We've gotten some good hits in the press over the last few days. Yesterday, the New York Times mentioned On the Boards as one of a few presenting organizations in the U.S. that deviates "from the same old crusty mold." The article included a lead photo of Christian Rizzo, who will only be performing in this country at OtB. And yesterday, Antony and The Johnsons won the prestigious Mercury Prize, the largest award given to a musical act in the U.K. Sales for his new album have already spiked by 900%.

Both articles can be found below.

The New York Times

September 6, 2005

How New York Lost Its Modern Dance Reign

By GIA KOURLAS

The Web site of Dance/NYC (www.dancenyc.org), the local branch of Dance/USA, is full of bubbly messages about the glory of dance in New York. "There's a reason why dancers, dance companies and choreographers from all around the world want to perform in New York City," it says. "Come in and find out why."

In this day and age, such a hunky-dory outlook is not what the dance world needs. A truth must be faced before it's too late: New York is no longer the capital of the contemporary-dance world.

The point is not to declare a new capital - there isn't one - but to recognize that there has been a shift in the power base since the formation of the European Union, where the creative landscapes in Amsterdam and Bucharest are just as vital as those brewing in Berlin, Brussels, Paris and Vienna. If nothing else, the European Union has cultivated a network of artists with no perceptible center of bureaucratic power.

The European dance community stretches beyond culture and country and is made possible by curators and producers who may not always make the right choices but who aren't afraid to try something new. It is impossible to compete with such vitality: Europe is becoming what New York used to be. In Europe, innovation flows like water from one country to the next. The work, while varied in quality, has an undeniable energy that has only partly to do with financing and resources. There is still great dance to be seen in New York, but the city is in danger of losing what made the dance world here so vital to begin with: bravery.

That experimental dance isn't completely dead here is sort of astonishing. A bold approach doesn't seem to be encouraged. Most producers continue to support the status quo in programming that does little to shift or expand the concept of dance. For artists, New York can seem like a playground for the rich, and the effort to survive can eclipse - at least temporarily - a substantial portion of their creativity. Understandably, it has become less alluring to give up security for dance, an art form that offers few concrete rewards.

By now, the notion of modern dance is fairly passé. But in New York there are plenty of occasions on which it seems we are still living in that familiar era of modern dance, fueled by producers who don't trust that their audiences can grasp challenging, conceptual work. More troubling are the choreographers who seem willing to trade intellectual and creative rigor for a four-day season at a respectable theater. It's mystifying that so many young artists seem to want to embrace the existing system, as outdated as it is. Yet even what they think is new - a loft performance in Brooklyn, for example - does little to defy the way dance has traditionally been framed.

The biggest problem has to do with a preponderance of presenters, in and out of New York, who possess the power to effect change yet are unwilling to take risks. Many producers in the United States communalize their opinions. They are so scared of losing money that they book the same artists year after year and are responsible for turning American dance into a traveling road show for Taylor 2, Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater and ... (fill in the blank with something proven and safe).

For many audience members dance remains a form meant solely to entertain, and that mentality trickles down to artists who, whether they know it or not, regard risk and experimentation as impediments to fulfilling the potential (as ambiguous as it is) of their careers. Programming is familiar, the ensuing work is familiar, but without introducing chance there is little room for provocation, stupid, vapid or smart.

On the surface, it may seem as if there are no more rules to break. In Europe, choreographers are still motivated by the work of Judson-era choreographers. There is also an undeniable New York influence; Meg Stuart and Jennifer Lacey, two European-based American choreographers who came of age in the East Village of the 1980's and mid-90's, have successful careers to show for it. But for New York artists, the 60's are over, and with them, a sense of recklessness.

At the moment, issues of security and safety are critical. The conservative nature of New York dance might stem, unconsciously, from the political atmosphere, with its rampant anxiety. With the exception of organizations like the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, Ohio, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, On the Boards in Seattle and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, few presenting organizations deviate from the same old crusty mold.

The Baryshnikov Arts Center, which will open this fall under the direction of Mikhail Baryshnikov, promises something better than conventional touring: an opportunity to foster the development of artists across all disciplines in the United States and abroad. Mr. Baryshnikov has always been inspired by experimental art; he envisions the space, according to the White Oak Dance Project Web site, as "the New York creative home for a vibrant community of choreographers, dancers, composers, musicians, filmmakers, actors, directors, visual artists, designers, writers and others." The center couldn't come at a better time; there are bound to be mistakes along the way, but success often arises out of failure.

The citywide event will provide an increasingly rare opportunity for New York audiences and artists actually to set eyes on some of the work prevalent in Europe. That's critical. In the current political climate, visas can be hard to procure, and if artists and their governmental supporters decide that traveling to the United States is too much trouble, artistic growth everywhere will suffer.

The forward-thinking producers aren't in a financial position to do much about it. It took an embarrassingly long time for American audiences to see the work of Jérôme Bel, a star in Europe who splits his time among Berlin, Brussels and Paris; his "Show Must Go On" was finally presented at Dance Theater Workshop last spring. The audience response was sharply divided, but it was seen. And that was perhaps even more important than the work itself. Ms. Jacobs is currently negotiating a return engagement for Mr. Bel, but there is still a wealth of choreographers who need to be seen in New York for the first time (Christian Rizzo) or brought back while they are still relevant (Boris Charmatz).

The situation in New York is maddening, but as whispers of discontent grow louder, it is clear that artistic complacency and shoestring budgets will not last forever. Dance has always been a passionate game of love and war. Until now, the war has been a hushed private affair, kept quiet by the knowledge that there aren't enough resources for everyone and the fear that risk leads to ruin.

But the disaster that everyone secretly thinks about and is afraid to utter out loud - that dance will shrivel up and die if anyone writes or says anything terrible about it - is just not going to happen. As much as I would love to move to Berlin, I'm going to wait it out. Forty years have passed since the Judson Dance movement. It's time for the next revolution, and the more shocking the better.

******************************************************

Antony and the Johnsons Win U.K.'s 2005 Mercury Music Prize

Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Antony and the Johnsons' album ``I Am a Bird Now'' may get a boost in sales after winning the U.K.'s Nationwide Mercury Prize, beating the likes of favorite ``Employment'' by the Kaiser Chiefs and ``X&Y'' by Coldplay.

``I'm sure we'll see a massive increase, maybe a doubling, over the next couple of weeks,'' Gennaro Castaldo, spokesman for music retailer HMV Group Plc, said today. HMV plans front-of- store displays of the album to attract impulse buyers who heard news about the Mercury Prize, he said.

Led by British-born, U.S.-based Antony Hegarty, the band's album features Hegarty's high-pitched vocals and introspective, sometimes morose lyrics. The album, which features contributions by Lou Reed and Boy George, was placed at 5-to-1 to win the award by bookmakers Ladbrokes, while the Kaiser Chiefs were favorites at 5-to-4.

The Mercury Prize, which has been awarded since 1992 to the best British or Irish album, is sponsored by the Nationwide Building Society bank and carries a 20,000-pound ($36,871) prize. This year's winning album is on the independent Rough Trade Records label in Britain.

Traditionally given to non-commercial and somewhat arty acts, the prize pits different genres ranging from folk and jazz to hard rock against each other.

Accepting the prize at a ceremony at London's Grosvenor House Hotel, Hegarty said it was an unusual sort of contest, like choosing between ``an orange and a spaceship and a potted plant and a spoon -- which one do you like better?''

Previous hit albums that have been nominated for the Mercury Prize and failed to win include Robbie Williams's ``Life Thru a Lens'' in 1998, when the award went to ``Bring It On'' by Gomez, and ``OK Computer'' by Radiohead in 1997, beaten by Roni Size/Reprazent's ``New Forms.''

This year marked the third time EMI Group Plc's Coldplay was nominated and didn't win, having been nominated in 2000 for ``Parachutes'' and in 2003 for ``A Rush of Blood to the Head.'' ``X&Y'' was given odds of 25-to-1 by Ladbrokes.

Many music buyers are attracted to Mercury Prize winners because the award isn't based on commercial success, Castaldo said.

``The award is seen as not having sold out, being based on critical merit and not only on sales, so people will take a look at the winner,'' he said. Had Coldplay won, ``there wouldn't have been such a big difference because so many people already have the album.''