This lukebccb character certainly wants to draw out a 30 year old axe to grind it up up against the new LAB. I was fortuately to watch Thordal and Colleen on the stage at PNB and I wish them all the best. There are many ballet companies in LA, but LAB is focusing on fundamental Balanchine works and I think that's fantastic. If they can grow LAB the same way Francia and Kent grew PNB, then LA audiences will enjoy dance for years and years to come.
@RegularJesus: I'm not sure if you just glanced at my postings or if you have a comprehension problem but I do NOT have an "old axe to grind"..... on the contrary I'm rooting for the success of LAB.
If you had read - or didn't comprehend - my postings, I was pointing out that I hope the present LAB doesn't make the stupid mistakes of the past "LAB" as well as Ballet Pacifica of trying to be achieve the "instant 'big-league' ballet company".by "artificially" making LAB "prestigious".
@RegularJesus: On the contrary I hope that Neary and Christensen follow an "organic" approach of developing and growing Los Angeles Ballet so that the company will have a SOLID foundation of economics and audience following. All the non-NYC ballet companies that have become successful - Miami Ballet is an excellent example - have followed the "organic" growth of their companies and are on solid footings.
@RegularJesus: The "old" LAB and Ballet Pacifica are the examples of trying to become "internationally reknowned by "adding instant prestige"...... instead both companies ended up out of existence.
Hopefully Neary's and Christensen's LAB will avoid the "instant success" model and follow the "organic growth" model.......
For over 40 years Ballet Pacifica had been a small BUT FINANCIALLY STABLE company. Then the Board of Directors came up with grandiose plans to turn Pacifica into a big prestigious company. Instead in less than 4 years the board drove Ballet Pacifica out of existence because of THEIR plans to turn Pacifica into a "prestige company".
I hope the people of the existing Los Angeles Ballet understand what I've been trying to get at.
The Board tried to fix finances by finding new (BIGGER) funding sources by stating Ballet Pacifica would be tranformed overnite into a big 30-40 dancer national ballet company thru the donations of big corporate sponsorship.......
The "big money" never materialized and Pacifica's finances only worsened. Ballet Pacifica shut down operations in 2007 after 45 years of existence.
This led to disagreements with the artistic director, Molly Lynch, which led to Lynch's departing Ballet Pacifica. With the departure of Lynch, the donors and supporters of Ballet Pacifica, which became donors and supporters of Pacifica because of Lynch, began to abandon Pacifica. Donor money began to disappear and of course the result was financial trouble for Pacifica.
Ballet Pacifica had been a smallish company of around 16 or so dancers and had been in existence for over 40 years. It concentrated on contemporary works and was very creative.
Thoughout it's first 40 years of existence it stayed small, dynamic AND MOST IMPORANTLY, *financially sound*. But in the turn of the millenia the Board of Directors wanted to grow the company beyond "small regional" to "national" thru classical works.
Folks should also google "Ballet Pacifica" and read the OC Register and LA Times article on what happened to that now gone ballet company. It was a Orange Co. regional troupe that was in financial trouble but didn't need to die but due to grandiose plans to "rescucitate it" instead of helping it survive instead led to the demise of Ballet Pacifica.
Oh, and the "old" Los Angeles Ballet tried to make a comeback in 1995 but the person, by the name of John Clifford, who founded the original and was trying to restart it was way overly grandiose in his ambitions on the restart and was apparently pretty slippery and slimey in his dealings with trying to get the company restarted and as a result it turned into an absolute failure.
Google "John CLifford Los Angeles Ballet" on the whole fiasco.
The end result was the persons running the Joffrey that had prevented the LA people from taking the company over ended their part-time relationship with the Los Angeles Music Center and with the "old" Los Angeles Ballet already disbanded the Los Angeles Music Center ended up with no - NONE - ballet company at all.
It was the textbook case of shitting upon oneself for the Music Center.
But it all blew up in the faces of the Los Angeles and the Music Center when some local LA folks heavily involved with the Dorothy Chandler Music Center, sensing an opportunity because the Joffrey Ballet company was in a great deal of financial trouble, sought to eject the folks running the Joffrey and take the ballet company over. The Joffrey folks fought back and prevented the Los Angeles folks from taking it over.
As a result of this, the old Los Angeles Ballet decided that if it wasn't going to become the ballet company for city of Los Angeles (which was it's main goal), and didn't want to be "just" some small regional ballet company, so the company shut down operations.
In short Los Angeles/the Music Center rather than trying to build up a "home grown" ballet company, wanted to "buy one" of international prestige via the Joffrey to give Los Angeles/the Music Center the instant standing of having a ballet company of international standing.
But at the time the Chandler Pavilion was attempting to get the THEN internationally prestigious Joffrey Ballet to move from New York City to Los Angeles (at the time the Joffrey was making Los Anglese it's part time residence).
What happened was that at that time that "old" LAB was growing and playing in various locals theaters throughout the basin just as the present LAB is but, despite some less than stellar reviews of it by the critics, the "old" LAB was growing in stature and began to negotiate with the Music Center about possibly making the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion it's residence.
I hope this existing Los Angeles Ballet develops and grows to a successful and strong company and the last five years shows that LAB may be on the way there but most persons aren't aware that there was a Los Angeles Ballet company that ran from 1975 to 1985 and also appeared to be headed to great success but due to political machinations on the part of the Music Center THAT LAB ended up disbanding WHEN IT DIDN'T NEED TO.
This lukebccb character certainly wants to draw out a 30 year old axe to grind it up up against the new LAB. I was fortuately to watch Thordal and Colleen on the stage at PNB and I wish them all the best. There are many ballet companies in LA, but LAB is focusing on fundamental Balanchine works and I think that's fantastic. If they can grow LAB the same way Francia and Kent grew PNB, then LA audiences will enjoy dance for years and years to come.
RegularJesus 11 months ago
@RegularJesus: I'm not sure if you just glanced at my postings or if you have a comprehension problem but I do NOT have an "old axe to grind"..... on the contrary I'm rooting for the success of LAB.
If you had read - or didn't comprehend - my postings, I was pointing out that I hope the present LAB doesn't make the stupid mistakes of the past "LAB" as well as Ballet Pacifica of trying to be achieve the "instant 'big-league' ballet company".by "artificially" making LAB "prestigious".
(cont.)
lukebccb 11 months ago
@RegularJesus: On the contrary I hope that Neary and Christensen follow an "organic" approach of developing and growing Los Angeles Ballet so that the company will have a SOLID foundation of economics and audience following. All the non-NYC ballet companies that have become successful - Miami Ballet is an excellent example - have followed the "organic" growth of their companies and are on solid footings.
lukebccb 11 months ago
@RegularJesus: The "old" LAB and Ballet Pacifica are the examples of trying to become "internationally reknowned by "adding instant prestige"...... instead both companies ended up out of existence.
Hopefully Neary's and Christensen's LAB will avoid the "instant success" model and follow the "organic growth" model.......
lukebccb 11 months ago
For over 40 years Ballet Pacifica had been a small BUT FINANCIALLY STABLE company. Then the Board of Directors came up with grandiose plans to turn Pacifica into a big prestigious company. Instead in less than 4 years the board drove Ballet Pacifica out of existence because of THEIR plans to turn Pacifica into a "prestige company".
I hope the people of the existing Los Angeles Ballet understand what I've been trying to get at.
lukebccb 1 year ago
The Board tried to fix finances by finding new (BIGGER) funding sources by stating Ballet Pacifica would be tranformed overnite into a big 30-40 dancer national ballet company thru the donations of big corporate sponsorship.......
The "big money" never materialized and Pacifica's finances only worsened. Ballet Pacifica shut down operations in 2007 after 45 years of existence.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
This led to disagreements with the artistic director, Molly Lynch, which led to Lynch's departing Ballet Pacifica. With the departure of Lynch, the donors and supporters of Ballet Pacifica, which became donors and supporters of Pacifica because of Lynch, began to abandon Pacifica. Donor money began to disappear and of course the result was financial trouble for Pacifica.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
Ballet Pacifica had been a smallish company of around 16 or so dancers and had been in existence for over 40 years. It concentrated on contemporary works and was very creative.
Thoughout it's first 40 years of existence it stayed small, dynamic AND MOST IMPORANTLY, *financially sound*. But in the turn of the millenia the Board of Directors wanted to grow the company beyond "small regional" to "national" thru classical works.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
Folks should also google "Ballet Pacifica" and read the OC Register and LA Times article on what happened to that now gone ballet company. It was a Orange Co. regional troupe that was in financial trouble but didn't need to die but due to grandiose plans to "rescucitate it" instead of helping it survive instead led to the demise of Ballet Pacifica.
lukebccb 1 year ago
Oh, and the "old" Los Angeles Ballet tried to make a comeback in 1995 but the person, by the name of John Clifford, who founded the original and was trying to restart it was way overly grandiose in his ambitions on the restart and was apparently pretty slippery and slimey in his dealings with trying to get the company restarted and as a result it turned into an absolute failure.
Google "John CLifford Los Angeles Ballet" on the whole fiasco.
lukebccb 1 year ago
The end result was the persons running the Joffrey that had prevented the LA people from taking the company over ended their part-time relationship with the Los Angeles Music Center and with the "old" Los Angeles Ballet already disbanded the Los Angeles Music Center ended up with no - NONE - ballet company at all.
It was the textbook case of shitting upon oneself for the Music Center.
lukebccb 1 year ago
But it all blew up in the faces of the Los Angeles and the Music Center when some local LA folks heavily involved with the Dorothy Chandler Music Center, sensing an opportunity because the Joffrey Ballet company was in a great deal of financial trouble, sought to eject the folks running the Joffrey and take the ballet company over. The Joffrey folks fought back and prevented the Los Angeles folks from taking it over.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
As a result of this, the old Los Angeles Ballet decided that if it wasn't going to become the ballet company for city of Los Angeles (which was it's main goal), and didn't want to be "just" some small regional ballet company, so the company shut down operations.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
In short Los Angeles/the Music Center rather than trying to build up a "home grown" ballet company, wanted to "buy one" of international prestige via the Joffrey to give Los Angeles/the Music Center the instant standing of having a ballet company of international standing.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
But at the time the Chandler Pavilion was attempting to get the THEN internationally prestigious Joffrey Ballet to move from New York City to Los Angeles (at the time the Joffrey was making Los Anglese it's part time residence).
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
What happened was that at that time that "old" LAB was growing and playing in various locals theaters throughout the basin just as the present LAB is but, despite some less than stellar reviews of it by the critics, the "old" LAB was growing in stature and began to negotiate with the Music Center about possibly making the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion it's residence.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
I hope this existing Los Angeles Ballet develops and grows to a successful and strong company and the last five years shows that LAB may be on the way there but most persons aren't aware that there was a Los Angeles Ballet company that ran from 1975 to 1985 and also appeared to be headed to great success but due to political machinations on the part of the Music Center THAT LAB ended up disbanding WHEN IT DIDN'T NEED TO.
(cont.)
lukebccb 1 year ago
i love collen neary i have a tape of her at home i hope they become a house hold name like New York City Ballet
sylvieguillemfanx10 1 year ago
i hipe LAB becomes as big as pnb
its really good!!!!
IM going there this summer for LASBI!!!!!!!1
dancerella66 2 years ago