The Houston Oral History Project is a repository for the stories, accounts, and memories of those who have chosen to share their experiences. The viewpoints expressed in the Houston Oral History Project do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the City of Houston, the Houston Public Library or any of its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. The City of Houston and the Houston Public Library make no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in the interviews and expressly disclaim any liability therefore.
The Houston Oral History Project provides unedited versions of all interviews. Some parents may find material objectionable for minors. Parents are encouraged to interact with their children as they use the Houston Oral History Project Web site to complete research and homework activities.
The Houston Public Library retains the literary and publishing rights of its oral histories. No part of the interviews or transcripts may be published without the written permission of the Houston Oral History Project.
Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to:
The Houston Oral History Project.
Houston Public Library
Houston, Texas 77002
The Houston Oral History Project reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to decline to post any account received herein and specifically disclaims any liability for the failure to post an account or for errors or omissions that may occur in posting accounts to the Virtual Archive.
For more information email the Houston Oral History Project at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Interview with: Henry Holth
Interviews by David Courtwright
Date: August 26, 1975
Archive Number: OH 078
DC: Mr. Holth, how did you come to be the general director of the Houston Ballet?
HH: In the spring of 1972, I came down here to take this position, and I came as a result of several meetings with several of the trustees of the Houston Ballet Foundation, when I was general manager of the Boston Ballet company. Prior to that, I had served as general manager of the Boston Ballet for 2 years, and the particular trustee that came visiting with me was most interested to know the problems that the Boston Ballet was having at the time, thinking that they would be useful and perhaps analogous to the problems of the Houston Ballet.
DC: This was in—?
HH: This would be February of 1972, and then I came in April of that year. Of course, the problems were similar, accepting it was a matter of degree. The Boston company had been in business since 1964, and the Houston Ballet had its first performance in 1968. The Houston Ballet was much younger, and our problems have been, although similar to those of the other company, they came later and with a much greater rush. We really have been in business, I would say, for 3 years. Prior to that—let’s go back—or am I going to far ahead?
DC: No, go ahead.
HH: 01:50 Prior to that the company, as I said, had its first performance in 1968. It organized officially in 1969 with a company of approximately 12 or 14 dancers on the 20-week contract. That was going on for ’69, ’70, and ’71. I would call that properly a concert company. They were performing to a tape. Most of their performances were to tape recorded music. At that particular time a decision was made to go up to another level, expand the company, and that’s when I came in. As a matter of fact that was, to my understanding for coming down here, that we did want to go on to another level, and a year ago we did it.
DC: Years before the ballet company per se was founded, the Houston Ballet Foundation was in existence.
HH: That’s right.
DC: There are 1 or 2 facts I’d like to get straight about that group. What prompted them in 1968 to attempt the founding of a professional company?
HH: They started, that is they, a group of about a dozen people who most of them are still with us. They are founding members—decided in 1954 or prior to that actually they decided—but 1964, they incorporated as the Houston Foundation for Ballet. It since was changed to Houston Ballet Foundation. The original purposes stated in the charter were to present ballet that has acted as a sponsor, to found an academy, and to found a company, in that order, and they proceeded to do that. In the very beginning, they did act as a presenter, bringing such ballet attractions as the Royal Ballet, the English group, and other attractions.
That was what was stated in the charter, however, the real feeling was to build ballet in Houston. It acted as an organization that would do that. I think that the point that I wanted to make about the purpose of the founding members, it was to present, to foster, and then to encourage the interest of Houston in the art of ballet and to advance the art itself. Therefore, first you present, then you found an academy, and then you found a company.
04:43 The academy was founded. Let’s see, we are a 13 or 14 years old, so adding 13 or 14 years from 1954—the academy was started. Then the company was founded, like I said earlier, in 1969.
DC: Prior to 1968, when the company was actually founded, how often did Houstonians have an opportunity to see good ballet?
HH: Quite a bit and I think this was also encouraging to these founding members. In the days of probably the only traveling major ballet company was called the Ballet Russe of Monte Carlo in the ’40s and the ‘50s. Houston was a regular stop for that company, and quite a few of the trustees here became very closely involved in that company, to the extent of even supporting them. For example, every Christmas the Ballet Russe would perform its Nutcracker and other performances in Houston for a whole week, which at the time was a large playing engagement. Now we think of nothing of the Bolshoi coming and doing 7, 8, 9 performances. At that time in the ‘40s and the ‘50s that was quite major. There was always an interest in dance here. That’s the point that I’m trying to make.
DC: Was the Houston Ballet Company consciously modeled after any existing companies?
HH: I suppose that’s a yes and no answer. Whenever you start something, you are always a subject of your heredity or your environment. Looking around at other ballet companies would be a natural thing. You remember we started the conversation off by a trustee was talking to me in Boston. Why? Because I was a manager there, so there is a crossover naturally that happens. I think that the first two artistic directors that were selected come from that Ballet Russe tradition, and these were selected by trustees.
07:03 I think that yes, there was another model or collection of models that channeled the thinking as to what company we might like the Houston Ballet to be. I think that that is in the process of change. Right now, as you may know, we are going through a selection again of an artistic director. There are happily many applicants for the position. Now the question that this selection committee is going through, and perhaps tortuously, is what is the Houston ballet? What do we want it to be? Once that is settled, then it becomes easier to select the new artistic director.
DC: If you were to compare the Houston ballet to any other ballet company in the world, which would most nearly resemble the Houston Ballet? That’s an admittedly unfair question probably.
HH: No, it’s not unfair, and I’ll give a frank answer, and it may be a begging answer. That’s why it can be frank. The Houston ballet is 8 years old, and it is in a family of American ballet companies. I think there is perhaps the easiest way to compare it. We have essentially 2 families in American ballet today. One is what we would call the international American company. That is the New York City ballet, the American ballet theatre. There is also the Joffrey ballet which is a very special kind of company. I would call it more of a New York dance company than I would a traditional ballet company, although, there may be some people who would disagree with that.
Then the other family is the non-New York companies. These consist of San Francisco ballet, Houston ballet, Ballet West in Salt Lake City, Boston Ballet, and Pennsylvania Ballet in Philadelphia. There was earlier a national ballet located in Washington which is now defunct. It had severe financial problems and succumbed this year. I think that there is where we have to look at ourselves today—I mean—comparing us within that family. I would hope—and I think that we—that is the trustees—would like to not say exclusively that that’s the family that we want to make the comparison with.
I think that what is peculiar and unique to this institution is that we do want to be better and better and better, and fortunately, we seem to have the resources to do that. The question always is how fast and how soon. That fast and how soon, of course, always puts the reins on the administration. Although we would like to be great tomorrow, I think that’s unrealistic to expect that.
While our eye may be on the very top companies of the world, where we are—I think—now it would be foolish to say we are as good as or poorer than those. I think that we had better state that in comparison to other companies like us now, we are among the top. We would hope to progress, so that we could make our comparisons to the really major ones of the world, which I think is a matter of time. How much time that would be—maybe it’s 5 years, maybe 10, maybe 15—I don’t know, but if we continue our pace that we presently are on, it would be realizable within 10 years, I would think.
DC: I would also venture to say it’s a matter of finance?
HH: Absolutely, absolutely.
DC: I do have a number of questions I would like to ask about the finances of the company. In 1975, for example, I believe the ballet company earned nearly 40 percent of its $987,000 budget. Does this represent a significant improvement over previous years?
HH: 11:34 Yes, it does. Now you quoted 1975, and now we have a fiscal year thing out. Let me state this. Our fiscal year ends on August 31, so we are presently closing our 1974-75 fiscal year. This year we are earning 51 ½ percent of our earned income. The year before, which was fiscal year 1974, we earned 40 percent, the year before that 30 percent, and the year before that 20 percent. Each year we are growing by 10 percent. Those budgets, incidentally, run from $300,000 in 1972, to a million today, so while our earnings are increasing proportionately, the dollars that we need of support is also increasing. Whereas, in that $300,000 budget year, 20 percent of that was earned, so what is that? We had to raise $240,000. To date we are earning half, but having to raise a half a million.
DC: Where does the law of diminishing returns come into play on this? Obviously, you can’t go increasing by 10 percent increments every fiscal year.
HH: My goal is to get into the 60s. That is, let’s say, 65 percent earned income. I use that figure by looking at other companies. The most any company has ever been able to get has been around 68, 69 percent. I think that if we can get into the 60s, then we are at least doing as well as anybody else. Now whether we can go beyond that I don’t know. The law of diminishing return that you mentioned earlier is really a cost situation. We presently have 30 dancers on contract for 32 weeks. I think that that has to be changed. An artist has to have a year round salary. What does he do the other 32 weeks? He goes on unemployment. This is just wrong, and we have to correct this.
However, if in the correcting, we put them on 52 weeks, and we only work them 30 weeks or 32 weeks, where do we get that? We can’t earn that money, so therefore, it’s more support income. These financial problems are something that every company is wrestling with from the Metropolitan Opera down to the ABC Dance Company.
DC: It certainly was a problem for the Houston Symphony when they went on a 52-week salary.
HH: Absolutely, yeah.
DC: Another Houston cultural organization, the Society for the Performing Arts, also presents a number of dance events.
HH: Uh-hunh (affirmative).
DC: Do you find that this cuts into your audience?
HH: 14:37 No, it builds it. I think I’ve taken credit for this statement “dance begets dance.” I’m sure I heard it somewhere else, but anyway, I’m quoting it like it’s my own statement. In 1972, the Society for the Performing Arts was presenting quite a bit of dance. In 1975, they were presenting quite more than they were in that year. The same thing happened to us. In 1972, we performed 6 performances of Nutcracker and maybe 4 repertory performances. This year that we are just finishing, we did 10 performances of Nutcracker and 15 performances of repertory, now much, much, much more, and to many, many more people. I am very happy to see them bring in the other major companies of the world, because that really helps us. I think that you’ll find that they will say the same thing, we feed them.
DC: Do you formally cooperate on a number ventures?
HH: Informally, to use the better word, but we do cooperate, yes.
DC: A number of disgruntled fans of the opera and other performing arts sometimes refer to dance as the spoiled child of the 20th century.
HH: Well, it is, it is. [laughing]
DC: That’s a rather flattering thing to say.
DC: To what do you attribute the tremendous popularity of dance?
HH: Well, of course, this is very personal, and aside from its personal observation, it may have something to do with what I’ve seen from a professional experience. I think that Americans are a very physical people, and it would be, therefore, most natural for us to relate to that. You know—we are really rivals with the opera. That is in the business. There was an Eric Marder study made—it was a marketing study—made maybe 2 or 3 years ago, commissioned by the Ford foundation. In the study, it seemed as though the people that go to the performing arts events were asked, “If you go to the symphony, do you go to the opera? Do you go to the ballet? Do you go to the theatre?” The revelation was when it came down to ballet and opera, the public seemed to view it as an either/or situation. They are the most similar.
17:29 Obviously, ballet is not like symphony. It is not like theatre, but it is like opera in that there’s a production up there. There’s scenery. There are sets, and there are people doing something. Really, the only difference is they use words and we use movement, but the public sees it that way, so I think that there is a rivalry. I know as a former dancer, instinctively, there’s a rivalry feeling there. I think history also has that. Ballet companies that are located within operas are always at a severe disadvantage. They cannot produce the best of their art. They are used as an adjunct to it, and that’s very chaffing and—I think—perhaps it’s because of that really natural rivalry that is in there. Certainly it is borne out by that public study. I don’t know if I answered that question though.
DC: Yes. How dependent are you upon grants from public and private organizations?
HH: Well, I’ll answer that question, but I’m pausing, because I was recalling your earlier question of why is this a phenomena of the 20th century. I said that because Americans are physical people, and they can relate to that. I also think that of all of the performing arts, dance today is the most innovative or inventive. That is we are constantly doing new works. The symphony is playing the old staples. The opera is hopelessly locked into Carmen and Leborne and—you know—they’re marvelous things, but no new opera is being done.
DC: The old war horses.
HH: I don’t mean to be pejorative. I love those things, and in my music library I have all of those operas, and I listen to them, but I think that you have a limited audience unless you grow. Part of growing is the inventiveness and the innovativeness of the material. I think that dance is especially unique. We’re always creating new stuff. The greatest creator living today is working in America, and that’s George Balanchine. He’s just pouring out. All we need is money to support these new things. We create a new ballet. If it’s great, we perform it. If it’s not, we just toss it out and put in another one.
20:22 I think that the newness has something to do with it. We can be more au currant than the other forms, and thereby attracting possibly a larger, wider audience. Our growth figures in America—and I’m sure you’ve heard these quoted before—for dance are that in 1964 a study was taken, and it revealed one million paid attendances in America went to see dance. That is professional dance. People bought tickets. That included ballet as well as modern dance, but the lion share was ballet. The most recent figure which came in 1973, it had grown to eleven million. In the space of a decade, the audience multiplied eleven fold.
DC: Let me shelve that other mundane financial question I asked you, for a minute. There is something I’d like to pursue that just occurred to me.
HH: All right.
DC: That is do you think that your counterpart Mr. David Gockley is working to change this image of the opera in Houston?
HH: I would think that he would be by looking at the tramanicha (??) that he just mounted and also the policy of what he does in the Miller Theatre, which is to bring not the war horses. It is searching out older operas. I think that he might—well, you’d have to ask him whether or not he is commissioning new works and if that’s a regular policy or if it’s just something that’s fit in now and then. That is a serious policy that any arts organization has to make. It’s a balance—you know—how much of the new, how much of the old.
DC: The point is that this rivalry between opera and ballet may in the long run be healthy for both?
HH: Oh yes, oh yes, absolutely, yeah. I’m glad to have such a rival. Better that than an atrophying organization.
DC: One of the more serious in the media implications of this rivalry between the performing arts is the space in Jones Hall.
HH: Yeah, yeah.
DC: How serious are the scheduling conflicts?
HH: I think that we the ballet are now at a situation in that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to expand our performances, our performing schedule in Jones Hall. Everything else is booked up. That’s all right for us in 1975, 76, because we still have a few more subscriptions to sell, and we can add a matinee on Saturday. Well, we can add 3 matinees. We’re already adding 2, so if that’s done, that will be taken care of. We cannot expand any further. As it is now, we get in on Wednesday morning at 8:00, and Thursday night at 8:00 we open the curtain. A very difficult situation at best, it’s a minor miracle in that any other ballet company that I know of does not work on such a tight schedule. They at least have 2 more days than we do in the theatre.
23:54 The symphony is in there on Monday and Tuesdays, and that’s the way it is. The opera goes in there. They have to build their sets on the stage. They occupy at least 10 to 12 days in there, and that’s the way that is. The opera as well, I understand, cannot expand. so it’s a very serious situation. As I said before, the ballet this year, it’s fine because we have some more subscriptions to sell, but I can foresee that when we reach our goal of the future, and let’s say that goal is 10,000 subscribers, or let’s say it is 20,000 subscribers, where are we going to put them? We need another theatre.
DC: You had anticipated my next question. Would you like to see another major theatre in the downtown area?
HH: Absolutely yes, provided that Houston continues its population expansion. I think that that is a serious consideration. If the city is going to grow in numbers, obviously the services are going to have to grow. If it is not going to grow, then perhaps we just stay where we are and fiddle with the schedule, try to improve upon it, but no major expansion of services.
DC: I think you can anticipate growth.
DC: To return to the question on the floor, that of public and private grants, have you come to be very dependent on those?
HH: Oh, I would say we couldn’t function without them. Again, we’re back to that mixture of earned income and support income and how much is costs to run a performing arts organization. The key to the whole matter is the fact that we do perform in a theatre that houses x number of seats. If we were sold out 365 days a year, we still would not be able to exist without additional support income, because we cannot make technological improvements. We work with human effort, and that human effort has to be paid for, it’s salaries. Your salaries are always going to increase, and what happens when we want more dancers?
26:32 Well, we can’t raise the price of the ticket, because we’re giving 2 more dancers to the audience. Since we can’t make technological improvements, it’s going to become worse and worse. We know that salaries are going to become greater, and we know that there is a price level for tickets which you cannot really go beyond, or then it’s diminishing return. Somebody said somewhere once recently that if you charged $50 a seat, then you could break even, but how many people can pay $50 a seat? It’s going to become more difficult as time goes on, because we’re limited with numbers of seats that we can sell and prices.
DC: Is there a special problem inherent to the grants, in so far as they run out, and you’re always having to renew them? That’s what I meant about this dependency. How certain are you that there will be a grant next year? Is there any continuity in these things?
HH: Yes, and I’m glad you brought that back, that subject, because since we are dependent, we should elaborate on it. The grant business and the contribution is always a vague kind of a thing, because in essence it’s saying, “Will you give me some money to support this effort next year?” Traditionally, if you have, then one can assume that you’re going to continue to do it, but you’re under no obligation to do so. I’m more secure in the knowledge that once you purchase a ticket that I have your money, than I am in your continuing your support. However, history will indicate that there is a growth record or a pattern of giving that we can more or less count on.
I think the Houston ballet has been extremely fortunate in its support income sector, mainly because it was started by a group of citizens who were quite familiar with performing arts organizations or philanthropic organizations and their needs. These people were familiar with the educational, the university needs, the hospital needs, and therefore, the cultural needs. Very different from most performing arts organizations or, at least, ballet companies, in that that they were started by a founder or an artistic director who wanted a company, and then he had to go and scramble to find people to support his ideas.
Here it started out with a statement that we Houston shall have a ballet company. That’s very, very different, and it’s unique, incidentally. The other ballet companies that I mentioned earlier, San Francisco, Ballet West, Boston, Pennsylvania ballet—take away San Francisco ballet—but Boston, Pennsylvania, and Ballet West were really instigated through the help of the Ford foundation grant, that massive one in 1964 which, in effect, created those companies within those cities.
30:24 [no audio]
DC: 30:56 —has become sufficiently sophisticated in the last 6 or 7 years to turn out in force for more of avant-garde productions?
HH: I still have a problem with that question, because of your using the word sophistication. Is it unsophisticated to love Wagner? If it is, well, then you are sophisticated only if you love “the avant-garde.” I do understand you question; however, I wanted to make that distinction there. I do not want to say that an audience is sophisticated or not by its taste for avant-garde versus the non-avant-garde.
I think that traditionally you find that audiences tend to like that which is familiar. Therefore, when we put on Capalia this year, we are going to have a larger audience come because of Capalia, than we will have when we put on our bicentennial program. These are all new works. Just taken at face value, those two programs, and we do nothing to create an audience for either one of them. The larger audience would come for Capalia, because they know Capalia. The same thing in opera, you put on Ham and Eggs, or Carmen, and more will turn out for that then they will for the ballet of Billy Joe—I think it’s called. See, “I think it’s called.” There’s the problem. The familiarly tends to bring people out. If you’re comfortable with something, you are more apt to go see it.
DC: Perhaps instead of the word sophistication, I should have chosen curiosity as a quality in an audience?
HH: Yeah, all right. Now, to give you some heart in the direction that you’re driving toward. Last year we had a program—I think it was the last one—in which we had new works. Although out of the five different programs, that was one of the smallest in attendance, the number was smaller by this comparison. We had maybe 1,800 people going to see that versus maybe 2,500 people to see the regular program. It isn’t phenomenally different or fantastically different, but it is somewhat different.
DC: There is a noticeable difference?
DC: I suppose that will terminate the questions in the financial area and the audience area. I’d now to ask some questions about the personnel in the company. First of all, has the increased number of dancers made a wider range of performances possible?
HH: Oh, yes, it enables the company to do a lot more of the literature that is available.
DC: Could you give an illustration?
HH: Yeah, when the company had 17 members, it was impossible to do Capalia. Today we can do it. It was impossible to do Nutcracker. Today we can do it, and Nutcracker is one of our largest income earners. That’s very crucial. The important thing of earned income to me is that it indicates an interest in your company. If I can point to our trustees and say that we earned 65 percent, 70 percent, and that means that our houses are virtually sold out, that is the test of success, I would say, or one test that the public is interested in what you’re doing. You certainly don’t want to give money to something that nobody is going to.
DC: Do you feel the quality of the principle dancers has improved over the years?
HH: 35:29 Yes.
DC: Does that also mean that there are now performances you could put on that you wouldn’t have dared to put on 6 or 7 years ago?
HH: It does follow, yes.
DC: Again, could you give an illustration of a difficult performance that you would not attempt unless the quality of the principle dancers was sufficiently high?
HH: Yes, we can just look at last year. We mounted the second act of Swan Lake, and Andrea Vodehnal, who is one of principle dancers, took the leading role in that production. Also, Barbara Pontecorvo, another one of our principles had an opportunity to perform it. I would say, 6 years ago it would’ve been necessary to bring in a guest artist to do that.
DC: How frequently are guest artists brought in?
HH: Infrequently. Our policy with guest artists is that we will bring them in for 2 reasons, box office attraction and to provide variety both to the public and also to our company members. It is very inspiring for a dancer to see and work with Edward Villella in Prodigal Son. He’s one of the great performers of our time. That’s an inspiring thing. Edward Villella also is very good at the box office. I think ultimately we ideally would not want to have guest artists, and perhaps not at all.
37:20 This is really a question that—I think—the future can answer more, because it depends so much on the artistic director. Ideally, you want your company to be what you are presenting, and it’s sort of a diminution of the strength of the company—that is some people view it—when you bring in guest artists. I personally don’t accept that argument. I think that if you present a various program, that is a lot of variety, you are doing a service to the public and not a disservice to the company. I do think that if it turns around that you’re only selling tickets because of your guest artists, then you’re in trouble.
DC: In the Houston Ballet company’s history, in the early years, was the company more dependent on guest artists?
HH: No, it never has been dependent artistically on guest artists. The very first production that was made was prior to those 17—or how many dancers was it—12 or 13 dancers being hired—was a production of Gazelle. It was mounted by Nina Popova. She brought in Carla Frietchie and Eric Brune—I believe—to do the leading parts. That was not the company. That was a production that was mounted sort of a performance that was being staged by these people known as the Houston Ballet.
Out of that the next step was, well, if we can do that, we certainly should be able to form a company. That certainly had guest artists at that time. When that company was organized, those 12 dancers, and they performed, they did not use guest artists. The guest artists really came about—I think—with my joining the company in ’72, for box office reasons.
DC: Are many of the regular dancers in the company from Houston? I noticed that when the company was first formed, they went to New York to audition. I was wondering if that had changed, and more and more dancers were actually native Houstonians.
HH: Yes, it has changed. About 3 years ago, we picked up a habit that had been dropped earlier, of holding auditions in Houston. We have held them every year since then. That is for the past 3 years, and each of those years the number of people coming to audition for the company has increased. I would say the first year maybe 40 people came, and then it went to 60, and I think last year it went to 80 dancers. Now most of these dancers come from the general southwest region, and of those 80, most of them are from Texas and of those from Texas, most of them are from Houston. We have for the past 3 years, approximately a third of our roster from the southwest. Of those third—so we’re talking about 10 dancers—maybe 4 might be from Houston.
DC: Is there a high rate of turnover?
HH: 41:02 Yes, traditionally we’ve had a high rate of turnover, and I don’t know whether that’s good or bad. There will be arguments on both sides of that statement. I personally think that when anything is changing rapidly, you’re going to have turnover. I think it’s a very natural thing in the life of an organization in its beginning stages that you’re going to have changes.
DC: Also, there seems to be some turnover in the directorial ranks as well, most obviously, the resignation of Nina Propova. I’m sure that any researcher listening to this tape in the future would be very much interested in that incident. What prompted her to resign?
HH: Let me practice it, and then you’ll have your answer.
HH: I told you earlier that the uniqueness of the Houston Ballet is that it was formed by a group of people who said there shall be a ballet company in Houston, as opposed to a founder who starts a company. Any founder is likely to be with a company throughout its whole life, because it’s the expression of that founder. When he or she decides that’s it, that’s the end of the company. This unfortunately, has been true of ballet companies traditionally. When the egg log died, that was the end of that marvelous company. There were people that tried to pick it up and carry it on, but it was no longer the same company.
I daresay when George Balanchine dies, the New York City Ballet could very easily die. There may, again, be people who wish to pick it up to try, but that’s a very different experience than a symphony organization of a city. A music director or conductor leaves, and another one comes in, and the philharmonic goes on or the symphony goes on. We have not yet come into that organizational period such as the symphony.
Now with that preface and the reminder that this company was founded by trustees, you will then see that the role of the artistic director is not equal to a founder type artistic director. The first one before Nina was Semenova. She was brought in to do two things. One, start the academy and start a company. She did start an academy, and it became clear that they were going to be difficulties in getting a company started. I understand that there were delays. She would put it off, and it became clear that if a company is going to be started, it possibly will not be started by Semenova. Then a proposal was brought in to start the company. Then you have the reason for this Gazelle production. She proved that she could mount a production and therefore, could very probably get the company started.
44:22 Nina was with the company then since 1969. This is 7 years that she was the artistic director. I think that during that 7 years, she took us from a company of 12 dancers to a company of 30 dancers. She took us from a period of doing chamber works to mounting much more ambitious ones such as Nutcracker and Capalia. Then it became a question of where do we go from here in our upward reaching? It may be that it would be better to have someone else that could take us to this next step. I think that within that expression that I just used, you will find the meeting of minds and the reason for a changeover. We do need to progress, and we hope that we are progressing.
DC: I’ve now exhausted my prepared questions, but I’d like to ask you if there are any areas that you feel need to be discussed that we have not discussed, any other insights you’d like to set down on tape.
HH: I think that for conversation of this nature, we’re dealing mostly in history. That is what has gone on up until now. Anything else would be—
HH: Yeah, is journalism or speculation. It’s a very unique period, but then I suppose anytime can be called unique. Tomorrow will be unique, yesterday was unique then, so I think that we are in a very healthy situation that is the company in its resources and in its dreams. Perhaps what we need mostly is the understanding within our organization—I’m talking there about staff, personnel and trustees—that we constantly have to have a dream beyond realizing in order to grow. That means a lot of things.
DC: On behalf of the Houston Metropolitan Archives, I’d like to thank you very much for your time.