Mr. B.  Why is it a crime to acknowledge his tenure?  He kept NYCB and SAB going strong for another 35 years. If you think that’s easy, just look across the plaza to ABT to see how poor management can turn a world class ballet company into a shadow of its former self. 

 

 

Edited April 7 by NinaFan

[Kathleen O'Connell]

5 minutes ago, NinaFan said:

It is a fact that Martins ran the company for 35 years which just happens to be the same amount of time as Mr. B

I think "just happens to be" is the key point: while there's surely something meaningful in the fact that Martins ran the company for 35 years, there is nothing particularly meaningful in it's being the same amount of time that Balanchine ran the company. It could have been more; it could have been less. What matters is what happened during Martins' tenure, what impact it had on the legacy Balanchine left him, and what his own legacy is. 

To my ears, the statement suggests that Martins is somehow equivalent to Balanchine because both men ran NYCB for the same number of years, hence my eye roll, at least. 

 

[BalanchineFan]

1. It discounts the different ballet companies that Balanchine ran before NYCB. Ballet Society and Ballet Caravan even had many of the same ballets and dancers. NYCB literature used to link them. 
2. It does compare Martins to Balanchine. “the same X as Balanchine” is literally saying they are equals in that regard. It doesn’t say they both had two legs or other things that are not ballet related but equally true. 

My reaction would have been different if it said, factually, “Martins ran NYCB for 35 years.”  Balanchine wasn’t there helping Martins when Martins ran NYCB, why is Balanchine even named if not to state Martins’ “equal” achievement? It is grasping. I would respect Martins more if he tried to stand on his own accomplishments. 

Martins comes off better, imo,  when the  emphasis is on him, The Choreographic Institute and how SAB students now regularly work with emerging choreographers, ie emphasizing things that set Martins apart from Balanchine. 

Edited April 7 by BalanchineFan

[Helene]

 Per our policy, discuss the topic, not each other.

 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

1 hour ago, BalanchineFan said:

My reaction would have been different if it said, factually, “Martins ran NYCB for 35 years.”

Yes! Thirty five years running a world-renowned arts organization is nothing to sneeze at! It's an accomplishment in its own right. I don't have much enthusiasm for Martins' choreography nor for some of his choices as AD, but there's no gainsaying that the company continued to be a great one under his leadership.

[dirac]

8 hours ago, Olga said:

It’s a fact. 

Yes. I wouldn't read too much into it. Probably they were just trying to emphasize the connection between the two men.

They could have added that the two men also enjoyed the title of Ballet Master in Chief, another distinction Martins now shares alone with Balanchine.

 

[nanushka]

8 hours ago, Olga said:

It’s a fact. 

Sure, it's a fact. But it's also rhetoric. There's a message in how it's presented — and in the fact that it's the only fact stated in the byline.

[BalanchineFan]

3 hours ago, dirac said:

They could have added that the two men also enjoyed the title of Ballet Master in Chief, another distinction Martins now shares alone with Balanchine.

 

@dirac, that is not quite accurate.
 

I’m looking at a New York City Ballet program from 1979.  Balanchine went by Ballet Master. He had refused the Artistic Director title. Many said it was an example of his lack of self aggrandizement. Balanchine valued the craftsmanship aspect of his role.  Jerome Robbins and John Taras are listed in the same category.

Ballet Masters

George Balanchine  Jerome Robbins  John Taras

Peter Martins was the one who instituted the “Ballet Master in Chief“ title. In my opinion, he wanted to follow in Balanchine’s footsteps, but he also felt a need to elevate himself above everyone else. To me it, again, reads as grasping.

Edited April 8 by BalanchineFan

[Marta]

3 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

@dirac, that is not quite accurate.
 

I’m looking at a New York City Ballet program from 1979.  Balanchine went by Ballet Master. He had refused the Artistic Director title. Many said it was an example of his lack of self aggrandizement. Balanchine valued the craftsmanship aspect of his role.  Jerome Robbins and John Taras are listed in the same category.

Peter Martins was the one who instituted the “Ballet master in Chief“ title. In my opinion, he wanted to follow in Balanchine’s footsteps, but he also felt a need to elevate himself above everyone else. To me it, again, reads as grasping.

I was just about to respond similarly, BalanchineFan.  Martins added the "in Chief" to his own name and Robbins's. Grasping and self aggrandizing.

[dirac]

Many thanks for the corrections!