Geoff

Surely the name refers to not liking Esmeralda..?

Their response is insulting. Timmie, I agree with Mary and Bridiem (etc) and would suggest that you should reply to the nameless ROH clown on similar lines to that which Mary suggests. Otherwise if we put up with their nonsense they will get the idea we are as stupid as they think we are. You might also like to copy your reply to the ROH boss, Alex Beard, as a way of showing him that the "Interim Head" isn't filling the position very well.

Bruce, you and others have commented on this. I agree there is an element of bad timing about doing this in the same week as we have been told we should attend less often, but is it the request as such which bothers you or that they asked Gary Avis to do it? Last season Vivien Duffield did a pitch for bequests (rather well) a couple of times at the start of Generals so it is not a new thing in and of itself.

Just to clarify, does anyone know how are the various services which we associate with the evening box office going to work? Where do we leave a ticket for a friend who is coming late? Pick up a ticket left by someone else? Make a last-minute ticket purchase?

Apologies everyone. Lucy is of course Lucy Sinclair (not Lucy Richards), as in:- https://www.linkedin.com/in/lucysinclair/

Well said Bruce. I would go even further. The limit case of the current proposition (clumsily argued in the original advertorial, more carefully articulated in the presentation by Lucy Sinclair) is one where the ROH has an entirely new audience every night. This would clearly achieve the very highest mark on the Arts Council "attracting new audiences" metric. But how would having crowds of first-timers impact on the quality of performances? What if every night climaxed in a stupid US-style standing ovation by an audience applauding itself for having got inside the "elitist" temple and then stayed to the end? What does that do to choice of repertoire and, ultimately, performance standards? An informed and committed audience keeps performers and managements honest. We all know stars who are so spoiled by the cheers of their groupies that they get lazy (I remember one former RB superstar dancer chatting to mates in the wings in mid-performance while barely doing the steps he was paid for). And, after a while, in front of easily-pleased new audiences, might those who can do it try that little bit less, and perhaps ROH management might even find they didn't need such talented/hard-working/famous/expensive or whatever performers any more, but could save money on shows while still relying on full houses of first-time punters posting ignorant but rave responses on Twitter? Just one recent example: last Monday's opening of Act 3 of Gotterdammerung. The (sadly so often awful, lazy) brass section led off with some horns who even for them were really not bothering. Half the amphitheatre burst out into exactly the sort of pure natural instinctive laughter any career comedian would be delighted by. This sound no doubt reached at least the ears of the conductor, and perhaps led later to some firm words and a bit of practising (even if not, as I would counsel, some re-auditioning and perhaps early retirement). An audience should be a healthy mix of all kinds of people, from the youngest to the oldest, from the newbies to the go-every-nights, from the innocently pleased to the expert supercritical, and tampering with this balance risks very serious consequences.

Just spent the morning reading through this important discussion. First of all, very many thanks to Darlex for drawing attention to this in the first place and then to everyone who has responded, particularly those who have taken direct action, whether by telling the Friend's office what they think, writing in, tweeting, commenting on the Arts Professional website (where, to their credit, Baker Richards joined the conversation) or wherever. Next, very many thanks to Sophoife for highlighting (as above) that this is not an "article" in any traditional sense, but a piece of paid "advertorial", aka PR (or as we civilians like to call such things, "lies"). This may indeed be a reflection of a dangerous trend but we would be foolish to rely on any supportive evidence provided by Baker Richards - eg the supposed "increased revenues by £400,000 in six months". This is likely to be, at best, a highly massaged and carefully selected figure, or, at worst, given that the ad is not subject to any regulatory control or external auditing, it could quite possibly just be some made up figures by Baker Richards to promote their company's services. Finally, kudos to Yaffa for the link (above) to the really most interesting (and fact-filled) presentation by Lucy Richards, who is clearly neither unintelligent nor just advertising something. I very much hope we hear from those who have professional understanding of data analytics and the time to go through this carefully.

There is an unfortunate reality, which is that unseen cultural bureaucrats place extraordinary pressures on organisations. For example the British Library has currently degenerated into a place for teenagers to flirt, eat snacks, use wifi - and discover they can't take the books out like in a "normal" library. Staff there have told me that if I can I should wait a month or so and come back, once word has got out to first year college students that this library isn't "any good" and the atmosphere might return at least somewhat to that of a serious research library. The reason for this chaos? The BL was given a new metric: what counts now is "footfall" (people into the building) and "increased membership", so they do all they can to persuade all and sundry to apply for readers tickets as they have to show more people joining year on year. Something similar goes on at the ROH. They are no doubt under some kind of pressure to prove to the Arts Council that they are "broadening" their appeal, ie selling tickets (or at least coffee) to ever more and more diverse audiences, for fear of their grant being fiddled with. That is how state sponsored culture is run, but none of us plebs gets a say in these policies: they are devised, not by people at the ROH, but DCMS types or the people at the Arts Council who design the forms, and the ROH has to go along with the game. I know someone - no names, no names - who runs a significant Arts Council supported venue and pays "ethnic" people to sit in highly visible seats on the nights the Arts Council is scheduled to make their inspection visits. This person - who is very nice, liberal and normally honest - is ashamed of such finagling but knows the box-ticking (eg to prove a diverse ethnic mix) can made or break state support for their organisation. I assume the staff there are also asked to lie about their sexuality etc on the Arts Council forms in order to get the place more brownie points. Makes me pretty upset but I have no idea what to do to change the status quo. I can't help being a white, middle class male senior citizen with a wife and family: should I stop going to the ROH to make their statistics just that little bit less white, middle class etc etc?

Those of us who agree with this should make the point to the ROH direct asap. Where might be best? Posting on news, an email to some executive (but who?) or somewhere else?

...yet it has been showing as "Sold Out" for months. Not for the first time, I can't help wondering exactly how ROH go about allocating seats for Insights. It rather looks as if a certain number are held back for some department or organisation which can't bothered, not only to use their allocation but even to pass the news back that the tickets won't be needed. Or maybe someone in the Insight department is being lazy.

What a good idea, thank you! Given the spelling of 'traveling' (usual in the US, whereas 'travelling' is standard in the UK) is this going to be more focussed on the States?

Just seen this, so it seems confirmed:- https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/tube-strike

A few years ago I became rather involved with the London disability lobby, learned many interesting things and made some marvellous friends (by no means all the people I met were exGLC exploiters of political weakness for personal advantage). One of the most thoughtful, intelligent, politically active and compassionate (no names, sorry, he wouldn't like it) was however stumped when I asked for advice as to how I should have reacted at the performance of Parsifal I had once attended. Throughout Wagner's sublime prelude - alone worth the price of admission, I tend to feel, at least if the band is good - my neighbour in a wheelchair made loud involuntary honking sounds, signalling his delight and approval. The rest of us nearby could hear little. It was a while ago so I forget who left first, the wheelchair couple or me. The point of this story is to report that the most balanced and gifted person I met during that year of disability rights was lost as to what response was correct. This was before the new era of these special performances.

Today's review: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/sep/19/royal-opera-house-linbury-theatre-open-up-stanton-williams Has anyone been inside yet?

This ticket is now spoken for.

This isn't ballet but as it is going to be a very special musical evening, I thought it might be ok to offer the ticket here nonetheless. Sadly work now means I can't use my precious side front row (£25, which is cheap for this venue) for my current favourite pianist: https://wigmore-hall.org.uk/whats-on/elisabeth-leonskaja-201809141930 Please PM if interested.

Amy, might I gently suggest that you are not helping yourself by repeatedly calling yourself an "editor" of the book. Those of us who are familiar with publishing know that editors are rather significant figures (often they come up with the idea for the book; provide support throughout the research; perhaps even producing additional sources; and then frequently, though less often these days, reshape the original manuscript in ways which can extend to rewriting the entire work). For that kind of editor to comment on their book without including a reference to their involvement would indeed be a faux pas. However from what you say it sounds as if a better description of the work you did would be as a "proof reader", in which case I feel you are exonerated on the charge of somehow having been deceptive. Someone who tidied up the author's English is more than entitled to be simply enthusiastic about what they read: they will after all have read the book very carefully. That said my interest is in new historical research so I won't be buying this book.

Thank you for your comments, very helpful. However several times you mention the useful footnotes, although it seems relating only to "easily obtainable sources". Can you explain further, maybe with an example or two? Did you spot any footnotes to any newly discovered historical material? In fact is there anything in this book which is both historically accurate and also not previously known? I am always interested in new research but am not sure if there is any in this book.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRoyalBallet/status/1031935346026708992/photo/1 and wp.me/p2HOoN-A7r

Hope this link works ok: https://on.ft.com/2Mm2h8O (apologies if this has already been highlighted elsewhere)

Last Friday's performance had an extra element. The Stage reports: https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2018/audience-member-steps-save-performance-la-boheme-royal-opera-house/

Might I add a piece of evidence in support of FLOSS and others? I have access (from a variety of sources, no more details sorry) to generally unavailable recordings of the Royal Ballet, from the 1950s to the present day. The loss of quality over the decades, in both Petipa and Ashton, is sadly obvious if one compares like with like. Not just the corps, but individual variations and even major roles used regularly to be better danced. There are exceptions, of course, but the general trend is clear. In summary, it is as if speed, precision and musicality has increasingly suffered at the expense of athleticism and "emotionalism". Memory is notoriously fallible - it is as easy to be wrong about how wonderful things used to be as it is to claim things have never been better - so I would encourage the posting of where one can find examples. One from me: Beryl Grey's Lilac Fairy occasionally pops up on YouTube, though I haven't checked recently.

Apologies for the old article (no doubt listed in links at the time) but this report of a new film might still be of interest:- https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/jun/17/rudolf-nureyev-documentary-unearths-unseen-avant-garde-footage-ballet

Here are three links (all already discussed here but so far as I am aware not yet brought together in one place) They go some way to provide a range of opinion: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/dance/what-to-see/swan-lake-review-royal-ballet-covent-garden-staging-yet-spread/ https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/may/27/rambert-life-is-dream-kim-brandstrup-royal-ballet-swan-lake-liam-scarlett-review (followed by some helpful below-the-line comments) and this thread https://balletalert.invisionzone.com/topic/43862-new-royal-ballet-swan-lake/

Only just seen this piece about the troubles of the ENO: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/29/eno-quentin-tarantino-powerhouse-opera-financial-crisis? Unusually interesting comments afterwards.