bridiem

I'm sure that most of us would love to see more modern BALLET at the RB; most of the new works we see are either full-blown contemporary dance or a sort of hybrid where a bit of pointe work is thrown in to make it look like ballet. Why this sort of work is deemed preferable to new work using the classical ballet idiom in which the dancers have trained for many years, and/or high quality existing works in that idiom, I really don't know.

Well, yes; but your earlier statement implied that Nunez considered Muntagirov too short and with too little partnering experience to do these roles with him. It may well be that Muntagirov prefers to partner (even) shorter dancers than Nunez in this type of role, but that's a different thing entirely.

Slightly bemused by this; Muntagirov is not short and has rather a lot of partnering experience...

The RB really have no choice about their guesting policy, given how few performances most of the principals get.

Excited by Kaneko/Muntagirov, but I so wish Lamb had been paired with him again since I think their partnership is sublime.

And now I've remembered the Manon prices... ☹️

Right decision! Thank you capybara.

So glad to see Alexander Campbell finally getting performances. (I know he's doing a few Nutcrackers, but that's really only a pas de deux.)

It was interesting - he refers to the strain that 'some' modern choreography puts on necks, hips and knees, and (modestly) says that he felt he was too classical a dancer to do such new ballets justice (and that he may have missed out on some opportunities by making this preference clear). But he has in fact danced in some modern works (inc Wheeldon etc) so it clearly wasn't a blanket refusal.

Yes, I did mean that.

Well they offered him a contract, which amounts to the same thing.

So presumably the RB would not recruit Muntagirov now? I agree with you that McGregor has had a huge influence on the company; I disagree that the effect has been 'glorious'.

Yes, and in fact RB programming has got extremely predictable over the years in terms of both who and what. As evidenced by the fact that forum members can generally forecast with a high level of accuracy what will be on offer (or not on offer) in the coming season. But I suppose that if most past works even of great RB choreographers are considered to be 'heritage' works (damning word in the current climate) it's no wonder that we so rarely see great works by choreographers from other companies. Very blinkered if you ask me.

I can't see why not. They must know who's performing so why not credit them.

What benefit has the company obtained from this residency? (Apart from PR etc.) Or, if the benefit is all to the choreographer, why should this one person be privileged in this way? Are there really no other emerging choreographers? Even maybe one working in the field of ballet (perish the thought)? Makes me very angry, in fact.

I agree with your points about inflation and costs etc (I was also a student in the late 70s and early 80s), but even when I was at school as a 17-year-old (when I suddenly decided to go to a ballet performance and got hooked) when my only money was from a Saturday job in a supermarket, I managed to go to quite a few performances. Amphi tickets were not in fact very expensive (I think c £1.50) and the Junior Associate scheme gave vouchers (can't remember exactly how it worked now). By the time I was working (in not very well paid jobs) in London in the latter half of the 1980s (and paying private rent, sharing flats) I went to the ROH all the time. (I also went to quite a lot of theatre performances and concerts, when there were often offers or standbys etc.) So I think that the ROH (and theatre-going generally) was more affordable then than it is now (for young people or anyone else!).

I think that's an excellent practice.

That's a pity, capybara - it's interesting to get the range of reactions to performances, not just those that are very positive.

It does now correctly show Gary Avis. But I'm amazed that such errors go live at all - do they really edit the website directly, with no checking stage?

Yes, it was.

How odd! Surely his credentials matter, and not everyone will know his background. I find that inexplicable.

I've just gone properly through the Jewels programme (which also lists basic info re the gala). It's very good and comprehensive with lots of photos and biographies; but I can't find a biography for David Hallberg - there's a welcome/intro from him and the Executive Director Lissa Twomey but no biog - why would there be no bio for him or have I just missed it?

I think that unless they have a brief to completely change the direction of a company, every new AD should build on (and not completely discard) the legacy they have inherited. They're not there (generally) to build a new company in their own image. (Not saying this is what Hallberg is doing - just a general point.) Without what has gone before, there wouldn't be a company for them to inherit. And their history is what makes - or should make - every significant company unique.

Let's leave the relevant parties to make these arguments since they will not be resolved on this forum. I just hope for everyone's sake that some sort of resolution is found soon.

I agree with almost all the comments above. I really enjoyed the gala, though I really didn't enjoy the Tanowitz piece or Little Atlas (Topp). The standard of classical dancing was excellent, and the dancers are very versatile because they were also brilliant in the modern works (whether or not the works deserved their brilliance). I'd love to see the full Harlequinade, judging by this excerpt, and Marcus Morelli was a terrific Harlequin with Sharni Spencer a stylish Columbine. The Concerto pas de deux was a lovely reminder of a beautiful work that I'd love to see again soon in its entirety. I New Then was quirky and attractive; I'm not an aficionado of Van Morrison's music and I couldn't catch all the words, but it was very well done. The Tchaikovsky pdd was wonderfully danced by Ako Kondo and Chengwu Guo; they really threw themselves into it, and the first fish dive was so thrilling that it really didn't matter that the second one didn't quite work. I also loved the Justin Peck (Everywhere We Go) - it was so fun, full of energy, musical, and lovely to look at. So refreshing. And the Anna Karenina pas de deux worked very well considering it was taken out of context and was beautifully danced by Amy Harris and Nathan Brook. As soon as the Pam Tanowitz piece started, I knew what we were in for, and that's exactly what we got... tedious in the extreme. Meaningless movements on the stage bearing no apparent relation to the meaningless sounds coming out of the orchestra pit. Honestly, it must be such hard work creating this sort of thing and I just don't know why people bother. I also greatly disliked the Topp work; crude design, music and choreography with lots of the woman being manipulated by one or both of the men and lifted overhead, legs splayed etc. Reminded me of Cathy Marston (of whom I am not a fan), or Wheeldon on a bad day. But, as I've said - beautifully danced. And ending with style with a wonderful Don Q excerpt. Joe Caley was sensational (I feared for his safety several times), and although Benedicte Bemet came off pointe briefly in the fouettés, she got straight back up and whirled her way through to the end with great aplomb and great audience support. Again, much better to do that than to play safe. A thrilling end to a largely excellent gala. What wonderful dancers these are! And a great programme, apart from the two mis-steps (to use an ROH word...). So many thanks to the dancers, David Hallberg, Jonathan Lo and all who have made this visit so memorable. And congratulations to TAB on their 60th anniversary!