RB vs ENB Programming

[Lizbie1]

I realised last night that, if you discount the MacMillan joint efforts, while I'm seeing six ENB programmes this season (AK Giselle, R&J, Nutcracker, Jeune Homme/Sylphide, Voices of America, Sleeping Beauty), I'm only going to four of the RB's (Sylvia, Giselle, Manon, Swan Lake).

 

I reckon in part this can be attributed to a quirk of ENB's touring schedule, but I suppose the main reason I'm seeing a far higher proportion of their shows is that there's a general thinness about the programming this season (and maybe in general?) at the RB.

 

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not talking about the the quality of production or performance of either company, but their ability to come up with an engaging season, particularly when you consider the repertoire and resources which the RB has at its command.

 

Am I alone in thinking this way?

 

(p.s. I've left out NB and BRB because geography means I get to fewer of their shows than I'd like: I would say, however, that BRB would be up there with ENB if it were a little easier for me to see them and if they were doing their midscale tours this season.)

[RobR]

What about 'Winter's Tale', one of the most exuberant and exhilarating ballets around, IMHO?

[Lizbie1]

Just now, RobR said:

What about 'Winter's Tale', one of the most exuberant and exhilarating ballets around, IMHO?

 

I'm afraid I was underwhelmed by it when I saw it. (I'm aware this is a minority view.)

[aileen]

It seems that Winter's Tale is on every year! I rarely go to see mixed bills or new full lengths at the ROH now. Too much of the new work is unsatisfying to me (it's amazing how the in-house choreographers are given chance after chance) plus the mixed bills invariably include a revival of a previously unsatisfying new work eg Strapless, Age of Anxiety. My policy now is to wait for the reviews of new work before booking for it either in the current run or in a subsequent one. I saw Winter's Tale in its first run and quite liked it. However, I didn't feel the need to see it again when it returned. It's a well constructed piece based on quite difficult source material, and beautifully staged with an evocative score in parts, but I find that there is something a bit superficial about it. 

 

 

[capybara]

1 hour ago, aileen said:

It's a well constructed piece based on quite difficult source material, and beautifully staged with an evocative score in parts, but I find that there is something a bit superficial about it. 

 

I too was unconvinced by Winter's Tale until I saw Bennet Gartside in the leading role. He completely transformed that ballet for me and I am ready to experience new casts this year. But not next year, or the next year, or the next year.........! ! ! ! !

 

[proballetdancer]

The RB for all its greater resources is actually far more restricted in many ways as it has to contribute to the running of the ROH, a hugely expensive enterprise.

 

Ticket sales only cover about 50% of running costs the rest comes from subsidies, grants and corporate and private sponsors.

 

The opera makes more than the ballet, the ticket prices are higher and it operates on a 95% occupancy of seats rate. Which gives it more leeway to experiment, have new productions and take risks in programming.

 

The ballet has fewer performances, ticket prices are lower it operates on about 90% occupancy of seats rate and it contributes less to the running costs of the house as a whole. Therefore it has to ensure when it does sell and does programme seats are taken. The three acters are paid for, no new choreographer fees etc, belong to the house, only royalties need paying and the three act classics have an audience who ensure full occupancy. And most importantly the ticket prices are significantly higher than for a mixed bill or new choreography bill.

 

A season of new choreography or programme sells for less, the seat revenue is eaten up by fees, can only be programmed for a limited run if they want to attempt maximum seat occupancy and a critical/audience failure is hugely expensive and has to be accounted for. In most cases by more three act programming.

Edited January 24, 2018 by proballetdancer

[Sim]

I really didn't like WT during the first run, but decided to try it again in the second run.  I found myself liking it more and more each time I saw it, and now I am really looking forward to seeing it again.  I will really miss Zen as Paulina, though.  

 

My main niggle about it is the bear!  It is way too fleeting, and invisible from many parts of the house.  The most famous stage direction in the history of theatre is simply lost!   But I guess in the grand scheme of the story, it's not too important.... 

[Lizbie1]

9 minutes ago, proballetdancer said:

The three acters are paid for, no new choreographer fees etc, belong to the house, only royalties need paying and the three act classics have an audience who ensure full occupancy. And most importantly the ticket prices are significantly higher than for a mixed bill or new choreography bill.

 

A season of new choreography or programme sells for less, the seat revenue is eaten up by fees, can only be programmed for a limited run if they want to attempt maximum seat occupancy and a critical/audience failure is hugely expensive and has to be accounted for. In most cases by more three act programming.

 

But it's the new choreography and mixed bills - other than when they put on all-Ashton programmes (and that would extend to Diaghilev repertoire if they ever get round to programming some again) - and new choreography I find least inspiring, especially when compared with ENB's offerings.  I have few if any gripes with the 19th and 20th century three-acters.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Lizbie1
adding reference to Diaghilev repertoire

[proballetdancer]

9 minutes ago, Lizbie1 said:

 

But it's the new choreography and mixed bills - other than when they put on all-Ashton programmes (and that would extend to Diaghilev repertoire if they ever get round to programming some again) - and new choreography I find least inspiring, especially when compared with ENB's offerings.  I have few if any gripes with the 19th and 20th century three-acters.

 

Mixed bills don't sell if the run is longer than six performances. They also lose money, regardless of who the choreographer is.

 

New three acters are huge financial risks, have to be shared between companies and don't pay for themselves for years.

 

It doesn't matter whether the choreography is new, whether one likes or dislikes the work or personal preference - they lose money.

 

Even if the RB programmed nothing but SL, Giselle, SB and R&J for a whole year and had 100% seat occupancy, the ROH would still lose money.

 

The RB has to do at least 80% bankable three acters to keep its contribution to the coffers of the ROH significant.

 

The majority of seats the really expensive ones which keep those revenues up are corporate designated, corporations don't care about innovation, difference or variety. They want recognisable ballet events.

 

The thing is you have to get past the RB as being an artistic institution, it's not as David Bintley said, it's a business and the bottom line demands a conservative approach to casting, programming and production.

[fashionista]

3 hours ago, Lizbie1 said:

 

I'm afraid I was underwhelmed by it when I saw it. (I'm aware this is a minority view.)

Lizbie1, am totally on your wavelength.  Saw Winter's Tale first time around, and was very disappointed - particularly the 2nd act which I felt was just "padding".  Given that many of my ballet friends did rather take to it, I have given it a second and even a third chance, and I have now concluded, not again!  As such, I have not booked up for the forthcoming run - you are not alone.

[Lizbie1]

1 minute ago, proballetdancer said:

 

Mixed bills don't sell if the run is longer than six performances. They also lose money, regardless of who the choreographer is.

 

New three acters are huge financial risks, have to be shared between companies and don't pay for themselves for years.

 

It doesn't matter whether the choreography is new, whether one likes or dislikes the work or personal preference - they lose money.

 

Even if the RB programmed nothing but SL, Giselle, SB and R&J for a whole year and had 100% seat occupancy, the ROH would still lose money.

 

The RB has to do at least 80% bankable three acters to keep its contribution to the coffers of the ROH significant.

 

The majority of seats the really expensive ones which keep those revenues up are corporate designated, corporations don't care about innovation, difference or variety. They want recognisable ballet events.

 

The thing is you have to get past the RB as being an artistic institution, it's not as David Bintley said, it's a business and the bottom line demands a conservative approach to casting, programming and production.

 

Sorry if I'm being slow, but I don't think we're in disagreement: the programmes which I'm least keen on are, as you say, the least financially successful anyway.  I'm not proposing that they are replaced with anything even less popular!

[Nina G.]

12 minutes ago, proballetdancer said:

 

Mixed bills don't sell if the run is longer than six performances. They also lose money, regardless of who the choreographer is.

 

New three acters are huge financial risks, have to be shared between companies and don't pay for themselves for years.

 

It doesn't matter whether the choreography is new, whether one likes or dislikes the work or personal preference - they lose money.

 

Even if the RB programmed nothing but SL, Giselle, SB and R&J for a whole year and had 100% seat occupancy, the ROH would still lose money.

 

The RB has to do at least 80% bankable three acters to keep its contribution to the coffers of the ROH significant.

 

The majority of seats the really expensive ones which keep those revenues up are corporate designated, corporations don't care about innovation, difference or variety. They want recognisable ballet events.

 

The thing is you have to get past the RB as being an artistic institution, it's not as David Bintley said, it's a business and the bottom line demands a conservative approach to casting, programming and production.

 

Very very interesting indeed to read the other sign of the coin, many thanks!  We may all want to see this or that, and complain about this or that, but the reality is: ROH is a business and the RB and the ROpera have to bring in the money (I have been told it is the RB who keeps the ROH afloat!)

 

[MAB]

4 minutes ago, Nina G. said:

 

Very very interesting indeed to read the other sign of the coin, many thanks!  We may all want to see this or that, and complain about this or that, but the reality is: ROH is a business and the RB and the ROpera have to bring in the money (I have been told it is the RB who keeps the ROH afloat!)

 

 

Don't see how as the RO charges higher prices.  In the past the RB made a fortune from touring, but then Fonteyn and Nureyev were the lead attractions, in fact you could put on any triple bill with them in it and the ROH could have sold every night several times over.

 

So, all the RB needs is ti produce stars of that calibre.

[Nina G.]

Many of the top opera singers charge a fortune per performance. The RB dancers are on a salary and I have no doubt that the RB Principals are paid far less than the hired top opera singers.

[capybara]

6 minutes ago, MAB said:

So, all the RB needs is ti produce stars of that calibre.

 

I sense that we already have at least four major (and young) stars at the RB with another one joining from the 2018/19 season and others rising fast.

 

The problem is that, strong publicity notwithstanding, these current amazing artists do not - yet ! - have the cachet and back stories to grab the public imagination as Fonteyn and Nureyev did.

 

Of course, it should be noted that, in common with the RB,  ENB is also a business and is beset not only with financial constraints but also with touring obligations. However, it is not shackled to any one (or three!) choreographers and therefore has more freedom of choice in relation to its new commissions. McGregor and Wheeldon have been associated with the Royal Ballet for a very long time now, Liam Scarlett for slightly less. Maybe it is time to ring the changes?

[JohnS]

I'm a little unsure about some of the figures quoted e.g. ticket sales cover about 50% of running costs.

 

The Royal Opera House's Annual Report for 2016/17 shows Box Office receipts as being 32% of income, with commercial and other income (including investment income) 25%, Grant 22% and fund raising 21%.

 

http://www.roh.org.uk/about/royal-opera-house/annual-report

 

There isn't any break down between Opera and Ballet or financial performance by production and I'd be interested in knowing the source evidence proballetdancer uses and if it's published.

[proballetdancer]

37 minutes ago, JohnS said:

I'm a little unsure about some of the figures quoted e.g. ticket sales cover about 50% of running costs.

 

The Royal Opera House's Annual Report for 2016/17 shows Box Office receipts as being 32% of income, with commercial and other income (including investment income) 25%, Grant 22% and fund raising 21%.

 

http://www.roh.org.uk/about/royal-opera-house/annual-report

 

There isn't any break down between Opera and Ballet or financial performance by production and I'd be interested in knowing the source evidence proballetdancer uses and if it's published.

 

 

Hi John, sorry you're right, my mistake I meant to type around 30%, it was the 'percentage' key being the shift+5 that lead me to press it twice. Ticket sales around 30 %.

[proballetdancer]

1 hour ago, Nina G. said:

 

Very very interesting indeed to read the other sign of the coin, many thanks!  We may all want to see this or that, and complain about this or that, but the reality is: ROH is a business and the RB and the ROpera have to bring in the money (I have been told it is the RB who keeps the ROH afloat!)

 

 

It was indeed the ballet that kept the opera afloat once upon a time, but that's long in the past.

[JohnS]

15 hours ago, proballetdancer said:

 

 

Hi John, sorry you're right, my mistake I meant to type around 30%, it was the 'percentage' key being the shift+5 that lead me to press it twice. Ticket sales around 30 %.

 

Thanks proballetdancer.

 

I'd be very interested in knowing your sources of information for statements about the relative contributions made by Opera and Ballet and by production.  I've never seen any thing published on this and I have no idea how the ROH accounts for production costs.

 

I'm not sure what is meant by losing money on a particular production given box office receipts overall are 32% of income.  I'd be astonished if for any production box office receipts exceeded the full costs including overheads.

 

Also what's the evidence for the majority of top priced seats being held corporately?

 

As I say it would be good to know where the information can be found.

[Lizbie1]

17 hours ago, capybara said:

 

Of course, it should be noted that, in common with the RB,  ENB is also a business and is beset not only with financial constraints but also with touring obligations. However, it is not shackled to any one (or three!) choreographers and therefore has more freedom of choice in relation to its new commissions. McGregor and Wheeldon have been associated with the Royal Ballet for a very long time now, Liam Scarlett for slightly less. Maybe it is time to ring the changes?

 

I'm inclined to agree.  My impression is, as far as commissions go, that Tamara Rojo has been either luckier or more skilful (or both) than the RB: there seems to be a rather higher hit rate, though I may be forgetting recent disappointments.

[FLOSS]

Some years ago Wayne Eagling explained the finances of ENB by saying that the company lost £100,000 each week it was on tour and that it relied on its London seasons to put money in its coffers. Basically the London performances subsidises its touring activity.

 

As far as the Royal Opera House is concerned as Anthony Russell Roberts explained it nearly twenty years ago the ballet company had for years kept the opera company afloat financially and its extensive North American tours had been undertaken to keep the opera company in business. At some point he had reason to question the costs being allocated to the ballet company's operations and had discovered that instead of merely covering its own overheads the Royal Ballet had for years been paying some of the opera company's running costs. This had occurred because the cost of the operations of both companies had been aggregated and then allocated to the two companies in proportion to the number of performances that each company had given As a man who had worked at the Paris Opera Ballet Russell Roberts had a very good idea of the costs of staging ballet and opera performances. He had taken action by insisting that in future the ballet  company would be responsible for covering the costs of its own operations and the performances it had actually given rather than paying a proportion of the costs of the entire ROH organisation, including the aggregated costs of the two companies, allocated on the basis of the number of performances that each company had given.

 

As Russell  Roberts explained it from that point onward each company became responsible for its own costs and merely had to cover them.Although I understand that there is a requirement that a fixed percentage of the seats for each of the ballet programmes has to be sold  the company is only required to cover its costs not to make a profit. I trust that this arrangement is still in place as the opera company has been playing to plenty of empty seats this season. As far as the low prices for mixed bill are concerned I think that it was Mason who decided that the full length works should be used to subsidise them as a way of inducing the public to attend them. I think that we all need to to

remember that the bulk of the great twentieth century ballets are one act works and a ballet world devoid of them would be a very sad place.

 

As to the relative successes of ENB and RB when it comes to commissioning new works I am not sure that either Rojo or O'Hare have particularly high batting averages. Commissioning new works is an expensive gamble even when you are able to commission a choreographer with a good track record as Kevin learned when he commissioned Arthur Pita to make the Wind. The problem is that making  a ballet for the Covent Garden stage is a very different thing from making a new ballet for the smaller stages on which most  choreographers' works are usually shown. The new work will have to stand up not only against the other works which are on the bill, some of which may be acknowledged masterpieces, but other works which have been seen there recently. In addition it will be  subjected to far more critical scrutiny than if it were to be premiered on a smaller more obscure stage. At the moment the only remedy seems to be to keep commissioning new works in the hope that the demand for them will draw in people who have real choreographic talent. One thing Kevin could do is to exercise a little more oversight over what he is paying for. Acosta's Carmen might have been improved if someone had had the guts to point out how derivative it was. Scarlett's first full length ballet would have benefited from someone asking some searching questions about its structure and its content. insisting on significant cuts to the prologue and on the reconfiguration and the refocusing of many of the scenes. I can't help wondering whether Rojo intervenes in the creation of her new commissions. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by FLOSS

[Nicola H]

On 1/24/2018 at 15:22, proballetdancer said:

 

<snip>

 

The thing is you have to get past the RB as being an artistic institution, it's not as David Bintley said, it's a business and the bottom line demands a conservative approach to casting, programming and production.

and ironically this  means the greter  artistic   risk and innovation  is  among those companies without  these overheads ... 

which allows  BRB  and  Northern  the freedom to do what they do ...  which allows New Adventures to be new adventures  etc etc etc ...  

now the interestign thing  is  at what point  does   a Bourne  or  Tindall ( or  whoever)   piece  become  enough of a banker that RB  want it ? 

 

[FLOSS]

I find the idea that somehow RB is a business while ENB, BRB and Northern Ballet are innovative dance powerhouses existing in a state of artistic purity untainted by any of the basic requirements of a business such as covering their costs hugely amusing and more than a little misleading. Each of these  companies has its own corporate character developed by its history and experiences of facing financial difficulties. The experiences of RB management during the 1990's with the  massive failure of Tharp's Mr Worldly Wise marked it for the next twenty plus years as did the suggestion that the company should be disbanded and be replaced with one which did not guarantee full time employment.I suspect that these two experiences

combined with the pressure  management faces from being subject to almost continuous  scrutiny by professional critics  goes a long way to explain its attitude to staging new works and the type of works it chooses to stage.Opera house audiences tend to be conservative and the minute you get business involved it adds to the tendency towards conservatism.

 

Now I know that many of you complain that company's outside London rarely see a national critic but this can be something of an advantage as while it means that a company's successes do not receive much coverage it also means that its failures don't get that much coverage either.There are plenty of reasonably competent choreographers about but in any generation there are very few touched by greatness and if there were a really great choreographer out there I am pretty certain people would be standing in line to sign them up.

 

Now I am sure that David Bintley has made a lot of very useful ballets for BRB but I remember while he was at Covent Garden he made rather a lot of uninspired ballets with the occasional work such as Tombeaux which was  worth repeated viewing. I think that I  need to ask just how David Bintley is being innovative at the present time? True he makes new ballets for his company at regular intervals and they help develop his dances but how many of them are anything other than useful works? Just how much of his output at Birmingham is likely to outlast his directorship? Hobson's Choice perhaps but not much else I think. 

 

As far as other companies are concerned ENB's strongest card is the fact that it is not the RB and up until now it has been a useful stick with which to beat the RB. Rojo has made some good finds as far as her commissions are concerned but will her artistic honeymoon with the press last much longer? Perhaps someone will begin to remember the good work that Eagling did with the company, 

 

The real problem is that there are not enough really good choreographers about at the moment and you can't create choreographic greatness by willing it or wishing for it. The fact that Bourne is a dramaturge rather than a man of great choreographic vision and ability is a sad fact which suggests to me that we will not be seeing his work at Covent Garden any time soon.

Edited January 28, 2018 by FLOSS

[Jan McNulty]

And how many of Ashton's, MacMillan's and Balanchine"s (for example) works are not considered masterpieces?

 

As you specifically mentioned him, of David Bintley's full length works I would include Madding Crowd and Cyrano and possibly Beauty and the Beast (which has got better every time I have seen it).  I would also include Tombeaux, Galantries, Dance House, Take Five, Orpheus Suite, Shakespeare Suite.

 

Every choreographer has hits and misses...

[capybara]

20 minutes ago, FLOSS said:

As far as ENB is concerned its strongest card is the fact that it is not the RB and it is a useful stick with which to beat the RB. 

 

Surely not, FLOSS ! Competitors of course, but ENB has far, far more to offer than that.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Jan McNulty said:

And how many of Ashton's, MacMillan's and Balanchine"s (for example) works are not considered masterpieces?

 

As you specifically mentioned him, of David Bintley's full length works I would include Madding Crowd and Cyrano and possibly Beauty and the Beast (which has got better every time I have seen it).  I would also include Tombeaux, Galantries, Dance House, Take Five, Orpheus Suite, Shakespeare Suite.

 

Every choreographer has hits and misses...

Janet, are you referring to Bintley's Cyrano for BRB? The RB one was okay but the music wasn't wonderful. I think Bintley commissioned another  score for his second version. I am surprised you omitted Penguin Cafe from your list. I also really enjoyed The King Dances, though maybe not a masterpiece, plenty to enjoy. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Darlex

[Jan McNulty]

Yes, his version of Cyrano for BRB with music by Carl Davies.  I thought the version done for RB was ... not good whereas the revised version was completely, utterly and totally magnificent.

 

A friend and I went to Belfast for the whole week of performances.  When I got back into work the following week my colleagues were bemused when I said I had cried myself to sleep every night but the penny dropped when I said "and twice on Saturday".  (And a certain Mr Campbell was heartbreaking in the eponymous role.)

 

How could I forget Penguin Cafe??? 

 

The list was just a few off the top of my head!

[pompalompa]

I remember seeing Les Liaisons  Dangereuses a few years ago. Was that Northern? I don’t think it’s been back. I loved it but not sure if that’s just because I’m a fan of LLD - does anyone else remember it?

[Jan McNulty]

Yes, Northern Ballet have a production of Dangerous Liaisons, choreographed by David Nixon using music by Vivaldi.  I didn't like the first iteration we saw with a narrator but last time round, without the narrator, it was sheer brilliance and I would love to see it back!

 

Adam Cooper also produced a version of Dangerous Liaisons at Sadler's Wells some years ago, which I also enjoyed.

[Nicola H]

Floss i don't think that anyone is making the claim that the rest of the big 5 / 6 companies don't have commercial imperatives even if parts of the organisation are NFP or charity and AFAIR New Adventures are a business per se.

 

The other companies don't have the overhead of having residence in the way that RB have with the ROH  this allows them the possibility or more risks but equally a complete turkey could damage their chances of using some of the larger theatres they use at present.

[MAB]

An early Bintley I know, but Young Apollo with Mark Silver and the sublime Bryony Brind was a masterpiece (IMHO that is).