Royal Ballet Promotion Predictions

[alison]

One thing I don't particularly understand, though, is why, when Monica Mason took over after Ross Stretton's scorched-earth tenure and the associated resignations from the company, she didn't try to get Sarah Wildor back. If they were serious about preserving Ashton's repertoire, I'd have thought that bringing back one of the best Ashton dancers of the time would have made sense.

 

Do you know for certain that she didn't?  After all, Wildor was one of their best MacMillan dancers, too.  I got the impression from whatever she said at the time that things had already soured to the extent that she wouldn't be returning, although of course she was entitled to change her mind.

 

Unfortunately, however, once Ross Stretton had departed, it did not seem that these two wonderfully talented young people were given the kind of consistent support and opportunity which enables dancers to develop as artistes. Nunez had to wait an unduly long time to dance as Odette/Odile and 10/11 years before she was cast as Juliet. Putrov was arguably overlooked for many years for both Romeo and Des Grieux. 

 

Yes, but surely part of Putrov's lack of casting in that part of the MacMillan rep was down to the fact that he'd been promoted to Principal before he'd developed the necessary partnering skills (which was why I didn't hold with his having been promoted in the first place).  Then they brought Marquez in to partner him - and the rest is history.  Nunez's casting history has been extremely solid in that she's danced pretty much all the supporting lead female roles before taking the leads: I suspect that may have been very good for her in a number of ways, although I wonder what she thinks about it?  Next time she does the Ballet Association perhaps someone may ask her.

[Tony Newcombe]

Wildor was given all sorts of advice by senior members of the company, other than one, on how to sit out the Stretton reign. It was obvious to many that he would not last. The problem was, as I have quoted "the other one"

[alison]

I seem to remember a time, long, long ago, when matinees had new young dancers cast in the lead roles, and the ticket prices were cheaper to reflect that fact that the performance might not be the finished article. Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

 

I also agree with the point that Floss was making in an earlier post - that Muntagirov benefitted from being cast with the experienced Klimentova.  If there is no possibility of introducing newcomers to lead roles away from the glaring spotlight of Covent Garden, then surely this should be considered?  Someone who has performed a leading role many times, and is comfortable with it is bound to be a huge help to a first timer, surely?

 

I didn't get the impression that pricing changes were made according to casting except for some of the Fonteyn/Nureyev performances.  Matinees (full-length) have been cheaper for a very long time, but that's regardless of whether you get a newbie or a seasoned performer, surely?

 

I usually think it better for a newbie to be partnered with an experienced dancer for debuts: the last time we had two newbies together was, I think, Watson and Cuthbertson in Romeo & Juliet in 2004, not that that turned out too badly in the end  Before that, there was the case, back in about 1993, I think, when Adam Cooper and Leanne Benjamin were scheduled for an R&J debut together.  Both were pretty experienced by then, but even then for some reason the casting was changed and Benjamin ended up dancing with Stuart Cassidy and Cooper with Fiona Chadwick, IIRC.  This is why I was a little surprised to see Naghdi and Ball being cast together in R&J.  Francesca Hayward does at least have the benefit of an experienced dancer in Matt Golding, although I'm not sure whether he has danced the MacMillan Romeo before.

[Nina G.]

I wonder if any of the younger dancers within the company have tried to take a hand themselves in developing their own careers and organising and staging performances themselves. A number of principal dancers have done this, Cojocaru, Kobborg, Galeazzi, Watson, and so on, though I guess being principals they are more likely to attract financial backing. I'm not aware of many dancers below principal level doing so (apart from Emma Magure recently), and I know it takes a tremendous amount of organisational effort and it would have to be done outside of company time, i.e. in the summer. But it would be nice if these kind of endeavors had the support of the RB management. Thinking about the direction that Melissa Hamilton is is taking, I hope that she inspires other young dancers who are waiting their turn not to accept the status quo.

 

Some dancers do take their career in their own hands during the Summer break and dance in Galas all over the world.

 

Last Summer Johan Kobborg staged events in Tivoli and Steven McRae, Roberta Marquez, Federico Bonelli, Hikaru Kobayashi, Thomas Whitehead, Marcelino Sambe and Francesca Hayward danced in an open air performance in Denmark. Valentino Zucchetti, Yasmine Naghdi, Fernando Montano and Claire Calvert danced in Colombia on the occasion of the reopening of the restored Teatro Colon in Bogota.  Valentino Zucchetti and Yasmine Naghdi danced in a Gala in Milan.  I am sure there are others.  I have also heard of dancers performing at their pre-professional ballet school when they return to their home country.

[FLOSS]

I do not buy into the idea that technique is more refined now when compared with the mid and late twentieth century when Ashton, MacMillan and Balanchine were active, Technique today is different. It is,not better or worse than in the past it is simply that there is one dominant school rather than several schools and the aesthetic has changed.

 

As we  learn to watch ballet we assimilate the style and aesthetic current at the time  that we begin watching it and those initial viewings influence everything that we see subsequently. The aesthetic within which most twentieth century choreographers operated was, it seems to me, essentially the one created by Fokine in reaction to what he saw as Petipa's overemphasis on technique.None of the major twentieth century choreographers wanted the audience to be aware of the level of technique required or the effort involved in dancing their works and each in their own way was concerned with symmetry.

 

What we see now is  the result of a change in taste and training.As I understand it the Vaganova school is absolutist claiming to teach the way that each individual step should be performed regardless of its context in a particular ballet. That makes it difficult for dancers to reproduce the work of a choreographer who deliberately departs from school room steps or plays with them. Today there is a greater emphasis on technique for its own sake rather than as a means to an end as a result a lot of dancers and their fans have come to regard ballet performances as an occasion on which the steps as taught in the classroom are to be reproduced rather than the steps as modified by the choreographer. And as far as the music is concerned the tempi set by the composer are to be ignored if they prevent the performers from displaying their ability to dance slowly or their ability to hold a balance interminably.

 

There has always been a tension between those who see ballet as an art form and those who see ballet as little more than a box of technical tricks performed to music.In the early nineteenth century female dancers learnt how to go up on pointe .This technical trick was transformed and given  dramatic meaning when Maria Taglioni appeared in her father's ballet La Sylphide where pointe work transformed her into a supernatural creature.A similar transformation  of technique occurred in late nineteenth century Russsia when Petipa took Legnani's ability to perform fouettes and made that technical feat an expression of Odile's character and in creating the Rose adagio made Brianzi's ability to balance an expression of Aurora's royal status. The advances in technique were used for artistic effect by Petipa and were  assimilated into the vocabulary available to later choreographers. Legnani's fouettes were used by Ashton in Les Patineurs to totally different effect.Technicians are always present in every ballet company and at present they seem to be in the ascendant. But at some point a choreographer will arrive on the scene who values the lyric aspects of ballet rather than raw displays of technique and the aesthetic will change again.

 

There is little point, it seems to me, in judging the dancers of the past against today's technical standards.The performers of the past were not expected to dance the Rose Adagio as if it were an Olympic event or stick their feet in their ears when they performed an arabesque.The emphasis  at that time was on symmetry rather than extremes.;musicality judged against the tempi set by the composer rather than against a score tortured into submission so that it fits in with the dancer's wishes and on dancing a ballet rather than simply reproducing classroom steps. So of course the performances of the past may seem wanting if you judge them against current performance fashion.

 

It seems to me that ballet is currently where classical music was at the turn of the twentieth century. At that time no one thought it unacceptable to re-orchestrate Bach or Handel so that they could benefit from having their works performed on the modern post Wagnerian symphony orchestra. The argument was that the composers concerned would have used the late nineteenth orchestra if only it had been available to them.It was even acceptable to transpose roles composed for contraltos so that tenors could sing them Then the early music movement came along and all those .well intentioned "improvements" became unacceptable and performance practice, even among non period orchestras, switched to an attempt at authentic performance practice and style.

 

There is currently considerable interest in reconstructing ballets with a real concern with reproducing steps as they were performed at the time that the ballets were created rather than according to current practice. Ratmansky has been involved in revivals of Don Q and Pacquita. The latter appears to involve a  real attempt to get the dancers to perform in the appropriate period style and at the correct speed. A Russian company is going to revive Ivanov's Fille mal Gardee. In the light of this apparent shift in fashion I wonder how long it will be before taste changes here and we start to see Petipa and Ashton both danced at the correct speed and in the appropriate style?

Edited May 18, 2015 by FLOSS

[Nina G.]

I didn't get the impression that pricing changes were made according to casting except for some of the Fonteyn/Nureyev performances.  Matinees (full-length) have been cheaper for a very long time, but that's regardless of whether you get a newbie or a seasoned performer, surely?

 

I usually think it better for a newbie to be partnered with an experienced dancer for debuts: the last time we had two newbies together was, I think, Watson and Cuthbertson in Romeo & Juliet in 2004, not that that turned out too badly in the end  Before that, there was the case, back in about 1993, I think, when Adam Cooper and Leanne Benjamin were scheduled for an R&J debut together.  Both were pretty experienced by then, but even then for some reason the casting was changed and Benjamin ended up dancing with Stuart Cassidy and Cooper with Fiona Chadwick, IIRC.  This is why I was a little surprised to see Naghdi and Ball being cast together in R&J.  Francesca Hayward does at least have the benefit of an experienced dancer in Matt Golding, although I'm not sure whether he has danced the MacMillan Romeo before.

 

I guess it will to be tougher for Naghdi to have to dance her debut as "Juliet" without the benefit of an experienced partner. Ball and Naghdi are cast to dance together in New York  (Infra) so that will give them some more "practise" time . This must be a first for the Company: their new Juliet (a Soloist) is partnered with a new Romeo (an Artist/Corps member).

[alison]

What a lovely thought

[alison]

Sorry, Nina's post came in just as I hit "Send".  I was replying to Floss's "In the light of this apparent shift in fashion I wonder how long it will be before taste changes here and we start to see Petipa and Ashton both danced at the correct speed and in the appropriate style?"
 

[zxDaveM]

I guess it will to be tougher for Naghdi to have to dance her debut as "Juliet" without the benefit of an experienced partner. Ball and Naghdi are cast to dance together in New York  (Infra) so that will give them some more "practise" time . This must be a first for the Company: their new Juliet (a Soloist) is partnered with a new Romeo (an Artist/Corps member).

 

He will probably be one of those promoted in the summer (my unsubstantiated guess) - and they danced together as Lensky/Olga to  great effect earlier this season, so they are well matched, I reckon, dancing together. Looking forward to it, can't deny!  :-)

[Sunrise]

Some dancers do take their career in their own hands during the Summer break and dance in Galas all over the world.

 

Last Summer Johan Kobborg staged events in Tivoli and Steven McRae, Roberta Marquez, Federico Bonelli, Hikaru Kobayashi, Thomas Whitehead, Marcelino Sambe and Francesca Hayward danced in an open air performance in Denmark. Valentino Zucchetti, Yasmine Naghdi, Fernando Montano and Claire Calvert danced in Colombia on the occasion of the reopening of the restored Teatro Colon in Bogota.  Valentino Zucchetti and Yasmine Naghdi danced in a Gala in Milan.  I am sure there are others.  I have also heard of dancers performing at their pre-professional ballet school when they return to their home country.

 

Well yes, I did mention Kobborg who I know took a number of small dancers abroad with him while he was still with the RB. But events like those seem to be driven by the principals - well at least they are marketed that way. I didn't mean international galas or guesting, which dancers are invited to and only have to show up, but events organised by dancers themselves. I know it's quite hard to work to organise though, so I imagine they don't have much time to do it.

[Sunrise]

I guess it will to be tougher for Naghdi to have to dance her debut as "Juliet" without the benefit of an experienced partner. Ball and Naghdi are cast to dance together in New York  (Infra) so that will give them some more "practise" time . This must be a first for the Company: their new Juliet (a Soloist) is partnered with a new Romeo (an Artist/Corps member).

 

I agree this is a lovely way of putting it. I used to find some R&Js all the more exciting when the dancers hadn't danced it together before because you had no idea what might happen (Galeazzi and Kobborg was a memorable one for me) so to see two debuts together will be really great. Though I take the point about the benefits of putting a debut with a more experienced dancer too.

[capybara]

 

Yes, but surely part of Putrov's lack of casting in that part of the MacMillan rep was down to the fact that he'd been promoted to Principal before he'd developed the necessary partnering skills.

 

It is surely in the nature of things that few dancers leave ballet school and enter a company 'partner ready'. Putrov is not the only one who would have benefited from more help in this regard from the RB.

[Sunrise]

It is surely in the nature of things that few dancers leave ballet school and enter a company 'partner ready'. Putrov is not the only one who would have benefited from more help in this regard from the RB.

 

I was a bit dubious of Putrov's partnering skills too, much as I admired his dancing. But then I guess the only way to get better at MacMillan type pdds is to actually dance them. The principals dancers all receive individual coaching, so beyond that I'm not sure what more could have been done. 

[Nina G.]

I wonder how much coaching or how many coaches are available to assist Principals and Soloists? Surely the Principals get coached in their upcoming roles but how about Soloists (besides their scheduled rehearsals)? 

In Russia they have coaches assisting their younger and upcoming dancers, some companies even assign a personal coach. I don't think this is the case here at the RB.

 

They have rehearsals but in how far do outstanding Soloists get coaching in order to improve their artistry and technique?

[FLOSS]

Nina I suspect that the answer is that the soloists don't get that sort of support at the Royal Ballet.I know that  Xander Parrish was a very junior member of the company when he left to go to Russia but the way that he spoke about the coaching that he was receiving at the Mariinsky when he talked to the London Ballet Circle gave me the very strong impression that it was very different from what happens at the Royal Ballet. At the Mariinsky  and at the Bolshoi  coaches are allocated to promising dancers and that coaching relationship may continue for years.The individual dancer's coaches are recognised as playing a part in the dancer's career at least as significant as the dancer's natural aptitude and schooling.

.

 

As I understand it in these companies dancers are allocated to specific areas of activity according to the rules of emploi at the outset of their careers. Some will be selected to be character dancers, others for the corps and the select few who have been identified as having what it takes to become leading dancers get the personal coaches.The select few being selected through a subtle mixture of emploi, their technical proficiency, and their presence.The system clearly works  for the Russians and has done so for years. I am not sure that the blatant pigeon holing of dancers in that way is a price that everyone here  would consider worth paying even if it did provide a guaranteed supply of great dancers.

 

How comfortable would we feel if we knew that when dancers enter the company on graduation their career had been pretty much decided before they had set a foot on the stage as professional dancers? In a society that pays lip service to the ideal of meritocracy any company that put the Russian system in place would lay itself to the accusation that its dancer's careers were being determined through favouritism.

[Nina G.]

Thank you very much Floss for your very erudite contribution. 

[alison]

I am not sure that the blatant pigeon holing of dancers in that way is a price that everyone here  would consider worth paying even if it did provide a guaranteed supply of great dancers.

 

How comfortable would we feel if we knew that when dancers enter the company on graduation their career had been pretty much decided before they had set a foot on the stage as professional dancers? In a society that pays lip service to the ideal of meritocracy any company that put the Russian system in place would lay itself to the accusation that its dancer's careers were being determined through favouritism.

 

Well, this has always been my problem with the Russian system: it takes students at the age of around what, 18?, and basically says "sorry, we've decided you'll only ever be an XYZ type of dancer".  It's marvellous for the favoured few - although if your coach has very fixed ideas about something it seems that you may not end up dancing certain roles appropriately because your coach thinks otherwise - but very tough on everyone else, particularly the young men, I should think, as we've often seen that they don't stop developing physically until quite well into their 20s. 

[FLOSS]

Alison.The Russian coaching system goes a long way to explain how they manage to produce a seemingly constant supply of good dancers and some great ones.But it is very hard on all those who don't fit in with their ideal of the dancer.It leaves far less room for the "one off" like Ed Watson for example who does not fit into any of the pigeon holes.So the Royal Ballet's system which clearly has its weaknesses and could do with improvement turns out, like democracy, to be "the worst system in the world except for all the rest."

 

Perhaps the solution is to leave it up to the dancers to show what they can do but to provide coaching support for those who show themselves to be performers.There are after all dancers who aren't particularly exciting in class or in rehearsal but come alive when they are performing and those are the ones I want to see on stage not the efficient but dull, machine like dancer.Perhaps what I am moving towards suggesting is a sort of class of perfection for those who make it to soloist roles.

Edited May 19, 2015 by FLOSS

[aileen]

Isn't this why Osipova left the Bolshoi? She wanted to branch out from soubrette roles.

 

People are complaining about the lack of coaching but surely dancers dancing lead or soloist roles are coached for those roles. Aren't the complaints really about casting decisions, specifically why some people seem to be 'in favour' and given lots of good roles whereas others languish in the corps unnoticed. Parish was not favoured for some reason, perhaps because he was technically or physically weak, perhaps because he was shy and seemed to lack confidence, perhaps because he had little on stage charisma or perhaps because his 'starrier' and pushier peers overshadowed him and took all the roles which he could have danced (the RB is a large company and there are only so many featured roles). I think that there is very little time for general dancer development. It is assumed that technique and basic partnering have been perfected at school and everything else has to be learned 'on the job'.

Edited May 19, 2015 by aileen

[FLOSS]

It is,of course, true that dancers at the Royal Ballet are coached for specific roles but the system of coaching that operates for the select few in Russia seems to involve far more than simple preparation for a specific role. The impression that Parish gave was that his coach had worked with him on his technique as well, and that  coaching is a regular part of his life as a dancer.

 

Now of course there is inevitably a certain amount of discussion on a forum like this about casting decisions.Fans tend to suspend their critical faculties and want to see their favourites in everything and will complain if they are not cast in a particular role even when it is one to which the dancer concerned is manifestly unsuited.They will complain about the number of Swan Lakes in a season but would be quite happy if the number were increased if it meant that their favourites were added to the list of dancers performing in it.Their wish to see their favourites dance generally far outweighs any wish they may have to see young dancers develop.At the same time they will complain if the artistic director has not developed the talent within the ranks of the company.It sounds irrational because it is just that.But that does not mean that everything discussed here is irrational.

 

Every organisation carries its origins  deep in its corporate DNA.At one level both the Bolshoi and the Mariinsky seem like government bureaucracies. Their systematic selection of dancers for levels of responsibility within the company has echoes of the civil service about it with the stars of the future as the equivalent of First Division Civil Servants and the character dancers and members of the corps the equivalent of Clerical Officers and Executive Officers.But the members of the Imperial companies were state employees and it should come as no surprise that nearly one hundred years after the revolution they continue to operate in a way that members of the Imperial companies would almost certainly recognise.

 

The Royal Ballet's origins are very different.It is the result of the vision of one woman Ninette de Valois much of whose professional experience was in the commercial theatre where you learn on the job and grab your opportunities where and when you can. De Valois said that she learnt everything about running a ballet company from her time with the Diaghilev company not an organisation that had much in the way of structures to systematically develop young dancers.Whatever de Valois's company is today it is not run like a bureaucracy and arguably does not have adequate systems in place to ensure that the talent that it recruits develops and makes it to the top.

 

During the last revival of Sleeping Beauty we were presented with a series of Lilac Fairies who lacked stage presence and most of whom struggled with the Italian fouettes. Things were not much better when it came to the performances of the Queen of the Dryads in both runs of Don Q the dancers lacked presence and struggled technically.Of course you could say that these are examples of poor coaching and that may well be true but these technical weaknesses should have been acknowledged and remedied and not allowed to continue.If O'Hare wants to build his company up from the bottom it seems to me that he needs to establish a  systematic approach to developing dancers which includes dealing with technical problems such as the Italian fouette and stage craft in particular teaching dancers how to make their performances project to the back of the auditorium.Theatrical skills come naturally to the few but most people learn on the job . As there is little or no opportunity to gain experience away from the Covent Garen stage then all a dancer's artistic development will inevitably take place there with the only external stimulus to that development coming from coaching for specific roles.As  coaching is dependent on that season's repertoire and the management's casting decisions it means that the opportunities for a dancer to develop are patchy and to say the least hardly consistent or systematic and yet it is the consistent,systematic approach of the Russian system that pays dividends. From time to time there are discussions on this forum about the apparent inability of the Royal Ballet to produce star dancers.Belinda Hatley said that the problem was low self esteem and that no doubt is a significant factor.But it seems to me that the main reason for the Russian's success is the systematic  effort that they put into developing dancers after they have graduated.

Edited May 20, 2015 by FLOSS

[alison]

But then that is precisely *because* they operate the system which we seem so dubious about  What happens in those companies if a dancer starts making great progress - late, because of a lack of specialist attention, perhaps - is it possible for them to attain the higher reaches of the company, or have they been condemned for the rest of their career?

 

But it is very hard on all those who don't fit in with their ideal of the dancer.It leaves far less room for the "one off" like Ed Watson for example who does not fit into any of the pigeon holes.So the Royal Ballet's system which clearly has its weaknesses and could do with improvement turns out, like democracy, to be "the worst system in the world except for all the rest."

 

Perhaps the solution is to leave it up to the dancers to show what they can do but to provide coaching support for those who show themselves to be performers.There are after all dancers who aren't particularly exciting in class or in rehearsal but come alive when they are performing and those are the ones I want to see on stage 

 

Watson is an obvious example.  In a way.  As I've mentioned before, he featured, around the time that Alina Cojocaru was promoted to Principal, and possibly before, along with Cojocaru, Akram Khan, Tamara Rojo, Robert Parker and others (assuming I'm not conflating 2 different articles), in a weekend supplement article on dance stars of the future or some such, which does suggest that someone up high was already seriously considering him as a potential principal even around the turn of the century.  But it's not only him: it's every other dancer (a lot of whom seem to be British, whether or not that is a reflection on the RBS and/or the British system) who has taken a while for their potential to really develop as well.

 

Your suggestion of additional coaching support sounds like a good thing: a lot of dancers could learn, for example, from Sarah Lamb's use of the eyes, and I have complained before that not all RB principals manage to "reach" the back of the amphitheatre. I remember it being said of a certain dancer, BTW, that her performances in the studio were always better than what she showed onstage.  I wonder whether that could have been changed with more attention?  (But I wonder whether the RB has the time/space to do that anyway?)

[Amelia]

Sorry, placed the news in the wrong topic.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Amelia

[Booklover89]

Going back to the topic at hand...it should be only a few weeks until promotions are announced.  For my two cents, I'd love to see Francesca Hayward promoted to First Soloist.  Even though it's only been a year since her promotion to Soloist, she's been so consistent in such a range of featured and solo roles, not to mention Manon and Alice (and her Juliet to come).  Otherwise, many of the people who have impressed me this season have probably been promoted too recently to go up again this year.  I would quite like to see Anna Rose O'Sullivan and Leticia Stock rewarded in the corps though.

 

I think there was some discussion of the First Soloist rank on here recently.  Is it the case that one really has to be under consideration as a future principal to reach this rank?  Or can it be a kind of 'reward' for particularly useful soloists with the understand that they probably won't go any further?  If the latter, I can think of a few soloists who consistently impress and might merit it e.g. Paul Kay, as a kind of specialist in the demi-caratere roles?

[FLOSS]

It clearly isn't the case that you can say that someone who gets to the rank of First Soloist is a likely candidate for Principal rank. Some of the dancers at that level are specialists in the Ashton repertory but not necessarily seen by management as having  what they want at Principal level.Belinda Hatley is a good example. She was a fine exponent of Lise and Swanhilde lovely as the secondary Sylph and a compelling Betrayed Girl. She actually managed to make the embroidery solo, which can seem overlong, interesting.But she clearly was not seen as Principal material.

 

Then there are dancers like Cervera and Choe who have been at that level for several years now. Cervera has said that he is happy where he is and that he does not want to be a Principal because of the additional responsibilities that go withe rank. As for Choe I know that lots of people feel that she should be promoted.She is good technically but for me she is rather bland and I find her dancing particularly of Ashton rather small scale This observation has nothing to do with her height but when I compare her with someone like Anne Jenner for example I find that she does not dominate the stage and compel my attention.She reproduces steps efficiently but does not always dance the ballet.

 

All of this is purely subjective.But AD's however hard they try to be objective will always have preferences as to the type of dancer that they want to see leading their company.Now all we have to do is wait and be patient.The first group of dancers that he promotes to Principal from within the company may give us more of an idea of the direction in which O'Hare intends to take the company than the appointments that he made last year.

Edited June 17, 2015 by FLOSS

[Jan McNulty]

I agree with your comments about senior soloist Floss.

 

Thing is though I have never seen, for example, Anne Jenner so I can't compare her to others.  I have never seen an Ashton production with its original cast (as far as I am aware) so I can only look at something and enjoy it or not as the case might be.  Of course there are dancers I prefer in specific roles but I honestly couldn't say whether they perform them as the choreographer would have wanted or not in heritage works.

[MAB]

I've seen a number of Ashton works with the original casts but there are few that haven't enjoyed inspired performances of other casts since.

[capybara]

I'm sticking by my earlier prediction that there will be no promotions from First Soloist to Principal this year. Indeed, we may have to wait a while for that to happen - i.e. when the enormously talented Francesca Hayward is promoted from First Soloist (which she will surely be next season).

 

We may not have to wait much longer for this year's news as, if I recall correctly, promotions are usually announced the week after the RB's overseas tour ends.

[FLOSS]

Janet,  I will try to give you some points of reference that we probably do share to explain what I find lacking in Choe's dancing.  Some of Choe's fans try to deal with criticism of the lack of scale in her dancing by pointing out that she is not very tall which is why I mentioned Anne Jenner who was petite but danced big and could dominate the stage. If I say that for me she lacks the grandeur of Samsova and Barbieri both of whom were great in the classical repertory and equally capable of playing Lise extremely well; the  stage presence of Yoshida and the sheer voltage of Donovan and Tait in performance I think that you will get an idea of what I think is lacking in her performances. 

 

I don't think that it is simply a question of coaching. You can help a performer make the most of their abilities but coaching can't put in things that are not there to begin with.There are dancers who are not very interesting in class or in the studio but are transformed when performing on stage in front of an audience. There are also dancers who catch the eye of the powers that be in class or in the studio where they give fine performances but lack the ability to perform in front of an audience because they are not stage animals. They may be fine in ballets that only require musicality and the accurate reproduction of steps to make their effect but if they have to evoke a mood or play a character they are lost. Perhaps it is the difference in sensibility between someone who regards ballet as  purely concerned with the reproduction of steps and someone who understands innately that ballet is a theatrical art form.

Edited June 17, 2015 by FLOSS

[Jamesrhblack]

Janet,  I will try to give you some points of reference that we probably do share to explain what I find lacking in Choe's dancing.  Some of Choe's fans try to deal with criticism of the lack of scale in her dancing by pointing out that she is not very tall which is why I mentioned Anne Jenner who was petite but danced big and could dominate the stage. If I say that for me she lacks the grandeur of Samsova and Barbieri both of whom were great in the classical repertory and equally capable of playing Lise extremely well; the  stage presence of Yoshida and the sheer voltage of Donovan and Tait in performance I think that you will get an idea of what I think is lacking in her performances. 

 

I don't think that it is simply a question of coaching. You can help a performer make the most of their abilities but coaching can't put in things that are not there to begin with.There are dancers who are not very interesting in class or in the studio but are transformed when performing on stage in front of an audience. There are also dancers who catch the eye of the powers that be in class or in the studio where they give fine performances but lack the ability to perform in front of an audience because they are not stage animals. They may be fine in ballets that only require musicality and the accurate reproduction of steps to make their effect but if they have to evoke a mood or play a character they are lost. Perhaps it is the difference in sensibility between someone who regards ballet as  purely concerned with the reproduction of steps and someone who understands innately that ballet is a theatrical art form.

 

I recall Ann Jenner's dancing with a lot of affection as The Firebird, Giselle and, particularly, Lise in an unforgettable matinee with Baryshnikov. I was also there the night she danced the Rose Adagio immaculately before collapsing with appendicitis - Brenda Last took over the performance. Unfortunately, I never got to see her dance the complete role (I believe of the other lengths then in in the repertoire she also danced Cinderella and one Juliet). She had a fantastic jump and an exhilaration in movement that was really exciting to watch: in Act 2 of Giselle you really believed she had achieved weightlessness. If I recall correctly she was also one of the team selected by Jérome Robbins for those first Dances at a Gathering performances by the Royal.

[Nina G.]

I don't see any promotion to Principal level this year and I agree (again) with Floss re. Yuhui Choe.

 

Due to the numerous opportunities Francesca Hayward has been given by Kevin O'Hare over the past Season, it will not come as a surprise to me if she is promoted to First Soloist.I guess the only new male First Soloist could be James Hay? 

 

Other very talented Soloists such as Fumi Kaneko, Yasmine Naghdi and Beatriz Stix-Brunnell will almost certainly be the next ones up to First Soloist level over the coming Seasons, perhaps Emma McGuire and Claire Calvert too. 

 

Of the youngest dancers I can see Matthew Ball, Marcelino Sambe, Mayara Magri, Luca Acri and Anna Rose O'Sullivan being considered for promotion. 

 

It will be interesting to see how the company profiles itself over the next couple of years and how many dancers from within the Company (as opposed to hiring from outside!) will attain Principal level.

[Bruce Wall]

I agree with much of what you say, Nina.  Something tells me that Ball, Naghdi - as well as the delicious Hayward - will be on something of a fast track - howe'er that might manifest itself ... and I, myself, speculate that there is a good chance that one or two new intakes may have the potential to be super charged.  One thing is clear - any aptly talented individual coming into the Company at next season's juncture could not have a better timed entre unto the O'Hare tenure - especially given that his (prudent as far I'm concerned) 'bottom up' regime has now had sufficient time to begin (and I stress begin) to pay significant dividends.       

Edited June 17, 2015 by Bruce Wall

[FLOSS]

I think that Melissa Hamilton is being very astute. She will not get much opportunity to dance classical works at the Royal Ballet this season so going to Dresden with the repertory that it is said that she will dance there will certainly assist any ambition for promotion that she may have. It is one thing to have a good stage presence but you need the technique to go with it. Her dancing of the Queen of the Dryads is better than last year but with that role as with Lilac Fairy, at present, she lacks the necessary technical command that is central to those roles.She would also improve her chances for future promotion if she can learn to dance with greater speed when occasion demands. She had difficulty with the speed required in Symphonic Variations.It will be interesting to see her on her return from Dresden.

 

A name to look out for in a year or so Reece Clarke a very assured Jean de Brienne at the RBS Opera House matinee in 2014. He danced the Somes role in Symphonic Variations earlier this year dancing the performances for which Muntagirov was not available. As with Muntagirov he looked far better dancing with Nunez than with Hamilton.

Edited June 17, 2015 by FLOSS

[capybara]

Not strictly on topic but the Prix de Lausanne website is saying that David Yudes, currently a Prix Apprentice with the Royal Ballet, is to join the company as an artist.

 

[incidentally, Precious Adams, who was a Prix Apprentice with ENB, is also said to be joining ENB as an artist.]