Lindsay

I absolutely agree with Floss's point that the RB is (and rightly so) accountable for its spending of a huge amount of public money. She is also correct to state that is 'perceived' as elitist and, as someone who has sat all over the house for many years, I would say that the tag is not wholly undeserved. For both ballet and opera, I have encountered and overheard (particularly in the Grand Tier and the Stalls) some of the worst and rudest snobbishness I have ever experienced. Of course this is NOT the case for everybody present and the comment is NOT directed at anyone here, but it is certainly something which gives me pause before taking non-ballet/opera friends to a performance. And before anyone advises me to stick to the amphi or SCS, I absolutely accept that there is less risk of such behaviour there, but these days I prefer to go to fewer performances and splash out for a seat with a better view.

Further to my comments on another thread about casting principals in "supporting roles", I remembered this truly beautiful performance by Yanowsky as the Rose Fairy and was pleased to track it down on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQZV0D196jI&list=PLF5B477B4D11DDD61&index=16 She is such a fluid dancer and I really wish we could see her do this again. Not to speak of some pretty good casting all around there - with Cojocaru as Clara and Nunez among the leading flowers...........

Yes Nina, but they have subsequently issued a further update http://www.roh.org.uk/news/cast-changes-the-nutcracker-on-12-16-and-17-december-2015 (and not changed the cast sheet............)

Update - latest casting for tomorrow seems to be Kish as the prince so I imagine both Golding and Bonnelli must be injured. RB are not having the best luck this autumn in terms of healthy principals............

If you go onto the ROH site you can buy a free digital programme using the code FREENUT and the full cast sheet should appear there (it wasn't complete this morning but they may get around to it sometime before tomorrow night)

I think there is a false binary being drawn here between "ballets about issues" and "escapist" ballets. There are ballets from all dates/all styles/all types of music/tutu to vest-and-pants that convey "truths" of some kind. Romeo and Juliet is about the dangers of tribal loyalties and antagonisms, Infra is about isolation in modern urban life, Giselle is about truth and trust and love. The ballets that find a truth (by which I mean convey it successfully through choreography and staging, not just act out a theme or story) that resonates with the audience tend to work and remain in the repertory, those that don't, do not. To think about "relevant" ballets only in terms of dealing with particular issues in a narrative way misses the whole point of "art". That is what newspapers are for. Art is to make us think about things in a way which is less straightforward.

That's interesting MAB. Rather than being unable to understand, I always thought that CC was being deliberately obtuse and simply refusing to recognise intent in any work which is not to his (narrow and conservative) taste. But I agree with you that his reviews of much contemporary work are a disgraceful abuse of his position.

You're right DaveM, I think it was on a mixed bill with the Firebird 5 or 6 years ago. I think it was one of the years Cojocaru was injured as I seem to recall she was scheduled to dance it but Yuhui did it instead.

Mary - Paris Opera Ballet still do the Nureyev Nutcracker/Caisse Noisette with the tortured version of the Grande Pas - there are a couple of versions on youtube. Myriam Ould-Braham has a very credible stab at the thankless choreography. Thank you to whoever found the RB Sleeping Beauty - some great performances in there and I do take the point about pace and fast footwork. One of the first ballets I ever saw was Collier's Giselle and she was astonishing. However, I would say that I think the issue is not as one dimensional as the (seemingly inevitable in such discussions) focus on the length of Rose Adage balances would suggest. I have seen Cojocaru perform that with long balances without losing character for one second or making the audience nervous. Although I agree that such practices should not be emulated by those whose balance is less secure. However, a ballet is much more than its "headline" moments and there are parts of that 1970s performance which I'm sure the dancers concerned would wish to forget and the audience at the time were not happy with. For example, I would far rather see Marianela Nunez dance the Lilac Fairy variation than Porter's effort. There are things from the past which we should value and try to emulate and other things which can be improved upon. My wish for today's RB is for slightly less "equitable" or "novelty" casting and a recognition that audiences at EVERY performance deserve dancers who are able and READY to perform a role. So if you can't find a reliable lilac fairy/queen of the wilis for every performance, rather than letting 3 or 4 soloists or artists "have a go", cast another principal. I still don't understand why Nunez, Morera, Yanowsky or even Lamb (who certainly has the technical chops for it) couldn't have danced Myrthe in the last run of Giselle. Is it really beneath the dignity of a ballerina who dances Giselle to dance Myrthe also? I absolutely agree that soloists, or even artists, who are clearly ready and prove themselves in rehearsal should get a chance at principal roles (as Hayward and Naghdi proved so well with Manon (in H's case) and Juliet) but I think the cases where they are truly ready are quite rare.

For those (a minority here) who disliked the Two Pigeons revival, Ismene Brown offers us some support: http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/is-twitter-now-in-charge-of-the-royal-ballets-artistic-programming/

It is from the Orlando act of Woolf works

Yes, it's about context and I think the difference is in part that the Sugar Plum in that picture has agency, is in control and is not being manipulated/(di)splayed by a partner. Anna, I agree that McGregor was extremely rude and seemed to think he could dictate to the audience what they should see. I was sceptical too about his claims to collaborative co-creation if that is the way he reacts to critical ideas (although I would question in any case the likelihood of any meaningful disagreement from dancers who want to be cast in his works). And I don't recall his choreographic credits ever being shared - his name is always firmly above the title. Which isn't to say that I don't like McGregor's work - much of it is interesting and Woolf Works was the best new thing I saw last year and, for me, best new creation at the ROH in a very long time. But a bit of self-reflection and listening to criticism never harmed any creative artist. "Cosiness" isn't healthy for an art form. Which I think also links to the points made in Joseph Carman's article on choreographers for Dance Magazine: http://dancemagazine.com/inside-dm/ballets-boys-club/

In light of this discussion, what do people think of the shot the ROH have selected to lead this year's Nutcracker advertising? http://www.roh.org.uk/showings/the-nutcracker-recorded-2009

haha Quintus. Stop rigging the game for the only possible winner on that basis..........

Ann, are you saying that sub-text can only exist if the author says it does? That would cause some issues for Shakespearean scholarship and you might want to tell Tamara Rojo to stop analysing Swan Lake.

You're absolutely right Floss, but I would say that performance practice in older works is exactly the area of ballet where there is an ongoing healthy discussion - see for example Ratmansky's "restoration" of an "authentic" Sleeping Beauty, and all the surrounding debate on what "authenticity" means, (whether it is the way the steps should be danced as well as the steps themselves, whether ballerinas should be doing huge extensions as Aurora, whose version should we take as "original", what is the evidence for discovering exact steps danced before the era of filmed performance etc etc.) It's a fascinating discussion, paralleling the Historically Informed Performance (HIP) movement in early music (e.g. the argument that Bach, Mozart - and for some people anyone before Beethoven - should not be performed on modern instruments, finding evidence for the tempo of performances before metronome marks were regularly given). I am very happy to see that discussion happening in ballet.

Haha - the first episode has the company director ranting about patrons who like prosecco and proclaiming: "We will serve Veuve Cliquot at this Gala if I have to give blowjobs on the corner to pay for it!" I can see where your friend is coming from A frog. It's Footballer's Wives in pointe shoes.

To be fair to Kavanagh, she uses Ashton's own letters, rather than gossip. Actually to the point of tedium - I couldn't get through the lengthy quotes from his various missives to objects of his affection. But I absolutely agree with you that the whole Fonteyn/Nureyev affair debate is exceedingly boring and irrelevant.

Thinking further about this whole discussion, I think it turns on whether ballet merits serious consideration and analysis (of the kind that music, theatre, writing and contemporary dance enjoys) including of its historical, social and political context. I would say that discussing ballet in that way is a mark of respect for its creators and practitioners - thinking of their work as a serious art form rather than simply something 'safe', 'innocent' and escapist that one takes the children to see at Christmas. But I would reiterate, that this should not be seen as a threat to anyone who simply wants to enjoy ballet in an escapist way. There is nothing preventing you from doing so!

Not much evidence of Tchaikovsky discussing his sexuality with the orchestras premiering his works either but there is a pretty large body of analytical writing which discusses its impact on his work. Authorial intent doesn't need to be express, or even consciously known to the creator. It can however be an interesting way of thinking about a work. And no one is being MADE to think about it that way. I can't see why the fact that others might be interested in doing so should ruin the work for anybody.

I agree Sarah - a healthy argument does an interesting message board make (although I would always rather it was rational and reasonable rather than rude and personal)

Hi Alison, I don't think Cranko ever suggested an openly gay plot but after he was arrested for soliciting he was persona non grata with the ROH board which was when he moved to Germany. In my humble opinion a huge loss for the RB

I agree with you about the sub-text Douglas. After Cranko's banishment, no choreographer was going to risk even suggesting an openly gay theme to the ROH. In fact, now I come to think of it, they still don't, which is quite remarkable given the happy acceptance of so many openly gay dancers. The disconnect between ballet and its audience is very strange sometimes. However, I do still take issue with the choice of gypsies to symbolise the dangerous and abusive "other" lifestyle. It's a cheap and lazy stereotype.

I think it's really mean-spirited to complain about someone else taking a seat which is free. Unless they are 6 foot 5 and blocking your view (which could have happened anyway if the performance was sold out) why begrudge them a lucky bonus?

Patineurs was done in the Christmas seasons of 2009/10 and 2010/11. I remember going to an insight on the pas de deux. And it must have been with Beatrix Potter because the other half of the insight was the Squirrel dance. I quite like Patineurs - and I think the blue boy role suited McRae's style and stage persona better than anything else I've seen him in. But I agree that not all of the roles were brilliantly performed that season