English National Ballet to be Sadler's Wells Associates

[Paul N]

Back to ENB

 

ACE Analysis of Opera Ballet (July 2014)

 

"English National Ballet has recently appointed a new Artistic Director, Tamara Rojo, who is making impressive steps to refresh the company’s repertoire by introducing more contemporary works. The plans to extend ballet audiences through participation in festivals such as Glastonbury, Latitude, and through dance and health projects, are particularly exciting.

 

We support ENB’s proposal to replace a week of regional touring for an additional one in London. This would enable the company to present the broader repertoire as outlined in Tamara Rojo’s plans, developing audiences for new work, and in the long term supporting the company’s ambition to present a broader repertoire on tour. The regional touring week could, after negotiation, be picked up by BRB.

 

We also support the company’s ambitions to broaden its repertoire, although it will need to win over audiences. ENB is planning to invest reserves to further this ambition. It will have work to do on relationships outside London, but recognises this and wants to offer more to the cities it tours to.

 

The recommendations we make around improving the working relationship between venues and touring companies will require changes of culture in all our touring companies and we will be expecting the company to set out in their business plan how they intend to implement this change of approach.

 

ENO’s proposed new business model represents considerable challenges to ENB’s own operating model and we will be supporting both companies to work together to resolve this."

 

 

ACE's funding planning figures for 2015-16:

 

ENO - £5m reduction

Northern Ballet - £550k increase

WNO - no change

Opera North - £600k increase

BRB - £500k increase

ENB - no change

ROH - £800k reduction

 

So some redistribution planned there, with a massive hit for ENO.

 

 

 

 

[loveclassics]

The 2013 report that kicked off this round of London vs the rest was pithily summarised in this BBC News page:

"Central government spending on arts and culture in the capital amounted to £69 per resident in 2012-13, compared with £4.60 per person elsewhere in England."

 

Also:

"The report found that Arts Council England distributed £163m of taxpayers' money to cultural organisations in London in 2012-13 - or £20 per person in the capital.

 

Some 85% of the English population live outside London, where the £159m Arts Council grants equated to £3.60 per head."

 

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24742529

 

 

The Commons culture, media and sport select committee decided to investigate and yesterday released their report. I've not seen it but here is Guardian news page:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/nov/05/arts-spending-london-bias

 

An extract from the Guardian:

"The report says ACE must do more to redress the balance and supports the conclusions of recent reports on the subject written by Peter Stark, Christopher Gordon and David Powell. They have published figures which show that combined Department for Culture, Media and Sport and ACE spending amounts to £68.99 per head of population in London and £4.58 in the rest of England. In terms of lottery spending on the arts between 1995 and 2013 the figure was £165 per head in London and £46.77 in London."

 

 

 

Hm, I wish we could see the basis for these figures.  So many quasi-official statistical statements are based are skewed data, for instance in the way the cost of living is calculated & the unemployment statistics which automatically exclude thousands of people.   Are these figures based simply on total population, adult population or simply the numbers of people who regularly attend 'cultural' events?  And from where are these population figures derived?  The last census?  It is accepted that this omitted thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people who never completed the forms for fear of being identified for tax, immigration status or even criminal activity.  The total population of London increases all the time and nobody really knows how many people live in the capital.

 

As I read it, the percentage is simply the percentage of funding presumably from the Arts Council.  But what is the total amount spent on the arts generally in the regions?   London has a huge number of cultural events and must spend huge amounts on staging them.  The percentage of subsidy to overall cost is therefore a much smaller amount than this bald statement suggests.

 

Forgive the cynicism but in the run-up to a general election we can expect many statements to be issued as potential vote-catchers.  I suspect those who issue them decide what they want said first and then find/create/manipulate the figures to support them.  Lies, damned lies & statistics etc.

 

I'm not saying that more money for arts in the regions isn't desirable, I'm merely saying I would like to know how the figures were calculated before I accept them.

 

Linda

Edited November 6, 2014 by loveclassics

[Fonty]

Well, it is a fine ambition for a ballet company to present "a broader repertoire on tour", but is there a huge demand for this out in the sticks?  Having discussed this in the past with friends and their children who live in various parts of the country, they all said that when a classical ballet company comes to a theatre within reasonable distance, they want to see Proper Classical Ballet.  Which to them means tutus, pointe shoes, Tchaikovsky music and lush scenery.   

 

And they would be overjoyed to get a performance or two of The Nutcracker at Christmas.   While I suspect that Londoners (well, this Londoner anyway,) would quite happily do without that particular ballet for the next 10 years. 

Edited November 6, 2014 by Fonty

[alison]

Well, as for demand, I remember going to the Mayflower in Southampton (a bigger theatre than any in London I believe) and it seeming to be virtually packed out for an ENB triple bill featuring The Rite of Spring.  (The other works may have included Mark Morris' Drink to me only with thine eyes, although I may be confusing two bills).

 

It's just that, as I've commented before, ultra-safe programming from ENB over a number of years appears to have led to its audiences becoming more conservative in their tastes.

[LinMM]

Well ten years is a bit of a long time but agree with where you are coming from Fonty.

 

But I do think you have hit on a bit of a "problem" for ballet at least when touring well away from the capital or other major cities.

People are "starved" of classical ballet and do want to see the "real" thing when it does come which is why lesser known works do less well than in the Capital ........where we are so lucky with the ballet on offer ......then you are more likely to be open to see more experimental works.

 

Then there is the related problem of funding when companies may be running at a loss unless performing the perennial favourites such as Swan Lake. Unfortunately Governments don't want to give additional funding to a minority Art like ballet to be toured round the UK so can you blame ENB for looking at other solutions in these days of constant cuts.

 

I had a very hard time defending the ROH (and Royal Ballet) when I was up in Yorkshire for a reunion last year.

I was quite shocked at the resentment some felt against London generally and the fact that the ROH supported by taxpayers money was really only relevant to London and should have its subsidy completely removed so money could be re distributed for Arts projects people wanted which wasn't necessarily ballet or opera......though there was more support for the latter!!

Edited November 6, 2014 by LinMM

[aileen]

I think that there's a lot of resentment towards London generally and the arts funding issue feeds into this. Recently, I read a report about tourism to the UK. London is the big draw and other cities, with the possible exception of Edinburgh, receive a tiny proportion of the number of tourists. Now, I appreciate that ACE funding is not designed to benefit tourists but it cannot be denied that the cultural life of London attracts tourists and brings a great deal of money to the capital. If a big slice of funding was diverted to 'the regions' would the tourist pounds follow? I don't know.

[Jan McNulty]

Broadbrush figures:

 

Population of London urban area - 10m

 

Population of rest of England 43m

 

Why should the majority of people living in England not have have equity with those living in the London urban area?

 

There is an issue with ballet outside the capital which I cannot think of a way around without taking financial risk.  For many years (certainly during most of my time as a ballet watcher) the touring companies have tended to take works they know would sell and gradually we have got out of the habit of mixed programmes and more adventurous works.  It really is a chicken and egg situation because the audience would have to be built up gradually to get used to mixed programmes again but could the companies afford to take the losses while they do so?

[aileen]

I can perfectly understand the call for a more balanced re-distribution of the ACE grant. However, I feel that London's position as a world capital should be recognised in this. Five organisations in London absorb a huge amount of the London funding. The question is whether those organisations are so important to the prestige of the capital that they should continue to receive a large slice of the funding pie. In the case of ENO, the answer is no and this organisation has effectively been told to find another, probably more commercial, business model. The ROH has had its funding cut presumably because it is felt that an organisation with its profile and prestige has the capacity to raise more funds from private sponsors than other organisations.

[LinMM]

I agree Janet and I don't really know how you solve this problem.

 

I love all forms of the arts but ballet is my passion and will defend it to the end!!

But I do realise others don't necessarily think like this at all and wouldn't care that much if a ballet company went under if it meant more money for the rest of UK outside London.

[Melody]

Part of the problem with attracting tourists is that although that's where a lot of the money comes from in ticket sales at theatres in London, is it really a good use of British taxpayer money? People around the country pay taxes so that tourists from around the world can get cheaper seats at ballets, operas, plays, and whatnot, but apart from a very few other areas (Stratford, Windsor, maybe York), does that tourist money really reach much of the rest of the country?

 

I hope we're not going to get to the point where the powers that be decide that the cinema relays are good enough for people who can't get to London and there's no reason to tour ballet, opera, or plays around the country any more.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Melody

[Paul N]

As I read it, the percentage is simply the percentage of funding presumably from the Arts Council.  But what is the total amount spent on the arts generally in the regions?   London has a huge number of cultural events and must spend huge amounts on staging them.  The percentage of subsidy to overall cost is therefore a much smaller amount than this bald statement suggests.

 

That may be the case, but it doesn't alter the purpose of ACE which is supposed to be to encourage everyone to participate in the arts, and it should use its funds accordingly and fairly for that purpose.  Further, a specific direction regarding their lottery funds is that these should be used to encourage those who don't currently particpate.

 

Forgive the cynicism but in the run-up to a general election we can expect many statements to be issued as potential vote-catchers.  I suspect those who issue them decide what they want said first and then find/create/manipulate the figures to support them.  Lies, damned lies & statistics etc.

 

I don't see any political points-scoring going on.  The CMS Select Committee is cross-party, has a Conservative chairman, and made it's strongest criticism of a Conservative minister.  Arts funding is not going to feature strongly in any election campaign, probably not at all.

 

There are always going to be flaws in analysis of this kind; one here is that money invested in a particular region does have benefits outside the region, and these are difficult to measure (haven't been at all as far as I can see in this case).  Nevertheless, I think the overall picture painted by these reports is broadly correct.

 

 

The authors of the ROCC & PLACE reports are proposing that it is the ACE lottery funding that should be changed so that it is distributed on a fair, per capita basis.  The other public funding would remain unchanged.  This seems to me to be an entirely reasonable proposition, one that is difficult to argue against, particularly given that London does so well from these other sources and from private money too.  If any region has the resources to plug such a rebalancing, it's London.  The ROCC report gives us these figures (2011/12):

 

Private money:

 

"In 2011/12, 90% of all private giving to the arts by individual philanthropists was to London-based organisations (2010/11 89%), 68% of all business sponsorship was in London (2010/11 66%), and 73% of support from trusts and foundations was given to London-based arts (2010/11 68%). Of a total of £660.5m of private giving overall in 2011/12, £540.2m (81.8%) went to London-based organisations."

 

Public money (England totals):

 

DCMS direct: £493M

ACE Treasury: £393M

ACE Lottery: £211M

Local Government: £439M

 

So it's the smallest pot that the authors are talking about rebalancing.

 

Whether their proposal would end up being to dance's cost and to the benefit of other art forms though, I have absolutely no idea.

 

 

There may well be a 'resentment towards London' issue, a lot of which is unfounded.  However, consider the variation in the distribution of Lottery money from all the individual lottery funds:

 

(spend in London as % of spend in rest of England; totals since 1995)

 

Arts Lottery Fund:    353%

Big Lottery Fund:    185%

Heritage Lottery Fund:    169%

Millenium Fund: 230%

Sport Lottery Fund: 140%

 

Message: not just a 'London problem', there's an arts fund/ACE problem - the other funds have managed a much more balanced distribution of the money in line with the directions for use of lottery funds.

[loveclassics]

One other question: how much of their grant money do organisations like the ROH spend on maintaining the buildings they use?  I think there is a strong argument for saying that historic or listed buildings should receive separate funding for maintenance of the structure and ACE money should be used exclusively for the production of dance, theatre, music etc.   I often wonder if the RB could put on more new productions if their revenue wasn't contributing to the the upkeep of a 19th building.  Lottery funding covered the cost of the renovation in 97-99 but it must still be pretty expensive looking after the old exterior.  Or is that cost covered in some other way?

 

Linda

[Coated]

One other question: how much of their grant money do organisations like the ROH spend on maintaining the buildings they use? I think there is a strong argument for saying that historic or listed buildings should receive separate funding for maintenance of the structure and ACE money should be used exclusively for the production of dance, theatre, music etc.

 

Linda

Good point, and to some degree this should probably apply to all building specific costs (for all I know that might already be the case). Clear regulation might be useful to draw the line between necessary upkeep / improvement of facilities and vanity projects by Chief Executives who secretly dream of being architects.

 

I used to work at a publicly funded institution that spent significant amounts on architecturally interesting building developments whilst there was 'no money' for anything else.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Coated

[alison]

Of course, we saw what happened when an attempt was made to distribute "bricks and mortar" Lottery funding more "fairly" around the UK: some great upgrades and new builds which have been a success, certainly, but also more than their fair share of "white elephants" which are un(der)used because there aren't the funds/political will/artists to keep them being used. I hope that any redistribution of ACE funding wouldn't have a similar effect.

[Fonty]

I had a very hard time defending the ROH (and Royal Ballet) when I was up in Yorkshire for a reunion last year.

I was quite shocked at the resentment some felt against London generally and the fact that the ROH supported by taxpayers money was really only relevant to London and should have its subsidy completely removed so money could be re distributed for Arts projects people wanted which wasn't necessarily ballet or opera......though there was more support for the latter!!

 

Yes, I have always found the same thing when I travel Oop North, particularly in Scotland. 

 

The problem is that we all, as tax payers, can find something to object to, because we ourselves don't actually benefit from it.  London is the capital city of the United Kingdom, and tourism brings in a substantial amount of foreign money.  It is sign of a cultured nation to have an Opera House, and I firmly believe that this should get public funding.

 

And as for redistribution of money for Arts projects people want....what does that mean? More musicals based on song books of 70s superstars? Pop festivals?  More grants to novelists to write new mummy porn novels?  When I have actually asked people what they have in mind, they are very vocal on what should not be subsidised, but not so clear on what should be.

 

And if more productions were sponsored privately, they tend to be rather conservative in their choice.  We really would get many more Swan Lakes. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by Fonty

[Erica]

Can anyone clarify some doubts regarding this matter?

 

Is it not true, as several rigorous studies have proved that for every pound the Arts Council England grants for dance, it produces two pounds to UK state through the VAT and other taxes, due to industrial & commercial generated activity?

 

What is the value, monetary and cultural, of ENB international tours as:  “promoting abroad a wider appreciation of British culture and civilisation by encouraging cultural, educational and other interchanges between the United Kingdom and elsewhere”?

 

Would it be a good idea to rebrand ENB? For example: English Royal National Ballet, in order to avoid any explanation to the Arts Council England on how they spend the grant?

 

Does a brand or a name generate the privilege of not touring throughout the country despite enjoying the economic and artistic stability given by the residence in a large subsidized theatre?

 

Finally, an historical account: What would be the Russian ballet without Didelot, Johansson, Saint-Léon, Perrot, Petipa, Cecchetti, Carlotta Brianza, Virginia Zucchi and Pierina Legnani? What would British Ballet be without Diaghilev, Cecchetti, Sergeyev, Lopokova, Serafina Astafieva and all the other Russian ballet artist exiles produced by the Bolshevik revolution?

 

But surely I'm wrong. Now excellence and merit have taken a back seat because the ballet is no longer a universal art.

[Jan McNulty]

 

The problem is that we all, as tax payers, can find something to object to, because we ourselves don't actually benefit from it.  London is the capital city of the United Kingdom, and tourism brings in a substantial amount of foreign money.  It is sign of a cultured nation to have an Opera House, and I firmly believe that this should get public funding.

 

And as for redistribution of money for Arts projects people want....what does that mean? More musicals based on song books of 70s superstars? Pop festivals?  More grants to novelists to write new mummy porn novels?  When I have actually asked people what they have in mind, they are very vocal on what should not be subsidised, but not so clear on what should be.

 

 

 

So why is the capital of dance in the USA New York?  As far as I am aware the capital of the USA is Washington.

 

I think we Northerners get fed up of the assumption that it is easier for us to come to London rather than the Arts come to us.

 

Most of the big scale musicals go to commercial theatres and good luck to them, even if they are absolutely not my cup of tea.  I went to a Friends' event at the Lowry a couple of years before.  The Lowry now has a lot more commercial theatre than it used to because that is the way it has to try and make money (even though it is an Arts Council subsidised venue) and that enables the theatre to continue to bring a great dance programme up North.

 

Not dance but there are still a lot of producing theatres around the country and that is to be applauded.  I look at their programmes and they seem in many cases to be a lot more adventurous than the standard West End offerings.

[Fonty]

So why is the capital of dance in the USA New York?  As far as I am aware the capital of the USA is Nottingham.

 

I think we Northerners get fed up of the assumption that it is easier for us to come to London rather than the Arts come to us.

 

 

I wasn't making that assumption, Janet, just pointing out that the Royal Opera House is based in the UK's capital city.  That's just where they decided to put it.

 

If it was in Shrewsbury, Cardiff, Glasgow or Plymouth, I would still say it should get public funding.  And go away for a few days to those places sometimes.

 

I can't pass comment on why New York is seen as  the capital of the USA as far as dance is concerned.  Or why they decided to put the Opera House there, rather than in Nottinghmam, USA.  Perhaps it is because New York is better known?  

[Jan McNulty]

I wasn't making that assumption, Janet, just pointing out that the Royal Opera House is based in the UK's capital city.  That's just where they decided to put it.

 

If it was in Shrewsbury, Cardiff, Glasgow or Plymouth, I would still say it should get public funding.  And go away for a few days to those places sometimes.

 

I can't pass comment on why New York is seen as  the capital of the USA as far as dance is concerned.  Or why they decided to put the Opera House there, rather than in Nottinghmam, USA.  Perhaps it is because New York is better known?  

 

The way your paragraph read to me it seemed to assume that the Opera House should be in the capital.  I should point out that in the mid-1980s - mid-1990s I did most of my ballet watching in London and then I discovered I preferred going to other places.  As, if we are lucky, we get one week of ENB and one week of Matthew Bourne per annum in Liverpool I have to travel to most of the dance performances I see (and by that I mean that the minimum distance I travel to the theatre is 40 miles).

 

Another example - is Melbourne better known than Sydney?

[FLOSS]

I think that it is possible to prove anything that you want to with statistics as long as you are vague about your base figures and their source and the precise definition of the area you are talking about Interestingly the period covered seems to cover the lead up to the Millenium and the Olympics when arts spending in London seemed to be what the government wanted.

 

.When I was a child the town in which I lived justified spending next to nothing on the arts because of its proximity to London( 36 miles away). I can't imagine what it would have spent a per capita sum for the arts on.It was not that sort of place and it still is not.

Generally speaking anyone living within a forty mile radius or perhaps even a sixty mile radius of London would expect to travel to London to see first class opera or ballet on a regular basis. I am not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing but that is how the economics work out. And I am speaking as someone who did  that sort of travelling for years.If you include that population in your calculations then the figures are not as disproportionate as the ones that the Select Committee gave.

 

I recall a time when the major London companies used to tour. It was the closure of the large provincial  theatres that could take their productions and the burgeoning cost of touring so that put paid to regional tours by  Covent Garden's companies and Sadlers Wells opera years ago. The Arts Council helped reduce the number of companies that you might expect to see outside London by restricting them to their own specific spheres of influence.

 

The report sounds to me like a group of politicians who know that they are going to have to face the electorate in six months time getting ready to go to the country. It may be that it will reappear in some form in policy after the election. In my experience those who raise the subject of the inequality of arts funding usually turn out to be people who do not approve of arts funding at all.

 

I have no idea how large a part any of the national museums and galleries, theatres,concert halls and companies like the National Theatre,Royal Ballet , Royal Opera and ENO contribute directly to the national economy through ticket sales and so on. The number of people that come to London for the theatre alone is probably quite small but it has some impact on overall numbers as it is seen as one of the things that is available to visitors to London. The theatres all support ancilary crafts and staff who would not necessarily be employed without them or the ACE spend.The companies that provide accommodation for visitors and feed them pay taxes as do their employees and is no doubt there that the real impact of the arts on the tourist industry is to be found. Covent Garden and the National Theatre would probably survive virtually any ACE cut in funding.It is far from clear how beneficial an impact the reallocation of resources would have in the regions or on London. We may find out in due course and there again it may turn out to be just another report put on one side to gather dust.

[FLOSS]

The reason that New York is the centre of American ballet is exactly the same reason that London is the centre in this country it has nothing to do with being the capital city and everything to do with being the country's major theatrical centre with all the ancillary crafts and services that any form of theatre requires. Even without a resident company like NYCB .there were dancers there. who performed in the opera and shows who would have had some sort of ballet training.

 

In this country the Alhambra had a ballet company long before the Vic Wells ballet was formed. At the turn of the twentieth century its ballerina was a dancer whose name was Adelina Jensen aka Adeline Genee the first president of the RAD and whose name is perpetuated in the Genee awards..Pantomime called for dancers as did opera and de Valois appeared in both types of entertainment. The significance of the foundation of the Vic Wwlls company was that it was a full time one rather than ad hoc one and it had high artistic aspirations rather than simply providing entertainment for tired business men  .Genee was the woman who made ballet dancing respectable.in this country.

 

As to why it did not happen elsewhere in this country it probably had a lot to do with the hold that non conformism had over large tracts of it particularly the wealthy towns of the Midlands and the North. Theatre was in the eyes of many churchgoers a frivolous occupation and actresses had dubious morals. In their eyes and those of most chapel goers ballet dancers had none at all. Municipal munificence was generally expressed by those who made their pile in the provision of parks and art galleries not in theatrical enterprises.

 

Washington DC started out as a boggy swamp. It was an artificial creation  which provided the Federal government with a capiital that did not give any state undue prominence by housing the national government.It was also reasonably accessible from all the original states of the USA . The arts only really arrived in Washington during the course of the twentieth century.

 

Not a complete account but I trust that this helps.

[Fonty]

The way your paragraph read to me it seemed to assume that the Opera House should be in the capital.  I should point out that in the mid-1980s - mid-1990s I did most of my ballet watching in London and then I discovered I preferred going to other places.  As, if we are lucky, we get one week of ENB and one week of Matthew Bourne per annum in Liverpool I have to travel to most of the dance performances I see (and by that I mean that the minimum distance I travel to the theatre is 40 miles).

 

 

I was actually answering two questions at once i.e. that London has a worldwide reputation for being a major cultural city and therefore attracts a large number of tourists.  The Opera House is part of that culture, and I believe it should be subsidised.  And I don't go there that often myself.  Two or three times a year, usually.

 

I wasn't saying that all opera houses should be in the capital city  but that is where the one in the United Kingdom happens to be. 

[Jan McNulty]

Not entirely or exclusively Fonty, as I can think of opera houses in Belfast, Buxton and Manchester to name but 3.

[Fonty]

Either I am expressing myself very badly, or you are determined not to understand the point I am making.

 

I shall bow out of this thread, and leave others to argue about how much funding the Arts should get.

[Jan McNulty]

Exactly Fonty. Me too.

[Melody]

So why is the capital of dance in the USA New York?  As far as I am aware the capital of the USA is Washington.

 

The USA is a bit of an anomaly in that respect. In most countries the capital city is also the most important and often the largest city in other terms, but not here (similar situation to The Netherlands, I suppose). New York is the commercial and cultural capital of the country while Washington DC is a small city with very little to recommend it except for being, almost because of a historical anomaly, the most recent of a succession of cities that happened to be the seat of the government. Washington does have the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the Smithsonian Institution, but if New York had been the capital city the Smithsonian would have been there.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Melody