HomeMagazineListingsUpdateLinksContexts

 


 Ballet.co Postings Pages

 Some Special Threads:
  GPDTalk about George Piper Dances ! NEW !
  NBTTalk about Northern Ballet Theatre
  SBTalk about Scottish Ballet
  ENBTalk about English National Ballet
  BRBTalk about Birmingham Royal Ballet
  TodaysLinks - worldwide daily dance links
  Ballet.co GetTogethers - meetings and drinks...

  Help on New Postings


Subject: "RB 2002/03 Season discussion continued..." Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend    
Conferences What's Happening Topic #2592
Reading Topic #2592
Bruceadmin

29-03-02, 09:12 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Bruce Click to send private message to Bruce Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"RB 2002/03 Season discussion continued..."
 
  
The original thread was getting long so I've opened this new thread for continued discussion. The original thread is at:
http://www.danze.co.uk/dcforum/news/1252.html


  Printer-friendly page | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
  RB and MacMillan Bruceadmin 29-03-02 1
  Debra Craine on next season Bruceadmin 29-03-02 2
     RE: Debra Craine on next season tortie14 30-03-02 3
         RE: Debra Craine on next season Paul A 02-04-02 4
             Cojocaru photo Paul A 02-04-02 5
                 RE: Cojocaru photo eugdog 03-04-02 6
                     RE: Cojocaru photo Robert 03-04-02 7
                         RE: Cojocaru photo Helen 03-04-02 8
                             RE: Cojocaru photo alison 04-04-02 9
                             RE: Cojocaru photo Paul A 13-05-02 10
                             RE: Cojocaru photo Helen 13-05-02 11
  RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure alison 13-05-02 12
     RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure Claire S 13-05-02 13
         RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure alison 14-05-02 16
     RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure AnnaM 14-05-02 14
         RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure Paul A 14-05-02 15
             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure alison 14-05-02 17
                 RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure eugdog 14-05-02 18
                     RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure Paul A 14-05-02 19
                     RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure Steven 14-05-02 20
                         RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure eugdog 14-05-02 21
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts Lynette H 16-05-02 22
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts tortie14 16-05-02 23
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts Flight 17-05-02 24
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts Paul A 17-05-02 25
                             Legroom etc. alison 17-05-02 27
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts alison 17-05-02 26
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts MAB 17-05-02 28
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts eugdog 17-05-02 29
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts MAB 17-05-02 30
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts eugdog 17-05-02 31
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts AEHandley 17-05-02 33
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts AEHandley 17-05-02 32
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure Steven 18-05-02 34
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure eugdog 19-05-02 35
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure John Man 19-05-02 36
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure MAB 20-05-02 37
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure eugdog 20-05-02 38
                             RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure MAB 20-05-02 39

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Bruceadmin

29-03-02, 09:14 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Bruce Click to send private message to Bruce Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RB and MacMillan"
In response to message #0
 
   One thing that caught me eye on the last thread was a contribution from Paul A at:
http://www.danze.co.uk/dcforum/news/1252.html#22

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...


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Bruceadmin

29-03-02, 09:20 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Bruce Click to send private message to Bruce Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "Debra Craine on next season"
In response to message #0
 
   Anne Williams did the links today and found....

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."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
tortie14

30-03-02, 03:49 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail tortie14 Click to send private message to tortie14 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: Debra Craine on next season"
In response to message #2
 
   LAST EDITED ON 30-03-02 AT 03:52 AM (GMT)

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.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Paul A

02-04-02, 11:38 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Paul%20A Click to send private message to Paul%20A Click to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Debra Craine on next season"
In response to message #3
 
   >would happily drop
>Pagodas for a triple bill
>with Gloria.

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.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Paul A

02-04-02, 01:48 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Paul%20A Click to send private message to Paul%20A Click to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "Cojocaru photo"
In response to message #4
 
   Re the comments on the other thread - the photo certainly gives a misleading impression of the ROH. If they want to look welcoming why not a picture of the audience swarming up those stairs?

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?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
eugdog

03-04-02, 01:00 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugdog Click to send private message to eugdog Click to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Cojocaru photo"
In response to message #5
 
   I hardly recognized Cojacaru in the photo!

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!!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Robert

03-04-02, 08:46 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Robert Click to send private message to Robert Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: Cojocaru photo"
In response to message #6
 
   I did not recognise her at all! A few months ago the Telegraph suppliment printed a picture of her in practice clothes, and she looked about ten. I have felt uneasy about seeing her in any adult role since. I am pleasedto see her looking about thirty years older, even if it does'ent look like her.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Helen

03-04-02, 09:22 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Helen Click to send private message to Helen Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Cojocaru photo"
In response to message #7
 
   I didn't recognise her either. It's one of those supposedly glamorous photos that make everyone look alike and artificial. It doesn't capture her personality or her looks for me.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
alison

04-04-02, 01:18 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail alison Click to send private message to alison Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Cojocaru photo"
In response to message #8
 
   No, definitely not, particularly the personality.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Paul A

13-05-02, 11:45 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Paul%20A Click to send private message to Paul%20A Click to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: Cojocaru photo"
In response to message #9
 
   Now I've seen this photo in the season booklet - which also includes a photo of her on the same spot in costume for Swan Lake - must say that this is very unflattering to Cojocaru, only emphasising her very slight physique.

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


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Helen

13-05-02, 12:39 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Helen Click to send private message to Helen Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
11. "RE: Cojocaru photo"
In response to message #10
 
   I think the Swan Lake photo is beautiful, though I still didn't recognise her!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
alison

13-05-02, 05:53 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail alison Click to send private message to alison Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #0
 
   LAST EDITED ON 13-05-02 AT 06:01 PM (GMT)

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.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Claire S

13-05-02, 10:05 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Claire%20S Click to send private message to Claire%20S Click to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #12
 
   Interesting post, Alison, which confirms my fear that prices are generally way higher than in 1997, even allowing for inflation. 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.

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.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
alison

14-05-02, 01:24 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail alison Click to send private message to alison Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #13
 
   LAST EDITED ON 14-05-02 AT 01:31 PM (GMT)

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.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
AnnaM

14-05-02, 09:37 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail AnnaM Click to send private message to AnnaM Click to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #12
 
   Not only that,but stalls prices for the
>Nutcracker are now £73 - I make that a total
>of over 800 seats at that price.


£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?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Paul A

14-05-02, 12:10 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Paul%20A Click to send private message to Paul%20A Click to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #14
 
   At least we have got greater variation in levels, acknowledging that there are duff seats - the side amphi does give you a distorted view so I've no issue with pricing the central block higher.

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).


  Printer-friendly page | Top
alison

14-05-02, 01:30 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail alison Click to send private message to alison Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #15
 
   >I think they've done something about
>reducing the bench seats, the
>prices that is, in the
>stalls circle.

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.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
eugdog

14-05-02, 02:13 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugdog Click to send private message to eugdog Click to add this user to your buddy list  
18. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #17
 
   £73 per seat! How can that be outrageous is it still does not cover the cost of putting on the ballet! You might argue that £50,000 is an outrageous sum for a Rolls Royce except it costs considerably more then that to make.

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!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Paul A

14-05-02, 03:16 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Paul%20A Click to send private message to Paul%20A Click to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #18
 
   >£73 per seat! How can
>that be outrageous is it
>still does not cover the
>cost of putting on the
>ballet!

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


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Steven

14-05-02, 03:28 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Steven Click to send private message to Steven Click to add this user to your buddy list  
20. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #18
 
  
>Ballet IS NOT CHEAPER in Paris
>then in London

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



  Printer-friendly page | Top
eugdog

14-05-02, 05:35 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugdog Click to send private message to eugdog Click to add this user to your buddy list  
21. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #20
 
   re; Steven's posting.

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.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Lynette H

16-05-02, 05:52 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail Lynette%20H Click to send private message to Lynette%20H Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
22. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #21
 
   Well, on the bright side, the pricing structure is much more clearly laid out in the latest brochure from the RB. Each part of the theatre is clearly broken down and the number of seats available at each price band is clearly stated. This does mean that it's quite a big table (24 categories of seats x 8 different programme prices for opera and ballet) running all the way from the top price of 130 pounds on Mon-Thurs evening for a stalls opera seat to 3 pounds for standing in the lower slips for a ballet matinee.

But the prices. Gulp. The increases are fairly staggering, compared to the rate of inflation. Top price seats move from 66 pounds to ballet to 73 pounds. And this for a company which received such a substantial increase in its funding.

The price differentials between Mon-Thurs and Fri-Sat performances are now much more marked. For the front centre block of the amphi, the triple bill is 44 pounds on Mon-Thus, but 35 pounds on Fri-Sat. (Those seats used to be 25 pounds pre closure). Not exactly the sort of prices to bring a new audience in, is it ? Mixed bills get so few performances that if you want to see a particular cast you may end up paying the higher amount. Even a restricted view lower slips seat for the Nutcracker on Mondays costs 25 pounds. The bench seats at the sides of the stalls circle (again partly restricted) cost up to 40 pounds.

I think I'll be giving the Nutcracker a miss somehow. And it's not as if the programming for next year included any must-see items...


  Printer-friendly page | Top
tortie14

16-05-02, 11:42 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail tortie14 Click to send private message to tortie14 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
23. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #22
 
   LAST EDITED ON 16-05-02 AT 11:43 PM (GMT)


"I think I'll be giving the Nutcracker a miss somehow. And it's not as if the programming for next year included any must-see items..."

I quite agree with you. The programme is so unexciting that the price increases will be off-set by fewer performances - which is a shame when we have some wonderful dancers in the company. Looks like it will be a ballet-less autumn for me.

I too find it incredible that all that money was spent on the rebuilding, they came up with wonderful building but managed to make the seating worse. You couldn't make it up! Seat size reduced, restricted leg room especially on front row of Balcony and Amphi - all make for "economy" class feeling out of keeping with the prices or style of the place. What a shame - I guess we are stuck with the seats now.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Flight

17-05-02, 06:33 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Flight Click to send private message to Flight Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
24. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #23
 
  
>
>
> "I think I'll be giving
>the Nutcracker a miss somehow.
>And it's not as if
>the programming for next year
>included any must-see items..."

Well, there is always Manon.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Paul A

17-05-02, 08:16 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Paul%20A Click to send private message to Paul%20A Click to add this user to your buddy list  
25. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #24
 
  

>Well, there is always Manon.


Again. For four months.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
alison

17-05-02, 01:46 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail alison Click to send private message to alison Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
27. "Legroom etc."
In response to message #23
 
  
> "I think I'll be giving
>the Nutcracker a miss somehow.
>And it's not as if
>the programming for next year
>included any must-see items..."
>
>I quite agree with you.

Me too. I don't think I'm even going to bother with any Season 1 advance booking, unless I decide to go for an opera.

>I too find it incredible that
>all that money was spent
>on the rebuilding, they came
>up with wonderful building but
>managed to make the seating
>worse.

Unbelievable, really. I think they must have shoved all the amphi rows forward slightly to make room for the extra rows at the back. (That reminds me, I must look out that blurb which promised better legroom ...)

Seat
>size reduced, restricted leg room
>especially on front row of
>Balcony and Amphi -

not to mention several others!

all
>make for "economy" class feeling
>out of keeping with the
>prices or style of the
>place.

Yes - I'm wondering how long it will be before the first cases of DVT.

What a shame
>- I guess we are
>stuck with the seats now.
>
'Fraid so.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
alison

17-05-02, 01:42 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail alison Click to send private message to alison Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
26. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #22
 
   >Each part of the theatre
>is clearly broken down and
>the number of seats available
>at each price band is
>clearly stated.

They always used to do that in the past, and I'm glad they've finally gone back to doing it. I also like the fact that you can see individual seats (which *is* new) - I always wondered how many of the side amphi seats were at the cheaper price.

>But the prices. Gulp. The increases
>are fairly staggering, compared to
>the rate of inflation.

Forcing more and more of us to the back of the amphi because of lack of equivalent prices elsewhere. Before the House closed, I usually sat in what is now mid-amphi, but now I'm having to go to the new rear seats on a lot of occasions just to keep within budget.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
MAB

17-05-02, 03:41 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail MAB Click to send private message to MAB Click to add this user to your buddy list  
28. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #26
 
   Its tragic that the opportunity to improve the seating at the ROH during rebuilding was completely missed, it isn't just the amphi thats become more uncomfortable; you now have to sit on benches in the stalls circle instead of proper seats. All in all Covent Garden offers one of the worst deals in Europe. The worst theatre sightlines I've ever experienced and probably the most expensive tickets.

Actually the Opera Garnier in Paris provides one of the best deals. The top price for ballet is around £40 (allowing for currency fluctuations) and for around a fiver you can buy a seat at the back of a box - no view, but when you stand up VOILA! you can see about four fifths of the stage. Much better value than the slips at Covent Garden.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
eugdog

17-05-02, 03:53 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugdog Click to send private message to eugdog Click to add this user to your buddy list  
29. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #26
 
   I think we should have a total ban of discussion of seat prices unless it is in conjunction with taxation and government spending.

If you think that seat prices should be less and hence taxes go up then please say so!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
MAB

17-05-02, 04:30 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail MAB Click to send private message to MAB Click to add this user to your buddy list  
30. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #29
 
   There is no need for taxes to be raised. A shift in the allocation of resources would provide the necessary funding. I'm sure every one has ideas about how the money we pay in taxes should be spent, but lets stick to the subject of ballet and not fiscal policy.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
eugdog

17-05-02, 05:45 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugdog Click to send private message to eugdog Click to add this user to your buddy list  
31. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #30
 
   "Shift in allocation of resources" or taxation - either MUST be included in any debate about ticket prices of subsidized theatre operations.

Otherwise it is like talking about sales revenue whilst ignoring costs. Not a good idea!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
AEHandley

17-05-02, 09:42 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail AEHandley Click to send private message to AEHandley Click to add this user to your buddy list  
33. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #31
 
   OK then, here's my 2p worth: leave the EC. That should leave plenty of spare cash floating around the exchequer for cheap ballet tickets.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
AEHandley

17-05-02, 09:40 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail AEHandley Click to send private message to AEHandley Click to add this user to your buddy list  
32. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure - further thoughts"
In response to message #29
 
   >I think we should have a
>total ban of discussion of
>seat prices unless it is
>in conjunction with taxation and
>government spending.
>
>If you think that seat prices
>should be less and hence
>taxes go up then please
>say so!


For Heaven's sake, Eugene, that is a RIDICULOUS comment. Just compare prices with ENO.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Steven

18-05-02, 11:05 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail Steven Click to send private message to Steven Click to add this user to your buddy list  
34. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #21
 
   >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!!!)

But surely this IS the attitude of all British ballet goers who go to France? I don't see anyone volunteering to pay extra than the venues actually charge.

Besides, those ballet goers (and opera goers, pop concert goers, football and rugby goers, Cannes Film Festival attendees, whatever) are all contributing in extra ways to the French economy.

Whatever next, should we be charged extra to use the Paris Metro because French taxpayers have subsidised it? Or more in hotels because we are using tap water supplied by state companies? (There may be an argument that says we should, but I don't think it's going to happen.)



  Printer-friendly page | Top
eugdog

19-05-02, 12:33 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugdog Click to send private message to eugdog Click to add this user to your buddy list  
35. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #34
 
   Steven - I did not mean what I said literally, I just thought it was not the best attitude to say let the french taxpayer pay. I have a friend in France who bemoans the incredibly high taxes she pays in France - she does not go to the ballet or uses the TGV etc.

AEHandleys point about the ENO (or ENB?)- perhaps you are right - we should include in the debate lower standards!! The ENO is a very mediocre company as was painfully evidence by the appalling playing in Die Walkure, and its string of disastrous new productions. I have seen opera is some real back water areas of the US and Canada but all of them were vastly superior to the ENO in both playing and singing. If the RO is premier league then ENO is 3rd division


  Printer-friendly page | Top
John Man

19-05-02, 12:39 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail John%20Man Click to send private message to John%20Man Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
36. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #35
 
   LAST EDITED ON 19-05-02 AT 12:40 PM (GMT)

>AEHandleys point about the ENO (or
>ENB?)- perhaps you are right
>- we should include in
>the debate lower standards!!
>The ENO is a very
>mediocre company as was painfully
>evidence by the appalling playing
>in Die Walkure, and its
>string of disastrous new productions.
> I have seen opera
>is some real back water
>areas of the US and
>Canada but all of them
>were vastly superior to the
>ENO in both playing and
>singing. If the RO
>is premier league then ENO
>is 3rd division

I couldn't agree more. I've only seen the ENO once and that's one time too many.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
MAB

20-05-02, 11:29 AM (GMT)
Click to EMail MAB Click to send private message to MAB Click to add this user to your buddy list  
37. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #35
 
   >- we should include in
>the debate lower standards!!

We already have lower standards at the RB. There are now fewer than 90 company members compared to 120-130 in past years. That is the reason why a spate of injuries can cause such problems. Perhaps one of the reasons the recent Don Q. was such a failure was to do with how underpopulated the stage looked.

We are paying more and getting less for our money.



  Printer-friendly page | Top
eugdog

20-05-02, 12:27 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail eugdog Click to send private message to eugdog Click to add this user to your buddy list  
38. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #37
 
   When corp de ballet got £7 per week (Re: V. Derman autobiography) and principals like Lynn Seymour got £40 pw (RE Biography of Nureyev) then it was possible to have 120 dancers and have more affordable prices.

Despite inflation these wages are significantly lower then what dancers are paid today!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
MAB

20-05-02, 03:10 PM (GMT)
Click to EMail MAB Click to send private message to MAB Click to add this user to your buddy list  
39. "RE: RB 2002/03 Season Pricing Structure"
In response to message #38
 
   You are clearly referring back to the '60's. £7 at that time would not have been much below the average wage it may have been above. £40 would have been a handsome sum. Top price seats at ROH were around £2 then, possibly less. It was also before the ROH relied upon a corporate audience to fill the seats and society in general wasn't suffering the inequalities that prevail today.

However, even allowing for the spread of poverty, the majority of the population has far greater disposable income now, so it could be argued that tax increases, if targeted at the higher earners, would not be a bad thing.


  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

 
Questions or problems regarding this bulletin board should be directed to Bruce Marriott