Tobi Tobias reviews the ABT season at City Center in New York Magazine and finds it sadly lacking. I don't want to over-simplify Tobias' message, but there is a longing for a return to the rep of 50 years ago. <P>The works new to ABT by Christian Holder and Natalie Weir are dismissed as novelties. Whilst I do sympathise that current new work for ballet does not seem to be in a golden age at the moment, I see no option but to work even harder to encourage and stage new work if the art form is to thrive. Not least because most dancers need to participate in the creation of new work if they are to feel complete as dancers.<P>Using Michael Kaiser's model, it can be seen as a question of dividing time between the three areas, 1) 19th C rep, 2) 20th C rep, 3) contemporary work. Different decisions will be made for different companies. Simplifying a bit, Tobias has said that she would like to see more in category 2) for ABT. I have said elsewhere that I would like to see more of category 3) in the Royal rep.<P>What's key for you in a company that it is important for you? Feel free to use a different model to Kaiser's if it seems inadequate.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.newyorkmag.com/page.cfm?page_id=4030" TARGET=_blank>http://www.newyorkmag.com/page.cfm?page_id=4030</A> <BR>

I think that a 3 x 3 division sounds about right. One third for each century. However, much of what I see choreographed today, doesn't strike me as ballet. It's a thread I intend to bring up...............

I don't think it's possible to generalise, as each ballet company has its own unique history and identity. Undoubtedly creativity is as important as maintaining a company's heritage. But in the case of New York City Ballet, it seems that the main focus has switched to the former and the latter has been neglected. I think the Kirov seems to be striking a better balance now, with its acquisition of the works of Balanchine and other great Western choreographers.