For convenience here is the posting. It starts with a quote from Ismene Brown's piece about the new season
"Royal Ballet director Ross Stretton said at the season launch that MacMillan's one-act works were more suitable for educational work and peripheral theatrical presentation than the main stage - a judgment that can only damage the company's artistic identity."

We have lost so much of MacMillan from all periods of his creativity - not unflawed masterpieces all - but surely worth a fresh look to re-assess them. Such a lack of belief does not bode well.

I don't disagree with Paul A's comments but I think Stretton's overall comments in the briefing need to be recorded.

The very first question I think was about MacmIllan works for next year and why not some triple bills. Stretton I thought responded reasonably by saying their had been much debate with Deborah Macmillan - who was there in the briefing as well - around what RB should do and certainly a triple bill or two had been on the cards. Presumably that would have been instead of one of the full length pieces (I'll set aside arguments about the number of pieces in the year not being enough). They all juggled this way and that and 3 full length productions is what came out and Deborah was fully consulted/involved - that was the impression given anyway. Stretton also underlined the importance of MacMillan because he started his resume of next season by taking about the MacMillan inheritance and works in the new season.

Towards the end of his answer he talked about ROH education work and other events (Linbury and Clore presumably) where MacMillan might also be celebrated. I heard it as a bigger view type of statement: MacMillan needed to be celebrated in lots of ways, not just on the CG stage. I didn't see in it any deep value judgment. He might have mentioned the MacMillan conference, ENB and (presumably) BRB also presenting MacMillan works next season.

That's what I observed anyway. For my money I would have preferred to see a Macmillan triple substituted for Mayerling...

Debra Craine in the Times on the changes afoot for both the RB and the ENB: 'Here's a question for ballet-lovers in the 21st century. How much do you want your art form to change? That's the issue facing Britain's two biggest ballet companies, the Royal Ballet and English National Ballet, both of whom recently acquired new directors committed to expanding the artistic horizons of their respective companies. In a few years, assuming they get what they want, the landscape of British ballet will have changed considerably, thanks to Ross Stretton at the Royal and Matz Skoog at ENB.'
Http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,266-250665,00.html

Here is one section that caught my eye:
"Whatever the response, Stretton says he can take it. He’s had to, since the reviews for Nacho Duato’s Por Vos Muero, which premiered earlier this month, were blistering. Stretton, keen to attract a younger and less conservative audience to the Royal Opera House, is unrepentant. “It made a statement; it made you sit back and see the dancers of the Royal Ballet in another light. I love it for the images that it creates and I’ve had more good mail about this particular ballet than I have had for any other ballet because it does touch people.”

What does concern Stretton, however, is how the choreographer will feel reading the British press. “A bad review doesn’t have any impact on my thoughts about Nacho Duato. What does worry me is the way it may impact on whether Nacho would want to come back and work with the company again. And I think that from a critical point of view that is dangerous. The critics need to support ballet, to support the Royal Ballet, to support ballet in Britain, to put strength behind the Royal Ballet and not use it as a target all the time."

LAST EDITED ON 30-03-02 AT 03:51 AM (GMT)

Ross Stretton's comments on critics supporting ballet and not offending the choreographer are a little unrealistic. Critics, surely, must review honestly and if they don't like a work, must be free to say so. Otherwise readers would soon tire and their reviews would be worthless if nothing negative was said in order to support ballet.

My response to the new season plans is mixed. Delighted we are seeing Mayerling again and Manon, would happily drop Pagodas for a triple bill with Gloria. Given they are supposed to be honouring Madam, I would have thought a revival of her version of Beauty would be more fitting and honouring of RB tradition than inviting Makarova (not least because of the dreadfully slow tempo she enjoys). I understand the idea of the triple programme with Ashton, Macmillan and Bintley reflecting the way Madam nurtured and encouraged choreographers but it is too bad that not one of her ballets in included somewhere in the season. And a whole season with only one Ashton is, in my book, too depressing to contemplate. I adore Scenes but only 20 minutes of Ashton is desperate. Agree with the idea of something Nureyev related on stage to support the exhibition. As Alison said in the other thread, lets hope ENB comes up with some good programmes because the Royal Ballet has not done it for me with this programme. But perhaps its a mixed blessing because so little temptation may be good if the cheaper seats are going up in price!

PS: Yipee about Wordsworth coming back - after the bizarre tempi in Giselle and generally poor performance, I think they need him badly.

Pagodas is a more significant and less well rooted part of the repertory: glad to see it back. Hope it does not fall victim to "lack of rehearsal time" as on a previous revival's postponement.

>only one Ashton is, in
>my book, too depressing

I think these comments only go to underline that even with the limited "traditional heritage works" available (at the weekend looked at the list of Ashton that is recorded in Benesh notation - well nigh seen it all), there is still a big choice, one which the limited number of bills next season doesn't address.

If we are going to use their new star fine - but why not a performance picture? Or some bayaderers descending the staircase?

Or is their a logic here - are they not trying to create some allure based on company members (in the way that Rolex advertsing carries over to the ROH with its associations with other major stars - Kanawa, Guillem etc). If this is the case who would recognise Cojocaru?

But how do sum up the ROH in one picture?

But back to the MacMillan - although I am happy with the ballet season I would like have seen more MacMillan one act ballet like Les Hamanas, the Invitation etc. But I cannot have everything my way!!

I begin to understand recent pollsters concerns on the pressures on dancers to attain the same petite build.

I started having a look at the new pricing arrangements, and what should I find? Everything in quotes is from the ROH press release.

"In order to offer a broad range of prices to our audiences and to reflect in greater detail the differing demands for certain repertory we have introduced several new pricing levels for individual productions."

They certainly have. One that particularly came to my notice was rows B-G of the central section of the amphitheatre, which are are at a new, higher, price than the equivalents in the sides (£10 difference in the case of evening performances of the Nutcracker!). In fact, if you're really unfortunate, there are seats in the amphi that you could now purchase, like for like, for a whopping 120% more than before the House closed. (comparing first triple bill with the supposedly Apollo/Amores/Symphony in C? bill which the RB did shortly before the House closed, if you sit in rows E-G you could be paying £44 for the privilege instead of £20). I know there's such a thing as inflation, but that's ridiculous. Not only that, but stalls prices for the Nutcracker are now £73 - I make that a total of over 800 seats at that price. Not only do I think that's the highest they've ever been, even for the first season of the last Sleeping Beauty production, but I'm pretty certain that the previous administration never charged full full-evening prices for 2-act ballets anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong, somebody. If that's not enough, in what used to be the cheaper areas of the House, prices will have gone up by anything up to 100% compared with pre-closure prices. How the ROH can still get people to believe that these prices are more accessible is beyond me, but then it's amazing what you can do with statistics.

"For the 2002/03 Season our primary objective has been to keep at least 50 percent of the seats for all performances regardless of repertory under £50." (I think there was a separate comment on pricing for triple bills, but I've lost it).

On the aforementioned triple bill it was 100% - only just, admittedly, as the top price was something like £49.50.

"• More than half the House for a new production of full-length classical ballet will cost £45 or under"

Assuming we're talking about the new Sleeping Beauty (I can't think of anything else that qualifies), if Nutcracker prices are anything to go by, they might just about manage it, but it'll be close.

With regards to senior citizens now being escluded from standbys becasue there are too many of them,let's hope Tony Hall or whoever made this decision goes into politics, otherwise those of us who have still a way to go to retirement may find we won't get pensiosn because there are too many of us. Shame on the ROH - they should be ashamed of themselves. All that public money yet they seem to be trying to exclude the public. Never mind - I suppose those public millions fund an Australian tour so Stretton can show off to his old friends.

I think what I find particularly
>discouraging is the talk of
>attracting a "younger" audience (isn't
>that one of hte reasons
>Ross Stretton wasppointed?) They won't
>do that with these prices
>and they also run the
>risk of isolating existing, older
>sudiences.

Considering how loudly they trumpeted the fact that their audiences are younger and poorer than they thought, I find it very odd that they think they can keep increasing the prices and hold on to their audience. (See also my comments on the lack of standbys from next season on the News page). Or perhaps that's why they've had such a large percentage of newcomers, because some of the old regulars can't afford to come any more?

Never mind
>- I suppose those public
>millions fund an Australian tour
>so Stretton can show off
>to his old friends.

AFAIK, the tour is being funded by a sponsor, as I believe always happens on overseas tours.

£73 is outrageous and unacceptable for any seat in my oppinion !
Prices have been going up since the House reopened in 2000 but now it's really taken off.
For those of us that like to go again and again to the same performance we could afford at least the stalls sometimes, but now? I know there are more seats to chose from but that doesn't justify this sum.
Maybe Tom Cruise could give us a workshop in how to tangle from the ceiling - would that be a stand-by or a hang-in ticket?

I think they've done something about reducing the bench seats, the prices that is, in the stalls circle. I think you can get close (with the restricted view) at a more reasonable price. I think, hope that's right.

Note also the references in the leaflet about restricted leg room and non traditional seats (and the columns on the booking form) - there must have been an enormous number of complaints. This is one aspect of the redevelopment I find perplexing - how could they accept such peculiar seating.

But agree £73 is outrageous (but I don't think two-acters were cheaper). When I first tried to book at the ROH in 1976 for an ultra deluxe Aida (Domingo, Caballe, Cossotto, Muti) the deearest seats were £10.30. OK I'm getting old!

Likewise the other prices do not feel value for money (we paid £48 each for balcony seats for the Carmen bill is too much). I've just not managed to get comfy in the new house. How much would be value? Halve everything.

What went wrong - why have our arts companies lost the art of justifying public subsidy (the only answer methinks)? And why is the RB so much more expensive than ENB/ BRB, given their smaller grants? Is there an economy of scale where a certain number of performances allows cheaper prices? (I can understand the RO given the fees they pay).

I haven't checked that bit yet. Will do so. I was looking at the main seating areas.

>Note also the references in the
>leaflet about restricted leg room
>and non traditional seats

did I miss those?

(and the columns on the booking
>form) - there must have
>been an enormous number of
>complaints.

Oh, there have been, believe me. And when a woman who's less than 5' tall starts complaining about lack of legroom there is something severely wrong. (Not to mention, of course, all those punters who are unfortunate enough to be above a size 16).

This is one aspect
>of the redevelopment I find
>perplexing - how could they
>accept such peculiar seating.
>
Beats me. Especially when the blurb at the time trying to convince us to contribute mentioned improving legroom as one of the main aims.

And why is the RB so
>much more expensive than ENB/
>BRB, given their smaller grants?

Because they can afford to be, whereas the others can't? I don't know, but I wonder what proportion of the higher-priced seats go on corporate entertainment these days.

Ballet IS NOT CHEAPER in Paris then in London - it is just that the tax payer is subsidizing it more in Paris then in England! If anything - it is more expensive as the Paris Opera has 3 times more dancers but does not have much more repertory

RB is more expensive then the ENB because the RB is much bigger, has more well known dancers who command bigger salaries.

I suppose one could argue that Nutcracker prices are jacked up inorder to cross subsidize the triple bills but I would rather they did that then have no triple bills at all!

I never thought I'd say it but both counts are indefensible.

Yes it is - if you aren't a French taxpayer, as I am not

If that was attitude of all British ballet goers who go to France then all British ticket holders should be compelled to pay the non-subsidized ticket price (probably over £120 for Don Q!!!)

In fact the French justified the denial of football tickets to non-French citizens on the grounds that the French taxpayers were paying for it.