When extensive research to re-create baroque operas as in the era they were created and extensive effort to find what is considered to be appropriate voices for the creation of a performance that shows fidelity to the works and their creation, why is the above question being posited for production of century old ballets?
I find someting nihilistic in such proposals.
I think Hans has replied to leonid's comments in a nuanced and thoughtful way. But I see leonid's point, as I am a huge fan of the baroque opera re-creation "movement"--indeed, I don't enjoy hearing Mozart played by a modern orchestra anymore--and often bristle at the ballet world's paradoxical elitist recourse to "tradition" and coarse market-driven resistance to historical accuracy (ballet company rhetoric often sounds more strategic than principled: middlebrow?). Yet I just don't think the playing fields are equal. The development of music/vocal technique has occured on a far different and older track than the development of ballet, with far less comprehensive documentation of past productions and performance details. "Revived" baroque operas don't entail any diminishment of technique or virtuosity on the part of the performers either. That's why I think we do need to posit questions about how to revive ballets, and consider carefully the effects of that reconstructing. For instance, I think Scholl's "revival" of Sleeping Beauty is amazing, but my love of it doesn't eliminate the problems in reception ("where's the dancing?") that I also acknowledge. (By contrast, historically "accurate" re-creations of baroque operas have found nearly universal acclaim.) While dance tends to operate in a zero-sum mentality--"if this version exists it will render all others impure/inaccurate/missing the essence, etc."--we might back up a bit and imagine that there's room for multiple interpretations. The Met Opera still does Mozart, after all, even if I won't go to see it there.