Lizbie1

I'm genuinely happy about Francesca Hayward's experience (which she's been clear about for some time), and that she's on record about it. However, I don't think we can dismiss the possibility that racism in ballet exists or is perceived to exist based on her testimony alone. Without wanting to be controversial about it, I'd also point out that it's well documented that so-called light skinned mixed race people often have a different (i.e. more positive) experience than those with darker skin. Moreover, Hayward's background of being brought up by middle class white grandparents may have been a significant factor. p.s. I feel a bit uncomfortable making an example of Hayward as I've never got the impression she enjoys discussing the subject.

It would be complacent not to be at least open to the possibility of the first; and for the second no, that's not what I said or meant. What I mean is that, firstly, what I personally consider to be lazy journalism is possible precisely because that's what a broad swathe of the public (and therefore presumably the more diverse audience we're talking about) believes; and secondly, there is reason for people to perceive that ballet is elitist, given, for example, the expense and demographics of ballet lessons, or ballet's sometimes arcane language and codes. Again, I'm not saying this is correct; I just don't think it's without foundation.

I think Jam Dancer has a point. Speaking as a woman, I'm not in any doubt that many/most men - not themselves sexist - can be poor at noticing sexism in others (other than in its more overt forms); it's also possible I sometimes perceive it where none exists. I'd suggest that the same applies when considering racism: being a white person I'm not in a position to judge on either count. Furthermore, haven't we been talking about how incorrect the media's view of ballet as an exclusive art form is? That view doesn't come from nowhere!

My favourite is PEBCAK

Indeed - and if it centres on the summer season, which was dominated by Swan Lake, the new Lohengrin and La Boheme (which most regulars would have caught when it opened the season) it would be very unrepresentative both in terms of ticket prices and audience make-up.

Not hugely impressed with the ROH's comment under the article: "The Royal Opera House could not stage the world-class performances we present without the generous and valued support of our Friends and patrons for which we are continuously grateful. However, the rising cost of staging opera and ballet also means we must change the way we approach pricing, and address how we communicate our core activities. In tandem with this, and in order for our beloved art forms to survive long into the future, we must also reach newer audiences – making sure that whatever decisions we make lead to the best outcomes for everyone who steps through our doors." To paraphrase Goering, when I hear the word 'outcomes', I reach for my metaphorical revolver.

The thing is, I can see - though not agree with - their reasoning, which I think short-sighted as well as discourteous. It's the stupidity of voluntarily going public with it I can't understand.

Other companies offer more flexible and, depending on number of performances booked, often more generous subscriptions, usually at every band except the cheapest. I take advantage of them whenever I can, even when it's 10% off my £12 Sadler's Wells tickets. Thank you for your good wishes about my tickets: I'm all booked up for Winter and got what I wanted - in fairness to the ROH, I generally do.

I certainly would! And it's rather nice to have an early night sometimes.

I think that depends on your definition. The cheapest available subscription band for Don Quixote, for example, is £33 full price, whereas my customary choice for ballet is two bands lower at £19 (and there are another two bands below that).

Just as I calculate that my bog-standard Friends membership pays for itself in better value tickets over my ~15 performances a year, so I suppose would a higher level subscription make sense financially if I were to attend more frequently still. Friend+ membership is £182 rather than £103, which is not a huge jump. The difference is rather bigger thereafter, but if I went, say, twice a week, the £435 Supporting Friend membership would probably pay off. I don't think it's ideal, but it isn't as simple as rich people snapping up the bargains before the poor can get to them: my attitude to my membership is that it's a bit like paying upfront for a discount card - it's to help my budget stretch further in the long run. I'd prefer to be buying subscription packages, but the ROH ones don't extend to the cheaper seats - which is clearly deliberate, going by today's revelations.

I'd be interested to know what they classify as a too-frequent attender: do they mean those who are there most nights, or weekly, or just monthly?

Excepting, of course, the bureaucrats themselves.

I agree with all the things to love for No Man's Land - and can I add to the list Scarlett's evident love of epaulement, and the ENO dancers' response to that love?

I have no problem with the word being used by North American but do find it a bit weird from a British speaker, so maybe that's what was meant. (Just as a North American might find certain primarily British words or pronunciations pretentious coming from a fellow Canadian or American.)

Not really!

With Friends booking opening quite soon, I'm beginning to panic slightly about which cast(s) to see in the Patineurs triple. (I also worry with many Ashton one-acters about how long it might be before I get to see them again.) Any thoughts? Do I really need to see Sambe, or will the double dose on 20th December, with Hay and Corrales be enough?

I agree with everyone about how uncomplicately enjoyable the show is. Two things really strike me: firstly, how everything is clearly based on a deep respect and affection for ballet and its classical repertoire; secondly, how brilliantly "family-friendly" it is: just good clean fun!

Not sure how long that idea will survive!

I actually got the giggles reading it, it goes into such detail about timelines!

I've often got the impression that the NY arts scene even more self-important than it is important! The parochial tone of much coverage doesn't help: Balanchine is, as you say, held up as self-evidently the towering genius of ballet (even if he is - and there are other choreographers I, as a mere enthusiast, would rather watch - not all roads lead to him) and no singer can be held to be a star without a successful Met appearance. I could never understand the reverence in which James Levine, before his fall from grace, was held in the US, given that he didn't register much in Europe. That was when the penny dropped: if it didn't happen in New York, it was largely irrelevant anyway.

Fishing around on the Coliseum website I've just seen that Ivan Putrov has put together a programme called Against the Stream, featuring (I think!) works by Balanchine, Robbins, Ashton, MacMillan, Lifar and Yacobson amid others, and performed by dancers including Matthew Ball, Mathieu Ganio and Putrov himself. It's on Sunday 7th April next year. There's a bit more here: https://londoncoliseum.org/whats-on/against-the-stream/. Public booking opens tomorrow at noon. Apologies if this has already been noted, but a not-exhaustive search didn't turn anything up.

Tickets now sold, thanks to Ruth!

Great! Thanks for your agency!

I used to love the RFH but I don't find the Southbank at all welcoming now! It seems to have degenerated into a food hall/lowbrow exhibition space (Moomins? ABBA?). Leave a solo piano recital and your ears and mood are immediately assaulted by unsympathetic music playing in the foyers. Which would be fine if it weren't for the £18m annual public subsidy it receives (which is presumably the reason it continues to present concerts) on top of God knows how much in one-off grants for repairs, improvements, etc.