29 replies to this topic

[Dale]

I chose Paris, 1910s.  There's several reasons, most of which have been mentioned.  One is to see what all the fuss is about Nijinsky and Pavlova have been so hyped, that there is a feeling from my generation that it just can't be, at least not the rumors. So I'd like to see for myself.  Plus, what spawned in this era was what I know of as modern ballet. I think that if I choose an earlier time, as much as I'd love to see ballet at its beginning or St. Petersburg, I'd probably have too much resistance within myself to the body types and style to really enjoy myself.  And as Paquita mentioned, all those artists and composers contributing as well, it would be (as it was) very exciting.

Now, if I could chose another option, it would either the 1930s or 1940s.  For the 30s, I could see the baby ballerinas, De Basil's Ballet Russe, Massine's best work, Nijinska's things and be at the premieres of Balanchine's Serenade, Cottilion, and the original Mozartiana. I could still see Danilova and Markova.  Or teh 40s, I see the early perfomances of 4ts, Concerto Barocco, Ballet Imperial -- basically the birth of the NYCB, plus see the Ballet Russe and all those ballets, the beginning of ABT.

[Mel Johnson]

I would choose Paris, too.  But not for the usual reasons.  I would like to see what the productions of the Ballets Suedois were like, even if I knew they were choreographically inferior, I'd like to see why everybody was so carried away with Jean Borlin and his dada ballets.  At least the scenery and costumes would be interesting!

[Mel Johnson]

I still want to see "La Création du Monde"!;)

[Alexandra]

Another tough choice -- I agree with Helena.  I want to see all of them.  (That, when pressed, I voted for Bournonville may not be a surprise.)

Aside from its difficulty, though -- very nice poll, Ari.  I like the detail

[Alexandra]

I'm beginning to feel very sorry for Taglioni and Elssler, not to mention Lully and Beauchamps.  How quickly they forget

[Alexandra]

I think people here are well aware of the ephemeral nature of ballet, which was why the topic was raised in the first place.  It's a bit off topic to suggest that the exercise is either futile or not particularly bright   I certainly hope no one feels discouraged from either voting or sharing their reasons for the vote.

Tancos, in an earlier post you wrote:  

Quote

An idea for another poll would be which single historic performance would you attend if you were handed the keys to a time machine but only allowed one trip. (I have a hunch which performance would win; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if half the audience at the premiere of "Le Sacre du Printemps" *were* time travelers.)

Perhaps this would be too complicated for a poll, but it would make an interesting thread -- why not start one?

[Alexandra]

Oh, Mel, save the ticket.  The Royal Swedish Ballet brought its H&A reconstructions of the greatest hits of the Ballet Suedois.  It was a thrill to see the backcloths I'd only seen in books, yes, but that lasted only a half a minute.

The rest were, well, regional.  Very derivative.  Even allowing for the fact that reconstructions are often rather dull, these were dull.

[Alexandra]

Well, if you ever get the chance, remember after the first 2.5 minutes, you can always close your eyes and listen to the music

[Alexandra]

Thank you for that, Keith -- what a lovely thought!  

[atm711]

Paris 1910--I still can't read enough about those twenty magical years.

[cargill]

I ended up voting for Paris, because the first things I read about ballet were on Diaghilev, and I have always felt deprived because I didn't see the 1909 season, but of course all of the above is much more appropriate.

[Paquita]

I picked Paris 1910 too. I think those years marked one of the most exciting eras not just for ballet, but for many forms of art. Lots of experimentation and exploration, but with more of a direction than what we have today. It would be great to go back and see these wonderful collaboration between great artists like Fokine, Nijinski, Massine, Balanchine, Picasso, Matisse, Miro, Bakst, Benois... and such a wide range of music (Satie, Ravel, Debussy, Rimsky-Korsakov, and of course Stravinsky). My second choice would be St. Petersberg. But I think Diaghilev's Ballets Russes created a more complete spectacle and was more risk-taking. Another reason I chose Paris was because a lot of the works have not survived or are not in great shape today, and it seems that a lot of Petipa is still being (relatively) well-preserved.

[Ari]

Okay, here's a chance to catch those performances you've always wished you'd seen.  A good fairy has granted you the right to travel back in time only once, to one of places and periods listed above, in order to let you see for yourself the things you've only read about.  Which would you choose, and why?

Note:  I've  limited this poll to the years BEFORE 1930, on the assumption that the death of Diaghilev in 1929 ushered in the modern era of ballet, the one we're still living in.  If this poll attracts people's interest, we can have another one with choices ranging from 1930 to the present.

[Ari]

When you say "Paris," BW, Tancos, and cargill, do you mean Paris in the 1840s or the 1910s?

[glebb]

Quote

Originally posted by at
I'm beginning to feel very sorry for Taglioni and Elssler, not to mention Lully and Beauchamps.  How quickly they forget

I just got home from work in time to put in my vote for Taglioni and Elssler!