leonid17

It wasn’t very different on this side of the water, I think. The networks returned to normality reasonably quickly but the cable news channels went bananas, with the exception of MSNBC which after a point returned to their regular weekend broadcasting involving life in maximum security prisons and disappearances of pretty white girls. I benefited from the saturation coverage because I wasn’t about to get up in the wee hours to watch the wedding live, but it was all a bit much.

But let us return to less vexing topics than economics. What did people think of Pippa Middleton's dress for the wedding?

excellent points about American cable news. I kept changing channels to avoid the commentary by the announcers, finally settling on CBC (Canadian). It was maddening to try to listen to that glorious version of Jerusalem as Kate walked down the aisle, underneath the jabbering american accented commentator no-nothings.

Regarding the wedding dress, I have read that 90% of the dress design was Kate Middleton's preferences, and 10% was Sarah Burton. It was obvious that it would be appropriate for a cathedral (sleeves, train, veil, etc), but I felt the dress fit Kate's esthetic, based on other things she has worn to special occasions. I felt she went her own way on the dress, rather than trying to compete with Princess Diana on length of train, etc. I especially liked the unfolding of the pleats as she walked in the dress down the aisle and the simplicity of her veil. Apparently she and her sister (who is an event planner) were heavily involved in the details of the event.

Kate has dropped a dramatic amount of weight, and there are pix of her on the internet to compare. She was always slim, but now I think looks gaunt (though perhaps not gaunt enough for ballet - at least the Alastair Macaulay esthetic). I thought her make up was fine, but give it 10 years and we'll look back and think she wore too much kohl eye liner and mascara (all the girls do now!).

There is a 2008 McQueen dress in red worn by Cameron Diaz that is a near match to the dress Pippa Middleton wore, except Pippa's had more lace at the bodice. It would not have done well to dress her like a 13 year old junior bridesmaid.

Ah, but the music was just glorious, wasn't it?

Has anyone noticed how the british and american media differ in their portrayal of the Middleton family business? In the US, they would be glorified for being successful entrepreneurs, Mother Middleton would likely be interviewed on MSNBC, etc. In the British press, it's almost as if the money is resented, as if they are resented for rising above their grandparents' professions. I've noticed insinuations that the family business is taking advantage of the royal connection, as evidenced by the increase in hits to the company's website. However, searches for the website do not necessarily indicate an uptick in business transactions, most are probably lookyloos who don't buy anything.

I thought this was an interesting article in respect of your last paragraph.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/30/royal-wedding-monarchy

And further the goodwill engendered by such events as the Royal Wedding shows up in the form of increased revenue to the nation from overseas, not only from investment, but also from tourism and other travel outlays by other than British subjects.

Uh, I think many people prefer the term “citizens,” these days. I’ve read differing estimates on how much financial benefit the nation actually receives and a lot seems to depend on how those doing the estimating deploy their math. I suppose it’s possible to view the royals simply as expensively maintained national mascots intended to prop up the tourist industry and sell tea towels. Mashinka has a point about the "bread and circuses" aspect of last weekend's happy event. It’s really up to the British public, of course, and as long as a majority of them are apparently happy with the arrangement then that’s that, I guess. However, I don’t know what would happen to my local PBS station, which seems to devote half its airtime to documentaries about various Windsors.

Mercifully the demise of the gent in the turban has cut short the saturation coverage of the RW in the UK media.

It wasn’t very different on this side of the water, I think. The networks returned to normality reasonably quickly but the cable news channels went bananas, with the exception of MSNBC which after a point returned to their regular weekend broadcasting involving life in maximum security prisons and disappearances of pretty white girls. I benefited from the saturation coverage because I wasn’t about to get up in the wee hours to watch the wedding live, but it was all a bit much.

But let us return to less vexing topics than economics. What did people think of Pippa Middleton's dress for the wedding?

The Dress.

See:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8484342/Royal-wedding-Pippa-Middleton-shines-as-maid-of-honour.html

This is the site I was quoting from, I just quoted one paragraph. I had said that they 'lost the apartment', but that was probably incorrect, and they just pay for it now. Your quote differs slightly, but both mention the Queen's 'private funds', I just couldn't figure out whether it became necessary for them to start paying themselves, or that they just weren't using it, probably the former:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Princess_Michael_of_Kent

The couple have the use of a grace and favour

Grace and favour

A grace and favour home is a residential property owned by a monarch by virtue of their position as head of state and leased rent-free to persons as part of an employment package or in gratitude for past services rendered....

apartment at Kensington Palace

Kensington Palace

Kensington Palace is a royal residence set in Kensington Gardens in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London, England. It has been a residence of the British Royal Family since the 17th century. Today it is the official residence of The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and...

. On their behalf, The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds. The rent goes to the Grant-in-aid, provided by the Government for the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces. The rent is based on the current rate for commercially rented properties at Kensington Palace, and is recorded in the overall figures for commercial rents, in the Grant-in-aid annual report. This rent payment by the Queen is "in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding," according to a statement released by the British Monarchy Media Centre.

In 2008, it was announced that to continue living from 2010 in their previously-subsidised Apartment 10, Prince and Princess Michael would be required to begin paying rent of £120,000 a year, the market rate of the five-bedroom, five-reception flat and many times more than the nominal amount of £70 per week they had been paying for the previous seven years. Queen Elizabeth II had previously been subsidising the £10,000 a month cost for the Kents to use their flat. Members of Parliament on the palace's committee had demanded the change after the Kents' rent had come to light. The Kents have lived in the apartment since 1979, only paying their utility bills prior to 2002.

That was just a fact about Princess Michael, I don't hold it against her. You were talking about military service of the Royals, and I actually enjoyed both of her lectures. She's very smart and very attractive in a formidable way. Others are more upset at her having married Prince Michael than I am. In other words, it's the same sort of fact that yes, the Queen now pays taxes (although I didn't know when she started, it was announced in the early 90s, I believe), and I think I recall that the monarch paying taxes was voluntary, that some had and the Queen hadn't until rather recently. That's why her generosity about offering to give up the yacht was of interest to me--I wouldn't have thought the monarchs who didn't choose to pay taxes but did offer to give up their royal yacht would be the same person. And also that people were talking about the 'more useless royals', etc., which I thought might mean the Kents, even though I believe some of the actual princes like Edward were no longer on the Civil List.

I believe people were upset when they married as Princess Michael was of the Roman Catholic faith which meant Prince Michael had to give up his succession to the throne which upset some traditionalists, but not me particularly.

When you stated,

"In 2008, it was announced that to continue living from 2010 in their previously-subsidised Apartment 10, Prince and Princess Michael would be required to begin paying rent of £120,000 a year, the market rate of the five-bedroom, five-reception flat and many times more than the nominal amount of £70 per week they had been paying for the previous seven years. Queen Elizabeth II had previously been subsidising the £10,000 a month cost for the Kents to use their flat. Members of Parliament on the palace's committee had demanded the change after the Kents' rent had come to light. The Kents have lived in the apartment since 1979, only paying their utility bills prior to 2002."

I am happy to inform you that the above statement was not only innaccurate, it was refuted publicly.

The actual situation was, "When it was claimed that the couple pay a rent of only £69 per week (although other sources state the figure as £76) for the use of their apartments at Kensington Palace, a committee of British MPs demanded they be evicted.[11] The British Monarchy Media Centre, however, refutes these controversial reports and states that, "The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds... This rent payment by The Queen is in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding."

Come on, a bit of leeway here regarding Princess Michael. What was your point in mentioning her fathers Nazi past. Whatever else she may have been responsible for, she was not responsible for that.

Edited

Like many English born British Subjects and many overseas born British Subjects as were seen on TV coverage, I am happy to pay for Royal Weddings

Ive a feeling youre in a minority there. As for assorted war records, a few of them have made themselves useful, but royal weddings and the like are still the modern day equivalent of bread and circuses.

Very few Brits I know are happy to be considered as 'subjects' by the way: it is to most a derogatory and anachronistic term.

The particular sourness of your comments makes me ask if you are unlucky enough to have a very small number of acquaintances and are they all po faced about the Royal Family when the rest of the UK respects them and their status.

I ask this because I come from a large family all of whose members have a large circle of friends like me and there were many British town and county gardens full of celebrants welcoming the Royal wedding.

Throughout London there were street parties as there were also taking place in cities and towns throughout the UK. That British, popular institution. "The Pub" did roaring trade the length and breath of the UK with large screens on all day,

As to international recognition of the event, estimates exceeding 2.2 billion watched the wedding such is the world wide significance of the Royal family which included 38% of the Canadian populate, 23 million Americans were estimated to watch the wedding,24 million Brits were estimated to be watching the wedding on television at home.

The Queen's subjects, Her Majesty's subjects, etc., continues to be used in British legal discourse, citizen is now used (since the 1980's) more commonly used, the definition of citizen however, is a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation and of course the Queen is our Head of State. Being of a certain age I am quite happy to belong to the tradition of being called a subject of the Queen and feel no diminution of my status as British as a result.

The government of the UK is "Her Majesty's Government and I have never heard of any large popular republican movement wanting to change this.

Perhaps universal happy occasions are really only for happy people.

And further the goodwill engendered by such events as the Royal Wedding shows up in the form of increased revenue to the nation from overseas, not only from investment, but also from tourism and other travel outlays by other than British subjects. To my surprise, I heard a left-leaning economist estimate that the event would pay for itself by the end of this year, and go on generating benefits for a long time after. I was surprised not so much in that it might be true, but that the result would happen so quickly!

Thank you Mel.

The Queen costs each of her subjects the equivalent of the price of two pints of milk a year (ie £0.70p) and the income from Royal tourism brings each British subject £2.60 per through taxes.

It is certain that more British people enjoyed the Royal Wedding than those sour pusses who do not understand the role of the Monarchy on the UK and world stage.

Mercifully the demise of the gent in the turban has cut short the saturation coverage of the RW in the UK media.

What is regarded by the rest of the world as a first class spectacle is far less enjoyable to those of us paying for it through our taxes.

Like many English born British Subjects and many overseas born British Subjects as were seen on TV coverage, I am happy to pay for Royal Weddings as the Royal Family give the British Isles a particular status unmatched anywhere in the world. Especially as Prince Phillip Duke of Edinburgh spent almost the entire Second World War on active service, the Duke of Kent had a military career lasting 21 years, Prince Andrew Duke of York saw active service in the Falklands War,Prince Harry served in Afghanistan for several months,the Late Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester served in the army and was wounded in the Second World War,

Prince Michael of Kent served in the army. It is this kind of example of showing what it means to be British, that makes the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland much loved by its inhabitants and admired across the world.

What a generous act of Keith Money to put his book, “The Dancer from the Dance” on line. I am especially grateful as I would think that I saw almost all of the performances depicted.

Nostalgia flooded my emotions and even a tear or two rolled down my cheek as the photographs revived a period that was the most carefree and possibly the happiest period of my life.

Christopher Gable was an extraordinary sensitive performer whose emotional expression was always quite perfect when in dramatic, humorous or romantic mode.

I cannot talk about this artist without Lynn Seymour coming immediately to ones mind. Perfection in a partnership would sum up the inter-creative combination they achieved. Irreplaceable might be thought to be going too far. Not for me.

I was a teenager when they appeared in The Two Pigeons and they joined the ranks of my teenage idols. Together, they created a highly charged emotional response from London audiences of all ages and critics as well.Sir Frederick Ashton's magical and meticulous touch was also highly celebrated.

In Romeo and Juliet, the audience was swept along by their tidal wave of emotions creating moments when sitting on the “edge of ones seat“ became a reality.

Most of Keith Money’s photographs catch a certain theatrical mood and those with Svetlana Beriosova reveal the unique beauty of her line.

At the Kennedy Center 7pm May 16 free reservations

http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/?fuseaction=showEvent&event=PLPEC

http://mith.umd.edu/dance-preservation/index.html

The Suzanne Farrell Ballet page mentions that she will be on the panel.

It would be great to think this project might be filmed and made available.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/may/01/summer-arts-calendar

Plus the Maryinsky Ballet http://www.victorhochhauser.co.uk/index.htm

The modernisation of the Royal Family has been actively sought by Her Majesty since the time when Prince Andrew was allowed to see active service in the Falklands War and Prince Harry also having the experience of service under fire. Prince Charles has set enormous and often unwelcome precedents by raising his head above the parapet in areas which the Royal Family had avoided in the past, as did the high profile activities of Princess Diana and other Royals, e.g. Anne the Princess Royal with her highly publicised equestrian activities.

And (since the subject of the royal family's "modernization" has been raised - I'd not be mentioning the following in this thread otherwise) the Queen has deflected some of the bad publicity her family have been getting over the past few decades by actually paying some income taxes and kicking some of the most notably useless of her relations off the Civil List.

Quite so.

Prince Harry was in "Dismounted Review Order" according to my ex Household Cavalry RSM brother-in-law when swords would not be worn.

My actual point was that had they wished to preserve the image of the Groom's Supporter as Champion, another Order, another Regiment or even an entirely different Service could have been chosen. In thirty years of wearing the uniform, I had only three occasions when I had to wear full-dress/diplomatic order, with chapeau-de-bras, full epaulettes, and M1860 field-and-staff sword. One only one of those occasions did I have to appear while mounted in this uniform, calling for the replacement of the former sword with a horseman's saber. The latter weapon is exceedingly ungainly to walk with, and provides a great reason why they would have foregone the wear of the Household Cavalry Sword, which is about 2 cm longer than its earlier US counterpart, evocative picture notwithstanding.

But the sword is not really an important detail, and its exclusion is a quiet way of saying, "We don't DO that anymore!"

The modernisation of the Royal Family has been actively sought by Her Majesty since the time when Prince Andrew was allowed to see active service in the Falklands War and Prince Harry also having the experience of service under fire. Prince Charles has set enormous and often unwelcome precedents by raising his head above the parapet in areas which the Royal Family had avoided in the past, as did the high profile activities of Princess Diana and other Royals, e.g. Anne the Princess Royal with her highly publicised equestrian activities.

It would appear that both Prince Charles and the Queen agreed to Prince William and Prince Harry's precedent of the absence of swords, the other precedent in the 21st (and 20th century) appears to be the wearing of a red uniform by a member of the Royal Family at his wedding (the non Royal Captain Mark Phillips also wore the red uniform of the 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards when he married Princess Anne.)

I also consider tradition important in most walks of life as well as having military links in my family going back almost 200 years. I understand your point regarding tradition, however the question of the absence of groomsman's sword carrying whilst noticed, did not offend me given the panoply of tradition being exhibited in the formalities and the glorious church service on a happy British occasion.

There is far to much concern regarding this minor celebrity wife of David Beckham.

Here is film of her at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13237480 exhiibiting quite normal expressions to my mind.

Thanks for the clip and the information, leonid. It looks like I was too hard on her. "Judge not, lest . . " How does that go again?

Thanks for starting the thread, dirac. At our house we watched the proceedings with scones and clotted cream!

How English. Do hope you enjoyed the event.

The thought of scones and clotted.them makes me want them now, but I shall have to wait until tomorrow.

Victoria Beckham was most noticeable -- her beretta was perched almost in front of her hairline

Does the woman not know how to smile, even on a joyous occasion? I thought her sulk, or whatever it was, made her look ridiculous.

Thank you! I like her but would it kill her to crack a smile at a wedding? What a contrast between her and her husband, who always has a bright smile on his face. They are like Grand Duke Sergei and Grand Duchess Elizabeth in reverse!

Victoria Beckham was most noticeable -- her beretta was perched almost in front of her hairline

Does the woman not know how to smile, even on a joyous occasion? I thought her sulk, or whatever it was, made her look ridiculous.

Perhaps her condition had something to do with it.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/david-victoria-beckham-wedding-fashion

She's always like that -- it's part of the Posh Spice persona. Talk about taking your publicity too seriously. The Queen is more laid-back and down-to-earth than Victoria Beckham!

There is far to much concern regarding this minor celebrity wife of David Beckham.

Here is film of her at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13237480 exhiibiting quite normal expressions to my mind.

Victoria Beckham was most noticeable -- her beretta was perched almost in front of her hairline

Does the woman not know how to smile, even on a joyous occasion? I thought her sulk, or whatever it was, made her look ridiculous.

Perhaps her condition had something to do with it.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/david-victoria-beckham-wedding-fashion

Harry could have worn a sword if he had wanted to, as the Best Man/Groom's Supporter is a development from the old role of Groom's Champion, whose job it was to face about during the part of the service that runs, "If any know just cause..." and face the congregation. If there were challenges to the marriage, the challenger and the Champion were to go outside and settle the matter. The Bride had a Champion in her retinue as well. The Champion used to be a part of coronations too, but the last monarch to choose one specifically was George III in 1760.

Prince Harry was in "Dismounted Review Order" according to my ex Household Cavalry RSM brother-in-law when swords would not be worn.

Swords were worn at the weddings of Princes Andrew and Edward, Her Majesty the Queen to Prince Phillip and George VI but they were all Naval officers and were obeying Navy Dress Regulations.

Was Harry uniformed as Commodore in the Royal Navy? That would be the only grade (and that Honourary) he holds superior to William, who was uniformed as Colonel of the Irish Guards.

Anyway, I think the Royal Wedding is indeed entirely appropriate for discussion on a ballet board, as the old ballets de cour celebrated royal things without the need for anybody actually to have to be born, die, marry, declare war, or any number of other hard-to-schedule events. The whole lead-in was a masterly demonstration of logistical triumph, getting materiel and personnel where they had to be to the nearly superhuman level of British punctuality.

I found the whole thing to be a wonderful amalgamation of the traditional and the most modern, reaching even a little beyond!

Now, I am only another mere man, but the wedding dress was stunning, wonderful! I have to agree about the hats, though. Some seriously awful ones throughout the congregation!

It impressed me that this event is highly salutary to a world sore from stressful times, and a welcome relief from all the bad news. Bravo, Britain! You have triumphed again!

The Bridegroom and Best Man Uniforms

Prince William chose to wear the uniform of Colonel of the Irish Guards on his Wedding Day. He is of course commissioned in all three Armed Services, and has served actively with the Army (The Household Cavalry Regiment) and with the Royal Air Force (Search and Rescue Force). The Prince chose to wear the uniform of his senior honorary appointment in the Army.

Prince Harry wore the uniform of a Captain of the Household Cavalry (Blues and Royals).

Prince William’s Uniform

Prince William wore an Irish Guards Mounted Officer’s uniform in Guard of Honour Order with a Forage Cap.

Together with a gold and crimson sash, and gold sword slings, both of which are worn in the presence of a Member of the Royal Family. The Prince of course did not wear a sword.

The Prince also wore the Garter Sash with the Wings of the Royal Air Force, the Garter Star and the Golden Jubilee Medal.

The tunic, in Guards’ Red, features the Irish Guards’ distinctive arrangement of buttons in groups of four. The buttons feature the Harp of Ireland surmounted by the Crown Imperial. The arrangement of buttons on the uniform denotes the Irish Guards’ position in the Order of Battle as the Fourth Regiment of Foot Guards.

The Insignia of the Irish Guards on the Forage Cap is the eight-pointed Star of the Most Illustrious Order of St. Patrick, and features the Regiment’s motto ‘Quis Separabit?’ (‘Who shall separate us?’).

The uniform was fitted by Kashket and Partners.

Prince Harry’s Uniform

Prince Harry wore a Blues and Royals officer’s uniform in Dismounted Review Order, with a Forage Cap.

The Prince wore aiguillettes, a cross-belt and gold waist belt with sword slings, but no sword.The Prince also wore the Wings of the Army Air Corps and Golden Jubilee and Afghanistan Campaign medals.

The Forage Cap carries the badge of the Blues and Royals, which features the insignia of the Most Noble Order of the Garter with The Queen’s cipher.

PS

Loved the wedding dress, but thought the train should have been longer and more tapered.

I thought the relaxed manner of the Princes and Catherine, denoted their contemporary personalities, which did not conflict with the movingly austere solemnity of the cathedral service and for me, added a touch of their well sought out normality, whilst living in an often seemingly well protected hothouse environment.

Edited

June 2012

The Prince of the Pagodas – Would prefer to see Cranko’s version

Yes, indeed. Theoretically, could Cranko's version be revived?

Not sure.

It may be that Cranko's original staging for both the Royal Ballet and the Wurttembergische State Theater Ballet(later the Stuttgart Ballet) predate notated records.

The ballet was given more than twenty times by the Royal Ballet providing a wonderful role for Svetlana Beriosova as La Belle Rose.

Britten conducted the first performance of The Prince of the Pagodas on New Year's Day 1957 at the Royal Opera House where it was given twenty-three performances and then was dropped from the repertoire.

As a teenager I saw a revival of the ballet in 1960 and fell in love Beriosova's quality of movement and was intrigued with the strange quality of the music.

Later Prince of the Pagodas received favourable reviews in New York, Munich, and La Scala.

This was a time when Kenneth MacMillan, Ninette de Valois creature, rose in ascendancy and Cranko left to begin his creation of the Stuttgart Ballet out of the ancient Wurttembergische State Ballet.

I was saddened to hear of the death of Eugene Fodor who I once heard live in the 1970’s.

Daily Telegraph Obituary at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/music-obituaries/8472645/Eugene-Fodor.html

When the word technique is applied, it refers to an established and often sophisticated practical method, being used as a step towards accomplishment that arises from study and practice.

Style however, as I see it, is either informed from within or without in academic classical ballet dancers and there is a generalised method of measurement emanating from particular schools and accepted traditions.

Of course it is does not end there, as great artists, bring something unique to their performances in which the underlying technique, serves as the template from which they can connect with examples from past and recent history.

Style can often be arrived at through their particular teacher(s) and of course is influenced by the stylistic context of particular schools of ballet they attend.

Dancers of style through personal inspiration achieve some kind of state elevated from classroom exercises performing in a very clean and pure manner and then, reflect if not imitate, the creative expression of examples of previous generations.

I would suggest that the greatest stylists have a rare, unique, imagined and inspired focus, arising from a personal aesthetic, for which I concur in with Christian, as it appears to emanate from a particularly deep level of performance expression which is generally known as coming from the soul.

Edited 27.04.11

My diary entries for bit of a mixed season of delights and the missable.

Royal Ballet 2011 - 2012

Sept/Oct 2011

Jewels - Glad to see it.

Oct 2011

Mixed bill

Limen – Sit it out

Marguerite & Armand - Glad to see it

Requiem – Not a favourite

Oct to Dec 2011

The Sleeping Beauty – With ruined sets but some good casts

November 2011

Manon – One more nearer to death but some good casts

November 2011

Mixed Bill

Asphodel Meadows

Enigma Variations Glad to see it revived but can never forget original cast

Gloria

Dec 2011 to Jan 2012

The Nutcracker – Missable production

Jan to Apr 2012

Romeo & Juliet - Hopefully some good casts

Feb to Mar 2012

Mixed Bill )

The Dream ) Odd coupling of two great works

Song of the Earth )

Mar to Apr 2012

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland - NIFOM

April 2012

Mixed Bill

New Scarlett )

Polyphonia ) NIFOM

New McGregor )

Apr - May 2012

La Fille Mal Gardee - Generally a failsafe

May - June 2012

Mixed Bill )

Ballo Della Regina ) Like the pairing

La Sylphide )

June 2012

The Prince of the Pagodas – Would prefer to see Cranko’s version

June - July 2012

Mixed Bill

Birthday Offering )

A Month in the Country ) Great triple bill

Les Noces )

July 2012

Titian

A Royal Ballet & National Gallery project, involving collaborations between:- )

Wayne McGregor, Kim Brandstrup, Alastair Marriott, Chris Wheeldon, ) Why?

Will Tuckett, Liam Scarlett & Jonathan Watkins )

A clip of his debut as Abderakhman in Raymonda yesterday has now appeared on youtube, you can see it

. Anna Nikulina is Raymonda.

What a treat.

Sinister, panther like, extraordinary physicality and dramatic as well. Tremendous.

Almost effaces the memory of Gediminas Taranda in the same role.

McGregor is much too young and inexperienced even in his own metier; and has no experience whatsoever in administering an organization, fundraising and politics. No one who is thirty something and has no administrative experience should be promoted to such a job. Being a choreographer yourself is not a requisite for this job; it's even a shortcoming as you can see from other companies. You don't want someone who is by definition competing with the institutional repertory and who has every motive to downplay it in relation to their own ambitions.

Mason has been ideal. She comes (I think) in the wake of the Ross Stretton fiasco? They should use Mason as an ideal and build on what she has started, the restoration of the companies' values, identity, and institutional health. This means someone who:

(1) values the artistic legacy of the house, its staff and repertory - someone who can stage what they've got and who will love to do it; and, someone who -

(2) has integrity - personal and institutional (who comes not to loot and exploit the company) - whom the dancers, the artistic staff and company staff (lighting, costume) will respect, appreciate, even love to work for. Someone fair in institutional and employment matters.

(3) someone who can run company class and grow dancers.

Amen

Dear Ballet Alert-ers,

It's been nearly two years since we lost her and I would love to read her autobiography.

Does anyone know if Ekaterina Maximova's Autobiography "Madame Nyet" will be released in English?

thank you,

Kelly

I understand a translation is in process in Russia, but have no idea as to when it will be published.

Should he be the innovator or keeper of traditon?

Innovative choreographers will always come knocking at the door. Best to choose a director who loves the Royal's history, who will both want and have to bring in the new folks, but won't do so at the expense of the old ones.

The Royal Ballet/Royal Opera House has shown continuous bad judgement in choosing Artistic Directors arising from the influence of Dame Ninette de Valois who helped to push Sir Frederick Ashton out of his post. There has not been one subsequent AD making a truly good fist of the job, including Kenneth MacMillan(later Sir)whom Dame Ninette championed for the post and took the company into the doldrums and began to change its trade mark identity.

Whilst Dame Monica Mason had recovered much of was lost under Sir Anthony Dowell and Ross Stretton, the Royal Ballet’s repertoire is a pale shadow of what brought it international fame in the 1960’s when Dame Ninette de Valois (until 1963) and Sir Frederick Ashton held the fort (1963-1970.)

As to innovative choreographers, there are exponents of classical ballet who have and can create innovative works, so why employ choreographers who work outside the genre?

For me the likes of Wayne McGregor(whose name has been mentioned as a potential AD working with the Royal Ballet is little more than a gimmick. He appeared on the scene at the same time as the rise of so called celebrities that infest our television networks and the press with its cadre of wannabe celebrity critics seeking a profile by encouraging non classical ballet works in the RB repertory.

As I recorded some years past, Mr McGreor's first work at the Royal Opera despite publicity,resulted in hundreds of seats being empty. In the end the audience will always be the judge.

There is perhaps also a politically populist induced gimmick that keeps saying we must attract more young people to the Royal Ballet, as if there is some elderly elite or other barriers preventing them attending performances.

Young people who want to watch ballet as I did, find their own way to becoming a Royal Ballet regular. In my generation, the young people I met came from various walks of life and educational backgrounds.

McGregor's so called rise in status can be blamed on those critics who do not want to see the raison d’être repertoire of the Royal Ballet, ie its classical ballet productions year in year out unlike those who willingly pay to go to see what they want to see with different casts over and over again, especially in the case of 'the classics'.

From an interview given just over eight years ago with Wayne Eagling on being asked what might have prepared him for the role of Artistic Director(of the Dutch National Ballet) he replied:-

“That, to his mind, "one learnt on the job." He doubted that there could be a ‘school for artistic directors’. The role required management awareness, and an understanding of the financial implications of artistic decisions, rather than specific financial competencies. An understanding of dance and of people was crucial. “You don’t really have to have been a great dancer or choreographer. It depends too on the company. If you’re someone like Jiri Kylian, you can get by, by being a good director by the strength of your choreography. To be director of the Royal Ballet, you must have people skills.”

For full interview

See http://www.ballet.co.uk/magazines/yr_02/dec02/interview_wayne_eagling.htm