posted May 03, 2002 10:32            

quote:

---

Cambridge, Boston are worlds apart

Dance/by Theodore Bale
Friday, May 3, 2002

At times the dissimilarity of dance in Boston and Cambridge is particularly striking, and this week was certainly one of those times. The situation reminds me of New York, where dance is often described as being either ``uptown'' or ``downtown.''

Boston is certainly our ``uptown,'' with larger venues, more conservative programming and higher ticket prices. Cambridge has more intimate settings such as Dance Complex and Green Street Studios, programs with an ``anything goes'' slant and ticket prices that are easier on the wallet.

---

posted May 03, 2002 13:01         

Even given the hyperbolic nature criticism in dailies, the distinction in dance between the two parts of the metropolis is exaggerated. It is much more accurate to look at the metropolitan area than the two parts of the inner city. The vitality of dance in the larger ring is both sophisticated in the material and exhilarating in the performances. To name but two that come to mind, The Boston Conservatory gives imaginative modern dance recitals, and the Massachusetts Youth Ballet giving recitals in the suburban colleges, is a jewel for those willing to search it out. It’s programs, dominated by Balanchine’s choreography, are performed by students in age from 12 to 17 years, roles normally danced by older professional ballet dancers and assisted by male guest artists in partnering roles. But do not assume that this is a typical dance school recital. It has the grace and promise of seeing Seranade for the first time.

A critic of note, Marcia B. Siegel, wrote of the 1999 performance of Milk and Roses, “Massachusetts Youth Ballet's teenage dancers are technically excellent, but their Balanchine gives off a certain innocence, almost a perfume, I never saw at New York City Ballet.”

Boston Ballet is mainline but has stagnated for the last 10 years. The upcoming season promises an extensive and imaginative program, but it is only a promise and the corporation, for Boston Ballet is one, is better at advertising than at creating dance. Cambridge's Mateo’s Ballet Theater, has a choreographer of vision, but no school of note, and mostly a pick up company that limits his work to fundamental school vocabulary. It is important to note that none of the dancer could conceive of executing Aurora’s pas de deux. The assertion that they would not want to is beside the point.

posted May 04, 2002 05:39            

And yet, even at only 100,000 residents, Cambridge maintains an identity distinct from Boston. Home to two world-class universities, Cambridge has always held an intellectual self-image. Fully a third of its residents, significantly more highly educated than average, work in education. Since the 1960's, Cambridge has prided itself on its multicultural diversity as well. More recently, Cambridge real estate has achieved Manhattan valuations, making it difficult for the city to maintain its arts and its diversity.

Bale's analogy to New York is perceptive, but as with any analogy, it shouldn't be taken too far.

I found it interesting that Mateo was mentioned as an exception to the "downtown" nature of Cambridge. His company actually has a lot in common with its neighbors, even though being ballet, it is of necessity more institutionalized. To take the New York analogy one step further, Mateo's company may play a role in Cambridge similar to that of Eliot Feld's company with its Joyce Theatre in downtown Manhattan: a semi-experimental ballet company, an institutional resource in an "anything goes" milieu. Boston is desperately in need of additional dance/theater performance spaces; the Sanctuary Theatre may adress that need in the future as well.

Mateo has mentioned that his company has received much better public support in Cambridge than it ever did in Boston. This is not surprising, given Cambridge's intellectual self-image. Cambridge has a long history of support for the arts. Mateo has received the royal treatment from the Mayor's office.

Even corporate sponsorship is better in Cambridge; The Inn at Harvard, for example --- a classy $200 hotel located nextdoor to Ballet Theatre --- offered a $100 special price to Nutcracker patrons this year. The Inn also hosted Ballet Theatre's Nutcracker press party in fine fashion. Here we were, a bunch of sweaty dancers, and suddenly we became mini-celebrities. It certainly encouraged me, made me feel valued.

Rozann Kraus is an interesting, energetic personality. I wish I had more time to get to know her. But we're in our own little institutional world at Ballet Theatre, we don't get much opportunity to dance with the rest of Cambridge. That's the nature of Ballet.

I could truly relate to Kraus's statement about Mateo: ``He has brought so many people into ballet, either as students, audience members or performers, who might never have gone that route, because their sense of ballet was only Boston Ballet, you know, that whole very stringent hierarchy, and nothing else,'' said Kraus.

In the future, arts in Boston will probably move increasingly to more remote areas. Roxbury, Lynn, Chealsea, Waltham, for example. Downtown Boston and Cambridge are simply not affordable anymore.

A few facts about Jose Mateo's Ballet Theatre:

Of the 13 dancers with Ballet Theatre for its recently-finished Spring season, only two out of the 13 dancers were newly hired for the Spring season. I expect that 10 will be back for the Fall season as well. On average, the dancers have danced for and trained with Mateo for over 4 years. The three female principle dancers have trained with Mateo, and danced with him consistently, for over 30 years collectively. At this time, there are no men capable of prinicple roles. Four out of the 13 dancers are products of the associated school. I believe these retention rates are higher than average for ballet.

Three of the 13 dancers also teach in the associated school. The New York Times (1/1/02) mentioned that Mateo has "bred a generation of teachers who've built the finest open enrollment school in the region." "To fulfill the artistic objective it's necessary to have systematic training, a movement style with integrity and integrated choreography," he [Mateo] said.

When I first met Mateo and before I'd seen the company, I asked him if he had trouble hiring dancers of the skill he desired. His answer: "not at all". In my experience, Mateo seems to have felt the most limited with a small minority of experienced dancers --- ballet competition winners with long careers behind them --- who are unwilling to change the way they dance. These people have unexpected trouble with his choreography.

posted May 04, 2002 09:55            

I have never really thought of the Boston metropolitan area as a hotbed of modern dance. Am I wrong?

posted May 04, 2002 21:51            

Although I've never seen a modern dance company up-close, I'm coming to believe that Mateo's company operates more typically of modern dance than of ballet. You just mentioned one more way in which that's the case. Mateo had a background in modern dance before ballet, so that's not too surprising.

posted May 05, 2002 09:16         

While the student population, the status of the two universities or the support shown by the mayor, are all interesting topics, they are irrelevant or at most tangential to the topic raised by T. Bale. For example, writing , “The Inn at Harvard, for example --- a classy $200 hotel located nextdoor to Ballet Theatre --- offered a $100 special price to Nutcracker patrons this year”, approaches gratuitous advertising for favors previously done. But such value judgements apparently are inconsequential for a dancer, after all he has the inside view of the subject.

But let’s return to the subject – DANCE and DANCERS and the question of the art, the quality of dance and all the implications. Or are we to examine its status through a lens that emphasizes equality of opportunity, democracy, psychiatriatic therapy, adult education or some other socially desirable reformation? The choice is open but let’s keep in mind the historical consequences when the simplicity of ‘art for art’s sake’ is replaced by a higher reality: the prima ballerina keeps her position by favors to a bureaucrat or the whole of ballet, is made to serve Social Realism and the corruption that this entails as documented by Plisetskaya.

In the May 04, 2002 05:39 note is an extraordinary sentence, “Of the 13 dancers with Ballet Theatre for its recently-finished Spring season, only two out of the 13 dancers were newly hired for the Spring season. I expect that 10 will be back for the Fall season as well. On average, the dancers have danced for and trained with Mateo for over 4 years. The three female principle dancers have trained with Mateo, and danced with him consistently, for over 30 years collectively. At this time, there are no men capable of prinicple roles”.

Since we are dealing with statistics, let’s take a major company: 150 dancers, about 40 in the soloist and principal roles requiring about 5-8 years past the 8 years of training in SAB. That equals, collectively, about 1400 years. The ratio for the 30 years of Mateo’s company is about 2%. Let’s continue in this linear extrapolation and assume that artistic excellence is somehow related and we arrive at the astonishing conclusion that the company can perform on the average of 2% of that of a major company.

As to the statement, “At this time, there are no men capable of prinicple roles.” Well yes, whatever ‘prinicple’ means but hardly of a soloist role either, and it does not take a balletomane to discern this. On a second viewing of From Worlds Within, I asked two women who were first time to the Mateo’s company what they thought of the men dancers? Very poor was the response.

“To be crystal clear: everyone in Mateo's ballet company is a highly trained ballet dancer”, a detail, a question? Is a ‘professional’ who can’t execute a double tour en l’air, a ‘highly trained ballet dancer’? In the Vaganova syllabus a 4th – 5th year exercise. With the 8th year, ‘stressing the physical development of virtuosity and artistry’, that is what my understanding of ‘highly trained’ dancer is.

posted May 06, 2002 13:10            

Should you be barred for starting a sentence with and?

------------------
~Being happy doesn't mean everything's perfect, it just means you've decided to see beyond the imperfections.

posted May 06, 2002 13:57         

I see the word 'principle' frequently on this site, however, and it suggests that many contributors don't know the difference.

It's embarassing, particularly considering the word is a fundamental, English part of the ballet vocabulary.

posted May 06, 2002 14:26            

quote:

---

and any dance person who uses the thinks principal is 'principle' should be barred from verbal discourse about the art form!

---

Now , I am not trying to be rude or mean , but I don't think it is fair to say it is embarassing to Say principle for Principal ,which atleast sound alike, and say people should be barred from talking about art if they do. Yet,you don't find your grammar embarassing.

Sorry if this is out of line. Just had to say it. Also read my signature.

------------------
~Being happy doesn't mean everything's perfect, it just means you've decided to see beyond the imperfections.

posted May 07, 2002 20:56            

According to the Emerson Majestic's web site, the theater seats 976. That's still a LOT bigger than any dance spaces in Cambridge. Off topic, here's some commercial history of Boston's theaters. Wow!

D'ici has rightly pointed out that Mateo's current 80-seat dance space cannot sustain a professional comapny. Actually, this spring there were 9 sold-out performances, each which sold about 80 tickets at $25 each. There were also 5 patron performances, which did not sell out, but sold for $60 each. Whatever that comes out to, it STILL couldn't cover the dancer saleries for the season, let alone the technical costs. Although most ballet companies fall short of breaking even on ticket sales alone (NYCB, for exmaple, makes 70% of its revenue on ticket sales), I suppose that Ballet Theatre fell somewhat more short than most on this Spring season.

I don't know the plans for sure, so I'm free to speculate publicly on this forum: I think the company is currently in an "Internet startup" type of mode, but in slow motion. That is, it's trying to gain exposure and build awareness of its product, even though it regularly loses money. At least the loss of money is well-controlled: there is enough demand to ensure that all seats will sell out on any given run. The company commits only to losses it knows it can afford. What's worst for a company is if it stages a production and the expected audience never materializes.

In the meantime, the company has build a certain awareness over the past year, in large part due to the marketing people. Consider some marketing milestones:

*) The term "Sanctuary Theatre" was well-placed, and picked up by the press. There is now an awareness of a new theater for dance in Cambridge. That theater will certainly change, but whatever it becomes, it will be called "Sanctuary Theatre". The public will come to accept and expect its existence.

*) Four seasons have now been performed in the "Sanctuary Theatre". The press regularly reports that the company is "well-settled in its new home". Although this is not really true --- major changes to that home are in the works --- it still provides an air of permanence to the public. That sense of permanence is important, both in building an audience and in soliciting sponsorship.

*) The company has held regular seasons since December 2000. That is critically important in building an audience: regularity lends an air of permanence; it also gives the dancers and choreography opportunity for continued artistic growth.

Great pains have been taken to ensure good reviews. People who have not attended judge the show primarly on the reviews and on the sense of regularity. Not on the size of the theater ("Stomp!" in New York, for example, plays in a very small space, only 20 feet wide). And they certainly don't do the math to figure out how much the company is losing. Continued production gives an air of success. In true "Internet startup" fashion, those reviews are critically important to the long-term health of the company.

*) The Cambridge politicians are firmly behind the company, as evidenced by the recent "Dance Belt" award (ugh!). That's important in Cambridge.

I used to imagine there were economies of scale with big theaters: put enough people in there, and they can pay for a very expensive show. Now, I'm a lot more dubious of that idea, at least in ballet. For one, large theaters cost a lot more than small theaters to rent. Many seats in a large theater aren't that great anyway, so you can't charge too much for them.

A successful marketing campaing seems to be key to selling seats. But marketing is a lot of work, requiring a large marketing department, which eats up revenue. And marketing people are MUCH less willing to work for low pay, just because it's a ballet company, than dancers. We had 13 dancers this spring and 3 people working full-time in administration and marketing (plus another full-time staff person for the school). Selling more tickets requires more marketing people; a few more are hired for Nutcracker. Larger dancer organizations have MANY more administrative staff.

Information Technology may be able to increasing marketing efficiency somewhat. But IT is expensive as well: good systems require many hours to develop, at a cost of $100/hr for programmer time. It's hard to find competent programmers willing to work for what ballet companies can afford. So they're left with not-quite-efficient IT systems, which limits what the marketing staff can ultimately do.

What's the long and the short of this? Apparently, putting on the Nutcracker for 8,000 in the Sanctuary Theatre generates about the same net profit as the Nutcracker for 30,000 in the Emerson Majestic. Which is better for the comapny? In this case, probably the Emerson, since it gives more exposure. But it's sad that there are not any more economies of scale.

But in the Spring and Fall seasons, the smaller theater is a clear winner. Without its own theater, a ballet company must rent a larg(er) theater such as the Emerson Majestic. That's so expensive, it's only possible for 1 weekend. You invite the press on the first night to get reviews, so you can sell tickets for the second and third nights. And that's it. Having to sell all tickets in one weekend puts a strain on marketing, requiring more labor in a shorter period of time. Unfortunately, those are the constraints under which most dance companies must operate. A longer run at less cost per week makes for a better artistic product. Mateo used to perform spring and fall shows in the Emerson Majestic, but he's happier with longer runs in a smaller space.

I suppose that touring is also possible; you repeat the 1-weekend formula in a number of cities. I've heard the economics of touring are better than most other options, that's why companies do it. It also gains exposure. But living on the road is not pleasant.

I've learned that very large arts organizations, such as Boston Ballet and Boston Symphony Orchestra, deal with the very same economics problems that small organizations deal with, just magnified. They have more revenue, more sponsorship, more costs, more marketing people, and bigger revenue shortfalls. Sigh, arts economics contains so much funny math, I have a hard time understanding how ANY organization stays alive.

Sanctuary Theatre?

As of last fall, plans had been kicking around for a while, for the 250-seat system in the sanctuary (large studio). But I had never seen it, I'd only seen the 80-seat system. Nutcracker rehearsals were almost over, and there were still no seats. I said "I'll believe it when I see it." Then one day, I saw it, and I was amazed! My imagination was expanded, now I can more readily believe that this will become a permanent (but removeable in one day) fixture of the sanctuary. I hope the audience doesn't become TOO attached to the cabaret-style cocktail seating; more seats will make for a better bottom line.

Right now, the Sanctuary Theatre is used for studios and performances. Theatrical productions put a lot of strain on the school. There are plans for expanded studio space, which would allow school programming to continue, unaffected by goings-on in the Sanctuary Theatre.

Once that happens (at a snail's pace), I can imagine what the Sanctuary Theatre might become. I've been to the Joyce Theatre in New York, a 472-seat theater owned by Ballet Tech. That's small, but an ideal size for a variety of dance productions in New York. At 250 seats, the Sanctuary Theatre could play a similar role in Boston's (smaller) market. I personally think it would be really neat, to provide a quality performance space for many of Cambridge's dance groups. Some of the touring companies that now perform downtown might find the economics of the Sanctuary Theatre more suitable to their needs as well.

posted May 08, 2002 07:17         

A usefully starting definition of dance is that of a celebration in movement. Going past the rudimentary, purely individualistic, an organized form of movement implies a vision. The realization of an artistic vision requires fundamentals, a choreographer, dancers. Hence “but first a school”.
A choreographer can’t hope to express his vision in ballet without trained dancers. The process is symbiotic, he challenges the dancer, spurring the dancer’s growth and the dancer nourishes the choreographer’s creativity. Without talented dancers, the vision has to be scaled down, dumbed down, at best in a holding pattern. To confuse the primary component of vision with venue space and administrative functions or advertising slogans, is to confuse thighs and leotards with dance.
However neither historical examples nor artistic maturity is a give. What is enticing, are shortcuts: “In true "Internet startup" fashion, those reviews are critically important to the long-term health of the company. “ and “Information Technology may be able to increasing marketing efficiency somewhat.” Translate “Internet startup” into a self-delusion, a marketing bubble, and the critic becomes but a source to be wined and dined, a salesman with malleable aesthetic values.
I hope that the guiding vision of Mateo’s Ballet Theater is not that as expressed by Citybob. Mateo is a talented, original choreographer. A very welcome addition to the Boston dance and even with the compromises required by the present dancers, a relief from the mediocrity of the Boston Ballet’s season. However there is a caution for the next year. If the proposed program is realized, if the company dancers are revitalized, if the school produces new talent for the corps, then the audience necessary to sustain and permit growth of alternatives, such as the Ballet Theater will shrink or disappear. And Mateo’s company is not viable at 80 or 200 seats for a 15 performance season. Certainly not with mediocre dancers.