Lindsay

Hamilton is a very striking dance actress - she’s great in the Macmillan roles as well as making her beautifully dramatic shapes for McGregor. But I wouldn’t say her classical technique is reliable enough to carry the lead in a full length 19th century ballet. Although, to be fair, I’m not sure I have seen her dance a classical solo since she returned from Dresden so her experience in lead roles there may have helped?

Yes. It's such a shame that Kaneko has missed so much time due to injury - a couple of seasons ago, when she did Kitri and the Gypsy Girl in the Two Pigeons, I really thought that she looked very ready for more big opportunities.

I would very much like to see O'Sullivan as Aurora. I think Calvert is an excellent soloist in the "Monica Mason" roles (Lilac Fairy, Myrthe and so on) - she gives them gravity and presence and her technique is generally secure. But I don't find her exciting in the same way I do some of the other dancers - to be a principal you have to compel the audience's attention across 3 or 4 acts and that takes a special kind of something . Watching (or having watched) Osipova or Nunez or Cojocaru or Rojo or Guillem or Benjamin, I never wonder for a moment whether they can execute the steps - even if they make a mistake it doesn't matter - they take risks and it's exciting to see what they will do next. There is no sign of the work involved. I think someone should already be at that level, or very close to it, to become a principal. Hayward, Takada and Naghdi all pass that test. There are lots of really excellent dancers who never quite achieve that benchmark. (Of course people who fell short have been made principals in the past and your personal preferences may vary etc etc)

It’s Mama Mia and 42nd Street that cause me the most pavement-weaving

Interesting Capybara. I did find myself noticing Joonhyuk Jun in the Swan Lake corps - he has lovely elevation. Hope that he gets taken on as an Artist next season!

You might also want to read Monica Loughman's book about studying at Perm - she was there a long time ago but I don't think culture changes fast in ballet schools..............

Indeed. Remember Ansanelli or Pennefather? Directors need options

I suppose because you only pay them for so long as they dance? And you also have a slot you know will be available in a few years for junior dancers entering the company. It can only help with recruitment and retention of the very best young dancers if they can see there is likely to be “room at the top” in a few years - a logjam is good for neither companies nor audiences

Good point Xandra, but I wouldn’t necessarily take current rank as a reflection of how people’s future prospects are regarded. There is a fair degree of congestion in the soloist ranks, especially on the female side, by dancers promoted many years ago who now dance classical solos far less frequently than those of a technically lower rank. And there is precedent for late promotion to principal - how old was Hirano when he got the call? And Morera was in the company 12 years before becoming a principal.

Very good point! Yes, the male pipeline may be at bursting point.........

(Intended purely as light-hearted wondering and not as criticism as any dancer or directors past or present!), having now seen a few Swan Lakes and reflected back on this season and last, I was thinking about the great range of upcoming talent within the RB and the promotion decisions that will have to be made over the next few years as older principals retire. That led to me looking at the current ranks for realistic prospects as future principals, thinking in terms of their classical technique, stage presence, reliability when given opportunities and that unmeasurable 'star quality'. Big caveats - of course there are many other dancers who are/will be excellent soloists, or outstanding in contemporary/character roles and there may be people who through injury or otherwise haven't yet shown what they can really do, but (in my fantasy lunchtime land where I get to be AD) I would see the pipeline as below. And I got to thinking that if the future principal ranks are made up of names like these that is a company that I will be very happy to watch well into the next decade! Males: Current First Soloists: Ball, Hay, Sambe Current Soloists: Bracewell, Clarke Current First Artists: Richardson, Yudes Current Artists: Sissens Females: Current Soloists: Kaneko, Magri, O'Sullivan Current First Artists: Gasparini Anyone else enjoy playing Fantasy Ballet? I know it's an art not a sport - I am a little bored today and being facetious :)

haha thanks capybara - I shall peep carefully around corners to avoid inadvertently advancing on an incoming lens (not a Russian gala this time but Osipova IS due to perform so you never know...)

I don’t suppose anyone has any insight into running order for tonight? Hoping for a miracle whereby everything I particularly want to see is in the first half. Otherwise pondering the return of my ticket...

Intervals were pretty short - 25 and 20 minutes. I'm afraid I didn't notice the finishing time though - sorry

Also, did anyone else think that Von Rothbart's prowling around the widowed Queen at the court and making her son angry was supposed to evoke Hamlet?

Agree with the general sentiments. Still not sure I forgive Liam Scarlett for the time I spent sitting through Frankenstein and Age of Anxiety, but this goes a very long way towards making up for it. My principal thought on the evening was that Muntagirov is really something very special these days. I thought he must already be at the height of his powers, but that Act III variation was just phenomenonal. Couldn't be a tougher act to follow for the rest of the Siegfrieds. We are very lucky to have him in London. The starry first night casting worked magnificently - irreproachable performances in the pd3, the swan variations were very clean (Magri is a standout - surely a future Odette) and some excellent dancing in Act 3. Some of the supporting cast choreography is pretty tricky - Benno's Act I variation has a series of tours on the diagonal similar to that in the Prince's Act III variation. Campbell executed very neatly last night but will be interesting to see how that goes throughout the run. The whole production is really for a company dancing at the top level with strength in depth - it would be exposing of any deficiencies in technique. Agree that Tchaikovsky's waltzes are interminable but I thought Scarlett did a decent job of breaking it up with mini-solos for Benno and the Prince and sections for the four leading couples. I also loved the Act 1 designs and my only quibble with the set was that it felt a bit tight and constraining at times - but perhaps spacing will get better once the ballet has more stage time. If I were to be really picky, I wasn't quite so wowed by the swan acts as I had expected - I was in the front amphi last night so could see patterns and it never really felt that the corps were dominating the stage - it all looked just a bit empty, with the first entrance only taking the line of swans half way across the stage, and no dry ice covering the bare floor. But perhaps the impression would be different from other parts of the house. But this is a very assured, traditional and glamorous production (the back of Odile's tutu must be seen to be believed - Natalie Portman eat your heart out) and I look forward to seeing what some of the other casts do with it throughout the run.

I comprehend the point being made entirely. And I disagree with it. I don’t think that in a civilised society serious and avoidable injuries are acceptable “occupational hazards” any more than asbestos poisoning or emphysema are acceptable. The end does not justify the means. Wagner himself would be amazed (and probably appalled) by the volume at which his works are now played on modern instruments, disrupting the balance between singers and orchestra. The 2002 and 2007 Ring cycles were performed with a different orchestral seating arrangement (the violas not in front of the brass) without any noticeable criticism of the playing. It would have been possible to rehearse and perform the 2012 cycle in the same way without noticeable deterioration in artistic quality and if that had been the case, or if the new arrangement had been abandoned after the first rehearsal where more than one viola player complained, this injury would not have occurred. So the conclusion you draw is hyperbolic and not in fact logical. It is entirely possible for the ROH to make adaptations to ensure safety of its employees with minimal (if any) impact on artistic quality.

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the meaning of “out of context” MAB. That is when quotations imply a different meaning from the author’s original intention. My quotations retained entirely the meaning of Miss Monk’s comment. She said the musician in question should “suck it up”. She said the lawsuit was “lame”. Playing in a high school orchestra, or even being a professional musician, does not somehow place one above logical debate. Although I am of course sympathetic to anyone who has suffered hearing loss, I find it surprising that such a person would have no empathy for someone who has suffered an even more serious injury. I can only surmise that she had not read all the details or understood the extent of the injury and its effects in this case.

I quoted Miss Monk’s words exactly. Hence the quotation marks. The rest of my post is factual and taken from the judgment, a document of public record. How is that misinterpretation?

MissMonk - so you think a professional musician who has lost all music from his life, who struggled to try to get back to work until the medical experts agreed he could no longer play and who can’t teach because he’s unable to even listen to music should “suck it up”? You think it’s “lame” to pursue a claim against an employer who had a clear duty under the law to protect his health and who could have done so by assessing the risk properly and taking steps to reduce it? That’s nice

Thanks SheilaC - that interesting. The Cleaners' Union (CAIWU) announced in January 2018 that Kier-employed cleaners at the ROH would get the London Living Wage backdated to Nov 2017. But I see there is a report that cleaners sub-contracted by Mitie to the ROH won that right in 2014 - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-opera-house-living-wage-3119205 It seems rather outside the spirit of the thing if the House publicly announced its commitment to the LLW for Mitie workers and then went on to sub-contract with Kier who did not honour any such commitment until this year.

Customers of outsourcers do have a role in setting wages Capybara. They can make it a term of their contract with the service provider that employees receive a living wage. Several London councils have now adopted this policy for all their contractors.

Attracting attention is really the whole point of protesting. I understand that the ROH did switch to the London living wage for its cleaners in January but that some of those who had agitated to get it were then fired upon what appeared to be very slight pretexts. That appears to be the basis of the current protest.

Because they have been ignored and victimised by their employer (the outsourcer/subcontractor) for daring to request a living wage and the ROH, as a big customer of their employer, is in a better position to exert pressure on their behalf.

They've been doing it since the 90s at least. We used to meet friends in Cafe des Amis on Hanover Place and during a long run (especially Nutcracker!) the bar staff would know exactly when to start pouring pints in anticipation of a sectional arrival.