Royal Ballet promotions 2016

[penelopesimpson]

I wonder if the company is perhaps repositioning itself as far as the Ashton repertory is concerned. Next season there are almost as many programmes involving works by Ashton as there are programmes involving MacMillan's. It will be interesting to see whether being able to produce the goods in Ashton's ballets becomes an essential qualification for female dancers who are potential candidates for promotion.

 

Given the number of Principal dancers who are in their mid to late thirties and the number who have already left the company it would appear that Mr O' Hare is likely to be one of the few RB directors who actually gets to recruit and appoint his own team of Principal dancers rather than working, in large part, with someone else's chosen dancers. In a few years we shall see exactly what his vision for the company is as exemplified by his choice of Principals. The recent promotions  give a strong indication of the skill set he  thinks the company's leaders must have, their level of stylistic sensitivity towards the works of the choreographers whose ballets they perform and the relative value he places on technique and expressiveness. A director's choice of dancers to occupy the upper ranks of a company tells the audience just as much about his vison for his company as his choice of repertory does.

Floss, if you ever have the time or the inclination, I wonder if you could share your wisdom with this novice about the different requirements of an Ashton/Macmillan dancer.  I am not as familiar with the Ashton repertoire as I am with Macmillan and would love to hear it explained in words I can understand.

[tabitha]

The recent promotions  give a strong indication of the skill set he  thinks the company's leaders must have, their level of stylistic sensitivity towards the works of the choreographers whose ballets they perform and the relative value he places on technique and expressiveness. A director's choice of dancers to occupy the upper ranks of a company tells the audience just as much about his vison for his company as his choice of repertory does.

People keep saying that choice of dancer tells us about the vision for the company. So what DO the recent promotions tell us then? I for one am still as much in the dark as ever with O'Hare's decisions.

[David]

Floss, if you ever have the time or the inclination, I wonder if you could share your wisdom with this novice about the different requirements of an Ashton/Macmillan dancer.  I am not as familiar with the Ashton repertoire as I am with Macmillan and would love to hear it explained in words I can understand.

 

I think this is a very interesting suggestion - in fact I wonder if it might be possible to mount a discussion in a separate thread, broadening it out to consider the differing styles not just of choreographers but also of the various companies.

 

From time to time I hear people – for example Darcey Bussell and Tamara Rojo to name but two – referring in passing to the differences between the Bolshoi, the Mariinsky the Royal Ballet and various other Companies  but I have not heard any detailed attempt to define the different styles and requirements.

 

It’s a big Ask but I suspect there are many other "novices" like myself who would find such a discussion by the more knowledgeable members of this Forum really, really helpful!

Edited June 21, 2016 by David

[FLOSS]

I am not that convinced that there really is an essential difference between dancers who are effective in Ashton's ballets and those who are effective in MacMillan works in terms of amplitude of movement or the level of technique required to do them justice. The real difference it seems to me is that none of Ashton's choreography leaves any room for the dancer who fudges steps or gives the audience edited highlights of the choreography. At the time that MacMillan created his greatest full lengthy works for his  home company he was working with dancers who appeared in Ashton's ballets and danced his choreography very regularly. Seymour was not seen simply as a MacMillan dancer but as a dancer on whom both choreographers made ballets. MacMillan created Manon on Sibley and Dowell but no one thought of them as  being  anything other than major dancers with whom both choreographers worked.

 

In Ashton's ballets the dancer has either performed the steps or he/she has not. There is no opportunity for the dancer to disguise any technical difficulties he/she may have by emoting.. A dancer who has  technical weaknesses may well be able to get away with it in the big dramatic MacMillan ballets . A dancer may get away with appearing as Tybalt or Romeo and only be exposed by MacMillan's choreography if the company is dancing Song of the Earth and he is cast as the Man. There are few Ashton ballet's that don't expose a dancer's weaknesses  It is one of the reasons why the Ashton repertory is so important for the company. His choreography is not extreme in terms of the demands it makes on the human body but it is technically demanding. Ashton's  ballets have to be danced rather than merely having their steps reproduced and the dancer has to show complete command of technique and style and make it all look natural and easy in order to shine.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by FLOSS

[Wulff]

Ashton's ballets require from the dancer clean and precise footwork, especially in the execution of small and beaten steps and terre-a-terre enchainments. This has to be combined with amplitude of upper body movement and luxuriant epaulement. Ashton was always encouraging his dancers to bend more, and it is this combination of precision in the lower body coupled with a breadth of upper body movement that many dancers unaccustomed to Ashton's style find difficult and often exhausting and frequently try to fudge. This is one reason why I never really liked Sylvie Guillem in "A Month in the Country" Yes, she performed the steps but without the pliancy of torso which would have given them the value that the choreographer intended. You only have to look at a video of Seymour in the role to see  the genuine article.

[Sim]

So Choe not considered as Principal material by the Director, who had no hesitation in throwing her on as a last minute replacement for Osipova in Beauty.

Good point, Tony. I was there that night, and like most of the audience feeling cross and disgruntled that I was not going to be seeing Osipova, and felt like I was going to be short-changed, even though I had always very much liked Choe. Some nasty people in the amphi were even shouting out that they should get a ticket refund. I can't imagine how nervous that poor girl must have been before making her entrance...but my goodness what an assured entrance she made. She got a big round of encouraging applause, and I remember a big smile spreading across my face, and it stayed there until the end of the ballet. She gave a performance every bit as good as many I have seen from established principals on that stage. She got huge, long, appreciative and well-deserved applause at end. In this most difficult of ballets, under the most difficult of circumstances, Choe stepped up to the plate and did herself, and the RB, proud. I really hope she knows how much we appreciate her, even if management doesn't.

[LinMM]

I saw Seymour in this role again either at or soon after the Premier of this ballet and ALL the original cast where wonderful including Seymour of course.

And I still think Wayne Sleep got that right amount of slightly self conscious mischievousness into his role as the boy which is often over done these days.

 

But to return to Sylvie who I did not see in this role so cannot comment much ....I wonder if apart from Ashton's Choreography ...the reason she may not have come across so well is how much she sympathised with the role?

There is of course some degree of obvious melodrama in this Work which also makes it very funny in places but you also have to have at least some sympathy for the situation of the characters trapped in the conventions of their Time to make it work .....though it's a light work it can still move you.

 

And of course a lot of Chopin music......absolutely love it ....but not everybody does.

 

When this Ballet came out I belonged to a Polish dance group and had just come back from visiting Poland and seeing Chopins birthplace.... so it was all heaven and wallow to me and has been a favourite ever since.

Certainly Sylvie Guillem could surprise you ....I did like her Cinderella for example which I thought I wouldn't ....but perhaps not the first person I would choose to see in this role. Although very different to Seymour I think I enjoyed Zenaida in this role a lot.

[LinMM]

Sorry my reply is to Wulff's comments on Month in the Country.

[Legseleven]

In terms of Sylvie Guillem sympathising or not with a role, with respect that is not an excuse for her failing to perform it with as much dramatic conviction as she was able, if that was indeed the case in some opinions? (I didn't see her perform it so have no personal view.) She was quite capable of refusing a role with which she felt she couldn't sympathise and perhaps she should have done just that if her lack of sympathy came across to some of the audience?

 

On the other hand, perhaps it was the Ashton style which she never really captured in this ballet? I assume that wildly different views will be held!

[LinMM]

I did like Sylvie in some things but perhaps as one of the first of the more "gymnastic" type dancers she wasn't entirely suited to Ashton.

 

However when she joined the RB must have known she would have to perform in some Ashton.... perhaps she wanted to get to grips with it but just didn't suit her that much. I don't know.

 

At the time what would have been her training at the POB school? Anyone know?

Did she have Russian teachers there? Or entirely French style?

 

Sorry this going off course as happens in threads but I don't personally want another thread on this .....just a response as to why ....apparently....Guillem did not dance Ashton style that well.

[alison]

Sorry my reply is to Wulff's comments on Month in the Country.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Lin   Having come into the thread semi-cold, I was trying to fit The Invitation into it!

[Sim]

She guested at Korea National Ballet as Odette/Odile in 2011; there's a substantial amount of video footage of it on YouTube if you wish to form an opinion.

 

Edited to add White pdd : https://youtu.be/IaTA-1KMAg0

 

And Black pdd: https://youtu.be/Kx-hO852FM4

 

(Substantially different version to the one that's standard at the RB, but even so...)

Well I personally would pay good money to see her perform the role on the ROH stage. Such lovely, limpid arms, so much assurance in her dancing, wonderful technique, and excellent interpretation. If arms can make you cry, hers will do it. Maybe by the time the new Swan Lake is performed management would have seen the light and Yuhui will be a principal and given the chance to show London how she can perform this role....in my dreams!!

[FLOSS]

While Sylvie was admirable in the works of many choreographers Ashton was not one  of them.The problem with Sylvie was that she was not prepared to modify her style but imposed her style on Ashton's choreography which did  little to enhance his reputation.. As a result, for me at least. her performances of the few Ashton works she was prepared to dance bore very little resemblance to  anything that Ashton would have recognised as his work  For me her performances of Month and Marguerite and Armand were travesties of the choreography. 

 

 I apologies to all  of Sylvie's fans but for me her approach to Ashton's work provided no revelations no reassessments just the knowledge that what we saw her do in performance was wrong and that those who saw her and thought, as  many fans do, that the object of their unconditional admiration was an interpretive artist of such supreme genius that she could encompass any and every choreographic style were seeing Guillem rather than Ashton.

Edited June 24, 2016 by FLOSS

[Jamesrhblack]

Well I personally would pay good money to see her perform the role on the ROH stage. Such lovely, limpid arms, so much assurance in her dancing, wonderful technique, and excellent interpretation. If arms can make you cry, hers will do it. Maybe by the time the new Swan Lake is performed management would have seen the light and Yuhui will be a principal and given the chance to show London how she can perform this role....in my dreams!!

 

 

I have to say, and I'm not an unconditional admirer of Ms Choe, that I thought this was very beautiful dancing. I don't think I have seen her perform quite so impressively in London....

[Sim]

Did you see her Aurora, James?

[Jamesrhblack]

Did you see her Aurora, James?

No I didn't. I still feel that if promotion were going to happen it would have happened after that but agree with an earlier poster that it seems strange that management felt confident to put her in her first season as Aurora on for Osipova if they were not intending to promote her.

[capybara]

I have to say, and I'm not an unconditional admirer of Ms Choe, that I thought this was very beautiful dancing. I don't think I have seen her perform quite so impressively in London....

But, first, a dancer has to be given the opportunities (a Director's choice which often precedes promotion) and this happened for Takada but not so much for Choe.

[FLOSS]

I think everyone needs to accept that on many occasions management makes decisions that seem strange to outsiders. I  hope this does not upset her fans but  for every "regular" who thinks Choe is marvellous and that management's failure to promote her is inexplicable there is at least one who would regard promoting her to Principal as  inexplicable. Those who would regard her promotion as an aberration see the same performances as those who feel distressed that she has not been promoted. The very things that appeal to her fans are likely to be the very things that are thought by others to disqualify her from becoming a Principal dancer. Her fan's see a charming, beautifully restrained dancer  other ballet  goers see a small scale, doll like dancer who lacks amplitude and attack. One  who never dances "dangerously" when the choreography calls for it. It is the same dancer seen by two different people who expect and look for different things in a performance of a particular role and perhaps had their ideas of what a Principal dancer should look like in performance formed at different times by dancers of different generations. Neither side is wrong. At the end of the day it is the director's eye rather than that of the ballet goer that counts in these decisions.

Edited June 25, 2016 by FLOSS

[Scheherezade]

At the end of the day it is the director's eye rather than that of the ballet goer that counts in these decisions.

 

Which presupposes, somewhat, that the director's judgement is always sound.

[alison]

I suspect similar things could be said about numerous dancers, at Principal rank and below, in many different companies - in fact, probably anybody who doesn't stand out head and shoulders above the rest where star quality is concerned.

 

 

Edit: that was in response to FLOSS' comment, in case it's not clear

[Jamesrhblack]

Which presupposes, somewhat, that the director's judgement is always sound.

One would tend to assume that it was, given their greater knowledge of the demands of repertoire and casting as well as promise shown from within. Obviously, not infallible but likely to be better informed than any of us....

[GailR]

I have been pondering whether anyone knows for sure that Yuhui wishes to be a Principal. There are so many more lovely soloist roles to go round that someone may prefer that level to waiting for a smaller share of Principal performances ?

[Fonty]

While Sylvie was admirable in the works of many choreographers Ashton was not one  of them.The problem with Sylvie was that she was not prepared to modify her style but imposed her style on Ashton's choreography which did  little to enhance his reputation.. As a result, for me at least. her performances of the few Ashton works she was prepared to dance bore very little resemblance to  anything that Ashton would have recognised as his work  For me her performances of Month and Marguerite and Armand were travesties of the choreography. 

 

 

 

Apart from Sylvie's approach to the choreography, I wonder if part of the problem is the very different physique that she had, compared to the dancers who inspired Ashton?  I am not thinking so much about her height, but the fact that she seemed to have a short torso and long limbs.  The generation of dancers with the RB in Ashton's day seemed to have different proportions, without that ultra leggy look, so that there was less emphasis on the legs and more on the whole body.  If that makes sense? 

[Scheherezade]

One would tend to assume that it was, given their greater knowledge of the demands of repertoire and casting as well as promise shown from within. Obviously, not infallible but likely to be better informed than any of us....

 

There have, however, been extraordinarily perverse decisions been made, both in terms of those promoted and those overlooked, the latter of which have included a number of the finest Ashtonian dancers in the latter part of the twentieth century.

[penelopesimpson]

I think everyone needs to accept that on many occasions management makes decisions that seem strange to outsiders. I  hope this does not upset her fans but  for every "regular" who thinks Choe is marvellous and that management's failure to promote her is inexplicable there is at least one who would regard promoting her to Principal as  inexplicable. Those who would regard her promotion as an aberration see the same performances as those who feel distressed that she has not been promoted. The very things that appeal to her fans are likely to be the very things that are thought by others to disqualify her from becoming a Principal dancer. Her fan's see a charming, beautifully restrained dancer  other ballet  goers see a small scale, doll like dancer who lacks amplitude and attack. One  who never dances "dangerously" when the choreography calls for it. It is the same dancer seen by two different people who expect and look for different things in a performance of a particular role and perhaps had their ideas of what a Principal dancer should look like in performance formed at different times by dancers of different generations. Neither side is wrong. At the end of the day it is the director's eye rather than that of the ballet goer that counts in these decisions.

Beautifully put Floss and thank-you and others for the information regarding the requirements of the Ashton repertoire.

 

You are so right about multiple viewpoints. I enjoy Ms Choe in most things but for me she doesn't have that spontaneity, that breathless abandonment of self that can make a good performance great.

[FLOSS]

 In an interview she gave Janet Baker made some important points about the place of the singer performing a great musical work which I think are of general application to theatrical  performers whether they are singers,actors or dancers. She described the composer as a creative artist and the singer as a re-creative one. The most important point she made was that the performer should never make the mistake of believing that they are creative artists. and on a par with the composer. She described the singer as a re-creative artists who occasionally gets a glimpse of the place in which the creative artist exists when in the process of creating a great work of art. She said that it was the re-creative artist's duty to work out what the composer wanted and do it.    .

 

How does that apply to dance and individual dancers? I don't think that the problem with Sylvie's performances of Ashton's choreography had anything to do with her physique.The problem quite simply was that she was not prepared to modify her performing style to that required by Ashton's choreography.This had nothing to do with the length of her legs or her torso, it had everything to do with her view of herself and her attitude towards choreographers living and dead and their works. This is probably best exemplified by an incident recounted by Jann Parry in Different Drummer in which she describes Guillem's  relationship with MacMillan. " After yet another clash over alterations she wanted made to costumes and choreography she had shouted at MacMillan " Who do you think you are- a bigger star than me? ".Peter Wright clearly did not have an easy time with her when she appeared in his Giselle. Given the problems that living choreographers appear to have had with her it should surprise no one that she imposed her own ideas on Ashton's choreography, after all,he was safely dead and her power at the box office was much more important than looking after the integrity of his ballets.

[David]

There have, however, been extraordinarily perverse decisions been made, both in terms of those promoted and those overlooked, the latter of which have included a number of the finest Ashtonian dancers in the latter part of the twentieth century.

Quite a claim! Who were "the finest Ashtonian dancers in the latter part of the 20th century" who in your view were perversely overlooked please?

Edited June 28, 2016 by David

[FLOSS]

In my experience there are always Principal dancers about whose qualities everyone agrees and there are those about whose qualities many people remain unconvinced.You are told by their fans that their performances are unmissable, truly great, truly moving, and stylistically exemplary  but when you see them they seem nothing special and you wonder what qualities they possess apart from perhaps being virtually indestructible and there when everyone else is off sick or injured. They are not special, they are not exciting but they are dependable. But you still wonder why the hell they have been promoted.On the other hand there are dancers in whom you and your friends see extraordinary qualities but no one else does, The failure of the powers that be to recognise their great gifts is a matter of amazement and concern. You can't understand why they are not promoted when other,in your eyes,less deserving dancers are.

 

But then we none of us see the full range of a junior dancer's work. It is impossible to do so because they usually appear in roles of which  casting details are not given in advance.The director has the opportunity to do so . A director has.to be aware of the quality and potential of the company as a whole; its current and future needs and the abilities and potential of the students in training at the school. A director may be reluctant to appoint a dancer as  a Principal dancer if he knows that by doing so he will be blocking the promotion prospects of a more deserving more talented group of dancers. An ill considered promotion may mean that he loses  potentially greater dancers he wishes to develop and retain  

 

Then there is the company's repertory. Ashton's ballets  are not given as much exposure as those of MacMillan. MacMillan's three successful full length works may not be good for maintaining the technical standards of the  corps but they fill the company's coffers. While these works are guaranteed regular revival only a small part of the Ashton repertory is revived with any degree of regularity and those revivals seem to have more to do with the company's touring commitments than to any great attachment to his works. A dancer who is seen at their best in Ashton's choreography and is only seen in supporting roles in MacMillan's ballets is likely to find themselves staying at Soloist or First Soloist rank for their entire career. This is even more likely to happen if there is serious competition from more junior dancers who are capable of performing  across a far wider range of the repertory and give more idiomatic performances of those parts of the repertory in which the more senior dancer appears.

Edited June 28, 2016 by FLOSS

[Scheherezade]

'The evening of the 30th was both a début for Stella Abrera, a company stalwart elevated to principal last year, and an anniversary party marking Abrera’s twentieth season with the company. (She is also the company’s first Filipino-American principal.) Abrera’s assumption of her new rank has been both natural and, in a way, astonishing. After spending almost fourteen years in the trenches as a soloist, she has stepped into one leading role after another with little fanfare, as if she had been born dancing them.'

 

- a quote from Dance Tabs/Marina Harss' review of the Ratmansky Sleeping Beauty. There is hope for Yuhui Choe yet!

Edited July 2, 2016 by Scheherezade

[themeowingoptometrist]

How come there are no leavers posted this year? 

[capybara]

How come there are no leavers posted this year? 

 

Obviously a guess but Kevin O'Hare may have needed to announce his promotions earlier than usual this year to cover eventualities in Japan and maybe he and, importantly, those concerned were not ready to 'go live' about leavers at that stage.

 

This is not something that the public has to know NOW. Let's cut him some slack 

Edited July 4, 2016 by capybara

[themeowingoptometrist]

'The evening of the 30th was both a début for Stella Abrera, a company stalwart elevated to principal last year, and an anniversary party marking Abrera’s twentieth season with the company. (She is also the company’s first Filipino-American principal.) Abrera’s assumption of her new rank has been both natural and, in a way, astonishing. After spending almost fourteen years in the trenches as a soloist, she has stepped into one leading role after another with little fanfare, as if she had been born dancing them.'

 

- a quote from Dance Tabs/Marina Harss' review of the Ratmansky Sleeping Beauty. There is hope for Yuhui Choe yet!

We can only hope ... *sigh* 

[Jan McNulty]

Hello Themeowingbiologist and welcome to the Forum!