Simon G

Dirac, I think in this case you can assume that the ROH is catering directly to its core subscribers/individuals. In the UK we have several Dowager Marchionesses, which is a title in itself. So when the current Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury, Bute, Queensbury, Lansdowne etc etc etc books her tickets online (or has some flunky do it for her) she'll get a lil frisson of delight to see that the ROH subscriptions department has catered precisely to her title. Now that's customer service.

If you scroll down the list according to the ROH all levels of military personnel go to the Opera and Ballet except for petty officers and privates, the lowest ranks. There is just so much wrong with this the laughter is bitter in one's throat. And since when did Queens book and pay for their own tickets, online no less?

Not unless they add "Tovarich" or "Citoyen" ... Да товарищ O'Connell, благодарю вас!

Now there's a website that won't be missed come the Revolution.

There are countless highly successful actresses who asked themselves that once they hit 40-45 and suddenly found their careers dwindle to nothing. There's nothing more real than the cold hard business of art as commerce.

I read an interview with Rachel Moore in which she explained this. Around 85% of revenue comes from three acters - it's what people want to see and this is key, as wonderful as new work is for morale what's the point of playing to half empty theatres, indeed it's financial suicide. Tickets for three act ballets also cost more, yet conversely because they don't have to pay rights, choreographers, designers, composers fees actually cost less to stage than an evening with new works. Petipa and Tchaikovsky aren't members of AGMA or PRS. For every one new work in a season ABT has to programme 80% Swan Lakes or other three act ballet to cover the costs. The public wants what the public gets.

You can't help but be reminded of Karsavina's edict: "leave the stage before the stage leaves you." The problem facing mature female performers in both acting and ballet is precisely that the big meaty roles just aren't there once a woman reaches a certain age. Ballet is almost exclusively about youth, with very few exceptions the lead roles are based on women in or barely out of puberty, whereas the parts for women in acting after mid 30s are almost exclusively mothers, grandmothers, aunts, menopausal women or patronising variants on mature female archetypes - it's no secret that there's a great deal of resentment within the acting community against Meryl Streep who has first crack on yes or no at any interesting mature female part. It's not surprising that mature actresses have appropriated Blanche Dubois and play her considerably older than she's meant to be, it's one of the few roles which can lend itself to maturity and be played convincingly as approaching menopause. Though as stated she's only a few years older than Stella who still obviously is very much capable of conceiving. And of course there's the unfairness that an actress's powers only increase over the years, an experience she can bring to wider roles and the smaller roles, should she be one of the lucky ones whose career doesn't end at 40. Whereas a ballerina, whose emotional and interpretive range does increase just can't do the steps anymore, certainly not in the same way and while I'm not a martinette in demanding stellar technique, she does need at least the bare modicum of technique that the role demands. But we all know that's the greatest irony/tragedy of ballet that just as the dancer as artist comes into full bloom their physical powers begin to wane. But at the same time there's no substitute for extreme youth finding its way in the great roles just by instict. I've seen Cojocaru dance Giselle several times, but for me the very best time was her very first one in a matinee on April 11th 2001. She was 19, still just a first soloist and it was a try out for her - after that performance she became principal and it's one of those historic performances. I've never seen her dance with such abandon since, certainly not in Giselle. Due of course to the constraints and heavy artifice of ballet we accept women in their late 30s and 40s dancing girls and Juliet but that doesn't translate to a 40 year old acting Juliet - either way it does ignore the whole point of R&J that it's about the tumescent thrusting madness of adolescent lust/love with the overriding amazement and teenage discovery of "Wow, what's that going on in my underpants?" Christian, when I was a kid I did indeed see Nureyev on one of his very last tours and it was grim, absolutely grim, even as a kid I recognised that this was a literally pathetic spectacle. I didn't bring any artistically edifying impression away, just a lesson in the importance of ageing gracefully.

Dirac I'm glad you said that, I have to agree. Giselle danced like this comes across as a really dodgy oedipal cautionary tale of a mad village cougar meets a granny grabber. I do think Giselle more than any other ballet is about youth, Giselle's one power (though she doesn't realise it) is her youth and beauty which ultimately destroys her, especially when she meets Bathilde against whose aristocracy she is ultimately powerless. Her naivety has to be a product of innocence, which is attractive enough to Hilarion to be equally in love and besotted, danced as a menopausal woman with learning difficulties who can't accept she isn't 15 anymore it becomes a really patronising tale of a whole village indulging the village idiot and Albrecht's motivation is no longer a passion that makes him take leave of his senses but an act of sadism against a poor tortured middle aged woman. I also have to say I have real problems with ballerinas who just can't do the steps anymore dancing roles which demand a young technique. Giselle especially is a role that needs a ballerina who can clear the floor when she jumps. The Alonso video especially I found quite sad as you saw her technique already diminished at the age of 58 dwindle to nothing at the age of 73 when that last film was shot.

What I meant in a literal sense is that a pas de bourree is essentially a pas de bourree whether it's the Vagaonova, Bolshoi, Royal, RDB, POB school, whether it's put in Sleeping Beauty, In The Middle Somewhat Elevated, Month in the Country etc. Ballet is a universal language though there are variations in how steps are performed, the technique which lead to those steps being mastered, the use of port de bras etc depending on which company, school of ballet or what the choreographer is doing with that step. But the academic form translates from one country to the next. When it comes to staging ballets, of course the technique has changed considerably since those ballets were first set. But variations exist and certain companies perform certain choreographic texts, and individual dancers may add a variation to suit there technique. Swan Lake in Act 3, sometimes Odile lets herself be carried aloft while she does a supported split in second, other times she developpes a la seconde before going into arabesque, but both end with her coming into a high retire bending over to the side her arms in third. Bourmeister did a completely altered version of Petipa's choreograpic text with different music. Spessivtseva introduced a solo in act 1 in the 1920s into Giselle which is now widely performed in most Giselles though other versions stick to earlier texts based on Corelli-Perrot and later Petipa. Mary Skeaping staged a radically revisionist version of Giselle for English National Ballet based on earlier stagings than the Royal Ballet. Sleeping Beauty especially keeps the petit allegro entrance of Aurora followed by the Rose Adagio in pretty much every version I've seen from every country, but later divertissements such as the garland dance alter depending on who choreographed the divertissements based on Petipa. Ashton did the Royal's. In some versions of Giselle there's a peasent Pas de deux, the Royal has a pas de six. When you're talking about variations you're basically talking about the classics of Petipa which are open to alteration, or where certain stars can put in more technical tricks if they want to show off. Nureyev was very big on adding stuff to show off. But with modern choreography, where there are foundations ensuring that absolute faithful reproductions are adhered on foreign stagings you can't do this. But what I essentially meant is that the opening section of Aurora's petit allegro is basically an assembly of academic steps, petit allegro, terre a terre linking steps which are taught in every ballet class and which every classical choreographer knows - it's how that choreographer assembles the universal steps that gives his unique language.

73

The thing is what you're looking at with Sleeping Beauty is one of the great ballets of Marius Petipa. The choreographic text of his ballets is set and has been since the 19th century, Petipa is the basically the greatest genius of ballet. The steps of ballet are academically set, it's the way they're put together with the music that distinguishes each individual choreographer. The opening solo of Aurora in Sleeping Beauty is indeed fiendishly difficult, but it's not so much that in itself if it came with a break right after, it's exhausting, but immediately after that solo comes the Rose Adagio, which is considered by many to be the most difficult passage written for any ballerina in both the classical and modern canon of ballet. So the ballerina has to go straight from that cardio vascular workout into the hugely challenging balancing act of rose adagio - Sleeping Beauty is seen as one of the great tests as to whether a ballerina is indeed cut out to be a classical ballerina. You should maybe look up Petipa on Wikipedia and then check out books about Marius Petipa and his ballets on Amazon.

Pas de chat, petit jete with working leg in low retire, she then steps back onto the working leg fully on pointe which becomes the supporting leg and the front leg goes up into a high attitude devant. (She repeats this six times) She then comes off pointe, what was the supporting leg becomes the working leg as she does a low ronde de jambe, she piques backwards, which means the back leg does sharp little percussive points as the front working leg does little pas de cheval (She repeats this three times) Then bourrees backwards to the back of the stage. Then - Pas de chat en avant, pas de bourree with the working leg ending in a low degage a la seconde, soutenu up on to pointe and a high ronde de jambe of the working leg, temps de fleche (the two little kicks to the back with legs in low attitude) pas de chat, pas de chat pas de bourree (repeats this four times to bring herself from upstage left to downstage right) Then soutenu up onto pointe four little grands jetes en tournant, then chaines turns ending with a reverance to her parents. You don't need to buy a book, everything you might want to know about steps is here: http://www.abt.org/education/dictionary/index.html

That's the problem with needing a soundbite for wider media attention though, the list of dancers who might be relevant or known by the wider public is tiny so every male dancer is either the next Nijinsky, Baryshnikov or Nureyev. So far in the UK alone Steven Mcrae, Sergei Polunin and now Vadim Muntagirov are the next Nureyev's I can't wait until next year when we find out who the next, next Nureyev is, unless of course they decide to take a sabbatical. It's also a testament to how synonymous of ballet Fonteyn in that she seems to be the sole ballerina whose name is brought up for a non-dance audience soundbite. The Benois set up reminds me a bit of Charles Ives statement that "awards are nothing but the badges of mediocrity" it does on looking over the website seem a bit like an in-house circle jerk, I'd also like to know how they draw up their short lists, they hardly seem exhaustive or entirely representative of dance. The thing that gets me is Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui's win, anyone whose ever sat through an evening of Cherkaoui's work, and I've sat through several will be thinking "huh"? But looking at the judges I see Wayne Macgregor is the choreographic judge and guess who his very good chum is?

That’s just it, Simon. Unlike yourself, I don’t see acrobatics in Skoric’s closing pas. What I see is altogether different, a metaphor of sorts. Mind that it is not executed at the beginning of the adagio, rather at its end. Didn’t Odette want to set herself free? Didn't Odile want to capture the Prince with her own charms as well as her startling resemblance to Odette? Your point of view is exceedingly interesting and in many aspects I agree with it. Yes, in many if not most Petipa’s ballets such a skewed position would be an overkill. "Swan Lake" is different in many ways, it is more symphonic, more open to dancer’s individual interpretation. You write: “you have to ask would they mind if she did a classically placed developpe?“ Perhaps yes. But Skoric saw it this way and I applaud her power of imagination, not her flexibility. Angelique, It's cool, you love the Skorik developpe it means something to you and that's what it's all about. I think the thing is that nowadays one sees that kind of extreme flexibility everywhere so that there's so little to compare it to, to other ways of working. What people get upset about isn't the Skorik approach so much as what's been lost. Here are some interesting bits of comparison if you like to take a butchers of ballerinas from different eras in the same pdd: This is Ulanova from 1940 with the Kirov, widely considered to be the greatest ballerina of all time by many: This is Fonteyn with the Royal Ballet circa mid 60s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8PJGXvZ4u8&feature=related Makarova 1976 with ABT: And this is Guillem, the prototype of the modern ballerina in 1987 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jRxfCCE91o

I beg to differ. There is something inappropriate in referring to audiences as “trained” or “untrained”. A theatre goer is not a pony after all. I have been regularly attending ballet performances for 8 years and not only by Mariinsky, but POB, ROH, Danish Royal, BT, ABT, NYCB, La Scala and many other famous companies and not so famous too. So I am quite certain that I have not just one, but several frames of reference. Oksana Skoric’s winged pose which provoked this discussion is not just impressive but expressive, i.e. it means something. To emotionally move those in the audience, to touch people's hearts, to stir the imagination, isn’t it what art is suppose to be about? Certainly it doesn't exist just to oblige critics and balletomanes. In this case theatre would be stale, lifeless and attended by the smallest portion of theatre goers. One thing more: personally I think here is “the place for this discussion”, provided that the forum affords the opportunity for an open and unrehearsed exchange of ideas. A contrario, speaking for myself and myself only, I would not be interested in the aforementioned publication even if I get paid to read it. Angelique, Firstly, that was a bit bitchy and unnecessary and detracted from your sentiment that audiences aren't "ponies" to be trained, which to a great extent I do agree with, as ballet can seem extremely rarified and exclusory to new viewers, and though eight years is indeed hardly a total novice, it does mean that you've come in at the tail end of a debate about technique and aesthetics that has been going on for almost thirty years with the explosion of Sylvie Guillem on the international dance scene. Because what Catherine is talking about and indeed what many of the board members lament, some of whom have been viewing ballet for six decades is that the very nature of classical ballet has been destroyed, homogenised and the soul of what made each individual company great, its style, its technique and approach to ballet has been lost. You've been to see a good variety of companies and that's great, but the sad fact is that much of the time the company members of the great companies and second tier companies are completely interchangeable. Technique and approach is increasingly one great big mulch. There was a time when the Mariinsky, the Royal, POB, NYCB, RDB etc each has a specific approach to the classics, to the technique of classical ballet, a unique and specific repertoire for which they were known or an approach to a shared repertoire. People knew that when they watched a Swan Lake by the Kirov it was a very different beast from the Royal. Classical ballet which has a universal language of steps however had a completely different language of dialect in terms of nationality, company and the stars who were produced by those companies. Also those stars and great dancers were not expected to be Jack of all trades. A great classicist was just that, a virtuoso first soloist or demi caractere soloist was a different beast, a dancer with a more contemporary physique and technique was that too, now every dancer is expected to be as at home in the classics, as in Forsythe, Macmillan, Bournonville, the God-awful Macgregor or Mats Ek. And this has made companies muddy generic, the very qualities certain dancers were prized for takes a backseat to a catholic circus virtuosity. Judged by today's criteria as to what makes a dancer and what their physical talents must be in order to succeed, artists such as Fonteyn, Ulanova, Farrell, Seymour, Plisetskaya, Vasiliev wouldn't even get into a ballet school today, let alone become stars. The problem is with the Skorik developpe at the end of the pas de deux, is that yes, I agree it's an impressive feat of flexibility but it isn't ballet, it's acrobatics, moreover were her partner to take his support away she'd fall over - classical ballet is a language of dance based around placement, balance and in the case of the great Classical works great restraint. Skorik's flexibility in a Forsythe work would be just the ticket, but in Petipa it's just wrong. But pretty much every ballerina now does what she's doing so it's more or less expected by the audience, but then you have to ask would they mind if she did a classically placed developpe?

The highlight of the wedding for me was the coolest flower girl ever, three-year-old Grace Van Cutsem http://www.rickey.org/grace-van-cutsem-the-royal-wedding-flower-girl/ She's already become an international superstar, having gone viral in cyberspace.

First, I deliberately made no mention of any specific actors. Given that this stuff might be still be unsettled and before the courts, I'd like to avoid any specific references. Second, if what you say is true, then you have served only to prove my points--that is, words and media combined can be lethal. Without a media recording, it was a he said, she said argument. The comments themselves were still toxic and reprehensible, but in doubt to many. Once the doubt was removed, the damage to all was done. And last, this a minor point, please, if you emphasize part of my quote when quoting me, say so. Otherwise, it appears as though I had emphasized something, when I hadn't. I'm sorry but I really don't see your point, and drawing parallels between Alberda & Galliano is a tad specious. Alberda just makes a few silly comments about things which interest him, it only crossed the line when he made a joke about Peter Martins DUI, Galliano (and if it wasn't him who else did you mean, and since the whole affair has been reported at length there's no danger of a class libel action) made comments which in France are illegal regardless of clothes or fashionistas, had Alberda made similar comments on twitter regarding the patrons of NYCB then yes he'd be sacked, and yes it would have a huge impact on the audience of NYCB and wealthy donors many of whom are indeed Jewish. The kick in the funny parts for Christian Dior was Natalie Portman's immediate distancing of herself from Dior, as to whether Galliano's comments would have an impact on his buying demographic, do you honestly think the wealthy Jewish patrons of haute couture would invest in a designer who said their ancestors would be better off gassed or the various captains of industry who do business with Jews want to dress their wives in the clothes of an anti semite? Portman's immediate actions against her employer kind of signalled the devastating impact Galliano's actions would have on his buying demographic. AS to the last request (see above emphasising on my part) I'll do my best, but maybe it's time to be a tad less precious, I assumed that anyone reading my response would know it was my emphasising a point I wanted to respond to.

I love Ashton's R&J, it's hugely underrated and in my opinion outclasses the Macmillan, Nureyev & Lavrosky BUT those prices are tear-inducing. Which I suppose why he's roped in Vasiliev & Osipova, the hope that those stars will pull in the punters, but again that'll be for ballet lovers the star quality of ballet stars is very localised within the dance community and doesn't extend to the general public anymore, certainly not in the UK. Sadly that's the price of unsubsidised productions in major cities if they're to see a return, but with a run that long it's highly doubtful that the Coliseum will be filled to capacity. During the last visits by NYCB, ABT, Stuttgart at the Coliseum tickets were being sold at vastly reduced rates on the days of performance 20% of original price on all tickets, so it's highly probable waiting until the day before buying your ticket may be a pretty safe bet.

I daresay it's for precisely this reason that the new guidelines are in place. Where a dancer can pass personal information that will directly impact on attendance and ticket sales - should a dancer's disclosure of third party information harm the company and its financial takings at box office, then that must be a good reason for sacking. Simon, Are you suggesting that selling tickets to unsuspecting fans based on misinformation is appropriate, and passing on correct information to prevent misleading the public is good reason for "sacking"? From reading these boards, I have become aware that many audience members carefully select which dancers they wish to see and how they wish to spend their limited funds. Withholding information regarding which dancer will perform, or selling tickets based on promises of one performer when he/she is not available, is fraudulent, even if it financially assists the company. Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. That companies be allowed carte blanche to engage in fraudulent, misleading behaviour.

Without meaning to be mean, do you think what a fashion designer is allegedly to have said while in an inebriated state would affect what fashioniestas wear? As we have seen, a few misplaced evil comments can ruin a person, his reputation, and his work. Luckily, the team--in this case a company--simply terminated him. Words combined with media are powerful. That's not entirely true, they only terminated his contract when the incontravertible video footage came out. Till that point LVMH and Arnault were standing by Galliano, their major star and cash cow, as being the victim of unsubstantiated slander and rumours. Indeed Galliano was launching a libel action against the victims of one his tirades, as there was only witness statements as to what had gone on that first time.

I daresay it's for precisely this reason that the new guidelines are in place. Where a dancer can pass personal information that will directly impact on attendance and ticket sales - should a dancer's disclosure of third party information harm the company and its financial takings at box office, then that must be a good reason for sacking.

In fact a lot of his tweets don't actually make that much sense, he's not quite as clever as the wit he's straining after and he relys too much on big words to give weight to very little meaning. The Koch/soap dish tweet being a case in point. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/15/article-1366525-0B307C7900000578-755_468x222.jpg Which big word are you struggling with? Sabotage? Paranoia? Dispenser? Yes. Along with patronise, sanctimonious and tedious.

I have to agree with Mel, I can't quite see why everyone's getting their knickers in a twist here. Alberda's comments have nothing to do with the imposed restrictions. In fact a lot of his tweets don't actually make that much sense, he's not quite as clever as the wit he's straining after and he relys too much on big words to give weight to very little meaning. The Koch/soap dish tweet being a case in point. I think this is more to do with NYCB protecting its wealthy sponsors than fear of the media and public at large who, let's face it, don't really care about ballet or the internecine politics of ballet companies. (Unless it's Natalie Portman stabbing herself in the abdomen before going out into Swan Lake Act 3. But then again now that she's won her Oscar it's old news.)

I kind of get the feeling Alberda doesn't much care about his career, or if not "not care" has come to terms that at 24/25 promotion to soloist isn't really going to happen, certainly never principal.

Oh, you wish. Now, as ever you are punching way above your weight. I'm the Casey Heynes of Ballet Alert.