bridiem

hate to say it, but for every ballet fan they lose, they probably pick up 2-3 'Strictly' fans...

Strangely enough I love both ballet and Strictly! But I'm not interested in ballroom dancing more generally, I'm afraid, so I do find the new format of DT unhelpful to say the least. And I wonder how many ballroom fans really want all that ballet coverage. I imagine the decision was taken on cost grounds, but it's a great pity in my opinion.

Plus a swipe at "social-media botherers" who "include some of the most trenchant Middle Englanders of the ballet crowd, the most grimly set in their convictions that 50 years ago we never had it so good in ballet and The Two Pigeons represents all that is great about British art".

Who could she possibly be thinking of?

Accusing people who like The Two Pigeons of being 'Middle Englanders' (i.e., presumably, reactionary and narrow-minded) is pretty offensive (in various ways). I'm sure many ballet-goers (of whatever class, age and nationality) love 2Ps and Woolf Works, Ashton and MacMillan, Balanchine and Wheeldon, Fonteyn and Osipova, Tudor and Hofesh Shechter, Dowell and Acosta, Robbins and Akram Khan, De Valois and Mark Morris - and so on. That doesn't preclude criticism of some current trends in ballet, or of some repertoire choices made by the Royal Ballet (or others).

And I'm sure that Kevin O'Hare would not have revived 2Ps based only on some letters he had received; he must also have believed it to be worth seeing again. (Similarly with the various works currently being suggested on the ROH website - he won't count up the 'votes' and schedule accordingly; he'll see how far the suggestions chime in with works he also wants to revive.)

Yes, I would love to book for Insights as well as performances, but they cost as much as or more than a performance. And when I do occasionally try to book one, it's usually sold out anyway so I tend to assume I won't be successful and don't pay a huge amount of attention to what's on. But it's a great shame - I hope the empty seats weren't too obvious. I will pay more attention in future...

This is not the first time LJ has said this, was there anything specific that sparked it off?  Other than the photo, that is, which is not the most flattering I have ever seen.  What is it from, BTW?  Although it doesn't really matter, I have seen that position many times in WM ballets.

 

I did enjoy Woolf Works, but I think a lot (most?) of that came from the performance of Ferri.  Plus the fact that as I have disliked just about everything else I have seen by him, so it was a relief to find that there was something I could enjoy!

Yes, I think Ferri's performance was very significant in the impact of Woolf Works. She couldn't be dehumanised if she tried. Maybe for once that inspired McGregor to use his heart rather than his head (or rather, his heart as well as his head).

I was joking about Ashton's influence on McGregor. Would that the influence were a bit stronger!

 

However, Ashton did famously say that that move in Monotones was 'like a chicken on a spit' which does not sound all that respectful of the dancer as a person.

Personally I love Ashton's work, but that particular move has always been my least favourite moment. I can't see that it is that different to some of McGregor's extreme postures.

 

It's a very interesting distinction you make and I shall ponder it- I think McGregor is interested in humanity but whether he succeeds in showing that through dance is debatable.

Sorry - didn't realise you were joking!

Whatever Ashton said himself (clearly not very respectful!), I do find the feel of Monotones very different to that of much of McGregor's work. Though I loved Woolf Works - the first time for me that he did allow his dancers to be people, and it was wonderful.

Evidently Ashton's influence on McGregor..I was never that keen on it in Monotones to be honest.

To me, the difference is that Ashton 'uses' his dancers beautifully and respectfully even when the movement is quite extreme. McGregor (most of the time) uses his dancers as bodies, not as people. Presumably that's his intention since he apparently takes pride in disregarding gender and the humanity of the human body. I have no interest in what the human body can do; I want to know what it can say.

Clearly no knicker-shame nowadays! Quite the opposite, in fact...

Not much evidence of Tchaikovsky discussing his sexuality with the orchestras premiering his works either but there is a pretty large body of analytical writing which discusses its impact on his work.  Authorial intent doesn't need to be express, or even consciously known to the creator.  It can however be an interesting way of thinking about a work.  

 

And no one is being MADE to think about it that way.  I can't see why the fact that others might be interested in doing so should ruin the work for anybody.

Thinking further about this whole discussion, I think it turns on whether ballet merits serious consideration and analysis (of the kind that music, theatre, writing and contemporary dance enjoys) including of its historical, social and political context.  I would say that discussing ballet in that way is a mark of respect for its creators and practitioners - thinking of their work as a serious art form rather than simply something 'safe', 'innocent' and escapist that one takes the children to see at Christmas.  

 

But I would reiterate, that this should not be seen as a threat to anyone who simply wants to enjoy ballet in an escapist way.  There is nothing preventing you from doing so!

I fully agree that historical, social, political and personal contexts can all provoke interesting ways of discussing works of art, including ballets - I do think that ballet merits the same level of analysis as other art forms, though perhaps by its nature it's more elusive and at least in some cases somewhat less open to such contextual interpretations. What I don't agree with is defining a work by one or other of its possible contexts, or considering that it's 'escapist' to view the work on it own terms, as finally presented to the audience by the creator. Respect is due to the creator in that sense too.

 

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. 

 

I would say that the gay sub-text is NOT clear, or evident at all, unless you happen to know something about Ashton's life (which most of the audience will not). A sub-text is just that - something below the surface which influences an artist to create what he or she creates. In my view, Ashton was the ultimate romantic (whatever context that involved in his own life); and (as is described above) The Two Pigeons is about love. Any sub-text may (or may not) be of interest; but the 'point' of the work is the overriding theme which is evident to all regardless of any sub-text.

Just musing here about the choice of male dancers.  Would you say that Anthony Dowell "transformed male ballet"?  He was a fabulous dancer, for sure, but isn't he mainly known for his wonderful partnership with Sibley?  And the same for Mukhamedov and Ascosta. Fantastic dancers, but did they actually transform anything?  Do we know the full list of names?  Someone mentioned Nureyev, who is an obvious choice, and also Nijinsky.

 

Or is it is simply a case that Darcey talks to male ballet dancers who are still alive. 

I was thinking along these lines. But I suppose you could argue that even where they weren't obviously transformative, these dancers (and others, obviously) meant that ballet could no longer be thought of as only the preserve of ballerinas simply by being so brilliant, by setting the bar for male dancers so high in their various different ways. Anyway I will look forward to seeing the programme.

BRB are performing Solitaire on midscale South in 2016.

 

Thanks Janet - I'll look out for it.

BRB have performed Checkmate on a semi-regular basis over the last 20 years or so and I have grown to admire it more as time has passed.  We saw some wonderful performances.

I have a feeling that Checkmate is quite a difficult ballet for very young dancers to perform; I think it needs maturity, stage presence, a theatrical awareness etc that is more likely to be found in older dancers. I have also seen some wonderful performances of it.

What a stunning bill! A real eye-opener. The joy of being able to relax, knowing that you're in the hands of a master. Beauty, craftsmanship and wisdom. I'd forgotten how perfect The Two Pigeons is. The moment when the second pigeon flies in (if it works! Which it did tonight) is surely one of the great moments in theatre, not just ballet. Heart-stopping. Superb dancing all round (Cuthbertson, Muntagirov, Morera et al) - I do understand Luke Jennings's comments about Cuthbertson but she is still very touching and dances beautifully, and M&M were magnificent. Monotones 1 and 2 - gripping! A few wobbles, mainly in 1 (Pajdak, Magri and Hay), but I found the clear commitment of all the dancers this evening very moving. It looks to me as if Ashton is more difficult for current dancers to dance than most of the other rep at the moment, which is one of the good reasons to do more of it. But there was also a sense of the dancers coming home - really trying to serve the company's founder choreographer well and taking joy in so doing. Wonderful.

P.S. How come the pigeons don't get to take a bow?!

General: more Ashton, more Balanchine, more classical. Specific: Capriol Suite, Les Rendezvous, Les Patineurs, Tombeaux, Galanteries, Sons of Horus, Consort Lessons, Concerto, Danses concertantes, Solitaire, Dances at a Gathering, Liebeslieder Walzer, Concerto Barocco, Ballet Imperial, Stravinsky Violin Concerto, Four Schumann Pieces (esp for Muntagirov), Dances of Albion, Pierrot Lunaire.

I agree that it is surprising to find a dancer who was equally good in both roles but Barbieri always seemed to be a dancer with an exceptionally wide range.She was one of my favourite Giselles and had perfect command of the Romantic style. I don't think that I ever saw her give a bad performance in anything and she gave some very good accounts of roles that you would not readily associate her with such as Pineapple Poll. Peter Wright was very lucky to have her in his company and it always seemed to me that MacMillan was a complete idiot not to take her into the Covent Garden company.The company would have had a real ballerina when it needed one at the beginning of the eighties and we would not have had Collier in quite so many ballerina roles to which she was not entirely suited.Collier never convinced me in Swan Lake. I always wondered how a very nice woman who had spluttered "But she's a soubrette", when Park was programmed to dance Swan Lake, would have reacted to the prospect of Collier's Odette/Odile.

 

I have to say that Collier totally convinced me in Swan Lake! The purity of her dancing made her a perfect and achingly vulnerable Odette but she still brought glitter and menace to Odile. But I do agree that Barbieri was an exceptional dancer.

Monotones is not the only Ashton ballet she refused to dance.  She once said she would not dance in Fille because it was 'too difficult and too stupid'.  I suppose she meant the chickens?

 

Linda

Well I don't suppose she would have been required to be a chicken... now that would have been worth seeing. But strange that she apparently couldn't suspend disbelief, as we all have to do so often in the theatre.

As a general warning, ROH have reinstated the bag search on entry (as a response to the atrocities in Paris one assumes, and the upgraded security levels in major cities). Understandable in the circumstances.

This means that entry may be delayed slightly, so I'd advise giving it plenty of time if you can, to avoid a last minute rush before curtain up.

Thanks for letting us know this, zxDAveM - I had thought that might happen (and in fact I'm quite surprised it was stopped previously).

Just announced:

 

http://www.teatroallascala.org/en/season/2015-2016/ballett/don-chisciotte.html

 

GUEST ARTIST  Natalia Osipova (6, 8, 10 Mar.) Leonid Sarafanov (6, 8, 10 Mar.)  

After having verified the programming, the Ballet Management rectifies what previously announced: Svetlana Zakharova’s scheduled performances of Don Quixote will be given to Natalia Osipova who will dance with Leonid Sarafanov.

My head is spinning now! Cast changes with every turn of a pirouette.

If Osipova didn't want to dance with Coviello and the management of La Scala couldn't come up with someone she was happy with then I think it's her prerogative to withdraw. Particularly in a ballet like Manon with some tricky choreography, part of which (the slide) we know has been the cause of an accident to more than one ballerina in the past. 

I suppose we must assume that Sarah Lamb has no such concerns about Coviello... let's hope she gives of her impressive best (and no injuries!), in which case the Milan audience should be very happy.

At ABT, they do charge different prices per casting and date of the week, Osipova performances are always expensive. And now they apply dynamic pricing, which is based on how well the tickets are selling. So if Osipova cancels there is a similar groaning heard (I am not sure about how they refund this, someone in NY could explain)

 

In Japan, for instance at K-Ballet Company Tetsuya Kumakawa performances are much expensive than the other male leads. So if he cancels you can get refunds. Also usually the price is different when you have a guest artist. 

I think that's rather horrible. No matter how much I may want to see a particular dancer, they can't do it on their own and many other things go towards making a great (or poor) performance. For a singer giving a recital, or some such, I can understand that the venue or promoter will want to charge whatever they think they can charge depending on the name of the performer; but for a company performance, the ballet's the thing.

As I understand it, the case with refunds for no - show stars is down to the way the performance of whatever it is, is marketed. In my albeit limited experience, I have found that a theatre or venue is not obliged to give a refund if a particular performer is unable to do their thing for whatever reason, unless the show is advertised as their own. Therefore, if a show is billed as for example An Evening With Darcey Bussell, and Miss Bussell is indisposed on the night, a substitute would generally not be acceptable, however interesting they may be, hence a refund.

 

That's a useful distinction. Though I suppose it could be said that some marketing does focus quite a lot on the individuals who will be performing and so it can be quite a fine distinction too. And while there will obviously be disappointment if the dancer you wanted to see is ill/injured, as others have said it often gives you the chance to see someone else for whom you wouldn't have booked and that can open new doors. The only problem, and what I think causes legitimate disgruntlement, is if there is any sense for any reason that the person being replaced is not in fact ill or injured (and I am NOT talking about anyone specific here! Just making a general point). Otherwise, I suspect that illness/injury is even more frustrating for the performer than for the audience.

Full house at the Ritzy, Brixton. Thrilling to see the dancers close up and reinforced how amazing they all are, both physically and artistically. Especially loved Lamb and Muntagirov in Faun - spellbinding and beautiful. I think they complement each other well - Lamb has a quiet dignity that allows Muntagirov to blossom, and they have the same honesty and clarity in their dancing. Agree with Quintus about Salenko and McRae! And about Carmen, except that I think aspects of it worked very well because it has quite cinematic qualities and looked spectacular visually. Very moving to see the tributes to Acosta (plus family!) from his ballet family (including the audience). Thanks to him, and to the Royal Ballet. 

What a shame Zenaida Yanowsky never got a shot at Juliet. I really think she would've been a wonderful Juliet-perhaps with Roberto Bolle as her Romeo?

Yes that would have been wonderful. (Yanowsky in anything is wonderful! I am dismayed that she is doing so few performances this season.)

I do think it's possible for one half of a pairing to make an impact independently, but I think that's easier or more likely to happen with a mature dancer than with a young one. Of course the greatest impact can only happen when the partnership 'works', which sometimes happens for fairly obvious reasons but sometimes is unexpected/indefinable. And, of course, sometimes depends on the beholder - I haven't always especially liked partnerships that others have loved (eg Rojo/Acosta - for me, Rojo/Cope was the one). It does as if Naghdi/Ball has been a huge success so I do hope they are allowed to develop together.

I thought Hayward was terrific - every movement and gesture invested with meaning in a very personal, intelligent and moving way, making me see things I hadn't seen before even though I've seen the ballet so many times. But I thought she was fighting an uphill battle because although Golding does absolutely everything that is asked of him, I never forgot that he was a dancer dancing a role - he never became Romeo. And so Hayward had to do it alone, so to speak. They are as others have noted also physically not well matched. And in terms of chemistry, I thought Juliet and Paris were very touching together in the early scenes and appeared far better matched than Juliet and Romeo!! NOT quite the intention, I suspect. So an unbalanced evening, but very exciting for me because of Hayward's performance.

Sadly I didn't see Naghdi and Ball, but hope to have the opportunity to do so in the future.