Natalia

The Petipa Bicentennial (March 11, 2018)

43 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Amy said:

....people from the Soviet ballet who were against Petipa's choreography being changed. However, most of them kept quiet, but one person who didn't keep his opinions on this matter to himself was Yacobson.

 

Yet, for all of Yacobson's flapping about correctness in historical ballets, he gave us of version of Fokine's DYING SWAN/THE SWAN with a black tutu and very different steps. :) But I digress...back to the Petipa 200th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Natalia said:

 

Yet, for all of Yacobson's flapping about correctness in historical ballets, he gave us of version of Fokine's DYING SWAN/THE SWAN with a black tutu and very different steps. :) But I digress...back to the Petipa 200th.

Yes me too!! Back to Petipa's 200th birthday!!! Lol!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know who is hosting this event in Marseilles? It is odd that it is not announced yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30.04.2017 at 9:56 AM, Birdsall said:

Without all of the artists keeping some Petipa ballets in the active repertoire (even if changes were made) there would not be interest in reconstructions, because his works would have been totally forgotten without all the people in between. In my opinion, people and companies made decisions to keep the public happy and to keep their government happy and probably made some mistakes, but they kept his art alive and without that having ever happened we might not have anyone caring about reconstructions. Ballet might have totally died out and no one would care, because they wouldn't know what they are missing and would see dusty notations in some library at Harvard and wonder, "What the heck is this?" 

 

This is an extremely Kirov-centric view of ballet history. It isn't as though the notations were sitting in a library for 100 years collecting dust. N. Sergeyev was using them to stage the ballets during the 1920s, '30s and '40s, with the productions for the Vic-Wells Ballet having a particularly lasting impact throughout the English-speaking world, even if the company had nothing like the resources needed to produce full reconstructions at the time. Amy has already pointed out that there were people in Soviet Russia with first-hand knowledge of Petipa's choreography, as there were among emigrants in the West. There's good reason to think that K. Sergeyev could have staged Petipa's ballets with far greater accuracy if he had wanted to do it, but unfortunately, the Soviets played fast and loose with the choreographic text.

 

K. Sergeyev's vision scene in Sleeping Beauty, for example, has little in common with the original. I don't know anything about how Grigorovich staged his version of Sleeping Beauty, but despite his alterations--the elimination of the mime, the additional choreography for the Prince and the Lilac Fairy--the overall structure of his vision scene is far closer to Petipa's original than the K. Sergeyev version. I don't know whether Grigorovich was influenced by the Royal Ballet or other Western stagings, or whether he went looking for information on the original staging among people at home, but somehow the same choreographer who ran roughshod over Petipa in Swan Lake, actually rejected some of K. Sergeyev's accretions in Sleeping Beauty.

 

Obviously it's true that the West didn't embrace the entire Petipa canon right away. I'm sure this can largely be explained by some of the music Petipa used. Pugni and Minkus are patently inferior composers, while Glazunov lacks the indelibly "snappy" tunes of Delibes and Tchaikovsky. But the suggestion that the world might have forgotten about Petipa until heavily altered Soviet productions began touring the West in the 1950s is unsound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, volcanohunter said:

 

This is an extremely Kirov-centric view of ballet history. It isn't as though the notations were sitting in a library for 100 years collecting dust. N. Sergeyev was using them to stage the ballets during the 1920s, '30s and '40s, with the productions for the Vic-Wells Ballet having a particularly lasting impact throughout the English-speaking world, even if the company had nothing like the resources needed to produce full reconstructions at the time. Amy has already pointed out that there were people in Soviet Russia with first-hand knowledge of Petipa's choreography, as there were among emigrants in the West. There's good reason to think that K. Sergeyev could have staged Petipa's ballets with far greater accuracy if he had wanted to do it, but unfortunately, the Soviets played fast and loose with the choreographic text.

 

K. Sergeyev's vision scene in Sleeping Beauty, for example, has little in common with the original. I don't know anything about how Grigorovich staged his version of Sleeping Beauty, but despite his alterations--the elimination of the mime, the additional choreography for the Prince and the Lilac Fairy--the overall structure of his vision scene is far closer to Petipa's original than the K. Sergeyev version. I don't know whether Grigorovich was influenced by the Royal Ballet or other Western stagings, or whether he went looking for information on the original staging among people at home, but somehow the same choreographer who ran roughshod over Petipa in Swan Lake, actually rejected some of K. Sergeyev's accretions in Sleeping Beauty.

 

Obviously it's true that the West didn't embrace the entire Petipa canon right away. I'm sure this can largely be explained by some of the music Petipa used. Pugni and Minkus are patently inferior composers, while Glazunov lacks the indelibly "snappy" tunes of Delibes and Tchaikovsky. But the suggestion that the world might have forgotten about Petipa until heavily altered Soviet productions began touring the West in the 1950s is unsound.

 

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. The West did not stick to "pure Petipa" (reconstructions), as you say, either. So my point was that all the choices ALL companies made to produce a Petipa style work helped to keep interest in Petipa alive. If none of these people or companies continued to put together their version of Petipa, Petipa would be lost and the world's culture would have pretty much forgotten about ballet. That was my point. The notations would mean nothing because people stopped trying to produce ballet.

 

I want to repeat what I said above. Reconstructions seem to be a 21st century idea. Video for mass consumption (tapes that we can play at home) began in the 1980s if my memory serves correct. Before that it was not very normal to have a film of a performing art in your home. Only professionals had easy access. Once video became a mass product I think that is what has led the way to the idea of reconstructions.....because families started filming their vacations and having a memory of their vacation exactly the way it was. So little by little as dvds and blurays have made filming better and easier and you can carry it all around you (also music on your phone) there is now this obsession with HAVING the exact experience that may have happened in the 19th century on a ballet stage. That is my theory.

 

Before video I think the performing arts always had a push/pull relationship between tradition and what was known to be correct. Even great conductors argue about whether more rubato should be used or not......singers and conductors argue. Riccardo Muti for a period would not let singers embellish Mozart or bel canto operas even when the style of those operas practically demand embellishment (and singers embellished during those composers' times. Donizetti, Rossini, and Bellini expected their arias to be embellished and sometimes wrote out embellishments for the singers. Sometimes the singer did her own. And sometimes the singer interpolated a whole different aria that she loved by another composer and the composer who watched a completely different aria interpolated into his work could not do anything about it. You have Don Carlos premiered in Paris and the original is in French with 5 acts. The Italians loved their Verdi so much that they condensed it to 4 acts and redid it in Italian. Verdi finally created his own version in hopes that he could re-assert some control over his work, but various versions grew. Today the Italian arias "O don fatal" and "Tu che le vanita" are so famous that we want to hear them in Italian because there is more bite and performance tradition, BUT the french versions are the original and what Verdi originally composed.

 

The performing arts are just that......performances.......by HUMAN BEINGS.......composers had to change arias, write new ones to accomodate singers who couldn't sing the original or who would sound better singing a different one. After all, the composer did want a success and if the impresario hired a famous diva who had wobbly high notes but beautiful pianissimi, why not rewrite the aria and let her show off what she does best, so she will have a success and the work will be a success as a result? If she screeches her way through, she will be humiliated and the work might suffer.

 

So since the performing arts deal specifically with human beings with human strengths and weaknesses, and it is a COLLABORATIVE effort, everyone comes together to try to put on this living, breathing work of art and make it a success, because afterall, the artists need money, so they want a success. So, probably during the course of the history of performing arts you had people changing things up. Since the original creators used to tolerate or accept or even take part in the changes, once the creator died, the people going on staging the work probably made changes also. They were not intending to CRUSH or DESTROY the original. They were doing what they thought was best to make the work come alive but do it in a way so that they made some money. The pie-in-the-sky idea of pure art and not necessarily wanting a success (which would include money in the pocket) never occurred to artists of the past.

 

So changes happened for a variety of reasons.

 

And now some people want to erase everything that went on and turn the clock back to the 19th century in ballet. As admirable as that may be (and I have enjoyed reconstructions......I saw Ratmansky's Sleeping Beauty at ABT in person and I have many videos of other reconstructions), I am not convinced it is the only path we need to take. In fact, when I saw Ratmansky's Sleeping Beauty at ABT I actually went in thinking the scales would fall from my eyes, and I would see the light and realize how awlful all other Sleeping Beauties were. That didn't happen. I enjoyed it and I loved getting a taste of what may have been what was danced in the 19th century, but I was also very surprised at how much was similar to the Mariisnky/Kirov Sleeping Beauty. I was also surprised at how much of the overall feel was pretty much the same. Yes, some things were taken faster. Some steps were different (especially Prince Desire's) , but overall what was most interesting is that I saw how a work became changed and many of the reconstructed steps had some resemblance to what is traditionally danced. I also wondered if N. Sergeyev had jotted down notations for many different performances of the same ballet, would there be alternate versions even among Sleeping Beauty or Swan Lake notations? In opera it was common to have various texts. Going back to my example above, it is really hard to choose which Don Carlo or Don Carlos (depending on the language) to choose. Even when you decide on the Italian version, then you have to also decide whether to include Act 1, whether to cut the ballet or include it, and which passages that Verdi himself threw out you should use.

 

Basically, performing arts have always been messy and there is not black and white. Attempting to create a black and white "This is the Law of How Sleeping Beauty Must Be Performed" is actually (and yes I am making a leap but I believe it) going against what anyone in the 19th century believed in........the 19th century artists weren't sure their works would even outlive them and they were used to them being changed. I suspect 19th cetnury composers, singers, dancers, choreographers would be shocked at the 21st century idea of preserving a performing art in amber with no wiggle room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Birdsall said:

Petipa would be lost and the world's culture would have pretty much forgotten about ballet. That was my point. The notations would mean nothing because people stopped trying to produce ballet.

 

Well, there would still be Bournonville. :dry: 

 

The loss of Petipa would be an immense tragedy, but it would not necessarily follow that ballet itself would be destroyed. There have been times when Petipa has fallen out of favor and been performed less frequently, but ballet continued to be created and performed nevertheless.

 

I don't agree that "reconstruction" is a 21st-century idea. Historically the Royal Ballet has taken great pride in being guardian of the Petipa-N. Sergeyev legacy, even if certain Ashtonian interpolations are now considered essential elements of the productions. But I can see how the desire for "reconstructing" ballets has taken a cue from the "period" movement in music and the "original practice" movement in theater, both of which emerged in the latter 20th century but don't have any obvious connection to video for mass consumption. It's a recognition that "text" and performance are different things, and sometimes the latter can stray too far.

 

The major difference still lies in the notation. It's less dangerous to mess around with an opera and a play because the original score or text can always been retrieved. You'll hardly ever see a Shakespeare play performed in its entirety, but no one sweats it, because most of us still have our university copy of a Complete Shakespeare standing on a bookshelf. Any cut material could be re-inserted at any time. Even the Don Carlos conundrum isn't really a conundrum, since none of the music is in danger of being lost. (I say, any of the Italian versions sanctioned by Verdi is kosher.) In ballet the choreography and performance tend to be bound together very tightly, so changes in performance style constitute a very real risk to the existence of the original choreography. It bothers me more than I can say that some stagers of ballets will preserve the libretto, the score and even the original designs, but then alter the choreography as they see fit. Somehow the work of dramatists, composers and visual artists are deemed more worthy of preservation than the work of the original choreographers.

 

And you probably know that the reason some composers wrote out their embellishments was because performers tended to take too many liberties on that front, not because the composers wanted more decoration. Quite the contrary. They were trying to maintain some degree of control over their music. Fortunately, it's the composers' notated versions that have come down to us, not the showboating improvisations. Petipa hasn't always been so lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, volcanohunter said:

 

Well, there would still be Bournonville. :dry: 

 

The loss of Petipa would be an immense tragedy, but it would not necessarily follow that ballet itself would be destroyed. There have been times when Petipa has fallen out of favor and been performed less frequently, but ballet continued to be created and performed nevertheless.

 

I don't agree that "reconstruction" is a 21st-century idea. Historically the Royal Ballet has taken great pride in being guardian of the Petipa-N. Sergeyev legacy, even if certain Ashtonian interpolations are now considered essential elements of the productions. But I can see how the desire for "reconstructing" ballets has taken a cue from the "period" movement in music and the "original practice" movement in theater, both of which emerged in the latter 20th century but don't have any obvious connection to video for mass consumption. It's a recognition that "text" and performance are different things, and sometimes the latter can stray too far.

 

The major difference still lies in the notation. It's less dangerous to mess around with an opera and a play because the original score or text can always been retrieved. You'll hardly ever see a Shakespeare play performed in its entirety, but no one sweats it, because most of us still have our university copy of a Complete Shakespeare standing on a bookshelf. Any cut material could be re-inserted at any time. Even the Don Carlos conundrum isn't really a conundrum, since none of the music is in danger of being lost. (I say, any of the Italian versions sanctioned by Verdi is kosher.) In ballet the choreography and performance tend to be bound together very tightly, so changes in performance style constitute a very real risk to the existence of the original choreography. It bothers me more than I can say that some stagers of ballets will preserve the libretto, the score and even the original designs, but then alter the choreography as they see fit. Somehow the work of dramatists, composers and visual artists are deemed more worthy of preservation than the work of the original choreographers.

 

And you probably know that the reason some composers wrote out their embellishments was because performers tended to take too many liberties on that front, not because the composers wanted more decoration. Quite the contrary. They were trying to maintain some degree of control over their music. Fortunately, it's the composers' notated versions that have come down to us, not the showboating improvisations. Petipa hasn't always been so lucky.

 

Some of the composers' embellishments were as florid as ones that are not by the composer. And "showboating" (not my word choice) has been proven to enhance the drama of the moment in many instances, although not all. That is because the composers actually expected it. Singers were taught the art of ornamentation. It was not just a diva simply showing off, although, yes, there were cases of that. However, it was a requirement at the time. Of course, embellishing Wagner or Puccini would be considered bad taste, but 18th and 19th century operas are composed in such a way where it is basically necessary. In the mid 20th century many great conductors abhorred the practice even in operas where it was supposed to happen. Muti is one I mentioned who eventually loosened up and allowed some embellishment in bel canto. Now lots of research has proven that many of Mozart's operas are actually enhanced by including ornamentation in the da capo arias instead of treating Mozart like Wagner (only playing and singing the notes on the page).

 

To me the performing arts are not unlike language. Both are alive. We no longer speak Old English because mistakes in the language became the norm over time and slowly various idioms or slang terms crept in changing the language forever. There is always an attempt to have "correct grammar" so that there is a norm and standard we can adhere to for research writing, a common standard, etc. but needless to say the language still changes, because language is a living thing, not a finite thing engraved into stone forever despite grammar books having been published over and over through the years trying to set the language in stone. It doesn't work. Language evolves against our will. I suspect the performing arts are the same way, and that includes ballet, even more so with ballet because not everyone can read the notations. Even symphonies and operas with scores are open to interpretation (conductors argue over speed, tradition, etc), and there are always the more rigid interpreters and the liberal interpreters.

 

I do think reconstructions are a great thing (the reconstructionists are maybe like the Wagners of today wanting to give more respect to the art of ballet), believe it or not. I am not arguing AGAINST reconstructions. I think the research into them is important and staging them so we can compare and contrast is great. I just don't think those who did what they thought best in the times they were in should be condemned as criminals who desecrated Petipa. Ashton probably also did what he did in hopes of helping ballet. We didn't walk in their shoes and live their lives, and unless we can find solid proof (for example, in a personal diary) that these people from various ballet companies set out to harm Petipa intentionally we should just be glad we have their versions and the newfound interest in reconstructions side-by-side.....

 

Let's take the Beverly Sills recording of Giulio Cesare. It is so dated and all wrong after all the research into period instruments and performing editions of Handel. But I doubt any opera lover doesn't find some amazing things in that recording and wouldn't be without it. In some ways it is a more exciting recording of Handel's opera than another period correct recording that I have which makes me fall asleep (so who is championing Handel better?)......Cecilia Bartoli claims Giuditta Pasta was really a mezzo (and there is SOME good arguments for that viewpoint), and her recording of Norma is supposedly closer to what we might have heard in the 19th century. However, no respectable opera lover would throw away their Maria Callas recordings of Norma who continues to be the touchstone that we judge all Normas by many years after her death. Her influence over the role is so great that La Scala doesn't stage it. It took years for them to finally stage La Traviata (another famous Callas role). Every opera lover I know would rather throw the Cecilia Bartoli Norma in the trash and take the Maria Callas recordings (both bootleg and studio recordings) to a desert island. Her Norma is probably all wrong by 19th century standards. Maybe Bellini wouldn't like it. Maybe he would. No way to know. But every opera lover ADORES Callas in the role and wishes he could hear a Norma of that stature in his lifetime. But, no, more "correct" sopranos sing it and put us to sleep and make us find less to love in Bellini.

 

So my point is......there are no absolutes.......the Royal Ballet with Ashton pieces, the Kirov Sergeyev versions, the many others.......they all can be loved and enjoyed along with the reconstructions. Nobody reading BA today experienced pure Petipa in the 19th century. We all learned his artistry in "changed" versions. Reconstructions are actually pretty new. I find it strange that some people act like they have been raised on pure Petipa from the 19th century and are shocked and disgusted by the very versions that probably introduced them to this beautiful art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think the discussion here is around performance style per se, although I brought it up in the context of researching the past, and certainly not about interpretation. When Ratmansky aims to reconstruct Petipa from Stepanov notation, I suspect it isn't so much because of objections to six-o'clock extensions (though I, for one, find them abhorrent in 19th-century ballet, and always have), as to restore the choreography. The argument here isn't so much with Zakharova (or Bartoli or Callas), as with stagers who apparently thought they knew better than Petipa. There's no evidence to suggest that Grigorovich was "forced" to ditch the usual Odile variation and replace it with entirely different choreography and music, because a "traditional" version was used in most Soviet productions. That was Grigorovich's (arrogant) choice. There is no evidence that K. Sergeyev's vision scene adagio was considered sacrosanct in the USSR, because Grigorovich was free to reject it. K. Sergeyev (arrogantly) thought he knew could improve upon Petipa. Now it's entirely possible that most companies couldn't reconstruct some choreography as originally conceived by Petipa, simply for lack of bodies, but I do wish they would try harder. I can't look upon these way-after-Petipa productions as some sort of valiant effort to preserve his work for future generations. They seem predicated on the assumption that we just wouldn't find them interesting and driven by choreographers' determination to impose themselves on someone else's work. Would you really want high Cs interpolated all over the place in Mozart? Do you enjoy hearing him set to a disco beat? The fact that these productions may have been our introduction to some of these ballets is irrelevant. As a kid I occasionally ate fast-food "pies," but today I find them disgusting, though I didn't reject all pastry by any means. I just limit myself to the good stuff now. Is that really so strange?

 

It's interesting that you should bring up the example of language, because researchers into the "original pronunciation" of early modern English can demonstrate very specifically how changes in pronunciation have led to many of Shakespeare's puns being lost. I'm very grateful when OP and historical practice illuminate and restore them to audiences, and this has nothing to do with purism. It's about finally getting the joke.

Edited by volcanohunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When K. Sergeyev staged Swan Lake in the early 50s, he preserved Vaganova's recent - now iconic - portions of the first lakeside scene, such as the double-row of swans for Odette's entrance at the end of the swans' entree. So we can thank him for the existence of some glorious passages by a number of post-Petipa choreographers.

 

But the closest SWAN LAKE to Petipa/Ivanov in existence - the one that I'd use to honor Petipa on his 200th b'day -  is unquestionably the Zurich Ballet's 2016 recon by Ratmansky. The real deal.  (The Royal Ballet had the closest to it, thanks to Wylie's research for the 1980s Dowell staging, but that one is sadly being put to rest. I wonder if Liam Scarlett will keep the Wylie portions? Or will it turn out to be the ANTI-Petipa, anti-birthday non-tribute to Petipa?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually know Amy and like her very much, but my only problem is someone saying that people abused and desecrated (she probably didn't use that word)  without having spoken to those very people and knowing what was going through their minds. I don't like someone saying Grigorovich was arrogant in his choices. Maybe he was. You could be 100% correct, but it is an opinion. Without knowing WHY he substituted a new variation for Odile, I am not totally sure someone can be condemned. Maybe you know why. Maybe it is documented. I haven't read about his Swan Lake (just seen it and don't like it as much as others). However, I did not live in Soviet Russia and did not have Soviet censors or politicos breathing down my neck. How do we know what it was like and whether choices had to be made? Maybe when his version of Swan Lake debuted the ballerina dancing Odile hated the Odile variation and had enough power to demand a change. Maybe it was purely Griogorovich's arrogance, as you say, but I do believe "changing things up" in ballet was normal until recent times. With hindsight it is easy to declare these people as horrible people, but hindsight is 20/20. We did not experience the Zeitgeist of that period. Why do these people have to be condemned? We just need to know that there are notations and research and reconstructions that may shed new light into Petipa and be happy with that. We can enjoy reconstructions and what went on before. No one needs to be condemned or negated.

 

Also, another point is that a choreographer wants to create something "new".......that is why they do completely new ballets.....the hope their artistry adds to the canon. They don't want to take dictation. They want to create new art. Then, when they become famous they are offered money to re-create Swan Lake, for example. A ballet company says, "Let's see what you can do with Swan Lake!" In their minds, there is no point unless they create a new Swan Lake. I am sure many of these choices are not necessarily "valiant," but money motivated, and money puts food on the table. I think many Ballet Alert members forget that ballet is also a business. Dancers need to eat. Choreographers need to eat. Ballet companies need to survive financially. So the ballet needs to be a success. If the sign of the times want higher extensions and grander grand jetes and more gymnastics and that helps put bottoms into seats, ballet companies are going to do it. The fact that Nutcracker has become a Christmas tradition in America demonstrates how money factors into ballet company decisions. Wonder if any American company would jettison their Christmas Nutcracker and produce a modern dance night instead. Doubt it.

 

I will continue to be interested in seeing reconstructions when I can in order to understand Petipa better, but I will also continue to go see the Mariinsky's Swan Lake which has a special poetic mood to it in the lakeside scenes that no other version has, in my opinion. I love that reconstructions are being done, but I will cry rivers when and if the Sergeyev Swan Lake is put to rest forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 03/05/2017 at 2:44 AM, Natalia said:

When K. Sergeyev staged Swan Lake in the early 50s, he preserved Vaganova's recent - now iconic - portions of the first lakeside scene, such as the double-row of swans for Odette's entrance at the end of the swans' entree. So we can thank him for the existence of some glorious passages by a number of post-Petipa choreographers.

 

But the closest SWAN LAKE to Petipa/Ivanov in existence - the one that I'd use to honor Petipa on his 200th b'day -  is unquestionably the Zurich Ballet's 2016 recon by Ratmansky. The real deal.  (The Royal Ballet had the closest to it, thanks to Wylie's research for the 1980s Dowell staging, but that one is sadly being put to rest. I wonder if Liam Scarlett will keep the Wylie portions? Or will it turn out to be the ANTI-Petipa, anti-birthday non-tribute to Petipa?)

In my opinion, those Vaganova passages are getting as tacky as ever; in fact that's the case with quite a number of post-Petipa changes from the Soviet Era.

 

I was really disappointed to hear about Liam Scarlett staging the new Swan Lake for the Royal Ballet; I actually recommended to Kevin O'Hare to go for a reconstruction, but for some reason, he clearly didn't seem to think it was a good idea... well, it's his loss. And apparently, Igor Zelensky was instrumental in removing the Paquita reconstruction from the Munich repertoire.

Edited by Amy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amy said:

In my opinion, those Vaganova passages are getting as tacky as ever....

.....

And apparently, Igor Zelensky was instrumental in removing the Paquita reconstruction from the Munich repertoire.

 

Thanks for this, Amy. "Tacky" is the word for the designs of the Munich PAQUITA (day-glo gypsy dresses! Jumbo columns in the ballroom! White polyester/shiny sateen tutus!). I can't blame Zelensky for retiring the production but he should consider reinstating it with better designs, maybe renting the POB sets & costumes for a season? Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

 

i would also love to see Ratmansky's SLEEPING BEAUTY performed in the Mariinsky's 1999 reconstruction designs, if only just once in my life. The perfect staging in the perfect designs...sigh.

 

One more wish: to see Ekaterinburg's FILLE MAL GARDEE recon by Vikharev in Tsarist-era designs, rather than the "Van Gogh" sets/costumes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 04/05/2017 at 5:24 PM, Natalia said:

 

Thanks for this, Amy. "Tacky" is the word for the designs of the Munich PAQUITA (day-glo gypsy dresses! Jumbo columns in the ballroom! White polyester/shiny sateen tutus!). I can't blame Zelensky for retiring the production but he should consider reinstating it with better designs, maybe renting the POB sets & costumes for a season? Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

 

i would also love to see Ratmansky's SLEEPING BEAUTY performed in the Mariinsky's 1999 reconstruction designs, if only just once.

 

One more wish: to see Ekaterinburg's FILLE MAL GARDEE recon by Vikharev in Tsarist-era designs, rather than the "Van Gogh" sets/costumes.

 

 

In all honesty Natalia, I, too, wish that Alexei had used Imperial the St Petersburg designs for all his reconstructions so far, however in his defence, he obviously couldn't get them because Gergiev doesn't allow "outsiders" to access the Mariinsky archives; something that's very frustrating to all historians and scholars. I do, however, like the costumes for Sleeping Beauty and I especially love his reintroduction of the beautiful bell-shaped tutus; forget the modern pancake tutu! Lol!! I hope Zelensky brings back Paquita and it would be great if he brought it back with better designs, though I liked the costumes for the Grand Pas Classique, Lucien's costumes and the children's costumes. I did advise Zelensky to bring back Paquita and I also advised him to also bring Alexei's Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake reconstructions to Munich (I was in Munich a few weeks ago and I briefly met him). Whether he'll actually take my advise, I'm not sure...

Edited by Amy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As posted in our ABT forum, ABT will be presenting a full-evening staging (by Ratmansky) of Petipa's HARLEQUINADE in June 2018, during the company's Met season. 

So we will see two (2) stagings of Petipa's HARLEQUINADE during the 2017/18 season, as we already know about Yuri Burlaka's upcoming staging in Ekaterinburg, Russia (March 15, 2018). See post #13 of this thread.

 

ABT news:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/arts/dance/alexei-ratmansky-plans-a-new-old-harlequinade-for-ballet-theater.html?smid=fb-share&referer=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As reported on the Bolshoi forum, the 2017/2018 season was just announced. It will include an evening devoted to Petipa, with three reconstructed one-act ballets, one each by Burlaka, Ratmansky & Vikharev (summer 2018).  How amazing to see this "collaboration" by three of the very greatest Petipa "reconstructionists" ever! (Russian-lang. media provides exact dates of this "Grand Petipa" 3ple bill: July 6, 7 & 8, 2018.)

 

Note, thanks to Vaganova Today blog:

 

http://www.vaganovatoday.com/bolshoi-announces-2017-2018

 

Link to Bolshoi's site:

http://www.bolshoi.ru/en/about/press/articles/confirence/plans-242-season/

 

There'll also be gala concerts @ the Bolshoi in honor of Petipa's birthday. Details to come. (Russian media adds: May 31-June 1, 2018)

 

It's going to be hard choose where to go, LOL!  Any "Petipa Tours" being organized, featuring Russia?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2017 at 3:31 PM, volcanohunter said:

There's good reason to think that K. Sergeyev could have staged Petipa's ballets with far greater accuracy if he had wanted to do it, but unfortunately, the Soviets played fast and loose with the choreographic text.

 

 

 

They sure did. For me the most horrid example of such is the complete dismantle of Petipa's Nutcracker. I have always been a vocal defender of this ballet, and two of the most ludicrous versions I have seen are the Bolshoi-(Grigorovich/candelabra)- and Kirov-(Vainonen/Sugar Plum pseudo Rose Adagio). Petipa's version was totally discarded, and with it what I consider to be the most beautiful adagio in a pdd...the Fee Dragee/Prince Coqueluche. As others have noted...thank God for the White Russians who kept this pas alive in the West-(N. Sergueev for the Vic Wells, and later Karsavina's help for Sir Peter Wright's and A. Fedorova for the BRd MC/BT). Just as with the recent scenary alterations of MCB's "Midsummer", I am always puzzled by the constant PERSONAL need/ego feeder to keep "re inventing" things that DO NOT need to be reinvented...namely Balanchine or Petipa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Cubanmiamiboy. Oh, those Grigorovich candelabri! :lol:

 

The orig NUT was by Ivanov, not Petipa...but I know that YOU know that. It's a common mistake/typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Natalia said:

I agree, Cubanmiamiboy. Oh, those Grigorovich candelabri! :lol:

 

The orig NUT was by Ivanov, not Petipa...but I know that YOU know that. It's a common mistake/typo.

 

Yes. I have followed all the information about it...Petipa being sick by the time it was produced and such...although I have also read that it was just the Snow Scene what Ivanov created. If anything...it is true that Ivanov is too commonly erased from public prasing-(also with his SL white acts). But...the point here is the post Romanov repeated trying outs at changing glorious Tsarist era choreography that didn't need to be changed. (Even Vaganova tried...to the extent of suppressing the original overture of SL and placing that of The Voyevoda instead!!😣). When you see the RB Nutcracker Grand Pas...and then compare it with the darned candelabri Bolshoi thing you go like..."What the hell..?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.