<P><BR>I love this kind of stories but I also wish the donation was less specific in nature:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Progress Energy Foundation Donates $1 Million to Carolina Ballet to Bring 'Nutcracker' to Life</B><P>RALEIGH, N.C., May 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Progress Energy Foundation will donate $1 million to Carolina Ballet over the next five years to re-create the timeless holiday classic, Nutcracker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><A HREF="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010507/chm017.html" TARGET=_blank><B>More</B></A>

Yes, my heart sank when I saw the use. It's not that I only want money to go to cutting edge stuff, as I would have been happier if the mney had been used to fund an alternative popular holiday work to 'The Nutcracker'. I did't see it, but some London critics thought Atlanta Ballet's 'Peter Pan' was rather special. So it can be done.

Stuart - <P>I agree with you that it's a shame that there isn't money for new choreography (or for worthy revivals for that matter) but, good or bad artistically, what you're looking at is the logic of corporate funding in America. Nutcracker is the ballet with the biggest single potential for exposure, and donations are a form of advertisment for the corporate donor. From the ballet's standpoint, the donation gives them a chance to design a production with the potential of long-term profits from touring and ticket sales. I assume they are looking at it as a shot at financial stability.

Also, perhaps this will free up regular financial resources for other works? Reminds me of the Golan-Globus film production house. They financed their art movies with proceedings from B-grade sci-fi flicks.<p>[This message has been edited by Azlan (edited May 13, 2001).]