Douglas Allen

Excellent point, Ian. It's probably not appropriate in this thread, but for BRB's Romeo and Juliet at Sadlers Wells to be reviewed only in two nationals (so far) is disturbing. The position at the Guardian is particularly worrying but it's little better at the others. There was a time when all the broadsheets, as well as the Express, Mail and Standard had regular (and usually competent) ballet reviews. Now.........

I think an important point to stress is that being in the Royal Ballet suggests strongly that you are in the top 2% or 3% of dancers in Britain. Some of the posters above give the impression that reaching the rank of principal is the be all and end all of the measurement of a dancer's capabilities. I don't think that is the case and we should pause, sometimes, to reflect just how good and hard-working you have to be to get into and stay in the company in the first place. Not to be promoted to principal rank is neither an admission of lack of effort nor a lack of talent. Further, I would suggest that being promoted to principal, with the inevitable casting expectations that brings, can result, sometimes, in a reduction in the impact a dancer can make on stage. There are several examples I can think of in the Royal Ballet where this happened, where a soloist who sparkled, became seemingly, weighed down by the responsibility involved in a leading role in a full-length ballet. Some dancers feature best in a cameo and others only make their full and finest impact in a leading role. Deciding to whom this applies is one of the tests of the director and ballet staff. The audience can't always judge this in advance (alas...). The other tricky point to forecast is to identify in advance those dancers who go on to be the stars (rather than simply the competent principal dancers) as I've never been able to work out who will, to use a racehorse training metaphor, "train on" after a promising two year old career to the classics. I'm reluctant to suggest any names (especially given everything I've just written) for a sparkling career, but if I were to suggest one name it would be James Hay as he seems to have real potential.

New York City Center, as part of its 75th anniversary, has announced a series of events throughout the coming year. I noticed from October 31 until November 4 a series of performances dedicated to Balanchine - the City Center Years (City Ballet were resident at City Center for 15 or 16 years before moving to State and Balanchine created many works for the company on that stage). There are several participating companies listed including the Royal Ballet (others include, as well as NYCB, Paris, Joffrey, Miami and the Mariinsky). As the Royal are due to be performing Mayerling and Bayadere at the opera house that week, I assume that the Royal's participation must be limited to a couple of dancers sent over to perform, say, a pas de deux. Does anyone with a greater knowledge of the company know what the intentions are? It's only five days of performances, but it looks potentially very interesting.

Interestingly, a few people have suggested the Kschessinska costume from Anastasia as a covetous costume. I agree, but they refer to the Crowley design from the 1996 revision. Whilst I agree that this is a particularly attractive tutu design in colour, material, shape and construction, the original Barry Kay design from 1971 is far superior. In many ways, I feel it is the best designed and constructed tutu I have ever seen on a ballet stage. Kay later (1972) tweaked the size and construction of the tutu, which was not an improvement, though still very fine,but the 1971 original was unsurpassed. The Crowley designs were adequate but, in general, significantly inferior to Kay's original.

It all depends who is wearing them........

It might be, of course, that those members of the audience who got up and left without applauding were dissatisfied with the quality of performance they had witnessed and did not wish to applaud. Seems fair enough if that were the case. How would you have all reacted if they had really disliked what they saw and decided to boo?

I fund it almost mind boggling that the Royal Ballet hasn't already announced how it plans to mark the centenary of Fonteyn's birth. She was, after all, one of the four people most influential in the early years of the company in establishing its style and developing its popularity. My theory is that no-one in the administration remembered about it. My fear is that when someone does realise it what will happen is that a run of performances of a work already scheduled that Fonteyn happened to dance will be "dedicated" to her. What I would like to see happen is a run of performances of a triple bill of works either created for her or in which she achieved particular success - there are loads of works from which to choose - Symphonic, Daphnis, Tricorne, Firebird, Marguerite and Armand, Bayadere Act III, Raymonda and perhaps the film of Salut d'Amour could be shown. Although Fonteyn's birth was in May, I would rather a proper tribute were shown in the autumn than something tokenistic thrown in in the spring or summer. I hope I'm wrong and that the company has something fitting to be announced separately, but I have my fears.

Actually, the footmen who attended the curtains and presented flowers etc on stage wore blue tail coats along with britches , tights and buckled shoes. They also wore white wigs in a reasonable facsimile of 19th century court dress. A quick look at dvds of pre 1999 performances should convince you of the accuracy of the colour. The two linksmen at front of house wore red frock coats and, when outside the building, black silk top hats. I miss them all.

Sim My vote would go to Nijinsky (for the impact and influence) and Fred Astaire.

I've just realised that I posted a longish entry about Rudolf Nureyev without mentioning Margot Fonteyn. It wasn't deliberate, but properly I feel that though the partnership was famous and hugely important in ballet history, both of them are too significant to be defined by it. Incidentally, as an afterthought, I've just realised that Mikhail Baryshnikov is now in his eighth decade!!!! He was born in January 1948 so he's 70 - I suddenly feel very, very old........

Janet, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I think that is probably the argument that the company would put forward - that people should/do book to see the company and that the individuals cast are of less importance than the company and the ballet. It's just that I think that argument is rubbish. Balanchine and City Ballet tried to do that years ago and had to abandon it quite quickly because attendances fell . I wonder, if people book to see the company. how would knowing the cast in advance hurt the bookings? Knowing the casting in advance could only increase the bookings by getting people to book for more performances. The reason for not making casting known well in advance is more likely to be administrative convenience. Waffling around by coming out with platitudes about "booking to see the company is the important thing" or "injuries might cause us to change casting" is just that - waffle and I wish Birmingham Royal Ballet would start to pay more attention to its audience both real and potential than it has done recently.

I want to thank Sharon with total sincerity for remembering this anniversary and giving us all the chance to reflect on the life and significance of the most important male dancer in the history of the Royal Ballet. Nureyev's drive and determination took him from the most unpromising beginnings (considerable poverty, geographical remoteness and family indifference/hostility/incomprehension) to get to Leningrad and the Kirov and then to the West. Though a very late beginner he achieved the most remarkable technical mastery coupled with that rare combination - to preserve classicism and to seek out new forms of expression in dance. We are all fortunate to have had the opportunity to have seen so much of his achievements. There is a famous quote (originating, I think, from David Blair) that Nureyev's arrival at the Royal killed off a generation of male dancers. To a certain extent, there is some truth in that, but it would be more accurate to reflect that it engendered a new belief in the power of male dancing and energised and stimulated generations of male dancers of a higher standard than had ever been the case before. Just one example of this was Michael Coleman who quickly established himself as technically more proficient than anyone who had gone before him in the Royal. Others who came later were inspired by teachers who were themselves affected by the Nureyev example. Nureyev wasn't perfect - his partnering could be alarming. Whoever was dancing with him needed to be strong or to bring out the father-figure in him. Anything else could result in total abandonment mid-performance! I still remember a series of Bayaderes where he was dancing with Vyvyan Lorrayne (who was substituting for an injured dancer) where Nureyev quickly decided not to bother with the niceties of partnering and got on with his own performance and left Lorrayne to her own devices. When they were due to be dancing together with the scarf, she held on to her end, but the other might just as well have been floating in the wind for all the support she got from Nureyev! With hindsight it is a matter of huge regret that the Board took the decision in 1976 (when Macmillan was changing/being eased out of his role) not to offer the Directorship to Nureyev but to go for Norman Morrice. The decline in technical standards in the company and the school in subsequent years might have been averted. The reason for the Board's decision allegedly was due to a concern that Nureyev might cast himself too often. This was a justifiable concern, but, in the light of his behaviour when he went to run Paris, perhaps overstated. His choreography was more variable ranging from the good to the indifferent but his productions of the Russian classics were usually very good. It is his dancing and his proselytising for the cause of dance for which he will go down in history, for which, I think, he will be regarded as one of the three greatest male dancers of the 20th century.

Janet, Thank you for publicising this. BRB's inability/unwillingness to produce castings for performances is notorious, but to delay until a fortnight before the performance dates strikes me as almost outrageous. If the company cares so little, why should the public? Are we to assume that in the performances without a listed conductor, the orchestra will make their own arrangements?

Just a short note to salute a very fine dancer and a superb partner. I didn't know him personally, so can only talk about him as a performer. During the late seventies and throughout the eighties Lavery was almost an ever present in NYCB performances. Both Balanchine and Robbins liked him a lot - he was tall and of medium build - tall enough to partner comfortably all of the women in City Ballet whilst possessing a good enough technique to cope with whatever Balanchine and Robbins could throw at him. He partnered Farrell, McBride, Ashley, von Aroldingen et al and his rep was enormous. I don't really have any awareness of seeing him away from City Ballet and he didn't really perform in Britain very often so he may be one of those dancers who are not really appreciated in this country- from unfamiliarity rather than for any other reason. For about ten years, though, he probably appeared in more featured roles in more performances than anyone in the company, and by featured roles, I really mean leading roles. After a very short time in the lower ranks of the company he dealt almost exclusively in leads. He danced in almost all of the Balanchine rep and a considerable percentage of the Robbins rep. Then after about ten years he stopped; his name remained on the company list but he was never on stage. It was only gradually that it became clear that he had a serious illness which led to the end of his stage career at about the age of 30. There are a number of recordings of him in Balanchine some available on You Tube which are well worth seeking out for those who want to see an excellent representation of the Balanchine male style.

The 1968 production consisted of a prologue and three acts. There were three intervals so, in effect, it should be regarded as a four act ballet. If only Acts 2 and 3 remain on tape with the BBC then both the prologue and the first act are missing.

Au contraire, Fonteyn almost always did perform the fouettes - they were singles and there were usually between 26 and 30 - but her belief was that they should be performed because that was what the audience expected. It was only in the year or so before she stopped dancing the role that she sometimes substituted the chaine turns. Fonteyn also always performed the fouettes when she did the Corsaire pas de deux. Sibley had dazzling fouettes but, in Swan Lake at least, always performed singles rather than throwing in doubles here and there. When her knee injury began first to affect her she sometimes substituted a double manege of chaine turns which were staggering because of their speed. As the knee injury became more significant (leading to her first retirement) she almost always did this.

I'm sure you are right. Sim, the Royal Ballet is very hard-working, but has anyone counted how many performances they have given this season?

Sunderland appears to have been dropped from the schedule. Has anywhere else been similarly removed? At first sight Salford seems to be the furthest north BRB intends to travel and the eastern half of the country seems similarly to be ignored? Has anywhere new been added?

The Royal Ballet (CG and Birmingham) notable by its absence......

In addition to the Scholl, mentioned above, have you looked at Petipa's memoirs? Called "Russian Ballet Master" it was translated by Helen Whittaker and edited by Lilian Moore. It was published in New York in 1958 (Macmillan, I believe) and republished by Dance Books in London in the 1970s. I think they might have reprinted some years later. The book is somewhat superficial and doesn't really go into dealing with the questions you raise in any detail. It is, however, worth a look. The most useful sources of the information you seek are, I think, two monographs, which you should be able to find if you have access to an adequate university library. The first, chronologically, is Yuri Slonimsky's "Marius Petipa" in Dance Index Vol VI nos 5 and 6 (1947). The translation is by Anatole Chujoy. The second (and I think most useful) is Vera Krasovskaya's "Marius Petipa and The Sleeping Beauty" . The translation is by Cynthia Read and the work was published as issue 49 of Dance Perspectives in Spring 1972. Only 56 pages long this work is full of the information you seek about the creation of Beauty and contains both a description and analysis of the choreography and production. It puts the work (fairly concisely) into the context of Petipa's career and has excellent illustrations (usually photographs) of cast and sets. I can't help with your other query about a Royal ballet production immediately prior to the 1968 one, but I assume that Dance and Dancers for the relevant period would have the production reviews in some detail. There is also an Arlene Croce article in Ballet Review Vol III no 4 from 1970 dealing with the Royal Ballet in New York called "Annals of the Sleeping Beauty".

A week is a long time, and not just in politics!! Actually, I had to miss those performances and I was behaving with my usual selfishness - if I didn't see it, it didn't really happen!

I assume that what is requested is a suggestion list of ballets already performed by the Royal Ballet and for which sets and costumes already exist rather than a wish list to expand the repertoire. My list would include Wedding Bouquet, Birthday Offering and Sylvia (all Ashton) Anastasia and Four Seasons (Macmillan) Dances At A Gathering (Robbins) Four Temperaments and Symphony in C (Balanchine) Les Biches (Nijinska) Nutcracker and Kingdom of the Shades (Nureyev) I realise that the Barry Kay sets and costumes for Anastasia were irretreviably damaged but there was a revival some time ago and something might be cobbled together to save Acts 1 and 2. I don't know how long an absence there has to be for a ballet to qualify, but I really miss Les Biches and 4 Ts.

Such is the dearth of Ashton performances that I'm grateful for any of his works to be revived, even relatively minor ballets such as Pigeons. It's always at risk of tottering over the edge into twee sentimentality unless the performances are carefully judged. I thought Muntagirov looked exceptionally good as did Morera while Cuthbertson looked a little too pert and knowing in the performance. I thought Monotones II worked well, flowing seamlessly from beginning to end while Monotones I seemed rather more disjointed. Why were the headdresses for I redesigned? The new ones are in no way an improvement. Some of the comments about Pigeons have, to my mind, missed the point. Like most of Ashton's output there is both a surface text and a sub-text. The ballet is about (amongst other things) love and its unpredictable course. Two lovers are together, are fond of each other, fall more deeply in love, but, inevitably, have differences and disagreements. Outside attractions present themselves and one of the lovers is seduced by a new, alternative and potentially risky lifestyle. He is used, and abused, gets ephemeral rewards but is then rejected. He returns (chastened) to his original love who is now more mature and regrets what happened earlier and they are reconciled. The avian intruders provide the aah factor for the more sentimental of the audience. The gay sub-text is quite clear as is the similarity to the ballet of the Prodigal Son by Balanchine. Ashton used the scenario he did for convenience and because it wouldn't cause any ructions with the Board or alarm the suburban followers of the Royal Ballet. It's nothing to do with gypsies or any other ethnic group just as it isn't a ballet about the life of an artist in Paris. Might I add that the company as a whole would benefit from some intensive work on Ashton and/or Petipa with particular reference to epaulement and feet.

All kind of events can conspire to cause cast changes - injuries / illness / traffic conditions / pregnancy and so on. It's called life. When we book tickets we always have to assume that changes may occur. For years I tried to see Beriosova dance Lady and the Fool. I booked to see her in an improbable range of theatres around the country and in more theatres in London than presently exist. For years I would turn up only to be met with an announcement "We regret....." I saw Vyvyanne Lorrayne and Barry McGrath more times than could be good for my health. Then, sometime in the 1980s I had booked to see a performance in Sunderland (I can't remember who was dancing) and there was an announcement that the dancer was indisposed and the performance would now be danced by Beriosova and MacLeary. My ghasted was totally flabbered.(She was marvellous, by the way.) In a slightly different way, I rarely booked for Monica Mason Swan Lakes because she was rarely off and was the go-to dancer if anyone else was injured. So I always booked for Sibley performances and in about 60% of the cases got Mason. It's a fact of life and not worth losing sleep over. Incidentally, a question was raised about differential pricing for Fonteyn/Nureyev performances. Initially, the increased prices were for Fonteyn performances and were applied when she was moved from being a company member to being a guest artist (I believe it was done without her knowledge or agreement). Thus, when Nureyev came on the scene in the 1960s these prices applied to his performances when he danced with Fonteyn. They didn't apply when he danced with people other than Fonteyn. It wasn't, I think, until the very late 60s or early 70s that Nureyev performances without Fonteyn attracted increased prices. Even then, at first these higher prices only applied if he were dancing in a full-length ballet. When, for instance, he was in Dances At A Gathering or other one-acters, normal company prices applied. Someone wondered if money was refunded in the event of cast change. I don't know, as it is important to remind ourselves that as well as being a great dancer, Fonteyn had the constitution of a shire horse. I never encountered a cancellation from her. The only ones I can think of are due to her illness in the 1940s at the time of Cinderella and in the immediate aftermath of Arias' shooting. She never withdrew from any scheduled performance I was due to see. Did anyone on this forum have her withdraw from a performance?

Alison, With my somewhat simple, one-track mind, I took your comment to refer to Spectre de la Rose and wondered why it was so popular and who could be dancing - Osipova and Polunin perhaps..... then it clicked and everything fell into place!