I can't enter into the vast majority of the arguments about the merits or otherwise of Martins' management of NYCB, due to my lack of exposure to the Company.
However, I find it very difficult to believe that Balanchine, a great artist, would have wanted the Company he created to be a static museum. Such a notion is the antithesis of the theatrical tradition that was his life. Let's not forget the ground-breaking work that he created. As Arnold Haskell writes, Balanchine was hissed off the stage in the Mariinsky for his revolutionary "Enigma" and he staged a series of recitals under the title, "The Young Ballet. Evolution from Petipa-Fokine to Balanchavadze".
Further, without works being created on them, dancers will not achieve their full artistic potential.
Thus the balance of the new NYCB season looks fair to me. We have a MacMillan celebration this year at the RB, but without doing the sums, I suspect that the percentage of MacMillan is lower than for the Balanchine Centenary.
I support the view that the Balanchine rep lies at the heart of NYCB. Further, I can understand the argument that Martins should change the tradition from the Balanchine era, I believe, that they don't use coaches from outside the Company. However, if they only perform Balanchine and Robbins then one of the greatest ballet companies in the world would be diminished as a major artistic centre in my view.
Here's an apposite statement from the UK's Royal Shakespeare Company website:
New writing is an essential part of the RSC's repertoire - complementing and contrasting with the production of work by Shakespeare and other classical writers. New plays create a balance which is exciting for both actors and audiences.
<small>[ 02 July 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Stuart Sweeney ]</small>