Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,018 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

921 profile views
  1. Hi, I've got a side balcony ticket (B61) which I've just realised I'm not going to be able to use as I'm now out of town on Sunday. Unfortunately it's a paper ticket but I could post it to you today if you are interested? £41 face value but would happily take £30. But it is on the side, so depending where your amphi seat is, may not be much of an upgrade!
  2. penelopesimpson is Edwina Currie and I claim my five pounds
  3. I'm a little gobsmacked by this attitude to fine art. I would recommend this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Five-Year-Could-Have/dp/0500290474
  4. MRR - perhaps you mean things like little flourishes of the hand/arm on turns and a more staccato 'presentation' of the chest when finishing a movement, that can appear a bit mannered, especially in Balanchine?
  5. Ah ok - sorry. That's even worse though - if he actually attended and is still implying it was taken at a slow pace. Yes, RB is not NYCB circa 1973. But neither is the current NYCB. It seems to me that all modern companies have traded turnout and clean finishes for a bit of speed and it certainly wasn't 40 minutes. I've seen NYCB and a couple of other US companies known for Balanchine do Symphony in C in the last couple of years and none was noticeably quicker than last night. Yes, NYCB is more idiomatic in Balanchine (as you would expect) but the performance I saw was also very sloppy in places. I thought Miami City Ballet were actually better. Last night was perfectly respectable. Campbell and Choe were mismatched in the third movement, and neither really hit the Balanchine aesthetic (for different reasons) but the first two movements were glorious.
  6. No, he wasn't even there. But that doesn't get in the way of him having a Definitive Opinion on the Royal's Balanchine Edit: As helpfully pointed out by others, Macaulay was there - he just didn't notice the actual running time
  7. I know how to behave thank you. You said that you have already tweeted and got no answer. Personally, in a context where a dancer has previously been announced as injured, I would take that as a sign that banging on about it on public message boards is unwelcome and in rather bad taste.
  8. Could you stop speculating about this please. A person’s health is a private matter unless and until they choose to make it public and injury is particularly horrible for dancers.
  9. I think the tone of that press announcement actually indicates they will not be promoted this year. It goes out of its way to explain why non-principals are acceptable substitutes and flags the presence of principals in other roles. Hours of careful drafting behind that effort I imagine..
  10. I wonder whether this may be Bonnelli's final performance in the role, which might explain why that pairing is being given the cinema relay?
  11. (a) that analogy doesn't make sense on any level (b) just don't buy tickets for any more of his performances - problem solved. You're welcome!
  12. I think it is obvious that we are going to divide into those who are very happy to see Hallberg (me included!) and thsoe who don't like him/any guest stars (those people have the perfect right to hold that opinion). Shall we short circuit that debate and agree to differ?
  13. Thanks Richard LH. I see a promotion in O'Sullivan's future. Aurora AND Swanilda!
  • Create New...