Dischuffed

I saw the Saturday matinee and thought this was a decent triple bill. Raymonda is not my thing - Glazunov churning out tosh by the yard with some "very quite ok" choreography - but it was competently danced, not only by Rojo and Acosta but also the variations by Shiori Kase and Lauretta Summerscales. I suppose they have to do something like this for that large portion of the audience which want tutus and easy tunes. Petrushka I love and have never seen live before so was really interested and thought the lead role was beautifully and appropriately pathetic. As a period piece (Diaghilev and Fokine selling Parisians the version of peasant Russia they wanted to see) it is absolutely fascinating. However, I think the orchestra was a LONG way from being able to cope with Stravinsky's score. His use of woodwind and brass (instead of the usual strings) as "background" was too much for those sections. There were many errors and the trumpet solo which the ballerina is supposed to be playing on stage was woeful. The whole thing needs to be much tighter. Song of a Wayfarer was interesting enough and well danced, particularly by Francisco Bosch. As triple bills go, I like Tamara's programming approach of throwing in contrasting styles so there is "something for everyone" and will definitely carry on buying tickets. But please please please more effort to go into the music!

That is why I said each to their own Margaret. And in my view those with more traditional tastes have little grounds to complain that the ROH does not cater for them, especially on the ballet side.

Ah well, each to their own Wulff. I thought the nuns "tottering" showed a very interesting and original use of movement in conjunction with the set design. It fitted in with the general madness of that production in a way which a more traditional ballet would not. And should competence be the measure for choreographers? I expect competence from my accountant and my optician, but would hope for something more interesting from the organisation with the one of the biggest (in fact isn't it THE biggest?) arts subsidy in the land

I'm not sure this is a great loss - it's good to let independent choreographers and freelance dancers get involved at the ROH via the opera side of the programme and in fact some of the more interesting dance creations I've seen in recent years have been part of operas - the ballet of the debauched nuns in this season's Robert le Diable was great. Although I have enjoyed watching Kobborg as a dancer, I'm not sure (admittedly only on the evidence of his Giselle and Les Lutins) that he's a particularly original or interesting choreographer.

I agree that debate exists in relation to classical music Pas de Quatre, but again I think it is based on a false premise of a mysterious and timeless "soul" which never actually existed. In the same way that dance technique has changed and people regret the passing of "true" technique, so instruments have developed and in fact the kind of smooth, legato playing, which is often thought of as "soulful" now, would not even have been possible on the pianos which Bach, Beethoven and even Brahms were writing for - it was a creature of early 20th century recordings on modern pianos with sustain pedals which enabled performances to cross boundaries for the first time so people assumed this was what the music was always "meant" to sound like. I wonder whether ballets of the 50s and 60s - the era of the first decent quality filmings (I understand there are very few films of the 20s and 30s which are of a technical standard to enable the viewer to really see the movement quality) have come to be accepted as "the norm" so that some people think that is the "only" or "real" style of ballet and that everything else is an aberration? In my view, the performing arts, because they are constantly reiterated by each new generation are, by their nature, not fixed and this constant harking back to a "true style" which has been lost is stifling for the art form. I would agree with Sylvie Guillem that the RB was held back by this kind of thinking during the directorship of Monica Mason. As a footnote, I would add that in both music and ballet there is an interesting debate to be had about "historical performance practice", exploring how sound/movement would have been produced using the instruments/technique available at any particular era. However, it is a very different thing to say that a style from an earlier era is the "right" one and that success or otherwise of a modern dancer/company should be defined by reference to that fixed standard.

I think what has become very confused about this debate is the notion that one's nationality is somehow linked to one's ability to dance in what is called "the British style". This seems to be a bogus assumption which one often comes across in discussions of many art forms. For example, my husband (a pianist) learned from a Hungarian teacher at Juilliard who had learned from Bartok. Does that mean he now plays in the Hungarian style? No, he makes his own artistic decisions and hones his technique in a way which is informed by what he has learned. Would his reaction be any different if he had Hungarian blood? Is it true that only Russian pianists can truly play in the Russian style because they have "the spirit/sense of Mother Russia in their blood...blah blah blah"? Or could an English, French or German pianist who was taught by a long line of Moscow conservatoire graduates (which happens a LOT in western European and north American conservatoires) produce the same smooth, rubato effect? Of course they could. To say that only "British" dancers can dance in a particular style takes away from the equation any sense of agency and decision-making by the individual dancer. Now I must say that I do not ever remember Ms Brind displaying the slightest intelligence as a dancer so maybe she was simply a vehicle for whatever training she had been given, but I would hope that the best dancers thoughtfully blend their training and role coaching with the choreography, the music and their own personal style and interpretation. Given the international nature of the teaching staff at most major ballet schools and the coaching staff in companies nowadays, very little of this can be pinned down to a dancer's nationality. This whole argument is based on a myth about "innate national characteristics" which is misinformed at best, and slightly sinister at worst.......

I really cannot understand why anyone is giving this brainless article the time of day. Ms Brind thinks that Chanel suits are the answer to the "problem"! If she hadn't married into the aristocracy I can't imagine that even the Telegraph would print this drivel. If we must have constant rehashings of this debate (which so often drifts into boring xenophobia) then surely it could be had on more realistic terms than this....

I don't think you have grasped my meaning Nina G. By Orientalism in this context, I meant the understanding (popularized by Edward Said in his 1978 book) of how Westerners in the colonial and post-colonial era lazily simplified all "Eastern" societies into a single "other" culture, and made false assumptions to attribute to them a certain set of negative values, including cruelty, cunning and sexual licentiousness - all of which we see in La Bayadere. This is by no means a PC cliche - it has long been common currency amongst writers who think beyond Daily Mail stereotypes. To consistently cast dark-skinned people in such roles is to suggest that the negative values associated with them (the cruel slaver in the Nutcracker, the caterpillar with his harem) are in fact inherent in non-white people. Theatre directors are extremely aware of this issue, to the extent that you will now find a colour-blind casting policy in all major companies, such as the RSC and the NT. In this sense it is ballet (and in many cases opera) which is reactionary in this sense, not my statement.

I also saw Friday's performance and would largely agree with Bruce. I haven't seen Marquez dance in a few years and, having expected Alina, was a little disappointed to see the change. However, I was very pleasantly surprised by her interesting interpretation of Nikiya, vulnerable but not weak with subtle reactions. Whoever was booing her from the Amphi at the end was evidently not only rude but shortsighted. Nunez was as reliably good as ever - Gamzatti gives her some showy choreography to get her teeth into and she has that amazing technique which allows her to fly through it looking as relaxed as you please. Sadly the same couldn't be said for the shades variations which I found disappointing - Akane Takada made a good job of the first variation but the other two felt very nervy and precarious. As one of the highlights of the most "iconic" act of the ballet, these variations really could do with being more strongly cast - especially for the opening night of the run. The production is a reasonable one (I personally find all the Orientalist schtick ridiculous and borderline racist, but I can tolerate it better in older ballets than new works (there really is no excuse for the Arabian slaving scene in ENB's Nutcracker, or the Caterpillar's "harem" in Alice - why incidentally is this always stereotypically cast with the darkest skinned male dancers in the RB??)). The character parts are very well done. The entrance of the shades and, indeed, much of the corps de ballet work in the white Act I thought was much better than the last time the Royal did this ballet. However the pas d'Action and other group dances could do with a lot of tidying up and de-wobbling. But generally an enjoyable evening and a very respectable stab by an English company at a Russian classic.

Grand Tier Left: I think it was 24. I counted 3 rows of 4 on each side plus the two soloists, Myrthe and Giselle

I think this is one of those performances that was sufficiently special that it seems somehow wrong to criticise it on the basis of audience behaviour or some of the rather silly production effects (the amazing flying veils caused quite a bit of giggling where I was sitting). I don't think we should assess ballet (or indeed other theatrical performances) on the basis of a checklist where every element (dancing/acting/choreography/set/costumes/audience reaction etc.) is given equal weight. It is something more complex than that and the lead performances last night, particularly Osipova's, provided dancing of a technical and artistic level that we rarely see in London. That for me makes it an experience which I enjoyed far more than last week's Alice at the ROH, which probably cost about a hundred times as much as Giselle in terms of set and effects and had an "appropriately behaved" audience and perfectly competent dancing. So of course it's nice to discuss the production and the audience's reaction but I would nevertheless urge people to go and see this if they get a chance despite all the legitimate points being made here - Osipova and Vasiliev really are something special. Unlike some others I also thought the corps was pretty well-drilled; I've certainly seen far worse in London! I'm not a PR for the Mikhailovsky by the way but a somewhat jaded theatre goer who is rarely excited by performances these days and feels it's important to comment when "a good one" comes along.