Lindsay

I saw the Saturday matinee (so all three ballets) and thought this was interesting programming for a triple bill. Rhapsody, for me, is a very pretty and technically tricky ballet but without much more of interest. James Hay was very clean and I was extremely impressed by Francesca Hayward, particularly her Ashtonian use of the upper body. The company also looked strong and in unison - good casting using many of the younger, and perhaps more technically impressive, dancers. The McGregor, I thought, was one of his better efforts. It didn't have the immediate emotional impact of Chroma or Infra but it is the sort of piece which I think will bear repeated viewings. The geometrical backdrops made me look in different way at the shapes the dancers were making - very clearly etched through some excellent performances - and once you start noticing all the triangles of legs and arms and the speedy reconfigurations of patterns it becomes fascinating. A shame that the evening crowd did not get to see it. Gloria is a nice enough piece and Melissa Hamilton and Edward Watson were lovely. I think this is the sort of triple that the Royal "should" be doing - nicely performed mid-century classics for the traditionalists (all of those I heard clucking disapprovingly about the McGregor being "a waste of beautiful dancers" in the intervals) with just enough challenge in the McGregor for those who like a bit of thinking with their ballet. However, having been to see Pina Bausch's 1980 at Sadler's Wells on the Friday, it seemed like rather thin fare. I would recommend that all regular dance-watchers should try and see some Pina as a good way of calibrating one's judgment as to what a really thoughtful, intense and moving dance piece can feel like....

I agree that Carlos is the biggest name of them all, and the only one likely to be known to first-time or very occasional ballet goers. However, I suspect there is an intermediate category of those taking an intermittent interest who will know Tamara and Alina's names, from Sunday supplement articles if nowhere else. And of course, Daria and Vadim had their profile raised by the documentary series.

I think it is wholly unfair to criticise Tamara for "giving herself the lion's share" of performances. She has been one of the most noted Juliets of recent years, often in partnership with Carlos. If there were another director in charge it would be considered bizarre in the extreme if he/she did not cast her in a good number of performances. Although I agree that ENB has some very interesting up-and-coming dancers which I love to watch, they are also a business which needs to make money and it makes total sense to me that the Albert Hall runs (which are undoubtedly their "cash cows" for the season) should be headlined by their three most well-known ballerinas/partnerships. I don't think people can say that their younger dancers haven't been given a fair crack of the whip through the Nutracker/Corsaire runs.

That may well be Rosy and is very regrettable, but it is no argument for paying other people less than the living wage. Also I doubt it is the case for the dancers employed by the ROH. This should not be a race to the bottom. I often think dancers would benefit from a stronger union, like that for musicians.

Thank you bloomsbury, it's good to know other people feel like this and I like your idea of donating to the Union fund rather than ROH. Alison, I couldn't agree with you more. My council (Islington) in June last year brought all of their street cleaning and recycling services back in house from contractors and are now paying all of the employees who work in those areas the London living wage. As they are no longer factoring in a profit for the third party contractor this has actually saved the council (and council tax payers) money, rather than adding cost. I wish more councils and businesses would do the same!

Apologies if this has been discussed before (I have looked but can't find it). As I know that many ROH regulars use this board I thought people might be interested to know that the cleaners at the ROH are paid £7 an hour, which is less than the London living wage of £8.80 an hour. As some of you may know, £7 just about complies with the legal minimum wage but is generally considered insufficient to cover living costs in London and many businesses and London councils are making a point of branding themselves as "London living wage" employers. The ROH is saying that, as the cleaners are employed via a sub-contractor and not directly, it is not their problem but, as a patron, I think this is a wholly inadequate response and have emailed to tell them so. It would be good if anyone who agrees with me might think about doing the same. See below for various reporting on this: Iin the Mirror (Scroll down to the section headed "Points of Disorder") http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kevin-maguire-ed-balls-flirting-3016457 From the Stage, regarding threatened strike action during the BAFTAs, which the ROH declared they would "strikebreak" http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2014/01/roh-cleaners-strike-baftas/ On Norman LeBrecht's music blog - plus comments below the article http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2014/01/royal-opera-house-threatened-by-cleaners-strike.html Thank you Lindsay

Alison, I'm not blaming the moderators for the lack of such discussion. I'm simply saying that any attempt to be critical or in any way challenging on here is usually greeted by an outraged chorus of "but I know what I like and you can't stop me liking it!!", kneejerk defences of people's pet favourites and accusations of being patronising or hostile. Another reason I haven't posted here in a very long time is that my last contribution was promptly taken down for being "political". Why anyone thinks dance can or should only be discussed in separation from the real world is beyond me but I am not intending to reopen that discussion. What I am doing is pleading for tolerant acceptance of divergent opinions and for thoughtful discussion without things being taken personally. It wasn't aimed at you or anyone else in particular. Just a general desire

No, I was away and missed SFB on their last visit. In terms of ballet, as opposed to contemporary, the three standout pieces for me in the past year or two have been Petite Mort at ENB (I think I've already banged on about how much I like Kylian....), Royal Ballet of Flanders doing Artifact at Sadler's Wells and Edward Watson's first night in the last run of Mayerling at the Opera House. Of course I don't see nearly as much as professional critics so there's probably loads of stuff I've missed which I would have loved.

Aileen, don't worry I didn't think you were having a go at all. And it's not just modern choreography I like - although I agree you with that "warmth", in the sense of the audience feeling that a dancer is projecting a character out to them, is perhaps easier to achieve in a narrative ballet with a clear character arc rather than a work which tends to be abstract. And LinMM you don't have to apologise for liking Fille - I think Ashton's choreography is inspired and witty! It's not simply a case of tutu=bad/tiny flesh coloured pants=good or even 19th century=bad/21st century=good for me. It's a combination of the choreography, music, dancing, production, setting and costumes and, more importantly, a sense of the creative thinking which brings all those things together which forms the basis of a ballet's appeal or otherwise.

Yes Aileen, people often say that about Tamara - though of course it works well for her when it comes to the Black Swan pas de deux and she can be very affecting in more naturalistic 20th century ballets, like R&J. I'm afraid that I am not the right person to discuss Raymonda. I saw both the Royal and ENB versions last season (because there were other ballets on the bills I wanted to see) and found the setting, costumes and choreography so inherently ridiculous in both cases and the music so comically "ordered by the yard" that it was hard for me to think of it as anything more than a technical display. But I accept that is, to a large degree, my personal preference (or anti-preference in this case) blinding me to the nuances of characterisation. I will be very interested to see Elena dance in other productions as she does seem to be a favourite with lots of people.

Unfortunately I was (just!) a bit too young to see her live Mijosh, but did she make a recording of Giselle with Nureyev? If so, I think the very battered video tape of that was my first introduction to ballet and I remember it for the incredible warmth and liveliness she projected in the first act and how sad she made the mad scene.

But the whole point Dave is that there IS no 'right way' to watch ballet. Everyone focuses on what is important to them, and it sounds as though musicality is the thing which you notice the most, so I would guess you are drawn to musical dancers rather than those who have particularly high extensions or jumps or are amazing turners. And that is a perfectly valid opinion (although of course the two can often go together). I suspect most of us here have had no training - I certainly haven't and in fact have no exposure to "expert commentary" or examples other than what I've found for free online on message boards, newspaper reviews and comments pages and youtube. That is open to everyone with a broadband connection. Anyone is capable of hearing a body of opinion (by professional critics or otherwise) about a particular dancer and then going to investigate, whether through youtube or live performance, to see whether they agree with what is being said. The more you watch, the more you can see subtle differences in performance and begin to understand and explain your own preferences. It is simply a case of having the courage of your own convictions and not worrying about being "wrong". I would be very interested to hear which dancers you and bangorballetboy thought had technical brilliance but lacked life in their performance? I am trying to remember which dancers have been lauded in London as technically excellent in recent years and am thinking of the likes of Cojocaru, Rojo, Nunez, Muntagirov, Polunin, McRae, Osipova etc. and I personally don't think of any of them as "dull and lifeless". Maybe you are thinking of dancers with visiting companies? As I said before, I am genuinely interested in hearing and discussing other people's opinions and think we can do so on a detailed level, rather than simply making sweeping statements, without being in the least disrespectful to the dancers in question or to each other.

Thank you Angela and Stuchi. I must confess that, while in no way underestimating the very hard work moderators do on this board, I do miss some of the intense discussions on the old ballet co board several years back, which were very important to me (mainly as a reader and occasional contributor) in developing my own ideas about ballet. I think many of us owe Bruce a debt of gratitude for that. It is perfectly possible to be critical without being disloyal to a favourite company or to fellow posters and I wonder whether the seeming need for consensus on this board in recent times is closely related to what I would consider a rather dull cautious creative policy at the RB, which remains the company most discussed. I don't throw opinions out there simply to upset people but because I am interested in debating them in order to test the weak spots in my thinking. It would be nice if that kind of debate could happen here more often.

In fact it was a 25 minute overrun tonight as they were having problems with the scenery rails and started late. On the upside Sadler's Wells does great banana cake and I would like to nominate Ian Mackay as the next James Bond. The man sure can work evening dress with panache...

chrischris, I did not intend to be patronising and as I said in my last post, everyone has a right to form an opinion, just as you have formed yours. But it is simply wrong to deny that people who have been watching ballet for years and made an effort to learn about it or are advanced students with professional training will see it differently to newcomers. And it is great that you enjoyed Choe's performance. She is indeed a graceful dancer but (assuming you saw the same performance as I did) she didn't finish the fouette series at the end of her variation. If you had seen that variation properly performed before then you might have felt shortchanged by that, since it broke the link between the climax of the musical phrase and the culmination of the fouette series. And although I don't mind the odd mishap, when I pay to see a top company and the performance is full of them then I'm afraid that I don't find it endearing. As MAB says, though it is still possible to enjoy a performance despite mishaps, this doesn't mean you cannot at the same time wish for a higher standard. It is all part of the interest of ballet watching. Edited to add: I think that some youtube viewing (despite the limitations of that medium) of variations before seeing live performance can make for an enhanced audience experience, since you can interpret the dancer's performance against some expectations. I have refrained from drawing attention to this thus far but, related to the original subject of this discussion, there are also some fascinating direct comparisons to be made on youtube of Cojocaru performing Aurora's variations versus various other dancers who were seemingly preferred to her in casting. A while ago the Guardian used to have a lively "salon" in the comments section where people discussed different interpretations via videos and I thought that was an incredibly interesting resource for the semi-ballet-literate viewer.

Janet, don't put yourself down - you clearly know LOTS about ballet and dance! All that is required is eyes, ears and an open mind. And ideally a willingness to think a bit about what you see and articulate why it makes you feel the way it does. It's clear from your comments over the years that you have all of those things! People do not need to be "experts" to have an opinion - the only barrier to a proper debate in forums like this is when people become narrow minded or defensive and don't accept that there can be a range of responses to the same work. I am perfectly willing to accept that many posters like works that I do not and vice versa. The only thing which I find irritating is kneejerk reactions to defend the status quo and an unwillingness to contemplate trying new things. Nobody should feel threatened or put down by rational debate.

I didn't say they were, but I have yet to see a comment on twitter made to or about any of the dancers who tweet which is less than adulatory or chummily excited. And most of the ballet blogs have nothing but praise and interviews about what they eat for breakfast and how they prepare their pointe shoes. I should add that I appreciate it is difficult to maintain critical distance when you know, or feel you know, personally the people involved. I am married to a professional performer and understand that it takes a conscious effort to stand back and evaluate his work and that of his friends in the same way as I would a third party. But it can be done.

Yes, fair point BBB. Although, I am still recovering from my disappointment over his involvement in the mess that was the Titian/Metamorphosis programme.

Sorry Dave - couldn't resist that one. I am trying very hard to be polite.

I have enjoyed some of the McGregor at the Opera House, particularly Infra and Chroma. Sometimes Wheeldon when he is not doing narrative, especially Polyphonia because I love Ligeti's music (although I think that was made for NYCB and only later performed by the Royal). But besides that I don't think the RB has commissioned anything to touch the recent work of Akram Khan or Russell Maliphant. And although it's not so new any more, I am always very happy to see early Forsythe done anywhere - it's been a while now since the RB have touched this which I think is a shame. I often find Mark Morris' work interesting and, as I said before, am very happy that Tamara is programming Kylian, Bejart et al at ENB. I think it would be interesting to breakdown the stats of new commissions during the Mason era and see how they were distributed amongst choreographers. I think we might find they are dominated by McGregor and Wheeldon, with a smattering of "safe" home choreographers like Tuckett, Marriott and Scarlett. I am struggling to think of many outsiders who were given a try - except for Mrozewski who made Castle Nowhere. I would also be interested to know whether the "Draft Works" produced by company dancers are included in those statistics - I presume not. I also think they could have used Cathy Marston more - I recall her doing some interesting stuff in the Linbury in the early 2000s, but maybe she was too busy at Bern.

Thanks Ian. A nice article that goes some way towards dispelling the myth that new work never sells. Whenever I've seen SFB in London, at Sadler's Wells (or I seem to recall at the Opera House one summer soon after it reopened) the theatre has been full or nearly full and enthusiastic. Jenny, as I've said before you are free to like what you like and your tastes are certainly well provided for at the ROH. And if people enjoy interacting with the dancers that is lovely for them and can be a very intelligent promotional tool for modern companies. But to me it is more interesting (and respectful of artists) to view the work produced from a evaluative and critical perspective rather than simply as fans. Otherwise you might as well follow One Direction. Without new works, ballet will become frozen in time- a dead art form performing only old ideas. It would be as if everyone had stopped writing plays after Shakespeare. Which is not to say that Shakespeare isn't great and that it's exciting for people to see it, but it's important for the audience and crucial for the dancers, that the art form has an ongoing vitality. I also think new work should try and be something which is specific to ballet/dance. My problem with Alice was that it was the kind of glossy, expensive show which is done so much more professionally and with more wit in the West End.

Ask any professional contemporary dancers whether it is easy to find salaried work and I promise you will receive a hollow laugh. Although it may appear different at student level, I can assure you that the vast majority of funding (and permanent jobs) go to the four ballet companies. If you doubt it I can dig out the breakdown from the last Arts Council funding round. And Disney provides an entry point for little girls to cinema, but there is still room for Scorsese, Coppola, woody Allen, the Coen brothers, Tarantino and David Lynch in the industry. I'd like to think that ballet can be for grown-ups too.

Of course everyone has their particular favourites Spanner, but at the same time it cannot be wrong to apply some objective standards to dancers. To give an extreme example, most people would I think agree that Carlos Acosta is a better dancer than John Sergeant. To return to the original topic, I am not alone in thinking that Cojocaru has a special quality which renders her quite out of the ordinary as a dancer. If that were not the case, then ballet companies all over the world would not be rushing to secure her services and critics would not be in such general agreement about her performances. There are objective reasons I could point to for this beyond personal preferences: her exceptional balance, musicality and the plasticity and "flow" of her movement would just be a few. I'm sure others could find more. The point I am making is that not all dancers are equal (however nice it would be to imagine such a thing). There is of course much room for dispute/lively debate about particular qualities, suitability for roles and personal preferences. However, there are some talents, like that of Cojocaru, which are so self-evident that for a company director to have them at their disposal and not use them represents a significant failure of judgment...

MAB, I was deliberately trying to avoid personal attacks, by naming only those dancers about whom I had something positive to say. I have criticised nobody by name (save for one qualified comment on McRae in an earlier post). It is difficult to explain what I was talking about without some examples. And surely it is acceptable to name companies.

Aileen, I take your point that subtle technical issues are more obvious to the expert eye and will not necessarily be seen by the occasional ballet-goer. However, I do think there is an "aura" about a great dancer who is fully on top of their technique and able to project to their audience. The occasional ballet-goer may not understand why that dancer is "different" or "special" but they can feel it. Nunez has "it". Osipova in her own way has it. Acosta has it in spades. Of the other principals at Royal, McRae and Zanowsky for me come closest. Such dancers are rare indeed and I think ENB currently has three, in Rojo, Cojocaru and Muntagirov. Below that level there is the competent principal and soloist, who can make the audience feel secure in their technical performance but without any particular projection or brilliance. There are several principals at the RB who fall into this category. Unfortunately the RB also sends out soloists (of various ranks) who are less secure and it can be anxiety-inducing to watch them. Although an inexpert audience may not appreciate when they are seeing excellent technique, they will notice obvious mishaps. It is all very well to say (as some do - I'm not pointing at you in particular) that the Royal's style is all about characterisation and that they do not try to emulate the show-off technical fireworks of the Russian companies, but a sloppy technique (as opposed to the occasional slip when a dancer is really going for it) can undermine a lot of good acting. At the level of top international companies a certain level of technique should be taken as a given. And yes, of the companies I have seen in the past couple of years, I think there was more technical depth at POB or ABT or NYCB or the Bolshoi or Vienna or ABT. And Fonteyn22: That's just not true. The critics took Acosta's Don Q very seriously, although they didn't all like it. I don't think Clement Crisp's review was based on its lack of edginess!!