Jump to content

Fonty

Members
  • Content Count

    1,491
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,431 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

1,063 profile views
  1. Some Strictly It Takes Two news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47978146 I must confess to not being a huge fan of Rylan Clark-Neal. I find his tombstone teeth rather off putting. I think it is very unlikely Karen Hardy would be made a judge, as she has been suggested so many times and never made it. Sadly, I would be astounded if Bonnie Langford was appointed as well. I think the BBC will go for some young, glamorous cutie who will have a rather tenuous connection to the type of dancing, but will look fabulous in a parade of designer frocks. The reason given will be that she will appeal to the younger generation....
  2. I've heard a lot of people say this about Bonnie Langford, and find it a bit puzzling. As far as I am aware, she hasn't actually appeared that much on television, has she? I think of her primarily as a stage actress. The last thing I can remember seeing her in on tv was the Just William series when she was a child. Goodness she was irritating in that, but then Violet Elizabeth Bott was meant to be! I met her once, and found her to be extremely charming.
  3. I feel very, very sorry for teachers these days. I admire them for doing a job that is tough, and doing it while having to adhere to so much government regulation. Unfortunately, given the current obsession with league tables, schools are judged on such rigid criteria. The arts don't lend themselves to being assessed in the same way as reading, writing and 'rithmatic.
  4. Sounds dull as ditch water! I am so glad I am neither a pupil nor a teacher now.
  5. John, if I was a principal with the RB, then I would expect to be cast in principal roles. Especially if I have an established track record in the role, and I am still at the height of my powers. If I wasn't cast, I would certainly start to question whether I still had a place in the company. I don't know whether it is normal to schedule a single performance for a debutante in a role, but it does make sense in a way. There is no guarantee that the newcomer will be fabulous, although we hope they will be. It could be terrible damaging to their confidence if, for whatever reason, they don't do as well as expected. The RB is supremely fortunate to have so many talented dancers available at the moment. In order to give the younger dancers more opportunities, as I said before the only way to achieve this is either to have more performances of the same ballet. The other option is to bring in a compulsory retirement age for all dancers in the company. The latter is a conversation we have had many times on here!
  6. Goodness, this thread is all over the place! Age, brass sections, potential casting for Onegin.....interesting reading, though. 🙂 Regarding more mature dancers in various roles, I have no problem with an older female dancer performing a role that we know is meant to be a very young girl, such as Juliet. Speaking personally, I would be more likely to book a Nunez performance if the male lead was one I particularly wanted to see. Not that I have anything at all against Nunez; quite the contrary. She is a marvellous dancer, who seems to be able to excel in anything and everything. But she has been a principal with the RB for a long time now, and I am lucky enough to have seen her perform live on many occasions. So given the choice, I prefer to book to see someone else that I haven't seen so much of. This goes for many of the other long standing ballets in the rep. Regarding the allocation of performances, this is always going to be a problem. Quite rightly, the senior principals want their fair share of the plum roles. It seems logical that they should have more performances than the newcomers, partly because the latter are finding their way and developing their strength, but also because they will have many more opportunities in the years to come (hopefully.) The only other way of doing it is to extend the run. Then we would all be moaning and saying, "Do we really need so many performances of R & J/Swan Lake/Sleeping Beauty? Can't we have more triple bills?"
  7. I do feel very sorry for anyone who is a teacher now. As someone who came to computers relatively late in life, but went into it as a professional career, I have to say that I am opposed to children being taught too much technology at a young age. Particularly when it means the Arts are being left out. Children will find a way to learn technology in order to do the things their peers do. It is a part of daily life for them, it's no big deal. A friend of mine who was a primary school teacher said she was often teaching a class on IT where she felt her pupils knew more about it than she did. But they are very unlikely to discover classical music, dance, drama or anything like that unless their parents are interested. And that is very, very sad. As a matter of interest, what is "prescriptive work"?
  8. I think Bonnie Langford would be a good choice. She certainly has an enormous wealth of experience in all forms of dance.
  9. But isn't this myth largely perpetuated within those groups? "I know I won't like classical music/classical ballet/opera because that sort of thing is only for wealthy upper class tw**s." I find it so depressing when I hear this. I am out of touch with primary school education, so I have no idea what they teach in schools now. I went to the local village primary school, and I remember we had music sessions once a week, where a piece of classical music was played, and then there was a discussion about it. I can remember my whole class being taken to the Royal Albert Hall for children's concerts on Saturday mornings. Obviously some children didn't like it, or were bored, but by and large most of us greeted these lessons with enthusiasm, helped by a brilliant teacher. When I worked in a primary school the deputy head was mad keen on ballet, and ENB visited and gave talks prior to an organised trip to Sadlers Wells to see a school performance by the company. This school was not a fee paying one; it was the local primary school in a very deprived area of London. The kids loved it, and gave the performers a standing ovation.
  10. 😄 Well, I am sure that would be highly entertaining to watch. I presume that the new judge will be female, to balance the sexes evenly. Here is my long shot. If the thinking is that it has to be a past participant then how about Debbie McGee? Plenty of experience in the dance world, articulate, and charming. And I am always in favour of any female who proves that ladies over a certain age can still look good and give the youngsters a run for their money. Having said that, it will undoubtedly be a young, glamorous female personality "to attract the younger audience." I am struggling to think of an obvious choice. Unfortunately, the only name that springs to mind begins with a K, and ends with "ardashian."
  11. Whoever they get, I hope it is someone with genuine credentials and experience in that style of dancing, rather than simply being a past winner or a well known personality vaguely connected to the world of dance. If there was a vote, then I'd really like to see Karen Hardy on the judging panel.
  12. I always sigh when I hear people in charge of these sorts of organisations saying that something has to be "relevant." As a result, there is the danger that you will either get projects being funded that will only appeal to a very small minority, or that try to encompass various tick boxes regarding race/gender/sexual orientation, which end up pleasing nobody. Either option can lead to a massive waste of money.
  13. Agree about The Bridge Theatre, I went there for the first time recently, and was really impressed.
  14. A few general thoughts in reply to BBB's post, in no particular order: 1. The shop. I only ever went in to buy a dance magazine, or an annual calendar, and as Alison says they don't seem to have those any more, which is most disappointing. Just making a general point about the shop, presumably it makes money, or they wouldn't have one. But I am always puzzled as to how much of the stuff seems to be aimed at the casual tourist, with no particular relevance to the Opera House. Do people really go to a performance and think, "Oh, I must pick up a scented candle while I am here?" Or a set of gold coloured ice tongs? And I am astounded that people are prepared to pay £20 for a key ring. They really must be the wealthy elite! 2. Amphitheatre Restaurant Like Penelope, I really used to enjoy eating there. I've tried the new place once. The removal of the wall between the restaurant and bar area means that the constant flow of people coming up the escalators is distracting, and as they stepped outside I found I was sitting in a draft. It was as though I was eating in a railway station. I suppose it depends on where you sit, but I am still at a loss to know why anyone would think this could be called an improvement. 3. New Foyer Area Yes it is a useful public space, but as many people have pointed out, should money be spent on providing this? I don't think it is fair to dismiss unfavourable comments by saying, "You don't have to go there." Of course we don't, but that isn't the point. My complaint is that it is such an anonymous space, I could be having a coffee in Starbucks. I don't like or dislike it, it is so bland there is nothing to arouse any emotion in me. When the Box Office was in the old position, they used to have clips of various rehearsals or interviews with artists, complete with subtitles projected on one of the walls. I often used to stop and watch it before going in, and saw some very interesting interviews. They still have something, but because of the height and angle of the new position, I could see very little of it in most of the seats I tried. And even then, from what I could see, it seemed to be the sort of revolving short sequences that are completely meaningless...a headdress, some feet in pointe shoes, someone in costume presumably singing as they mouth is opening and closing. Who they were, what it was supposed to represent? Not given. If they want to interest the casual visitor in the ROH's activities, this is a golden opportunity to do so, and it isn't there. Eventually, we will all get used to it. In the same way that we will all get used to the new website. However, personally I don't think some of the major changes could be described as improvements. Simply change for the sake of change, it seems to me.
×
×
  • Create New...