Lindsay

It appears that was done at the rehearsal in question - the judgment says Stall Circle boxes had been removed to accommodate the harps - so I imagine the judge took that into account. Wagner-sized orchestras in cramped 19th century opera houses are really very difficult. I recall sitting in row C or D of the right side stalls for one of the Ring operas last time around (though I think it was Siegfried rather than Walkure) and it was far from ideal, as the brass drowned everything else in places. Maybe they should dig down and go for a deeper, raked pit, Bayreuth-style. I know some orchestra members who have long been saying that the late 90s closure was a missed opportunity to rectify the problem - perhaps this will now prompt management to prioritise the issue.

That’s right Ruth - ROH claimed that change as part of their defence and said it cost them over £300k per year in lost revenue. Interestingly the judge was taken to see the pit when it was set up for Giselle (70 players as opposed to over 90 for the Ring) and concluded that it already appeared overcrowded.

I must disagree with you MAB. Artistic standards are important yes, but not more important than human beings. This musician has permanently lost the ability to play. I live in a household of professional musicians, and can tell you that is a tragedy. And yes. Every accused person needs a defence. That is part of living in a civilised country.

Before reaching conclusions on this people might want to look at the full judgment that can be read here: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/goldscheider-v-roh-judgmentL.pdf 83 pages but some interesting points. On the medical evidence, the judge chose to believe the claimant’s expert who attributed injury to “acoustic shock” suffered during one afternoon rehearsal of Die Walkure and found against ROH’s expert doctor (who is 5 years retired) concluding that he was not up to date with latest findings in the field. She was also absolutely clear that the health and safety of employees is a higher duty for the ROH than artistic standards - their failings as an employer included not properly assessing noise levels caused by a new seating layout in the pit (the claimant had the principal trumpeter playing right into the ear that suffered the damage), failing to recognise that rehearsals differ from performances because loud passages may be repeated multiple times and using a cramped pit. The ROH pleaded impossibility of expanding pit by removing the first two rows of seats, citing 6 month’s closure to do the work and £50m losses (why didn’t they do that during the late 90s closure and how does that cost compare to the current project to put in more restaurants one might wonder?) but judge still held that duty to employees came first. Will be interesting to see whether the ROH appeals her decision.

I was lucky enough to get a return but very disappointed when (after a suspiciously long interval) Kevin O’Hare appeared to say that David Hallberg had sustained an injury at the start of Act 1 and could not dance Act 2. Matthew Ball, who had been at home, came in and did a very creditable job of partnering Osipova and danced an excellent solo and the audience showed their appreciation but so devastating for Hallberg to suffer yet more injury problems. And his Act 1 with Osipiva was dramatically thrilling. Really hope that he is recovered in time for their second performance next week.

Are you suggesting the two are not linked?

Like Aileen, I believe I am entitled to an opinion. I was simply wondering why, when there are several other upcoming male dancers available whose classical technique appears to me clearly superior to Ball’s (and I’m not talking about stumbles here - the very best dancers stumble or trip) and who have put in excellent performances in full length classics (James Hay in SB was extraordinary and Sambe in Fille was a revelation) this particular dancer is being given so much exposure. My surmise is that the company likes to promote upcoming British principals in an attempt to replicate the ‘Darcy’ effect. Why, for example, did Hayward receive so much publicity when Takada, Hirano and Campbell were promoted at the same time? All four are excellent dancers but obviously her ‘story’ is considered most likely to resonate with the British public; it certainly does not hurt a dancer’s profile if they have an attractive face and the PR department has their job to do. This is not an attack on anyone - just a statement of an opinion which i believe is reasonable and based on many years of watching ballet. I have very much enjoyed Matthew Ball’s performances in McGregor’s work. But, having now seen him in several full lengths, I do not think he is the company’s best available choice for a classical lead.

I’m with Aileen on this and think Naghdi deserves a much better partner. Naghdi’s technique is irreproachable so, although there is clearly lots more she can and will do with this role once the nerves of a debut have passed, she was never less than compelling to watch. Whereas I really don’t get what O’Hare sees in Matthew Ball - he has a pretty face but his characterisation didn’t really advance beyond plain arrogant and his technique did not stand up well to comparison with the excellent James Hay in the pas de six. In my view, if Hay were taller or Calvin Richardson were British or Marcelino Sambe had not been injured this season, I think any of them could and should rightly have been cast ahead of Ball.

There are many different kinds of snobbery at play in vocational schools - not just MDS/scholarships but also whose parents are artistic/famous/very wealthy as opposed to the boring middle-class plebs. That didn't surprise me. What surprised me was that the staff were sufficiently unprofessional to make their prejudices so obvious.

Sissonne I hope for the sake of the current pupils that you are right. But I don’t think failings that are just “admin-related” are necessarily minor. A failure to keep the very basic paperwork that ISI requires in order suggests a “we know better and boring things like safeguarding rules are beneath us” attitude. Although I note that they took refuge behind a policy technicality in refusing to deal with complaints once the child had left. And as for a teacher in class calling a 14 year old sexy - that would mean dismissal in a state school. Very worrying. If I were a governor I would be asking serious questions of senior management. But given the supply/demand imbalance there is really no motivation for the top schools to reform themselves - the hyper-competitive admissions/assessments culture creates an aura and when your child is one of the “chosen few” it takes a huge amount of courage to rock the boat.

LinMM ballet schools are not state schools so it is the Independent School Inspectorate rather than Ofsted that looks at them. I know from reading ISI reports on schools I am personally familiar with that ISI are utterly ineffectual, skimming only token paperwork and taking at face value the positive sell given to them by senior management. And yet even ISI raised concerns about recruitment and safeguarding procedures at the UK’s most prestigious ballet school in their 2015 report.

Given our family's experience of specialist boarding schools (not ballet) I would go to almost any lengths to find alternative training before allowing a child under the age of 16 to spend time in the 'care' of such an institution. As a minimum, such schools should have a robust principal/director who is not a dancer/musician etc and whose brief is to stand up for the children's interests in the face of the single-mindedness that so often justifies inappropriate behaviour on the part of the artistic staff. I simply do not accept the argument that an abusive atmosphere is necessary in order to achieve elite standards of performance. Parents should never be disdained and talked down to as 'non-experts' and that blog demonstrates a quite incredible level of immaturity and silliness on the part of adults who are in a position of responsibility for vulnerable children.

Actually, British theatre, including at subsidised venues like the National has a long tradition of both male and female full frontal nudity on stage, right from Oh Calcutta! and Hair to Ian McKellen's naked Lear to the male rape scenes in The Romans in Britain (which incident by the way also saw the spectacular collapse of Mary Whitehouse's attempt to bring a civil claim to have the play taken off). Even when nudity/rape scenes might be thought gratuitous, as in the Royal Opera's William Tell, not even critics of the piece were calling for censorship, let alone state censorship. We are long past the days of the Lord Chamberlain's decency rulings. No government in a Western European democratic state these days could simply censor a performance without an absolute outcry from its free press and from its citizens on social media. I am not holding Britain or any other Western European country up as a utopia and of course bigoted attitudes remain amongst individuals and some newspapers, but in all of those countries free speech and LGBT rights are protected under the law. The Russian government on the other hand, after signs of progression with the decriminalisation of homosexuality (although not until 1993 you might wish to note) over the past few years, has passed openly homophobic laws, imprisoned protesters for LGBT rights and can hardly be said to support freedom of speech and expression (cf a number of murdered journalists). Anyone who protests in favour of free speech and LGBT rights in Moscow is brave indeed. I had stopped posting here after some recent incidents, but this kind of sentiment, which is either ignorant, bigoted or both cannot be allowed to stand unopposed.

Mods, I really think this topic should be left alone now. Yes it was a poor piece of writing (whose most egregious elements have now been edited) but we do have freedom of speech in this country and I think this thread is close to turning into harassment itself.

Exeunt has been defending her "brilliant writing" on twitter. I pointed out a couple of less than brilliant phrases plus the nasty ageism and they tweeted back that it was just "online, informal" writing and that they were "not the Sunday Times, nor would they want to be" then promptly deleted their tweets. I would ignore them - they have the right to write whatever they like but their stuff is not sufficiently interesting or well written to garner an audience without 'controversy' driving the page views. Let's not give them the satisfaction.

I have seen at least two Insights in recent years where Puck was coached - the first with James Hay and maybe also Valentino Zucchetti. The second with Marcelino Sambe and someone else as Puck. I think the first of those was in the Linbury and may also have included some work on the pdd or maybe Oberon's solo, since I distinctly remember coming away with new respect for the difficulty of the part. I have a feeling that at least one of those sessions was associated with the run where Polunin was suppose to dance Oberon and then walked out.

Since you asked Penelope, this is truly not about me being 'upset' by prostitution. It is me disliking the rather lazy dramatic cliche of "jolly whores", with groups of women, unnamed characters, presented as mere decorative objects strutting to entertain men. It is a very old-fashioned and somewhat misogynistic device that you very rarely see presented in such an un-nuanced way in modern theatre. It is not that female sex workers shouldn't be portrayed - Manon (and Mitzi Caspar) are properly drawn characters given real choreography through which to express themselves. But the way Macmillan portrays the female corps in Mayerling is one-dimensional with choreography designed only to titillate (the male corps are never asked to wiggle their bottoms at the audience or open their legs suggestively). Of course this kind of 'chorus scene' was more generally acceptable in the 1970s (it was after all the age of Benny Hill chasing bikini-clad models around parks!) but what dismayed me was the realisation that Macmillan's trope still serves as a model for some contemporary choreographers, thereby perpetuating outdated one-dimensional portrayals of women. But unlike some of the protest campaigns you refer to, I was at no point arguing that this ballet should be cut or not staged. I absolutely believe in freedom of speech and of artistic expression. And that also includes the right of each of us to express our responses to a piece of work. Although I enjoyed Mayerling, parts of it made me uncomfortable. It may be there are things I enjoy which you strongly dislike and I would absolutely defend your right to say so and explain why. I hope that I have answered your questions - I don't want to take the discussion any further off topic. Edited to add: I cross posted with Vanartus and agree with much of their post. I don't think I find Macmillan's prostitutes offensive so much as dated and rather wearisome. I am really more dismayed by the same thing appearing in new ballets....

I suppose I consider this a flaw rather than a mere preference because of what it says about women in ballet and the fact that Macmillan's approach is still influencing and being perpetuated by current choreographers. But I don't want to derail this thread onto that issue so I shall say no more on the subject! I am glad that I did not upset you.

Depictions of prostitution don't upset me Penelope, it's simply that I found elements of this particular scene gratuitous. I have said several times that there was much that I enjoy about Mayerling but was also responding to a suggestion from someone upthread that posters might share negative as well as positive responses. It is possible to perceive flaws in a work and still find it interesting. It was not my intention to upset you or anyone else and I'm genuinely sorry if I have done so.

Seedy netherworlds can be subtle and interesting too. I suspect this issue is just a matter of differing tastes though and am happy for people to return to discussing the performances.

Indeed we shall. Each to their own....

But why does that distinction need to be made? We get Mitzi's status from her relaxed and friendly relationship with the Hungarian officers and we get that Rudolf is mixing in a seedy netherworld. That could all happen against a background of drinkers, gamblers and girls dressed in similar costumes to Mitzi. We don't need the visual equivalent of a Viennese prostitution price list to advance the story. I'm sorry but I really think all that open-legged, crudely suggestive choreography is gratuitous.

I still don't see why it should be necessary to add a curly-haired "whore chorus". Mitzi's costume and the choreography she is given are sufficient to mark her profession and make a distinction between her and the 'respectable' court ladies. Why have the corps dressed so suggestively and have them engage in far lewder choreography than that given to Mitzi? It would surely have been sufficient, if a 'crowd scene' were really needed here, to use less cartoonishly titillating costumes and more subtle choreography?

Thanks Josephine. I was really referring to the music hall dancers in Sweet Violet, who looked far more glamorous and healthy than I would expect if we were supposed to see them as downtrodden. In addition, I don't think they were given very much to do choreographically - I only saw this ballet once when it was first staged a few years ago, but recall them mostly standing around in Degas-like poses - apologies if my recollection is patchy. I agree that in the asylum and other scenes, the women had an important dramatic role.

Absolutely Shakespeare did not invent R&J but, in many key respects, Prokofiev's music and Macmillan's ballet follows his telling of the story. And Prokofiev was of course specifically writing (not always willingly and amidst many disputes with the Soviet authorities) for a ballet version of the story, where a stager might equally have wanted to use the corps de ballet. Some musicologists have discussed Prokofiev's desire to add a happy ending, which would have made for very interesting discussinos.... As you say BBB, this is somewhat off topic, but I think it is relevant to ongoing debates about dramatic structure and pacing in new narrative ballet. As I said way up thread, despite some parts feeling a little dated, I still think that Mayerling holds together much more strongly than many recent works.