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.

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...

It was common knowledge, and if fact one the strongest accusations against Ross, that RB had never had such a higher funding and lower numbers of ballets performed in recent years. The equation amount money = number of ballets is so ridiculous does that not deserve any comments.

Though I wouldn't back up every statement from Drew's interview, it had a positive effect: it cut out any speculation so as to what were the allegations against Ross from the dancers (at least from those who most deplore him, whatever the number). And I do think that was better in terms of bad publicity than the on going speculations...

For the record: I think Leaves was dreadful. The last ballet I would revive.

I disagree Karl - Obviously the more money any organisation has the more it can do with it. Of course had there been more money it would have been possible to do more programmes. However I am grateful that you have pointed out to me that the ratio of money against number of works had never been this "bad" - I had assumed (probably wrongly) that it may have been due to budget pressures that Ross had done fewer programmes. I was aware that the number of programmes was very low, and this was a disappointment to all of us, me as much as you.

However just to throw an idea in for thought, you seem to be automatically assuming that the reduction in programmes was down to Ross for whatever reason, such as lack of vision , inspiration etc etc. This may be true. BUT it could also boil down to money as I had originally suggested in the sense not that the budget had been cut , but that the new works Ross acquired (such as Carmen, Onegin, Por Vos etc) were extremely expensive and thus took such a massive slice of the overall funding that it was not financially possible for Stretton to do more programmes. Each work costs money either to revive or to buy in, and considering the ammount of new work RS brought in by living choreographers maybe this did eat up a lot of money. I did hear for example that Por Vos was extremely expensive to take in (Duato's fee for starters...). If this is the case, then the argument of No of Ballets V Funding is not really a useful analysis, as it would have been cased by an intake of very expensive new rep.

Of course you could then argue that RS should not have taken in all these new pieces which cost so much as to cause a fall in the overall number of programmes that could be afforded..but that's then down to our personal views individually. I think many of these works were worth the investment.

I don't know if the above analysis is actually true or not - it's just a thought....

I dare say Karl that you will call me "ridiculous" again in response and that this does "not deserve any comments", but at least I try to reply to you politely.

>
>Though I wouldn't back up every
>statement from Drew's interview, it
>had a positive effect: it
>cut out any speculation so
>as to what were the
>allegations against Ross from the
>dancers (at least from those
>who most deplore him, whatever
>the number). And I do
>think that was better in
>terms of bad publicity than
>the on going speculations...
>
>For the record: I think Leaves
>was dreadful. The last ballet
>I would revive.

I totally agree. Some of the names being suggested reflect a certain 'cosiness' of attitude towards the next appointment. The RB badly needs fresh thinking, but combined with an intelligent sensitivity towards its heritage.

>We need space to stop
>and think and not rush
>into as hasty an appointment
>as seems to have been
>made last time.

The ROH has been caught out before; just consider for a moment the chaos that engulfed the closure period. No proper planning was in place, and the RB suffered. It didn't take a mathematical genius to work out that an attempt to fill the Apollo at Hammersmith with ballet every night would lead to financial disaster.

>For example, there is still no
>Music Director for the Royal
>since the departure of Andrea
>Quinn.

To ignore such a crucial appointment shows how lacking in judgement the ROH heirarchy has been. I've written about this before (and had a letter published in the August 'Dancing Times' which mentioned the same subject). Musical standards at the RB are not good; this is an issue that must be addressed before there is any chance of a real revival of overall standards.

Should a new AD
>choose this appointment ?

The new AD must be involved, because he/she and the Musical Director must be able to work well together. However, other competent judges must also be on the panel, including (at least) Antonio Pappano and (as a Board member) Michael Berkeley. An independent assessor is also needed; a good choice would be Rozhdestvensky.

>Who should choose the AD selection
>committte ?

This should be a matter for the ROH Board, BUT, in answer to the question....

Do the board
>have sufficient experience to do
>so ?

the answer is clearly a resounding "No"! This is where reform must start, and it is a question that goes right to the root of arts funding and management in the UK. We have to look carefully at other countries to see how our affairs might be managed differently. The RB is not the only large-scale performing organisation with fundamental problems.

>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.

Typical of British muddle and compromise, as suggested in my previous paragraph.

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.

Having just seen the principals and soloists of NYCB in Danses Concertantes at Sadler's Wells, I couldn't agree more. The possibilities for someone with a breadth of vision and real leadership are enviable.

And from a
>PR point of view, it
>is time that the Royal
>was seen by some of
>the population outside London.

Yes! We who live out of London are existing on artistic starvation rations. Just look at ENB's plans for the Spring and you'll see what I mean. (Was that really the company that sprang from the enterprise of Markova and Dolin?).

>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.

Good luck to her - I still have strong memories of her in MacMillan's 'Rite of Spring' at the ROH in the 60's.

However, a new appointment will ultimately emerge. Hopefully, the interview process will be as long as it needs to be, and very thorough. A long list could be produced first when the applications have been completed. Interviews need to be very rigorous (possibly including a request for a presentation); those on the short list should then expect to face a series of separate committees (each concerned particularly with a certain aspect of the job).

The new AD will have had good experience as an assistant AD, at least; given the profile of the RB, we should hope for someone already having had experience as a successful and respected AD.

We must hope, and believe, someone can be found with the experience, vision, ambition, and strength of purpose to give the RB the new sense of direction it so badly needs, while retaining the confidence of the dancers, the respect of the orchestra, the affection of the core audience, and the goodwill of the tax-payer.

Royal Ballet - Artistic Director
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

and the ROH response...

Royal Ballet - Artistic Director
Ballet tightlipped over successor
The UK's prestigious Royal Ballet company has told the BBC that it has no immediate plans to appoint a new artistic director.
BBC Report
    "But director of press Christopher Millard told BBC News Online that the company had gone into a "period of calm" under the leadership of acting director Monica Mason.
    ""The troubled times are past," he said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2298929.stm

If you read all the reporting on this I think you find somebody without many professional friends in London and who does not seem to have gone out of his way to sell a message about what he was trying to do to anybody. Ultimately people key to what the RB is all about seemed to have said enough. Much journalistic investigation has gone on, very much, and a little more may emerge but most people involved are tight-lipped and the company wants to move on from a terrible episode for everybody involved. And anybody wanting to debate this has to tread through a minefield and cannot present heresay as fact etc.

I think we really need to move on to debate what the RB is and how it goes forward - not in the next few months but the bigger picture.

Does it mean that they will be lost to the Company as there is no New Director to offer them jobs? Or will the powers that be, have the good sense to realise that genuine fresh talent must not be forced to find work outside Britain to cause an even greater dearth to British Ballet merely because some members of the company don't like to see fresh blood of threatening quality and think they can rule RB by mutiny.

Dont get me wrong, I am sure there were faults on both sides --after all ,we are only human but I feel that savage rebellion was not a sensible way forward.

Fresh and budding British Talent deserves protecting and nurturing. It should not be allowed to be lost to RB or forgotten in the panic of the current situation which appears to be caused by the actions of 'vipers' ( not my words) who feel they have unquestionable rights to stardom in the company.

This was the interregnum era when Mikhail Barynishkov has resigned and Jane Herrmann was administering the company. Ross Stretton then had a pivotal position between the artistic side of
the company and the administrative side. Unless my memory errs, Stretton was in place and working during the early part of the
McKenzie direction of the company.

Stretton went from the Joffrey Ballet to ABT and partnered a number of the major ballerinas. He may have been in relative obscurity to The Guardian's writer, but he certainly was never
considered obscure to dancers interested in ABT at that time.

I basically would concur with what Renee wrote. I'm not privy to the inner workings of ABT then. I heard of Stretton only as a rehearsal master, working with the corps -- and the dancers I talked to (only 2) regarded him very highly. How much he had to do with the day to day running of the company, I couldn't say. (I've also seen the Weisberger film on ABT.)

My memory of Stretton as a dancer with ABT, though, is a bit different. I didn't consider Stretton either a very important or interesting dancer and definitely not a star. He came in at a time when there were two tall ballerinas (Cynthia Gregory and Martine Van Hamel) and the company was always looking for men to partner them. I remember him as a good partner, and able to do the solos, but that's about it. And I don't remember him in the other repertory -- I'm sure he danced contemporary works, I just don't remember them.

I think "relative obscurity" is accurate. It's also not unusual for someone who's an excellent rehearsal master, or able assistant, to have problems with the complexities of the top job, especially in a large company. Some company directors couldn't get the corps through a rehearsal of "Swan Lake," either. They're two different skills.

RB Ross Stretton resignation
Dramatic tensions at the Royal Ballet
Times letter from Mr Leonard Newman
    "I do not blame Mr Stretton but the Royal Opera House board, and the least act of contrition should be that its chairman resign, if not the whole board, after their failure to fulfil their duties to a once great company."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-438161,00.html?srch=456,,3gjkk

There obviously needs to be a period of heavy cleaning to remove the dust completely-and rebuild the company without such 'dust'.

There must be serious problems amongst the company members anyway for them to cause such a disater --even if Stretton was not popular.

I don't think Dame N d Valois would have tolerated such insurrection in the ranks. She would probably have sent them all packing if they did not like what she did. Is this not a Director's right?

It should be an HONOUR to be a Company Member, whatever their rank. How dare they have the nerve to demand roles and positions. I am sure they would have been told to go if they did not like it, by the Founder--and what is wrong with that?

The graveyard is full of indispable dancers who think they can rule the roost.

Let us get back to some sanity - for goodness sake!

Find a strong new leader AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, give them all six months notice and let him/her start again with whoever he wants from new auditions--so that RB can be a Company to be revered again.This would soon sort them out!

No dancer should be allowed to cause such a national embarrassment--even if they wish their boss would die on the spot.

If Stretton has offended our Heritage and made errors re ballets selected etc, surely this could have been addressed behind closed doors in a civil manner, without the need for
such a mess to occur.

NEW LEVELS OF MENTAL FITNESS

?

As a devotee of the Royal Ballet since teenage-hood (heavens, that's nearly half a century ago) I have refrained from entering this debate. Until now. Thank you Katherine - hear hear.

Yes, and it is even more of an honour to be the company's Artistic Director. Whoever takes on that role should respect it.

>Find a strong new leader AS
>SOON AS POSSIBLE, give them
>all six months notice and
>let him/her start again with
>whoever he wants from new
>auditions--so that RB can be
>a Company to be revered
>again.This would soon sort them
>out!
>

Without its dancers the Royal Ballet doesn't exist. Same goes for the audience. I don't go to Covent Garden to see an AD - I go to see dancers interpreting the creations of choreographers, musicians and designers.

>No dancer should be allowed to
>cause such a national embarrassment--even
>if they wish their
>boss would die on the
>spot.
>

I'm not embarrassed by the dancers' actions. I'm more embarrassed by ROH policy on ticketing and access. And whoever decided to reduce the number of ballet programmes.

It takes real conviction to defy company direction - and it is a very scary ride when you involve the media.

But clearly he felt the company to be bigger the AD's view of it - and I think he should be applauded for his honesty.

I think comments about xenophobia are mispaced - they are simply PCness to prevent us facing up to a some home truths.

I know these threads have been going on for a while now, and trying to distinguish facts from supposition and hearsay is getting increasingly difficult, but do we have any hard evidence that dancers WERE demanding roles and positions? *Expect*, possibly, based on their position in the company, and I am aware that certain dancers in certain companies do try to exert pressure in that way (and after all, I thought that was the way that personnel management in the business world at large was going these days - you go in for an annual appraisal, make your case for a rise/promotion and see what the boss says), but unless there is supporting evidence I find the implications offensive to the RB dancers.

After reading the article by David Drew its difficult to draw any other conclusion, particularly since the numbers of dancers supporting Stretton were a minority. However dancers have caused serious problems for AD's before now, though its curious that Kenneth MacMillan who had a tougher time than Stretton wasn't chucked out, perhaps because his gifts as a choreographer were too valuable for the RB to lose or perhaps because at that time a wiser ROH Chairman was in charge. By the way I'm assuming now that Stretton was sacked by being asked to resign.

I am also sorry
>that she has brought Ninette
>de Valious into it.

According to John Drummond in his book "Speaking of Diaghilev" de Valois was the ONLY Royal Ballet AD able to wield any real power, the rest were limited by the continual interference of the ROH board.

>The way
>the Royal Ballet has been
>run since Ross Stretton took
>over is quite different and
>very divisive

Trying to be objective, there seemed to be both strengths and weaknesses on display in the last year and the biggest strength was the undoubted improvement (though there was still a long way to go) in actual performance. It also seems that Ross Stretton's methods of achieving that improvement were what upset the dancers most. That he ignored the established Hierarchy in the company, as Drew claims, is surely to be applauded.

Like Vivian2, I was also disturbed by references to allowing dust to settle: settle into what? A cosy moribund existence without effort and achievement? He also talks of a “rest period” surely the last thing for any ballet company EVER to be doing is resting! David Drew would like Monica Mason to direct the company for the next four years but is it wise for someone to inherit the company by default? And does Ms Mason actually want the job? After all being deputy director entails duties very different to those of the actual director and if she did apply for the top job last time, she certainly didn’t get onto the short list.

Mr Drew wants the job to go to an “insider”, but wouldn’t someone with a more objective view be preferable? A compromise could be reached and I can think of three excellent possible candidates that have both directed companies and danced with the Royal Ballet in the past.

In an earlier press release the ROH is set to review the issue of a new director in three months time, in other words in the new year. By then perhaps more light will have been shed on this whole unhappy episode.

Yes, possibly. But Nureyev would undoubtly have put forward a convincing argument drawn from his knowledge of the ballet as to why he should do so.

Hmmmm.... he wasn't renowned for his artistic insights!

So I disagree with the premise that once someone is promoted they have a divine right to stay there dancing those roles for life, no matter to what standard.

And let's wait to see what RS says when he eventually goes public. We have only heard one side of the story, and whilst everyone keeps saying well done David for telling us the story, we must remember this is a one sided bias viewpoint. I think we should wait to hear the other viewpoint first.

That may be one person's point of view but when only 8 dancers (supposedly) in the whole company gave their full support to the way in which Ross Stretton was running the company there had to be more of a problem than one or two individuals feeling put out.

You can't tell me that someone like Miyako Yoshida didn't deserve to dance more last season. She is a wonderful dancer, deserves to be a principal and should have had more shows.

Hear, hear! And she's not the only one - at Principal level and below. We all have our favourites of course, and that includes AD's, but several wonderful dancers had a thin time of it last season which didn't do much to increase the enjoyment of the regular members of the audience.

I fully agree that Yoshida is a wonderful dancer, but this is not the point. That is OUR opinion. It does not necessarily mean that someone else sees her as the 'vision for the future' of the Company. We have to respect that other people may have different views in this very subjective business.

In regard to your comments that only 8 dancers supposedly backed Stretton, I feel there may be more to it than meets the eye. Perhaps they were the ones he was wishihg to see as his' future vision' and was promoting them in favour of others who thought they were not going to get on.

They may have acted out of professional jealousy.I can see human nature at work here.If they couldn't have the cookie , what did they have to lose??

There seems to be a tendency these days , that one can do away with anyone or anything that doesnt suit the majority by sticking together and ganging up on the individual concerned.

This is of course only speculation , but having been in contact with many dancers over the years , it feels like a strong possibility.

Our nation is always "doing people" in public. Look at the politicians for example. It has become a national habit to gang up and overthrow!

I pity anyone who has the courage to go against the flow.

Yes - but it the RB is a national institution and everybody is possessive of that.

>I pity anyone who has the
>courage to go against the
>flow.

I think the problem was he tried to cut the umbilical, severing it from its past in an attempt to move it foward. But the RB is too big to make a change like that quickly, irrespective of whether physically can you push the dancers in so many directions at once. Rather like the NHS the RB seems to become unmanageable and will remain so until they decide what they want to be.

There are too many tensions in the heritage/ new/ classic/ international/ English mix given the size of the company, the number of performances and the potential repertoire.

Every AD-change forces dancers to leave the company. You see this everywhere and in every period. Some principals only have the choice to integrate another company as soloist etc. An AD-change towards the end of a dancer's career can be a human catastrophe ! I'm speaking about smaller companies now. Think a demotion in the own company is unbearable and causes revolt. If you're a principal in the RB...the choices left are very restricted !

According to tomorrow's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Stretton is living in Melbourne, and may attend the Sydney premiere of Graeme Murphy's Swan Lake later this week.