Play On! - New York City Ballet had to use recorded music - Brief Article

Dance Magazine, March, 2000 by Clive Barnes

IF MUSIC BE the food of dance, play on! Well, neither Shakespeare's Count Orsino nor New York City Ballet's George Balanchine actually said that, but I imagine both of them might have done. Perhaps we treat music a tad too casually in the dance world, sometimes taking it for granted as if it were merely the umpty-trumpty trampoline of our art, the rhythmic punctuation and, at times, emotional coloration of our dance.

The dance world in general, and New York City Ballet in particular, had a wake-up call when the City Ballet Orchestra went on strike (technically, I think it was a lockout, but with the labor relations who really knows?) and, for a week or so, at the august New York State Theater, the music was played on tape, and Nuts were cracked to canned Tchaikovsky!

Did it matter? Let's first look at the strange events. Most industrial disputes primarily have to do with one thing--money. There will certainly be other issues locked in the contractual print. But common sense suggests, fix the cash and the rest will more or less fix itself. But not so in the industrial world of ballet and music.

This strike cancelled at the last minute City Ballet's gala fund-raising opening of its regular winter season at Lincoln Center's New York State Theater. Talks designed to settle the matter continued up to an hour before curtain time, as people in their glamorous dresses and black ties turned up at the theater expecting a gala performance and, for the real high rollers, a catered supper ball with the dancers in the theater's grand foyer following the performance.

A City Ballet spokesman immediately admitted that the company had commitments of more than a million dollars for the performance, but it is impossible to say how much this cancellation, and the subsequent work stoppage, actually cost, as many patrons waived their rights to a refund, while during the couple of weeks during which The Nutcracker was performed to recorded music, only about five percent of patrons asked for their money back.

Eventually, as the musicians' stoppage dragged on, City Ballet's Chairman of the Board, Howard Solomon, in the course of an open letter to the public, stated: "Over the years the members of the NYCB orchestra have decided on their own whether or when to attend either rehearsals or performances. Many of our musicians are consistently conscientious about attending both; some are not, with the result that some performances are not satisfactory, either because some musicians are unrehearsed or because substitutes are likewise unprepared."

Most other orchestra contracts around the country have clauses stipulating that while it is understood that musicians may supplement their income with teaching and other performing assignments, in Solomon's words "those activities are expected to be scheduled around the musician's primary commitment to the regular orchestra in which they perform."

The playing of the orchestra--claimed by the management to already enjoy "one of the most lucrative contracts of any pit orchestra in the nation"--had over the past few seasons aroused quite a lot of unfavorable critical comment.

The problem was scarcely new, nor was it reserved for New York City. Many years ago in London the great conductor Sir Thomas Beecham, despairing of widespread absences during the rehearsals of a particularly tricky new piece, finally thanked the leading flutist for having been the only one present at every rehearsal. "Ah yes," the man cheerily replied, "but I'm not going to be able to make the performance!"

Eventually, on December 7, the two-week strike ended, and significantly, the company gained a "statement of primacy," which means that the musicians' secondary interests, teaching and playing elsewhere are indeed just that: secondary. This will not automatically lead to a brave new orchestral world or sound, but it is certainly a first step. But another question was raised by this strike. It was rather like someone asking: "Why must the show go on?" Does dance really need live music? I mean, how different was this Nutcracker with canned music, a naked orchestral pit, and the dancers going through their paces without the warm, living presence of the music carpeting their feet?

The strange thing is that in some respects the difference was not that enormous. Despite the dispute, the houses were substantially full and the performances seemed oddly business as usual. The dancers all went through their familiar assignments with easy familiarity, and at the performance I attended some of the children's scenes even appeared to have more animation than usual. I thought it was a good Nutcracker--and, to be honest, there were moments when, even though I was particularly on the lookout, or rather listen-out, for snags and losses caused by the orchestra's absence, I found myself forgetting that the players were not actually there. Modern technology and amplification can be that good!

Now, I am not for a moment suggesting that the orchestra is a dispensable luxury--such a thought would rightly have poor Balanchine turning pirouettes in his grave. Still, it is interesting to contemplate the orchestra playing the score without the dancers, or even without the video; then I must suspect most, not just five percent, of the audience would want its money back. There are priorities here that one hardly likes to mention. Yet obviously there are severe disadvantages to canned music for dance. The dancers have less need to think, and can move more easily onto automatic pilot of music memory, which could soon lead to a decrease in spontaneity and liveliness and risk.