Alexei Ratmansky joins New York City Ballet as Artist in Residence

[Jane S]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/arts/dance/alexei-ratmansky-new-york-city-ballet.html

[Bruce Wall]

Source

 

How wonderful.  A match well made surely.  For me, Ratmansky's best work has always been that with NYCB.  Moreover in the LBC interview he, himself, said that this had always been a personal career goal of his.  Huge congratulations to him on achieving it.  The time, methinks, is very right.  

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Bruce Wall

[Bruce Wall]

Here is the announcement from NYCB - 

 

             

 

---

RATMANSKY NAMED ARTIST IN RESIDENCE

Ratmansky's Pictures at an Exhibition premiered in 2014 and will be on stage this spring.

From everyone at New York City Ballet, we hope you are enjoying a happy and safe new year.

New York City Ballet is excited to announce the appointment of Alexei Ratmansky as the Company's Artist in Residence, beginning August, 2023. Widely regarded as one of the world's greatest living choreographers, Ratmansky joins the Company's artistic leadership alongside Jonathan Stafford, Wendy Whelan, and Justin Peck. 

Ratmansky has created six acclaimed works for NYCB: Russian Seasons (2006), Concerto DSCH (2008), Namouna, A Grand Divertissement (2010), Pictures at an Exhibition (2014), Odessa (2017), and Voices (2020). Ratmansky's newest work for NYCB will premiere during the 2024 Winter Season as part of NYCB's 75th Anniversary Season. 

Please join us in celebrating this historic appointment and we invite you to read more about the announcement in The New York Times here.

[Jeannette]

Excellent news! As with the ABT arrangement, he should have time to continue to freelance elsewhere. A win-win situation.

[miliosr]

It was past time for ABT and Alexei Ratmansky to bring their ongoing relationship to a close. After a decade+ and nearly two dozen created dances, it's long been evident that the two parties had reached the limit of what they could achieve together. This way, Ratmansky can seek new inspiration across the plaza at Lincoln Center, and Susan Jaffe can turn her attentions toward the multi-act story ballets that are ABT's bread-and-butter.

 

As for the Ratmansky works themselves, ABT needs his Nutcracker for the annual stand at the Segerstrom Center in Los Angeles and they may want to keep Whipped Cream in rotation. Seven Sonatas is probably the best of the shorter works (and will stay in repertory), and some (or all) of the Shostakovich Trilogy may have any afterlife at ABT. But as for the rest . . . 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by miliosr

[Ivy Lin]

The Seasons will be in rotation. It's always been a big audience hit. Performances of it were sold out in the fall.

[Emeralds]

Harlequinade, Whipped Cream, Shostakovich Trilogy seem to have been great triumphs at ABT- great enough for David Hallberg to bring Harlequinade to Australian Ballet, and Helgi Tomasson to acquire Shostakovich Trilogy for San Francisco Ballet. Ratmamsky’s unusual Nutcracker  seems to work well for ABT too.  I haven’t seen On the Dnieper, another of his creations for ABT, and would be keen to see it. Of course, ABT could always invite Ratmansky to create a ballet on a freelance/one off basis if they wish to in future. It’s great that he has a new artistic base at NYCB now. 

[Jeannette]

Wasn’t Harlequinade a co-production with Australian Ballet? A co-creation.

 

The way that new AD Susan Jaffe talks in this recent interview, there will be few luxuriously-designed full-evening ballets in ABT’s future. 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyfRdIB0QM&t=1497s&pp=2AHZC5ACAQ%3D%3D

[miliosr]

5 hours ago, Emeralds said:

Harlequinade, Whipped Cream, Shostakovich Trilogy seem to have been great triumphs at ABT- great enough for David Hallberg to bring Harlequinade to Australian Ballet, and Helgi Tomasson to acquire Shostakovich Trilogy for San Francisco Ballet.

Shostakovitch Trilogy was a co-production between ABT and San Francisco Ballet (SFB) and, of the two companies, SFB got the better of the deal because the trilogy sat more comfortably within SFB's neo-classical style than it did with ABT's classical style. We'll see if it makes a comeback under Tamara Rojo's directorship.

 

I read the Gia Kourlas piece in the New York Times about Ratmansky's switch from ABT to New York City Ballet (NYCB). I agree with her overall point that NYCB would have been - and still is - a perfect fit for Ratmansky. But Peter Martins demanded too much as part of any deal and so everyone ended up with a detour.

 

Where I part ways with Kourlas, though, is her statement in the article that ABT comes out the loser in the deal. Ratmansky had a dozen years to give a ABT a new, streamlined repertory for the 21st century. In those dozen years, he churned out nearly two dozen works, the better part of which (as I noted upthread) seem unlikely to remain in repertory. Ratmansky did his best revivals of the great classics everywhere else BUT at ABT and he didn't give them the kind of modern classics that would fit within their multi-act story ballet aesthetic. (The genre I'm thinking of contains ballet like John Cranko's Onegin, Kenneth MacMillan's Manon and John Neumeier's La Dame aux camelias.)

 

So, how long does Gia Kourlas think ABT should have kept throwing money at Ratmansky (and he and his productions didn't come cheap) when the experiment wasn't proving all that successful relative to ABT's actual needs? Those needs would include (a) revamped productions of the great classics, (b) more and better coaching in those great classics, and (perhaps most importantly) (c) a new generation of stars to supplant the non-star turns currently bedeviling ABT. (I cast no blame toward Ratmansky for (c) because I believe stars are born and not made.) If Susan Jaffe made the decision to cut the cord with Ratmansky, I think she made the right decision.

[Emeralds]

40 minutes ago, miliosr said:

Shostakovitch Trilogy was a co-production between ABT and San Francisco Ballet (SFB) and, of the two companies, SFB got the better of the deal because the trilogy sat more comfortably within SFB's neo-classical style than it did with ABT's classical style. We'll see if it makes a comeback under Tamara Rojo's directorship.

 

I read the Gia Kourlas piece in the New York Times about Ratmansky's switch from ABT to New York City Ballet (NYCB). I agree with her overall point that NYCB would have been - and still is - a perfect fit for Ratmansky. But Peter Martins demanded too much as part of any deal and so everyone ended up with a detour.

 

Where I part ways with Kourlas, though, is her statement in the article that ABT comes out the loser in the deal. Ratmansky had a dozen years to give a ABT a new, streamlined repertory for the 21st century. In those dozen years, he churned out nearly two dozen works, the better part of which (as I noted upthread) seem unlikely to remain in repertory. Ratmansky did his best revivals of the great classics everywhere else BUT at ABT and he didn't give them the kind of modern classics that would fit within their multi-act story ballet aesthetic. (The genre I'm thinking of contains ballet like John Cranko's Onegin, Kenneth MacMillan's Manon and John Neumeier's La Dame aux camelias.)

 

So, how long does Gia Kourlas think ABT should have kept throwing money at Ratmansky (and he and his productions didn't come cheap) when the experiment wasn't proving all that successful relative to ABT's actual needs? Those needs would include (a) revamped productions of the great classics, (b) more and better coaching in those great classics, and (perhaps most importantly) (c) a new generation of stars to supplant the non-star turns currently bedeviling ABT. (I cast no blame toward Ratmansky for (c) because I believe stars are born and not made.) If Susan Jaffe made the decision to cut the cord with Ratmansky, I think she made the right decision.

Thanks, miliosr. I can’t get NYT here any more so will just try to get an idea of the article from what you have shared.

 

Didn’t know the Shostakovich piece was a co-production. I must say SFB & Helgi seem to be spot on with co-productions. For example, despite Scarlett’s Frankenstein being created with and on the most talented actor-dancers, great stars we love at the Royal Ballet who believed in the project, and great (expensive) production values (handsome costumes and sets by John Macfarlane and impressive stage effects), it has never been a roaring success here - in fact, I watched it on tv and couldn’t even get to the end despite being a big fan of all the leads. Yet at SFB the reaction I’ve heard from regulars was that they enjoyed it and loved how different it was to other works in their repertory. I’ve not seen ABT perform the Shostakovich but I felt SFB were brilliant when I saw them in it.

 

What I have noticed is that even with classics like Nutcracker (love Helgi’s Nutcracker, though never got to see the Christensen production), Swan Lake, Giselle, they still programme lots and lots of new work and premieres.

My impression of SFB’s repertoire  is that I haven’t always liked all (well in fact, a good number) of the new works, but SFB dancers always dance every single ballet,  good or bad, likeable or not, as a masterpiece and I suspect they have developed a knack as a company of making every work look its best, and making some works look much better than they really are.

 

I know that even as far back as the 1990s, ABT, whoever helmed it, was always on the search for great choreographers to create for them, to continue what Tudor, de Mille, Tharp etc had started. And perhaps giving Ratmansky Resident status was a hope that he might be their next Antony Tudor perhaps. I think creating great work requires so many ingredients besides a talented choreographer - you need artists who can work with you, bring something to the process, and a company whose director and schedule are conducive to you working on a new ballet. Regarding the NYCB cf ABT collaborations, you could equally argue that maybe NYCB didn’t do so well out of Christopher Wheeldon as RB did, in the same way that they perhaps got more out of Ratmansky  than ABT did. Martins gave Wheeldon resident choreographer status (first to be named Resident Artist) and he created some excellent  works for them, but the two biggest money spinners he instead created on RB as co-productions with National Ballet of Canada: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (probably the most popular full length ballet of the 21st century- it’s now been acquired by numerous ballet companies) and The Winter’s Tale. (Hmm... if it’s full length narrative ballets ABT would like, they should commission....yep, Wheeldon!)

 

ABT seemed to have some success with Ratmansky’s Sleeping Beauty, didn’t they? (despite a few Instagram/FB addicts among their audiences wailing “what happened to the six o’clock legs and hyperextensions?!!” “Why are they dancing instead of showing us gymnastic poses!?”) Ok I’m teasing them a bit here. But I do think it’s a good idea to try a different approach. Plus you can’t have five or six Resident Choreographers. There may be other choreographers out there waiting to produce new masterpieces for ABT.

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Emeralds

[Emeralds]

3 hours ago, Jeannette said:

Wasn’t Harlequinade a co-production with Australian Ballet? A co-creation.

 

The way that new AD Susan Jaffe talks in this recent interview, there will be few luxuriously-designed full-evening ballets in ABT’s future. 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyfRdIB0QM&t=1497s&pp=2AHZC5ACAQ%3D%3D

That’s interesting Jeanette- it wasn’t described thus in ABT’s publicity and still isn’t on their website. Australian Ballet only got the ballet very late (ABT premiered it in 2018 when David McAllister was Australian Ballet artistic director and again nothing was mentioned from what I managed to get from Australia.). David Hallberg described wanting to acquire it when he became Australian Ballet artistic director in 2020 after dancing in it and seeing his colleagues dance it in 2018. AusBallet only got the ballet in 2022 and premiered their production in June 2022.

 

Australian Ballet calls it a co-production on their publicity and website perhaps to acknowledge that ABT created it with Ratmansky but I don’t think it’s a co-production in the way we would know it eg from Wheeldon and Scarlett’s full length original ballets,  or from operas, where on the night of the premiere, another company/companies have already been announced to get it next and their funds in supporting its creation acknowledged. In the co-productions, it’s not a co-creation, though- whether an opera or a ballet, the choreographer or director only works with the first company where the premiere is going to take place, eg for Alice, Wheeldon worked only with Cuthbertson and the other Royal Ballet Alices in the first run. He didn’t do a bit with Jillian Vanstone (the first Canadian Alice) and come back to London to see how it looked on Cuthbertson. Likewise for opera. They work with the first company, then set it on the next opera company later that year or the next year. There may be a few small tweaks, but overall it’s the choreography and movement created on the first company. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Emeralds

[miliosr]

1 hour ago, Emeralds said:

What I have noticed is that even with classics like Nutcracker (love Helgi’s Nutcracker, though never got to see the Christensen production), Swan Lake, Giselle, they still programme lots and lots of new work and premieres.

SFB has nine new works premiering in January 2023 as part of the Next@90 Festival. This in addition to the 12 new works that premiered as part of the Unbound Festival in 2018. Helgi Tomasson is leaving with a final statement of intent, whether Tamara Rojo chooses to heed it or not.

 

1 hour ago, Emeralds said:

I know that even as far back as the 1990s, ABT, whoever helmed it, was always on the search for great choreographers to create for them, to continue what Tudor, de Mille, Tharp etc had started.

Arguably, ABT has been looking for great choreographers since the 1940s to replicate the triumphs of that first decade! 😊 That was the decade of Fall River Legend (de Mille) and Fancy Free (Robbins) and Pillar of Fire (Tudor) and Romeo and Juliet (Tudor) and Theme and Variations (Balanchine).

 

1 hour ago, Emeralds said:

ABT seemed to have some success with Ratmansky’s Sleeping Beauty, didn’t they? (despite a few Instagram/FB addicts among their audiences wailing “what happened to the six o’clock legs and hyperextensions?!!” “Why are they dancing instead of showing us gymnastic poses!?”)

The Ratmansky Sleeping Beauty from 2015 got a mixed reception. There was a sizeable faction who loved it as a window into the bygone performing style of the 1890s-era Mariinsky, the Ballets Russes and Anna Pavlova & her touring company. But (as you note) a loud minority thought it was too bygone - it had nothing to do with the dancers of today. While Ratmansky's Sleeping Beauty got a better reception than the Gelsey Kirkland/Kevin McKenzie Sleeping Beauty from 2007 (which was universally loathed), it never established itself in the regular repertory alongside Giselle, Swan Lake, Romeo and Juliet (the MacMillan version) and Don Q. Once again, ABT paid out a lot of money without necessarily getting something long lasting in return.

Edited January 8, 2023 by miliosr

[Emeralds]

Tamara loves having new works so as long as there is the funding I’m sure she’d continue the practice of lots of premieres. She also loves having lots of different choreographers so again that’s in keeping with SFB current practice. You may well find that she programmes more female choreographers to create new work than previously.  

 

Oh yes - Robbins and Balanchine were in that period when ABT was not yet ABT as we know it today, wasn’t it? I think if they want stories, Susan Jaffe should have a chat with Chris Wheeldon....and who knows? (He’s also done a Sleeping Beauty for Royal Danish Ballet, but I haven’t seen it yet.) Cathy Marston also does stories - lots of them. But I don’t know if ABT’s core audiences are too conservative for Marston’s style (they don’t seem to be reviving Jane Eyre?). Funnily enough, her adaptation of Ethan Frome (called Snowblind) worked really well at SFB.

 

i do hope they revive the Sleeping Beauty a couple more times before selling/abandoning it, to make the most of their investment. The costumes are attractive in the photos, and a lot of viewers taking families or children won’t care too much if it’s modern enough (or as I jokingly call it, gymnastic enough)- they just care if the plot is clear enough. To me, we see 185 degree extensions and pyrotechnics  all the time. It won’t hurt to be a bit retro sometimes, as long as there is still musicality and story telling. The dancers’ joints and bones will also be happier for it! 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Emeralds

[Buddy]

Emeralds, I think that ABT and New York City Ballet having “a chat” with Christopher Wheeldon would be an excellent idea. There's a lot of interesting discussion here. Thank you. Can I add this ?  I posted it elsewhere but would like to include it.

 

 

I’d like to mention this. From Gia Kourlas at the New York Times.

 

“At City Ballet, Alexei Ratmansky Can Let His Imagination Run Wild” 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/arts/dance/alexei-ratmansky-city-ballet.html

(thanks to Ian Macmillan at BalletcoForum)

 

I think that the article can be included here for its informational value. Extended discussion of her opinions might be best at the Writings on Ballet forum.

 

To summarise, I believe that she feels that he’d have a great amount of artistic freedom and access to dancers who could thrive with this at New York City Ballet. I think that it’s an interesting premise.

 

I will offer a more general opinion. For me, Alexei Ratmansky has really great ability, probably genius.

 

I like parts of his works very much. I do like most of such works as Concerto DSCH and Russian Seasons which tend to capsulise and focus his creativity. I think that New York City Ballet is a  place where  this sort of thing could really develop (as Gia Kourlas suggests).

 

It’s possible that at New York City Ballet he could become a new Balanchine, or something close to it, and what better a place is there ?

 

Added: This is a quote from the article that I like very much.

 

"What happens when a dancer goes to the limits for such a choreographer? In a behind-the-scenes video about Ratmansky’s “Concerto DSCH,” the principal Sara Mearns describes a lift in which she is held above her partner with one leg extended to the side. “He said, ‘You need to look up to the sky like it’s the heavens, and then I want you to actually close your eyes,’” she says. “So I do, and it’s amazing and so magical.”

 

"He didn’t just guide her body, he led her spirit."

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Buddy

[Sophoife]

3 hours ago, Emeralds said:

Australian Ballet calls it a co-production on their publicity and website perhaps to acknowledge that ABT created it with Ratmansky but I don’t think it’s a co-production in the way we would know it

 

Exactly, @EmeraldsHarlequinade was never announced as a co-production until it was actually programmed by Australian Ballet for the 2022 season.

 

In contrast, the Possokhov Anna Karenina was always a co-production with the Joffrey, announced when Joffrey Ballet programmed it. It was supposed to have been performed here in 2020...and we all know what happened there.

 

From my POV Harlequinade was a piece of fluff, hopefully unlikely to come back in the future, with delicious costumes, pretty dancing, but no characterisation and far too many [very cute and well-drilled] children on stage. I do not pay to see professional ballet expecting half the dancing to be done by children from ballet schools all over Melbourne.

[Emeralds]

16 hours ago, Sophoife said:

 

Exactly, @EmeraldsHarlequinade was never announced as a co-production until it was actually programmed by Australian Ballet for the 2022 season.

 

In contrast, the Possokhov Anna Karenina was always a co-production with the Joffrey, announced when Joffrey Ballet programmed it. It was supposed to have been performed here in 2020...and we all know what happened there.

 

From my POV Harlequinade was a piece of fluff, hopefully unlikely to come back in the future, with delicious costumes, pretty dancing, but no characterisation and far too many [very cute and well-drilled] children on stage. I do not pay to see professional ballet expecting half the dancing to be done by children from ballet schools all over Melbourne.

Thank you for the information from Australia, Sophoife! It helps to have someone there in person. The company looked good in the videos and photos, and I’d love to see this production on stage in real life, but I think I know what you mean about the fluff and characterisation; from the synopsis and trailers it looked difficult to fit characterisation and depth in, especially if the choreographer is trying to be faithful to the original libretto and choreography as far as possible-and now we know why Sergeyev didn’t take notation of Harlequinade to Dame Ninette de Valois to stage in Britain. 😉

 

You know, your thoughts about too much reliance on child performers (as good as they may be) describes my thoughts about quite a number of past and present Nutcracker productions, which I thought of as, “a long wait through a school production (albeit one of high standards) just to see my favourite principal dancers to dance a pas de deux at the end”. 😂😄 But for the parents, grandparents and other doting relatives of the children, I’m sure it’s wonderful. 

 

17 hours ago, Buddy said:

Emeralds, I think that ABT and New York City Ballet having “a chat” with Christopher Wheeldon would be an excellent idea. There's a lot of interesting discussion here. Thank you. Can I add this ?  I posted it elsewhere but would like to include it.

 

 

I’d like to mention this. From Gia Kourlas at the New York Times.

 

“At City Ballet, Alexei Ratmansky Can Let His Imagination Run Wild” 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/arts/dance/alexei-ratmansky-city-ballet.html

(thanks to Ian Macmillan at BalletcoForum)

 

I think that the article can be included here for its informational value. Extended discussion of her opinions might be best at the Writings on Ballet forum.

 

To summarise, I believe that she feels that he’d have a great amount of artistic freedom and access to dancers who could thrive with this at New York City Ballet. I think that it’s an interesting premise.

 

I will offer a more general opinion. For me, Alexei Ratmansky has really great ability, probably genius.

 

I like parts of his works very much. I do like most of such works as Concerto DSCH and Russian Seasons which tend to capsulise and focus his creativity. I think that New York City Ballet is a  place where  this sort of thing could really develop (as Gia Kourlas suggests).

 

It’s possible that at New York City Ballet he could become a new Balanchine, or something close to it, and what better a place is there ?

 

Added: This is a quote from the article that I like very much.

 

"What happens when a dancer goes to the limits for such a choreographer? In a behind-the-scenes video about Ratmansky’s “Concerto DSCH,” the principal Sara Mearns describes a lift in which she is held above her partner with one leg extended to the side. “He said, ‘You need to look up to the sky like it’s the heavens, and then I want you to actually close your eyes,’” she says. “So I do, and it’s amazing and so magical.”

 

"He didn’t just guide her body, he led her spirit."

 

Thanks for filling me in on the NYT article, Buddy (I couldn’t read it as I’ve used up my quota!) That’ a lovely story from Sara Mearns (whose debut at Sadler’s Wells I was very sad to see cancelled due to the pandemic in spring 2020- hope her performances can be rescheduled). From what people who have worked with him have said, Ratmansky brings his wealth of experience as a principal dancer at Royal Danish Ballet, Dutch National Ballet as well as in Kyiv, plus a lot of love for old ballets, history and good music, and he really prepares his choreography meticulously. (He’s also known for being a polite, patient and soft spoken person who is very easy to get along with.) I suspect that when he asked her to close her eyes, he’d probably done it with one of his partners before and knew it was safe for her to do so and would enhance her performance. A very conscientious, intelligent and versatile choreographer, and I am quite sure there are more balletic gems to come from Ratmansky. 

[Jeannette]

FYI, I’ve been hearing about the Australia connection for Harlequinade since before I saw the H premiere in NY. It may not have been in the original announcement but was known at the time of the NY premiere. We may have even discussed it here…but I’m too tired to look. 😉  [Years ago, we talked about London perhaps seeing Harlequinade in the next tour of the Australians…discussed well before COVID.]

 

Often there are huge gaps between premiere times, even before COVID…such as the premieres of Of Love & Rage between Costa Mesa, then NYC, and Canada, which hasn’t even been announced, that I’ve read. “Collaboration” could be monetary - not just the creation of designs, etc.
 

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Jeannette

[Buddy]

14 hours ago, Emeralds said:

Thanks for filling me in on the NYT article, Buddy (I couldn’t read it as I’ve used up my quota!) That’ a lovely story from Sara Mearns (whose debut at Sadler’s Wells I was very sad to see cancelled due to the pandemic in spring 2020- hope her performances can be rescheduled). From what people who have worked with him have said, Ratmansky brings his wealth of experience as a principal dancer at Royal Danish Ballet, Dutch National Ballet as well as in Kyiv, plus a lot of love for old ballets, history and good music, and he really prepares his choreography meticulously. (He’s also known for being a polite, patient and soft spoken person who is very easy to get along with.) I suspect that when he asked her to close her eyes, he’d probably done it with one of his partners before and knew it was safe for her to do so and would enhance her performance. A very conscientious, intelligent and versatile choreographer, and I am quite sure there are more balletic gems to come from Ratmansky. 

 

Emeralds, I somehow believe that Gia Kourlas is alluding to an ideal possibility and it does have its fascination and indeed excitement if it should actually happen. She seems to be playing with the idea that Alexei Ratmansky could actually be the next Balanchine. He does have great ability but these would be huge shoes to fill and it would require an immense burst of excellence and perhaps considerable restructuring while already well into his career. I think that it’s possible, but it would require an output of unquestionable quality. It certainly would be something to see.

 

Whether he could literally become the next George Balanchine, considered by many to be one of the two greatest ballet choreographers ever, is something that she seems to definitely be hinting at. She mentions “his love of dancing works by George Balanchine.” Her special excitement with him being at New York City Ballet could be taken as another literal ‘next Balanchine’ reference, this being the ‘House of Balanchine.’

 

Thank you for reinforcing my positive image of him, that “He’s also known for being a polite, patient and soft spoken person who is very easy to get along with.” On the other hand, his creations are considered very demanding on the dancers, as were George Balanchine’s. I personally would prefer them to be less so and would hope for this in a more ideal situation. I will say that dancers do comment that he’s such a nice and brilliant person that they do try to do their best for him.

 

Also, thank you for reminding us that Alexei Ratmansky was indeed an accomplished dancer. It certainly could explain his ability to get inside the minds of such artists as Sara Mearns. Adding this dimension, mental elevation and guidance, could enhance a dance artist’s capabilities immensely.

 

And back to your mention of Christopher Wheeldon for a moment. For me, it brings to mind a definite George Balanchine-Jerome Robbins imagery. Christopher Wheeldon often mentions the influence that Jerome Robbins had on him and his debt to him. I think that it’s often evident in Wheeldon’s works. Also I think that it’s possible to see as much a Balanchine-type depth and structure in Alexei Ratmansky’s works as it is to see a Jerome Robbins’ influence in Christopher Wheeldon's. I would say that in a Balanchine-Robbins comparison, George Balanchine was the giant, whereas in a Ratmansky-Wheeldon one, it would be much more equal. Still the idea of a new age of Balanchine-Robbins in the presence of Ratmansky-Wheeldon at ’The House of Balanchine’ (and Robbins) would be a remarkable occurrence.      

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Buddy

[Jeannette]

I think about Justin Peck as a Jerome Robbins type, due to the general variety and Americanism of his work…not just the West Side Story connection.

 

Despite the Russian/USSR connection, I’ve not thought of Ratmansky as a New Balanchine. Crazy thing. It may be about the direct tie to the Stepanov notations for the classical pieces.

[Buddy]

13 hours ago, Jeannette said:

I think about Justin Peck as a Jerome Robbins type, due to the general variety and Americanism of his work…not just the West Side Story connection.

 

Despite the Russian/USSR connection, I’ve not thought of Ratmansky as a New Balanchine. Crazy thing. It may be about the direct tie to the Stepanov notations for the classical pieces.

 

Hi, Jeannette, and thanks for your comments and interest. I think that you can come at Alexei Ratmansky from at least two directions and you have focused on one of them, his classical and historical emphasis. This is totally valid.

 

In a second instance it might be most interesting to go directly to the title of Gia Kourlas’ article and take it from there.

 

“At City Ballet, Alexei Ratmansky Can Let His Imagination Run Wild” 

 

In this scenario, and overall, I tend to focus on Alexei Ratmansky more abstractly and not necessarily in terms of entire works, but rather in terms of bits and pieces, and the strong points of his general creativity. I haven’t really tried to analyse specifics, but there’s always something going on in any Ratmansky work that seems brilliant to me no matter what I think of the entirety. This is when I start thinking “Balanchine.”

 

And when I think “Balanchine” in this way I think about his ability to condense so much interest and artistic genius and variety into a single capsulised work or parts of a larger work. Alexei Ratmansky’s Concerto DSCH and Russian Seasons come to mind immediately.

 

So maybe if ‘We Let Our Imaginations Run Wild’ somewhat we can see a slightly reinvented Alexei Ratmansky, who takes all his creative strongpoints, ties them firmly together, and produces new crystalizations of ‘Balanchinian’ solidity, diversity and genius. This is just one way of looking at it, but it’s one that sort of ‘intrigues’ me at the moment.

 

I’ve seen very little of Justin Peck so I can’t really comment on him except that I can see a sort of Jerome Robbins resemblance, perhaps more in his use of animation.

 

 

 

[Emeralds]

At risk of sounding cliched, I’m one of those who believes that nobody is ever “the next X” but the person is always “the first [person’s name]”. Ratmansky is indeed as prolific as Balanchine and very creative in the classical (or neoclassical, whatever people wish to call it) idiom, but Balanchine was never keen on restoring and reconstructing old classics the way Ratmansky is - the only other choreographers I know of who have reconstructed as many would be Pierre Lacotte, followed by Sergei Vikharev (who sadly passed away too young, before having had the chance to create more productions). Balanchine would simply create his own versions of the classics instead (eg Nutcracker, Swan Lake-lakeside act only, Coppelia-a co-creation with Danilova, Sylvia- pas de deux only, La Source, Firebird). 

 

Does NYCB need a next Balanchine or would it be better to have several choreographers who can all collectively continue the legacy of Balanchine and Robbins? I think Balanchine and NYCB had a history together that is difficult to replicate and indeed one might not want it replicated- a choreographer who ends being the dominant dancemaker every season. I think Balanchine was to NYCB what Neumeier is to Hamburg Ballet and Cranko was to Stuttgart Ballet- all founder choreographers. They were important in creating a body of signature works for the company and initially keeping that fledgling company going by making many pieces to be able to put out programmes season after season if they didn’t have the funds or staff to acquire and present big productions of all the classics - or perhaps didn’t want to. But I think it would be hard to have a dominant choreographer the way Balanchine had been, without pushing out other choreographers.

 

I think Wheeldon and Peck have also been called the next Balanchine at some point too, but again, I think of them as the first Wheeldon and first Justin Peck respectively rather than the next anybody. I’ve enjoyed works they created for NYCB too. If all three -and other choreographers Stafford and Whelan commission in the upcoming seasons- can create several or more masterpieces for NYCB in the next few years, that would be great. I wonder if Ratmansky will be doing fewer/no restorations of classics for the next few years in order to focus on his new works for NYCB? We’ll see. 

[Emeralds]

On 08/01/2023 at 21:18, Jeannette said:

FYI, I’ve been hearing about the Australia connection for Harlequinade since before I saw the H premiere in NY. It may not have been in the original announcement but was known at the time of the NY premiere. We may have even discussed it here…but I’m too tired to look. 😉  [Years ago, we talked about London perhaps seeing Harlequinade in the next tour of the Australians…discussed well before COVID.]

 

Often there are huge gaps between premiere times, even before COVID…such as the premieres of Of Love & Rage between Costa Mesa, then NYC, and Canada, which hasn’t even been announced, that I’ve read. “Collaboration” could be monetary - not just the creation of designs, etc.
 

 

 

 

That’s very interesting, Jeanette- the plot thickens! Maybe it was a bit of both! Usually the co-production aspect is purely financial, whereby the second company (and third, if there is a third), simply contribute funding as an investment in exchange for being able to mount a ready made new production from a director or choreographer they want, at a lower cost, while the first company benefits from the extra funds invested. Unfortunately, the second (or third) company don’t get to  make artistic decisions or have input in how the designs look, what steps or lifts are used, or how the score sounds- it’s created in house with the first company, for practical/logistical reasons as well as to avoid potential complicated arguments/feuds. They might be able to make small tweaks in agreement  with the creators when it’s their turn to mount the production, but not large scale changes. 

[Bruce Wall]

58 minutes ago, Emeralds said:

At risk of sounding cliched, I’m one of those who believes that nobody is ever “the next X” but the person is always “the first [person’s name]”. Ratmansky is indeed as prolific as Balanchine and very creative in the classical (or neoclassical, whatever people wish to call it) idiom, but Balanchine was never keen on restoring and reconstructing old classics the way Ratmansky is - the only other choreographers I know of who have reconstructed as many would be Pierre Lacotte, followed by Sergei Vikharev (who sadly passed away too young, before having had the chance to create more productions). Balanchine would simply create his own versions of the classics instead (eg Nutcracker, Swan Lake-lakeside act only, Coppelia-a co-creation with Danilova, Sylvia- pas de deux only, La Source, Firebird). 

 

Does NYCB need a next Balanchine or would it be better to have several choreographers who can all collectively continue the legacy of Balanchine and Robbins? I think Balanchine and NYCB had a history together that is difficult to replicate and indeed one might not want it replicated- a choreographer who ends being the dominant dancemaker every season. I think Balanchine was to NYCB what Neumeier is to Hamburg Ballet and Cranko was to Stuttgart Ballet- all founder choreographers. They were important in creating a body of signature works for the company and initially keeping that fledgling company going by making many pieces to be able to put out programmes season after season if they didn’t have the funds or staff to acquire and present big productions of all the classics - or perhaps didn’t want to. But I think it would be hard to have a dominant choreographer the way Balanchine had been, without pushing out other choreographers.

 

I think Wheeldon and Peck have also been called the next Balanchine at some point too, but again, I think of them as the first Wheeldon and first Justin Peck respectively rather than the next anybody. I’ve enjoyed works they created for NYCB too. If all three -and other choreographers Stafford and Whelan commission in the upcoming seasons- can create several or more masterpieces for NYCB in the next few years, that would be great. I wonder if Ratmansky will be doing fewer/no restorations of classics for the next few years in order to focus on his new works for NYCB? We’ll see. 

 

Don't forget Balanchine's enticing Harlequinade - which, itself, was the full deal ... Then, of course, there was HIS Don Q - but that was a completely different kettle of fish.  

People might be interested in this enervating Podcast on the new Peck - which has a considerable number of performances in the coming NYCB Winter Season - All based in and around 'Copland Episodes'.  It does sound luscious - balletically and musically - especially as the first 'episode' is Peck's already established 'Rodeo' which - at least in my book - must surely rank as one of the balletic masterworks of the first part of the 21st Century.  Certainly it is a thing of great joy.  This piece will be the first full-length abstract work in NYCB's canon since Jewels.  If the rest of it is as good as Peck's first chunk and Balanchine's inspirational turn --- my, oh my ....   Stay tuned ... and ALL fingers crossed.  

 

https://podcast.nycballet.com/episode-76-new-combinations-copland-dance-episodes

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Bruce Wall

[Buddy]

14 hours ago, Emeralds said:

Does NYCB need a next Balanchine or would it be better to have several choreographers who can all collectively continue the legacy of Balanchine and Robbins?

 

“….several choreographers who can all collectively continue the legacy of Balanchine and Robbins?”

 

This seems like a good way of putting it, Emeralds. Energised by Gia Kourlas’ article, I do get excited about what Alexei Ratmansky could be capable of at New York City Ballet and about the possibility of him becoming similar in stature to George Balanchine and related in resemblance, but I’m not sure in what form exactly.

 

“….several choreographers….” — I’d really like to see Christopher Wheeldon involved with the encouragement and perhaps creative assistance of Associate Artistic Director Wendy Whelan, who as I mentioned before probably had a hand in the creation of Christopher Wheeldon’s “After The Rain.”

 

Alexei Ratmansky-Christopher Wheeldon-Wendy Whelan

 

This is a combination that I wouldn’t mind seeing as the continuation of the Balanchine (and Robbins) legacy.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Buddy
grammar correction

[Emeralds]

5 hours ago, Bruce Wall said:

 

Don't forget Balanchine's enticing Harlequinade - which, itself, was the full deal ... Then, of course, there was HIS Don Q - but that was a completely different kettle of fish.  

People might be interested in this enervating Podcast on the new Peck - which has a considerable number of performances in the coming NYCB Winter Season - All based in and around 'Copland Episodes'.  It does sound luscious - balletically and musically - especially as the first 'episode' is Peck's already established 'Rodeo' which - at least in my book - must surely rank as one of the balletic masterworks of the first part of the 21st Century.  Certainly it is a thing of great joy.  This piece will be the first full-length abstract work in NYCB's canon since Jewels.  If the rest of it is as good as Peck's first chunk and Balanchine's inspirational turn --- my, oh my ....   Stay tuned ... and ALL fingers crossed.  

 

https://podcast.nycballet.com/episode-76-new-combinations-copland-dance-episodes

 

You know, Bruce, I was really tempted to mention Balanchine’s version of Harlequinade during our discussion of the funding of the ABT Harlequinade but I feared I might end up confusing everyone (including myself) as to which Harlequinade we were referring to when joining the discussion....haha. There’s also a sort of stand alone (“after Petipa/Vaganova/Sergeyev/every coach who ever taught this for competitions”) pas de deux that pops up every now and again for competitions (unrelated to Ratmansky and Balanchine’s versions) isn’t there.....?

 

I’ve never seen Balanchine’s Don Quixote (absolutely no relation to the Petipa/Minkus/Gorsky ballet with the fans and fouettes!) .....I understand  most of today’s NYCB dancers haven’t either!?! I have seen some photos. Didn’t seem to be a large cast.... (the photos were of Farrell and Mr B only).

 

I’ll be curious to see any clips of Peck’s new ballet that NYCB release too. I wish they’d tour internationally again, perhaps with some of their newer works like those from Ratmansky, Peck, Lovette etc as well as old favourites by Balanchine and Robbins.  I really enjoyed the small scale ones that Peter Boal previously brought to London.  

Edited January 11, 2023 by Emeralds