For the convenience of all we are keen to try and keep Stretton discussion in these existing threads but one 'got away' early - Some questions arising from Ross Stretton's departure.

Yesterday there was a lot of intemperate discussion. It does nobody any good and clouds the debate. More discussion, less blood and guts please. Thank you.

Like BBC Radio 4 arts correspondents the Guardian seem to think Stretton was a choreographer...

Royal Ballet - Ross Stretton
The Guardian reports that American Ballet Theatre's Kevin McKenzie is 'frontrunner' as the RB's next AD: 'Ironically, the former dancer, who has spent a decade at the helm of the New York-based company - America's finest - is the man who plucked the Australian choreographer Ross Stretton from relative obscurity. Stretton's ignominious exit from Covent Garden last week has thrown the Royal Ballet into crisis. '
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,804375,00.html

http://www.abt.org/city/calendar.html

The article in the Guardian regarding possible successors to Ross Stretton has an incredible quote by Ross Mc Gibbon:

<Last night there was more bad news when Ross McGibbon, the board's second choice after Stretton last time, effectively ruled himself out of the contest, describing the Royal Opera House as a "nest of vipers that still needs fundamental reform".
McGibbon, executive producer of dance at the BBC, said "The offer would have to be very, very good indeed. They really screwed up monumentally last time. The Opera House is a very difficult place to work, and there would have to be enormous management changes." >

A nest of vipers must be the understatement of the year. Would anyone in their right mind now want to work at the Royal Ballet? The events of the past week have probably ensured that no candidate of any worth will now be prepared to come forward, condemning the company to even more years in the wilderness.

So far no one here has commented much on the article by David Drew. Am I alone in finding the content quite appalling? Even the introduction by Jeffery Taylor was way out of order

‘Good riddance to the egomaniac who turned the Royal Ballet into a panto’

As a headline that is a disgrace!

<“DAVID DREW who has devoted his life to the Royal Ballet, has chosen to defy a strict company embargo on its dancers to speak to the press”>

In other words because he is so close to retirement, he no longer cares whether or not he is in breach of the rules. There is then a reference to

“…..damage inflicted by the Australian Stretton”

I find the needless addition of the word “Australian” an indication of the xenophobia that has been in evidence all along.

In the article itself Drew goes on to state: “There was an unspoken feeling from him that the Royal Ballet was an ailing company”

But the Royal Ballet IS an ailing company; clearly Stretton with his knowledge of the International scene was aware of that. To ignore the problems that exist is to adopt a worrying attitude of denial. He goes on to say:-

“he was changing people almost until curtain up. But most destructive of all he wasn’t the slightest interested in the company's hierarchy. He put soloists into the corps de ballet and vice versa and caused an enormous amount of bad feeling the like of which I have never seen before in my time at the Royal Ballet”.

Well that sounds okay to me: talent should be encouraged and complacency and time-serving should be curtailed. How about adopting the methods of the POB and make the dancers re-audition every year. That would lift the standards pretty quick.

Drew then says – “By talking among ourselves and facing the fact that he might go, and with a little encouragement from me…..”

That sounds very much like a conspiracy to me. The whole tone of Drew’s article is full of references to “insiders” and “outsiders” and gives me the impression that some sort of oligarchy exists within the company with enough influence to dispose of independently-minded AD’s at a whim.

Last week Norman Lebrecht wrote that the Chairman and board of the Opera House should resign. He’s right. They should. In his book Covent Garden: The Untold Story, Lebrecht lists all the candidates for AD and names the selection committee that chose Stretton for the job. According to Lebrecht it was Deborah MacMillan who championed Stretton’s candidacy on the grounds that “Kenneth used to admire his dancing”. Now we are told that the same Lady MacMillan was instrumental in getting rid of Stretton, threatening to withdraw her husband’s ballets if he didn’t go. It seems that Lady M is turning into Ron Protas. Of course she wants more MacMillan ballets in the repertoire (so do I) but lets not forget that she picks up the royalties at the same time.

And on the subject of money, I wonder what sort of pay-off had to be made to Ross Stretton when he left? It’s also worth considering the sums that would be paid in breach of contract to Angelin Preljocaj and Natalia Markarova should their forthcoming productions be dropped. Don't forget its all tax payers cash. Perhaps as a result of this Ross Stretton won’t be the only one to go.

As to you raising the issue of why he cast certain dancers and not others, well frankly I don't know why this is such a big deal. Any AD will have personal taste of dancers they like and dancers that they don't - AD's are human beings like the rest of us, and they have a personal emotive response to particular dancers in just the same way as us. All AD's give the dancers they like roles, and to a certain extent don't to others. For example Ross adored Alina, whilst being perhaps cool towards Yoshida, and this was reflected in casting.

As I say this is normal, everyone is having a go at Ross about it, whilst seeming to forget what Anthony did when he was in charge - remember how he dumped Nicola Roberts and just stopped giving her roles cause he did not like her ( and eventually pushed her out when she came back from maternity leave, to much protest from the other dancers I might add), remember also how he sacked Fiona Chadwick because he did not like her "shape" etc etc. Say no more. All AD's have personal tastes in dancers and this is reflected in what they do.

In my book if you want to compare Ross to Anthony, then I think Ross a better judge in this matter. Chadwick and Roberts were both great Ballerinas (Roberts particularly in the true English tradition), whilst SOME of those Ross has sidelined were not inspired artists at all. I am not saying RS got everything right in this respect at all, but certainly I personally found him a better judge than Anthony.

As to what David Drew said, yes of course there was general disatisfaction when some people were stuck back in just corps roles or given nothing at all, and I think this was ultimately what led the dancers to all gang up against Stretton. This also happened when Nicola Roberts was "sacked" by dowell, all the dancers were up in arms about it.

As to the comments from Karl - well I am sorry if I apparently got my sums wrong, I did not realise this was a maths exam paper!! I don't see any inconsistency in what I have said, although had I known I would be scrutinised in such detail maybe I would have phrased things slightly differently. It is a fact that "standards at middle rank" at the RB (particularly with boys) was not highly regarded, I'm sorry if some people can't stomach that but it's true. This is not inconsistent at all with a figure of 3-5 poor dancers, as this number would easily contribute to a general malaise ie when you think of the number of soloists there are , 5 out of those is actually a fairly big sized proportion. In any case, when making these postings I am only talking in general terms. If I really felt the need to (which I don't despite Karl's protest) I could go home at the weekend, dig out all my lists of company dancers, write down those who have left, been sidelined etc and work out exact numbers (and names), but I really don't see the need. I don't know exactly how many dancers Ross sidelined exactly without sitting down and thinking about it, but does the exact number really matter in this debate? Surely "some soloists" and "3-5" covers it, but maybe it was 7, maybe 10, maybe only 2....Fact is it did happen, and we are debating the pros and cons of why and it's effect. Karl says "..if the problem had involved such a minority, it would never have happened what happened" - Oh yes it would and oh yes it did - Ross only sidelined a relatively small number of dancers he did not like, but virtually the whole lot then rounded on him as a collective group in defence of the few.That's how it looks to me, if I'm wrong then fine, I'm wrong. If someone has a counter argument that can be backed up let's hear it.

Sorry Karl is so amazed that I support Ross in this respect, but it is not a crime is it??!! As far as a lot of other stuff goes I think Ross made loads of mistakes (which I won't bang on about now as you are probably all far too tired of me already), but I do also think he got a lot right as well, and seeing as hardly anyone else is saying that I thought I'd fly the flag a bit. Apart from anything else thanks to Ross for some of the fantastic ballets he brought into rep ie Onegin, Leaves are Fading and the totally fantastic Ek Carmen. But yes he did bring in some dead ones as well - Beyond Bach and Por Vos.

I just think it a shame that the ROH dumped him now rather than sticking with him, as we now have more uncertainty for the company, bad publicity etc etc. Apparently Ross had already admitted at the beggining of the season to the company that he had got some things wrong (he's only human and in his first year it was a learning curve for him too - we all make mistakes), and he seemed to be prepared to change some things....Too late it seemed.

Please, don't think that way !
As others already said : seeing things from a different angle only add to the quality of debate. Think we are all observers (one more distant than the other) with one common concern and interest : RB.
It's getting really interesting now !

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that Yoshida and Benjamin were sidelined last year. But I'm inclined to agree with Tahor, that's life in the performing arts (or indeed damn nearly any job!).

One point that occurred to me this morning - Tahor said that the RB was very much an "insiders' club" (maybe not those words but that was the gist) and that they all stuck together regardless of low standards of dancing (again, sorry to oversimplify but that was more or less it). Now, I would say that the POB and the Kirov were far FAR more "insider-only" organisations than the RB, which has particularly over the last decade become very eclectic. I don't think that it follows that you can attribute low technical standards to a tendency to follow through from school into company.

In my opinion this is an abrupt oversimplification. "Ultimately" there were many other issues involved in "dancers all ganging up against Stretton" and he being sacked by the board. Just read Drew's interview in depth and listen to other "insiders" comments.

It seemed to me frivolous some of the GENERAL statements concerning RB dancers that you wrote in your original post, now you've narrowed them down to a tiny minority of dancers. That's fine.

Of course I would expect from Ross imposing his views and taste about casting dancers, that has never been the issue.

I do not think that your views about ballet dancers in a company like a corporate gang (sticking-all-together thing) are realistic. My feeling is that there is far more competitiveness and backstabbing than what can be infered from your comments.

Go away for a few weeks and look what happens...

Well, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, Stretton has gone, and we can't change what's hapened now. I feel very much for the company at the moment, not just the dancers but everyone associated with it. Although there is some evident relief at Stretton's departure, the company are currently living in a very uncertain world, and I can imagine that preparing for the new season is still very stressful, and probably continued speculation about succesors doesn't necessarily make it any easier.

I do hope that things can calm down a little, and that the Royal can concentrate on getting its act together and pulling together the first productions of the season successfully. In this rather charged atmosphere that's not so easy, and yet any failure to carry it off well will no doubt be pounced on in the media. So I wish the Royal well in settling down to business as usual, and I look forward to seeing the company look polished and at peace with itself in the opening later this month.

I think that where the Royal goes next and what a new AD should do are excellent subjects for debate right now. But I'm not sure that discussing it in terms or prefering Mr X vs Ms Y is actually too helpful: it can polarise around personalities, and I think a deeper reflection on the organisation as whole is needed and not just the AD job. We need space to stop and think and not rush into as hasty an appointment as seems to have been made last time.

For example, there is still no Music Director for the Royal since the departure of Andrea Quinn. Should a new AD choose this appointment ? Who should choose the AD selection committte ? Do the board have sufficient experience to do so ?

If the Royal is to go forward with a mix of the classics, the British repertoire (Ashton, MacMillan et al) and a mix of new work, then it might be time to think just how that is to be accomplished - thinking beyond the main stage. The two smaller theatres are chronically underused for dance, and it is a shame that new work for these has to be created by dancers in their spare time, not as a dedicated activity. Some joined-up thinking is called for here. A new AD could be in a position to insist on more creative use of the spaces, or even presenting new work at other venues such as Sadlers if that is where it would work better. And from a PR point of view, it is time that the Royal was seen by some of the population outside London.

I think some careful thinking and planning along these lines is called for, so rushing to appoint a new AD is not necessarily the answer.

Meanwhile I hope the atmosphere calms down and Monica Mason is a soothing and steadying influence.

I hadn't noticed the unfortunate use of the word 'Australian' which MAB points out - it does indeed begin to seem that xenophobia has played at least a part in this whole regrettable episode.

snip

I've removed a highly personal and unsubstantiated comment here. I won't keep editing like this - removal of entire postings is far easier. The poster needs to contact me: BM

snip

Shame as all the dancers had apparently had a meeting, at which David was present, when they all agreed that they would not speak to the press at all, for the very reason I have said above, that it would do more harm to the company than good.

And Karl tells me to read this article (which I have already) as if we should all take everything David said as gospel!! Do you really believe everything people say in the papers?

To me David comes accross simply as someone who was unable to see the RB change in any way, for him I guess it has to stay the same as he's been there so long and he just can't see that development is a good thing.We all get set in our ways as we get older, it's human nature. De Valois was a great visionary, which clearly David Drew is not. Had he been balanced in what he said he might have applauded at least the good stuff Stretton brought in rep wise (Onegin, Carmen, Leaves etc) as opposed to just being so negitive. And in any case I find it total nonsense for him to describe Don Q as a Panto!! This production while not perfect (awful designs for the vision scene) was FAR better than the one that Dowell served up, with those hideous windmill tutus - that was a pantomime if ever I saw one, and I don't remember David complaining about it then!! Funny that eh? And the main thing that was wrong with Don Q was some pretty dissappointing dancing when it was new (just compare the RB Espada's and Matadors to someone like Ilya Kusnetsov from the Kirov....), of course David did not mention this. And the company got much better in Don Q as the season progressed. So I really don't get what he's banging on about in saying this was an insult from Ross to the company...I think this is a case of let's just grasp at straws to bash Ross with. For me Don Q is a great ballet (not a panto) and the RB should aspire to try to get near the way Russian companies dance this piece. And under Ross they were progressing as far as I could see.

I do agree that the Gala was not what it could and should have been. Stretton clearly mis-judged that, did not take it seriously enough and got back from the tour to suddenly find he had a very important event to organise with no proper time and expertise to do it. Nothing wrong with most of the pieces themselves (although maddening to only see a part of Carmen and not the whole piece), but yes I too think for this occasion it would have been better if it was something else.

But hey, the guys only human and maybe his strong point is not traditional galas!

And this debate that you must have a totally reformist Director, or a totally conservative one to me is utter nonsense. What the RB needs is someone who balances the classics, "heritage rep" and new works - respect for the past , whilst at the same time broadning the rep with new choreography. I agree that there was not enough of our English heritage rep under Ross (where has Ashton gone, I love Ashton, nowhere near enough), but on the + side we got some works we would otherwise never have seen. Maybe the ROH should be blamed for this rather than Stretton ie if there was more money for the ballet company maybe he would have had more programmes per season, and could have done more heritage stuff with this extra capacity. Does anyone know who actually sets the number of actual programmes?? I assume that this is dictated by money...

To be fair to David Drew, he did complain about the earlier Don Q - I remember him at a Ballet Association meeting being quite rude about it.

I think Drew did an OK thing in giving a view from the dancers perspective and I'm sure his is not a one-off blinkered perspective from a single dancer either.

Nobody else could risk their job and career to make such a statement. Some of the less senior dancers were incredibly unhappy with what was going on but are not able to easily speak out - other than via Equity and the closed meetings with Hall.

When the dancers voted about how to deal with Stretton they were wise to remain tight-lipped though I note that news of the Equity meeting with Hall did emerge and that was much to the dancers advantage. Drew only spoke after Stretton was gone and the situation changed entirely from when they met earlier.

I don't agree with all the sentiments in the Drew piece at all and the dancers can come over as rather inflexible and blinkered - especially compared to those in the outside world and the changes in work practices most people have seen. And I certainly don't hold to the view that RB is just its dancers and by implication what they want to do defines the company.