That’s how the company will be routinely described in the not too distant future if the company maintains its current path.
What a disheartening, disappointing, disturbing first evening of the Here and Now festival, as it is being called by NYCB. As one of Haglund’s favorite readers “C” said to him, I’ll take Then and There anytime over Here and Now. Of course, there will always be the predictable praises from those who go to the performances for free – those who don’t have to open their own wallets to buy tickets or toil at mundane day jobs to put together the cash needed to see NYCB.
The evening began with curtain remarks by Peter Martins and a toast to Christopher Wheeldon whose works were performed that evening. The toast was fine. The remarks not so.
During the speech, Martins dropped a bombshell. He said that NYCB spends half of its time attending to Balanchine’s and Robbins’ works and half of its time on new works making it clear that LESS than half of its time is spent on Balanchine. LESS than HALF. “We’re giving Balanchine a little vacation [during this festival],” he said.
How can NYCB continue to call itself The House of Balanchine when it mothballs his work and replaces it with riff raff. Let’s look at next year’s schedule:
In the fall season, only 7 out of 28 performances will include Balanchine’s work while 20 performances will include Martins’ work. In the winter season, only 17 of the 42 performances will include Balanchine’s work while 16 performances will include Martins’ work. In the spring season, only 19 of the 42 performances will include Balanchine’s work while 22 of them will include work by Jerome Robbins because it is his centennial celebration. The remaining dates are filled in with mostly media candy choreographers including far too much of Justin Peck's work.
No Serenade, no Jewels, no Symphony in C, no Ballet Imperial, no Ballo della Regina, no Brahms-Shoenberg Quartet, no Danses Concertante, no Donizetti, no Fairy’s Kiss, no Firebird, no Flower Festival, no Ivesiana, no Liebeslieder, no Prodigal Son, no Raymonda, no Davidsbundlertanze, no Scotch Symphony, no Stars and Stripes, no Sylvia PdD, no Slaughter, no Theme and Variations, no Tschaikovsky PC 2, no Tschaikovsky Suite No. 3, no Tzigane, no Union Jack, no Valse Fantasie, no Vienna Waltzes, no Walpurgisnacht, no Western Symphony, and no Who Cares? Well, we care.
In the 2017-2018 season, we are seeing only 15 different Balanchine works for the whole year. How can NYCB continue to call itself the House of Balanchine? Not only is it presenting fewer and fewer of his works, but it is substituting new work that doesn’t even approach the brilliance of Balanchine’s work. Does. Not. Even. Approach.
How can NYCB continue to call itself the House of Balanchine? It simply cannot. This schedule doesn't constitute any type of a "vacation" for Balanchine; it's an effort to reduce his significance at NYCB and force-feed the audience lesser work simply because it is new.
All of the new crap that is landing on NYCB’s stage is being presented in the name of moving the art forward. There is no such thing as moving forward in art. There is no moving backwards, and there is no moving sideways. Art is simply made. It employs evolved tools such as evolved musical instruments, evolved pointe shoes, evolved lighting and stage flooring. But art itself is humanly created and simply added to the universe. This nonsense about art MOVING FORWARD like it’s on some imaginary linear journey to Art Nirvana is a load of marketing gobbledygoop by artists who are desperate for attention which their honest skills are not getting for them. If they can imply that someone else’s art is stale, backward, not hip, not “FORWARD” thinking, then they have a better chance of rising above it all without the necessary skills to succeed.
For over a half century, Balanchine created ballets for his company through World War II, Korean War, Vietnam, Nixon, Kennedy’s assassination, the first moonwalk (on the moon, not in a Michael Jackson video), invention of color TV, civil rights riots, civil disobedience riots, draft dodging, inventions of Mr. Potato Head and The Pill. Did he chant about making ballets that were relevant to current times? No, he did not. Did he create ballets about wars in which he did not fight or physically suffer? No, he didn’t. By now, we should all be gagging on the word relevant. It means NOTHING in the world of art. The idea of relevance is merely a reaction to art, not a measurement of quality or artist’s skill. Once the artist’s goal becomes to obtain a certain reaction or affirmation of relevance from the viewer, e.g., “I can identify with that” or “Wowzer, that really speaks to me me me me me me me,” then his goal is no longer to create art.
In the Met Museum, does one ever hear things like, “That 3rd Century BC gold phiale libation bowl decorated with bees and acorns is pretty, but it doesn’t relate to me me me me me me me like the new line of dishes at Pottery Barn.” Or at the NY Phil, “Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony is okay for the first ten minutes, but it would be more relevant to me me me me me me me if Rhianna would sing something to it.”
Relevance is overrated.
Last evening’s performance included Christopher Wheeldon’s Mercurial Manoeuvres (2000), Polyphonia (2001), Liturgy (2003), and American Rhapsody (2016).
Mercurial Manoeuvres was the best of the four ballets in terms of musical responsiveness through the creation of group movements as well as sizzling solos for a man in a burning red unitard. Unlike American Rhapsody, which closed the program, it is not cast dependent. Tiler Peck was the featured ballerina in Mercurial Manoeuvres which has enjoyed a history of wonderful performances from Abi Stafford and Miranda Weese as well as Tiler. Last night her work glistened with the beauty and sense of freedom that we saw the week before in Allegro Brilliante. Tyler Angle was her outstanding partner and delivered his own blazing allegro. But the highlight of this ballet was Harrison Ball (replacing Anthony Huxley) whose fiery form, while amazing, only suggested what we might see from him in the future.
The Corps de Ballet and demi soloists Sara Adams and Kristen Segin were all pinpoint perfection. Their straight arm swinging is where we first encountered Wheeldon’s proclivity for this sort thing back in 2000. Now it shows up the way “like”, “you know”, and “totally” show up between words in common speech.
Robert Fairchild and Tiler Peck carried American Rhapsody in its first showings in 2016, and their absence last night sunk it. Sorry to have to say once again that Russell Janzen (in Fairchild’s role) is no jazz bunny, no matter how badly he wants to be one. Lauren Lovette (in Tiler’s role) was trying to use her eyebrows to create passion and drama, but the choreography was not in her body. What made the PdD in American Rhapsody acceptable last year was Tiler’s innate musicality. Lauren has her own attributes, but natural musicality is not one of them at the moment.
The absence of Fairchild and Peck even seemed to throw water on the performances of Amar Ramasar and Unity Phelan who danced in the premiere. Their chemistry came across as forced and they looked over-challenged by the choreography.
Then there was the mundane straight arm waving that we’re seeing way too much of in Wheeldon’s works, e.g., Mercurial Manoeuvres, DGV: Danse à Grande Vitesse, Liturgy.
Speaking of Liturgy, Maria Kowroski and Jared Angle gave it the old college try, but really, there isn’t much in the choreography. It’s Wheeldon presenting a big nothing as being of world importance through the use of dramatic stage lighting, minimal movement, and skimpy costume. Ditto with Polyphonia which is definitely cast dependent and isn’t likely to ever garner the interest it did when Ansanelli, Whelan, and Somogyi were on the stage in it. Last night, watching Sara Mearns in an unflattering black-belted leotard plow through steps next to Sterling Hyltin might qualify as cruel and unusual punishment for both the viewer and Sara.
With the exception of Mercurial Manoeuvres, Haglund did not have a good time last night and wishes that he had saved his money. The only way that he’ll ever watch American Rhapsody again is if Harrison Coll is in the Fairchild role – then only maybe. Boy, is this young dancer ready to set the world on fire in roles that feature Gershwin, Bernstein, and Kay! Here’s hoping that we see a lot of him during next year’s Robbins’ celebration.
Since it was such a distressing night, we’re going to hold off awarding any HH Pump Bump Award. Oh heck anyway. We’ll bestow a red suede flame by Louboutin on Harrison Ball since his dancing seems to be on such a strong and virtuous track right now.
28 responses to “Here and Now festival – 4/25
New York City Ballet used to be called
The House of Balanchine”
I don’t think Martin and company are set to bury Balanchine. But again, an art form is only alive by the amount of people practicing and creating it. I think Martin feels he should find the next dance genius. But it is getting in the way of the original work, the reason the company exists.
All our arts are under attack due to political reasons. Even ballet has not escaped this fact. It ties into culture conditioning theories in socialist Maoism/Marxism.
We do still have people dancing, it is the creating part that is stymied. Choreographers today don’t have a foundation in the philosophy that dance was built upon. This philosophy is purposely not taught to our students. It has been thrown out as passe. We all keep going back to Modernism, which isn’t art, it just wants to shock, to be new. I feel choreographers should go back to classicism, to learn it’s philosophy. Classical ballet thought the human body to be the epitome of beauty. Many people, including contemporary choreographers, don’t believe that today and it shows. In everything from the sloppy upper body work in choreography to the ugly costumes sans tights.
I don’t think Martin and company are set to bury Balanchine. But again, an art form is only alive by the amount of people practicing and creating it. I think Martin feels he should find the next dance genius. But it is getting in the way of the original work, the reason the company exists.
All our arts are under attack due to political reasons. Even ballet has not escaped this fact. It ties into culture conditioning theories in socialist Maoism/Marxism.
We do still have people dancing, it is the creating part that is stymied. Choreographers today don’t have a foundation in the philosophy that dance was built upon. This philosophy is purposely not taught to our students. It has been thrown out as passe. We all keep going back to Modernism, which isn’t art, it just wants to shock, to be new. I feel choreographers should go back to classicism, to learn it’s philosophy. Classical ballet thought the human body to be the epitome of beauty. Many people, including contemporary choreographers, don’t believe that today and it shows. In everything from the sloppy upper body work in choreography to the ugly costumes sans tights.
Thanks melponeme_k.
Another problem is that people who decide to be choreographers are ones who were not particularly successful as dancers. It’s a way to get recognition, and in NYCB’s case, it’s a way out of the corps.
Just look at the work of the one dancer who rose to principal status based on her dancing before she put her choreography on stage. Lauren Lovette’s “For Clara” was heads and shoulders above anything that Peck or Schumacher have created for NYCB.
The all but complete loss of a general liberal arts education in our culture contributes to the loss of creativity in our arts, as well. It’s such a shame.
Thanks melponeme_k.
Another problem is that people who decide to be choreographers are ones who were not particularly successful as dancers. It’s a way to get recognition, and in NYCB’s case, it’s a way out of the corps.
Just look at the work of the one dancer who rose to principal status based on her dancing before she put her choreography on stage. Lauren Lovette’s “For Clara” was heads and shoulders above anything that Peck or Schumacher have created for NYCB.
The all but complete loss of a general liberal arts education in our culture contributes to the loss of creativity in our arts, as well. It’s such a shame.
I am deeply disappointed in Martins’s new scheduling. The less Balanchine is performed, the fewer the opportunities for young upcoming dancers to stretch their wings in this exhilarating repertoire. Balanchine technique will erode even more than it already has. I have been watching NYCB since the seventies, and in the last decade or so the company has shown a heartening rededication to Balanchinean standards, and now Martins is “moving on.” How tragically misguided. I think it’s time for Martins to “move on” — into retirement.
I am deeply disappointed in Martins’s new scheduling. The less Balanchine is performed, the fewer the opportunities for young upcoming dancers to stretch their wings in this exhilarating repertoire. Balanchine technique will erode even more than it already has. I have been watching NYCB since the seventies, and in the last decade or so the company has shown a heartening rededication to Balanchinean standards, and now Martins is “moving on.” How tragically misguided. I think it’s time for Martins to “move on” — into retirement.
Hello Haglund,
You did not mention Square Dance, and Theme & Variations…why? Not your favourite? I love them, it’s difficult for me because I am not naturally gifted in petits allegros, but I still love dancing them. Once in a while I visit your site, really appreciate your insight.
J.A.D
Hello Haglund,
You did not mention Square Dance, and Theme & Variations…why? Not your favourite? I love them, it’s difficult for me because I am not naturally gifted in petits allegros, but I still love dancing them. Once in a while I visit your site, really appreciate your insight.
J.A.D
Hi J.A.D!
I didn’t mention Square Dance because it is, indeed, on the schedule for next year. I did include T&V in the list — right after Slaughter. But my list wasn’t by any means complete. There are other less known Balanchine pieces that I truly enjoy seeing once in a while, but the biggies on the list should never be subordinated to new work.
Hi J.A.D!
I didn’t mention Square Dance because it is, indeed, on the schedule for next year. I did include T&V in the list — right after Slaughter. But my list wasn’t by any means complete. There are other less known Balanchine pieces that I truly enjoy seeing once in a while, but the biggies on the list should never be subordinated to new work.
Pamela,
Thanks much for your comment.
Other choreographers who have been dealt this treatment have ended up being mostly represented on the regional and municipal ballet circuits and performed with dedication but little skill at the collegiate level.
The truth is that Wheeldon, Peck, and Ratmansky don’t come close to the talent of Balanchine and never will even if given chances to put their work on stage every night at NYCB. All three of them are less interested in quality and more interested in quantity – spreading their work as far and as wide as possible. They’re like dogs who want to pee on every tree to leave their scent. If they were interested in quality, they wouldn’t create more than one work per year anywhere and would make it the best they could possibly do. Ratmansky has received huge monetary awards and grants which should allow him to slow down and be more careful, but he doesn’t. He just keeps churning out dances as fast as he can.
Pamela,
Thanks much for your comment.
Other choreographers who have been dealt this treatment have ended up being mostly represented on the regional and municipal ballet circuits and performed with dedication but little skill at the collegiate level.
The truth is that Wheeldon, Peck, and Ratmansky don’t come close to the talent of Balanchine and never will even if given chances to put their work on stage every night at NYCB. All three of them are less interested in quality and more interested in quantity – spreading their work as far and as wide as possible. They’re like dogs who want to pee on every tree to leave their scent. If they were interested in quality, they wouldn’t create more than one work per year anywhere and would make it the best they could possibly do. Ratmansky has received huge monetary awards and grants which should allow him to slow down and be more careful, but he doesn’t. He just keeps churning out dances as fast as he can.
“If they were interested in quality, they wouldn’t create more than one work per year anywhere and would make it the best they could possibly do.” Exactly Haglund! I have been thinking this for quite some time. I completely agree with your post and the comments afterwards. I don’t see the point of churning out crap just for the sake of getting your name on a bill or in print. I am dying to see Symphony in C and hate that I won’t have a chance any time soon. Doesn’t Martins understand that people go to NYCB to see Balanchine? Great art never gets old, ever.
“If they were interested in quality, they wouldn’t create more than one work per year anywhere and would make it the best they could possibly do.” Exactly Haglund! I have been thinking this for quite some time. I completely agree with your post and the comments afterwards. I don’t see the point of churning out crap just for the sake of getting your name on a bill or in print. I am dying to see Symphony in C and hate that I won’t have a chance any time soon. Doesn’t Martins understand that people go to NYCB to see Balanchine? Great art never gets old, ever.
Hi, SM. So, true – great art never gets old.
Hi, SM. So, true – great art never gets old.
Chiming in to support the comments posted. I haven’t seen enough Peck to have an opinion, but feel Wheeldon and Ratmansky are extraordinarily talented and would prefer to see their works over almost anything by Martins. However, their ballets can’t compare to a strong Balanchine on a mixed bill.
Agree also on churning out new works. Balanchine was so prolific that maybe today’s choreographers feel he set the standard they should match, or maybe the economics of today’s commissioned ballets mean too many works are being produced without enough time for development and refinement. I think a choreographer might be better remembered by a couple of masterworks of supreme effort than a dozens of lesser works (Peter Martins).
Chiming in to support the comments posted. I haven’t seen enough Peck to have an opinion, but feel Wheeldon and Ratmansky are extraordinarily talented and would prefer to see their works over almost anything by Martins. However, their ballets can’t compare to a strong Balanchine on a mixed bill.
Agree also on churning out new works. Balanchine was so prolific that maybe today’s choreographers feel he set the standard they should match, or maybe the economics of today’s commissioned ballets mean too many works are being produced without enough time for development and refinement. I think a choreographer might be better remembered by a couple of masterworks of supreme effort than a dozens of lesser works (Peter Martins).
Thanks, elfantgirl.
IMO, ballets should not be purchased by companies until they are nearly finished and have been “edited” by someone capable of clearing out the stuttering steps and polishing what needs to be polished, not to mention intervening in unfortunate costume choices. Directors should have the balls to point out to a choreographer that s/he is repeating her/himself or has fallen into a rut. Unfortunately, our ballet companies have devolved into entertainment companies where anything new goes on the stage that will get media attention. The directors don’t have the gumption to demand that a bad (dance) joke get axed or a line get changed as do directors and producers on Broadway. Maybe that’s why Broadway is so much more successful than ballet — more directional discipline.
Thanks, elfantgirl.
IMO, ballets should not be purchased by companies until they are nearly finished and have been “edited” by someone capable of clearing out the stuttering steps and polishing what needs to be polished, not to mention intervening in unfortunate costume choices. Directors should have the balls to point out to a choreographer that s/he is repeating her/himself or has fallen into a rut. Unfortunately, our ballet companies have devolved into entertainment companies where anything new goes on the stage that will get media attention. The directors don’t have the gumption to demand that a bad (dance) joke get axed or a line get changed as do directors and producers on Broadway. Maybe that’s why Broadway is so much more successful than ballet — more directional discipline.
Speaking as a person who lives quite a ways from the city, I would not spend the time and money to go see NYCB unless it is for a Balanchine ballet. And I think The Powers That Be will find that to be the case for most ticket holders. I don’t care how many “critics” laud Justin Peck as the next big thing. His ballets lack beauty and inspiration.
Speaking as a person who lives quite a ways from the city, I would not spend the time and money to go see NYCB unless it is for a Balanchine ballet. And I think The Powers That Be will find that to be the case for most ticket holders. I don’t care how many “critics” laud Justin Peck as the next big thing. His ballets lack beauty and inspiration.
I think you’re right, Rose. If NYCB can keep its head above water by pushing $36.50 tickets on TDF for the non-Balanchine evenings and comping whoever asks for tickets, then more power to them.
For NYCB to suggest that Peck, Wheeldon and Ratmansky make good substitutes for Balanchine’s work or represent some kind of advancement or progress away from Balanchine is arrogance that competes with Trump’s. There is no moving forward in anything that any of these three have created.
On opening night of the Here and Now festival, Martins’ remarks and lauding of Wheeldon made me think that he wants Wheeldon to be his successor. What a terrible mistake it would be to turn this great institution over to a non-ballet master (who never danced Balanchine’s greatest works as a principal) simply because he’s a choreographer/celebrity. The worst thing that could happen to NYCB is for it to decide that it needs a choreographer/celebrity to be its next chief, especially one who danced so insignificantly as a soloist with the company. I wish Jon Stafford would express a desire for the job. Wheeldon, Millepied, Woetzel, Boal, Lopez would all be inferior picks.
I think you’re right, Rose. If NYCB can keep its head above water by pushing $36.50 tickets on TDF for the non-Balanchine evenings and comping whoever asks for tickets, then more power to them.
For NYCB to suggest that Peck, Wheeldon and Ratmansky make good substitutes for Balanchine’s work or represent some kind of advancement or progress away from Balanchine is arrogance that competes with Trump’s. There is no moving forward in anything that any of these three have created.
On opening night of the Here and Now festival, Martins’ remarks and lauding of Wheeldon made me think that he wants Wheeldon to be his successor. What a terrible mistake it would be to turn this great institution over to a non-ballet master (who never danced Balanchine’s greatest works as a principal) simply because he’s a choreographer/celebrity. The worst thing that could happen to NYCB is for it to decide that it needs a choreographer/celebrity to be its next chief, especially one who danced so insignificantly as a soloist with the company. I wish Jon Stafford would express a desire for the job. Wheeldon, Millepied, Woetzel, Boal, Lopez would all be inferior picks.
I “love” that they call one of the programs “Classic NYCB” and have included an unannounced 2017 ballet….. Maybe the message is “Classic NYCB is always innovating?”…….
Bring back the Balanchine, I say. Or AT LEAST remove all the Martins.
I “love” that they call one of the programs “Classic NYCB” and have included an unannounced 2017 ballet….. Maybe the message is “Classic NYCB is always innovating?”…….
Bring back the Balanchine, I say. Or AT LEAST remove all the Martins.
I agree with you Rachel. I’ve previously seen all of the works presented in the Here and Now Festival (except for the Peck premiere) and I know that I am not missing anything by sitting out these four weeks. In fact, I’m saving annoyance, frustration, and a lot of money.
I agree with you Rachel. I’ve previously seen all of the works presented in the Here and Now Festival (except for the Peck premiere) and I know that I am not missing anything by sitting out these four weeks. In fact, I’m saving annoyance, frustration, and a lot of money.