Are Artistic Directors staying too long in their posts?

[aileen]

Having scanned the upcoming programmes for a number of companies, I have been wondering whether ADs are staying too long in their posts. Some remain with the same company for decades. There's a lot of talk of artistic freedom but if an AD is at the helm of a company for years then that freedom is funnelled down to a very small number of individuals. If the AD is a choreographer then it's easy for him or her to fill up much of the schedule with his/her own creations. On top of that, s/he may restrict outside commissions to one or two favourite choreographers. Both of these practices can crowd out up-and-coming and even other established choreographers.

 

Ballet companies are not owned by the artistic directors and, as far as I am aware, they do not invest any of their own money in the companies. Most British and European companies receive significant amounts of public money. I have no idea whether ADs receive additional payments for the works which they create for their home companies. Does anyone know if they do? Whether they do or don't, is it desirable that one person determine the vision of a publicly funded artistic institution for years and years, perhaps creating the vast majority of the new works for the company and seriously restricting access to choreographic commissions to outside choreographers? It's very striking how many of the AD's own works are being shown at a number of European companies in the 2016/2017 season. Does anyone else have any concerns about this or is this just the way that ballet is, always has been and perhaps even should be?

[trog]

Some AD do own the ballet company and invest their own money - I can think of at least two in the UK.

[Two Pigeons]

Although I agree with what you are saying in at least one case I have to say that what concerns me is who will replace that director. I think the heritage and traditional aspects of both Royal Ballet companies are being eroded but at least both ADs are steeped in those traditions and I would dread an outsider coming in. The history of the Ross Stretton years at the RB and the recent goings on at the Paris Opera Ballet show you how things can go badly wrong.

 

What can be seen initially as a breath of fresh air can suddenly become a hurricane which destroys all before it as it cuts a new path.

[bridiem]

Interesting topic. I suppose if an AD is also a choreographer, which they often are, it's inevitable that they will include their own works in the rep and that will have been known and understood when they were appointed (and may have been partly why they were appointed). So I think longer term it really just depends how successful the board/governors/funders etc deem the company to be and what their vision for the company is. If reviews are largely good and audiences are holding up, and the company is fulfilling what is judged to be its remit/role, then presumably it's reasonable to leave well alone. If any of these aspects are problematic, a change would no doubt be considered. I suppose there could be a view that no AD should stay longer than (say) 10 years, in order to keep freshness and introduce new ideas etc. I don't think I'd favour that outlook - I think every situation/AD should be judged on their merits on an ongoing basis (and I would assume that they are).

[aileen]

Which ballet companies are privately owned and receive no public funding, trog?

[alison]

Interesting question: thanks for asking it, aileen. I think several ADs have indicated that they choreograph their own works as it may be cheaper than getting an outside choreographer in?

[capybara]

The long-serving Directors who spring immediately to mind (David Bintley (BRB); Kevin McKenzie (ABT), Reid Anderson (Stuttgart) and Peter Martins (NYCB)) seem to still be doing rather nicely!

[Two Pigeons]

I think that looking at David Bintley's record is somewhat tinged by the amount of his own work that gets programmed. However, in mitigation, I must agree with Alison's point that this may well be due to cuts in funding.

 

One thing I must raise in his favour is the great strength of the male side of the company. There are dancers at BRB now that would have bolstered the old SWRB so much. This is not to be taken as any form of denigration of the dancers of old but the depth of talent is pretty terrific now.

[aileen]

I wasn't specifically thinking of David Bintley or David Nixon. My question was prompted by the number of Spuck works being programmed in Zurich.

[Angela]

Zurich used to be a choreographer's company before, also Heinz Spoerli programmed a lot of his own work for decades. So on the one hand, they are used to have a predominant choreographic language, on the other hand they have seen Spoerli's classical works for a very long time and seem to be happy with the change, at least for now. Spuck has at least two evenings per year with other modern ballet choreographers.

 

You forgot John Neumeier, he is AD for his company at Hamburg since 1973 - 43 years, longer than Petipa or Balanchine. A great achievement, yet I think his company will become a Neumeier museum after his death because he never fostered young choreographers, or any new choreographers besides himself. When he takes in other pieces, which happens rarely enough, they are classics or works by renowned colleagues.

 

At Stuttgart, there was just a huge festival to celebrate Reid Anderson's 20th year as AD - he is not a choreographer and keeps finding new talents every year. He commissioned 95 new works in this time, at the same time he treasures the old Cranko repertory and brings it to life with new dancers. Frankly, I could not be happier

 

 

ed. for typo

Edited July 27, 2016 by Angela

[Pas de Quatre]

Unless offered a better job elsewhere why would an AD leave - like everyone else they have to earn a living.  The post would have been offered to them after interviews with Board of Governors, Trustees or in the case of many European Cities, (if a State or City company) the relevant local Government body.  The parameters would already have been discussed.  Would the AD be required to choreograph a certain number of new productions, commission other choreographers or buy in existing productions, and also there may be an existing repertoire to be shown.  All this would be depending on the budget available and involve detailed planning for seasons ahead.

[Ian Macmillan]

You ask: Unless offered a better job elsewhere why would an AD leave?  Possibly on account of a clash of artistic view with new Theatre bosses/intendants?  I cite Assis Carreiro and her predecessor at Royal Ballet of Flanders and Cathy Marston in Bern - the latter despite her having a successful campaign to keep her company alive when 'a study' reckoned that sacrificing it would solve the Theatre's financial problems.  

[Pas de Quatre]

Of course if the relationship has broken down they will resign - same as any job. I understood Aileen to be implying that ADs should stand aside for altruistic reasons to let someone else have a go.

[FLOSS]

This is an exceptionally difficult question to answer. I am sure that we can all think of examples of Artistic Directors who stayed in post far to long to the detriment of their company,its repertory, its audience and its dancers,where continuity gave way to being a dead hand preventing any change. Grigorovitch's tenure at the Bolshoi is a case in point.I am also sure that we can think of cases in which directors who were apparently doing well by both dancers and audience have been forced out prematurely and replaced by people with far less ability and taste but far more in tune with the requirements of those to whom the AD is answerable.

 

The AD has a wide range of responsibilities and must strike the right balance between them. He must keep the dancers happy by providing development opportunities; keep both the audience and dancers happy with good repertory choices, and keep the organisation to which he is answerable happy by doing what it asks of him/her. In this country that will mean keeping the board happy by balancing the books elsewhere it may have more to do with meeting the political expectations of the government funding the company.

 

. If you regard the AD's primary duty as keeping the audience happy with a wide range of works in varied styles then you may well not want an AD to stay in post for too long. However changes in AD generally mean changes in repertory and personnell  as each director has their own aesthetic, their preferred choreographers and style and a specific physical type who pleases their eye.The upheavals caused by changes in director can be just as detrimental to a company as lack of change over long periods.

 

Some companies, such as POB seem to have gone in for novelty and celebrity at all costs others such as the RB can seem stolidly attached to their history and "line" and averse to change.The RB's experience with Ross Stretton may have made ir even more averse to going outside the "family" for its AD's. I'm not sure that POB's experience with Mr Millepied will have put it off appointing celebrities in the future.

 

While there is a danger that a company with a fine choreographer at its head may turn into a museum company when that choreographer steps down it seems to me that is a price worth paying as in any generation there are very few choreographers of real worth. A company which has a good choreographer at its head is very fortunate indeed.While Mr Reid at Stuttgart  may have encouraged a great deal of new work how many of the new works made there have been revived with any degree of regularity?  

 

I don't think that there are any hard or fast rules about the optimum duration of tenure for an AD. After a choreographer has dominated a company for any length of time there is often a reaction to everything that they did or created. That is not necessarily helpful to a company if the individual concerned has all but created the company and its style.but it has certainly happened with Ashton. It has not happened at NYCB because the company is sure that Mr B was god. It has not happened at Stuttgart presumably because the company recognised how much they owed to Cranko.

Edited July 29, 2016 by FLOSS

[Jan McNulty]

This is a hard one to answer.

 

The RB and BRB are the heritage ballet companies of the UK and, as well as introducing new works they have, IMHO, a duty to maintain the heritage.  I believe that can best be done by maintaining a continuity of directorship.  However, when directors have to change for whatever reason I also believe that the companies should look to maintain a continuity (if possible) through using people with a direct link to the company.  David Bintley's credentials, for me, were impeccable when he was appointed AD on Sir Peter Wright's retirement.

 

I first started watching ballet just before Peter Schaufuss took over as AD of London Festival Ballet (now ENB) and they were the company I first started watching.  I absolutely adored the rep they did in those heady years but gradually as they moved to doing more and more performances of the usual suspects on tour I started to lose interest in them.  This happened through the directorships of the three ADs who followed him.  I have become more interested in the company again since Tamara Rojo took over as AD and introduced some different productions and mixed programmes.  How much of the rep in the "boring years" was due to financial constraints I don't know - perhaps the ADs wanted to be more exciting but couldn't.

 

I have seen 4 ADs of Scottish Ballet since Peter Darrell passed away.  I know that the Scottish Arts Council wanted to turn the company into a contemporary one but choosing Robert North as AD did not cause that to happen!  With each successive AD, however, the style has changed.  Does Scottish Ballet now have a recognisable style?

 

Robert de Warren was the AD when I first started watching Northern Ballet but I have little experience of the breadth of the repertoire from his time.  I know from the book that was produced for an anniversary that listed all the rep the company had produced that it had had a very varied past with many short and significant ballets such as Jooss' The Green Table.  Within about 3 years of Christopher Gable's appointment as AD the entire rep had been changed and Gable had firmly stamped his ideals of ballet theatre on the company.  Christopher Gable only choreographed one production for the company - Cinderella - but for most of his tenure he co-produced with AAD Michael Pink.  The current incumbent, David Nixon, again largely changed the rep within 3 years BUT his ideals are very similar to those of Christopher Gable so that has kept some feeling of continuity.  Even with the other choreographers, such as Cathy Marston, that he has commissioned those ideals of narrative ballet using dance actors are still there.  I do not know what will happen when David Nixon decides it is time to step aside.

 

One question that must face any incoming AD of a company other than RB and BRB is how much of the existing rep they can still use.  For example, if existing works by outside choreographers had been brought in, are the performing rights still held by the company or must they be re-negotiated.  LFB/ENB introduced me to the joys of ballet-watching via a performance of Onegin, which they have not now performed since the early 90s.  I understand, for example, that Cranko's ballets are very expensive to mount so would the new AD choose to do that or choreograph something himself or commission a new work or take on an established but cheaper to mount work?  Would the incoming incumbent be allowed to mount past productions, depending on ownership and the relationship between the owner and the company? 

 

In these financially straitened times I suppose companies feel that they must keep up with what they know will put bums on seats but for how long will seasoned ballet-watchers put up with this?

 

Sorry for the ramble.

[Two Pigeons]

There is a very common theme to a number of postings on this thread and that, of course, is funding. We have the dichotomy Janet pointed out of putting bums on seats and keeping the regular, informed (if that's not too pretentious) audience stimulated and interested. The one place where this doesn't seem to be too much of an issue is the Opera House which has the lion's share of the funding and is not burdened by touring coasts. The reinvigorated ENB may not have the funding but it does have a very formidable and focused AD.

 

However, I would be interested to see a comparison of the balance between the classically based repertoire in all its forms and the contemporary. From my distant standpoint I get the impression that it is the latter which is increasing. I think there may come a point when the pursuit of the trendy and fashionable results in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

 

FLOSS's extremely eloquent posting refers to the reverence and respect afforded to both Balanchine and Crank which seems to be denied to Ashton. As always this is undoubtedly right but these are choreographers who have no equal today. I wonder why this is and suspect that there is a slight fear that to turn out a piece of well crafted classical choreography to a great piece of classic (not commissioned) music is somehow seen as retrospective and dated. Personally I think this is a real shame.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Two Pigeons

[alison]

I guess the question is what proportion of their audience is actually made up by "seasoned ballet-watchers", Janet.  Outside the companies' "home turf" it may not be that much, or at least not enough to justify moving their targets onto them, if they have a more "casual" audience to consider.  (Not, as I've said before, that I've ever seen any signs of audience surveys being carried out). 

 

 

 

I first started watching ballet just before Peter Schaufuss took over as AD of London Festival Ballet (now ENB) and they were the company I first started watching.  I absolutely adored the rep they did in those heady years but gradually as they moved to doing more and more performances of the usual suspects on tour I started to lose interest in them.  This happened through the directorships of the three ADs who followed him.

 

Me too.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think that over the last few decades ENB's pattern of retrenchment in the "big name" classics and full-length ballets has done them (and their audiences) no favours - just like those touring Russian companies who come over here, it seems to imply to the casual balletgoer that there are only maybe half-a-dozen ballets which are worth seeing/bothering with.  Given the number of "non-scary" short works ENB has had in its back catalogue over that time, I'm sure they could have put together some mixed bills with some recognisable titles.  But I must admit that it was very odd, at the Mayflower in Southampton, to see a bill including The Rite of Spring apparently selling very well, yet one including Swan Lake Act II seemingly struggling.

[Two Pigeons]

There's no accounting for taste when it comes to mixed bills. BRB had a real triumph with The Dream and A Month in the Country this year. Both works by a genius, well performed and with familiar music and accessible plots. Result? Great critical acclaim and much enjoyed by the audiences which did attend. Regrettably those audiences were not that numerous. Put Carmina Burana on with just about anything. Great performances but definitely not a great work. Result? Very hard to get a seat.

 

The mind boggles at times!

[godots_arrived]

I suppose different models of company have different models of art director. There isn't one universal job description for the title. Companies built around the founder/ADs artistic output (from, say, Balanchine to Mark Morris to Martha Graham) really can't have sell-by dates attached as long as the artistic output remains relevant, innovative, high quality and progressive. Companies that subscribe to a more diverse repertoire may in one sense be more creatively contained by persevering with one AD for a long period but then conversely the breadth of that repertoire makes them less dependent on him for creative direction and the ADs success has to be measured by different/additional achievements and criteria. I suppose it's a matter of having to take each company on a case by case basis: I don't think there's a universal standard you can apply to the ideal length of an ADs tenure.