leonid17

I have tried to reply to this and other parts of your post in the best way I can. Firstly I would say going to watch the ballet is a matter of choice and learning about ballet is another choice. As a teenager I found that forming opinions from observation alone, can result in viewpoints at odds with the historical context of the form and though satisfying to the individual, it may find little resonance among other members of the audience. I discovered that generally members of a ballet audience gravitate to groups of shared experience and values. Ballet fans (short for fanatics) in one interval bar position, critics elsewhere and the connoisseurs of performance and history elsewhere. So what is it that makes shared values among audiences, commentators and those that work within ballet to suggest that ballet is an art and certain dancers a great artist? What is art and how is it measured and valued? Whilst the practice of an art requires skills in the manner that the craftsman requires, the artist does not just replicate a form, the artist generates from within an original expression in their work that separates them from others. What does being considered to be an artist mean? Simply being a practitioner of a skill in a manner that is superior to most other practitioners measured by shared values of those that experience the art. It is not simply the skilled mode of expression within their art form that creates an effect upon an audience it is the combination of psychological and physical response that a ‘great artist’ engenders which creates the theatrical experience that an audience desires. Great artists become one with the form which they practice and there are many ways in which it can be achieved but you cannot replicate dancers to become great despite strict methods of teaching being apllied with sensitive and informed coaching. Like all other people no two dancers are exactly alike in gifts that will enable them to success in their career and many students at the best schools failt to proceed from one year to the next. Ballet dancers who are going to be successful will be noticed in the corps de ballet or in a small solo, because they bring more than technique to the stage, they also bring a distinctive air that reflects a realised creativity in the manner in which they performed. This level of creativity becomes the subject of discussion and public opinion. Ballet is a form of language because it carries meaning with it. Through certain ballet dancers it speaks with an intensity of power that at one performance it can make decades of watching ballet a worthwhile pursuit. . You say, “Since I found ballet talk I have been thinking what art (artistry, artist) is because it gets used so much all the time. I know that in general ballet, music, painting, poetry. etc are called arts (sometimes high arts) and their practitioner’s artists. But I think this is just an empty labelling (with elitist implications) and has no real meaning.”(quote) I want to take up your mention of ‘elitist implication’. We live in a world where rulers shaped history and elite groups in society were formed. This is a reality. Patrons from the elite have shaped the development of the arts and up to today classical ballet companies could not do without the support of people who fit the profile of this imagined class. History is history. Some people will rise to positions of wealth power and influence most of us will not. Regarding your mention of the importance of technique versus virtuoso exhibitionism and Vaganova I agree on the first part of your statement but question the latter reference to the lady. I had thought for a long time, that we could always witness in particular dancers a high level of execution of individual steps but that the wider vocabulary that existed in the 19th century had disappeared. This opinion was formed from viewing the repertoire of the Kirov and Bolshoi I witnessed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However reconstructions of ballets (and fragments) unseen in the West in previous decades seen in the 1980’s, 1990’s and this century have shown that the Vaganova Academy still teaches a method that allows modern dancers to effectively accomplish individual steps and combinations that one had read about in history books. The Bolshoi in Lacotte’s, ‘La fille du Pharoan’ showed that the seemingly forgotten steps of the 19th century Paris ‘ecole classique’ could be replicated. I agree that the contribution that Vaganova made to teaching cannot be underestimated but we have to remember; she was the product of three methods of ballet technique taught by superior teachers and she had they advantage of witnessing the developing method of teaching already innovated by Preobrajenskaya. It was during Vaganova's era that the virtuoso (Soviet heroic) type of dancer appeared with the emphasis on showy technique vulgar exhibitions of jumps and pirouettes that had a lot of force behind them – and it showed. Fortunately, there were always pupils with an innate sense of taste and who later received coaching from other former dancers that carried on teaching the refinements of the school as opposed to strong execution of steps. A measure of this statement can be made if you compare various dancers who made ballerina status but who differed in 'artistry' to such a degree you cannot believe they were products of the same school. I remember both the Kirov and the Bolshoi in the 1960’s presenting highly unsuitable dancers in leading roles which led to certain of the females to be given the soubriquet of ‘basher’ because of the way that they 'beat up'’ the ballet steps. As regards a decline in technique I don’t think there is a problem with teaching at the Vaganova Academy for instance, and the technical achievements elsewhere. There is however almost universal crisis in respect of epaulement. I do also believe that it is wrong to encourage every rising young dancer to dance in the manner of a virtuoso. Occasionally, the natural virtuoso appears and is to be celebrated. On dancers capable of a perfect display of technical ability, the practice of making them appear virtuosic simply makes them appear vulgar. I can’t agree with you that that the Soviet Union produced so many great dancers; it produced a number in my opinion and a number of extraordinary and unusual dancers. It should be mentioned that certain character dancers of the past and one or two now were great artists as were certain mimes. Ps I apologise to all readers for the length of my post. Brevity deserted me today. (Don’t say, “What do you mean today”)

Really? I don't remember Nureyev ever "coming out publicly", or actually flaunting any male partners. I don't even remember the popular press refering to him in any homosexual context, while he was actively dancing that is. Even when a pale shadow of his physically younger self I don't remember any large circulation paper saying anything in an overt reference to his sexuality. Publicly Nureyev was usually photographed with female dancers and rich or famous women. His persona was much more portrayed as a male athlete rather than any kind of cissy. At the height of his career, male homosexuality was not so openly portrayed or discussed in the media as it is now.

Someone somewhere recently asked the question as to why the Royal Ballet doesn't have more triple or multiple ballet programmes in their schedules instead of a full length ballets. The simple answer is they are not such an economically viable event as is a full length ballet. ie they don't sell. However in terms of developing dancers into fully rounded artists, one act ballets especially of the 'character' kind you discuss, was once and should be an essential part of a classical ballet company. I have made a list of more than fifty one act ballets from the Royal Ballet repertory that I have seen that should be a cyclical feature of their programming. I believe this to be important as a diet of the major classics does not give the same sort of broad experience that RB dancers had in the 1950.s, 1960's and 1970's performing works that require character realisations whilst still performing steps from the classical ballet tradition. The performance of ballets where strongly differentiated characters appear, did I believe contributed to dancers broadening both their stage characterisations and adding greater confidence and expression to their personality. I think such ballets were central to making the RB an important ballet company. Ballets from DeValois, Ashton, Helpmann, Cranko, MacMillan, Rodrigues, Tudor, Glen Tetley, Balanchine, Robbins, Nijinska, Massine, and Fokine should be in the RB's repertoire regularly while the flavour of the original can be recreated and knowledgeable critics and audiences are still around to comment. Some of the works by the above mentioned choreographers do creep into the edge of the grey area.

In welcoming Bart's thread and other contributors who broadened the discussion, like them I offer my opinions on an extremely serious and complex or even difficult subject that should be the concern of dancers, company directors and audiences. If you read and examine Barts thread it calls for a response on a matter that is both complicated and seriously difficult, as the demand of various periods of classical ballet on the surface at least seem to require different things from dancers to those in an earlier age. However, I do not believe this is true. The best examples of the past, in all the arts, still speak as loudly today as they did as when first appreciated and it the best examples that need a particular encouraging environment in which to prosper. When exceptional dancers(in various ways) bring a level of communication and experience to an audience that clearly separates them from their colleagues, the universality of the art and performance achieves the goal that takes a ballet performance away from the routinely very good theatre to a different level of theatrical experience. Technical perfection has a place in such experiences but true 'artists' of the dance always go beyond the level of their personal technique to become one with the vehicle of their expression that in turn engenders a universal response as it touches the human experience in a way that sometimes only great art can do. The questions Bart raises, “Who are some of the other dancers -- past or present -- who were (or are) exciting, eye-capturing dancers with a kind of star quality BEFORE they developed their technique? Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles? And how did they do it?” are I would say highly significant questions. Why? Because such artists reinforce the answers to the significant questions as to how classical ballet can continue to remain a theatre ‘high art’ and encompasses “What is the best environment for aspiring dancers to add to the continuum of experience for an audience where no arbitrary division confounds the aims of the art. It is after all the dancers that bring life to a ballet and it is the dancers who in the end tend to make history in classical ballet. To return to Nureyev who was brought into the discussion by others, I certainly witnessed a large number of performances where his technical perfection in a role was clearly exhibited. I did however have the luxury choosing those performances from around watching him dance around 200 or more times over a long period of time.

Dear Bart The question you raised has led to the raising of temperatures and to lifting of corners of carpets where many prejudices lie swept from view. As I have been fortunate enough to witness on stage or meet in person many of the dancers named in the postings, I felt I just had to jump into the fray, but I do so with caution. I can only speak from my witness and study of classical ballet and the effect particular performances have had upon me over the years. I consider that some forty or more leading dancers I have seen over the years have given me the justification of considering classical ballet to be a ‘high art’ in which dancers through extensive study, personal qualities and exposure to the highest elements of their art, have for me wrought an atmosphere of a kind of perfection in performance that can elevate my thoughts, move my emotions, warm my heart, satisfy my intellect and confirm my interest as being thoroughly worthwhile. The question of technique has been mentioned and I would like to give an example of what can be missing from the observation of a performance when technique becomes the foremost virtue in a dancer. I have witnessed that some people cannot go beyond their own prejudice when seeing films of dancers from earlier generations without saying, I just don’t get it, he (or she) just does not have technique and for a moment you wonder if this person is getting the same kind of experience that you are getting when you are sitting next to them. If a member of an audience is looking for the perfect execution of every single step, it seems to me to not understand the art of ballet in terms of a theatrical performance. Ballet is about experiencing a harmony of components that resonate with the audience to bring some measure of experience. If you are just watching and measuring steps, you cannot be experiencing. How little or too much of an exhibition of technique in a performance is a question of measure which is always going to come down to a question of personal informed knowledge, experience and the resulting acquired taste. I often find myself musing after a performance in which an outstanding virtuoso technique has been exhibited and feeling rather empty then asking myself where was the beautiful epaulement or line, all part of a dancers technique, Where was the understanding of the role. If the dancer does not possess in the ability to convey subtle changes in character and mood (a part of the technique of dance acting) it is as if I have been watching an exhibition of an attained skill and not a theatrical performance. Some of the postings above get rather up front and personal in respect of individual dancers. Gennady Smakov’s book on great dancers (referred to above) is I believe an important work as no other single book covers the sort of detail about a number of dancers that he does. He appears to exhibit some prejudices about some dances and of course is frequently giving opinions about dancers he never saw. Whilst it is true that Karsavina was criticized for not possessing an adequate classical ballet technique in the major classic ballets performed at the Maryinsky, it was in the ‘art’ of her performances with the Diaghilev Ballet, that she achieved great fame in which her art of expression and her personal beauty contributed to the audiences experience. The height and quality of Karsavina’s jetes were enthusiastically recorded by several commentators in her created role of ‘The Firebird’. As regards Smakov’s comments on Ulanova, Vaganova created the highly virtuoso pas de deux ‘Diana and Acteon’ for Ulanova’s graduation. There is a film of Ulanova in Act II Swan Lake Pas de deux with Sergeyev in which there is now doubt as to her technical ability and in the Messerer book on ballet technique there is a picture of Ulanova alongside Plisetskaya in a classroom exercise of jetes. After seeing these two examples and studying the roles she danced and reading opinions of her performance I had to reassess my own opinion that Ulanova was an extraordinary dance actress rather than having attained a highly developed ballet technique. Pavlova who was mentioned in a posting was highly successful on the Maryinsky stage in ballerina roles such as Medora, Kitri and Nikiya. Having had conversations with numerous members of Pavlova’s company, the technique she exhibited in class was not that which she used on the stage where she gave as many as 10 performances in a week. What Pavlova had, was the ability through short dance essays, to express joy, tragedy the experience of love and death and to a degree that an audience was able to identify with at a level that few other dancers have ever been able to achieve. I have spoken to many members of the audiences from all classes of society that saw Pavlova who without prompting told me that seeing her dance, was the most important experience of their life. I am used to hearing negative comments regarding Nureyev but as a witness to his career in the West from the very beginning, the only fault I observed at the beginning of his career with the Royal Ballet was his noisy landings. This he mastered very quickly. His jetes en tournant, his entrechat six, his pirouettes ala seconde were all generally recognized as extraordinary at his best and his general quality of movement, physical presence, his ability to convey emotion and the sense of danger he brought to his performances(never really captured on film) made him the legend he was. My personal opinion is that after 1969 he rarely achieved the standard in classical ballets that he had in the eight years previously. Some people remark that Fonteyn’s technique and feet were weak yet she undoubtedly was a virtuoso dancer in performances of the Corsair pas de deux or Black Swan pas de deux in the 1960’s when appearing with Nureyev. Fonteyn could say more in a still moment than few others in my experience could. Her performances as Aurora, Odette, Ondine, Daphnis, Marguerite, Giselle, Nikiya in the Shades Scene, Raymonda, which were moving, thrilling and enthralling by turn. Of course I have seen all these roles performed marvelously well by other dancers and certainly with better turn out and placement, stronger feet and more elevation, higher arabesques etc but for me only a few other dancers have ever reached the heights of a performance experience that Fonteyn gave to her audience. A number of the dancers that are mentioned in the above postings have always remained an arcane mystery to me as I never appreciated any aspect of their performances measured against others. They have however achieved some fame. Is it our objective study, reasoning and appreciation of standards achieved in a performance that creates our reactions, or, is it the subjective response that in the end overrides any objectivity in our appreciation? To take control of an audience so that it becomes a single massed response in theatres across the world is an achievement that very few ballet dancers can attain. Some achieve through their perfection and control of their technique, their musicality, physical beauty, dramatic skills a recognized high level of performance, but few dancers have the universality of appeal that perhaps only fifteen or twenty in the history of classical ballet have achieved. Yours Leonid

I think you are quite right that the the two photographs the Wiley one (with Nikolai Legat to the right) and that which you illustrate, share great similarities in costuming which would suggest 'The Offerings(Sacrifices) of (to) Cupid' especially as each share the same cupid statuette. 'The Magic Tale' staged in 1892(or 1891 according to the Russian Ballet Encyclopaedia with Grigorovich named as editor) may well have employed the same Baroque style costumes used in the former ballet.

Although the title is slightly different, it would appear that the ballet in question is "The Offerings of Cupid" with music by Minkus, first staged by Petipa at Peterhof with Yevgenia Pavlovna Sokolova (1850-1928) in 1886. I am sorry I have no other information at present.

Your quite right that the costumes have been changed a lot and that's not all. Talk about making a Mess of Messel. A missed opportunity for the Royal I think. I have just got home from the first night which was notable for the performances of Marianela Nunez as Lilac Fairy, Sarah Lamb as Pricess Florine and an outstanding Aurora with Alina Cojocaru inhabiting the role in a way that very few have, in my 40 odd years of ballet going. To say that the company performed in a manner that was dull is to ignore the garishness of the new costumes. Oliver Messel who I was fortunate to meet on a number of occasions must be pirouetting in his grave. Messel was a man of infinite taste and style which this resurrection for me and many other members of the audience who grew up with the original Messel production so to speak, (ncluding a number of well-known writers) were more than dissappointed. In the audience were former Aurora's with the Royal including Bery Grey, Doreen Wells and Antoinette Sibley. One of my all time favourite Lilac Fairies Deanne Bergsma was also present. Rather touchingly the late HRH Princess Margaret's children were present and in a sense part of the continuum of their mothers presence at the first night of the original production 60 years ago and of course Princess Margarets long patronage of the Royal Ballet. More later when I have seen other casts.

I am thrilled to hear you say this, leonid. I regret that I never had this opportunity to see Fonteyn in this role. Richard53dog also mentions Fonteyn -- with Nureyev Could you tell us something about what it was in Fonteyn's performance that affected you so strongly? And who was her Albrecht? As I do not possess the fluency of a dance critic, what a challenge you set me Bart in asking me to describe my response to Fonteyn’s Giselle. What made Fonteyn remarkable for me in this role was that she was able to break down all the prejudices I might have had for a 43 year old dancer portraying a teenage unsophisticated girl and who did not possess the elevation deemed needed to succeed in Act II. I had some years earlier first time seen Giselle on British television performed by Nadia Nerina and Nikolai Fedeyechev. All such prejudices were swept aside from her first entry from the cottage stage left as before my very eyes in a stream of consciousness she became Giselle. If she entranced me, she also entranced the whole of the audience who you could feel were embracing the experience as one. All the thoughts, fears and passions of Giselle, began to unfold as Fonteyn lived the role if it were her own life taking place on the Royal Opera House stage. A flawless characterization was matched by a surety of execution of the steps in a continuous flow of movement. Nothing was separate steps and characterisation were one expression of Giselle’s feelings. As she grows from the timid response to Loys as she first meets him, to the joyful expression in their pas de deux and the then shocking distress when Bathilde appears and tells Giselle she and Albrecht (Loys) are engaged, Fonteyn’s heartbreakingly intense descent into madness seemed a natural consequence, such has been the concentrated realisation of a seemingly real character whose mother had warned of the consequences of celebrating too much happiness. In Act II Fonteyn created the allusion of weightless flight without great elevation and her quality of ‘stillness’ emphasized her ‘other world’ life. Again, it was her flow of movement arising from her innate musicality, port de bras and balance in arabesques with no separation of technical expression destroying the characterization of her love being strong enough to go beyond the grave. Giselle is ballet that is a romantic drama with an obvious sad ending and Fonteyn grasped the essence of this and played every moment truthfully, touchingly and effectively. Of the Albrecht’s who partnered her, Nureyev made the most emotionally and sensationally effective foil to Fonteyn’s Giselle. Though coming to the RB production from another world of experience, he put a lot of work into their realization of the roles to achieve what I think he knew would be legendary performances. Despite his extraordinary technique in Act II his early performances were marred by some noisy landings, but the passion he invested in this role reflected his consuming passion for dancing and performing to the very edge of his ability. Films of Fonteyn (and not only Fonteyn) do not do justice to the actual theatrical experience of witnessing her dance the role of Giselle. PS Shortly after Nureyev had exhibited extraordinary strength and elevation in an extended series of entrechat six in Act II, I witnessed Nadia Nerina emulating(sending up?)his feat by substituting 32 entrechat six for the fouettes in the Black Swan pas de deux

As nysusan pointed out, "Marguerite and Armand" was also aired on A & E's "Stage" in 1994 as part of "Fonteyn and Nureyev: The Perfect Partnership" Copies can found on the web at www.cduniverse.com and other web sites. Kultur produced the videotape. I taped the original six hours of Margot Fonteyn's "Magic of Dance" series when it aired on PBS in the early 1980s and am in the process of transferring the six segments to DVD. The result is a little grainy after all these years but is absolutely worth watching. Besides lots of history and background some dances including "Marguerite and Armand" with Nureyev and the Royal Ballet (a very different staging from the above) and "La Spectre de la Rose" with Baryshnikov are shown full length. I've searched at length on the web to see if the original tapes or DVDs are available of this series and suspect that I may be one of the few people to have it. I would be interested to know if anyone else has been able to find this series. I am sure there are a good number of people in England where the"Magic of Dance" was first shown who have video copies of this series some of whom will have transferred them to DVd. I still possess two of the editions but have not looked at them for a decade or so. You are right that they were and are now absolutely are worth watching.

I think Giselle performances raise a lot of passions amongst ballet connoiseurs. I have know people who saw Pavlova, Karsavina, Spessitseva, Markova and Ulanova and discussed with them the merits of those famous dancers performances I personally have seen some twenty five or more dancers essay the role of Giselle and can say that I have been most moved by Fonteyn in the role. My favourite performances however have been of Eva Yevdokimova in London, Nadezhda Pavlova seen in Moscow and supreme above all Yelena Yevtyeva late in her career giving an extraordinary performance given at the Coliseum Theatre in London in the 1980's. I have seen Makarova. Mezentseva and Fracci mentioned as Giselle and I could never see through either their mannerisms or the second mentioned emphatic technique or the thirds lack of technique. Ananiashvilli for me always brought something significant to all the major romantic/classical roles she danced. Bruhn as Albrect was impeccable, Nureyev's had the most ardour and on occasion danced wonderfully well in his role. Nagy was always a true artist and perfect cavalier for me but lacked, the brilliance of tecnique I expected in Act II. Baryshnikov, possibly possessing the purest and most beautiful technical execution of any male dancer I have seen, has never convinced me in any role. I have missed mentioning some other performers who either moved me or astounded me with their technique but ultimately do not count for me as great performers as either Giselle or Albrecht.

I am in agreement with Mel Johnson's view " The melodic progression of intervals and harmony sounds far more like mid-20th century composition than Minkus ever would have thought of." and accede to the possibility that you posit re: "Le Papillon" as the melodic original. Feldt also, as a composer, could easily have met the challenge of producing a pastiche of Minkus in an original meter to meet Zubkovsky's choreographic vision. And so, the conundrum lives on.

I am not sure it made him famous, but it is the first original ballet attributed to Petipa in St. Petersburg. The music is by Cesare Pugni.

For me there are many things that Zakharova achieves through her physical endowment and technical control that create mesmeric exquisite moments. These moments while enthralling, have so far not made a complete performance for me. Her work seems to exhibit an extraordinary striving for a performance goal not yet achieved.

Whilst Richard Buckle did marvellous work with his study of Nijinsky and did shoulder his coffin at the great dancers funeral, he did not know him or see him dance. I am not sure that Karsavina was that close in feelings to Nijinsky and very seldom did they meet in a social context. If there are people who truly cared about him outside his mother and his sister in adulthood, surely Marie Rambert and Anatole Bourman who for periods in time were both close in devotion and the latter a close friend in their youth. Romola of course ensured he was cared for, clothed and fed throughout the long period of his mental illness. There were also his two rich 'protectors' Prince Lvov and Count Tiskiewicz who certainly cared for Nijinsky, the former visting the Nijinsky family home and who also showed kindness to his mother and assisting the family when they were in great financial distress.

Does any one know what colour costume Julie Sedova wore in act 3 when she danced the role in a 4 act version with Mordkin in Washington on November 3, 1911? Does any American contributor know anything about ther Mordkin production in Washington DC as I have so far only found reference to this production on an English website. As I am interested in Mordkin, do American ballet scholars/enthusiasts consider Mordkin's work in the USA an important contribution to American ballet history? The same question above also applies to Yekterina Geltser who appreared with Mordkin’s All Star Imperial Russian Ballet, New York, December 19, 1911. I would be grateful to hear from anyone who has copies or knows of any reviews for this Mordkin Tour.

I would read Bronislava Nijinska's "Early Memoirs' for his childhood and schooling, then I would read Richard Buckle's "Nijinsky" to find out about the setting of his career and finally Peter Ostwald's "Vaslav Nijinsky - a Leap into Madness" . I would not suggest from these three books that you will learn everything you might want to know or even discover the so called truth about him, but it will be a start. There are other books in which he is not entirely the central character but would give you a more rounded picture of his life and times in St.Petersburg.

Askhat Galiamov has been commissioned by Western Australia Ballet to choreograph a new version of The Awakening of Flora for this year. You might make an enquiry as to the source and the actual score he will be using.

The 'Animated Gobelin' scene from this ballet was first given on the 15th April 1907. The ballet was subsequently performed in its entirety at the Mariinsky Theatre on the 25th November, 25 1907. The first western performance took place at the Chatelet Theatre on the 15th May 1909. As I have mentioned elsewhere it was again revived in Russia in 1923.

The version you refer to, originates from the revival of Fokine's ballet staged by Lopukhov and Chekryiugin on the 6th May 1923 at the Petrograd Theatre of Opera*(Mariinskly/Kirov Theatre).

Narcisse was staged on the 28th May 1918 at the Aquarium Theatre Moscow by Laurent Novikov designed by I.S. Fedotov with Novikov as Narcisse and Yelena Mikhailovna Adamovich as Echo. Kasyan Goleizovksky Choregraphed a solo to music from this ballet which has been danced by Vasiliev, Malakhov, Tsiskaridze and Gennadi Yanin among others.

I understand that the only published orchestral score(in the style of Adam) available is that which was revised and arranged by Henri Busser (for the Paris Opera revival staged by Nikolai Sergeyev) and published in 1924. Given the work he carries out, as a basis, Busser could have used the piano version published in 1841 by chez Meissonnier, Aîné et Companie, Rue Saint-Rome, No 28 Au Mont Vesuve en Paris, or perhaps Sergeyev provided some sort of score. The Busser score includes the interpolations by Burgmuller(in 1841) and Minkus(in 1884) and standard changes as they were fully part of the Giselle(Coralli/Perrot/Petipa) returning to Paris, via the Russian performing tradition. I did handle a published score at a London Sotheby's sale that was used by Pavlova that had annotations by Cecchetti. I am sorry to say I was not quite so interested in matters of musical editions then, as I am now and will have to check the catalogue to see who published that version. We know from Adam's memoirs that he. "... completed the sketches in 8 days and the full score for Giselle in just three weeks.". Is it likely that his orchestral manuscript exists?

Bourmeister did assist on the production of 'Corsair' at the Stanislavsky along with Alexei Vissarionovich Chichinadze. The production was largely credited to Nina Georgievna Grishschina and was premiered on 6th October 1958 with Violetta Bovt as Medora and Maris Liepa as Conrad. I believe I have seen photographs of the main protagonist in their respective roles and I have (unfiled somewhere) a programmeof a later performance. .

Many thanks. I do refer to Mme Souritz book on Soviet Choreographer in the 1920's and look forward to acquiring the Mordkin book.

The story is taken from an apparent re-working of a folk-tale by the historian poet Sergei Aksanov called, 'The Little Scarlet Flower'. Despite being a full length ballet, I have been unable to find much information about actual peformances. Staged by Legat in 1907 it was given at the Bolshoi in 1911 when it would appear that the photograph was taken.