bridiem

Without wishing to be disrespectful to Mr Hallberg (I've only seen him a small number of times and mainly with great admiration), I wonder if this is at least in part a way of ensuring Osipova's continuing commitment to the RB. But it would be a real shame (for us and I would say for her) if she largely ceased to dance with the current RB men. (I know she's doing Onegin with Muntagirov, which I am greatly looking forward to, so I hope this will not be the case.)

The students I know are back. And when I was a student in London, nothing stopped me going to ballet/theatre/concerts etc!

I have a few cuttings from the late 1970s tour - Mary Clarke wrote 'At last, at last! After a 14-year absence the New York City Ballet is back at Covent Garden and America's greatest classical company can be seen...' and she goes on with almost unalloyed praise and enthusiasm. Even Alexander Bland (quoted above) concludes an interview with Balanchine by saying 'the company's last week produced some of the season's best works... the all-Stravinsky evening was pure joy... A genius? I wouldn't say No.' No doubt there were other comments less enthusiastic (including by Nicholas Dromgoole) but there was also evidently positive comment.

Wow!

I think to say that critics here have been 'consistently cold towards NYCB' is something of an exaggeration, though I acknowledge that some critics (and audiences) have not always been enthusiastic (which I find baffling). John Percival (of a similar era to the critics cited above) certainly considered Balanchine a 'genius' and was very warm towards the company, and I'm sure other critics have been too. But when NYCB came to the ROH in the late 1970s I remember enormous queues for tickets, largely enthusiastic audiences and at least some favourable reviews; when they came to the Coliseum in 2008 (the first visit of the full company to the UK for 25 years) there didn't seem to be the same excitement or enthusiasm and I don't think the performances sold out; I can't remember what the reviews were like.

The very fact that you asked, Dawnstar, proves that you were not being entitled; it was very courteous of you to check how these things work in advance.

I don't know if they're still there or have been removed; but if the latter, perhaps it's a move towards full use of dynamic pricing - i.e. you can't have static pricing maps because there's no such thing as a price for a seat; it all depends when you're booking and how ticket sales are going.

Great photos! Thank you, Rob S.

I generally agree with this (especially if the aim is to produce something 'clever') because the likelihood of achieving something of a quality similar to the original is vanishingly small. But the classics have become classics partly because of the power of their themes, generally harnessed to a superb score, some brilliant choreography, and evocative designs; if a new version can use the same eternal themes and adapt or change other elements, a new classic telling of the same truths can emerge. More often than not it doesn't, and the new version simply reveals a dearth of imagination and/or talent. For me, this Giselle comes very near the power and beauty of the original whilst bringing its own new and brilliant elements. There are echoes of fairy tales, of Greek myths, of Biblical themes; the music is thunderingly powerful yet maintains some of the beauty of the original; the designs are both ancient and modern; and the choreography is in Khan's unique and wonderfully expressive and imaginative style. But, some of this is a matter of taste - if Khan's choreography doesn't speak to you, it won't work; if you don't like loud music, it won't work; if the designs don't resonate with you, it won't work. For me, it all comes together magnificently.

I continue to find this production absolutely thrilling and unbelievably moving. I think that if you know the story of the traditional Giselle, the big themes and elements are all there in this production (and I think clearer now than in the first performances, though I couldn't say what changes have been made). Khan is a man of the theatre through and through, and although the Wilis (and Giselle) dance on pointe in Act II it's not really a ballet, it's a magnificently theatrical dance production. The quality of the movement is so rich and so embedded in the themes and the score and the designs that the experience as a member of the audience is all-enveloping. For me the heart of the work are the two long pas de deux for Giselle and Albrecht. The first in Act I, so full of love and tenderness; Giselle is clearly with child, and the child is already with them and binding them together. A couple full of light and hope and bathed in the golden light of dawn. Knowing what is to come, I find it almost unbearable to watch. The second pas de deux in Act II, so full of love and pain; of loss and regret, but also of forgiveness and so still of some element of hope. A couple who have lost (nearly) everything, still together but now in the relentlessly dark underworld and dancing from the memory of love. And as performed by the magnificent Tamara Rojo and James Streeter, every nuance of feeling, imagery and physical and emotional expressiveness is exploited to the maximum. I did miss Stina Quagebeur as Myrtha this evening; Sarah Kundi was very good but lacked the power and distinctiveness that Quagebeur brought to the role. Ken Saruhashi was excellent as a violent, scheming Hilarion. And the Wilis were brilliant and terrifying - truly lost souls and so full of foul bitterness that I could almost smell them from the Upper Circle.

So in the latter venue we'd probably have 2 Putins... There would presumably have to be quite significant revisions to the production if it were to be done in the round. I haven't so far been tempted to the RAH for ballet, partly because the seats are so expensive even when you're very far away. If this came, I'd have to consider my options!

I ended up in the basement last season. And I've been going to the ROH for 42 years. 😲🤔☹

I can't at the moment remember how many Manons I'm going to (all a big blur, like so many other things), but I haven't received any further emails about it either. Which is odd; why would some people be getting emails about it and not others??

I'm suspicious of lists that (as JNC says) ignore or downplay classical companies (which are after all largely the biggest companies with the most resources and some of the very best dancers) and include single works by a wide range of other (mainly contemporary) companies/choreographers. It makes me think that it's simply the reviewer trying to 'prove' the breadth and egalitarianism of their knowledge/appreciation.

How horrible. I actually think SW/theatres shouldn't allow in children that young anyway; and it sounds as if the adults had no more idea of how to behave than the child did. (Well how would the child know if the adults don't?). That poor man must have had his afternoon ruined.

I think it's not just speed, it's continuity; dancing, not doing a series of steps or making a series of images. Flow (physical and musical). So you're not admiring the technique, it's disguised so that what you experience is simply dancing, music, story. But yes, also speed.

Not the only tricky balance involved in Sleeping Beauty 😊 (Sorry, couldn't resist it.)

I assume that since it's described as a 'drop-in' performance announced only on the previous day (and it seems only on Twitter) that it's really aimed at people who happen to be passing rather than at people who normally frequent the ROH. I have a vague memory of seeing the above item on Twitter but since I wouldn't go into town for a short ad hoc item (and presumably no seating! I have a bad back) I didn't pay it any attention. But it would be interesting to know who/what was involved.

I know this sort of thing has been discussed before, but I can't remember the outcome: does 'sold out' for an Insight actually mean no more tickets ever (unless there are returns), or just no more available now? i.e. are any tickets held back for later stages of booking?

I'm tall, and this is a big problem for me too in the upper circle (also not sure how far back it starts). Staggering really... 😏

I think the RB may have performed R&J at the O2 - quite a few years ago now. (I didn't go so can't be sure, but they definitely performed there.)

What a beautiful tribute to your mother, jmb. And what a beautiful legacy she has left you. My sincere condolences on your loss.

In the light of our previous discussion, maybe it should have been the 'Anyakova'...

I think that in general nowadays, it's no longer the case that only certain types of names are appropriate for ballet. (As was mentioned above, Darcey Bussell changed her name for different reasons.) I've just looked up Meredith Daneman's biography of Fonteyn - she says that the name change evolved over discussions between Peggy, her mother and de Valois. Interestingly, she quotes de Valois as saying 'We have at last found and created a British ballerina. For heaven's sake, don't let her sound Spanish.' I'm not sure that Fonteyn sounds particularly British, but it was evidently considered more so than some of the possible alternatives.

Very interesting question! I remember she said in her autobiography that it was when she was at the height of her stardom that she felt least 'herself' (or words to that effect - it's a long time since I read it). Perhaps changing her name was part of that sense of having moved away from who she was. (Come to think of it, I saw a TV programme about Cary Grant quite recently that described how his new name was part of the reason that he had no sense of identity and was always 'trying on' new persona.) But I can't remember what Fonteyn said about her name change and whether she had any sense of it having affected her or her dancing. Perhaps if she'd kept her name (been allowed to keep it), and if Markova had kept hers, British ballet would have had a slightly different flavour from the start since it would have sounded less foreign/exotic/glamorous etc. (Or perhaps it wouldn't have developed at all without that very sense that attracted audiences?). But would Ashton have choreographed any differently for Fonteyn if she's stayed as Peggy Hookham?! Who knows. There's also the question of whether people who kept their names may have suffered for doing so. I remember Deborah Bull saying that de Valois told her she should change her name because Bull was no name for a dancer; but she declined to do so. But I think/hope that by her time, it made no real difference.