Hans

One question I thought of this morning: Does different = creative necessarily?

BalletNut, they attempt rather advanced ballet steps (pirouettes, &c)without having the training to be able to really do them.

Well, the Kirov has recently reconstructed the original Petipa Sleeping Beauty and La Bayadère, although we do know that there are sections in which the stagers did not follow the notation. I like to think it's fairly obvious which sections are Petipa and which are not, and I'd rather like to see one of the reconstructions to find out whether I'm right. I can understand finding Minkus's music uninteresting. I like it, but one could never make a case that it's great music. One could, however, argue that it fulfills its role as musique dansant properly, however low the quality of the music itself may be. Why don't you think Petipa's story ballets were different from what came before? I agree that they were not radically different; that is, a Petipa ballet would not cause a riot in Paris or anything, but I don't think it's fair to compare his choreography to Peter Martins's work either. Bart, I think the Little Swans would be all right against a plain backdrop in practice clothes. When I think about it, it's only the sections of Petipa ballets that have been redone (where mime has been removed, lifts have been added, &c) that I find really wouldn't hold up.

I didn't say we think about sex more now; I said maybe we read too much of it into the classics. Sometimes, after all, a cigar is just a cigar (as the famous psychiatrist whose ideas keep popping up in Swan Lake and the Nutcracker said).

I was under the impression that Ballet Imperial and Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #2 are essentially the same ballet with slightly different choreography and different costumes...?

Very well stated, Drew. I wanted to add that when I teach ballet classes, I do say that Balanchine is a great choreographer, genius, &c because that is the opinion of the ballet world, regardless of my personal thoughts.

Thanks for the link, kfw!

Don't forget Joffrey. I'm sure we could all agree to include New York City Ballet, America Ballet Theatre, Joffrey, San Francisco Ballet, and Pacific Northwest Ballet, but what would cause arguments would be the rest of the list. I'd say yes to Boston Ballet and Miami City Ballet, but probably not to Pennsylvania Ballet, which brings me to the thought that at a certain point, such comparisons are all but impossible. Who's to say whether Pennsylvania Ballet dances as well as Miami City Ballet? The people who watch one on a regular basis probably have little or no experience with the other, and it has to do with very subjective artistic sensibilities.

Editing to add: And Helene has posted in the meantime as well and made some very intelligent points. Oops, I see cargill has posted while I'm writing, and she's right; this is very off-topic. New thread please, moderators, if necessary? No. But "well choreographed" does, which I also stated. In terms of whether Petipa's choreography is great, I think that on some level, it has to be a personal decision. I don't mean to state that you are "wrong" for not thinking Petipa is a genius. I also think one should attempt to be as well-educated as possible on the subject before making a final decision. (I'm still debating whether I think Balanchine was great--influential, yes, but great?--and that's definitely not a popular thing to question!) When was the last time you saw a Romantic ballet that had all its original choreography/mime intact? The versions of Giselle and Coppélia that we know today are based on Petipa's heavily-revised editions of them. Also, considering that Petipa choreographed in the late nineteenth century, I wouldn't expect his work to be relevant to our lives today except in the sense that there are certain universal truths (cargill's post is relevant here) but I don't think that makes him a bad choreographer. In terms of choreographers who could have been great...isn't that rather useless speculation to an extent? Yes, Choreographer X might be a great choreographer given a good ballet company and a favorable audience...but then again, he might not. (Again, cargill made a good point about that.) I don't really think it serves much purpose to include that sort of thing in a discussion alongside Petipa, Balanchine, Bournonville, &c. Also, a full-length ballet is exactly what a Petipa-like choreographer would need to display his/her gifts...although certainly not a Disneyfied version. And Christopher Wheeldon has choreographed plotless ballets that regional companies perform, so while story ballets are more popular, there is still a market for plotless ballets. Leigh Witchel wrote an interesting review that Alexandra posted in Monday's Links section. In it, he makes the case (forgive me if I misstate this, Leigh!) that Spartacus is so concerned with its story that there are no pure-dance sections--all of the dancing actively moves the plot. I find that an interesting concept, one I don't think I've never seen used (I've never seen Spartacus, for one thing), and I find it intriguing the various ways plot and dance can be combined--plotless "pure dance," Spartacus-like "pure plot," and Petipa's mix of mime that directly moves the plot and dance that refers to the plot but doesn't actively further it--and I'm sure there are many other combinations as well.

Perhaps the marketing people culled it from a review? For example, X Reviewer might write, "What a wonderful performance! Surely Gotham City Ballet is among the top ten companies in the nation!" Which gets quoted by the company as, "Gotham City Ballet is among the top ten companies in the nation!"

I won't flame you. But I will say that I think the main reason Petipa ballets seem conventional to us today is that we've seen them all hundreds of times and they've been imitated so much--it wasn't like that when they were new. And we've seen them all hundreds of times...because they're well choreographed and fun to watch. Many dancers give great performances with perfect technique, great emotion, &c in perfectly awful ballets, and those ballets are never performed again because they are badly choreographed. I'm a little confused by your statement that: I've always found Petipa's steps interesting, relevant to the subject matter of the ballet, and extremely creative in that he was able to use old structural dance forms in new ways, and to express such a breadth of ideas. (Admittedly, that's a personal opinion.) As someone said on a different thread, Petipa variations look conventional and easy to choreograph. But if that's the case, why have so few people (Balanchine, Ashton, maybe some Fokine ballets) been able to produce work of the same quality since?

I'm pretty sure there isn't an official list. In terms of international companies, the "gold standard" list includes the Kirov, Bolshoi, Paris Opera Ballet, Royal Ballet, Royal Danish Ballet, and New York City Ballet, in which case NYCB would clearly be among the top ten in the US. As for the others, a list of that sort would most likely just cause a lot of arguing.

That's an interesting thought. Julip, could you elaborate on why you think members of an art school would think Petipa's ballets are bad? I'm curious to know the reasons.

I'm shocked!

I edited one of the answers a minute ago, Alexandra--try it now. It's a lot more in-depth than a poll.

Here's the new link. This one should work better.

Thank you Estelle! Some days I think I should just keep my mouth shut when it comes to history--I get so much of it wrong! :rolleyes:

Hm...sometimes I wonder if we don't read too much sex into the classics at times. Is that really what people would have thought in 1895? This is, after all, a ballet in which she's awakened by a kiss...on the forehead.

What about the original Diana and Actaeon pdd? Vaganova wasn't around when it was choreographed. Is it notated? I still don't see what's wrong with Vaganova's choreography--no press lifts, no weird jumps (unless the dancers interpolate them, which is not her fault) good structure. Besides, Vaganova also edited Ivanov's Swan Lake Act II pas de trois and you don't hear anyone calling that "trashy." And don't worry--historical accuracy doesn't offend me.

Giulia Grisi (Carlotta's sister) was a famous opera singer at La Scala. I'm sure I don't have to enumerate the many accomplishments of Louis XIV's relatives.

Oh goodness carbro...I don't think this is my favorite ballet anymore... Dale, I'm pretty sure that in the original libretto, Aurora throws them on the ground the second time, so I don't mind it so much. b1, I like that explanation. And mel, thank you for the history so I suppose that pretty much dictates that we're stuck with the courtiers trying to take away the spindle but not trying too hard lest they succeed?

Diana and Actaeon is Petipa and therefore not trashy.

Yes rg, it is a knitting needle in the Kirov's production...which reminds me that knitting needles are not exactly sharp! But maybe at one time they were. Good point, Carbro. This may be another thread entirely, and I know that there's no realistic point in asking a fairy tale to be logical. But for the sake of talking about it: Why a spindle? Surely Carabosse could have thought up a nastier way for Aurora to die. (Maybe she intended for Aurora to get gangrene. )

Haha, that's a good point, Mme. Hermine. Helene, I agree with your viewpoint as well, but at the Kirov, Carabosse appears to be handing Aurora...roses. However, I will file away your wildflower suggestion for When I'm an Artistic Director. I also like that it shows how Aurora has grown up to fulfill the gifts of her fairy godmothers--she appreciates sincere generosity (well...it's not actually sincere, but she thinks it is ).

Michele Wiles as the Lilac Fairy oh, and as Sugarplum. That would be beautiful. Maria Bystrova in just about any soloist part in the classical repertoire. Elizabeth Gaither as Giselle (I know Washington Ballet doesn't do Giselle, but I can dream ).