Lindsay

Fonteyn22: I'm surprised that you think of this as a concept applied only to ballet.  Yes, publishers look for books which are "edgy" or "groundbreaking", or whatever terms you care to use for something which attempts to explore new ideas or techniques.  A cursory knowledge of BritArt should tell you that the concept of drastic innovation is perhaps only too well explored in that field.  And yes, contemporary classical music (in some cases) explores boundaries which many listeners find new and disconcerting.  In fact, I would say that ballet has been remarkably conservative compared to other art forms.

Of course "experimental" work is not to everyone's taste (again I will reiterate that I am not suggesting that it replaces the classics or that all new commissions are radical!) but if we are to commission new work, then it seems dull to commission things which are really just re-workings of traditional ideas or techniques.  Ashton and (especially) Macmillan broke new ground in their day.  Why can't new ballet make a thought-provoking contribution to the current artistic environment?

spannerandpony: to reiterate the point again, I am not saying that the Royal should not perform their warhorses.  Neither am I "upset" that people enjoy them.  In fact, although you couldn't pay me to sit through another Nutcracker, I am happy to see a good Giselle and love Romeo and Juliet (for me, Prokofiev's music is the best "classical" ballet score by a mile).  My original point was that they should not be programmed to the virtual exclusion of new work.

However, I would also say that even in relation to the classics the RB has not exactly sparkled in recent times.  Classical ballets are very exposing of technique and one of the reasons the loss of Cojocaru is to be mourned is that the ranks of the Royal are currently extremely thin when it comes to the ability to perform leading roles in this repertoire.  With a few honourable exceptions, the recent DQ was very exposing of these shortcomings, not only in the leads but in key, difficult solos like the Queen of the Dryads or Espada. I can understand why Kevin O'Hare is bringing in guest principals and hope that he continues to do so.

I would also strongly disagree with chrischris's comment that there is no such thing as stars and therefore it doesn't matter who we substitute in lead roles.  I think it is very insulting to audiences to condemn them as unable to distinguish between a solo by the likes of Rojo/Polunin/Cojocaru/Acosta/Guillem and A.A.Nother from the corps de ballet.  If we are to follow that point to its logical conclusion then let's save money on funding a company and just use the graduate class of the RBS each year paying them minimum wage to get through the steps.  What is the point of art at all if we are not to push for the highest standards?  It is not worthy of a company that claims to be world class.

chrischris - it's a sad prospect for our artistic future as a nation if only comfortable majority interests are to be indulged.  It's also indicative of the mindset that to be "British" is to be backward-looking and dreaming of empire and past-glories.  By all means be nostalgic, but combine that with a daring and experimental open-mind which looks to the future.  Many artistic innovators over the centuries were not well received at first and some never will be, but if they had not had  the opportunity to try our culture would be much the poorer.

Nina G. - I agree, and most of my London dance going is not at the ROH for that reason.  The reason I raise the issue is that the ROH receive such a disproportionate amount of the arts council funding which goes to dance while contemporary companies struggle on a shoestring or in many cases are going out of business altogether.  It seems to me that with guaranteed funding comes a duty to contribute to the life of the art form.  If that duty is not fulfilled then the funding should be given to people who will take it seriously.  

alison - I should clarify that I meant the most prolific posters in the general online RB discussions (various blogs and twitter as well as here) and not in this thread.  In fact, I was making the point that this thread was a refreshing break from the usual "fandom"

Just to be clear, nowhere did I say they should stop doing the warhorses.  Just that there should be a better balance between those and programming which is perhaps more thought-provoking.  You have your opinion whereas I'm more interested in humans and in sex than I am in fairies.  Vive la difference.  No need to be upset or offended that we don't all have the same tastes.

chrischris - that is rather an odd assertion.  If you mean that the current ROH audience are overwhelmingly conservative, then I won't disagree with you there.  And if you are simply looking to please them and keep the theatre as a museum piece then by all means carry on with grown women pretending to be fairies forever.  But if we are at all concerned about dance being a living art form then maybe we should seek out the audiences who are currently going to the Place, to the more experimental events at Sadler's Wells and to contemporary dance festivals.  Or even theatre and concert goers who have no experience of dance but have open and curious minds.  Looking at the soldout and enthusiastically received run of Artifacts at Sadler's Wells last year, I suspect there is an appetite for thoughtful choreography which is not being met by the current ROH offering.

Bruce - I too was hopeful about the new management's emphasis on new work, but then slightly dismayed by the announcement which followed of the well-trodden trio of Wheeldon, Scarlett and McGregor as house choreographers.  But I am interested to see what David Dawson will do and will be very happy if O'Hare comes through on some of his promises.

I would be very pleased if your hunch were correct Dave! I agree with you that a balance needs to be maintained, but I would say the RB have tilted much too far in the wrong direction.  If you look at Paris Opera Ballet, Vienna Staatsballet or indeed ANY of the German or Scandinavian companies, you will see a much more varied and interesting repertoire, notwithstanding the inevitable warhorses.  In the US things are different, because in the absence of state subsidy almost every company outside NY and SF is incredibly Nutcracker-dependent, but RB has a subsidy, a premium venue, incredible name recognition and a faithful audience.  No excuse for playing it so very, very "safe".... 

Indeed, I grant you that McGregor is less conservative than Wheeldon, Scarlett et al. but I think there is an argument that his work for the royal has become formulaic and is much "safer" than the work he does elsewhere.  His choice of music is hardly challenging either.  Also, more worryingly, I think he has become the excuse for not programming other interesting choreographers because at the first hint of criticism, they say "Ah, but we programme McGregor so we can't be playing it safe". He has become the contemporary choreographer who doesn't frighten the regulars - his being English probably helps.  

I would like to see far more work by European choreographers, Forsythe and some of the more challenging Americans done at the opera house.  It is very heartening to see Tamara programming Kylian, Petit and Bejart at ENB and ironic that she feels able to do so at the helm of a company which has nothing like the stable financial base of the Royal.  It does make one wonder what might have been achieved if she had been put in charge of the RB's resources....

THIS AND SUBSEQUENT POSTS HAVE BEEN MOVED FROM THIS THREAD:

http://www.balletcoforum.com/index.php?/topic/4019-alina-cojocaru-and-johan-kobborg-to-leave-the-royal-ballet/page-6#entry63388

IT WAS ORIGINALLY POST #172 ON THAT THREAD

I am grateful that this thread has been allowed to remain open, since I think (some petty one-upmanship aside) it is one of the more healthy discussions which has been had here for some time.  I have been following and posting under various names on Balletco since the Ross Stretton era and have been saddened over the past few years to see the tribal, conservative, little-Englander approach (both here, in the various ballet blogs and on Twitter) come to dominate the discourse amongst Royal Ballet "fans".   The most prolific commentators seem to be seeking comfort in dialogue with and crumbs of personal trivia concerning their favourite dancers coupled with a knee jerk suspicion of any change or risk-taking - in fact of everything which makes top-level art and artists interesting.  

I think it is no coincidence that this trend has coincided with what I think I am not alone in seeing as stagnation at the Royal Ballet during the Mason era.  I agree with Capybara that with the exception of Nunez  (and I concede McRae on a technical level - although I find his stage persona cheesy beyond bearing) the Royal is not currently a hotbed of exciting talent.  Competent soloists are what we expect of any professional company - they do not make for world-class allure.  It is Osipova and Obratsova who those interested in seeing the boundaries of the art form pushed will come to see. After the loss of Rojo and Polunin, the number one priority of the company should have been hanging on to and making best use of a dancer of the quality of Cojocaru.  

None of this should be taken as a personal attack on Monica Mason - having seen her in numerous insights, rehearsals and talks over the years and (more importantly) having seen many years of her programming choices, my personal opinion is that she did an excellent job of steadying the ship, keeping people happy and maintaining a surface appearance of calm.  This is a good middle management skill and may have been thought necessary following the instability of the late 90s/early 2000s but it is NOT the foundation of interesting art.  The appointment of another middle management insider as her successor was depressing.  If the Royal is to remain a museum piece, a safe haven for competent dancers serving out their careers and for "not-too-risky" new choreographers given a token slot in amongst repeated war-horses, doubtless many "fans" will be completely happy, but many of us who no longer participate in rather one-sided discussions will be saddened by this conservative use of a heavily subsided company with the resources to attract the best of worldwide talents.

I think this was a very creditable production of what is often a VERY silly ballet, and that it will stand the company in good stead.  Carlos has very wisely refrained from seeking deep inner meaning and instead gone for wit, lightness and (thankfully) lots of dancing.  The sets were pleasant enough West-end fare and the costumes bright and non-gimmicky (anyone remember the windmill headpieces in the last production?)  with some very lovely tutus for the dream sequence.  

Having said all that, the dancing did not look ready for a first night.  The corps, although enthusiastic enough, were straggly at best and the soloists appeared to be suffering from a collective case of nerves, or maybe under-rehearsal.  Espada dropped and got tangled up in his cape, ending his variation by staggering to his knees at the feet of Mercedes.  The Queen of the Dryads fell out of her final set of fouettes half way through and even Marianela took a tumble in her first variation, which, although she acted the part well, did seem to induce a degree of caution thereafter.  Carlos himself is really not the dancer he was (although he made an excellent job of the one-handed lifts at the end of Act 1) and technically I imagine that McRae and others will bring more fireworks to the part.  However, Carlos brought the personal charm and assurance which is so right for this role and which I'm not sure any of the company's other male principal really have. In fact, there were no really stand out dancing performances although some of the jumping and turning by the toreadors and street urchins was impressive, if uneven (Valentino Zucchetti really does not know how to blend into group dances).

On balance, I felt a lot more encouraged by this than I did after the last premiere of a full-length.  Wheeldon's Alice was much more polished but unwieldy, pretentious, gimmicky and ultimately unsatisfying.  If (and it's a big if) the company can raise the level of their dancing to meet the challenge, I think this Don Q has much more potential - I look forward to seeing a couple of the other casts....

edit: on reflection and in fairness, I should say that Laura Morera as Mercedes was pretty damn good.  I don't want to deny credit where it is due....

I'm not sure which of you deleted a comment of mine and locked the thread without even having the courtesy to send me a private message explaining what you were doing and why. I am not just a "drive-by" commentator trying so start a fight, having been a member of this board (and its predecessor) although only an occasional poster for many years. I deliberately phrased the comment in the least inflammatory way possible despite it being an issue I feel extremely strongly about but you have left the other, less thoughtfully worded, comments on that thread extant. If you had contacted me privately this could have been discussed in private.

Well today the Royal Ballet has taken on two RBS students - one who is British and came the whole way through both Lower and Upper schools and one non-British who has spent three years in the Upper School. In my view this is as it should be - nationality should not be a factor. The school producing dancers in a "style" to suit the company should be. Hopefully that is something which will happen more consistently under the new RB director.

I barely notice Janet as the concentration required for performance is intense - even for me as an orchestral player and much more so for my partner who is a soloist.

I would just appreciate it if young people from a background where they are not brought up on classical music/dance could feel more welcome and less looked down upon when they come to performances without already knowing the behaviours accepted by the more traditional audiences. You could after all go to any football match or rock gig as a newbie and feel welcome and relaxed (from the perspective of not being tutted at by your fellow audience members - I'm not saying you have to enjoy the sport or music). I fear that the aura surrounding classical events is alienating for many. I also think this is a rather British phenomenon as classical audiences in continental Europe, of which I have wide experience, tend to be younger and dare I say less stuffy. I am not intending to offend or criticise any particular poster on this thread - just gently point out that a kind of groupthink can prevail amongst regular attenders that, quite without them realising it, may be offputting to newcomers, particularly those of a different demographic.

I was trying to demonstrate spanner that what constitutes a lack of consideration for certain people (e.g. me being annoyed by smugness and loud conversations to demonstrate that people are "in the know") is different from what may you or BBB may consider to be inconsiderate. Therefore what constitutes good behaviour or consideration is not the same for everybody. It is cultural, by which I mean dependent on a person's background, experience and beliefs.

And I think it is certainly true that the definition of good behaviour clung to by many "traditional" ballet-goers or concert-goers (in a more extreme form at the ROH and Proms than many other theatres, perhaps because of the large groups of "regulars" at both venues) stems from a rather uptight, British upper/middle class mode of behaviour. This is not a new idea. There are a large body of social and cultural historians who accept this phenomenon.

You are completely missing my point. Those are by no means the only things people have been objecting to on this thread, demonstrating that your definition of enjoyment is not the same for everyone. For example my definition of consideration would involve far less tutting, shushing and glaring, not to mention grumbling from early arrivals when people politely ask to be let through to the middle of the row. I could also live without groups of ROH regulars spending the intervals loudly b*tching about the weight and appearance of some dancers/singers while drooling salaciously over others but I accept that not everyone feels the same way.

I'm sorry spanner but the fact that your idea of what constitutes consideration is not exactly the same as everyone else's indicates that it is precisely a cultural issue. I think the ballet companies recognise this, hence BRBs deliberately non-prescriptive advice on audience dress and behaviour. It is the tutting audience members who do not. Like Blondie I was depressed by much of the narrow-mindedness and disdain displayed in this thread.

But is the way you would wish to be treated exactly the same as everyone else on this board? We have already seen that some are happy to sit next to people in jeans and some are not. Some turn faint at the sight of smartphones while I know that other balletomanes tweet until the second the lights go down. Surely it is a relative rather than an absolute standard?

I think what most people on this thread have failed to understand is that it is exactly "a cultural thing". What has been termed "good behaviour" is a mode of behaving historically defined by a very particular section of the English upper and middle classes to demonstrate their superiority to those of lower class/foreigners who fail to understand/accept that shared code. Behaving in accordance with that code allows those who are not themselves of upper class origins to ape that feeling of superiority and "belonging" to an elite. As a classical musician, I feel that the kind of "exclusive" atmosphere generated by such audiences alienates not only those who are not accustomed to attending classical concerts/opera/ballet but also many of the performers who feel they are serving up a museum piece rather than participating in a living art form. For that reason I have played in more proms concerts than I have attended as an audience member over the past decade since I find the smug "jolly good chaps and chapesses" atmosphere of the promenaders almost unbearable. Few people seem to appreciate that the expectation that audiences will sit in reverent, hushed silence is a very modern phenomenon rather than a timeless standard of "civilised behaviour". A bit of warmth and informality rather than "hallowed tradition" and icy disdain for those who are different would go a long way to attracting the "new audiences" everyone claims to be courting.

Even by ballet standards much of the costuming and staging here is laughably ridiculous. Surely putting the King of the North in an 1980s style shaggy blonde wig and headband and having him doing high kicks is a deliberate attempt to recreate the welding scene from Flashdance? Much giggling from the stalls last night.

Ian that's a very interesting point about th benefits of having a director/dramaturg working alongside the choreographer to control the overall narrative and look of the piece. Do you know whether this has have ever been done at the RB? I don't recall ever reading about Ashton or Macmillan taking such an approach but I'm sure there are people here with a much more detailed knowledge of the history.

Haha yes I did - thank you

In thinking and reading a bit further about Carbon Life I came across Clement Crisp's review which includes the quite astoundingly snobbish phrase:

"The public that enjoys the urgent racket of rock and rap is not going to sit happily through the generalities of Covent Garden’s repertory."

If only he could have warned me earlier that listening to anything other than Tchaikovsky was going to destroy my attention span and ability to appreciate the sacred classics! The man truly drips with content for the hoi polloi who lack his "refined" sensibilities. It is quite possible to have eclectic tastes and go nightclubbing, to gigs, to art films, to classical concerts and to the ballet (thought I concede that Nutcracker is probably pushing it a bit far for the average Mark Ronson fan......)

I'm pretty sure that Brian was in Infra

Having a bit of time on my hands at work this week, I thought I would have a first stab at a review of last night’s performance of the triple bill. These are early thoughts and probably raise more questions than they answer but for what it’s worth, here it is:

I am a lover of Ligeti and was extremely disappointed with the piano playing for Polyphonia. No disrespect to Robert Clark (who did a decent job with the Rachmaninoff for Sweet Violets) but it’s simply not good enough to have your inhouse pianist tackle fiendishly difficult and very specialist contemporary piano repertoire such as this. Désordre in particular (the opening variation) has never sounded to me more orderly and careful – completely missing the point of what this music is all about. That said, Polyphonia is a very accomplished ballet and there was some beautifully clean technique on display – particularly from Sarah Lamb who really does come into her own in this type of work. It would be stunning if the music could match up to the dancing; I saw this in NY some years ago when the pianist was a on a different level which probably goes some way to explaining my disappointment on this occasion.

Sweet Violets had some interesting choreography and good performances (especially from Laura Morera who really is an outstanding actress) but overall if felt like a bit of an immature effort. Melodramatic in the same way that if you ask hormonal teenage drama students to improvise a scene you inevitably end up with four rapes and a murder. I’m afraid that the portentous wanderings around the stage of the spectral Jack character just made me giggle. Like JaneL I thought it amateurish to have so many prolonged blackouts and in fact I felt that Scarlett’s compulsion to create confined spaces by walling off small sections of the stage suggested this work might have been more appropriate for the Linbury than the main house. He was clearly onto something with the idea of an artist looking at a society fascinated by violence and murder but a ballet focussed on individual psychodrama is difficult to project into a large space (I know Mayerling does it but that has the benefit of lush, high society crowd scenes too so the audience is not being continually asked to “connect” to the feelings of one character on a big stage). So this one didn’t quite work for me but (having enjoyed Asphodel) I would like to see more of Scarlett’s work nevertheless.

As for Carbon Life, I’m not quite sure what I felt about that but given that McGregor’s stated intention is to raise questions and make the audience consider their reactions it was certainly effective on that level. The gig-style lighting and sound created an alienation from the red plush/gold proscenium environment of the opera house which was in itself thought-provoking. I read some of the reviews afterwards (I never read them before seeing a performance) and was struck by the gaping chasm of expectations when classical ballet critics try to review something like this. I wonder what those members of the audience more familiar with music than dance would make of Alistair Macaulay talking about Ed Watson’s alignment problems? It seemed to me that this approach was wholly misplaced as this work should really be seen as an overall experience (almost like a music video?) rather than a forensic analysis of individual performances. There is something troubling as well as interesting in the music video dynamic, as it does seem to turn the dancers into pawns rather than agents (with the exception of Stephen McRae who must have missed McGregor’s briefing on performance style and as usual seemed never more than 10 seconds away from a quick tap-dance and some jazz hands). While dancers as faceless bodies can be used to make interesting points and the very high standards of technique at the Royal can serve this end well, I’m not sure McGregor got his point across in this instance. As you can probably tell I need to marinade my thoughts on this one for a bit longer…

Ps. Where was Boy George????

Anjuli, I take your point about the anonymity of dancers compared to footballers, but I think the advertising agency are professionally correct to assume that the names of the Arsenal players are what will attract people to the product. It's good that ENB/the dancers receive some consequential publicity (and hopefully payment!) from this but in reality for the target audience for the product it wouldn't make much difference if they had used Sylvie Guillem and Polina Semionova or first year performing arts students in tutus.

Thanks Bruce for the excellent interview. It's fantastic to see a dancer who is still dancing (particularly a woman) answer questions which go beyond the usual inanities. I truly could not care less and am sick of hearing how they prepare their pointe shoes, what gets them out of bed on a Monday morning or what they do to wind down after a show - so often we see the same questions for dancers in their late 20s or 30s that you might expect an unimaginative, junior reporter to put to ballet students.

If this is an opportunity for Tamara to promote the idea of dancers as thinking beings and not just passive, pretty machines then the appointment is already a positive for that reason alone.

And of course I hope she succeeds in building a good relationship with the ENB dancers and that someone finds a way to work around the inevitable budget constraints. I'm also very interested to see how much thought she has clearly already given to the balance which must be struck between entertaining and "educating" a paying audience - something which often goes unspoken even by experienced directors. It's going to be very interesting to watch.