Royal Ballet promotion predictions 2017/2018

[Jan McNulty]

 

 

For clarity's sake: "Red Riding Hood" caught my eye at one of the SB performances, she was really wonderful. The cast sheet showed: Isabella Gasparini. She was so lovely in that role but would she be wonderful as a Sugar Plum or an Aurora or...?

A dancer can be wonderful in a McGregor work but not so very wonderful dancing Ashton, MacMillan or Balanchine...

ompany.

 

 

Actually, not quite Sugar Plum or Aurora, a few years ago Isabella gave a sparkling rendition of the Don Q gpdd in a mixed programme with her previous company Northern Ballet.  She has, IMHO, a lovely classical style.  Of course, she has performed Clara in Nutcracker with RB too.

[Fonty]

 

 

Wonderful dancers can be found in any rank, in any company, but the truly wonderful do stand out and are absolutely wonderful across the repertoire of the Company.

 

Yes, a dancer who stands out and is absolutely wonderful in everything is an outstanding dancer, and fully deserves principal status.  But it is exceptionally rare that someone is truly sublime in everything.  If you look at the current crop of principals in the RB, how many of those would be your first choice for something by a particular choreographer, if you were being completely honest?

 

It would a crying shame if someone who is absolutely fantastic in tutu roles, and one of the best performers of Ashton, should be denied promotion because they don't have the extreme flexibility required for a McGregor work, or perhaps are not quite so suited to conveying the dark dramatics of MacMillan's work.    

 

It seems an old fashioned idea now, that a dancer in the higher categories should be a specialist in certain areas, but it makes perfect sense to me.  

Edited March 11, 2017 by Fonty

[Scheherezade]

Yes, a dancer who stands out and is absolutely wonderful in everything is an outstanding dancer, and fully deserves principal status.  But it is exceptionally rare that someone is truly sublime in everything.  If you look at the current crop of principals in the RB, how many of those would be your first choice for something by a particular choreographer, if you were being completely honest?

 

It would a crying shame if someone who is absolutely fantastic in tutu roles, and one of the best performers of Ashton, should be denied promotion because they don't have the extreme flexibility required for a McGregor work, or perhaps are not quite so suited to conveying the dark dramatics of MacMillan's work.    

 

It seems an old fashioned idea now, that a dancer in the higher categories should be a specialist in certain areas, but it makes perfect sense to me.  

 

Witness the breathtaking-in-some-things-but-less-so-in-others Ed Watson.

[Legseleven]

Whereas to be fair it seems that both Hayward and Naghdi have proved themselves in a wide range of roles and types of ballet (would love to see them as Giselle). The ability to dance and to perform well in a wide variety of roles must surely be an advantage, especially at the beginning of a dancer's career although I imagine many great dancers will find that they specialise more if they wish to do so as they become more able to express their preferences?

[Lizbie1]

And finally, when a dancer cast as the Rose Fairy is just as eye-catching and positively luminous as those cast as the Sugar Plum Fairy and Clara in the Nutcracker, even in the cinema screening, then I consider (and obviously others may disagree) that that dancer has something very special. I referred to it as star quality - I very much enjoyed Cuthbertson as Sugar Plum and Hayward as Clara in that performance but to be captivated by Naghdi's Rose Fairy to just the same extent (if not more so, especially when considering the Rose Fairy's brevity in comparison) was very special indeed.

I haven't been able to see as much of Naghdi as others so have no strong opinions about whether she should be promoted, but wasn't Yuhui Choe the Rose Fairy in the most recent live screening and in the other performances featuring Cuthbertson and Hayward? Unless you're talking about a previous broadcast, of course.

 

Edited to make clear I hold no particular brief for Choe either!

Edited March 11, 2017 by Lizbie1

[Legseleven]

I saw Naghdi as the Rose Fairy in the December 2015 cinema screening, yes.

[SwissBalletFan]

I can understand that promotions may be a symbol of talent or success, but isn't dancing a reward unto itself, and that Naghdi especially is dancing so beautifully, and getting her chance to dance the principal roles should mean a lot more to her and the audience than some political statement, that may or may not be possible due to balancing the company etc.

 

I would hope that she is promoted, but also that she should look back on a wonderful season and realising her talent with support from Mr O'hare in casting, rather than to be upset that she wasn't promoted, and joining those chaining themselves to the ROH.

 

From the Polunin thread, I think looking for these targets (principal dancer) as validation in itself, rather than enjoying the dance and the opportunities. A great example could be Xander Parrish, where he is still isn't Principal at the Mariinsky, but has a wonderful time dancing around the world and is seen as a shining start of the world, and is loving it.

 

Celebrate talent and dance, lets not get all corporate about it

[Lizbie1]

I saw Naghdi as the Rose Fairy in the December 2015 cinema screening, yes.

Mystery solved, thanks!

[Legseleven]

Yes of course dancing is a reward unto itself but I don't think we therefore expect dancers to do it for love of dance alone. As there is, whether we agree with it or not, a corporate type structure in place at the RB and as there is in Naghdi a dancer who has not yet been awarded principal status in terms of marketability/worldwide recognition as being at that level - or of course a principal's salary - but seems widely regarded as of principal ability in the principal roles she has performed, I cannot agree that she should be expected simply to be grateful for the opportunities she has been given and not to expect that she too be given that principal status.

[Sim]

I'd like to pick-up on a point made by a previous poster saying "there are many wonderful dancers..."

 

Just as there are many "wonderful" tennis players... but what sets Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Serena Williams apart from those many "wonderful" tennis players? 

 

What are the criteria used by people when saying someone is a "wonderful" dancer? A wonderful dancer in company X or Y would not be considered a wonderful dancer in a top company such as The RB, the Paris Opera Ballet, or the Mariinsky. 

 

A first time ballet go-er will likely find most dancers to be wonderful, a seasoned ballet go-er will have developed criteria by which to separate a wonderful from a "not-so-wonderful" dancer. Some will find a dancer who is able to do a 6 o'clock penchee a wonderful dancer. To be a truly wonderful dancer means so much more. 

 

When a poster on here said "Everyone raves about Naghdi but what about several of the others who are just as wonderful"  I'd like to ask him/her: how many of those others who are "just as wonderful" have danced a tear-inducing Juliet and got a standing ovation? How many of those others have danced the Sugar Plum Fairy and Aurora and Rose Fairy and Mathilde Kschessinka, just to name the great roles danced this Season alone, to equal great acclaim? 

 

I would like to point out that I am not defending Naghdi but simply stating facts, acknowledged by reputable dance critics, many RB Patrons as well as Forum members.

 

My criteria for considering a dancer to be wonderful lay high and a dancer needs to have it all: stage presence, artistry, superb classical technic, able to connect with the audience, dancing a demanding role flawlessly, dancing consistently at a high technical level, and if that dancer also has a beautiful classical line...well that for me is what I consider a truly wonderful dancer.  

 

For clarity's sake: "Red Riding Hood" caught my eye at one of the SB performances, she was really wonderful. The cast sheet showed: Isabella Gasparini. She was so lovely in that role but would she be wonderful as a Sugar Plum or an Aurora or...?

A dancer can be wonderful in a McGregor work but not so very wonderful dancing Ashton, MacMillan or Balanchine...

 

Wonderful dancers can be found in any rank, in any company, but the truly wonderful do stand out and are absolutely wonderful across the repertoire of the Company.

What a wonderful post!!  

 

SwissBalletFan, no-one is getting 'corporate about this'.  Every classical ballet company has ranks, and dancers strive to move up them.  All of us posting here in support of promotions (whether Naghdi's or anyone else's) are referring to a dancer's artistic merit.  It is corporate in that the more you achieve, the higher you go (in theory), but for me this is about artistry, that's all.

 

I was going to write in support of Naghdi's potential promotion too, but I now don't need to after NinaG and Legseleven's posts above.  I can only second what they say, and hope that Mr O'Hare knows a truly special talent when he sees one (I am sure he does!), and rewards that talent by bestowing the commensurate rank on that talent.  For me, there is no question that Naghdi is ready;  she has proved herself in all different types of roles, is a true team dancer (she has stepped into last-minute replacements, or had to be ready to, many times in the past year), stands out in everything she does, has a beautiful classical technique and, just as importantly, has her head screwed on right so wouldn't buckle under any pressure.  She is a warm, intelligent dancer and would be a great ambassador for the company.   And if she does move up, how lovely for the British flagship company to have three British female principals in its ranks for the first time in a long time.

 

Oh, and let's not forget the partnership Naghdi is fast forging with Matthew Ball....that is also great for the company, and I hope it won't be long until he moves on up to the top rank either.  

[zxDaveM]

If Ms Naghdi is promoted (pretty please!!), lets hope she gets to dance in front of the critics more often as a result and so gets noticed by more than us regulars at ROH  :-)

[alison]

It would a crying shame if someone who is absolutely fantastic in tutu roles, and one of the best performers of Ashton, should be denied promotion because they don't have the extreme flexibility required for a McGregor work, or perhaps are not quite so suited to conveying the dark dramatics of MacMillan's work.    

 

It seems an old fashioned idea now, that a dancer in the higher categories should be a specialist in certain areas, but it makes perfect sense to me.  

 

The converse should, of course, also apply (although I'd extend McGregor to contemporary choreography in general)

 

My criteria of hitting the mark in a minimum of 2 out of: Classical, Ashton, MacMillan and Balanchine/contemporary still seem to hold good, and certainly seemed to apply with previous artistic directors, from what I can tell.

[bridiem]

 

I would hope that she is promoted, but also that she should look back on a wonderful season and realising her talent with support from Mr O'hare in casting, rather than to be upset that she wasn't promoted, and joining those chaining themselves to the ROH.

 

 

 

I agree that the most important thing for any dancer is to feel appreciated and to achieve their best rather than focussing overly on achieving the highest rank at the earliest possible moment; but I don't see being a principal with the RB as being 'chained' to the ROH! Again linked with the Polunin thread, many dancers thrive in a (relatively) secure and supportive company environment. e.g. does Marianela Nunez feel 'chained' to the ROH?. I very much doubt it. 

[SwissBalletFan]

 but I don't see being a principal with the RB as being 'chained' to the ROH! 

 

 

Apologies for the confusion. I was referring to some previous posts that people would chain themselves to the ROH (KOH's Office) if she was not promoted. I do not think that being a principal is to be chained to RB, not at all, and I agree with your points.

Edited March 11, 2017 by SwissBalletFan

[bridiem]

Apologies for the confusion. I was referring to some previous posts that people would chain themselves to the ROH (KOH's Office) if she was not promoted. I do not think that being a principal is to be chained to RB, not at all, and I agree with your points.

 

Apologies!! My misunderstanding.

[Jam Dancer]

If Ms Naghdi is promoted (pretty please!!), lets hope she gets to dance in front of the critics more often as a result and so gets noticed by more than us regulars at ROH  :-)

 

Who or what determines this? I don't think becoming a principal necessarily changes this, does it? Isn't it being first cast or second et al cast that usually determines this? Don't critics usually attend the first night's performance ? How about dress rehearsals? And sometimes a performance later in the production? A few critics I know make a point of seeing multiple casts (rare though).

 

I too think (hope/pray/casting spell as we speak) that Yasmine should be promoted but I can't help thinking that we might be getting ourselves a bit too worked up about it. She has already been noticed than by more than us regulars at ROH. Of this I'm sure. I'm not about to second guess the AD as her performances will not have gone unnoticed...

 

Many have cited how confident in her dancing Yasmine seems to be and some have said she is intelligent and level headed - all this I believe which means although I'm sure she'd love to be promoted, she'll be focussing not on the promotion itself but on completing the season with the fine form she's shown to date. I'm taking a page from her book on this one...

 

Whilst I keep my fingers crossed ( and double check my incantations ), I shan't fret but continue to support her ( and the others) by attending performances and encouraging as many of the uninitiated to go see a performance or two.., preferably three! ☺️

[Shya100]

I'd like to pick-up on a point made by a previous poster saying "there are many wonderful dancers..."

 

Just as there are many "wonderful" tennis players... but what sets Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Serena Williams apart from those many "wonderful" tennis players? 

 

What are the criteria used by people when saying someone is a "wonderful" dancer? A wonderful dancer in company X or Y would not be considered a wonderful dancer in a top company such as The RB, the Paris Opera Ballet, or the Mariinsky. 

 

A first time ballet go-er will likely find most dancers to be wonderful, a seasoned ballet go-er will have developed criteria by which to separate a wonderful from a "not-so-wonderful" dancer. Some will find a dancer who is able to do a 6 o'clock penchee a wonderful dancer. To be a truly wonderful dancer means so much more. 

 

When a poster on here said "Everyone raves about Naghdi but what about several of the others who are just as wonderful"  I'd like to ask him/her: how many of those others who are "just as wonderful" have danced a tear-inducing Juliet and got a standing ovation? How many of those others have danced the Sugar Plum Fairy and Aurora and Rose Fairy and Mathilde Kschessinka, just to name the great roles danced this Season alone, to equal great acclaim? 

 

I would like to point out that I am not defending Naghdi but simply stating facts, acknowledged by reputable dance critics, many RB Patrons as well as Forum members.

 

My criteria for considering a dancer to be wonderful lay high and a dancer needs to have it all: stage presence, artistry, superb classical technic, able to connect with the audience, dancing a demanding role flawlessly, dancing consistently at a high technical level, and if that dancer also has a beautiful classical line...well that for me is what I consider a truly wonderful dancer.  

 

For clarity's sake: "Red Riding Hood" caught my eye at one of the SB performances, she was really wonderful. The cast sheet showed: Isabella Gasparini. She was so lovely in that role but would she be wonderful as a Sugar Plum or an Aurora or...?

A dancer can be wonderful in a McGregor work but not so very wonderful dancing Ashton, MacMillan or Balanchine...

 

Wonderful dancers can be found in any rank, in any company, but the truly wonderful do stand out and are absolutely wonderful across the repertoire of the Company.

She is very good. I don't really think anymore of any of them to be honest other than they are good or not. It is a binary thing. I do have a soft soft for several others over her though: Stix-Brunell, Takada (who I thought a gorgeous Aurora), Choe, Calvert, Hiep. The principals, I know Takada is one but it is her first year, are just what they say on the tin, more experienced and 'probably' more talented but they are principals. The peak, the end, more in demand, more recognised, in full bloom whatever. I like the trajectory best. The four new principals from last year, they are really just baby principals yet. They certainly stand apart from the rest at the moment.

[Shya100]

Shya100, if there are others 'just as wonderful' as Naghdi (who has been pretty universally acclaimed) then what is the logic behind bringing in someone at principal level from another company?

Because the new principals are not exactly stars more baby principals. There is a line between growing your own and bringing in already developed stars. Ultimately the grow your own variety become more beloved etc because we grow with them in a way. A healthy company has both and at the moment the only two they really bought in so to speak, as a finished article, are Osipova and several boys but Osipova is certainly the most well known of all. They could do with another but they could develop some of their other principals and many of their first soloists too. Actually, I was thinking that many of their male ranks need tidying up, prompting whatever.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Shya100

[aileen]

Principals who have risen through the ranks at the RB can become stars. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Who is a star is debatable, of course, but few principal dancers, however accomplished, become stars. That status is reserved for the very few.

[Shya100]

Principals who have risen through the ranks at the RB can become stars. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Who is a star is debatable, of course, but few principal dancers, however accomplished, become stars. That status is reserved for the very few.

I meant of course stars as in principal players within the company. Just because you are a principal does not mean that you are a member of the first cast, chosen for live broadcasting performances, invited to preform with many years other companies. And of course home grown ones can become the brightest of them all but their needs to be a balance.

[Jan McNulty]

Who or what determines this? I don't think becoming a principal necessarily changes this, does it? Isn't it being first cast or second et al cast that usually determines this? Don't critics usually attend the first night's performance ? How about dress rehearsals? And sometimes a performance later in the production? A few critics I know make a point of seeing multiple casts (rare though).

 

 

 

 

 

Press night isn't necessarily first night.  I think the RB dancers get more exposure to the press as quite often more than one cast is reviewed.

 

With companies based outside London it is becoming more of a problem for them to get exposure in the national media as newspapers are struggling.  Quite often these days press performances seem to be offered on midweek matinee days as the critics may not have an allowance for an overnight stay.

 

Some years ago there was something of a kerfuffle because a BRB dancer who had been a principal for several years was nominated for an Emerging Dancer award at the NDAs.  This was because he had had very little exposure with the national press.

[Coated]

Because the new principals are not exactly stars more baby principals. There is a line between growing your own and bringing in already developed stars. Ultimately the grow your own variety become more beloved etc because we grow with them in a way. A healthy company has both and at the moment the only two they really bought in so to speak, as a finished article, are Osipova and several boys but Osipova is certainly the most well known of all. They could do with another but they could develop some of their other principals and many of their first soloists too. Actually, I was thinking that many of their male ranks need tidying up, prompting whatever.

What type of 'feeder' company will produce those ready made principals for otherwise ailing companies to import? Or should each company invest heavily into young dancers and then send them off as ready made principals elsewhere?

 

It's also interesting to note that there are at least 4 male principals at the RB who have been brought in as the ready made article, thus the male ranks should be the ones that should be meeting your requirement for a healthy company but you still feel that they need 'tidying up'.

 

There is always room for improvement in any company, but simply buying in additional talent is not necessarily the answer.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Coated

[Jan McNulty]

Because the new principals are not exactly stars more baby principals. There is a line between growing your own and bringing in already developed stars. Ultimately the grow your own variety become more beloved etc because we grow with them in a way. A healthy company has both and at the moment the only two they really bought in so to speak, as a finished article, are Osipova and several boys but Osipova is certainly the most well known of all. They could do with another but they could develop some of their other principals and many of their first soloists too. Actually, I was thinking that many of their male ranks need tidying up, prompting whatever.

 

 

 

I prefer not to see people being brought in from the outside into the upper echelons of a company.  I love seeing home-grown talent being nurtured within the company.

 

Frequently people gaining promotion prove themselves easily in their new grade and are soon the ones we want to watch.

[capybara]

I prefer not to see people being brought in from the outside into the upper echelons of a company.  I love seeing home-grown talent being nurtured within the company.

 

Frequently people gaining promotion prove themselves easily in their new grade and are soon the ones we want to watch.

 

I agree, in general. However, it might be slightly different when someone has trained at a company's school and their talent and artistry are clearly needed. Think Muntagirov who seems to have integrated wonderfully into the RB and should arguably have been offered a contract there from the RBS.

[Jan McNulty]

I couldn't disagree with you on that front Capybara.  I was over-generalising and thinking more of already established international stars from different backgrounds.

 

Muntagirov was an obvious fit to me of the Royal Ballet style.

[Bruce Wall]

To throw another cat in amongst the many pigeons here roosted, it's not the top postings that are an AD's big challenge I think - but the crucial fostering of growth lower down.  

 

Surely the prime reason why people on BcoF can now be so heated in their passions over potential Royal Ballet promotions is because KO'H's root philosophy of 'building from the bottom up' has worked so VERY - MARVELOUSLY -  well.  The upward promotions are surely amongst the key joys of Mr. O'H's job.  

 

However, as in any quality garden, you have to cut back in order to ensure that future quality might flourish.  Some may call this being a victim of your own success but I think Mr. O'H will just sit back, smile and know that it is now just part of his job - and that - in and of itself - is surely a luxury; a mark of TRUE success.  Of course there will be attrition - (people are making predictions here after all without knowing who or how many dancers are actually leaving of their own choice - no matter what the circumstances) - but of necessity - having been able to so successfully grow the RB roots over the past, say, six years - space needs to continue to be made in order that similar inputs can be rooted in the future.  it is crucial that it should be.  Part of the reason why this development in RB ranks seemed to stall for so long in the past was that (i) rightful pruning was not made for the good of the whole and (ii) the spaces offered to RBS and other major graduates was often too severely limited.  The two go together I feel.

 

In order to make way for fresh sprouts pointing towards future principal potential (and given the rate of recent success I'm certain it will be plentiful - and here I am noting a point beyond just the apprentice ranks) where might you cut back to make way and why?  These decisions are, after all, the hard part of any SUCCESSFUL artistic director's remit and if we here want to sit back and project on the joyful privileges then we must I think - in fairness - consider the other crucial element in this all too vital balancing act.  Happily it has never been - nor will it ever be - an exact science.  

Edited March 12, 2017 by Bruce Wall

[FLOSS]

Kevin seems to be applying his experience of BRB to developing his young dancers and creating opportunities for them So far so good.Now as far as promotions to principal are concerned  when Yanowsky retires the company will be down to seven female principals. Even with the new works created by Wheeldon, Scarlett and McGregor the company's core repertory is still nineteenth and twentieth century classical and neoclassical,Petipa, Ashton, MacMillan with some Balanchine a little Robbins,some Fokine and Nijinska. Anyone promoted to principal should show the potential to be outstanding performers across a wide range of this core repertory and not simply, say, an exceptional MacMillan dancer. I don't expect everyone to be equally good in all the works  of these core choreographers but I do expect them to bring something very special to their performances across most of the core repertory.

 

Somehow seven female principal dancers does not seem quite enough if you think that the company should have dancers at the very top of the company who bring something very special to performances across the wide breadth of the repertory and truly outstanding ones in the core works of choreographers like Ashton and MacMillan.The point here is that while I think that those who can dance Ashton can dance MacMillan I don't think that it always works in reverse as success in MacMillan's dramatic works can cover a multitude of technical sins.

 

Again we need to remember that on some tours the company may be contractually obliged to field principal dancers in lead roles . If management has not selected a sufficient number of principal dancers to cover the broad spectrum of the core repertory to enable the company to give outstanding, performances in those works then it runs the risk of giving performances with indifferent pairings and losing audiences at home and on tour. Audiences, particularly those who see the company on tour, are entitled to assume that what they are seeing on stage are the very best casts the company can muster and that their performances represent the company and the ballet at its very best. If management is not sensitive to these issues, and arguably it was not on its last Russian tour, when local critics were far more taken with the corps' acting skills than they were with the performances and chemistry between the dancers appearing as Manon and Des Grieux, it runs the risk of inaugurating a general decline in the quality of  performances it gives of the work in question and other ballets  by that work's choreographer. It also runs the risk that younger dancers  will pick up the message that management is indifferent to the quality of performance of that choreographer's work if it only lavishes resources and exemplary casting on the works of other choreographers. The occasional exemplary performance plays a significant part in maintaining young dancers' interest in the works of individual choreographers and in keeping the repertory in good health. 

 

I am not sure that being promoted to the rank of principal is simply a reward for the individual dancer's industry and ability.I have always thought that a company's principal dancers should be selected as exemplars of the company's aesthetic and style and models for the younger members of the company to emulate.When an Artistic Director appoints principal dancers he is generally thought to be making a statement about his artistic taste and his aspirations for the company's future aesthetic and style. Any decision the AD makes impacts on the entire company and not just on the individual dancer who is promoted, Recruitment and appointment of principal dancers can have a terrific impact on company's morale. Consider the message sent to the company's own young gifted dancers if they know that the AD goes recruiting armed with a cheque book and generally recruits principal dancers from outside the company and that working elsewhere is a more certain route to advancement than slogging away doing everything that is required by management.

 

It is one thing to use the chequebook if management is forced to fill gaps in a company where dancers have left because of fears about its future and their continued employment quite another to habitually recruit dancers with no past connection with the company or its feeder school,if it has one. In an interview she gave to Ballet Association in 2007 Laura Morera said that when her colleagues learned that she had been promoted to principal their response was that it gave them hope. Now I am not.arguing that the AD should not recruit from abroad when it is necessary to do so, merely that habitually doing so when there is no obvious compelling reason has an effect on the company as a whole. An AD who does not take this into account when making decisions about promotion runs the danger of prompting a mass exodus of talented dancers. It is as bad to pass over a truly outstanding dancer for promotion as it is to appoint dancers of limited talent as principals. During the company's greatest period its dancers were recruited from this country and from across the world, their surnames made this far less obvious than it is today. From the 1930's until the 1960's. a period covering the stewardship of the first two ADs the company seemed to have the ability to grow its own dancers and renew itself.Then in the 1970's it all started to go terribly wrong with the school and the company. At the very point at which the school seems to be firing on all cylinders producing good dancers some of whom seem to have the potential to be great ones and the company has a wide active repertory and is apparently in good artistic health it does not seem necessary or sensible to go out looking for star dancers.

 

Financial considerations inevitably come into play when promotions are being considered.and it is possible for dancers who are outstanding in specialist parts of the repertory such as the "Grant roles" to be passed over time and again in favour of  dancers with wider repertories who lack ability in specialist repertory. I think that is something which most dancers understand but again it can have an effect on how that repertory is viewed by the youngest dancers in the company. Kevin has said that he can't promote everyone but he hopes to keep the company interested by giving his dancers interesting repertory.That does not absolve Kevin from making a decision about whether or not to  appoint a new principal to fill the vacancy which Yanowsky's departure will leave.Now the reality is that the AD has a great deal of talent in the lower ranks of the company and only he knows if there is someone with even more potential at artist level than the most obvious current internal candidate.If there is he may want to delay making an appointment at this stage because some of those he appoints now and in the next few years could be the face of the company for the best part of twenty years.  Appointing a principal dancer is always something of a gamble whether they are a company member or someone who has worked as a principal dancer with another company. Recruiting existing principal dancers does not work if the dancer proves unable or unwilling to adapt to meet his/her new company's requirements with the RB it almost essential to be a dance actor.

 

On the basis of what I have seen of Naghdi in Ashton,Green Monotones and Symphonic Variations; in MacMillan Juliet, Girl in the Invitation, Kschesshinskaya  which more experienced dancers  struggled with; classical repertory including sundry Prologue Fairies, particularly Golden Vine, one of Florestan's sisters, Princess Florine, Aurora and the SPF she appears to be someone with a secure chrystalline technique and a very mature musically sophisticated approach to its use in performance.Her Aurora came as a complete surprise not because I doubted that she had sufficient technique but because she seemed to be so completely in charge of the role and its choreography at her first performance and delivered an account of an exceptionally demanding role which was not merely accurate but was full of light and shade,.nuance, musicality and artistry. If Kevin feels it necessary to hold back until after Swan Lake then that is his prerogative but on the basis of what she has done so far Naghdi really seems to be that rare creature a dancer with personality,musical intelligence,strong technique and pure classicism.

 

 

Now I find the suggestion that the company needs to recruit stars a very interesting one.I thought that it had recruited one n Osipova. I don't think that it needs another one at present.It does not seem to me that the company has become hopelessly inward looking or that it is giving lacklustre performances.It would appear that the school is finally producing outstanding dancers who have gone through the entire RB system rather than doing a few years in the Upper School. The following comments are not directed at Osipova .but I am far more interested in seeing how Hay, Ball, Clarke, Hayward, Naghdi, O'Sullivan and Heap who are all products of the school, and dancers like Sambe and Magri, develop than I am in seeing an outsider appointed as a principal who has little more to offer than flashy technique. I am afraid that I don't see ballet as an opportunity for an exhibition of dance technique and old fashioned as it may seem I think that Bournonville got it right when he said " The beautiful always retains the freshness of novelty, while the astounding soon grows tiresome." That sentiment was true in the nineteenth century and it is equally true now.

Edited March 12, 2017 by FLOSS

[Jamesrhblack]

Unless I have misread your post Bruce, and, if I haven't I agree with much, in principle, of what you have written, I think getting in to written public speculation as to where pruning might take place is a very risky venture...

[Bruce Wall]

Unless I have misread your post Bruce, and, if I haven't I agree with much, in principle, of what you have written, I think getting in to written public speculation as to where pruning might take place is a very risky venture...

 

I agree, James ... but I feel it is crucial that an awareness of the balance be maintained in any determination.  Indeed, I feel there is a certain element of danger to be had in all areas of this particular strand's pursuit; i.e., speculation.  In reading through it - and I have myself been away - I - were I in a position to do so - would have thought to caution some of the more exuberant entries. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Bruce Wall

[Nina G.]

Sorry Bruce but can you please explain why you feel exuberance needs to be cautioned? At my age there are a lot of things I no longer can get my head around nor (and in this case) understand why exuberance would need to be cautioned? 

 

We already have Trump controlling USA media

 

When I was young, and a student, we said what we thought and that was respected and accepted. Others could disagree but that was it, we didn't need to feel hesitant nor constantly justify nor give it much thought when expressing our opinions.

 

My "rant"  is over and I am bowing out of this discussion.

[Bruce Wall]

Sorry Bruce but can you please explain why you feel exuberance needs to be cautioned? At my age there are a lot of things I no longer can get my head around nor (and in this case) understand why exuberance would need to be cautioned? 

 

We already have Trump controlling USA media

 

When I was young, and a student, we said what we thought and that was respected and accepted. Others could disagree but that was it, we didn't need to feel hesitant nor constantly justify nor give it much thought when expressing our opinions.

 

My "rant"  is over and I am bowing out of this discussion.

 

Too right, Nina.  I was simply suggesting that the balance referenced needed to be considered.  That's ALL.  

 

Still, like you - I'm out too ... and no ranting here.  

Edited March 12, 2017 by Bruce Wall

[Shya100]

What type of 'feeder' company will produce those ready made principals for otherwise ailing companies to import? Or should each company invest heavily into young dancers and then send them off as ready made principals elsewhere?

It's also interesting to note that there are at least 4 male principals at the RB who have been brought in as the ready made article, thus the male ranks should be the ones that should be meeting your requirement for a healthy company but you still feel that they need 'tidying up'.

There is always room for improvement in any company, but simply buying in additional talent is not necessarily the answer.

I shouldn't think it matters where they train or that they should have an obligation to the schools that train them but perhaps they do and perhaps more likely it suits where they want to be for family and friends reasons.

 

Soares is winding down, as is Watson really. And several of the others, because of height and style have their long term partners and several more are not suited a variety of the principal females because of height. The first soloists ladies often dance with partners not of equal rank. Of course often as talented.

 

For what it is Naghdi does not have long to wait to make principal anyway and it should necessitate from options for Matty/James as well.

[bridiem]

Sorry Bruce but can you please explain why you feel exuberance needs to be cautioned? At my age there are a lot of things I no longer can get my head around nor (and in this case) understand why exuberance would need to be cautioned? 

 

We already have Trump controlling USA media

 

When I was young, and a student, we said what we thought and that was respected and accepted. Others could disagree but that was it, we didn't need to feel hesitant nor constantly justify nor give it much thought when expressing our opinions.

 

My "rant"  is over and I am bowing out of this discussion.

 

IMHO exuberance is a lovely word and a lovely quality, and giving voice to it greatly enriches this forum. (Though of course there's place for balance too! Especially in the Sleeping Beauty thread...  ).