Paul N

Here's an interesting and fairly recently posted performance of Symphony in C.  Says early 1970s, which means good camera work as well as great dancing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wIQyNW1zOc

Quite a few more interesting videos uploaded by that user too....

As I read it, the percentage is simply the percentage of funding presumably from the Arts Council.  But what is the total amount spent on the arts generally in the regions?   London has a huge number of cultural events and must spend huge amounts on staging them.  The percentage of subsidy to overall cost is therefore a much smaller amount than this bald statement suggests.

That may be the case, but it doesn't alter the purpose of ACE which is supposed to be to encourage everyone to participate in the arts, and it should use its funds accordingly and fairly for that purpose.  Further, a specific direction regarding their lottery funds is that these should be used to encourage those who don't currently particpate.

Forgive the cynicism but in the run-up to a general election we can expect many statements to be issued as potential vote-catchers.  I suspect those who issue them decide what they want said first and then find/create/manipulate the figures to support them.  Lies, damned lies & statistics etc.

I don't see any political points-scoring going on.  The CMS Select Committee is cross-party, has a Conservative chairman, and made it's strongest criticism of a Conservative minister.  Arts funding is not going to feature strongly in any election campaign, probably not at all.

There are always going to be flaws in analysis of this kind; one here is that money invested in a particular region does have benefits outside the region, and these are difficult to measure (haven't been at all as far as I can see in this case).  Nevertheless, I think the overall picture painted by these reports is broadly correct.

The authors of the ROCC & PLACE reports are proposing that it is the ACE lottery funding that should be changed so that it is distributed on a fair, per capita basis.  The other public funding would remain unchanged.  This seems to me to be an entirely reasonable proposition, one that is difficult to argue against, particularly given that London does so well from these other sources and from private money too.  If any region has the resources to plug such a rebalancing, it's London.  The ROCC report gives us these figures (2011/12):

Private money:

"In 2011/12, 90% of all private giving to the arts by individual philanthropists was to London-based organisations (2010/11 89%), 68% of all business sponsorship was in London (2010/11 66%), and 73% of support from trusts and foundations was given to London-based arts (2010/11 68%). Of a total of £660.5m of private giving overall in 2011/12, £540.2m (81.8%) went to London-based organisations."

Public money (England totals):

DCMS direct: £493M

ACE Treasury: £393M

ACE Lottery: £211M

Local Government: £439M

So it's the smallest pot that the authors are talking about rebalancing.

Whether their proposal would end up being to dance's cost and to the benefit of other art forms though, I have absolutely no idea.

There may well be a 'resentment towards London' issue, a lot of which is unfounded.  However, consider the variation in the distribution of Lottery money from all the individual lottery funds:

(spend in London as % of spend in rest of England; totals since 1995)

Arts Lottery Fund:    353%

Big Lottery Fund:    185%

Heritage Lottery Fund:    169%

Millenium Fund: 230%

Sport Lottery Fund: 140%

Message: not just a 'London problem', there's an arts fund/ACE problem - the other funds have managed a much more balanced distribution of the money in line with the directions for use of lottery funds.

Back to ENB

ACE Analysis of Opera Ballet (July 2014)

"English National Ballet has recently appointed a new Artistic Director, Tamara Rojo, who is making impressive steps to refresh the company’s repertoire by introducing more contemporary works. The plans to extend ballet audiences through participation in festivals such as Glastonbury, Latitude, and through dance and health projects, are particularly exciting.

We support ENB’s proposal to replace a week of regional touring for an additional one in London. This would enable the company to present the broader repertoire as outlined in Tamara Rojo’s plans, developing audiences for new work, and in the long term supporting the company’s ambition to present a broader repertoire on tour. The regional touring week could, after negotiation, be picked up by BRB.

We also support the company’s ambitions to broaden its repertoire, although it will need to win over audiences. ENB is planning to invest reserves to further this ambition. It will have work to do on relationships outside London, but recognises this and wants to offer more to the cities it tours to.

The recommendations we make around improving the working relationship between venues and touring companies will require changes of culture in all our touring companies and we will be expecting the company to set out in their business plan how they intend to implement this change of approach.

ENO’s proposed new business model represents considerable challenges to ENB’s own operating model and we will be supporting both companies to work together to resolve this."

ACE's funding planning figures for 2015-16:

ENO - £5m reduction

Northern Ballet - £550k increase

WNO - no change

Opera North - £600k increase

BRB - £500k increase

ENB - no change

ROH - £800k reduction

So some redistribution planned there, with a massive hit for ENO.

I was reading the Guardian article on funding earlier and was quite staggered by the degree of the imbalance.  I have only read the headlines of the referenced reports, but it’s powerful stuff:

The Select Committee’s report (October 2014):

“The Arts Council is well-placed to tackle the clear imbalance of funding that favours London unfairly. It must do so with greater urgency if it is to realise its declared ambition to engineer the provision of great art and culture for everyone.”

(Conclusions and recommendations #22:)

ACE’s response:

"We welcome the findings of the report, and the opportunity to reaffirm our priorities for the near future:"

"we will continue to rebalance our investment intelligently – to build capacity outside of London, whilst not damaging the infrastructure in the capital"

The “Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital” report (October 2013)

"One way to begin redress would be to allocate London its fair 'per capita' share of arts Lottery funding, for an initial five-year period.

The 'core' treasury funding of arts organisations and cultural institutions in London would not be affected. Funds available to London overall would reduce by just over 10%. Cultural production outside London could then benefit over the five years by a total of £600m. This is still less than the cost to the Lottery of the Millennium Dome."

The PLACE report (April 2014)  (focusses on use of lottery funds)

All the headlines here should be read, but this one in particular is perhaps of most relevance for this forum:

"Who benefits the most?

Affluent people who live within easy reach of major cultural institutions and can afford regular attendance derive by far the most benefit from funds sourced from taxpayers and, now, from Lottery players.

• Arts Lottery funding to the five largest London recipients (The Royal Opera House, Royal National Theatre, English National Opera, Sadler’s Wells and the Southbank Centre) totals £315 million since the beginning of the National Lottery. This is in addition to the annual funding of over £80 million that between them they receive from taxpayers.

• These five organisations alone have therefore received more Arts Lottery funding since 1995 than the 33 local authority areas whose communities are least engaged with the arts."

Does this mean the imbalance will change?  Well, maybe it will.  From the ROCC report again:

"A pattern of public funding that favours London has existed since the foundation of the Arts Council. A trend to enhance the imbalance has been consistent for at least 30 years.

During this period successive Governments and Arts Councils have acknowledged the imbalance but argued that it would need a significant new injection of funds to enable redress."

I'm reminded of one of my favourite Dilbert cartoons, the "Bungee Boss":

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-09-07/

I've seen it happen where I work.

On 25 July, at 19.30 St.Petersburg time (16.30 London time)

there will be INTERNET transmission of "Don Quixote"

from the Mikhailovsky Theatre with Osipova & Vasiliev:

 

 

http://www.mikhailovsky.ru/afisha/shows.html?date=2012-07-25&sh=1132

I've been watching this on YouTube the last few nights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTkqtDYUIM

I think it's very good. Act 1 in particular is really rather wonderful with lots of colour in the costumes and sets, and the playing of the orchestra is pure magic: full of vitality, a great pulse, storytelling and drama.  The whole thing is great fun and just keeps leading you on and on.  Natalia Osipova in her first solo has wonderful musicality and sway.  Bruce's review (of a Coliseum performance) is here and I totally agree with what he is saying.

Not sure if this one has already been noted anywhere else, but sure it will be of interest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01sjjxq/Womans_Hour_Leanne_Benjamin/

Only about eight minutes worth - from about 33:40 mins in.

I reckon a lot of people are going to miss her very much.

A couple of Crisp-isms from his 2001 interview on Ballet.co:

 

"Most criticism is trumpery and pointless, based on ignorance rather than knowledge."

 

and

 

"Oh, no unprejudiced criticism is worth reading. Or worth writing. Prejudice is what makes a critic interesting."

That second quote keeps getting dragged up - I've never really got on that well with it. Mr Crisp's recent ENB Sleeping Beauty review reads to me as unprejudiced, but it's revealing, and who is going to come along and say it's not worth reading or uninteresting?

Yes, I've always liked the football fan / ballet fan analogy, though perhaps ballet fans don't chuck things at each other as much, get drunk as much, and tend to be a bit quieter on the trains.

But there is a lot of prejudice and home and visiting companies are not on a level playing field.

Of course, many people are on close terms with home team dancers, chatting in person and via social media. That's bound to have an effect.

Complacency? Perhaps it may happen that some home fans become, to a degree, blinded by prejudice or perhaps even tiredness (not in the literal sense), such that they do miss or overlook things that others, with fresh eyes and thinking, see and are less tolerant of. I suspect however that many people are well aware when they see shortcomings in their home team - how much of this they are prepared to say in public however is another matter.

Don't think the criticism of NYCB dancers in the first post is fair - it was only a short tour with a narrow rep - are they not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as in "I have come to recognise and appreciate the individual Royal Ballet dancers" - emphasis being on "come to" i.e. it takes time.

My no. 1 has to be Mozart. I started with his piano concertos - before long I bought the complete LP box set of Murray Perahia's recordings. How can anyone fail to be uplifted by the start of no. 23? Symphonies 40 and 41 - doesn't matter how many times I come back to them, they're still fresh and fascinating. The string quartets and the two masterpiece quintets in C and G minor. The operas - Figaro and Cosi are my favourites.

Then, probably Chopin. Just love all of this, can listen to it forever - waltzes, nocturnes, mazurkas, preludes, ballades. I love the old recordings c1930s by the likes of Cortot (especially) and Rubinstein, also, later, Lipatti. I was really irked when I heard the orchestrated versions used in Sylphides - didn't work for me!

Schubert - again, his chamber music - the string quintet is a must, as is his piano sonata D960 (The Lindsays and Wilhelm Kempff respectively for me). I love symphony no 9 especially the second movement and the third movement scherzo and trio. Then, I just love his songs. I have several discs by Elly Ameling. Die Schöne Müllerin and Winterreise are also essential (but perhaps not if you want cheering up).

Then, of course, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms (German Requiem yes, symphony 2, violin concerto), Rachmaninov, Sibelius, Bizet....

Getting back to Germany....

Bruckner - symphonies 4 and 6 by Celibidache/Munich; no 9 by Giulini and the Vienna Phil.

I like quite a lot of Wagner - I would have to single out bits of the Ring, and Meistersinger.

I also like the Richard Strauss "sound" - massive dynamics and texture. Obviously his swooping songs; also some of the opera sounds - Elektra and Frau Ohne Schatten, also Arabella......

Hildegard Behrens, "Orest!" from Elektra:

Loads more I don't have time for now.

On film music.... Once Upon A Time In the West

There were several countries that entered more than one team in the beach volleyball, not just the USA. Same thing in the badminton pairs. Perhaps best to think of it as pairs rather than teams. The rules on this are not consistent between the sports. The most ridiculous thing is that the track cycling rules were changed since Beijing to restrict each country to one entrant (and hence at best one medal) per event. So, we weren't able to enter Chris Hoy as well as Jason Kenny in the men's individual sprint and he certainly missed out on another medal because of that. It's like having Bolt but no Blake, or Phelps but no Lochte.

Well, what a fantastic day for GB. Two wins for Murray and Robson, and six golds! Congratulations to all the medallists. Above all, particular congratulations to the fantastic GB women cycling pursuit team: as nailed-on a gold as any other in these games. They've now lowered the world record in every one of their last six competitive races. And the contrast between their ultra-professional, super smooth and frighteningly efficient performances with their joy after they've won and removed their helmets is just brilliant:

http://www.dailymail...close-gold.html

http://www.guardian....trott-dani-king

Still no cuckoos, but the swifts arrived today

Swifts are one of my favourite birds - I just love the way they chase each other, very fast, screaming, over the town. The aerial birds (which may sound daft, but by which I mean those that spend a lot or most of their time, or look their best in the air - so swifts, swallows, terns etc) are the best. I once saw a group of 18 spoonbills at Minsmere - they were flying round together for ages, in great swooping circles, high and low, near and far, gleaming white against a bright blue sky. Completely different to how you more usually see them, wading and feeding in a lagoon/scrape.

Oh, and then I was once at Eyebrook resevoir, Leics, in winter - about a dozen or so Bewick's Swans (now called Tundra Swans). Very nice. Carried on checking the rest of the water. Then I realised the swans were calling, and had in fact been calling for some time, but were now calling more and more excitedly. I looked up and was just in time to see them all heading off down the water and lifting up into the air, heading off north, in the direction of Rutland Water. An absolutely fantastic and memorable experience.

But enough rambling... Now, who has heard a Nightingale this year? A question for those in the south-east only unfortunately. I think Pulborough Brooks is a good place for them (?)

Symphonic Variations is only 18 minutes long, but I have never noticed anyone complaining.

Isn't that because it's perfection?

Bad luck thequays... but I think we do need to see it one more time...

http://youtu.be/giu64gopZjY

Go for low magnification (say 3 to 6x), because it will generally give you a bright image (very important for viewing in low light) and a wide field of view.

The objective lens diameter in mm should be at least 5 or 6 times the magnification. This is to ensure an “exit pupil” – the diameter of the circle of light leaving the binocular eyepiece (which you can see by holding the binocular up to the light at arm’s length and looking at the eyepiece lens) – of at least 5 or 6mm. This is to make the most of the expanded pupil of the eye in low light conditions and give a reasonably bright image – very important.

My own pair is 6x32, so 6 into 32 means it has an exit pupil of 5.3mm. I also have a 7x42 which is brighter, but rather large to take to the theatre. I would steer well clear of something like a 10x25 – that’s for outdoor daytime use only, and only then in good light.

For glasses wearers: you need a binocular with a long “eye relief” i.e. ~17 to 19mm. In addition, the eye cups must be retractable i.e. they can either fold, push or twist down (I prefer the latter – solid and secure but easy to use). I don’t think opera glasses offer long eye relief or retractable eye cups i.e. they are not made for glasses wearers. Long eye relief and retracted eye cups mean you can hold the binocular to your glasses, with the eyepiece lens at the correct distance from your eye, and get the full field of view. Eye relief often isn’t quoted in specifications in which case the depth of the eye cups is a good indicator (shallow cups = poor eye relief). But the best advice is to look and try before you buy and you will then know whether the eye relief (as well as size and weight etc) is OK or not.

As John said, finding the right pair for theatre use is not easy and with optics, you get what you pay for.

Thanks, Paul, it was. How did you manage to find it?

Couldn't find it with Google at first (using the wrong search terms?). But I have that page archived and so got the forum ID no (16) and thread no (86) from that, and used those in the web address to get to it online. Then I found that Google can find it after all:

http://www.google.co...ype=&as_rights=

It can be quite interesting to try typing random numbers in the old ballet.co forum addresses (I obviously don't have enough to do!), and seeing what you get. For example, if you go to that "Fille - watching the videos" page, change the 86 to 72 at the end of the web address, and see what you get - ok, well that's not so random I admit. (I particularly like post 48.)

Well. I've just read Clement Crisp's review of Fille http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1ssmyFM8s, and he makes quite a few accusations about the way the piece has been changed in recent years (which only goes to show the benefits of having people around who are very long-term balletgoers - assuming their memories are sound, of course). As a relative newbie of 20-odd years' of Fille-going (!), I'd be interested in hearing from those of longer experience, and/or anyone who's seen the recording he mentions (which I believe is about to be released on DVD? - and bearing in mind that that was a studio production rather than a stage production) as to what's changed.

 

Edit: I was going to add a link back to the old site where I did a comparison between the 80s recording and early-2000s performances of the ballet, but I can't find it any longer, even via Google.

Hopefully, here's your old thread Alison:

http://www.ballet.co...rumID16/86.html

When viewing the forum list or a topic list, I used to always be able to see useful info about the most recent replies i.e. topic, poster, date and time. Since a few days ago, I no longer see this info unless I sign in. Is this how it's supposed to be now?

I'm amazed. I think she's too young in her career - whatever one thinks of her lack of experience in managing a company, especially one the size of ENB (and with all its challenges), she's still in her prime as a dancer; there's plenty of time ahead, so why the hurry? Does the Royal have nothing new to offer her?

If she continues to dance, how will that work and go down with the other dancers? She would be the obvious box office draw, the obvious first night choice. If she dances regularly, will that block opportunities/promotions for others? Better to be more like a guest artist perhaps, making occasional appearances?

Anyway, congratulations to her. I hope it works out for her and the company.

Yes, the RB have tapped into the Boy George and Ronson fan bases and combined that with the live stream and saturation press coverage (one day on the Guardian website there were about half a dozen articles on this programme). Very clever.

And a top price of £42, compared to at least £63 for other mixed bills and £117 for R&J. Yes, it should sell out shouldn't it.

Crib sheets which might be of help prior to the first night :

 

Sweet Violets - http://www.guardian....ath?INTCMP=SRCH

 

Carbon Life - http://en.wikipedia....nima_and_animus

Good grief!

"The anima and animus, in Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, are the two primary anthropomorphicarchetypes of the unconscious mind, as opposed to both the theriomorphic and inferior-function of the shadow archetypes, as well as the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self."

Well, thank heavens for Wikipedia - it's all so much clearer now!

Not one for the newbies then?

I hope the reviews of it will be in plain English.

And someone fetch me a brandy and 10 minutes of Symphony in C, quick!

Some more thoughts from me:

Ashton style and English style - I presume they are essentially the same thing (but am I wrong on that?)

Ashton style - is there just one Ashton style, or am I right in thinking it's more complicated than that. So, for example, the style you would expect to see in Fille, or The Dream, or Month etc.... - and then the style in Symphonic Variations - it isn't the same (as I see it)?

I've got a thing about 'Ashton style' because often I will read say a criticism that a particular performance was lacking in 'Ashton style' and I think, well, what exactly do they mean in the context of this particular work. I wish they would explain exactly what they mean - which 'bit' of Ashton style was missing, otherwise, it seems a bit of a lazy criticism. So if one of our knowledgeable Ashton enthusiasts could throw some more light on what is Ashton style and how it varies (if indeed it does) I'd be most grateful!

Regarding the Bolshoi, I like Anjuli's point above about how their dancers dominate the stage, as an individual. I also think part of the Bolshoi style (and identity) is the manner of their productions i.e. grand and spectacular - which I guess challenges their dancers to fill those productions out and bring them off, so they don't fall flat.

Thanks Janet, you are right, this is a thread in its own right.

Here are the relevant comments from the other thread:

The issues for me from the article are, firstly, the claim about "the school's increasingly narrow physical ideal" (and that students may be assessed out for failing to meet this). If it is true that the ideal is becoming increasingly narrow, then I don't really understand why. Who is driving this, and for what reason? I don't think it's what the audience wants is it?

 

Secondly, and related to that, the point about the importance of company "identity or unanimity of style" (which seems to be one of the arguments for increasing the proportion of company dancers who have trained for most of their years at the RBS). Again, I'm not sure what the evidence is of a significant lack of company style in the RB. The one thing I remember from their La Bayadere a few years ago was not their 'star principals', but that their Shades were breathtaking. I guess that some would say that they don't dance Ashton as they should (and some I think say they can't do MacMillan either!), but I would put this down to insufficient practice and an increasingly wide repertoire rather than the company being fundamentally unable to dance Ashton through having a too high proportion of foreign trained dancers. I'd be interested to hear what those who know the RB a lot better than I do think. Company style is often raised as something important, but is it really so, in the case of a company like the RB which has such a wide rep.? Don't styles go with works (choreographers) rather than with companies?

Paul, Thanks for that. I've always struggled with the much bruited concept of company style (it almost seems to deserve capital letters).

 

As far as the Royal Ballet goes I have assumed (maybe wrongly) that it is based on the ability to dance Ashton as he would have wanted. In other words a certain sort of flexibility of the trunk, épaulement, soft arms and fast feet. I've always found it difficult to accept that such things can not be taught to dancers trained elsewhere, though years of dancing, say, Balanchine might make that more difficult.

 

Is there much more to this than I appreciate? or is the mystique surrounding company style rather exaggerated?

My view for what its worth.....in reply to some of the thoughts raised in posts above...

 

 

 

I think company style is not quite as distinct as it used to be. Whoever thought that NYCB would dance Swan Lake? The Kirov/Mariinsky does a fine job of dancing Balanchine. As dancers move across borders, i.e. Russians free to come west, western dancers/students beginning to go to Russia, Cuban and Chinese/Japanese dancers going everywhere, etc., the distinctions will blur more and more.

 

Principals tend to move around more (they have that advantage) and so I think the one item which truly shows a company style is the corps de ballet. One can see the easy cohesiveness of dancers who have come through the feeder school together such as POB, Mariinsky, NYCB, RB, etc. This becomes starkly visible in a ballet such as La Bayadere's Kingdom of the Shades. Companies with hugely diverse corps like ABT, do manage it, but the dancers of the corps have to really concentrate on it - it's not as "built in."

 

Companies can and do take on the styles of the particular ballet they are performing such as in Bournonville - but it is not bone of their bone - it isn't intrinsic - it's closer to the "surface" than from a deeper level - such as it is to the Danish Royal Ballet. The school not only feeds the company it also serves its heritage.

 

There are some styles, however, which don't translate well from company to company - the Bolshoi comes to mind. I can't see another company dancing Spartacus quite like they do. I think it's not only their schooling - but that huge stage that they have grown up learning to dominate. Think of the tiny ballerinas of days gone by such as Plisetskaya, Ulanova, others - who had no problem filling that huge empty space. Whereas, the Danes have a small space - yet they knnow how to make it look large.

 

Nureyev once said (paraphrase here) that Americans and Russians dance similarly because they come from countries with a large land mass - and it is part of their thought pattern and becomes a movement pattern.

 

I haven't seen the RB many times in live performance (I did review it some yrs ago for this site) but I have seen them many times on video. My impression has always been that the company is known for its integrity, neatness, attention to detail and a bit of understated fire. All good assets - which I enjoy. I don't expect them to be the Bolshoi or vice versa.

 

I think it is also important to remember that there are dancers in the corps who enjoy dancing at that level. The work is extremely difficult (much easier to dance a solo than to match 24 others). It should never be considered as a failure if one doesn't move on to other sections of the company - such as soloist.

 

I judge a company more by its corps de ballet than its principals. In a stable environment the corps represents more closely the artistic direction and teaching and the vision of the company's heritage, intent and style.

As it happens no one from his year got assessed out in year 7 and they really do try to avoid this.

That was my thinking too - it's probably more the exception rather than the rule. In the Guardian article, Evie Ball says they started assessing out in her year in year 9.

My DS point is also that a British dancer did get into the company having been funded by MDS, even if she didn't go to WL.

Exactly. And very well done to her.

The statistics in Luke's article might look unpromising, but he is only focussing on the White Lodge to RB route. Once you bring other companies and other schools into the picture, it gets a lot rosier. When I watch BRB, I know that a lot of my favourite dancers came through RBS and/or Elmhurst, and a lot of them are British!